Vote Change One More Time -- For Our Food System

I think many of us agree that our food system is a mess.  Our industrial ways are destroying our environment and health.  We had hope that Obama would pick a Secretary of Agriculture that would be good for our future but that took a down turn. His choice in Tom Vilsack is bad but there appears to be a glimmer of hope, a very small one, that he might become the Secretary of Commerce as reported by the New York Daily News the other day. But to date it appears that is is all rumor. Check out my new favorite blogs, Obama Foodorama, for an explanation on why the Vilsack move is the best choice for America's food system.  I can tell you we are hoping Obama is listening. 

Now there has been a lot of talk lately that the overhaul of our food system is going to take a back burner to the economy. But as Michael Pollan and Grist's Tom Philpott argue, and I agree, investing in a new food system should be part of the economic stimulus package. Ignore it and we continue along, on our way to massive environmental and public health catastrophes. 

In a recent article entitled "Eat the Stimulus," Philpott lays out a plan to overhaul America's food system that he believes would not require a new program or major expenditure of political capital. In short, Philpott suggest that a bulk of the economic stimulus package should go to support local and regional food systems. "Reviving that infrastructure would significantly lower costs for the sort of pasture-based, sustainable meat farmers who are now badly undercut on price by large-scale, environmentally ruinous producers," writes Philpott. He also recommends a reinvestment in our school cafeterias and feed our children healthy, unprocessed food --teaching them that our food comes from the earth not a grocery store. Sounds like a great plan to me but I feel that us sustainable foodies have an uphill battle. 

One way we can try and make a difference is to be a part of the Change.org campaign. On January 16, Change.org and the Case Foundation are co-hosting an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to announce the top 10 rated ideas that have been submitted by Americans across the country. They plan on then launching a national campaign behind each idea using the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partnering organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress.

Both Eat the View and The Who Farm have been petitioning the next president to plant an organic garden on the White House lawn.  I previously wrote about them in my post entitled "A Victory Garden at the White House?" The two groups have gotten together to put the idea on Change.org and the idea is currently (as I type) in 24th Place and needs 2861 more votes to be part of the final 10 ideas presented at the event in Washington, DC.  

The idea as stated on Change.org, Victory Garden 2.0:

Thousands of Americans and people from the around the world are asking the Obamas to lead by example on climate change, health policy, economic self-reliance, food security, and energy independence by replanting an organic food garden at the White House with the produce going to the First Kitchen and to local food pantries.

The many successes(1) of the first Victory Garden movement were the result of effective public policy, bold leadership(2) at a time of national crisis, and the commitment of millions of citizens who were ready to roll up their sleeves for the greater good.

There' s no better, more symbolic place for launching a new National Victory Garden Program than at the White House, "America’s House". There's no better, more urgent time(3) than now. And there's NOTHING that can beat the fresh taste of locally-grown, home-cooked foods.

The number one idea on Change.org is "Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana." Now I am actually in favor of this idea but I do not believe it is worthy of getting the attention that Change.org plans to put forth. There are much greater and important issues. Having a organic garden at the White House will really put the importance of our food system front and center. And then if a majority of American's follow the lead of growing their own food, our agricultural system will be forced to change without the force of the government.  

So please vote.  Voting ends at 5pm ET on January 15th. You can vote by clicking here or click on the image below.  You must register on the site but in only takes one second of your time.  If all of us vote we can definately put Victory Garden 2.o in the top 10.  Let's help make a change in our food system.

An open letter to President-elect Obama.

Dear President-elect Obama, 

After a long, hard and contentious campaign you've won the Presidency of the United States. Congratulations. Take a moment to enjoy your success. Ok, that was long enough. Now let's down to business.  

You well know that you have a long hard road ahead of you, but your first order of business is to choose a cabinet that is strong, thoughtful and will move this country in the right direction. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many people like me, administration environmental jobs should a top order of business. Our crumbling economy will not matter if we cannot breath our air, drink our water, or eat our food. Relieving the credit crunch won't make a difference if rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease continue to rise. Keeping people in their homes, empowering people to buy new cars will become meaningless unless we fix the food system, the water system, and limit the spread of untested genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That is why I am calling out to you to take a good look at who you appoint as Secretary of Energy, Head Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and possibly the new position, Climate Change Czar -- or make this a function of the Department of Homeland Defense.

Of all the cabinet level posts you will fill, there is one that is usually a second thought, but in my opinion is as important as State, Treasury and Defense -- the Secretary of Agriculture. Our food system is in dire need of a change and the right person might be able to help begin the overhaul necessary. 

The Secretary of Agriculture oversees food safety and sets farm policy.  He/she makes recommendations to Congress on which crops should be subsidized, how agricultural laws are enforced, crop-land conservation, and setting the nations nutritional standards and even organic labeling. They also oversee our food stamp program, food distribution during disaster relief efforts, the US Forest Service and the food that is fed to our children in school. That's a big job.

I have read that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack is on the short list for this position. From the corn state, Vilsack strongly supports ethanol subsidies. He believes that he has changed the corn fields of Iowa into energy fields. To me that sounds like a shift in use, not better agriculture or energy policy. As he stated in an op-ed in the Argus Leader, "If you drive across Iowa today, you will see a changing landscape marked by new ethanol and biofuel production plants and wind farms. As a state, we became more economically, environmentally and energy secure." Today, Iowa farmers are still hurting the soil and water by using petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, these farmers have shifted corn from feeding the world to ethanol production, which, as we all know, is not helping increase our independence from foreign oil. But with all his good intentions, former Governor Vilsak is too much of an insider to create really change.

I have also read that your short list includes Tom Buis the President of the National Farms Union and the Congresswoman for South Dakota Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. These two are also agriculture "insiders" who are in the pocket of industrial agriculture who might working in the best interest of the farmers they represent, mostly corporate farming, but neither are strong enough or creative enough to achieve real change we need in the system.

Then there is former Congressman Charles Stenholm (D-TX). Charlie is a conservative Democrat that joined the Republicans to kill a bill that would have prevented sick cattle that are unable to walk from entering the US food supply. (Remember the video released by the Humane Society of downer cows?) While part of the House Agriculture Committee he received more than $800,000 in PAC contributions and took numerous trips sponsored by agriculture lobbyist groups. After leaving Congress he became a lobbyist for the agriculture and food industry. Again, not someone who is going to change our system for the better.

So by now President-elect Obama you must say, well then who? There is one man out there who is not already in politics, who has examined our foods system from farm to table, and who understands the impact it plays on our environment, our economy and our health. He has intimate knowledge of not only farmers, but also diaries, feed-lots, and food processors. He is not a Washington insider and to top it off he has already laid out a plan for tackling the issues we face. His plan takes into account the impact agriculture has on our climate, energy dependence, the healthcare system, foreign and trade policies and national security. As states in his own words:

We need to wean the American food system off its heavy 20th-century diet of fossil fuel and put it back on a diet of contemporary sunshine. True, this is easier said than done — fossil fuel is deeply implicated in everything about the way we currently grow food and feed ourselves. To put the food system back on sunlight will require policies to change how things work at every link in the food chain: in the farm field, in the way food is processed and sold and even in the American kitchen and at the American dinner table. Yet the sun still shines down on our land every day, and photosynthesis can still work its wonders wherever it does. If any part of the modern economy can be freed from its dependence on oil and successfully resolarized, surely it is food.

The scribe of this plan called the Sun-Food Agenda is Michael Pollan, the Knight Professor of Journalism at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC-Berkeley, director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism and author.

President-elect Obama I urge you to read Professor Pollan's plan as laid out in an article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "Farmer In Chief" and stick with what you have been saying throughout your campaign, that America needs real change. I urge you to consider Michael Pollan for the Secretary of Agriculture. (Or at least consult with him to mine his knowledge on the issues to make the best choice possible for the position.)

Pollan's plans are not liberal.  They are not conservative.  They are what is best for America.  And most importantly they are achievable.

As Pollan states:

[The] sun-food agenda promises to win support across the aisle. It builds on America’s agrarian past, but turns it toward a more sustainable, sophisticated future. It honors the work of American farmers and enlists them in three of the 21st century’s most urgent errands: to move into the post-oil era, to improve the health of the American people and to mitigate climate change. Indeed, it enlists all of us in this great cause by turning food consumers into part-time producers, reconnecting the American people with the American land and demonstrating that we need not choose between the welfare of our families and the health of the environment — that eating less oil and more sunlight will redound to the benefit of both.

This is a new era for America and Michael Pollan may just be The Change We Need.

Yes We Can!

Best,

Green Luvin'

Guest Blogger: Farmer Shannon Hayes on global warming, eating meat and the importance of the local farm movement

We have a guest blogger today, Shannon Hayes, a sustainable farmer in Upstate New York, who I wrote about a couple weeks back in my post entitled "Grass-Fed Meat." Shannon has a wealth of information on today's food issues and I thought you all might enjoy what she has to say about global warming, eating meat and the importance of the local farm movement.  I hope you find it has informative and timely as I did.   

Compare Apples to Apples When You’re Talking About Rib Eyes
By Shannon Hayes, farmer and host of grassfedcooking.com

After decades of hunching over in shame around environmentalist vegetarians, small grass-based meat farmers were finally given a chance hold our heads high by investigative journalists and nutritional advocates like Jo Robinson, Michael Pollan and Sally Fallon. In the last 10 years, Grass-fed meats have been lauded for their health benefits, their contributions to local economies and animal welfare, and most especially, for their environmental benefits.

…Until recently. A study released by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization started a buzz in November of 2006 suggesting that livestock production is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. According to a story in the New York Times, in 2007, PETA commissioned a hummer and outfitted it with a driver wearing a chicken suit to travel around to environmental rallies, proclaiming meat as the number one cause of global warming. And this month, a story in Environmental Science and Technology reports on a new study which suggests that, rather than eating locally, we should just remove red meat and dairy from our diet once per week and replace it with chicken, fish or eggs, and have at least one day per week entirely meat-free. The result? Customers ordinarily seeking beef are suddenly asking for turkey burgers and chicken sausage; or they are dropping meat from their diets all together.

That’s pretty grim news for my family. Three generations of us garner a living from our small grass-based farm tucked up in the northern foothills of the Appalachian mountain chain. We’ve managed to build an exclusively local market for our products, making us an integral part of our rural economy. We’ve also managed to bring three additional farms back into viable agricultural production with the help of folks dedicated to buying locally. 

…Which leads to the next piece of news being circulated: that these “small dietary shifts” of giving up meat can accomplish the same greenhouse gas reduction as eating locally. The subtext here seriously stings: “Forget about those looney meat farmers in the hills, don’t fret about canning local tomatoes, and return your faith to the conventional supermarket. Just buy less red meat and go vegetarian once per week..” As a grass-based meat farmer, I’ve got a beef with that -- not to mention a serious steak in the matter (in this case, a rib eye, which I plan to lay across my grill later today).

Truth be told, these studies aren’t wrong. They aren’t exactly right, either, but I’ll get to that in a second. When we are looking at the industrial model of factory farming, of pumping grains into animals, there are serious ecological reasons to forego the red meats. “The main issue,” explains animal scientist Dr. James Hayes “is the conversion factor. When you feed grain to fish, you have a conversion factor of about 1.25 to 1.” That means that for every 1 ¼ pounds of grain product you feed to a fish, you’ll have a pound of weight gain. “The conversion for chicken is 2 pounds of feed per pound of gain on the bird. Pork is 4 pounds per pound of gain. And when you get to the ruminants, it skyrockets. Lamb requires 8 pounds of feed for a pound of weight gain, and beef requires 9 pounds of feed per pound of gain.” Grain production is extremely taxing on the environment, particularly in light of the chemical fertilizers, the nitrous oxide emissions, and the fossil fuel-intensive farming practices.

But here’s where there are gaps in the analysis: Ruminants are not designed to eat grain. Beef and lamb from grassfed farms do not eat grain. Grassfed dairy products are not fed grain. Ruminants can live off what our fields naturally produce – they harvest perennial grasses which do not need to be seeded every year, and they return nutrients to the soil. In a pinch, they can also eat things like straw and corn stalks – which means they have the magical capacity to convert crop production waste into food. Conventional factory-farmed red meats are bad for the environment. Grass-fed red meats are not. Most grass farms use no chemical inputs; and since the animals harvest the feed themselves by grazing, very few fossil fuels are required to produce the meat. In fact, grass-fed meats play an integral role in our carbon solution.

In 2005, the USDA released a report showing that properly managed pastures store 2 to 3 times more carbon in their soils than fields that were left unmanaged, used for hay, or left un-harvested. Another study released by the University of Iowa in 2002 showed that grazed pastures were the ideal land use for storing carbon. This means that properly grazing animals helps to reverse the greenhouse effect. Allan Savory, founder of the Center for Holistic management, has done calculations suggesting that we could actually reverse global warming by grazing cattle and using them to build soil organic matter. His work emphasizes, however, that this is only done through good grazing practices. Poor grazing practices have long been the culprits of desertification and environmental degradation. There is a difference; and the only way to identify sound practices is know your local farmer.

But in the crunching of their carbon calculations, the anti-red-meat advocates overlook another huge element in the push to buy locally. Food security is a big one. As we hit peak oil, it will get harder and harder to transport those non-local food products to the folks that need them. Isn’t it wiser to have a secure local food system in place? And then, of course, there are the issues of viable local economies, made vibrant by independent businesses, beautified by open farmland, and hopeful by families whose children can find a livelihood near home, rather than far away. And then, finally, there are the simple principles of non-exploitation and social justice that are embodied by the local food movement. This means paying us farmers honest wages for our work, which in turn enables us to steward the land responsibly, and create great tasting food…especially that rib eye, which I’ll be grilling up for lunch.
 
About Shannon Hayes
Shannon is the host of grassfedcooking.com, and the author of The Farmer and the Grill and The Grassfed Gourmet. She holds a Ph.D. in sustainable agriculture and community development from Cornell University. Her family farm is Sap Bush Hollow, it is located in Upstate New York.

Grass-Fed Meat

Deciphering the labels in the meat department in the supermarket has become increasingly difficult. Try figuring our what free range, organic, hormone free, no animal bi-products, no antibiotics means and you could go crazy. So if you don't have a higher degree in animal husbandry you probably would ask the butcher behind the glass for help right? Well in my experience  the butcher at Whole Foods, the only place I can buy the closest thing to non-industrial meat, gives me a different answer every time I ask the SAME question, "what does this mean?"

As far as I can figure out from my many trips to the store, organic meat and poultry is the best because they are fed an organic diet. In addition, as I recently learned from an organic farmer I met, the food you eat needs to have to be born from an organic mother to be considered organic. (Uh, oh, I was non-organic when I gave birth, does that mean my kids aren't organic?) Not sure about the father. But to get the really low down on all the labels check out these two really great articles from this week by the Diet Detective discussing the meat and poultry claims and labels. You can read them here and here.

  

So post reading The Omnivore's Dilemma and watching King Corn I started having dreams about Polyface farms, the farm that Michael Pollen lived at for a week. I had hopes of finding something like that in my area. I began looking online for grass-fed farmers near my home.  In my search I found a farm in upstate New York called Sap Bush Hollow Farm. While searching on the site I discovered that the daughter of the farms owner, Shannon Hayes, had written books on grass-fed meats. Wow, someone who could provide some information on grass-fed meat. I quickly emailed her, and she introduced me to grass fed beef and pork.  

It turns out that a typical industrial steak can have 3 times as much saturated fat the a grass-fed. As I learned in King Corn, a industrial farmed t-bone has approximately 9 grams of saturated fat compared to 3 grams in same size grass-fed t-bone. Wow that's a big difference. Shannon told me that many experts believe that 100 percent grass-fed meat is like a preventive and curative medicine in food form. Meat, eggs, and dairy products from pastured animals are believed to be ideal for health. Compared with commercial products, they offer more "good" fats, and fewer "bad" fats; are richer in antioxidants; including vitamins E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C. Grass-fed meats do not contain traces of added hormones, antibiotics or other drugs. And most importantly, beef from a grass-fed farm is believed to be free from mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE).

Shannon has written two books, The Grass-fed Gourmet and her most recent which hit shelves this month, The Farmer and The Grill: A Guide to Grilling, Barbecuing and Split-Roasting Grass-fed Meat and for Saving the Planet, One Bite at a Time. In addition to writing, Shannon and her family run a sustainable farm that raises and sells only grass-fed meats including beef, pork, lamb and poultry.

According the Shannon, "Grass-based farms are not industrial factories. The livestock on these farms are unique individuals and their genetics are going to vary, which means that some will be fatter, some larger, some leaner, some older, and some younger when they are read for processing. The key thing for anyone who cares about what they are eating, is to know that truly organic, grass-fed meat tastes different than what you are used to. It's more robust in flavor, but more of a challenge to cook. Grass-fed meats do not cook at the same temperatures, have the same texture or tastes, and even look a bit different. So for those people who want to eat better, for their health and the environment, I wrote the The Farmer and the Grill, to help these people get the most enjoyment and flavor out of the grass-fed foods they buy."

So with Shannon's newest book in hand, my husband and I fired up the BBQ and sloooow cooked a nice steak and pork chop on low heat. Why slow cooking on low heat? Because of the way the animals are raised, the meats are marbled differently, they are significantly less fatty, and have a different cooking profile. After following Shannon's directions (no BBQ sauce for Lewis' pork chop, which is a rarity) we got our steak knives and sat down to eat. With a bit of trepidation, we put the first bites into our mouths.  WOW, they were delicious. Not only were they much healthier for us but they tasted great too.  

So, if you can try some real meat, grass-fed, not grain (corn)-fed, and not Whole Foods grass-fed, which are corn-fed the month before slaughter to fatten them up, you'll be happy you did. 

To find a grass-fed farm in your area check out Eat Wild that has a state-by-state listing. Also on this this site is information on benefits of grass-fed meats for the animals, the environment, the farmer and for your health.  And check out Shannon's books and farm to get a true insight into the way meat is suppose to be raised.

King Corn: We are what we eat.

Corn, it is hot news these days. With crops at record prices and grocery bills rising everyone is looking at the corn industry. 

Corn is in almost everything we eat. Livestock is fed corn, farmed fish are fed corn, processed food are made of corn and the mighty sweeter, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is made of corn. Corn is even used to fuel our cars in the form of ethanol thanks to a poorly thought out government policy.

Well for those of you are interested in an introductory course on the corn, two college friends, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, filmed a documentary on the industry called "King Corn." This pretty amazing film will air on PBS on April 15th. 

What's the story here? Well, Ian and Curt decided to move to Iowa in 2003 for a year to plant one acre of corn to follow it from seed to table. What they find out raises scary questions not only about what Americans eat but also how our agriculture is farmed. 

Their journey takes them first to have their hair carbon tested at the University of Virginia to discover that their bodies are made out of more than 50% corn! From Virginia, they venture to fields of Iowa where acres and acres of farmland are planted with corn and the grain elevators are overflowing with corn. Then to the grasslands of Colorado where cattle use to graze.  The fields are now cornfields that feed the cows in feed-lots.  Ian and Curt look at every part of the corn production cycle. They even speak to a high fructose corn syrup producer who thinks the liquid sweetener is the best invention since sliced bread.  

Corn is a commodity and Ian and Curt learn this very quickly when they taste their industrial corn for the first time.  It was inedible! They discover for their corn to become any type of food it must be processed.  

The film is in large part a homage to Michael Pollen, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma. In "King Corn," Pollan states, "If you take a McDonald's meal, you don't realize it when you eat it but you're eating corn. Beef has been corn-fed. Soda is corn. Even the French fries -- half the calories in the French fries come from the fat they're fried in, which is liable to be either corn oil or soy oil. So when you're at McDonald's, you are eating Iowa food. Everything on the plate is corn." 

The agriculture system today is a result of America's government subsidized farm program.  In 1973, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz declared, "What we want out of agriculture is plenty of food."

 

Well, we have plenty of food but our nutritional supply has degraded. When Ian and Curt speak with one of the Iowa farmers about their crops, the farmer admits that they do not eat their corn.  As he states in the movie, "We aren't growing quality, we are growing crap."

Ian and Curt's acre harvested 10,000-pounds of corn which could yield 57,348 cans of soda or 3,894 corn-fed hamburgers.  Sixty-three percent of their harvest went into feed for livestock, 32% into ethanol and 5% into sweeteners like HFCS.

A great visual into to corn industry and the American food system, "King Corn" should become required viewing for all schools across the country to teach children to eat better.  

"King Corn" will air on PBS on April 15th at 10:00 PM.  You can also purchase the DVD on their website.  

The Whole is More than the Sum of its Parts.

So I finally finished Michael Pollan's most recent book In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto, a follow-up to  The Omnivore's Dilemma. In this new book Pollan explores what we should eat now and sums it up in seven words -- Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants.

However, more important than his conclusion of what to eat are Pollan's discussions of "The Age of Nutritionism." Nutritionism, coined in 2002 by the socialist, Gyorgy Scrinis, is a reductionist look at food -- understanding food in terms of its nutritional content.  

Many years ago I saw a movie called Mindwalk, one of the most philosophical and thought-provoking movies I have ever seen. The movie is based on the teachings of Fritjof Capra, a physicist and system theorist, and his book The Turning Point where he discusses the flaws of reductionist, Cartesian dualism, Newtonian paradigms and shows how modern society needs to develop holistic theories to solve today's problems. Basically the movie shows us that the way society looks at everything (global warming, deforestation, water pollution, etc.)  is by taking the issues apart piece by piece, mechanistically, and that we need to look at social issues as a whole rather than the sum of its parts.

Well, we are seeing this type of thinking with the rise of 'nutritionism' in the food we eat, and the way food science is trying to get us to think.  For example, walk down the aisles of the supermarket and you will see hundreds process food packages touting some nutrient or lack of nutrient claim -- now with antioxidants, vitamin rich, calcium added, low fat, no sugar added, low carb, no carb, low sodium, no trans fats...the list goes on.   (For a great commentary on these claims, read Mark Sisson's Daily Apple post on Ridiculous Health Claims, Mark's Daily Apple goes to the Grocery Store.) 

As Scrinis states, "Processed foods are often fortified with vitamins and minerals, or stripped of some of their fat, to enable such nutrient-content claims to be maid.  Nutrient claims on the labels of processed foods and drinks conceal the fact these foods are typically high in added fat, sugar, salt, chemicals, additives and reconstituted  ingredients, and have often been stripped of a range of beneficial micro-nutrients and food components. " (Sydney Morning Herald, Op-Ed, 2006) 

Our society has completely reduced the way we look at food into the nutrients or micronutrients -- whether good or bad.  Doing so has blurred the distinction between whole foods and processed foods.  A perfect example is Diet Coke Plus, diet soda with added nutrients.  Come on, diet soda with nutrients?  Who are they trying to fool?  So now we are getting our nutrients from a no-calorie drink?

We are now looking for processed foods for our "nutrients!"  Have we have completely forgotten how food grows?  Why fresh food, from the ground, grown without petroleum-based pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers is better for us than processed junk?

We need to remember the lessons of Capra and systems/holistic thinking.  Its connectedness and relationship to the earth, soil, sun, water, humans, etc.  It's a system that works as a whole and cannot be reduced to its smaller parts. Humans, plants, animals and the environment are a community that all work in concert with each other.  When we change one part, we change the perfect system. 

As Pollan state, "...food reveals itself for what it is: no mere thing but a web of relationships among a great many living beings, some of them human, some not but each of them dependent on the other, all of them ultimately rooted in soil and nourished by sunlight. ...the relationship between the plants and the soil, between the grower and the plants and animals he or she tends, between the cook and the growers who supply the ingredients, and between the cook and the people who will soon come to the table to enjoy the food.  It is a large community to nourish and be nourished by." (In Defense of Food, pp. 200-201)

So the next time you go to the supermarket and are about to buy Baked Lays or Kellogg's Whole Grain Pop Tarts, think about it for a moment before putting it into your cart.  Think about the provenance of the pop-tart.  Think about its components.  How they got there, how they were processed.  Think about all the energy needed to make something that's not "natural."  And finally think about if you want you, your family, your kids and your community to to be eating this stuff.

If have not had a chance to read In Defense of Food, read The New York Times Magazine, Unhappy Meals by Michael Pollan that is basically an overview of the book.

What do we eat now?

I recently finished reading the book by Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Yeah, I know I am a little behind the times. The book was released in 2006 but a figured it could be revisited because his newest book came out last month and is a follow-up to Omnivore's Dilemma.

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan investigates the American food system to find out what we should have for dinner. He examines both industrial and organic foods in addition to hunting and gathering for food. Pollan visits the corn farm in Iowa, the feedlots in Kansas, organic farms in California, a pastoral farm in Virginia, a free range chicken farm and even a fast-food restaurant to learn the difference between industrial, organic and pastural farming and ultimately finds out what goes into our food.

Although, Pollan does not end with a definitive answer of what we should eat (he saves that for his next book, In Defense of Food: A Eater's Manifesto, which I have not finished yet), you are left with such a distaste for the American food system that you have trouble eating anything without throughly examining its ingredients, origins and process by which it was produced or farmed.

Never in my life did I read a book that has forced me to make changes in my eating and shopping habits. Until this one.

So what did I learn? What can you take away from me reading Pollan's book? A few key things:

1. Corn is evil. Well, not exactly. Corn on the cob is still good. But most of the corn grown in the U.S. is either fed to animals which where not meant to eat corn in the first place or made into high fructose corn syrup, corn oil or a derivative and then used in some highly processed food such as soda. Laboratory analysis as reported by Pollan revealed that soda from McDonald's, a.k.a. Coca-Cola, is made of 100% corn!

2. Avoid industrial beef as much as possible which is fed a mixture of corn and antibiotics. Cows stomachs cannot digest corn so they are given antibiotics to ward off bacteria in the gut and other diseases from living in such close quarters. Chickens are no better.  

3. Free-range chickens do not exercise their option to roam free. They are given two weeks to exit their living quarters through tiny doors on each end of their home the size of a football field. None of them do.

4. Our food system uses way to much fossil fuel. For every calorie of process food it takes 10 calories of petroleum energy. A McDonald's meal for Pollan's family of three was a total 4,510 calories. "To grow and process those 4,510 food calories took at least 10 time as many calories of fossil energy, the equivalent of 1.3 gallons of oil." *  Petroleum is used from the start of the food process at the farm, for fertilizer, transport and then processing and cooking to serving.

5. Organic foods are the lesser of the evils.  Although organic farmed food is much better for the environment and our health, many of the organic foods travel a very long distance to get to our grocery stores from farms in South and Central American and other far off places using a lot of fossil fuel to transport.

6. Locally grown foods seems to be the way to the way to go.  The best organic foods are the ones grown closest to home.  It is estimated that some food travels more that 2,000 miles from pasture to plate.  Eating locally grown food means less fossil fuels burned in transport and preparation.  Better for the environment, better for your health, and better for the community.