Thursday, June 28, 2012
I Told You So
I would like to put the diet soda issue to bed once and for all, though I know there is not a chance of that. Every time I decide to enjoy a diet soda it seems some health nazi is waiting in the shadows to pounce on me and lecture me on how bad it is for me and how it will make me fat. I usually reply, firstly, that I am already fat and, secondly, fuck off. That typically ends the conversation.
But, well meaning friends will usually not allow that to suffice and I then have to point out that moderate consumption of diet soda is in no way unsafe for my health. And, further, that no study has ever proven that drinking diet soda CAUSES weight gain. The studies that they have read about only suggest that people who prefer to drink diet coke have a problem with over eating. In addition, the studies that suggest that aspartame may be harmful were conducted on mice who were given rather large amounts of the substance. Give a mouse too much water and that will kill him too.
Now, NPR has a story about a study which suggests what I have always said, that people tend to see diet soda as an opportunity to cram even more calories by way of crap food into their faces. The study looked, not just at weight gain and diet coke consumption, but at amount and quality of foods that participants ate. And surprise! The people with the most sensible diets had the least weight gain.
For me the matter is resolved and I will continue to enjoy the odd glass of diet soda as guilt free as ever.
But, well meaning friends will usually not allow that to suffice and I then have to point out that moderate consumption of diet soda is in no way unsafe for my health. And, further, that no study has ever proven that drinking diet soda CAUSES weight gain. The studies that they have read about only suggest that people who prefer to drink diet coke have a problem with over eating. In addition, the studies that suggest that aspartame may be harmful were conducted on mice who were given rather large amounts of the substance. Give a mouse too much water and that will kill him too.
Now, NPR has a story about a study which suggests what I have always said, that people tend to see diet soda as an opportunity to cram even more calories by way of crap food into their faces. The study looked, not just at weight gain and diet coke consumption, but at amount and quality of foods that participants ate. And surprise! The people with the most sensible diets had the least weight gain.
For me the matter is resolved and I will continue to enjoy the odd glass of diet soda as guilt free as ever.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Decanter World Wine Awards 2012 Results
The Decanter World Wine Awards 2012 Results are in and local Ontario wineries have a lot of hardware to show off. Click the link and see who has won what.
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Future of Food - Pt 1 The Challenge
Let's take a trip into the future. You can stay right there on your couch or chair. We aren't going far, only a scant 50 years or so. In fact, we can start just 3 years from now and see what food challenges we might expect to face. How about, greater economic pressure on poor regions to meet the rising cost of staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn. As early as this time, experts expect a doubling in the food demand due to increased populations. It was not so long ago that the population estimate was at 6 billion, it is now over 7 billion; 77,000 net population growth per day! This will see a 40% increase in food costs for the wealthiest countries and will see 40 million more humans thrown into starvation in just 3 years, according to The Future of Food documentary.
Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant. The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble). With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.
Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth. Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population. As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration. Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.
But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000). Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history. According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years. Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season. We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia. Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels. All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.
Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources. Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants. Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways. As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation. Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.
One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events. Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year. Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions. Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.
Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations. Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found. Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people. This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle. Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.
In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers. Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers: more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system. In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.
Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program. The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels. Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people. As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west. With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.
Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole. With this wealth has come a growing middle class and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins. The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year. India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising. In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago. The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport. The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases. With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.
So, seafood seems to be the answer, right? Why not? Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land. Great. Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed. For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians. Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums. In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished. The same can be said for European waters. But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken. The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights. Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.
The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model. China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land. Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements. New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.
The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store. Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home. The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise. The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand. Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.
But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem. Take the case of the Cavendish Banana. This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world. In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana. Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality. But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana. This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year. It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor. In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity. It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today. I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.
Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future. We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions. Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day. With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them. Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise? If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years? If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture? How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?
That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources. I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead. But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do. Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy. With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise. But what road should we take?
Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant. The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble). With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.
Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth. Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population. As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration. Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.
But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000). Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history. According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years. Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season. We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia. Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels. All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.
Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources. Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants. Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways. As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation. Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.
One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events. Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year. Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions. Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.
Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations. Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found. Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people. This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle. Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.
In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers. Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers: more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system. In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.
Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program. The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels. Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people. As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west. With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.
Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole. With this wealth has come a growing middle class and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins. The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year. India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising. In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago. The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport. The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases. With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.
So, seafood seems to be the answer, right? Why not? Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land. Great. Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed. For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians. Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums. In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished. The same can be said for European waters. But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken. The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights. Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.
The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model. China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land. Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements. New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.
The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store. Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home. The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise. The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand. Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.
But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem. Take the case of the Cavendish Banana. This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world. In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana. Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality. But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana. This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year. It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor. In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity. It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today. I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.
Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future. We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions. Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day. With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them. Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise? If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years? If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture? How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?
That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources. I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead. But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do. Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy. With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise. But what road should we take?
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The Future of Food - Introduction
What seems like a long time ago, I accepted the challenge of writing about organic versus modern farmed foods and whether, or not, organic was "better". I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I started by reading a book on the subject (Tomorrow's Table by Pamela C. Ronald and R.W. Adamchak). The Authors are a married couple, Ronald is a Professor of Plant Biology at UC Davis and Adamchak manages the campus' organic farm. This book led me to source after source on the subject, some very good sources and some very bad. After picking my way through the maze of often times conflicting information, I settled on a few sources that seemed to offer balanced and rational views on the subject.
So, for the purposes of this blog, which is not a scholarly paper nor a claimed authority of any kind, I will list here my sources for the information that will appear in future posts in this series. By doing so, I hope you will all track down these sources and read, listen and watch them yourself so that you can hold me accountable for my opinions and decide for yourself what methods seem to offer the best solutions for the problems facing humanity in the future.
This series of posts will be broken into 4 sections: Part 1 The Challenge; Part 2 The Organic Response; Part 3 The Case For Science; and Part 4 Protecting the Future. If I feel any particular section is getting too long I will break it into sub-sections. I sincerely thought that this issue would simply be a matter of finding out which foods were the most nutritious, finding some taste test results to determine what people preferred and moving on; boy was I wrong. I think as you read you will come to realize, as I did, there are no easy answers when it comes to food, and it is especially hard to know who to trust when it comes to information about what we eat. Hopefully, we will all find the questions we need to ask suppliers in order to provide the best nutrition for our families while maintaining the environment for future generations.
Sources for future posts:
Tomorrow's Table P.C. Ronald and R.W. Adamchak, Oxford University Press March 2008
The Open University- Genetic Modified Foods, The Issues (Multi-Media Podcast available free iTunes)
Yale School of Forestry- Food and Sustainable Agriculture (Lecture Series available free iTunes)
Oregon State University- Food for Thought (Lecture Series available free iTunes)
The Future of Food (Two part documentary available here)
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic reviewAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269
Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic FarmingScience, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
http://www.foodwithlegs.com/organic-food-taste-test/
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/101/6/290.full
http://www.pewenvironment.org/
So, for the purposes of this blog, which is not a scholarly paper nor a claimed authority of any kind, I will list here my sources for the information that will appear in future posts in this series. By doing so, I hope you will all track down these sources and read, listen and watch them yourself so that you can hold me accountable for my opinions and decide for yourself what methods seem to offer the best solutions for the problems facing humanity in the future.
This series of posts will be broken into 4 sections: Part 1 The Challenge; Part 2 The Organic Response; Part 3 The Case For Science; and Part 4 Protecting the Future. If I feel any particular section is getting too long I will break it into sub-sections. I sincerely thought that this issue would simply be a matter of finding out which foods were the most nutritious, finding some taste test results to determine what people preferred and moving on; boy was I wrong. I think as you read you will come to realize, as I did, there are no easy answers when it comes to food, and it is especially hard to know who to trust when it comes to information about what we eat. Hopefully, we will all find the questions we need to ask suppliers in order to provide the best nutrition for our families while maintaining the environment for future generations.
Sources for future posts:
Tomorrow's Table P.C. Ronald and R.W. Adamchak, Oxford University Press March 2008
The Open University- Genetic Modified Foods, The Issues (Multi-Media Podcast available free iTunes)
Yale School of Forestry- Food and Sustainable Agriculture (Lecture Series available free iTunes)
Oregon State University- Food for Thought (Lecture Series available free iTunes)
The Future of Food (Two part documentary available here)
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic reviewAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269
Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic FarmingScience, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
http://www.foodwithlegs.com/organic-food-taste-test/
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/101/6/290.full
http://www.pewenvironment.org/
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Would You Like To Upsize That Question?
Stumbled across this wonderful website and thought it would be good to share it here. I think McDonalds deserves a lot of credit for doing this and hope that they give honest answers to all the questions that are asked and don't try burying some of the uncomfortable ones. I also think that many people will be surprised at the answers. I have no ethical issues with McDonalds and their food. They are in business to make money; they do so by providing a pretty decent value for your money. However, I don't spend a lot of money at McDonalds because I just don't think the food tastes that great. I will, on the other hand, admit to the odd Big Mac craving and a love their milkshakes.
So, if you have ever wanted to ask McDonalds about their food, company or service, head over and ask away.
So, if you have ever wanted to ask McDonalds about their food, company or service, head over and ask away.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Trendy, Shmendy It's All Food To Me.
Larry Olmsted, of Forbes, has a new rant in which he examines what he considers America's 8 Worst Food Trends. For the most part I agree with Olmsted, but I differ in his response to some. Specifically, I don't think I am as snobby as he.
Let's start with food trucks. Generally, I agree, they are mostly nothing new and offer nothing you could not get at a bricks and mortar kind of place. Also, they do tend to steal customers from rent paying establishments. And, yes, they are hipster trendy. But, so what? Sometimes I don't want to sit and eat and just want something I can hold in my hand and eat while I walk or enjoy some quiet outdoor area. Many of the foods that trucks serve are not as convenient to take out in restaurants simply because it is hard to do eat in and take out well simultaneously. Also, I differ on the issue of what Olmsted calls the "wanna-be chefs". Again, so what if they are? Many trucks are run by people who are trained in culinary arts, have owned or worked in restaurants and wanted a change, or are following a passion in hopes of making the money needed to open a bricks and mortar establishment. Like any free enterprise, either the product is worth paying for or it isn't. If it isn't, they won't be around for long.
House cured meats: if it contains spices and fat then I want to try it. Period. One of the best things about being an adventurous eater is that I never know what I will get in any given meal. Some are not that great, but that just makes the good that much more enjoyable. But, what really bothers me about his views here, is the implication that there is only one standard for cured meats and it's his (or some agreed-upon-by-food-critics-standard). Either way, I usually resent being told what to like and not like by so called experts with 15 years experience. Really, just 15? Dude, I've been stuffing my fat ass with great food for most of my 51 years! And while I may not have travelled the world and eaten in all the fanciest "look-at-me" places, I have been exposed to some great cooks from various cultures all pushing out their own cured meats, preserved foods and even homemade wines. I would have missed out on a lot of great food if my standards were set that high.
The rest of the article I agree wholeheartedly with, but especially Olmsted's view on TV Cooking Competitions, or any reality cooking show for that matter. But, you all know my stand on that by now.
'via Blog this'
Let's start with food trucks. Generally, I agree, they are mostly nothing new and offer nothing you could not get at a bricks and mortar kind of place. Also, they do tend to steal customers from rent paying establishments. And, yes, they are hipster trendy. But, so what? Sometimes I don't want to sit and eat and just want something I can hold in my hand and eat while I walk or enjoy some quiet outdoor area. Many of the foods that trucks serve are not as convenient to take out in restaurants simply because it is hard to do eat in and take out well simultaneously. Also, I differ on the issue of what Olmsted calls the "wanna-be chefs". Again, so what if they are? Many trucks are run by people who are trained in culinary arts, have owned or worked in restaurants and wanted a change, or are following a passion in hopes of making the money needed to open a bricks and mortar establishment. Like any free enterprise, either the product is worth paying for or it isn't. If it isn't, they won't be around for long.
House cured meats: if it contains spices and fat then I want to try it. Period. One of the best things about being an adventurous eater is that I never know what I will get in any given meal. Some are not that great, but that just makes the good that much more enjoyable. But, what really bothers me about his views here, is the implication that there is only one standard for cured meats and it's his (or some agreed-upon-by-food-critics-standard). Either way, I usually resent being told what to like and not like by so called experts with 15 years experience. Really, just 15? Dude, I've been stuffing my fat ass with great food for most of my 51 years! And while I may not have travelled the world and eaten in all the fanciest "look-at-me" places, I have been exposed to some great cooks from various cultures all pushing out their own cured meats, preserved foods and even homemade wines. I would have missed out on a lot of great food if my standards were set that high.
The rest of the article I agree wholeheartedly with, but especially Olmsted's view on TV Cooking Competitions, or any reality cooking show for that matter. But, you all know my stand on that by now.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, June 2, 2012
What Wine Goes With Mammoth?
So perhaps the Alkaline Diet wasn't for you and you are still looking for that perfect diet. Well, perhaps this NPR piece on the Paleo Diet will steer you in the right direction. This restrictive diet has all the right pseudo-science backing it up and has even managed to align itself with Darwinian Evolution to keep those pesky skeptical scientists off their backs.
But, of course, there are no real scientific studies to back them up and their claims that paleolithic hunter gathers never suffered from obesity and disease fall apart under the simplest of enquiries. For instance, the fact they didn't live much past 35-40 years suggests they didn't live long enough to actually develop most diseases; the lack of a sedentary lifestyle (all that hunting and gathering, you know) meant they were physically more fit; going long stretches on very little calories due to failed hunts, drought conditions and competition from other species meant little chance of excess food; and, of course, not ever recording their health in journals might also account for the lack of evidence of their diseases. This one quote stood out the most for me:
There's this tendency to want to find the normal human diet, Nesse says. But every single diet you pick as had advantage of some sort. Humans have lived in all kinds of places and we have adapted to all kinds of diets.
So, if you really want to live the paleo lifestyle, get out and forage for your food, hunt some animals with your bare hands and really enjoy all the lifestyle has to offer. And, that includes the occasional misidentified poisonous mushroom or berry. This lower life expectancy would actually have some beneficial impact on the ecology by regulating human population. And it is for this reason that the Paleo Diet is receiving the Liver Rounds Seal of Approval.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)