Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
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.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
The Future of Food - The Problem of Organic
As you might recall in my initial post in this series I discussed the unique case of Cuba and the effects on the country's farming practices as a result of the collapse of the Soviet bloc. At the time, Cuba's communist partners provided it with highly subsidized oil, fertilizer and grain that helped meet the dietary needs of its people while allowing Cuba's land to be used for its traditional crops and as a natural paradise for vacationing communists. The Cuban diet at the time was heavy on breads, cereals, meats, dairy and sugar much like the majority of the industrialized world. These were cheap staples that were grown throughout the communist world and easily transported.
Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Cuba has had to re-invent its agricultural identity. With a lack of cheap oil for fertilizers and the running of farm equipment, Cuba turned to a more organic method of farming which saw them increase diversification and increase self sufficiency. Cuba now grows 95% of its fruits and vegetables locally and the typical diet has diversified and contains far more fruits, vegetables and legumes.
However, this has not been the success that it at first glance appears. The cost to the Cuban ecology has been a reduction in the forest canopy as trees were cleared to make room for more farm land and to allow greater sunshine to the crops. Fruits and vegetables have become more expensive as a greater number of labourers has been required to maintain them, though in a strictly communist country this cost has been controlled. And, with limited land and greater pressure to meet dietary needs, Cuba's agricultural industry has little stock left for exporting which leaves an already struggling economy even more depressed.
In addition to the ecological and environmental costs, and despite growing 95% of their fruits and vegetables, Cuban's must still import 50% of the food required to meet their needs. While the country can meet the demands for fruit, vegetables and legumes, this does not give them their full protein requirements without the addition of grains which require more land than Cuba has available. Chickens are the main source of meat protein for the country as land for grazing larger animals is scarce. All of this has seen a drastic change in the Cuban diet with mixed results.
Cuba's experience teaches much about the organic movement, both positive and negative. The positives are what was touched on in my last post, so I won't rehash it here. The greatest negative is the myth that everyone everywhere can eat local organic food year round and meet all our dietary needs. This is just fantasy. In Canada we face the prospect of long winters (even in our warming climate) and the scarcity of fresh produce in the winter would mean a depletion of vitamin C amongst other nutrients. Of course, there are sources available locally for vitamin C, though I hope you like the taste of Pine. Canning and preserving foods is certainly an option (and one I endorse) but the thought of another jar of preserved tomatoes for dinner around March is as appetizing for most as the thought of stewed pig's head. Not to mention, canned and preserved foods do not retain their full nutritional content during the process and usually require added sugar and salt, which may not be advantageous considering our current health.
Cuba also teaches us that organic farming does nothing in the way of reducing the costs of farming to the environment. Farming, whether industrial or organic, requires the clearance of forests and actually diminishes the biodiversity of the planet. In Cuba, the reduction in forests is currently placing greater stress on species that are already under threat. The same is true in parts of Africa and India where we see increased incidents of confrontation between wild life and humans. In some parts of Africa one can make the argument that the wildlife is winning: i.e. the baboon problems in South Africa .
You might all notice that we have travelled through time during this series; Travelling to Cuba gives us a chance to travel back in time. Cuba is stuck in a time prior to World War Two when the greatest changes in agriculture really came about. They lack the machinery and the chemicals that the rest of the world has; and they lack the transportation and markets for their produce that others enjoy. But, what really challenges the Cuban people is the location of their island in the middle of hurricane alley. Despite all of their best efforts and intentions, Cubans could be thrust into further poverty and starvation should a damaging enough hurricane hit just before harvest time. This could be even further catastrophic if it were to happen while the rest of the world's agriculture struggles with droughts, floods, hail etc., and their crops become unavailable for emergency relief.
The Organic Movement loves to time travel about as much as I do with one exception, they only travel backwards and only to a time prior to the 20th century. In the minds of these proponents everything was much rosier and life was idyllic. But this idea is also a myth. Even the most advanced economies in the Victorian age had extreme levels of poverty, child and infant mortality, poorer health, and shortened life expectancy. From a farming standpoint, drought, flood and other natural disasters were all that stood between the well fed and starvation. Famine prior to the 20th century was caused primarily by natural disasters; since then most of the world has been famine free and when they do occur they are caused strictly by human activity. Since the end of World War Two, human life expectancy has climbed year over year despite the damages of the industrial farms and the mistakes of agricultural science.
The organic movement is not without its hazards as well. The largest food poisoning episode in Europe appears to have been caused by organic produce. The culprit is E-coli and sequencing of the disease in bean sprouts identified that the problem is not just in the fertilizing stage but exists in the seeds themselves, whether grown organically or not (btw: do not eat raw bean sprouts ever). Add to this episode the water contamination from manure in Walkerton, which may not have occurred on a certified organic farm but was certainly a method of fertilization that is acceptable in organic practice; the contamination of spinach on farms in California; and the poisoning of the poster boy of organic, Prince Charles' own brand of potato chips.
One last myth about organic is that local is better. Again, under scrutiny this does not hold up. As I said before, some places are not capable of growing some produce and even when they can the yields and quality may suffer. The environmental benefits of locally grown may also be over estimated as researchers look at the efficiency of transportation in terms of cost per kilogram of food. And if local, organic food is supposed to taste better then that argument, too, has some holes in it.
With no clear indication that organic is better tasting, better for you or, in some regards, better for the environment is there then a better solution and must we just throw out all of the ideas of the organic movement? I hope to give you a chance to decide that for yourselves in the next post.
Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Cuba has had to re-invent its agricultural identity. With a lack of cheap oil for fertilizers and the running of farm equipment, Cuba turned to a more organic method of farming which saw them increase diversification and increase self sufficiency. Cuba now grows 95% of its fruits and vegetables locally and the typical diet has diversified and contains far more fruits, vegetables and legumes.
However, this has not been the success that it at first glance appears. The cost to the Cuban ecology has been a reduction in the forest canopy as trees were cleared to make room for more farm land and to allow greater sunshine to the crops. Fruits and vegetables have become more expensive as a greater number of labourers has been required to maintain them, though in a strictly communist country this cost has been controlled. And, with limited land and greater pressure to meet dietary needs, Cuba's agricultural industry has little stock left for exporting which leaves an already struggling economy even more depressed.
In addition to the ecological and environmental costs, and despite growing 95% of their fruits and vegetables, Cuban's must still import 50% of the food required to meet their needs. While the country can meet the demands for fruit, vegetables and legumes, this does not give them their full protein requirements without the addition of grains which require more land than Cuba has available. Chickens are the main source of meat protein for the country as land for grazing larger animals is scarce. All of this has seen a drastic change in the Cuban diet with mixed results.
Cuba's experience teaches much about the organic movement, both positive and negative. The positives are what was touched on in my last post, so I won't rehash it here. The greatest negative is the myth that everyone everywhere can eat local organic food year round and meet all our dietary needs. This is just fantasy. In Canada we face the prospect of long winters (even in our warming climate) and the scarcity of fresh produce in the winter would mean a depletion of vitamin C amongst other nutrients. Of course, there are sources available locally for vitamin C, though I hope you like the taste of Pine. Canning and preserving foods is certainly an option (and one I endorse) but the thought of another jar of preserved tomatoes for dinner around March is as appetizing for most as the thought of stewed pig's head. Not to mention, canned and preserved foods do not retain their full nutritional content during the process and usually require added sugar and salt, which may not be advantageous considering our current health.
Cuba also teaches us that organic farming does nothing in the way of reducing the costs of farming to the environment. Farming, whether industrial or organic, requires the clearance of forests and actually diminishes the biodiversity of the planet. In Cuba, the reduction in forests is currently placing greater stress on species that are already under threat. The same is true in parts of Africa and India where we see increased incidents of confrontation between wild life and humans. In some parts of Africa one can make the argument that the wildlife is winning: i.e. the baboon problems in South Africa .
You might all notice that we have travelled through time during this series; Travelling to Cuba gives us a chance to travel back in time. Cuba is stuck in a time prior to World War Two when the greatest changes in agriculture really came about. They lack the machinery and the chemicals that the rest of the world has; and they lack the transportation and markets for their produce that others enjoy. But, what really challenges the Cuban people is the location of their island in the middle of hurricane alley. Despite all of their best efforts and intentions, Cubans could be thrust into further poverty and starvation should a damaging enough hurricane hit just before harvest time. This could be even further catastrophic if it were to happen while the rest of the world's agriculture struggles with droughts, floods, hail etc., and their crops become unavailable for emergency relief.
The Organic Movement loves to time travel about as much as I do with one exception, they only travel backwards and only to a time prior to the 20th century. In the minds of these proponents everything was much rosier and life was idyllic. But this idea is also a myth. Even the most advanced economies in the Victorian age had extreme levels of poverty, child and infant mortality, poorer health, and shortened life expectancy. From a farming standpoint, drought, flood and other natural disasters were all that stood between the well fed and starvation. Famine prior to the 20th century was caused primarily by natural disasters; since then most of the world has been famine free and when they do occur they are caused strictly by human activity. Since the end of World War Two, human life expectancy has climbed year over year despite the damages of the industrial farms and the mistakes of agricultural science.
The organic movement is not without its hazards as well. The largest food poisoning episode in Europe appears to have been caused by organic produce. The culprit is E-coli and sequencing of the disease in bean sprouts identified that the problem is not just in the fertilizing stage but exists in the seeds themselves, whether grown organically or not (btw: do not eat raw bean sprouts ever). Add to this episode the water contamination from manure in Walkerton, which may not have occurred on a certified organic farm but was certainly a method of fertilization that is acceptable in organic practice; the contamination of spinach on farms in California; and the poisoning of the poster boy of organic, Prince Charles' own brand of potato chips.
One last myth about organic is that local is better. Again, under scrutiny this does not hold up. As I said before, some places are not capable of growing some produce and even when they can the yields and quality may suffer. The environmental benefits of locally grown may also be over estimated as researchers look at the efficiency of transportation in terms of cost per kilogram of food. And if local, organic food is supposed to taste better then that argument, too, has some holes in it.
With no clear indication that organic is better tasting, better for you or, in some regards, better for the environment is there then a better solution and must we just throw out all of the ideas of the organic movement? I hope to give you a chance to decide that for yourselves in the next post.
Friday, July 20, 2012
A New Take On Corn Mazes
Let me know if these articles are depressing you. Here is another story of the effect global warming is having on the food supply. In this case, the poor corn crop will have an astounding impact on several consumer products, not just the corn itself. Gas prices will be higher; milk and other dairy prices (which have already been climbing) will increase; beef, lamb, chicken and even pork will be more expensive. In addition, other grains such as wheat, oats and barley will increase in price as farmers look to replace corn as their main winter feed. As grains become scarcer in grocery stores, consumers will look to other staples to replace them, so expect increases in potatoes, rice and legumes.
These are the kinds of every day struggles humans will have to get used to in the uncertainty of a rapidly warming planet. Mix in our ever expanding populations and our tenuous hold on civility could unravel as quickly as it has in the Arab and North African regions. Our society needs a cultural make over; one that places less emphasis on the automobile, coal fired electricity, disposable everything and the belief that everything will always be there when we want it. It seems to me that, in the story of the grasshopper and the ants, our generation has missed the moral.
Some of the ways to limit the impact of these uncertain times are already trendy amongst the hipster foodies, which is a shame because those trends always get lost when new ones take their place. But, we need to start looking at food as less about pleasure and more about sustenance if we are to accomodate more of us. The good news is, we can still find pleasure and enjoyment in this list:
1) Grow your own. If you have access to some land that could be cleared and tilled and seeded you would do a lot to secure your food supply by planting a few basic crops to supplement your grocery list. And it doesn't even take a lot of land to do it.
2) Share your seeds. If you do start to grow your own food, the first thing you will notice is how expensive some seeds and seedlings can be. But, learning to save your own seeds is easy enough and you can even trade with your friends and neighbours
3) Canning and Preserving. This is where food and culture really meet. Have a canning party; give preserves as gifts; exchange recipes. It's fun for the whole family. And, if you need a lesson, I will bet there is an Italian family within walking distance of you, if your live in Markham/Toronto/Anywhere, who would be happy to show you how easy it is.
4) Attend food swaps. Here you can swap what you have too much of for items you are in need of. Can't find a local swap? Check our YYZ Food Swap on Facebook.
I hear you all saying that you can't fit that into your busy schedules. Well, cut down on dinner parties and pot lucks and throw seed exchanges and food swaps instead. Just as easy as a cookie swap at Christmas without all the annoying christians. All of this, I am convinced, would be better for our health, our planet and our society.
These are the kinds of every day struggles humans will have to get used to in the uncertainty of a rapidly warming planet. Mix in our ever expanding populations and our tenuous hold on civility could unravel as quickly as it has in the Arab and North African regions. Our society needs a cultural make over; one that places less emphasis on the automobile, coal fired electricity, disposable everything and the belief that everything will always be there when we want it. It seems to me that, in the story of the grasshopper and the ants, our generation has missed the moral.
Some of the ways to limit the impact of these uncertain times are already trendy amongst the hipster foodies, which is a shame because those trends always get lost when new ones take their place. But, we need to start looking at food as less about pleasure and more about sustenance if we are to accomodate more of us. The good news is, we can still find pleasure and enjoyment in this list:
1) Grow your own. If you have access to some land that could be cleared and tilled and seeded you would do a lot to secure your food supply by planting a few basic crops to supplement your grocery list. And it doesn't even take a lot of land to do it.
2) Share your seeds. If you do start to grow your own food, the first thing you will notice is how expensive some seeds and seedlings can be. But, learning to save your own seeds is easy enough and you can even trade with your friends and neighbours
3) Canning and Preserving. This is where food and culture really meet. Have a canning party; give preserves as gifts; exchange recipes. It's fun for the whole family. And, if you need a lesson, I will bet there is an Italian family within walking distance of you, if your live in Markham/Toronto/Anywhere, who would be happy to show you how easy it is.
4) Attend food swaps. Here you can swap what you have too much of for items you are in need of. Can't find a local swap? Check our YYZ Food Swap on Facebook.
I hear you all saying that you can't fit that into your busy schedules. Well, cut down on dinner parties and pot lucks and throw seed exchanges and food swaps instead. Just as easy as a cookie swap at Christmas without all the annoying christians. All of this, I am convinced, would be better for our health, our planet and our society.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
The Future of Food - The Case for Organic
Very shortly, Markham will join the ranks of the privileged few communities to welcome into theirs a Whole Foods Market. The emblem of all things organic, sustainable and politically correct will be offering their brand of organic produce within a bicycle ride of my home. It doesn't seem all that long ago that I recall Loblaws setting aside a small space in their produce section for organic items; they now have sections throughout the store. And the movement is only just getting started, with just an estimated 2% of the share of the food market. What is this new organic movement all about?
Hey, that trip we took into the future was fun, wasn't it? How about another trip? Into the past...say 150 or so years. What did the world look like then and how was food prepared? In the Victorian era there was simply food. Farmers struggled to eek out a living on leased land hoping only to keep mother nature happy enough to let them bring their crops in without too much loss. New technologies and some new fertilizers were available, but for most farmers around the world these were simply too costly for them to utilize. Virtually all produce (vegetable and animal) was grown in a manner that most today would consider organic. The need for a distinction between organic and conventional produce was non-existent, and the first supermarket was still about 50 years away.
With little in the way of synthetic chemicals available to farmers, finding the acceptable level of pests and invasive weeds meant constant monitoring and back-breaking manual labour. The keys to success then are the same used in organic farming today: soil health and water preservation. Organic farming attempts to identify the beneficial plants, insects and animals and use them to regulate the unwanted pests without the use of modern pesticides, seen as harmful. Compost, crop rotation and manure are the chief forms of fertilizer used to eliminate synthetic forms also thought to be harmful. And ground cover crops are the preferred manner of preserving moisture in the soil. The ideal of a living garden is the driving philosophy and, when accomplished, the pride of every organic farmer.
And this form of farming has many beneficial properties depending on the level to which one is prepared to dedicate their farm. One of the most serious problems that synthetic fertilizers have caused is the proliferation of invasive weeds and algae in our rivers, streams, lakes and oceans due to nitrogen run off. This is causing many of our fresh water species to be choked out as they struggle to deal with these invasive species. Organic farming looks to limit this run off by using natural sources of nitrogen that, in theory, should remain in the soil longer.
Another serious problem with a modern farm is the constant tilling and turning of large swaths of land causing serious soil erosion. In the early part of the 20th century the US government commissioned a continuing study of soil erosion only to see erosion increase in the nearly 100 years since the office was formed. Many organic methods help solve this issue, again in theory, by top dressing with compost and using a no-till method of farming in some areas.
The modern farm is one of speciality. Growing large amounts of one or two crops allows the farmer to realize the greatest return on investment. But, this use of land is inherently risky as all crops are susceptible to variations in weather and other environmental risks, i.e. insects and disease. As we saw in Irish history, this kind of specialization can have deadly consequences. The organic model, with its requirement of symbiosis, encourages a greater level of biodiversity which is not only a benefit to the environment and the farmer, but contributes to a greater variety in our diets which leads to a healthier lifestyle.
The pre-Victorian and early Victorian era farmer was not concerned with global warming and greenhouse gases. The industrial revolution was in its infancy and green house gases were, while existent, not at the levels we have today. Farming at this time was contributing little to the accumulation of these gases with most of it from clearing forests to make room for more farm land. Motorized farm equipment had yet to be invented and the horse was still the main source of power on farms of the day. Petroleum use was almost non-existent and the use of those products in production of fertilizers and pesticides had yet to be developed. Organic farming, today, tries to replicate that environment and seeks to reduce the use of petroleum products in all aspects of production. Many proponents advocate the scaling down of the typical farm. And, on the small scale, the organic farm could accomplish some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
For a Victorian farmer, watering their crops meant waiting for rain or using the horse and their backs to haul large amounts of water to the fields. The lack of motorized water pumps meant that water needed to be managed. Part of that management included diverting rivers and streams into irrigation channels in the fields and the use of cover crops to ensure the moisture stayed in the ground. Farmers at this time had as little concern about water shortages as they did about greenhouse gases, but the cost in manual labour to bring water to the fields was high enough to use water wisely. Today's organic farmer is faced with more drought, less ground water, desertification and higher costs for water in some areas. The motivation to preserve water is just as high and use of those traditional methods has helped to keep crops well irrigated. As we inch toward 10 billion human population the preservation of water will become ever more critical to our survival.
Today's hipster foodies gorge themselves at the trendiest snout-to-hoof restaurants on everything from sweetbreads to liver to pig's foot. In the Victorian era, the use of every scrap of an animal, and all everyday items for that matter, was a matter of survival. The tastier, more tender parts of an animal were as preferred then as they are now, but staving off starvation meant brains, hearts, eyeballs, tongues and ears were as common as rib eyes and loins. Bones were used for stocks and soups and then sold for turning into meal. Fabric was re-used, recycled and the tiniest scraps were sent out for shod; the spinning of scraps into yarn (it's this practice that we get the word shoddy as a synonym for lesser quality items). This "waste not want not" attitude is being resurrected by the organic movement as waste reduction becomes more critical and once again a matter of our survival. Discouraging the use of plastics and disposables helps divert tons of waste that would otherwise end up in land fills where it would remain for eternity.
Where livestock is concerned, the organic movement demands a reduction in the use of antibiotics and growth hormone as well as a greater emphasis on more humane forms of farming. Every attempt is made to provide livestock with a free ranging lifestyle that is thought to be less stressful. Livestock are seen as part of the living farm, and their presence a vital cog in the farm machine, therefor, animals are to be treated with all due respect from the moment they are brought into the world until their inevitable departure.
In short, the organic farmer's goal is to build a living farm with a harmonic balance of respect for the land and animals, care for the soil and produce, preservation of the natural world and conservation of water and natural resources. This is not a new philosophy, this is farming through most of human history. Is it a form of food production that is sustainable and can it feed the 10 billion people that will be alive on the planet in 50 years? While it was the method that fed the majority of the human family in the past, will it be the answer to feeding the majority of them in the future? Can it do the job without stripping even more natural habitat from other species already on the brink of extinction? Will it help cool a planet whose warming is already out of control?
The answer to all those questions is yes and no.
Hey, that trip we took into the future was fun, wasn't it? How about another trip? Into the past...say 150 or so years. What did the world look like then and how was food prepared? In the Victorian era there was simply food. Farmers struggled to eek out a living on leased land hoping only to keep mother nature happy enough to let them bring their crops in without too much loss. New technologies and some new fertilizers were available, but for most farmers around the world these were simply too costly for them to utilize. Virtually all produce (vegetable and animal) was grown in a manner that most today would consider organic. The need for a distinction between organic and conventional produce was non-existent, and the first supermarket was still about 50 years away.
With little in the way of synthetic chemicals available to farmers, finding the acceptable level of pests and invasive weeds meant constant monitoring and back-breaking manual labour. The keys to success then are the same used in organic farming today: soil health and water preservation. Organic farming attempts to identify the beneficial plants, insects and animals and use them to regulate the unwanted pests without the use of modern pesticides, seen as harmful. Compost, crop rotation and manure are the chief forms of fertilizer used to eliminate synthetic forms also thought to be harmful. And ground cover crops are the preferred manner of preserving moisture in the soil. The ideal of a living garden is the driving philosophy and, when accomplished, the pride of every organic farmer.
And this form of farming has many beneficial properties depending on the level to which one is prepared to dedicate their farm. One of the most serious problems that synthetic fertilizers have caused is the proliferation of invasive weeds and algae in our rivers, streams, lakes and oceans due to nitrogen run off. This is causing many of our fresh water species to be choked out as they struggle to deal with these invasive species. Organic farming looks to limit this run off by using natural sources of nitrogen that, in theory, should remain in the soil longer.
Another serious problem with a modern farm is the constant tilling and turning of large swaths of land causing serious soil erosion. In the early part of the 20th century the US government commissioned a continuing study of soil erosion only to see erosion increase in the nearly 100 years since the office was formed. Many organic methods help solve this issue, again in theory, by top dressing with compost and using a no-till method of farming in some areas.
The modern farm is one of speciality. Growing large amounts of one or two crops allows the farmer to realize the greatest return on investment. But, this use of land is inherently risky as all crops are susceptible to variations in weather and other environmental risks, i.e. insects and disease. As we saw in Irish history, this kind of specialization can have deadly consequences. The organic model, with its requirement of symbiosis, encourages a greater level of biodiversity which is not only a benefit to the environment and the farmer, but contributes to a greater variety in our diets which leads to a healthier lifestyle.
The pre-Victorian and early Victorian era farmer was not concerned with global warming and greenhouse gases. The industrial revolution was in its infancy and green house gases were, while existent, not at the levels we have today. Farming at this time was contributing little to the accumulation of these gases with most of it from clearing forests to make room for more farm land. Motorized farm equipment had yet to be invented and the horse was still the main source of power on farms of the day. Petroleum use was almost non-existent and the use of those products in production of fertilizers and pesticides had yet to be developed. Organic farming, today, tries to replicate that environment and seeks to reduce the use of petroleum products in all aspects of production. Many proponents advocate the scaling down of the typical farm. And, on the small scale, the organic farm could accomplish some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
For a Victorian farmer, watering their crops meant waiting for rain or using the horse and their backs to haul large amounts of water to the fields. The lack of motorized water pumps meant that water needed to be managed. Part of that management included diverting rivers and streams into irrigation channels in the fields and the use of cover crops to ensure the moisture stayed in the ground. Farmers at this time had as little concern about water shortages as they did about greenhouse gases, but the cost in manual labour to bring water to the fields was high enough to use water wisely. Today's organic farmer is faced with more drought, less ground water, desertification and higher costs for water in some areas. The motivation to preserve water is just as high and use of those traditional methods has helped to keep crops well irrigated. As we inch toward 10 billion human population the preservation of water will become ever more critical to our survival.
Today's hipster foodies gorge themselves at the trendiest snout-to-hoof restaurants on everything from sweetbreads to liver to pig's foot. In the Victorian era, the use of every scrap of an animal, and all everyday items for that matter, was a matter of survival. The tastier, more tender parts of an animal were as preferred then as they are now, but staving off starvation meant brains, hearts, eyeballs, tongues and ears were as common as rib eyes and loins. Bones were used for stocks and soups and then sold for turning into meal. Fabric was re-used, recycled and the tiniest scraps were sent out for shod; the spinning of scraps into yarn (it's this practice that we get the word shoddy as a synonym for lesser quality items). This "waste not want not" attitude is being resurrected by the organic movement as waste reduction becomes more critical and once again a matter of our survival. Discouraging the use of plastics and disposables helps divert tons of waste that would otherwise end up in land fills where it would remain for eternity.
Where livestock is concerned, the organic movement demands a reduction in the use of antibiotics and growth hormone as well as a greater emphasis on more humane forms of farming. Every attempt is made to provide livestock with a free ranging lifestyle that is thought to be less stressful. Livestock are seen as part of the living farm, and their presence a vital cog in the farm machine, therefor, animals are to be treated with all due respect from the moment they are brought into the world until their inevitable departure.
In short, the organic farmer's goal is to build a living farm with a harmonic balance of respect for the land and animals, care for the soil and produce, preservation of the natural world and conservation of water and natural resources. This is not a new philosophy, this is farming through most of human history. Is it a form of food production that is sustainable and can it feed the 10 billion people that will be alive on the planet in 50 years? While it was the method that fed the majority of the human family in the past, will it be the answer to feeding the majority of them in the future? Can it do the job without stripping even more natural habitat from other species already on the brink of extinction? Will it help cool a planet whose warming is already out of control?
The answer to all those questions is yes and no.
Monday, July 2, 2012
How to Make a Salad
Came across this video from Jamie Oliver's Google+ feed and thought I would share it, because I think his salads are amazing and he gives great tips for keeping it simple.
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.
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?
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Spring Time In Ontario
Chili Lime Roasted Pork with Baby Yukon Gold Potatoes and Fiddle Heads in Garlic, Shallot and Lemon. Paired with a glass of Angel's Gate Riesling
Why Don't I Just Eat an Alkaline Battery?
From the "where does this shit come from" files I give you the Acid Alkaline Diet, a diet which promises to slim you down and protect you from all forms of disease while simultaneously elevating your energy levels. Finally, the miracle cure to everything that humanity has long waited for; the only problem, of course, is that it is bullshit!
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Where's the (Kobe) Beef?
Larry Olmstead has a fascinating 3 part series in Forbes that looks at the authenticity of Kobe beef and its availability outside of Japan. It is enlightening and I urge you to read all three parts to get a true understanding about how labeling works. While he is examining the U.S. labeling laws, much of what he says regarding Kobe Beef does apply to Canada, as well: if you think you have eaten Kobe Beef here, you are probably mistaken, for all the same reasons. I have had, what was labeled as, Kobe hot dogs and, after reading the article, now realize that they probably were most definitely not Kobe.
Olmstead discusses the international labeling treaties and the fact that the U.S. has never signed on to those treaties (just as they have not signed on to many international treaties). Olmstead makes the case that it is hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. when they have strong armed many nations, including Canada, to adopt draconian and creativity-stemming intellectual property laws to protect the recording, motion picture and publishing industries that are monopolized by the U.S. (it is interesting that the U.S. has still not passed their own legislation on this issue) Olmstead writes:
Canadians seem to be too generous to those who have poisoned our food and water supplies over the years - many believe the Koebels got off relatively easy in Walkerton, let alone the government, Maple Leaf Meats has done ok since the listeria outbreak and the beef industry here never really suffered in the domestic market as a result of mad cow outbreak. It seems that the more our food supply is condensed in the hands of a few multinationals the less testing and enforcement our government is willing to invest. It is time we all demanded stricter labeling regulations, more thorough inspections and the attitude of "caveat venditor" (a notion I would argue is as much a part of the libertarian's patron saint Adam Smith's teachings) should be the rallying cry of concerned consumers everywhere. In the meantime, a healthy skepticism toward marketing claims, be they big business or small, would go a long way in preventing others from stuffing their pockets with your hard earned money. The next time I see a retailer selling Kobe Beef I know I will be having an interesting conversation with them. I will simply ask to see the serial number provided with each cut of meat sold from Kobe Japan and watch with delight as they squirm a little.
Olmstead discusses the international labeling treaties and the fact that the U.S. has never signed on to those treaties (just as they have not signed on to many international treaties). Olmstead makes the case that it is hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. when they have strong armed many nations, including Canada, to adopt draconian and creativity-stemming intellectual property laws to protect the recording, motion picture and publishing industries that are monopolized by the U.S. (it is interesting that the U.S. has still not passed their own legislation on this issue) Olmstead writes:
This is not an oversight, as in, “hey, we forgot to regulate the labeling of Kobe beef.” This is part of a pattern of deliberate actions going back well over a century on the part of the Federal government to actively ignore foreign trademarks and intellectual property claims in order to support domestic industries. It has very much been done on purpose, and continues to be done on purpose, at the expense of the American consumer (and foreign producers). It is also stunningly hypocritical, and flies directly in the face of the government’s deep pocketed attempts to combat piracy in the arenas of music, film, technology, and software.Many of the treaties discussed in the article have been ratified by Canada and products such as Champagne are protected here - if a sparkling wine is labeled Champagne it must come from the French appellation of Champagne. But, not all products are protected in Canada, either, and we do a pretty good job on hypocrisy ourselves, at times. Olmstead's point that allowing companies here to make money off the efforts of more hard working producers as unfair to those producers AND to the consumers is a valid criticism of governments that refuse to enact safeguards. And, in Canada, the problem is about to become much worse as the government has announced plans to stop investigating some claims, cutting of inspectors and a general malaise toward consumer protection. More and more, consumers in Canada and the U.S. are being left to their own devices in a libertarian controlled market that uses the refrain "caveat emptor" as some kind of defense for fraud.
Canadians seem to be too generous to those who have poisoned our food and water supplies over the years - many believe the Koebels got off relatively easy in Walkerton, let alone the government, Maple Leaf Meats has done ok since the listeria outbreak and the beef industry here never really suffered in the domestic market as a result of mad cow outbreak. It seems that the more our food supply is condensed in the hands of a few multinationals the less testing and enforcement our government is willing to invest. It is time we all demanded stricter labeling regulations, more thorough inspections and the attitude of "caveat venditor" (a notion I would argue is as much a part of the libertarian's patron saint Adam Smith's teachings) should be the rallying cry of concerned consumers everywhere. In the meantime, a healthy skepticism toward marketing claims, be they big business or small, would go a long way in preventing others from stuffing their pockets with your hard earned money. The next time I see a retailer selling Kobe Beef I know I will be having an interesting conversation with them. I will simply ask to see the serial number provided with each cut of meat sold from Kobe Japan and watch with delight as they squirm a little.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Rule Britannia!
Watch any food/travel show that is set in a non English country and inevitably it will begin with the words "food is extremely important to ______ culture". Watch one of these shows in North America or Britain and they probably will not start that way. But, food is just as important to English cultures as any other. Food is important to human culture, regardless of where it resides. Culture, in fact, owes its very beginnings to food and cooking. And the long held myth that an English kitchen is devoid of taste, culture and tradition is an ignorant misconception. Much has changed in England and North America and many of the world's top chefs are of English, Canadian and American origins. These chefs will, to a man/woman, point to the likes of Marco Pierre White as an inspiration for their success. And Chef White deserves much praise; his food has been amongst the world's best for a long time and he has been at the forefront of the English revival in cooking. Watch this video from No Reservations (the relevant part starts at 4:15 and runs to 11:50)
Chef White is a very talented chef, I would never disparage his abilities or approach to food. Of course there is a BUT coming. And here it is: Chef White and Anthony Bourdain tend to think that no one was sticking up for the lowly cuisine of the peasantry of Britain until Chef White arrived. The talent is unassailable but the image? White passes himself off as some brooding culinary version of J.D. Salinger in self imposed exile from the cooking elite. The whole time continuing to cook food only accessible to the very wealthy. Go ahead, try and get a seat at his restaurant in England. I find the opening scene of Bourdain in a recording studio with allusions to the punk movement, ironic. He finds in White a kindred spirit who believes he is catering to the masses while all the time rubbing shoulders with the most inaccessible chefs in the industry and attending invitation only dinner parties in exotic locations with ingredients found on the endangered species list.
Bourdain's infatuation with White revolves around a picture of the man at a young age with a cigarette dangling from his mouth and a face framed by a mass of disheveled hair instead of a crisp white chef's hat. How avant garde! I fail to see the importance to food of smoking and listening to punk rock. Before you begin to believe that White's demeanor is a recent phenomenon take a look at this video from the height of his success as a young kitchen star.
Both White and Chef Raymond Blanc (his mentor) discuss cooking with an attitude that they are doing something vitally important to civilization. One would begin to wonder if, in fact, there is a Nobel Prize for culinary arts (there's not). The food looks beautiful and probably tastes great but, the "one must suffer for their art " demeanor is enough to kill an appetite. Not to mention the smoking at the table and in the kitchen.
What may come as a shock to the likes of Bourdain and White, and maybe many of you, is there have been two people who held the British Banner for culinary arts much higher long before the likes of Chef White. These two are amongst my favourite all time cooking superstars and were as hard core as it gets. I am talking about The Two Fat Ladies, Clarissa Dickson-Wright and Jennifer Paterson. Their show taught me more about food and cooking than anyone other than Graham Kerr and Jacque Pepin. Here is a clip:
Tell me that food doesn't look fucking good (there, I used the f word, that makes me hard core, right?). And if you think the Two Fat Ladies aren't "hard core" check out their Wikipedia pages here and here. For Christ's sake Paterson died of lung cancer from smoking, surely that beats a dangling cigarette? And they traveled by motorcycle, Anthony. For me Dickson-Wright and Paterson embody the ideals of British culinary culture. Go to YouTube and spend an afternoon watching their videos, they will entertain and inform you with a sense of humour about themselves and their food.
Now, it is true that the Two Fat Ladies series didn't start until the mid-nineties, about the time that White was receiving his third Michelin star, but, both Dickson-Wright and Paterson had been cooking for a long time and cooking the kinds of meals seen in their shows. Paterson had been writing about food even before White opened his first restaurant. And, the food White was cooking in his earliest days was the food of French chefs he trained under, it was not until he "retired" that White transformed his cuisine to the English country style his restaurants cook today. As far as preparing and eating "snout to hoof" for a television audience, again Dickson-Wright and Paterson were amongst the earliest.
Does this mean I have lost my bromantic feelings for Anthony Bourdain? Of course not. Bourdain has done a lot to remove the mystique from the profession of Chef and let us all in to the world of professional kitchens in a way that we did not have before. His style of writing and style of his No Reservations show are brilliantly easy to follow and entertaining to boot. But, keep in mind, this is only one man's experience. There have always been kitchens that were run without the "punk" attitude and the vulgar language. And, while a professional kitchen is a stressful place to work it is no less true for many work places like an emergency room, the trading floor of a stock market, a riot, a fire and many others where the consequences are more severe than an offended dinner guest.
What a chef does is provide a culinary experience that helps us escape the everyday hassles of jobs, bosses, family and bills. There is only one other form of pleasure that provides as much satisfaction but, professionals in that realm tend to end up in jail. And just like real love is something that we experience in the home, real food culture is also something that is best enjoyed in the home. In fact, the home cooks, in my opinion, are the ones who are truly maintaining a nation's cultural heritage. Look, the punk movement so worshiped by Bourdain was born out of the disenfranchised youth of Britain who failed to find relevance in the music of super groups like Pink Floyd and Queen. Likewise, in matters of food, the mass appeal of street food, greasy spoons and dinner clubs is born from a culture that can't understand paying $300 to sit nervously at a dinner table scared they may be attacked by a megalomaniac chef who didn't like their take on his deconstructed Pot au Feu!
Culture - all the knowledge and values shared by a society - started at the side of a camp fire discussing the days events and the meaning of life while waiting for some slow footed wildebeest to transform into a succulent golden brown and delicious slab of goodness. That is the very essence of cooking and is best when shared with loved ones in the home and not by professionals in the bawdy house of some Chez I'm Great. I love the fact that British food is regaining its rightful place as a world cuisine and hope that a return to the food of the peasantry in all cultures will soon replace that of the gentry and I suspect Chef White will continue to draw inspiration from that cuisine. There does seem to be a mellowing of Chef White, who now endorses Knorr products, and there are several videos where he is featured giving tips for home cooking encouraging home cooks to keep it simple. Good on him. And good on British food.
Chef White is a very talented chef, I would never disparage his abilities or approach to food. Of course there is a BUT coming. And here it is: Chef White and Anthony Bourdain tend to think that no one was sticking up for the lowly cuisine of the peasantry of Britain until Chef White arrived. The talent is unassailable but the image? White passes himself off as some brooding culinary version of J.D. Salinger in self imposed exile from the cooking elite. The whole time continuing to cook food only accessible to the very wealthy. Go ahead, try and get a seat at his restaurant in England. I find the opening scene of Bourdain in a recording studio with allusions to the punk movement, ironic. He finds in White a kindred spirit who believes he is catering to the masses while all the time rubbing shoulders with the most inaccessible chefs in the industry and attending invitation only dinner parties in exotic locations with ingredients found on the endangered species list.
Bourdain's infatuation with White revolves around a picture of the man at a young age with a cigarette dangling from his mouth and a face framed by a mass of disheveled hair instead of a crisp white chef's hat. How avant garde! I fail to see the importance to food of smoking and listening to punk rock. Before you begin to believe that White's demeanor is a recent phenomenon take a look at this video from the height of his success as a young kitchen star.
Both White and Chef Raymond Blanc (his mentor) discuss cooking with an attitude that they are doing something vitally important to civilization. One would begin to wonder if, in fact, there is a Nobel Prize for culinary arts (there's not). The food looks beautiful and probably tastes great but, the "one must suffer for their art " demeanor is enough to kill an appetite. Not to mention the smoking at the table and in the kitchen.
What may come as a shock to the likes of Bourdain and White, and maybe many of you, is there have been two people who held the British Banner for culinary arts much higher long before the likes of Chef White. These two are amongst my favourite all time cooking superstars and were as hard core as it gets. I am talking about The Two Fat Ladies, Clarissa Dickson-Wright and Jennifer Paterson. Their show taught me more about food and cooking than anyone other than Graham Kerr and Jacque Pepin. Here is a clip:
Tell me that food doesn't look fucking good (there, I used the f word, that makes me hard core, right?). And if you think the Two Fat Ladies aren't "hard core" check out their Wikipedia pages here and here. For Christ's sake Paterson died of lung cancer from smoking, surely that beats a dangling cigarette? And they traveled by motorcycle, Anthony. For me Dickson-Wright and Paterson embody the ideals of British culinary culture. Go to YouTube and spend an afternoon watching their videos, they will entertain and inform you with a sense of humour about themselves and their food.
Now, it is true that the Two Fat Ladies series didn't start until the mid-nineties, about the time that White was receiving his third Michelin star, but, both Dickson-Wright and Paterson had been cooking for a long time and cooking the kinds of meals seen in their shows. Paterson had been writing about food even before White opened his first restaurant. And, the food White was cooking in his earliest days was the food of French chefs he trained under, it was not until he "retired" that White transformed his cuisine to the English country style his restaurants cook today. As far as preparing and eating "snout to hoof" for a television audience, again Dickson-Wright and Paterson were amongst the earliest.
Does this mean I have lost my bromantic feelings for Anthony Bourdain? Of course not. Bourdain has done a lot to remove the mystique from the profession of Chef and let us all in to the world of professional kitchens in a way that we did not have before. His style of writing and style of his No Reservations show are brilliantly easy to follow and entertaining to boot. But, keep in mind, this is only one man's experience. There have always been kitchens that were run without the "punk" attitude and the vulgar language. And, while a professional kitchen is a stressful place to work it is no less true for many work places like an emergency room, the trading floor of a stock market, a riot, a fire and many others where the consequences are more severe than an offended dinner guest.
What a chef does is provide a culinary experience that helps us escape the everyday hassles of jobs, bosses, family and bills. There is only one other form of pleasure that provides as much satisfaction but, professionals in that realm tend to end up in jail. And just like real love is something that we experience in the home, real food culture is also something that is best enjoyed in the home. In fact, the home cooks, in my opinion, are the ones who are truly maintaining a nation's cultural heritage. Look, the punk movement so worshiped by Bourdain was born out of the disenfranchised youth of Britain who failed to find relevance in the music of super groups like Pink Floyd and Queen. Likewise, in matters of food, the mass appeal of street food, greasy spoons and dinner clubs is born from a culture that can't understand paying $300 to sit nervously at a dinner table scared they may be attacked by a megalomaniac chef who didn't like their take on his deconstructed Pot au Feu!
Culture - all the knowledge and values shared by a society - started at the side of a camp fire discussing the days events and the meaning of life while waiting for some slow footed wildebeest to transform into a succulent golden brown and delicious slab of goodness. That is the very essence of cooking and is best when shared with loved ones in the home and not by professionals in the bawdy house of some Chez I'm Great. I love the fact that British food is regaining its rightful place as a world cuisine and hope that a return to the food of the peasantry in all cultures will soon replace that of the gentry and I suspect Chef White will continue to draw inspiration from that cuisine. There does seem to be a mellowing of Chef White, who now endorses Knorr products, and there are several videos where he is featured giving tips for home cooking encouraging home cooks to keep it simple. Good on him. And good on British food.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
On Art And Artifice In Culinary Pursuits
Recently, I have been reacquainting myself with John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse, a series of interlinking short stories that the author uses to discuss many of the characteristics of story telling, language, narrative and art in general. The book does a masterful job of asking readers why it is we place so much trust in narrators of stories when we know that they are merely another creation of the mind of the author who we would view as fallible if we knew anything about their life. The book is a critique of the writing process and literature itself.
Additionally, Barth's book asks the deeper question: what is art? (a question I have explored in conversation with several friends). I believe that Barth would argue that art and artifice share the same root but only in the way chimps and humans share the same ancestor. Both words have evolved separately in different directions which have muddied what the common meanings of the words are with the classical definitions. But, that art and artifice have the pedigree to perform the function of differentiation.
Art (as a word) was brought to the English language by the French who derived it from the Latin nominative form of artem which is ars meaning: practical skill; a business craft. Both Latin words are derived from the root ar meaning: fit together; join. The English used the word art to mean: skill as a result of learning or practice and used it to describe the work of artisans such as those who worked with stained glass. Today, however, we seem to apply this to any creation we view as outside our own abilities or skills. If we see a painting of flowers that is beyond our abilities as painters we tend to say "that's so artistic, the painter is such an artist." But, if I, as a painter, was to make a painting that critics raved about and declared it a "a modern, contemporary commentary on traditional mores meant to question our ideas of human existence, blah, blah, blah" and everyone agrees this is the finest example of art in the history of the medium; and then someone recreates hundreds of copies, indistinguishable from the original and sells them for more than I made off my original, and you buy one and hang it in your living room, do you own a work of art from an artist?
By the traditional sense of the word I would have to concede that you do and they are. However, academics in fine art wished to separate skillful craftsman from imaginative artists and needed a definition of the word which harkens back to the Latin ar and came up with this meaning: "those which appeal to the mind and the imagination" (fitting together in imaginative ways), I would argue a new word is needed to differentiate between my original and the very skillful reproductions. This word I will use is not meant, in any way, to suggest a lack of esthetic appeal or talent, only a differentiation in the purpose for which the thing is created. The word I use, and which Barth alludes to, is: artifice.
Arifice is a word that, also, came to the English from the French via the Latin. In Middle French the meaning was: "skill; cunning" which, used as a noun, became " workmanship, anything made by craft or skill" but which has, today, come to mean: "device, trick". This is unfortunate because the root of the word is a more useful and descriptive meaning: ars which we've discussed and facere "do"; doing craftsmanship. This gives recognition to the talents of the artisan without stripping them of their due, while still distinguishing between the fine art definition of art: a creation of the mind and imagination.
I don't expect Messrs. Merriam and Webster to reconsider the definitions of these words on my say but, in future I will distinguish between them by referring to art: refitting one's environment, appealing to the mind and imagination for the purpose of creativity. And artifice: the making of anything by skill or craft for the sole purpose of industry. One does not need skill to create art and one does not need creativity to create artifice and there is no rule that says art can not be profitable but, its main purpose should not be profit. Possessing both skill and imagination, however, would elevate an artistic creation.
So, what has this to do with food and wine. Well, it seems impossible, today, to read reviews of restaurants and wines without someone referring to the food or wine as art. I take exception to the use of the word, as I hope I have made clear, not because I believe there is a lack of talent, but only because it lacks accountability for the creative process and the purpose for the thing's creation. I will be the first to admit that there is a lot of talent that goes into conceiving and executing a dish in a restaurant, and striking the right balance between taste and presentation is a skill I admire with some envy.
But, in most restaurants today, cooks and chefs are simply reworking a series of recipes and techniques that have been the staple of the restaurant business for several decades now. Escoffier, as Adam Gopnik pointed out, invented the whole premise of fine dining today:
I once heard Anthony Bourdain suggest that "there are very few artists" amongst professional chefs. I believe he said it in a manner meant to provoke, as is Bourdain's way. I have no such motivation when I suggest that he is correct. But, does this mean that we should not be in awe of the new generation of cooks and chefs and even foodies opening new and exciting restaurants that eschew the Escoffier model for a return to regional cuisine that celebrates instead the peasant dishes developed over centuries. These restauranteurs, such as Morin and McMillan at Joe Beef in Montreal, are stripping their food of the artifice (in the contemporary definition of device or trick) and creating cuisine that is about flavour, tradition and sustainability. After all, for millenia food was meant to nourish and sustain, both the body and the environment, out of necessity rather than fashion.
The presentation of this food and the interaction amongst the patrons and cooks (especially in venues that have taken to communal tables) is helping to reconnect diners to the culture of food. This participatory approach to dining is, in itself, an artistic endeavor where the mere act of dining becomes artistic expression through interactions between cooks and guests with a new experience with every seating; while the food itself may be artifice, the experience becomes an art.
In addition, the movement known as "molecular gastronomy" - though not by its practitioners - is another exciting new trend that might offer a glimpse at true culinary art. The manipulation of food to resemble anything but food provides the diner with a multi-sensory experience and a chance at a new way to taste and experience familiar foods. But, to be clear, this only applies to those who are attempting new experiences and, in my opinion anyway, excludes those who attempt to perfect the way food is cooked. Heston Blumenthal is an amazing cook but, in his efforts to perfect dishes he loses the very essence of what art is, namely an interaction between the artist's take on a subject and the patrons' response to it; a kind of manipulation of the senses by providing the unexpected.
In the area of wine and beer, I believe there is even less art being practiced as the processes become more bogged down in science and tradition and technique all focused on attaining a certain "standard" for a grape rather than an unexpected experience. It is true that every wine maker and brewer is presenting consumers with their own take on a style or grape but, is there any new method or technique that hasn't already been attempted; is anyone trying to shock drinkers for the sake of amusement or bemusement alone. Merely fiddling with the proportions and "cooking" times does not, again in my opinion, constitute art. A skill? A craft? Absolutely. But, the artists were the inventors of wine and beer that found the ways to turn fermenting, rotting fruit into a cultural icon and in most cases they did it with an eye on enjoying the product more than the potential sales.
And to me this is where the culinary arts have to concede: no winery, brewery or restaurant is creating art solely for the sake of its creation; every bottle is filled and dish served in the hope of turning a profit - and usually a quite hefty one at that. That is not to criticize, who amongst us isn't looking to find an enjoyable way to make a buck? But this is the realm of artifice, in my definition, and we should enjoy it for what it is and admire the skill and talents used without feeling badly about calling it by its rightful name: craftsmanship!
Additionally, Barth's book asks the deeper question: what is art? (a question I have explored in conversation with several friends). I believe that Barth would argue that art and artifice share the same root but only in the way chimps and humans share the same ancestor. Both words have evolved separately in different directions which have muddied what the common meanings of the words are with the classical definitions. But, that art and artifice have the pedigree to perform the function of differentiation.
Art (as a word) was brought to the English language by the French who derived it from the Latin nominative form of artem which is ars meaning: practical skill; a business craft. Both Latin words are derived from the root ar meaning: fit together; join. The English used the word art to mean: skill as a result of learning or practice and used it to describe the work of artisans such as those who worked with stained glass. Today, however, we seem to apply this to any creation we view as outside our own abilities or skills. If we see a painting of flowers that is beyond our abilities as painters we tend to say "that's so artistic, the painter is such an artist." But, if I, as a painter, was to make a painting that critics raved about and declared it a "a modern, contemporary commentary on traditional mores meant to question our ideas of human existence, blah, blah, blah" and everyone agrees this is the finest example of art in the history of the medium; and then someone recreates hundreds of copies, indistinguishable from the original and sells them for more than I made off my original, and you buy one and hang it in your living room, do you own a work of art from an artist?
By the traditional sense of the word I would have to concede that you do and they are. However, academics in fine art wished to separate skillful craftsman from imaginative artists and needed a definition of the word which harkens back to the Latin ar and came up with this meaning: "those which appeal to the mind and the imagination" (fitting together in imaginative ways), I would argue a new word is needed to differentiate between my original and the very skillful reproductions. This word I will use is not meant, in any way, to suggest a lack of esthetic appeal or talent, only a differentiation in the purpose for which the thing is created. The word I use, and which Barth alludes to, is: artifice.
Arifice is a word that, also, came to the English from the French via the Latin. In Middle French the meaning was: "skill; cunning" which, used as a noun, became " workmanship, anything made by craft or skill" but which has, today, come to mean: "device, trick". This is unfortunate because the root of the word is a more useful and descriptive meaning: ars which we've discussed and facere "do"; doing craftsmanship. This gives recognition to the talents of the artisan without stripping them of their due, while still distinguishing between the fine art definition of art: a creation of the mind and imagination.
I don't expect Messrs. Merriam and Webster to reconsider the definitions of these words on my say but, in future I will distinguish between them by referring to art: refitting one's environment, appealing to the mind and imagination for the purpose of creativity. And artifice: the making of anything by skill or craft for the sole purpose of industry. One does not need skill to create art and one does not need creativity to create artifice and there is no rule that says art can not be profitable but, its main purpose should not be profit. Possessing both skill and imagination, however, would elevate an artistic creation.
So, what has this to do with food and wine. Well, it seems impossible, today, to read reviews of restaurants and wines without someone referring to the food or wine as art. I take exception to the use of the word, as I hope I have made clear, not because I believe there is a lack of talent, but only because it lacks accountability for the creative process and the purpose for the thing's creation. I will be the first to admit that there is a lot of talent that goes into conceiving and executing a dish in a restaurant, and striking the right balance between taste and presentation is a skill I admire with some envy.
But, in most restaurants today, cooks and chefs are simply reworking a series of recipes and techniques that have been the staple of the restaurant business for several decades now. Escoffier, as Adam Gopnik pointed out, invented the whole premise of fine dining today:
Escoffier's formula for food was, in essence, the same as Jasper Johns's formula for Dada art: take something; do something to it; then do something else to it. It was cooking that rested, above all, on the idea of the master sauce: a lump of protein was cooked in a pan, and what was left behind [...] was deglazed with wine and stock, ornamented with butter or cream, and then poured back over the lump of protein.Add to that a chef's approach to plating, which is simply a series of tried and tested ways of piling food on a plate in aesthetically appealing ways (skill, cunning, craft), and you have today's haute cuisine with tiny portions on oversize plates re-imagined in innumerable ways.
I once heard Anthony Bourdain suggest that "there are very few artists" amongst professional chefs. I believe he said it in a manner meant to provoke, as is Bourdain's way. I have no such motivation when I suggest that he is correct. But, does this mean that we should not be in awe of the new generation of cooks and chefs and even foodies opening new and exciting restaurants that eschew the Escoffier model for a return to regional cuisine that celebrates instead the peasant dishes developed over centuries. These restauranteurs, such as Morin and McMillan at Joe Beef in Montreal, are stripping their food of the artifice (in the contemporary definition of device or trick) and creating cuisine that is about flavour, tradition and sustainability. After all, for millenia food was meant to nourish and sustain, both the body and the environment, out of necessity rather than fashion.
The presentation of this food and the interaction amongst the patrons and cooks (especially in venues that have taken to communal tables) is helping to reconnect diners to the culture of food. This participatory approach to dining is, in itself, an artistic endeavor where the mere act of dining becomes artistic expression through interactions between cooks and guests with a new experience with every seating; while the food itself may be artifice, the experience becomes an art.
In addition, the movement known as "molecular gastronomy" - though not by its practitioners - is another exciting new trend that might offer a glimpse at true culinary art. The manipulation of food to resemble anything but food provides the diner with a multi-sensory experience and a chance at a new way to taste and experience familiar foods. But, to be clear, this only applies to those who are attempting new experiences and, in my opinion anyway, excludes those who attempt to perfect the way food is cooked. Heston Blumenthal is an amazing cook but, in his efforts to perfect dishes he loses the very essence of what art is, namely an interaction between the artist's take on a subject and the patrons' response to it; a kind of manipulation of the senses by providing the unexpected.
In the area of wine and beer, I believe there is even less art being practiced as the processes become more bogged down in science and tradition and technique all focused on attaining a certain "standard" for a grape rather than an unexpected experience. It is true that every wine maker and brewer is presenting consumers with their own take on a style or grape but, is there any new method or technique that hasn't already been attempted; is anyone trying to shock drinkers for the sake of amusement or bemusement alone. Merely fiddling with the proportions and "cooking" times does not, again in my opinion, constitute art. A skill? A craft? Absolutely. But, the artists were the inventors of wine and beer that found the ways to turn fermenting, rotting fruit into a cultural icon and in most cases they did it with an eye on enjoying the product more than the potential sales.
And to me this is where the culinary arts have to concede: no winery, brewery or restaurant is creating art solely for the sake of its creation; every bottle is filled and dish served in the hope of turning a profit - and usually a quite hefty one at that. That is not to criticize, who amongst us isn't looking to find an enjoyable way to make a buck? But this is the realm of artifice, in my definition, and we should enjoy it for what it is and admire the skill and talents used without feeling badly about calling it by its rightful name: craftsmanship!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
If It Wasn't for Pot Luck I Would Have No Luck
There is a funny article at the New York Times entitled ‘Store Bought’ Spoils the Potluck Spirit which echoes my own feelings on the issue of the Pot Luck. The article focuses mainly on bake sales and the insidious practice of purchasing goods for resale rather than home baking. The writer points out this practice is also creeping into the Pot Luck Dinner as well.
I can understand the many reasons people have for thinking it easier and cheaper to just purchase a pizza or some wings and heat them up for a pot luck. But, if you are going to just purchase food, why not pool the funds of everyone, pick different take-out joints and let everyone try something from everywhere and make a contest out of the whole affair by picking the best restaurant. I have nothing against fast food, or even supermarket prepared food but, the idea of a pot luck dinner, to me, is a culinary role of the dice. As was pointed out in the article, the practice started by just trying your luck at a host's home and whatever they were serving.
I love pot luck dinners and usually try anything that is home made and have had some of the best food I have ever eaten at many a pot luck dinner. Sometimes the food doesn't come out the way the cook intended, and I am sure this is another reason that people choose to buy rather than try. Many people think they have to compete with that one person at each pot luck who seems to bring the perfect dish every time and plates it spectacularly to boot. But, I never compare one dish against any other at a pot luck; for me it is about the plate of food as a whole and the feeling of community and sharing.
Many times I have been invited to a pot luck and was told before hand to bring a specific dish or specific type of dish - vegetable side, starter, meat dish, etc. This I am not a fan of. To me a pot luck should have an emphasis on the "luck". Just like Bits 'n' Bites, every pot luck should be a new experience and, if it happens that everyone brings the same dish, well, so be it; find the humour in it and go with it. Again, it is all about luck. And, after all, the idea is to get together with friends and have a little something to eat. If we are less focused on the food and its presentation and more focused on the people and the conversation the evening will be memorable for more than just the fact that everyone brought Swedish meat balls.
So, here are the rules I think should govern the Pot Luck Dinner:
1) You must bring the food in the pot, pan or casserole that it was made in: no fancy plating.
2) No store or restaurant bought food.
3) No micro managing the food. Everyone brings what they want without instructions.
4) If there are guests who can not cook they must bring a bottle of wine that may or may not go with the food, but they can not be told what is being made. Pure roll of the dice here as well.
5) Host/Hostess supply hors d'ouvres and dessert but no other dish.
6) Everyone helps with the set up and clean up.
I can understand the many reasons people have for thinking it easier and cheaper to just purchase a pizza or some wings and heat them up for a pot luck. But, if you are going to just purchase food, why not pool the funds of everyone, pick different take-out joints and let everyone try something from everywhere and make a contest out of the whole affair by picking the best restaurant. I have nothing against fast food, or even supermarket prepared food but, the idea of a pot luck dinner, to me, is a culinary role of the dice. As was pointed out in the article, the practice started by just trying your luck at a host's home and whatever they were serving.
I love pot luck dinners and usually try anything that is home made and have had some of the best food I have ever eaten at many a pot luck dinner. Sometimes the food doesn't come out the way the cook intended, and I am sure this is another reason that people choose to buy rather than try. Many people think they have to compete with that one person at each pot luck who seems to bring the perfect dish every time and plates it spectacularly to boot. But, I never compare one dish against any other at a pot luck; for me it is about the plate of food as a whole and the feeling of community and sharing.
Many times I have been invited to a pot luck and was told before hand to bring a specific dish or specific type of dish - vegetable side, starter, meat dish, etc. This I am not a fan of. To me a pot luck should have an emphasis on the "luck". Just like Bits 'n' Bites, every pot luck should be a new experience and, if it happens that everyone brings the same dish, well, so be it; find the humour in it and go with it. Again, it is all about luck. And, after all, the idea is to get together with friends and have a little something to eat. If we are less focused on the food and its presentation and more focused on the people and the conversation the evening will be memorable for more than just the fact that everyone brought Swedish meat balls.
So, here are the rules I think should govern the Pot Luck Dinner:
1) You must bring the food in the pot, pan or casserole that it was made in: no fancy plating.
2) No store or restaurant bought food.
3) No micro managing the food. Everyone brings what they want without instructions.
4) If there are guests who can not cook they must bring a bottle of wine that may or may not go with the food, but they can not be told what is being made. Pure roll of the dice here as well.
5) Host/Hostess supply hors d'ouvres and dessert but no other dish.
6) Everyone helps with the set up and clean up.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
It's Not Delivery, It's Dennisio
I am enjoying home made, from scrath pizza. It's amazing. Simple engredients, patience and plenty of kneading.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Bank On It!
Yesterday, the National and Provincial Hunger Counts were released for the year 2011 and the numbers show food banks are not going to disappear any time soon. More than 2 out of every 100 people in Canada turned to food banks for some form of assistance during the year. While this number has been steady for some time, what has changed is the number of persons seeking meals at drop in programs. Most people who use a food bank have a home to cook food in but the majority of people using soup kitchens are homeless or do not have sufficient housing that allows them to make use of food banks. So, in reality, Canada, and especially Ontario, has seen more people without the means to properly feed themselves.
The following chart demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and food bank usage. The numbers within the report also show increasing economic pressure on typical working class Canadians with more lower paying jobs, more part time jobs, fewer benefits and fewer people prepared for retirement. What is just as distressing is the decline in donations to food banks and those food banks' ability to meet the demands. This suggests that those of us not in need of food banks are also feeling the pinch.
The following chart demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and food bank usage. The numbers within the report also show increasing economic pressure on typical working class Canadians with more lower paying jobs, more part time jobs, fewer benefits and fewer people prepared for retirement. What is just as distressing is the decline in donations to food banks and those food banks' ability to meet the demands. This suggests that those of us not in need of food banks are also feeling the pinch.
With the unprecedented wealth of resources in Canada there is no excuse for continued need for food banks and food programs. While I realize there will always be persons who will choose to live on the street and at the goodwill of others, most of the persons using food banks would gladly turn to feeding themselves if given the opportunity. The next two months are crucial to the food banks in terms of donations; if you can afford to, please think about donating to your local food bank. Or even drop by and give them a hand filling hampers, they are always grateful for the help.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Waiter, There's a Mold in My Soup
My beverage of choice is beer. That is what I would drink for the sake of drinking an alcoholic beverage. But, nothing goes better with most food quite like wine and I like to have a good bottle with dinner. I also like to cook with wine and enjoy the challenge of finding just the right wine to boost a dish. This can be harder than simply finding a wine you like and adding it to the dish; wine reacts with flavour molecules in the dish that may or may not combine cohesively. Following the simple rules we established in an earlier post can help. In addition, more than one type of wine may go with any given dish depending on whether you are trying to mellow the wine, cut the richness of the food or enhance the underlying flavours of the dish.
This past Saturday I was invited to a dinner of Lobster and I offered to bring a soup and two wines to go with it that I asked my friends to give me their opinions on. The soup was a Cream of Leek, Potato and Blue Cheese (recipe to follow). Now, a leek and potato soup might enjoy the company of any number of wines, depending on what was served before and after, anything from a white Burgundy, Chardonnay or Chianti. But, add some strong blue cheese and the matching gets a little more difficult because the dominant flavour is going to be the cheese. It would seem that the logical pairing would be a Vintage Port, oaked Viognier or even a Sauternes. Add the cream and the choices change again with the Sauternes being the best match followed by a younger Bordeaux or New World Cabernet Sauvignon.
After checking the LCBO available stock of Sauternes and noting that the lowest priced available was about $60 I decided to go in a different direction. The wines I chose were a 2008 Bordeaux Pessac-Leognan Chateau Pontet-Caillou for $27.95 and a, wait for it, Niagara VQA Inniskillin Late Autumn Riesling $13. Now, the first one is straight forward, as for the second, if we think of the characteristics of a Sauternes we have a wine that has stayed on the vine long enough to be allowed to raisinate and results in a wine with residual sugars. This is similar to what is being accomplished with a late autumn Riesling, albeit with a different grape. And, it is the flavour elements of the Riesling that I was looking for when choosing the wine: honey, pear and apple, all of which compliment a blue cheese.
As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, or in this case the wine. So what did my friends think? Overall they felt both wines went well with the soup, though they preferred the experience of the Bordeaux as the cheese and cream mellowed the tannins in the wine and allowed its fruit characters to come through. This was highlighted later when we tasted the wines without the soup and those harsher tannins came through. The soup also tended to reduce the sweetness of the Riesling and this, also, was noted in the later tasting. Now, a Sauternes is a much fuller and more complex wine, so the experience would have been slightly different but, I still maintain that the Riesling was an excellent choice as the fruit flavours were not overwhelmed by the soup's intense flavours and it only cost $13! Either way, I would not hesitate to serve either wine with the soup, the Sauternes will have to wait for a more important occasion.
Cream of Leek, Potato and Blue Cheese Soup
I will give this recipe as a ratio of ingredients so that you can increase the amount simply by increasing the ratios.
2 Leeks
1 Potato
125 ml Heavy Cream
225 grams of Blue Cheese
2 Tbsp of Butter
500 ml of Chicken Stock
Melt the butter in a pot on medium high heat. Add the leeks and potatoes and sauté with lid on for 10 minutes to sweat the vegetables. Add the chicken stock and simmer until the potatoes are very soft. Turn off the heat and add the cream and then blend, with an immersion blender, until smooth (if you only have a blender be sure to remove the centre disk of the lid before turning on the blender to avoid the contents blowing up). Once the blending is done, add the blue cheese a little bit at a time until well blended. You can add more blue cheese crumbled on top when serving.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Holy Molé
What a beautiful day! Sun shining. Crisp fall air. Hockey season about to open. And my first molé sauce is simmering on the stove as I type this; and it is amazing. Sure, my kitchen is now a disaster zone, but if you love to cook, then this is a sauce for you to try. Molé simply means concoction, guacamole is a molé and is different depending on the cook and her/his mood that day. You can make a molé yours by varying the ingredients and working without a recipe. It's ok...you can do it. Just keep in mind some simple basics. Click that link for a definition and to see what is in the basic sauce and add whatever you like the taste of. Molé requires fat (avocado, lard, etc) pungency (onions, garlic, etc) heat (chilis) and liquid (stock, water, etc). Not all molé requires chocolate, but it is the traditional version. So go to the kitchen and play with your food.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
How to Enjoy a Stress Free Thanksgiving
In order to enjoy a stress free thanksgiving day start by remembering that the holiday is about sharing, gratitude and enjoying the company of loved ones. Magical moments happen, they are not orchestrated and the best way to let them happen is to make sure everyone is as comfortable as possible. Keep in mind the food is secondary, the company and conversation is what makes for memorable occasions. So, stop stressing about the food. It doesn't have to look like something from a Martha Stewart magazine. In fact, without the dozens of cooks, food stylists and photoshop editors hers wouldn't look that way either. But, you can give people a meal they will remember for a long time by following a few simple steps.
Equipment Needed
A reliable instant read thermometer
An extra large ziplock bag (the type used for storing clothing - I found them at my local Home Hardware)
A large solid container big enough to hold a turkey and 2 gallons of liquid (don't trust a bag not to break)
A large roasting pan with at least 2" high sides
A roasting rack which fits said pan
A sheet pan
A 1.5 litre insulated thermos
Various casseroles and pots and pans
Step One:
The night before dinner, prepare a brine by mixing 1 cup of salt, 1 cup of brown sugar, 1 Tbsp of whole peppercorns, 1 Tbsp of coriander seeds, 1 Tbsp of whole mustard seeds, 5 bay leaves in 1 gallon of water in a pot and heat over medium high until all the salt and sugar has dissolved and the spices have a chance to become fragrant. Turn off and let cool for 30 minutes and then add the equivalent of 1 gallon of ice and water.
Step Two:
Clean and dry the turkey and place it in the ziplock bag. Make sure the brine is completely cooled and pour into the bag with the turkey. Place the turkey and brine in the large solid container and place it in the fridge or any place that is between 1-6C.
Step Three:
On the morning of dinner, remove the turkey from the brine and discard the liquid. Completely rinse and dry the turkey and either oil the skin or smear Miracle Whip on the skin (this will ensure crispy and golden skin) and season with salt and pepper inside and out and, if desired, place a sprig each of rosemary, sage, thyme and savoury loosely inside the cavity. Place the turkey on the rack inside the roasting pan and add 2 onions cut in half, 2 carrots split lengthwise in half and 2 celery stalks to the bottom of the pan. Place the turkey in a pre-heated 325F oven. Note the lack of stuffing - this will ensure the turkey cooks in the shortest possible time, evenly. Magic moments do not include salmonella. Roasting times will vary but for a 12-15lb bird expect to use the better part of 3 hours. You want the thickest part of the thigh to reach a temperature of 160F.
Step Four:
Prepare your favourite stuffing recipe and pour it in a casserole dish and add 1 cup of chicken stock to moisten. This will act as the moisture that would have come from cooking it in the bird's cavity. Leave the casserole off to the side for now.
Step Five:
Prepare the vegetables for your sides: peel, cut and chop any potatoes, carrots, beans etc. and place them in pots for cooking. For the potatoes and any root vegetables, cover with water and leave any tender vegetables in the pots dry for now. If doing any gratins, complete assembly in their casserole and leave in fridge for now.
Step Six:
Remove the turkey from the oven when it reaches 160F as discussed. Leaving it on the rack place it on the baking sheet and cover with aluminum foil and set aside. The turkey will continue to rise in temperature for the next 1-1.5 hours and can stay like this for 2 hours. Turn the oven temperature to the optimal for the stuffing and add it and any side dish that must bake for the next hour.
Step Seven:
Prepare the gravy according to your favourite recipe in the roasting pan, the onion, carrot and celery will add additional flavours and a sweet Riesling would be a nice addition. Pour the finished gravy into a thermos and set aside. Clean up the mess.
Step Eight:
Once the stuffing and any other baked sides are out of the oven turn on any tender vegetables (don't forget to add water) to be steamed. If you are doing mashed potato you should turn them on 15 minutes prior to taking out the stuffing as they will take longer to cook and you have to allow time to mash.
Step Nine:
While the vegetables are cooking, start carving the turkey using this method. Place the carved turkey and stuffing on the table then finish the vegetables and place on the table and finally pour the gravy from the thermos into a gravy boat and place on the table.
Step Ten:
Toast your guests and enjoy the meal.
Try to clean as you go and always accept offers of assistance especially when taking the food to the table and dealing with the pots and pans. If possible, have a separate table set aside for dirty dishes and pots - in a separate room, of course. Keep plenty of white wine on ice when you set the table and place any red wine (pinot noir) on the table ready to be opened (actually, if possible, try and stet the table the night before). Have any pies made or purchased the day before and place them in the oven when the last dish comes out and turn the oven off. The residual heat will be enough to warm the pie through - unless of course you are serving a cold pie like key lime.
Following these steps and giving helpers clear directions and cleaning as you go, will make this a stress free thanksgiving. Enjoy!
Following these steps and giving helpers clear directions and cleaning as you go, will make this a stress free thanksgiving. Enjoy!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Shanks for the Memories
I love rich tasting food around this time of year and anything braised on a cool rainy evening helps ease my mourning over the loss of summer. There is nothing more rich than Ossobuco braised in a tomato based sauce with Marsala and beef stock and served with the traditional Risotto alla Milanese. So when I was asked to cook this dish I jumped at the opportunity. This dish is quickly becoming one of my favourites to make as well as to eat. The sauce was scented with thyme, garlic and mirepoix and thickened with just a little roux. On the side were served Saffron infused Risotto and braised Peas with Mint. A great meal for the wow factor and surprising little effort to make.
I find that, when there is food being cooked, guests tend to want to be in the kitchen, and since the kitchen actually belonged to one of the guests last night, it really wasn't my place to say anything. But, this is fine when making a Risotto that everyone believes must be stirred constantly. The truth is, it need only be stirred regularly and you can get on with other chores as it cooks. But, since everyone is going to be in the kitchen anyway, lack of stirring is not a problem. In fact, absent minded stirring of Risotto while chatting is a great way to spend the early part of an evening. Braising anything is also a good way to cook with guests as the food really requires little to no attention and allows a cook to spend time with other chores or simply talking, though I would know little about the latter.
I love Italian cooking for its simplicity and its treatment of ingredients. It is surprising how few ingredients there are and each dish highlights the main ingredients so well. What is also amazing is how well Italian mains and sides taste served together. Last night's plate was an amazing match of tastes and textures. The creamy rice with the rich, meaty shanks were amazing and the peas and mint added a nice brightness. It would be a shame to serve a wine that would disrupt this wonderful harmony.
I took my time at the LCBO and sought out the advice of one of the product experts to assist me in choosing the right wine for the meal. And I am glad I did. My man Dan pointed me in the direction of a great bottle of Tuscan Le Difese which not only did not disrupt the harmony but actually became the Maestro of this orchestra. A blend of 70% Cabernet and 30% Sangiovese this wine is just starting to arrive at its ideal time to experience. The wine was as rich as the meal and elevated the peasantry of the dish to a true gourmet experience. You know a wine is working well with a meal when comments revolve around the deliciousness of the meal and the wine is not overtaking the event. The spiciness and berry flavours and the balance of tannins, sugar and acid of this wine showed why these wines are known as Super Tuscans.
If you are eating rich Italian tonight (that didn't sound right) you can not go wrong with Tenuta San Guido Le Difese 2008 LCBO 147876 $28.95. Thanks Dan.
I find that, when there is food being cooked, guests tend to want to be in the kitchen, and since the kitchen actually belonged to one of the guests last night, it really wasn't my place to say anything. But, this is fine when making a Risotto that everyone believes must be stirred constantly. The truth is, it need only be stirred regularly and you can get on with other chores as it cooks. But, since everyone is going to be in the kitchen anyway, lack of stirring is not a problem. In fact, absent minded stirring of Risotto while chatting is a great way to spend the early part of an evening. Braising anything is also a good way to cook with guests as the food really requires little to no attention and allows a cook to spend time with other chores or simply talking, though I would know little about the latter.
I love Italian cooking for its simplicity and its treatment of ingredients. It is surprising how few ingredients there are and each dish highlights the main ingredients so well. What is also amazing is how well Italian mains and sides taste served together. Last night's plate was an amazing match of tastes and textures. The creamy rice with the rich, meaty shanks were amazing and the peas and mint added a nice brightness. It would be a shame to serve a wine that would disrupt this wonderful harmony.
I took my time at the LCBO and sought out the advice of one of the product experts to assist me in choosing the right wine for the meal. And I am glad I did. My man Dan pointed me in the direction of a great bottle of Tuscan Le Difese which not only did not disrupt the harmony but actually became the Maestro of this orchestra. A blend of 70% Cabernet and 30% Sangiovese this wine is just starting to arrive at its ideal time to experience. The wine was as rich as the meal and elevated the peasantry of the dish to a true gourmet experience. You know a wine is working well with a meal when comments revolve around the deliciousness of the meal and the wine is not overtaking the event. The spiciness and berry flavours and the balance of tannins, sugar and acid of this wine showed why these wines are known as Super Tuscans.
If you are eating rich Italian tonight (that didn't sound right) you can not go wrong with Tenuta San Guido Le Difese 2008 LCBO 147876 $28.95. Thanks Dan.
Monday, September 19, 2011
How Sweet It Is.
I recently went shopping at a local farmer's market and as usual stopped at the honey supplier to check out their offerings. I love honey and use it as a sweetener in coffee and tea as well as in my cooking. I prefer the taste and there is no unpleasant after taste like that I detect with refined sugar. It is also my opinion that honey is just sweeter than other sweeteners. But, mostly, I use it because I love the flavour.
I always find it amusing, though, that honey is the one food I purchase at farmers' markets that is marketed to me by the vendors as some kind of miracle cure all. I do not doubt that honey is a good source of some nutrition, but the same can be said for any food. This vendor on this particular day was even more effluent than usual about the health benefits of honey and was trying to convince me that honey was more of a panacea than a food. She asked me how much honey I use and I told her I go through a large jar every couple of weeks to which she replied "oh, that's wonderful. Good for you. You will never have to worry about cancer or diabetes." This I found amusing since I am at high risk right now for diabetes and my doctor is currently considering medication for same. But, I let it go. She then cautioned me to not use that horrible stuff they sell in supermarkets, to which I assumed she was referring to pasteurized honey. She enlightened me that honey from large companies is not real honey. I did not have the patience to sit through an explanation of what it was so I did not ask.
In the end I told her that her product was nice, thanked her for the sample and said I wasn't really in need of any just now but maybe next week. This only seemed to open the door to a discussion about the health properties of bee's wax candles. Really? Burning a candle is going to provide me some kind of health benefit? I still haven't seen any relief from mosquitoes by using citronella candles so I'll be damned if I am going to spend $10 on a bee's wax candle. I was able to extricate myself from her grip and went on with my shopping but the experience stuck with me and I wondered just what is the evidence of honey's health benefits? Off to Google I went and the only evidence was a number of pages for benefits-of-honey.com. However, while the information appears well written and well sourced, when you actually click on the links they are only linking to themselves as the source. Obviously this would be unreliable.
So, I went to PubMed and looked up some of the most recent studies. I reviewed 11 recent studies on PubMed that looked at various health effects of honey. These studies suggested that there is limited evidence (most in the form of using honey as a wound dressing in diabetic foot) regarding the health benefits of honey. None of the studies used very large sample groups and none showed overwhelming statistical evidence to support their conclusions. The general conclusions were that honey does seem to have some antibacterial properties that may benefit in the use as a topical ointment in diabetic foot and that honey may be used as a low glycemic sweetener in healthy and at-risk individuals and could be a sugar substitute for diabetics as long as hemoglobin A(1C) is monitored (elevated levels tend to be the cause of diabetic foot and eye sight loss). To me this does not show overwhelming evidence that honey is a miracle food that we all need to consume. There was one study that looked at the in vivo effects of honey on damaged cells but no follow up studies have been conducted to replicate the findings.
I love honey, all types and styles and, yes, even BillyBee honey. I look at honey as a better tasting sweetener, and am aware of some of its dangers (and here.). I will continue my use of honey out of pure love of the taste and won't be feeling guilty about buying pasteurized honey either, and I might even save a little money in the process. But it would be nice, in the mean time, if honey producers would concentrate on marketing their product as a great tasting, quality sweetener that won't kill you when used in moderation, you know, like everything else.
I always find it amusing, though, that honey is the one food I purchase at farmers' markets that is marketed to me by the vendors as some kind of miracle cure all. I do not doubt that honey is a good source of some nutrition, but the same can be said for any food. This vendor on this particular day was even more effluent than usual about the health benefits of honey and was trying to convince me that honey was more of a panacea than a food. She asked me how much honey I use and I told her I go through a large jar every couple of weeks to which she replied "oh, that's wonderful. Good for you. You will never have to worry about cancer or diabetes." This I found amusing since I am at high risk right now for diabetes and my doctor is currently considering medication for same. But, I let it go. She then cautioned me to not use that horrible stuff they sell in supermarkets, to which I assumed she was referring to pasteurized honey. She enlightened me that honey from large companies is not real honey. I did not have the patience to sit through an explanation of what it was so I did not ask.
In the end I told her that her product was nice, thanked her for the sample and said I wasn't really in need of any just now but maybe next week. This only seemed to open the door to a discussion about the health properties of bee's wax candles. Really? Burning a candle is going to provide me some kind of health benefit? I still haven't seen any relief from mosquitoes by using citronella candles so I'll be damned if I am going to spend $10 on a bee's wax candle. I was able to extricate myself from her grip and went on with my shopping but the experience stuck with me and I wondered just what is the evidence of honey's health benefits? Off to Google I went and the only evidence was a number of pages for benefits-of-honey.com. However, while the information appears well written and well sourced, when you actually click on the links they are only linking to themselves as the source. Obviously this would be unreliable.
So, I went to PubMed and looked up some of the most recent studies. I reviewed 11 recent studies on PubMed that looked at various health effects of honey. These studies suggested that there is limited evidence (most in the form of using honey as a wound dressing in diabetic foot) regarding the health benefits of honey. None of the studies used very large sample groups and none showed overwhelming statistical evidence to support their conclusions. The general conclusions were that honey does seem to have some antibacterial properties that may benefit in the use as a topical ointment in diabetic foot and that honey may be used as a low glycemic sweetener in healthy and at-risk individuals and could be a sugar substitute for diabetics as long as hemoglobin A(1C) is monitored (elevated levels tend to be the cause of diabetic foot and eye sight loss). To me this does not show overwhelming evidence that honey is a miracle food that we all need to consume. There was one study that looked at the in vivo effects of honey on damaged cells but no follow up studies have been conducted to replicate the findings.
I love honey, all types and styles and, yes, even BillyBee honey. I look at honey as a better tasting sweetener, and am aware of some of its dangers (and here.). I will continue my use of honey out of pure love of the taste and won't be feeling guilty about buying pasteurized honey either, and I might even save a little money in the process. But it would be nice, in the mean time, if honey producers would concentrate on marketing their product as a great tasting, quality sweetener that won't kill you when used in moderation, you know, like everything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)