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'

New study finds that you don't have to overeat to become obese.

Pollution contaminates our water, air, and land. It has been proven to cause asthma, allergies, cancer, emphysema, and whole host of other diseases. It causes global warming, kills our wildlife and now scientist from the Environmental Epidemiology at the Institut Municipal Investigacio Medica in Barcelona discovered it causes OBESITY.  

So in addition to fast foods and processed foods, pollution causes obesity? The Spanish study revealed that children who were exposed to a range of common chemicals and pesticides in the womb increased the childs chances of becoming obese. 

As reported in the journal Acta Paediatrica, scientists looked at the concentration of hexachloreobenzene (HCB) in the umbilical cord blood of 405 children born in Menorca from mid-1997 to mid-1998. Among those data point collected post birth, scientists looked at infant height and weight.  Feeding practices were reported by mothers in interviews at six months and one year after birth.  Additionally, the children’s height and weight were measured when they were 6.5 years old. The study revealed that children with the highest exposure to HCB were 2.5 times more likely to be overweight. The researchers also reported that these children were three times more likely to be obese than those with lower exposure levels. 

So, what is HCB? Hexachlorobenzene is a fungicide formerly used to treat seeds to control fungal disease. It was banned globally in the '90s under the Stockholm Convention which banned chemical substances that accumulate through the food chain, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. HCB has been banned in the US since 1965 but can still be found in our environment in 84 Superfund sites in the US and all across the world. It is a known animal cancinogen and a probable human carcinogen. Studies have found that HCB accumulates as your move up the food chain. Just like mercury, as it goes up the seafood food chain, HCB concentrations increase. Therefore, if you eat a large fish like tuna or swordfish that has been contaminated up the food chain, the concentrations of HCB would be extremely high.

So what else have children been exposed to prior to being born, and what impact might it have on my kids?

Previous studies have linked bisphenol A exposure to obesity in animals, and other studies have linked phthalates to obesity in adult men. As reported in the Telegraph in the United Kingdom, "The report's authors are now calling for exposure to similar pesticides to be minimised, including bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and cans of food, and phthalates, found in cosmetics and shampoos." Tests have shown BPA is found in 95% of Americans, while 90% have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb.

Between BPA, HCB, and phthalates, I'm frustrated and concerned. I would prefer to screw my kids up on my own and not worry about what their sippy cups or shampoos are made of, or what banned fungicides are in their foods.

What's keeping you up at night?

Cancer or Germs? I'll take the germs.

I must admit that in my house we might be thought to be a little lax when it comes to germs. I am not saying that we do not wash our hands when we go to the bathroom or before we eat. We play in the yard digging for bugs and worms and get big slobbery kisses from our dog. We are not afraid of dirt, and follow the "five second rule".  That said, we are a very clean family. We focus on washing our hands to ensure that there is no, as my 2 year says, durt when we touch food.  

Now, I have never been big on anti-bacterial soaps and hand sanitizer because I believe that we need to build up our immunity to bacteria and viruses to make us stronger. When the kids were infants I did use these types of cleaning products but now that they are older, these products are basically non-existent in our house.  

So when I was asked to test out a new, natural, non-toxic hand sanitizer, I was little disinterested but began a dialogue with the company because I was willing to learn more. One of the key points of this new product was they do not use triclosan a widely used anti-bacterial agent. 

What is triclosan you ask?  Well, this is what I learned and it is not a pleasant story...

Triclosan is antimicrobial and antifungal pesticide that is used in a wide variety of products found in retail stores across the country including soaps, toothpastes, cosmetics, deodorants, personal care products, first aid, kitchenware, computer electronics, toys, plastics, paints and clothing. It is widely known as Microban which is infused into everything from cutting boards, pillows and shoes because it inhibits the growth of microbes, such as bacteria, mold and mildew.  Ok, that does not sound that bad...yet.

However, according to Beyond Pesticides, a group dedicated to eliminating toxic and harmful pesticides from our environment, "Studies have increasingly linked one of the most common antimicrobial, triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems."  

As explained on Wikipedia

During wastewater treatment, a portion of triclosan is degraded while the remaining adsorbs to sewage sludge or exits the plant in wastewater effluent. In the environment, triclosan may be degraded by microorganisms or react with sunlight forming other compounds which may include chlorophenols and dioxin, or it may adsorb to particles that settle out of the water column and form sediment. Triclosan was found in Greifensee, a small lake in Switzerland, sediment that was over 30 years old, suggesting that triclosan is degraded or removed slowly in sediment.

Whoa....wait a minute,  Triclosan degrades into dioxins and chlorophenols, both are known carcinogens. Studies have shown that ultraviolet light converts triclosan to dioxins and it is believed that sunlight could transform triclosan to dioxins naturally. Scientist at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, VA tested 16 products including soaps, lotions and body wash with triclosan and without.  They discovered that the triclosan products reacted with chlorinated water to produce chloroform, another carcinogen.  So this stuff breaks down into cancer causing agents. I think we'll keep our hands a bit dirtier and live longer.

In a press release from the Environmental Working Group, the organization states:

Triclosan has been linked to cancer in lab animals, has been targeted for removal from some stores in Europe for its health and environmental risks, and the American Medical Association recommends against its use in the home. It is also linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and low levels of triclosan may disrupt the thyroid hormone system. Thyroid hormones are essential to proper growth and development, particularly for brain growth in utero and during infancy.

Triclosan breaks down into very toxic chemicals, including a form of dioxin; methyl triclosan, which is acutely toxic to aquatic life; and chloroform, a carcinogen formed when triclosan mixes with tap water that has been treated with chlorine. Scientists surveyed 85 U.S. rivers and streams, and found traces of triclosan in more than half.

Just last month, Beyond Pesticides, along with Food and Water Watch, Greenpeace US, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and dozens of public health and environmental groups filed a comment/letter with the Environmental Protection Agency, urging the the agency to stop all non-medical use of triclosan because of its detromental effects on our health and the environment. You can read the press release and comments submitted to the EPA by clicking here and here. 

As I mentioned, triclosan can be found in many, many everyday products. To see a detailed list of products and brands, check out the list on Beyond Pesticides by clicking here. Some very well known brands are on the list like Colgate Total toothpaste. Toothpaste? How scary is that? You are putting triclosan and therefore carcinogens directly into your mouth and your body! So rinse and spit, and now you have chloroform. The Colgate website touts "Colgate Total® formula is so revolutionary it's even patented. One of its active ingredients is triclosan, which is used to help prevent plaque and gingivitis. The formula's copolymer enables triclosan to continue working in the mouth for 12 hours." Great so use this toothpaste and triclosan will stay in your mouth for 12 hours!  That's 12 more hours of exposure to a potential cancer causing agent than I want.

So how do we get rid of those unwanted germs when we really need to. Well let's go back to that product I dismissed at first. It is called Clean Well made from Ingenium, a natural germ killing product derived from thyme and other essential oils. According to the company, Clean Well kills 99.99% of germs on contact including E. Coli, Salmonella, Staph (MRSA) and Pseudomonas. Clean Well is made from a renewable resource that is sustainably grown with no pesticides, irrigation or fertilizer and there are no toxic byproducts from the manufacturing process. Clean Well comes in a spray, as hand wipes and hand wash foam.  So for when you have a house full of sick kids or are cooking with chicken and want to kill germs, you now can avoid triclosan. 

To read more about triclosan check out the Environmental Working Group site where they give detailed information on the effects of triclosan on our health and the environment, what products contain triclosan and much, much more. 

Those germs don't look so bad anymore....you gonna give up your anti-bacterial soaps, or are you gonna to keep on using triclosan-based products? 

Sustainable wine: Wolffer Estates

This week my husband wanted to take a crack a writing.  It is a subject that he is very fond of so I have taken the editor role and he is the writer.  Hope you all enjoy.  

Ok, I love wine. There I said it. I love it, and have a glass just about every night of the week -- partially because one or two glasses of red is good for lowering my cholesterol and partially because I just love the taste, the warming feel it gives in my belly. I don’t know all that much about wine, but know what I like and what I don’t.

Now you may not know who I am, but I’m Melissa’s husband (and editor) so I’m just about as much a nut when it comes to environmental issues as she is. Just about, but I do leave the occasional light on, and I do let the shower run to long in the morning before I get in so I’m not perfect.

I was really excited when Melissa told me that we had been invited to Wolffer Estates in Sagaponack, NY (The Hamptons) for a private tour and interview with the head winemaker and general manager, Roman Roth. Long Island wines have had a pretty spotty reputation, but a few vineyards are known for a consistent and quality product, and Wolffer is one of them. So needless to say I was psyched; I’d get to taste some really nice wines, and talk with someone who is VERY knowledgeable about winemaking.

Until now, I thought my nightly wine drinking necessitated me breaking my environmental vows. But I discovered from our visit to Wolffer, the vineyard is not only known for their reputation for good wine but for their sustainable wine growing/making practices.

Wine making on Long Island has a relatively short history. On Long Island alone there are more than 43 vineyards (according to the Long Island Wine Council). These winemakers cover nearly 3,000 acres and produce upwards of 4,000 tons of grapes a year. So for a small area, Long Island produces a lot of wine, employs a lot of people, and generates a lot of revenue. The first commercial vineyard was planted in 1973, and Wolffer’s first vines were planted in 1987. Wolffer has two area’s planted, one covering 50 acres (which we visited) and another 20 planted on the North Fork of the island. The vineyard produces around 15,000 cases of wine a year. Wolffer is not the only sustainable vineyard on Long Island, there are 7 others, but it’s among the most vocal in touting its farming practices.

Now before I get to the wine, let me take a moment to explain what sustainable growing practices are or “Sustainable Agriculture”.  According to the University of California, Davis: “Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals--environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, stewardship of both natural and human resources is of prime importance. Stewardship of human resources includes consideration of social responsibilities such as working and living conditions of laborers, the needs of rural communities, and consumer health and safety both in the present and the future. Stewardship of land and natural resources involves maintaining or enhancing this vital resource base for the long term.”

Why should you or I care if the wine we are drinking is grown sustainably? As a consumer, and someone who cares about environmental and health issues, we can make purchasing decisions that encourage the type of practices we all want to see used.

While the definition of sustainable agriculture is constant, the method varies from region to region, reflecting differences in soil and crop, climate and management styles. For the grape growers of New York State, it’s a process by which growers choose practices that are environmentally responsible while still maintaining the economic viability of the business. Some methods include efficient use of equipment, maintaining soil health and vine nutrition and managing vines for improved pest control.

Roman told us that Wolffer had not used any insecticides in eight years. This was both due to the fact that there hadn’t been any major outbreaks of bugs in the region and that the vineyard has made a decision to farm sustainably. Pests can kill a crop. Fungus can destroy both a crop and the vines themselves. To protect against fungus, Wolffer doesn’t use industrial fungicides, rather Roman sprays his vines with Stylet-Oil. “Stylet-Oil is a food grade, high purity mineral oil. It has had impurities removed through additional distillation steps involving high pressure and steam, leaving a tech white mineral oil-similar to Johnson's Baby Oil. Additional ingredients include emulsifying materials blended into the oil allowing it to mix with water,” according to Jeff Symons President of JMS Flower Farms (makers of Stylet-Oil).

While walking between the rows of Chardonnay grapes, Roman showed us the way the vines had been planted. Amazingly Wolffer had been designed to focus not on increasing yield, but rather increasing the viability of the overall vineyard. Every other season, Wolffer field-hands plant mustard and clover plants in between ever other row of vines to help mitigate pest. There are four acres of wildflowers planted to encourage bees to visit the vineyard to assist in pollination.

Well over the course of an hour talking with Roman we discussed Wolffer’s commitment to sustainable farming while sipping some truly nice and memorable wines.

We started off with the Wolffer Rosé from 2007. As we sat outside, on their covered patio, overlooking the vineyard, Melissa and I were treated to a very nice, crisp Rosé with just enough fruit to keep it honest. Neither of us expected to like this refreshing wine, as we both tend to like full-bodied reds to blended, chilled whites. But, it was hot, it had taken us nearly 2 hours (in Hamptons traffic) to get to Wolffer and this Rosé really took the bite off the heat.

I asked Roman if Wolffer had chosen to farm sustainably for economic or marketing reasons. Roman stated quickly that for Wollfer “…this is a decision made from a healthy vineyard perspective. This is the right approach to keeping a healthy vineyard, to keeping it alive with its own bio dynamic.” Roman explained that while it might cost a bit more to farm in this fashion, with a tunnel sprayer to collect the drippings from any sprayed fertilizer or stylet oil to keep fungus outbreaks down, that long-term it made better economic and environmental sense for Wolffer.

As Roman poured us our second glass of wine, a sparkling Brut Cuvee from 2004 the talk turned to whether or not Wolffer was an organic vineyard. Turns out it is not, but this might not be such a bad thing according to Roman, “By keeping very neat rows and open canopies we have less fungus pressure. We are not organic but, we try to do as much as possible. You have to work your way towards organic and sustainable farming. You can’t just do it over night…well you can, but you’ll make horrible wine, and that’s not in anyone’s best interest.” And in this instance the proof of this fact was in the tasting. This champagne-style wine was excellent – sharp, but not bitter, crisp with a bit of apple taste to it, and very drinkable. Continuing on the discussion of Wolffer’s organic goals, Roman told us it was a possibility but not a guarantee.

After a walk through the rows of vines we went back to the patio for our final glass of wine of the afternoon, a truly impressive Merlot from 2004. Now this was more to our tastes. The wine was bold for a Merlot, with a strong flavor of berries and a smoky, coffee flavor. As the final taste of the afternoon, we settled in to enjoy the sun, the view (Wolffer’s tasting room/patio is one of the most beautiful I’ve been in) and finish our conversation about the value of sustainable viticulture. Roth summarized the entire sustainable winemaking philosophy perfectly, “You have you to be a steward for all of this (the environment), this has to last for hundreds of years, and this sustainable movement is helping us both today, and tomorrow.”

If you are every in the Hamptons, I suggest stopping at Wolffer Estates tasting room. Sit on the patio looking at the beautiful vineyard while drinking some really good wine that has been produced in manner that is not only good for you but the environment.

Organic Booze?

My husband and I are not big drinkers but recently we both wanted a beer.  In trying to make our home, and lives greener we decided to try an organic beer.  On a recommendation from a Whole Foods employee, we bought Peaks Organic Amber Ale.  The beer was tasty and a great alternative to our favorite non-organic beer Sam Adams.  

It got me thinking about spirits such as vodka and gin, which we only have in the house for guests.  The first thing that always comes to mind when I think about how vodka is potatoes.  Now I do not think that much of today's vodka is make out of potatoes anymore but "hard" liquor is made out of some type of crop, a crop that is most likely over-farmed and covered with tons of pesticides degrading land and water.  

Well in today's Wall Street Journal, Joseph De Vila wrote an article entitled "Organic Liquor." De Vila did a taste test of 3 organic vodkas and 1 organic gin.  More important than his taste test is what Melkon Khosrovian, co-founder of distiller Modern Spirits, said in the piece about what is the point of drinking organic spirits. "It's about sustainable farming," he says, arguing that traditional farming involves pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which can be harmful to farmers who come in contact with it and the ground used to grow the ingredients. "We would like to support farmers to move away from those processes," Mr. Khosrovian says.

Both Smirdoff and Absolut vodkas are made from grain, but grain from industrial farms.  Modern Spirits new TRU, certified organic vodka, is made from organic wheat. In addition, TRU comes in 100% recycled, recyclable or biodegradable packaging. And for every bottle sold, Modern Spirits plants new trees in tropical zones (where they are cut down in the greatest numbers) to pass on a better planet to the next generation of vodka drinkers.

Now since I have not have the opportunity to taste any of Modern Sprits organic vodkas or the other brands mentioned by De Vila (Orange V Vodka, Rain Vodka, and Juniper Green Organic London Dry Gin), I cannot attest to the taste.  But De Vila seemed to like them all.  I hope to try them in the future.

Have any of you tasted them?  I would love to hear what you think of organic beers and liquors. 

Green in Paris

So I think I have used up my allotment of fossil fuels for at least the remainder of this year or more likely the next decade. Why? My husband surprised me with a birthday trip to Paris last weekend. 

American's have a love/hate relationship with the French. So of course as an American and a Greeniac, I had to do some hardcore observations of Parisian "green" habits and compare them to what we do here.  What I discovered from my four days in the "City of Lights" is as follows.

(1) Recycling
There is a recycling program in place in Paris, but I am not sure if the Parisians are interested in recycling. On some streets they have huge recycling bins for bottles and cans but most of them were covered with graffiti (which happens to be all over the city). In the parks, they do have recycling bags next to the the garbage bags but as you can see in the picture,  recyclables are also placed in the garbage bag. On a walking tour the Marias, I asked our tour guide about how well the Parisian recycle. She said they are horrible and during our tour she opened a recycling bin from an apartment building to show us what she meant. It was filled with recyclables and non-recyclables.

(2) Reusables
My husband and I went in a few supermarkets (which I love to do whenever I travel abroad) and outdoor markets and I think I saw maybe 5 people using resusable bags. The worst was in the outdoor markets where you can buy fruits, vegetables, meats, cheese, bread, fish, flowers and much more. The biggest one we went to was in Versailles, and everything was put in a plastic bag. Many did bring there own reusable bag but those bags were then stuffed with plastic bags. It appeared to me that they may use more plastic bags than we use.

(3) Transportation
Paris is a very busy city with lot of traffic. But I would not say that they have any more traffic then New York City. They do drive smaller, and most likely, more efficient cars (I didn't see 1 hummer or SUV) and many people do ride bikes and take the subway. I think more people ride bikes in Paris then they do in Manhattan--but not as many as in Beijing. But the most ingenious thing that we observed in Paris was a bike rental system called Velib. The system began in July 2007, with 10,000 bikes, and now they are up to 20,000 bikes all over Paris. Riders can buy monthly, daily or hourly passes to rent bike stationed at more than 1,400 automated stations across the city. A bike can be rented from one station and returned to another. From what we saw, and from the doubling of the number of bikes in use, it appears that the Parisians love the system. My husband and I wished we had more time to try it out. Its funny, the first few days in Paris we weren't sure what these bikes were. Initially we thought they were motorized, then we didn't understand the rental system. By the time we figured out what was what it was it was time to go. I wonder if this would work in NYC.   

(4) Food
So those of you who read my blog know that I have an obsession with food.  Our trip there had some gastronomic highs--the picnic in Versaille and some lows--dinner at Chez Andre off the Champs-Elysées.   So of course I had to d find out where the French food comes from. Well I think this is a department that they really do better than we do. French farmer say no to GMOs--they even strike and riot to oppose them on a semi-regular basis. None of the fruits or vegetables grown in France are from genetically modified seeds. NONE! We can't say anything like that here. You can also find organic produce in Paris. We spoke to some butchers and they insisted that none of the meat is treated with antibiotics or hormones and that beef is grass-fed.  One of the butchers we spoke with even made a stink face when referring to grain fed beef.  I could not find anywhere on the internet to confirm or deny this so I have to take their word, for now. I did ask Shannon Hayes, a grass-fed beef farmer, of Sap Bush Farms and she said "It is my understanding is that not all meat in France is grass-fed. But a fair amount is. Quite often it depends on the breed - charolais beef, for example, is supposed to be exclusively raised on grass. When I was there I saw a lot of cattle grazed and fed in the barn - a model that is infinitely more sustainable than factory farms, but not, according to our strict definitions grass-fed. The meat is also much more likely to be raised on small farms, not from confinement facilities."

So what do I take from my trip to Paris.

1-  Thank you Lewis...I didn't thank you when I was there, but I'm thanking you now.

2- The food there was at times over rated, and at times sublime.  The baguettes in Versailles where the best I've ever had.

3- We might do a better job in recycling, and in moving towards a bag-less shopping experience, but I'm not sure.

4- The quality of the produce in Paris far surpasses what we have here.  I was thrilled by the freshness, the quality and the shopping experience.

5- Four days is just not enough time to be in Paris, but we missed our kids, and wanted to come home.

I'd love to hear about your "green" international observations.

Another Point for the Organic Industry!

For years I've been a big supporter of the organic movement. But recently I made a decision to make a change in my buying behaviors and bring my beliefs into my home. Now, it is hard to find food in my house that is not organic. There so many reasons to purchase organic foods, first and foremost, organic foods are better for the environment and of equal importance, better for you health.

Just last month, I wrote about a study that revealed that the pesticides applied to industrial fruit and veggies enter our bodies and show up in our saliva and urine. Happily, this is not a permanent problem.  Once you switch to organic produce you can "get clean".  The same study showed that after switch to organic foods, the industrial pesticides were no longer present if your body within 8-36 hours after switch. You can my earlier post on this topic here. 

If that isn't enough to change your buying habits, two more studies on organic foods were published last week that are sure to make you rethink your food choices.

The first study, from the Organic Center was entitled "New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods." The report compared the nutrient content in conventional vs. organic foods, based on the findings of 97 published studies. The study revealed the following:

• Organic plant-based foods are on average, more nutritious in terms of their nutrient density for compounds.
• The average serving of organic plant-based food contains about 25% more nutrients compared with the same food produced by conventional farming methods.
  
• There is strong evidence that poultry and livestock that consume organic feed produce meat, milk and eggs that are more nutritious. 

So plainly said, organic food is healthier for you, and has more nutrients per serving.  

Studies like this make me feel all that much better about buying organic. It is better for me to eat "green,"  but is it better for the farmer?

So the first question here is, do you care? I do, and the reason why is that unless farmers can be as productive and profitable growing organic, I won't be able to buy the foods I want to. So, is organic farming a smart business decision for Farmer John?

Yes! Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison conducted a study to see if organic farms can be as productive as conventional industrial farming systems.  As reported in the March-April issue of the Agronomy Journal, "The answer is an unqualified, "Yes" for alfalfa or wheat and a qualified "Yes most of the time" for corn and soybeans."

These are THE most important cash crops for the American farmer, and if they can be as productive, meaning getting an equivalent yield per acre, then there is truly no incentive to grow industrial foods, except for its easier. But, most farmers, want to grow food they can eat, they can be proud of, and won't hurt the land or the people eating it.

Finally, there is money in the organic foods industry. As I wrote in an earlier posting, last year American's spent $20 billion on organic foods. While that isn't close to the overall food spend, that ain't chump change. Also the trends are that people are buying more and more organics.

So, get on the bandwagon, get healthy and buy organic.

Pesticides revealed...go Organic

A few years ago, I read a book by Seattle Times reporter, Duff Wilson called Fateful Harvest. The book revealed how hazardous waste from America's industrial plants are made into fertilizer. This fertilizer is then applied onto the food we eat.  Crazy right?  How can this be? Well the book was published in 2002 and it is still happening!

A study published this week in the Environmental Health Perspectives revealed that "harmful pesticides are found in everyday foods."  As reported by the Seattle Post Intelligencer, children eating conventional foods from the grocery store, urine and saliva tested positive for pesticides.  However, when they ate organic foods (fruit, veggies and juices), no signs of pesticides were found.  The study also discovered that "within 8-36 hours of the children switching to organic foods, the pesticides were no longer detected."

I have to admit that I have fallen victim to sticker shock in the grocery story when organic blueberries are $5.99 for a small container.  Well, no longer.  I am convinced that organic is the way to go.