Food: A Series of Reflections Pt. 4

I wanted to wrap up my food thoughts tonight by proposing an impossible but sustainable "dream" diet. This is more tongue-in-cheek than anything but I would say that if I could eat like this 100% of the time I would be a lot healthier as would most Americans.

So here is a list of eco-friendly foods:
- Grass fed, free-range, humanely raised/slaughtered, organic, local meat (chicken, lamb, pork, beef goat ect.)
- Fruits and Vegetables grown local, in-season, small farms and organic
- Dairy products from local small dairies with grass-fed, organically raised, free-range animals.
- Grains from non-GMO plants, grown by small time farmers and milled at local mills.
- Honey from local bee keepers
- Herbs from local farmers.
    
From this point you can make everything else you need. By using home canning and freezing methods you can preserve all of your food. Except for a few things such as yeast, salt, oils and a few spices the rest of these things could be purchased from local producers. I can then make whatever foods I like.

A list of foods that I am not so keen on right now are:
-Soy, GMO's are a big reason. Plus the soy industry bases its "heart healthy" argument off of a few small research projects. Excessive soy has been linked to high estrogen in both men and women and can cause hormone imbalances. (http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/soys-negative-effects)

-Highly processed frozen foods. They are high fat and contain tons of corn as well as ammoniated meat. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html)

- Cereals,crackers, chips, candy, sodas. All contain corn or soy in some form.
- Fast Food. Just watch Supersize Me.
- Canned Anything. 
- USDA School Lunches, Mainly because they are comprised of most of the things on this list. Plus the USDA makes sure they purchase these ingredients from big agri-business. School lunches and their high-fat options have been linked to all sorts of health problems. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2003/01/unhappy-meals)

To stick to this kind of diet might be impossible for some who live in areas where there isaccess to a garden. I think that being aware of where your food comes from and what it is packaged in is the first step to being a healthy and positive consumer.

Happy Eating,

CCosner

Weekly Hall of Shame

Uncovering the ills of our current society, this week focuses on the contrast between the incredibly prude and oversexed views of our society. 

1) Wal-Mart unleashes its latest poor taste product; make-up kits for 8 year old girls.

2) Apparently our culture hates women who breastfeed despite our boob obsession. So: Breastfeeding moms protest at mall after woman is kicked out of store

3) Music videos have been linked to abuse to women and yet still no one listens. Dreamworlds 3, a documentary discusses this. There is footage show of men sexually abusing women in mass, in public. Watch the documentary here. 

4) Us Weekly's cover displaying Elton John and his partner with their baby has been banned. But guess what isn't...

Lessons from "The Art of Non-Conformity"

Chris Guillebeau author of The Art of Non-Conformity is a great man. I was inspired to read is work when I stumbled across a blog post of his on Powells Books Blog. The post talked about saving the money and not going to grad school but rather go on a course of ones own self study. In his book, Guillebeau lays our a lifestyle that can be followed even by the most skeptical of us. Here are some lessons I learned.

1) It is all about choices! You do not have to be doing what you are doing. If you want to do something great in the future start  working toward it now. Set the ball rolling. If you want to travel and volunteer than skip buying a $20,000 car.

2) People will try to keep you from achieving your goals and will provide roadblocks based on the status quo. These people will prove to be pests but they don't have to stop you.

3) Depriving yourself in the now might not be as fruitful as you think.

4)You can stay at home and make money. You can do what you are passionate about!

Of course Guillebeau wrote so much more than what I just summarized so here is a To Do list.

-Read more blog posts here.
-Visit Guillebeau's website here.
-Purchase his book here.

Happy Friday!

-CCosner

$14,309 Tuition Payment in $1 Bills

Student Pays $14,309 Tuition Payment in $1 Bills
By Kathryn Knight Randolph
January 19, 2011
This semester, Nic Ramos’s tuition payment weighed close to 30 pounds. You might be thinking, “That is a pretty large check.” But Ramos didn’t pay with a check this time around.
Instead, he paid his entire tuition bill for the semester in $1 bills.
Ramos collected $1 bills from banks in the Boulder area, enough to cover his tuition bill for $14,309.51. In an interview with the Daily Camera, Ramos said he got plenty of quizzical looks and questions from local bank tellers. And in an interview with a university spokesman, The New York Times reported that it took roughly an hour for three university tellers to count the money that Ramos brought to the bursar office in a duffel bag.
The idea started out as a joke. Ramos, who is an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado-Boulder, wanted to make a funny point that tuition for students is too high. But as the stack of $1 bills grew, so did the gravity of the situation.
In his interview with the Daily Camera, Ramos quips that he learned more from this semester’s tuition payment than any other. Now, he’s more grateful towards his parents who help pay the out-of-state tuition bill. And second, he discovered that it literally costs a pretty penny to skip class – actually $65 to be exact.

High court rejects farmer who tangled with Tyson

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Mark Sherman, Associated Press 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from a former Tennessee poultry farmer who sued Tyson Farms after losing his contract to raise their chickens.
The justices did not comment in turning away Alton Terry, who said Tyson cut him off because he helped organize area farmers and complained about the company's practices. Lower courts had previously dismissed the lawsuit.
Terry, essentially, argued that he lost his contract to raise chickens on his 12-acre farm, because he squawked too much.
Terry was a poultry farmer who brought together a group of area farmers and told them they had the right to complain about Tyson's practices. He also raised concerns directly with Tyson, among the world's largest meat companies.
Terry says Tyson and other big companies have too much sway over farmers, and federal courts also have bowed to agribusiness interests by setting too high a standard for the farmers to succeed in court.
He casts his fight as a "struggle between those who grow our food and those who process and market it."
Tyson, a unit of Springdale, Ark.-based Tyson Foods, Inc., had urged the court to stay out of the lawsuit, arguing that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati properly dismissed it.
The 6th Circuit ruled that Terry not only had to show that he was harmed by Tyson actions, but that he also had to prove the company diminished competition by ending Terry's contract and sending a signal to other farmers. Terry didn't even claim anticompetitive behavior by Tyson, much less prove it, the court said.
At an earlier stage in the case, the Bush administration's Agriculture Department sided with Terry. Since Barack Obama became president, USDA has proposed rules that would limit the control chicken companies have over the farmers who raise birds for them and would make it easier for farmers to file suits under the 90-year-old Packers and Stockyards Act. The proposed changes would make clear that farmers don't need to prove industry-wide anticompetitive behavior to sue under the act.
Last year, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the law has not kept pace with the marketplace, where consolidation has strengthened the hand of the big companies in their dealings with farmers. "Our job is to make sure the playing field is level for producers," Vilsack said.
USDA said it is reviewing the 61,000 comments it received about the proposed changes.
Tyson contracts with farmers to raise broiler chickens. Under the contracts, the company supplies the chicks, feed and know-how to get the birds up to a weight where they can be slaughtered. Growers are paid under a formula that measures weight gain in the birds relative to how much feed has been provided.
Terry bought his farm in 2001, but only after getting assurances from a Tyson manager that the farm he was buying had a first-rate reputation. He says he was led to believe that he would not need to make major investments in the poultry equipment anytime soon.
The following year, he said, he began to learn about problems other farmers were having with Tyson. After a while, he formed an association of area farmers and forwarded complaints about Tyson to USDA.
His growing conflict with Tyson came to a head after he was three times denied permission to watch his birds get weighed by the company, as he claims is his right under federal law and the contract.
By March 2005, less than four years after Terry bought the farm, Tyson told him it would no longer provide chicks. According to Terry, the company said it ended its arrangement with him because the farm needed costly equipment upgrades and his behavior had become confrontational.
But Terry said the real reasons for the termination were his efforts to organize the farmers and his complaints to USDA.
He filed suit in 2008.
After losing the Tyson contract, Terry tried to sell the farm but couldn't, he said, because Tyson's demand for expensive upgrades scared off potential buyers. Eventually he lost the farm to foreclosure.
The case is Terry v. Tyson Farms, 10-542.

The Economic Injustice of Plastic

Food: A Series of Reflections Pt.3

This weekend I did some exploration. I dropped by my local Safeway with a full stomach for the purpose of looking at the marketing, packaging, and value of food. When you become desensitized or hungry, key details seem to slip past you. I evaluated various food items based on some of the following questions:

1) What is the nutrient value of the product? Is it good for me?
2) How eco-friendly is the packaging? How could it be better? How does the packaging make the product look healthy?
3) Where is the product made and distributed?
4) What image is the product trying to project?
5) Are there corn or soy ingredients in the product? 

One particular example of packaging that was completely unnecessary was a package of four russet potatoes on a foam tray wrapped in plastic for $2.99. What a waste of resources! Another interesting thing to note was that many "natural" products were packaged in recycled cardboard with simple labeling or in bags that where matte rather than shiny in order to provide a more rustic look.

If shoppers where to go into the store and ask themselves these questions there might be a shift in purchasing. The carbon footprint of an item that was distributed 12 states away or imported is far different than an item that was produced and distributed in state. Packaging in paper, glass, and tin is far more environmentally responsible than plastic. In season produce that does not come from Mexico or South America is more responsible both environmentally and economically as it supports US farmers.

Consider these questions the next time you shop.

Happy Monday

-CCosner

Food: A Series of Reflections Pt.2

Corn, believe it or not, seems to be the beginning of this chain of sad food events. Pollan starts here in his book and follows corn’s history and its variety in our food chain. I will break most of this down best I can, giving an overview.

Corn has humble origins in our life.  A native to the Americas, it has found its way into our diets more than we know. Much of what was a diverse Mid-West is nothing but fields of corn to feed the constant need of consumers and processors. The sad part of this is that many corn farmers are starving; their businesses on the edge of dying. This leads to an ugly self perpetuating process. The price of corn remains low because so many farmers grow corn. Therefore when the corn is harvested growers are paid a low price. They try to grow more corn the following year by pouring on more fertilizer and hoping for the best. But everyone does this which only raises the amount of corn being produced which lowers the corn price further.

Lovely right? Farmers are starving and by attempting to dig themselves out of the hole they only dig themselves deeper. But as with any free market things should right themselves. Wrong. The USDA subsidizes corn growers. They are cut a check if the price of corn falls below a certain amount set by the USDA. This sounds like a good thing. But it is really not. It only keeps farmers going in order to supply the demands of huge corn buyers.  Here is where it gets even more convoluted.

Corn is used in just about every processed food imaginable, high fructose corn syrup being a one bi-product that has received a lot of media attention lately.  Cereals, chips, candies, baked goods, the list goes on and on. This was something I was aware of. But the fact that corn is used to make the wax that ends up on many fruits purchased in the supermarket surprised me. Corn is the main source of nutrients for all factory farmed animals. Those hot houses of chickens, the desolate feed lots of cattle and dairy cows all have one thing in common: corn. It is the dominate ingredient used in the ration for the artificially rapid growth and production of these animals. 

So here is an economics question for you: What would happen if the price of corn went up? Every single of the above foods would increase in price. Dairy products, meat, processed foods, McDonalds and beyond.  And what do Americans love more than anything? Cheap food! Why do you think fast food restaurants continue to flourish when we are obese? Why do supermarkets like Wal-Mart deeply discount their food? So that we can have our food for cheap.  No matter about the quality or where it comes from. 

If corn prices rise, the cost of food rises. End of story. Oh how the consumer would howl to the government, to the producers, to the poor famers (who have finally paid off their mortgage)! It would be unending. The processors would absolutely die. So for the USDA to not worry about the farmer and dip their finger in to the market makes sense for all of the big corporations who have the USDA as a puppet. (Just watch Food Inc) and for all of the rioting public.

Here we have a story of a simple grain which has taken over. Its influences reach into the meat market where feeding corn to cattle causes wild bacteria growth and has been linked to the outbreaks of tainted hamburger. The industries reaction to this was not to change the feeding practices. Why should they when they have all that cheap corn at their finger tips? Rather their response was to take all ground hamburger and ammoniate it. Gag! That is about the same is using kitchen cleaners on your meat. Healthy? I think not. But it is cheap…so we as consumers don’t question it.

To think that the plant itself is the root of all evil would be unfair. There are many players in this game multi-billion dollar corporations such has Monsanto, Tyson, MIP, Kraft, the list goes on,  that work with the government to insure that things don’t change.  It is sad but the little people, the ones that these companies are supposed to be serving are the ones that end up hurt by this. The grower gets paid a horrible price. Here is a person who works day in and day out for no W-2, no pension, no insurance, and ends up with a tiny little check. Why doesn’t he quit? Think of what would happen if they did. Then there really is no more food. And then there is the consumer. They work hard to feed their family but when the cheapest food is the worst thing for you then how can you make a good choice? Why do you think obesity is on the rise? That is a pretty self fulfill prophesy.

Happy Eating,

CCosner