Sunday, September 30, 2012
I've Got a Beef With Alberta Beef
...and not to mention the shit job the Canadian government is currently doing protecting consumers. Here is a list of beef recalls from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. To save you the time here is the TL;DR version: if you have bought beef anywhere take it back and ask for a refund. Why trust the industry at all. If you like you can read about the debacle here, here and here. For me, I will be asking more questions at the butcher and asking for certified Ontario beef that has been processed in Ontario. Cumbrae's has a nice shop.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Ontario Vintage 2012
I have been following quite a few of Ontario's wine makers and wineries on twitter for the past few months and now that the harvest has arrived, many have been very active tweeting about the success of this year's harvest, save for the odd rain day. Almost without exception, these winemakers are excited about the quality and yields that they have experienced and they are all hinting that 2012 might be one of those great vintages for Ontario.
Just like pudding, the proof of the wine is in the tasting and so it will be exciting to read about, hear about and taste the first wines of this season. I am especially looking forward to the Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays from Norman Hardie, Rosewood Estate, Rosehall Run, Featherstone, Megalomaniac, Daniel Lenko, Lacey Estates and Vineland. And, of course, I will enjoy the oddcase bottle of Riesling from all parts of Ontario.
In my opinion, the 2012 vintage might be the perfect storm for Ontario wines. A year when not just the vines and soils have matured enough to demonstrate a character of their own, but also the maturing of the winemakers enough that they, too, finally define the character of their wines; the LCBO has finally started to promote Ontario wines more aggressively and without apology; The Wine Spectator has identified Ontario as "the world's least known great wine zone"; more Ontario wines are winning international competitions and being demanded in international restaurants and stores. If the Ontario and Federal governments could pass legislation to make these wines more widely available in Canada and reduce the taxes to make them more affordable, Ontario wines could be as big a player as any in the world.
What I look forward to more than any other is seeing Ontario wines - and for that matter all Canadian wines - featured more prominently on wine lists, not just in fine restaurants but, in local pubs, taverns and eateries. That would be the surest sign of success for our wine industry.
Just like pudding, the proof of the wine is in the tasting and so it will be exciting to read about, hear about and taste the first wines of this season. I am especially looking forward to the Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays from Norman Hardie, Rosewood Estate, Rosehall Run, Featherstone, Megalomaniac, Daniel Lenko, Lacey Estates and Vineland. And, of course, I will enjoy the odd
In my opinion, the 2012 vintage might be the perfect storm for Ontario wines. A year when not just the vines and soils have matured enough to demonstrate a character of their own, but also the maturing of the winemakers enough that they, too, finally define the character of their wines; the LCBO has finally started to promote Ontario wines more aggressively and without apology; The Wine Spectator has identified Ontario as "the world's least known great wine zone"; more Ontario wines are winning international competitions and being demanded in international restaurants and stores. If the Ontario and Federal governments could pass legislation to make these wines more widely available in Canada and reduce the taxes to make them more affordable, Ontario wines could be as big a player as any in the world.
What I look forward to more than any other is seeing Ontario wines - and for that matter all Canadian wines - featured more prominently on wine lists, not just in fine restaurants but, in local pubs, taverns and eateries. That would be the surest sign of success for our wine industry.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
PUT A CORK IN IT!
Researchers are taking a scientific look at the case of cork versus screw cap in wine bottles and I for one will be interested to see if there is any difference. The one problem I see with the study, though, is it will be limited to one kind of wine and will not address the main issue of cork taint in wines stored for very long periods.
But, what really interests me about this story is the insight into the snobbery of wine enthusiasts.
But, what really interests me about this story is the insight into the snobbery of wine enthusiasts.
At a recent tasting of luxury boutique wines on the Hawaiian island of Maui, John Conover, general manager of the PlumpJack Vineyard of Oakville, Calif., stood accused.I expect the findings to be along the lines of "inconclusive" "no significant difference" "more study needed" blah blah blah. But, even if they find that screw caps keep wine better, the wine "experts" will always demand cork. Why? Because, the mere act of opening the bottle of wine gives them spotlight time. "Oh, look at me. I know how to use this fancy cork screw!" There is no other jargon in the world more over dressed than that of the oenophiles. Wine does not have mystique any more than it has soul or magic. Wine is a product that can be consumed and contains alcohol which causes an inebriation that humans - and some animals - find enjoyable. This inebriation tends to lower inhibitions and "loosen lips" and this tends to make for memorable - and sometimes not so memorable - times with loved ones. That isn't magic, it's predictable."A lady in the audience stood up and said, 'You're the one. … You're the one that bottles with screw caps,'" he recalls, noting his winery is proud to be experimenting with the closures."She said, 'You're taking the mystique out of wine.'"
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Future of Food - Final Thoughts
So we have travelled through time and have seen how farming has changed since Victorian days and the challenges that will face humanity in the near future. As I have written this series, I have inserted several news stories into my blog about climate change and its effects on the food supply. There has been no shortage of material, this season, concerning environmental impacts on that supply and I hope that you have all read those stories. But, the question remains, "is the organic movement anything more than a marketing gimmick, or is it truly the inevitable future of food?"
Well, as it relates to human health and quality of products this story makes it clear that it may be more of the former and less of the latter. But, one of the criticisms of the study quoted in the NPR story, is that the researchers did not look closely enough at the environmental impact of organic farming. Proponents of organic farming have maintained that organic farming is a safer, more sustainable and less damaging method of farming. While proponents of the conventional method maintain that organic farming on the scale its proponents suggest is just not a feasible way to produce the yields required to feed the future population on dwindling natural resources (i.e. land and water). But, I think that both sides are taking an all or nothing approach to a complex issue and, after reading so much from both sides, I am inclined to fall in with Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak authors of Tomorrow's Table.
Ronald and Adamchak demonstrate that combining the best of organic farming (water preservation, soil conditioning, natural pest control, crop diversity) with proven technologies of modern, science driven, conventional farming yields the greatest returns in quality and quantity. Ronald's work in plant genetics also teaches us that a changing climate need not result in famine for billions in underdeveloped worlds. As Oxfam has said, drought is inevitable but famine is man-made. And a look at the history of famine demonstrates that since the second world war all famines have been human driven. But, organic farming alone is just as damaging to the environment as our modern methods as weed control through over tilling and the use of chemicals (yes I said chemicals! Whether natural or not a chemical is a chemical and is just as susceptible to over use).
In addition to famines, global warming has also been human driven. And, the main motivation behind both has been greed. The all out drive for money and power at all costs is at the heart of every failed human endeavour, whereas, when humans can set that motivation aside and do what is most beneficial to society regardless of immediate financial return, we have continually shown the ability to accomplish great things (eradication of disease, development of life saving therapies, sending space craft to every planet of the solar system and beyond to name a few). We can do the same when it comes to surviving in a changing climate with a growing population but, our motivation needs to change from what it is right now.
Farming produce and livestock is an inherently damaging proposition for this planet that will only be mitigated by finding methods that limit that impact and provide the highest yields per square acre. This means growing the right produce in the right places and finding humane ways to grow livestock on the smallest amount of land. What is needed is a better definition of "sustainable". For me, this means a reduction in the amount of corporate, industrial farming. But, not necessarily organic methods. The organic movement must deal with their own ecological damage before they can cast stones in the direction of others. All farming is a trade off between what is healthy for the planet and what is healthy for a growing population. And the issue we are really dancing around is whether or not there should be so many of our species on this planet. That is an argument I am not willing to express an opinion on because I do not believe anyone has right to decide who should and should not continue to live, including the president of the United States. To me, it is noble of the organic movement to be concerned with the well being of the planet. I, too, am concerned about its well being, but I am also more concerned about the well being of the over 6 billion human inhabitants of the planet and the species that we share said planet with. It would be nice if we could all have our own acre of land to cultivate our own personal Eden. The fact is there is just not enough arable land available to do that without stripping more of the forest canopy and displacing more of the wildlife inhabiting those acres. Humans are already the cause of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared 65-75 million years ago. If we wish to avoid being the species responsible for its own extinction on top of the species we have already wiped out, it is time to look at new ways to restore the planet.
We already struggle to feed the world's population, even though it is estimated that the earth could support a nearly doubling of our population as it stands today. Due to waste, greed and apathy, much of what we grow simply never gets to the people who need it most, while more of us continue to consume more than our fair share. Much of the calories we consume come from non-essential products such as alcohol and candy. A movement to convert vineyards to other crops might help. Last time I checked this was not the trend. Nor should it be. Look, I am not one to be lecturing anybody about their consumption, and I certainly am not prepared to give up a lifestyle which includes the occasional indulgence, so it seems to me the definition of sustainable must include practices that sustain lifestyle as much as sustenance. For the amount of people that there are on this planet we could still - standing shoulder to shoulder - fit in an area about the size of Rhode Island. Which is impractical but, illustrates the point that with some ingenuity we could find space for everyone without resorting to ripping out more trees.
We could use that same ingenuity to find new ways to grow food that must include all options. But, in including all options, world governments need to be at the forefront of the change that will need to take place. Greater control of research, stricter controls on pesticide and herbicide use (both organic and synthetic), better protection of farm workers, more stringent testing of all food in the system, greater controls on water usage, and a reduction in over tilling of agricultural land is urgently needed. And, yet, in Canada the government is doing less (link, link, link). Canada and the US could also follow India's lead and begin directly funding scientists for research into GE crops and remove the current patent laws that protect a company's claim to ownership. The money for this could come from removing farm subsidies which end up in the pockets of investors and corporations rather than the farmers themselves.
As individuals, we all need to change our approach to food, as well. For generations, humans have followed the natural rhythm of the seasons and ate accordingly. The age of jet planes has eliminated the tilt of our planet and given us access to food in season on the opposite side of the world, which is great in times of drought or other natural disasters. But, this has made us lazy about our eating. We don't think about our food, our menus, or our food costs simply because food is perceived as cheap and plentiful and easily obtained. This is what leads us to waste a staggering amount of the food we grow. Becoming more familiar with what we eat and the real cost in time as well as money would go a long way to reducing waste and keeping costs down not to mention our weight.
We all have monetary concerns when it comes to our grocery shopping and feeding a family of four is not an easy task. Nor is it made any easier by activist celebrity chefs who seem to forget that they live in a world that most people never have contact with. The largest number of people in the world at the turn of the century had never even made a phone call let alone been given access to the internet. The greatest number of people on the planet survive on less than $10 per day. There are far more poor and "just-getting-bys" than there are potential customers of "Chez Payalots". Asking people with shrinking incomes to spend more on trendy organic food when there is cheaper available is unreasonable and, from a health and safety perspective, unnecessary. Organic foods do not, in and of themselves, provide a better food choice for most working class and poor people. The lifestyle change that should be encouraged is one that deals with the waste side.
I think that environmental, economic and social pressures will cause a cultural change in our approach to food and I think that it will manifest itself as a return to our past while at the same time continuing to look forward to new technologies. I think people will return to the idea of a "victory garden" - home gardening meant to decrease the pressure on our food industry first used during World Wars One and Two. I believe canning and preserving will continue trending and will stick around. I think we need to look at meat in the way Asian cooking does (and how Europeans used to) as a seasoning to a dish rather than the dish itself. Four to six ounces of meat protein a day is all a typical male requires in his diet and yet, in the US alone, the average intake is about 9 ounces and that is before factoring in the over 200 eggs per year and the fifteen and a half pounds of fish per year.
Clearly a switch to a diet of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as grains and legumes will do plenty for your individual health. But, it will also do a great deal toward benefiting the planet's health and is a more important step than whether or not your food is grown organically, biodynamically or conventionally. This change in diet, along with home gardening, canning and preserving and demanding your grocer carry a greater diversity of produce (we all remember the history of the banana I mentioned in an earlier post, right?) would do a lot more for the health of our planet and the sustainability of our food supply. Educate yourself about chemicals (natural and synthetic) pesticides (natural and synthetic) the body's natural toxicity defences, DNA, food inspection laws, farming issues and water supplies and you will spend a lot less time worrying about how your food is marketed and more about what food choices you make. I do buy organic foods, not because I am trying to make a political statement, but because some are just better. I also buy conventionally grown products for the same reason. Regardless of what I buy, in terms of produce, I wash; even when the package claims it has been pre-washed. I admit that this may all seem difficult to do, so as a public service I will post stories, links and suggestions at regular intervals on this blog that will give you the resources to make better choices. In the meantime, worry less, because that's healthier too.
Well, as it relates to human health and quality of products this story makes it clear that it may be more of the former and less of the latter. But, one of the criticisms of the study quoted in the NPR story, is that the researchers did not look closely enough at the environmental impact of organic farming. Proponents of organic farming have maintained that organic farming is a safer, more sustainable and less damaging method of farming. While proponents of the conventional method maintain that organic farming on the scale its proponents suggest is just not a feasible way to produce the yields required to feed the future population on dwindling natural resources (i.e. land and water). But, I think that both sides are taking an all or nothing approach to a complex issue and, after reading so much from both sides, I am inclined to fall in with Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak authors of Tomorrow's Table.
Ronald and Adamchak demonstrate that combining the best of organic farming (water preservation, soil conditioning, natural pest control, crop diversity) with proven technologies of modern, science driven, conventional farming yields the greatest returns in quality and quantity. Ronald's work in plant genetics also teaches us that a changing climate need not result in famine for billions in underdeveloped worlds. As Oxfam has said, drought is inevitable but famine is man-made. And a look at the history of famine demonstrates that since the second world war all famines have been human driven. But, organic farming alone is just as damaging to the environment as our modern methods as weed control through over tilling and the use of chemicals (yes I said chemicals! Whether natural or not a chemical is a chemical and is just as susceptible to over use).
In addition to famines, global warming has also been human driven. And, the main motivation behind both has been greed. The all out drive for money and power at all costs is at the heart of every failed human endeavour, whereas, when humans can set that motivation aside and do what is most beneficial to society regardless of immediate financial return, we have continually shown the ability to accomplish great things (eradication of disease, development of life saving therapies, sending space craft to every planet of the solar system and beyond to name a few). We can do the same when it comes to surviving in a changing climate with a growing population but, our motivation needs to change from what it is right now.
Farming produce and livestock is an inherently damaging proposition for this planet that will only be mitigated by finding methods that limit that impact and provide the highest yields per square acre. This means growing the right produce in the right places and finding humane ways to grow livestock on the smallest amount of land. What is needed is a better definition of "sustainable". For me, this means a reduction in the amount of corporate, industrial farming. But, not necessarily organic methods. The organic movement must deal with their own ecological damage before they can cast stones in the direction of others. All farming is a trade off between what is healthy for the planet and what is healthy for a growing population. And the issue we are really dancing around is whether or not there should be so many of our species on this planet. That is an argument I am not willing to express an opinion on because I do not believe anyone has right to decide who should and should not continue to live, including the president of the United States. To me, it is noble of the organic movement to be concerned with the well being of the planet. I, too, am concerned about its well being, but I am also more concerned about the well being of the over 6 billion human inhabitants of the planet and the species that we share said planet with. It would be nice if we could all have our own acre of land to cultivate our own personal Eden. The fact is there is just not enough arable land available to do that without stripping more of the forest canopy and displacing more of the wildlife inhabiting those acres. Humans are already the cause of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared 65-75 million years ago. If we wish to avoid being the species responsible for its own extinction on top of the species we have already wiped out, it is time to look at new ways to restore the planet.
We already struggle to feed the world's population, even though it is estimated that the earth could support a nearly doubling of our population as it stands today. Due to waste, greed and apathy, much of what we grow simply never gets to the people who need it most, while more of us continue to consume more than our fair share. Much of the calories we consume come from non-essential products such as alcohol and candy. A movement to convert vineyards to other crops might help. Last time I checked this was not the trend. Nor should it be. Look, I am not one to be lecturing anybody about their consumption, and I certainly am not prepared to give up a lifestyle which includes the occasional indulgence, so it seems to me the definition of sustainable must include practices that sustain lifestyle as much as sustenance. For the amount of people that there are on this planet we could still - standing shoulder to shoulder - fit in an area about the size of Rhode Island. Which is impractical but, illustrates the point that with some ingenuity we could find space for everyone without resorting to ripping out more trees.
We could use that same ingenuity to find new ways to grow food that must include all options. But, in including all options, world governments need to be at the forefront of the change that will need to take place. Greater control of research, stricter controls on pesticide and herbicide use (both organic and synthetic), better protection of farm workers, more stringent testing of all food in the system, greater controls on water usage, and a reduction in over tilling of agricultural land is urgently needed. And, yet, in Canada the government is doing less (link, link, link). Canada and the US could also follow India's lead and begin directly funding scientists for research into GE crops and remove the current patent laws that protect a company's claim to ownership. The money for this could come from removing farm subsidies which end up in the pockets of investors and corporations rather than the farmers themselves.
As individuals, we all need to change our approach to food, as well. For generations, humans have followed the natural rhythm of the seasons and ate accordingly. The age of jet planes has eliminated the tilt of our planet and given us access to food in season on the opposite side of the world, which is great in times of drought or other natural disasters. But, this has made us lazy about our eating. We don't think about our food, our menus, or our food costs simply because food is perceived as cheap and plentiful and easily obtained. This is what leads us to waste a staggering amount of the food we grow. Becoming more familiar with what we eat and the real cost in time as well as money would go a long way to reducing waste and keeping costs down not to mention our weight.
We all have monetary concerns when it comes to our grocery shopping and feeding a family of four is not an easy task. Nor is it made any easier by activist celebrity chefs who seem to forget that they live in a world that most people never have contact with. The largest number of people in the world at the turn of the century had never even made a phone call let alone been given access to the internet. The greatest number of people on the planet survive on less than $10 per day. There are far more poor and "just-getting-bys" than there are potential customers of "Chez Payalots". Asking people with shrinking incomes to spend more on trendy organic food when there is cheaper available is unreasonable and, from a health and safety perspective, unnecessary. Organic foods do not, in and of themselves, provide a better food choice for most working class and poor people. The lifestyle change that should be encouraged is one that deals with the waste side.
I think that environmental, economic and social pressures will cause a cultural change in our approach to food and I think that it will manifest itself as a return to our past while at the same time continuing to look forward to new technologies. I think people will return to the idea of a "victory garden" - home gardening meant to decrease the pressure on our food industry first used during World Wars One and Two. I believe canning and preserving will continue trending and will stick around. I think we need to look at meat in the way Asian cooking does (and how Europeans used to) as a seasoning to a dish rather than the dish itself. Four to six ounces of meat protein a day is all a typical male requires in his diet and yet, in the US alone, the average intake is about 9 ounces and that is before factoring in the over 200 eggs per year and the fifteen and a half pounds of fish per year.
Clearly a switch to a diet of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as grains and legumes will do plenty for your individual health. But, it will also do a great deal toward benefiting the planet's health and is a more important step than whether or not your food is grown organically, biodynamically or conventionally. This change in diet, along with home gardening, canning and preserving and demanding your grocer carry a greater diversity of produce (we all remember the history of the banana I mentioned in an earlier post, right?) would do a lot more for the health of our planet and the sustainability of our food supply. Educate yourself about chemicals (natural and synthetic) pesticides (natural and synthetic) the body's natural toxicity defences, DNA, food inspection laws, farming issues and water supplies and you will spend a lot less time worrying about how your food is marketed and more about what food choices you make. I do buy organic foods, not because I am trying to make a political statement, but because some are just better. I also buy conventionally grown products for the same reason. Regardless of what I buy, in terms of produce, I wash; even when the package claims it has been pre-washed. I admit that this may all seem difficult to do, so as a public service I will post stories, links and suggestions at regular intervals on this blog that will give you the resources to make better choices. In the meantime, worry less, because that's healthier too.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Toronto Beer Week 2012
Toronto Beer Week runs from September 14-22 and features tastings and events meant to highlight the many great craft beers available around Toronto. For a list of participating breweries and pubs check out their website here.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
How's That Climate Treating You?
The Guardian has an interesting article that offers just one alternative for survival in an ever warming planet. Vegetarianism is certainly something that many could, and possibly should, consider. The article makes some valid points about food costs in water and the ability of our current system to addressing those costs. Seventy percent increase in food production needed over then next 48 years, combined with a disappearing fresh water supply, and dwindling land availability does not make for a bright future as it stands now.
Some of the comments at the end of the article suggest that the melting polar caps will solve the water imbalance but, clearly these people have spent little time trying to get to either of the poles where travel is difficult even before considering trying to collect and transport unmelted ice. You would have to harvest that ice because if you wait for it to melt, most will end up in the oceans and will be of limited use. This does not even consider the fact that removing those ice caps will have even greater devastating effects on global warming.
The oceans themselves may hold the key to our water needs but, the technologies needed for desalination on a large enough scale have not been advanced enough. The only immediate hope for the oceans providing more fresh water is through greater numbers of weather events that would disperse this water as part of the natural water cycle. That would be a lot of weather events and of course soil erosion and flooding become the new issues.
The problem with the vegetarian solution, though, is that many of our vegetables that give us the healthiest nutritional values also require a lot of water, especially when grown in drier, less arable lands that most of the population will be forced to live. The solution to this problem will require countries to actually engage in greater food trade to sustain populations and preserve lands for farming. Sorry locavores.
It ain't easy living on a warming planet with a rapidly growing population.
Some of the comments at the end of the article suggest that the melting polar caps will solve the water imbalance but, clearly these people have spent little time trying to get to either of the poles where travel is difficult even before considering trying to collect and transport unmelted ice. You would have to harvest that ice because if you wait for it to melt, most will end up in the oceans and will be of limited use. This does not even consider the fact that removing those ice caps will have even greater devastating effects on global warming.
The oceans themselves may hold the key to our water needs but, the technologies needed for desalination on a large enough scale have not been advanced enough. The only immediate hope for the oceans providing more fresh water is through greater numbers of weather events that would disperse this water as part of the natural water cycle. That would be a lot of weather events and of course soil erosion and flooding become the new issues.
The problem with the vegetarian solution, though, is that many of our vegetables that give us the healthiest nutritional values also require a lot of water, especially when grown in drier, less arable lands that most of the population will be forced to live. The solution to this problem will require countries to actually engage in greater food trade to sustain populations and preserve lands for farming. Sorry locavores.
It ain't easy living on a warming planet with a rapidly growing population.
WebRep
currentVote
noRating
noWeight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)