Absences down after chef changed junk food menu – a result which is a boost for celebrity as he struggles for US support

• Rachel Williams
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 March 2010 20.21 BST
• Article history

Jamie Oliver promoting healthy eating in Glasgow. Photograph: Rex Features

He has been ridiculed by the chat show host David Letterman, accused of high-handedness by a local radio DJ and reduced to tears by recalcitrant fast food-consumers during his war on American obesity. He has even dressed up as a giant pea pod in an attempt to turn the US on to his healthy eating agenda.

So Jamie Oliver will doubtless be relieved to hear of a timely reminder of his more gilded reputation back home. Today an audience of prestigious economists was told that the healthier school dinners introduced by the celebrity chef had not only significantly improved pupils’ test results, but also cut the number of days they were off sick. The effects, researchers said, were comparable in magnitude to those seen after the introduction of the literacy hour in the 90s.

The proportion of 11-year-olds in Greenwich, south London, who did well in English and science rose after Oliver swept “turkey twizzlers” and chicken dinosaurs off canteen menus in favour of creamy coconut fish and Mexican bean wraps, according to a study of results in the south east London borough.

The number of “authorised absences” — which are generally due to illness – fell by 15% in the wake of his 2004 Feed Me Better campaign, brought into the nation’s sitting rooms via the Channel 4 series Jamie’s School Dinners.

But the annual conference of the Royal Economic Society also heard that the poorest pupils – those who are eligible for free school meals – did not seem to benefit. Instead it was mainly children from more middle class homes who saw their scores boosted after Oliver’s junk food ban was implemented.

The researchers estimated that the proportion of students who got level 4 in their English Sats at key stage 2 increased by 4.5 percentage points after his intervention.

The percentage who got level 5 in science was up 6 percentage points, they reported.

Oliver described the research results as “fantastic”. “It’s the first time a proper study has been done into the positive effects of the campaign and it strongly suggests we were right all along,” he said.

“Even while doing the programme, we could see the benefits to children’s health and teachers. We could see that asthmatic kids weren’t having to use the school inhalers so often, for example.

“We could see that it made them calmer and therefore able to learn.”

The chef said it was further evidence that faster movement was needed towards improving take-up of nutritious, home-cooked school meals across the country, by training dinner ladies, getting kitchens and dining halls up to scratch and educating children and parents.

The presentation of the findings comes at a convenient time for Oliver, whose US version of the Greenwich project, currently being shown on the ABC network, has seen locals in America’s unhealthiest city, Huntington, West Virginia, give him short shrift.

“We don’t want to sit around and eat lettuce all day,” radio DJ Rod Willis snapped at Oliver during the first episode of Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. “You come to town and you say you’re going to change our menus. I just don’t think you should come here and tell us what to do.”

Last week the Essex-born chef appeared on the Late Show, and was forced to listen to host David Letterman predict he would fail in his crusade to transform people’s health. Letterman insisted diet pills were the only way to lose weight in the US.

Michèle Belot, of Oxford university’s Nuffield College, and Jonathan James from the University of Essex, monitored results and absences in five neighbouring local authorities – chosen for their socio-economic similarities to Greenwich — as a control. They looked at figures from 2002 to 2007 – skipping the school year 2004/5, when the new menus were introduced.

The effects seen, they said, were particularly impressive given that they emerged within a relatively short period of time, and that the campaign was not even directly targeted at improving educational outcomes.

“As indicated by the relative fall in absenteeism, it is likely that children’s health improved as well, which could have long-lasting consequences for the children involved not only through improvement in educational achievements, but also in terms of their life expectancy, quality of life and productive capacity on the labour market,” the study said.

A survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers presented at its conference in Manchester today found that almost seven in 10 union members thought all primary school pupils should be given free school meals.

The same number wanted controls in place to limit the sale of chocolate, sweets, crisps and deep fried foods.

A third said the dining room at their school was unsuitable, and 56% said they had seen pupil behaviour deteriorate after eating food with a high fat or sugar content.

James said the research team was now looking at why children from poorer homes seem to miss out on the benefits of the changes brought in by Oliver.

“This is a source of concern, in particular in light of using school meals as a way of reducing disparities in diet across children,” the report said.

It suggested the difference might be because those from richer backgrounds adjusted more easily to changes in school meals, or because the less privileged students were more represented among those getting lowest scores, and improvements were harder to achieve for those at the bottom than in the middle.

Meanwhile there are signs that the tide in the US may be turning in Oliver’s favour just as it did in Greenwich, where initial hostility from dinner ladies eventually turned to adoration. More than 100,000 people have signed an online petition supporting his campaign for better school food. After he appeared with Oprah Winfrey on Friday, 7.5 million people tuned in to watch his show.

The old Greenwich menu…

Burgers and chips

Sausage rolls

Fish fingers

Drumstick-shaped turkey nuggets

Chicken nuggets (pictured)

And the new one Roast beef and all the trimmings

Mushroom and lentil bake

Mexican bean wrap (pictured)

Lamb and vegetable pie

Creamy coconut fish



Vegetable expert and bestselling cookbook author Mollie Katzen’s handwritten and illustrated cookbook, The Moosewood Cookbook, (not to mention The Enchanted Broccoli Forest and her cookbooks for children, Pretend Soup and Honest Pretzels) introduced many to the love of cooking. She was inducted into the James Beard Cookbook Hall of Fame in 2007 and her most recent book, Get Cooking, was recently nominated for an International Association of Culinary Professionals Award. Beloved by many, new to some, Katzen continues her clarion call for taking back our food system one delicious meal at a time. I recently spoke to Mollie about vegetables, the new Good Food Movement, and the radical necessity of cooking.

CE: What do you make of the so-called Good Food Movement?

MK: It depends on who you talk to. It does seem that young people in their 20s mostly have food awareness, but you can’t generalize. I have a daughter in college and she’s a conscious eater, but her friends think she’s weird for eating healthy. So there’s still a stigma that eating healthy is weird, it’s not American. Back then, I was considered a “health food nut” because I broke away from the meat and potatoes that my mom served. And here, a generation later, my daughter is getting the same reputation.

What’s encouraging and exciting is that there are more farmers’ markets and there’s a growing awareness around food. For example, the campaign against transfats has been very effective. I’m also seeing a lot of encouraging food activism—but there’s a lot of work to do. And healthy food consciousness should not to be confused with our new food celebrity culture—TV shows like Top Chef, Iron Chef—have created a gap in what people are seeing on TV and the reality of what they’re eating.

CE: How do you think we got here?

MK: It used to be that we didn’t trust food in packaging and now we don’t trust food not in packaging. In the early 20th Century, the best job that a psychologist could have was working in advertising, which was really fashioned around selling and packaging food. The very first food packaging came from Heinz—they were pickling tomatoes, making horseradish, and experimenting with putting food in cans and jars. Somehow, they convinced folks to accept packaging and advertising—and we really received the message. They excelled at convincing people they needed something that they couldn’t live without it. And in fact, we came to not only trust it, but to think it was better and more desirable.

We’ve gone so far away from the source of our food. There was a time when we knew our farmers and where our food came from. But we’ve been greatly urbanized. By the time I became a cookbook author, I began working in an urban pre-school, planting vegetables so the children could see where their food comes from. I once asked them where they thought pizza came from and they said it came from a telephone—because that’s how they got pizza, from a delivery service. So I took them on a little field trip to a working farm called the Pizza Farm—it had an herb garden with oregano and thyme, they grew wheat and had a cow. Then we made a pizza together. That kind of literacy is essential.

CE: How do we undo this? How do we rewire people to learn the basics about food?

MK: The very basic act of cooking is becoming a radical necessity. That’s why I wrote Get Cooking, because people asked me to lay out the simple basics of how to cook. I wanted to give people the tools they need to make easy recipes, four to five things you can cook well. It sounds simple, but that’s the key to people digging their way out of bad food. They need to know how to shop and how to make food in their busy day and in a small kitchen. I wish cooking was required in school, but until then, we’ve got to teach simple lessons.

CE: You’ve got a fantastic companion Web site to Get Cooking and you’re now on Twitter. How has social media changed the game for you?

MK: I wanted to keep the book small and inexpensive, but I also wanted to provide videos online to allow for interactivity. So, on my own behalf, and with the backing of Kashi, I put together the Web site Get Cooking for the YouTube generation. I wanted to provide the basics: how to shop for a melon (look for “Melon Knowledge”) or what knives you should buy (look for “Knives”) and how to cook basics like stirfry, polenta, and pilaf. The videos are free and accessible to everyone.

I promised my publisher I would engage in social media and I’ve found Twitter to be more in the moment and vital than Facebook. I try and follow people who I believe are doing good work. I’m strict with what I tweet. I try to use it to be useful and retweet information I find important, or as a means to exposing people and ideas which I think need more exposure. On occasion, I might tweet what I’m cooking or I might describe what I’m eating if I think it might be of interest. But, I also take time off from Twitter.

CE: People seem surprised to find out you’re not a vegetarian.

I’ve never said I was a vegetarian, or that anyone else should be one. What I have said is, here are some ways that you can go meatless if you want to. I’ve said, here is my cuisine—it doesn’t include meat. And somehow, it’s been interpreted by some that I am a leader of a movement, which I never saw myself as. I will always eat vegetables and grain. I’m a vegetablist, a pro-vegetable person. But, I’m very tired of people who define themselves by what they don’t eat. For some, being vegetarian is more about the absence of meat and not about the presence of vegetables. I know plenty of vegetarians who don’t eat vegetables. I’m more interested in getting people to eat healthy food. I want to know: “What’s your attitude towards food, do you cook your own food, do you like it?”

Recently, Newsweek wrote a piece about lapsed vegetarians and even though I’m quoted, I was never interviewed for the story, which created a lot of misinformation. As a result, I received a lot of angry letters from a lot people. I wrote this rebuttal, which was not printed:

I feel a bit misrepresented by this article, which seems to draw a line in the sand with “animal eaters” on one side and “leaf eaters” on the other. I have always seen healthy eating as a continuum, not a dichotomy (and certainly not a game of “which side are you on”). I have never been dogmatic against meat-eating. Rather, my goal has always been, and continues to be, to inspire everyone (including meat-averse vegetarians, some of whom often find themselves eating fewer actual vegetables than one would think) eating greener—more of what I like to call “garden- and orchard-based” foods. My ideal Wonderful World would have everyone loving (and able to access) abundant, delicious dishes made from leafy greens, earthy grains ,and tasty nuts and legumes—and to have these items dominate every dinner plate. As you’ve mentioned, I included a few meat recipes in my most recent book, as I have many readers (old and especially new) who are beginners and omnivorous and want to learn to cook the things they love to eat. I’m hoping that meat-lovers (and also occasional meat nibblers, such as myself) will gain enough knowledge to know how to source it sustainably, and to learn how to eat less of it. Thus empowered, everyone will be able to happily avoid supporting the highly destructive fast food industry and factory farming of animals. If this sounds contradictory, let’s all talk about it more. It’s a discussion worth having–a big-tent conversation toward our common goal of sustainability, regardless of our food choices and tastes. Cook on!

My point is that everybody needs to work together to create a food supply that’s as sustainable as possible. Whether you like meat or not, everybody needs to fight against industrial food production. All meat eaters need to eat less meat and to eat more of a plant-based diet. We forget we can sit down at the same table and do this together. That’s why I’m involved in the Meatless Monday campaign; I want to make sure that people have plenty of choices low on the food chain.

CE: What advice do you have for someone who wants to get started in food now?

MK: Get over the food celebrity and cooking-on-TV-as-entertainment. Don’t try to be famous; learn how to cook and you will always have a job, because people will always need to eat. The gap between celebrity and real food being cooked is huge. People are watching TV, but there’s so few people cooking good, honest food. That is the stuff of daily life. If you know how to cook you’ve got a skill. Long after the TV’s off, you’re still going to need to eat. Go to the other end of the spectrum and become a skilled cook. Learn how to cook in volume, learn how to make soup for 80 people, a vegetarian casserole for 100 people. Develop a trade that enables you to go into an institutional place—schools and hospitals—and make food in the trenches. Become an activist so that food cooking is as respectable as it possibly can be.

//

Naomi Starkman is a food policy media consultant to Consumers Union and others. She served as the Director of Communications & Policy at Slow Food Nation ’08 and has been a media consultant to The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, GQ and WIRED magazines. She was previously a senior publicist at Newsweek magazine and was the Director of Communications for the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR). From 1997 to 2000, she served as Deputy Executive Director of the S.F. Ethics Commission. She is the co-founder of Civil Eats and Kitchen Table Talks, a local food forum in San Francisco, and a board member of 18 Reasons, a nonprofit connecting community through food. Naomi works with various clients on food policy and advocacy and is an aspiring organic grower, having worked on several farms.

Corporate Takeovers & Monopolistic Practices

The $25 Billion organic marketplace has enjoyed substantial growth for over a decade, thanks to growing consumer consciousness and farmer innovation.

No longer a passing trend or simply a niche market, organic food and farming are proving to be a viable alternative to the unhealthy, unsustainable and unjust conventional food system.

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called “natural” food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeoverof many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

Perpetrating “Natural” Fraud

Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are “certified organic.”

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and organic.

A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large companies from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called “natural” products. With the exception of the “natural” meat sector, where there are limited voluntary guidelines, there is no definition of “natural.” In the majority of cases, “natural” products are greenwashed conventional products, with “natural” label claims neither policed nor monitored.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while organic farmers continue to lose market share to “natural” imposters. It’s no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic.

Excluding Small and Family Farms

Whole Foods and UNFI’s business model of centralized sourcing and prioritizing natural products over organic rewards large corporate farms and processors, to the detriment of local and regional small-scale organic farmers and brands.

Organic farmers must “get big or get out” to be able to compete and have free access to markets. Many industrial organic farms and dairy operations reflect the same abuses and problems of the conventional food system: extremely energy intensive, systematic abuse of workers, reduced food quality, and damage to biodiversity.

So-called “natural” products, since they are actually in most cases conventional products in disguise, are being sold at lower prices than genuine organic products–thereby retarding the growth of the organic sector.

Organic and Local Food?

In light of the food system’s significant contribution to the climate crisis and the deepening economic troubles facing local food economies, it is more important than ever to prioritize locally produced organic food.

Though Whole Foods talks a lot about supporting local food and producers, the fact is that the vast majority of their products are not local, and much of what they sell is sourced from a small number of industrial organic operations in California, often owned by the same conventional food conglomerates responsible for destroying the world’s food system.

Organic Monopoly and the “Whole Paycheck” Phenomena

UNFI has undermined the growth of the organic movement by implementing an unfair tiered pricing system that gives Whole Foods deep discounts while other grocers, coops and independent retailers pay significantly higher prices, in effect subsidizing UNFI for its reduced profits at Whole Foods.

With UNFI as the largest organic (but of course their sales are mostly so-called “natural” products) food wholesaler and Whole Foods as the largest organic (like UNFI most of its sales are “natural”) food retailer, organic consumers are assured higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices.

Cancer in a Bottle?

In 2008, the Organic Consumers Association exposed a problem which particularly threatens women – a large number of leading conventional as well as “natural” and “organic” brands of shampoos, lotions, cosmetics and household cleaning products which contained the carcinogen 1,4-Dioxane.

Included in the list of products were several Whole Food’s 365 brand products and many products in the UNFI catalog.

While several dozen companies have committed to eliminating the 1,4-Dioxane, neither Whole Foods, nor UNFI, have endorsedOCA’s Coming Clean Campaign, nor have they called on the USDA to crack down on blatant labeling fraud in the organic personal care and cosmetics sector.

Corporate Consolidation of Organics

In the last decade, the organic marketplace has experienced hyper consolidation, with numerous small to medium-sized farmers, manufacturers and retailers being taken over by larger, profit-hungry corporations.

Whole Foods has employed an expansion strategy that resembles Wal-Mart with its targeting of local and independent retailers with new store locations while steadily buying out competitors like Wild Oats.

UNFI has also grown rapidly over the last decade, in part by aggressively taking over other distributors, regional wholesalers and manufacturers.

Organics for Elites?

The organic food and farming movements were born out of the desire to provide healthy and safe food to all. Whole Foods’ business model: selling overpriced conventional foods as “natural,” with organics in a subordinate role, is a recipe for maximizing profits rather than maximizing the growth of organic food and farming.

Worse yet, Whole Food’s high prices have not translated into larger profits for family farms or small-scale manufacturers. Likewise, UNFI’s growing market share and near-monopoly of the organic and “natural” market has reduced the options for consumers and independent retailers alike, undermining the growth of consumer buying clubs and the lower-cost alternatives.

Anti-worker

UNFI and Whole Foods have a history of cutting workers’ benefits. Both have gone to extreme lengths to block their employees from choosing to unionize. Whole Foods has long fought unionization of its retail locations, largely ignored the demands of farm workers organizations, like the United Farm Workers, and kept workers’ wages consistently low by industry standards.

UNFI has repeatedly fought efforts by its employees to fight for better pay, benefits and working conditions. Where workers have sucessfully formed unions, UNFI has begun moving jobs to new, non-union locations.

Why Target Whole Foods and UNFI?

Corporate Takeovers & Monopolistic Practices

The $25 Billion organic marketplace has enjoyed substantial growth for over a decade, thanks to growing consumer consciousness and farmer innovation.

No longer a passing trend or simply a niche market, organic food and farming are proving to be a viable alternative to the unhealthy, unsustainable and unjust conventional food system.

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called “natural” food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeoverof many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

Perpetrating “Natural” Fraud

Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are “certified organic.”

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and organic.

A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large companies from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called “natural” products. With the exception of the “natural” meat sector, where there are limited voluntary guidelines, there is no definition of “natural.” In the majority of cases, “natural” products are greenwashed conventional products, with “natural” label claims neither policed nor monitored.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while organic farmers continue to lose market share to “natural” imposters. It’s no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic.

Excluding Small and Family Farms

Whole Foods and UNFI’s business model of centralized sourcing and prioritizing natural products over organic rewards large corporate farms and processors, to the detriment of local and regional small-scale organic farmers and brands.

Organic farmers must “get big or get out” to be able to compete and have free access to markets. Many industrial organic farms and dairy operations reflect the same abuses and problems of the conventional food system: extremely energy intensive, systematic abuse of workers, reduced food quality, and damage to biodiversity.

So-called “natural” products, since they are actually in most cases conventional products in disguise, are being sold at lower prices than genuine organic products–thereby retarding the growth of the organic sector.

Organic and Local Food?

In light of the food system’s significant contribution to the climate crisis and the deepening economic troubles facing local food economies, it is more important than ever to prioritize locally produced organic food.

Though Whole Foods talks a lot about supporting local food and producers, the fact is that the vast majority of their products are not local, and much of what they sell is sourced from a small number of industrial organic operations in California, often owned by the same conventional food conglomerates responsible for destroying the world’s food system.

Organic Monopoly and the “Whole Paycheck” Phenomena

UNFI has undermined the growth of the organic movement by implementing an unfair tiered pricing system that gives Whole Foods deep discounts while other grocers, coops and independent retailers pay significantly higher prices, in effect subsidizing UNFI for its reduced profits at Whole Foods.

With UNFI as the largest organic (but of course their sales are mostly so-called “natural” products) food wholesaler and Whole Foods as the largest organic (like UNFI most of its sales are “natural”) food retailer, organic consumers are assured higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices.

Cancer in a Bottle?

In 2008, the Organic Consumers Association exposed a problem which particularly threatens women – a large number of leading conventional as well as “natural” and “organic” brands of shampoos, lotions, cosmetics and household cleaning products which contained the carcinogen 1,4-Dioxane.

Included in the list of products were several Whole Food’s 365 brand products and many products in the UNFI catalog.

While several dozen companies have committed to eliminating the 1,4-Dioxane, neither Whole Foods, nor UNFI, have endorsedOCA’s Coming Clean Campaign, nor have they called on the USDA to crack down on blatant labeling fraud in the organic personal care and cosmetics sector.

Corporate Consolidation of Organics

In the last decade, the organic marketplace has experienced hyper consolidation, with numerous small to medium-sized farmers, manufacturers and retailers being taken over by larger, profit-hungry corporations.

Whole Foods has employed an expansion strategy that resembles Wal-Mart with its targeting of local and independent retailers with new store locations while steadily buying out competitors like Wild Oats.

UNFI has also grown rapidly over the last decade, in part by aggressively taking over other distributors, regional wholesalers and manufacturers.

Organics for Elites?

The organic food and farming movements were born out of the desire to provide healthy and safe food to all. Whole Foods’ business model: selling overpriced conventional foods as “natural,” with organics in a subordinate role, is a recipe for maximizing profits rather than maximizing the growth of organic food and farming.

Worse yet, Whole Food’s high prices have not translated into larger profits for family farms or small-scale manufacturers. Likewise, UNFI’s growing market share and near-monopoly of the organic and “natural” market has reduced the options for consumers and independent retailers alike, undermining the growth of consumer buying clubs and the lower-cost alternatives.

Anti-worker

UNFI and Whole Foods have a history of cutting workers’ benefits. Both have gone to extreme lengths to block their employees from choosing to unionize. Whole Foods has long fought unionization of its retail locations, largely ignored the demands of farm workers organizations, like the United Farm Workers, and kept workers’ wages consistently low by industry standards.

UNFI has repeatedly fought efforts by its employees to fight for better pay, benefits and working conditions. Where workers have sucessfully formed unions, UNFI has begun moving jobs to new, non-union locations.

Sebrina Smith

by LiteGreen

Concepts Of Sustainability is a continuing Greenopolis series exploring the larger ideas behind current sustainability trends.

Food is one of our greatest pleasures, and yet, daily, many of us yield to an unnatural desire to satisfy our hunger with something quick, nutritionally unsound, and unsustainable. We need to reawaken our senses and relearn how to enjoy food, while taking responsibility for where our food comes from.

I love food. Really, I do. I love to cook it. I love to eat it. For fun, I read cookbooks and make menu lists. What? It’s relaxing. I love to watch others eat something I’ve cooked. I even dream about shopping for food. And no, I don’t want to know what your spiritualist says that means. Food is my internet porn. If there were a self-help group for someone like me, I’d probably need to be in it.

My love of all things delicious endures, but my attitude about where my food comes from has evolved. I’m no longer satisfied with any food that just seems to taste good. It has to be good food, too. I want to know where my food comes from. I want to know that the food I’m eating is healthy, delicious, nutritious and sustainable.

Is sustainability an unachievable goal?

Sustainability in all areas of our relationship with the planet is an important concept. All our efforts to protect and nurture our world hinge on the idea of sustainable practices, practiced faithfully. But some argue that sustainability is an unachievable goal.

Bryan Welch, Publisher and Editorial Director for Mother Earth News argues that instead of sustainability, we should strive instead for repeatability. “If nature teaches us anything, it is that nothing is truly sustainable. In the course of time, everything changes,” writes Welch.

From Four Questions for a Sustainable Society: Is it Repeatable?

“When you buy food grown by local farmers, you reduce the amount of energy required to transport that food. You have a better opportunity to learn about the farmer’s land-use practices and to make sure she is protecting the long-term productivity of the land. And you create an economic incentive for the preservation of the land’s productivity. If local foods are valuable commodities, then the farmer and the community have economic reasons for preserving farmland… We contribute to the repeatability of local food production by patronizing local farmers, and the preservation of local farms prevents pollution, improving our air, water and soil, thereby sustaining the food source. The diversity of local agriculture across the continents makes food production more reliable, overall, since the diversity of local products makes food production more resilient.”

Point: Repeatability makes more sense

Welch argues that the repeatability of locally grown food is what makes it a better choice, both economically and globally.

I can get behind the idea that repeatability has a broader definition than sustainability and therefore a more flexible course through which to achieve sustainability goals.

Counterpoint: What about eatability?

But I also think that we need to return to a time when people actually enjoyed their food. The idea of buying locally grown produce without the incentive of great taste is just as dry to me as cardboard (which is also reusable, compostable and digestible, if you want to get down to it).

I fear that too many of us have traded true enjoyment of a meal for expedience and necessity. And while it’s a common problem, people still need a personal reason to make the switch to more sustainable food choices. Until John Q. Public sees a direct benefit, outside of lofty environmental imperatives, it’s going to be hard to encourage widespread change. Busy moms, business travelers and harried movers-and-shakers of all stripe want concrete rewards, not some-day platitudes.

It is not enough to plead the case of the lower-carbon-lifestyle to those who may not have the time or inclination to spend weeks coping with the extra work, lack of convenience and yes, I’ll say it… the extra gas… of switching to a more natural diet. It takes time to readjust palates to the pleasure of good food and appreciate the wonder of a truly healthy meal, especially if the mainstay of your diet has been processed, over-salted and wrapped in styrofoam.

We’re eating more, but are we enjoying it?

Attitudes about food must change. But first, the attitude toward self must change.

Organizations like Slow Food, an international member-supported group, are trying to reshape attitudes about food and how we relate to it by challenging people to slow down and enjoy nature’s bounty in a more thoughtful way.  They promote the eatability of food.

Based on the idea that all phases of food – growing, harvesting, distribution and consumption – can be a communal and social expression of ideal sustainability, the group pleads for a return to a lifestyle of pleasurable consumption.

Through what they call convivia, members come together to share the everyday joys food has to offer. The Slow Food movement is founded on a principle called eco-gastronomy – “a recognition of the strong connections between plate and planet.” Slow Food promotes the pleasure of food, along with a responsibility to protect food heritage, biodiversity, cultural traditions and the environment.

I wonder what strides toward sustainability – or repeatability – we might make if people stopped driving-thru and started sitting down to eat a meal, not because of implied environmental guilt, but simply for the pleasure of it.

Based on the idea that all phases of food – growing, harvesting, distribution and consumption – can be a communal and social expression of ideal sustainability, the group pleads for a return to a lifestyle of pleasurable consumption.

Through what they call convivia, members come together to share the everyday joys food has to offer. The Slow Food movement is founded on a principle called eco-gastronomy – “a recognition of the strong connections between plate and planet.” Slow Food promotes the pleasure of food, along with a responsibility to protect food heritage, biodiversity, cultural traditions and the environment.

I wonder what strides toward sustainability – or repeatability – we might make if people stopped driving-thru and started sitting down to eat a meal, not because of implied environmental guilt, but simply for the pleasure of it.

Consumers are paying a high cost for substandard, cheap factory food. The following links are working on different areas but all have the same goal – to support sustainable agriculture. There are far too many groups to mention here (apologies to those we missed). Be sure to find local sustainable agricultural groups in your area as many of them hold extremely informative annual meetings where you can meet local farmers. Depending upon your area of interest, familiarize yourself with any or all of the following links.

• If you are concerned about the quality of the food you are buying at the grocery store, some of the following links will help guide to healthier more humane choices through local farms.
• If you are interested in stopping factory farming, some of the following links will help show you how to get involved.
• If you are a farmer who is interested in producing food for consumers, there are links below that will help show you how.
• Some of the following links will also be able to provide scientific literature supporting the benefits of sustainable agriculture.

It is important to understand the impact you have when you spend your money on factory food. Changing your shopping patterns by supporting local agriculture will not only help improve your health, it will also help improve the environment and bring back our rural communities.

Price-Pottenger Foundation
The Price-Pottenger Foundation has supported sustainable agriculture for over 50 years. They have preserved a collection of over 10,000 books and publications, spanning over 200 years of research from most of the great nutrition pioneers of our time, including that of William A. Albrecht, MS, PhD. The foundation is currently working on posting their archives online, and deveoping an education program available for people world-wide.

Weston A. Price Foundation
The Foundation is dedicated to restoring nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism. It supports accurate nutrition instruction, organic and biodynamic farming, pasture-feeding of livestock, community-supported farms, honest and informative labeling, prepared parenting and nurturing therapies.

Slow Food
The association’s activities seek to defend biodiversity in our food supply, spread the education of taste, and link producers of excellent foods to consumers through events and initiatives.

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance is an advocate for the many thousands of independent farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, and homesteaders in this country.

Eat Wild
Eatwild.com is an excellent source for safe, healthy, natural and nutritious grass-fed beef, lamb, goats, bison, poultry, pork and dairy products.

The Meatrix
An excellent flash presentation about factory farming and links about what you can do about it.

Food Routes
The FoodRoutes Find Good Food map can help you connect with local farmers and start eating the freshest, tastiest food around. Find your local food on their interactive map, listing farmers, CSAs, and local markets near you.

Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)

• Grace Factory Farm Project
  The GRACE Factory Farm Project (GFFP) works to create a sustainable food production system that is healthful and humane, economically viable, and environmentally sound.
• Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals
  The Eat Well Guide is a free, online directory of sustainably-raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns and hotels, and online outlets in the US and Canada.
• Sustainable Table
  Helping consumers make healthy food choices to create a sustainable system.
• Sustainable Food In Schools
  If you don’t like the food being served in your or your child’s cafeteria, do something to change it! Includes guidelines on what to do, how to do it, and examples of successful initiatives underway around the country.

Local Harvest
This website will help you find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably-grown food in your area, where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets
National listing of farmers markets.

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture
The Kerr Center was established to provide farmers and ranchers in the area with free technical assistance and information on how to improve their operations. Wise stewardship was emphasized.

National Farm to School
Farm to School programs are popping up all over the U.S. These programs connect schools with local farms with the objectives of serving healthy meals in school cafeterias, improving student nutrition, providing health and nutrition education opportunities that will last a lifetime, and supporting local small farmers.

Farm to College
This site presents information about farm-to-college programs in the U.S. and Canada collected by the Community Food Security Coalition.

Center for Food and Justice: Farm to Hospital
The CFJ has a program Farm to Hospital: Promoting Health and Supporting Local Agriculture.

Farm to Cafeteria: Community Food Security Coalition
Putting Local Food on the Table: Farms and Food Service in Partnership
Farm to school programs have been addressing the dual issues of improving children’s health and providing new marketing options for family farmers.

Food Security Coalition
The Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) is a North American organization dedicated to building strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems that ensure access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food for all people at all times

The True Food Network
The goal of the True Food Network Working is to create a socially just, democratic and sustainable food system.

Acres USA
Acres U.S.A. is the only national magazine that offers a comprehensive guide to sustainable agriculture. Drawing on knowledge accumulated in more than 35 years of continuous publication, we bring our readers the latest techniques for growing bountiful, nutritious crops and healthy, vibrant livestock. Acres U.S.A. has helped thousands of farmers feed the nation’s growing appetite for clean, delicious food.

Ecological Farming Association
Eco-Farm supports a vision for our food system where strengthening soils, protecting air and water, encouraging diverse ecosystems and economies, and honoring rural life are all part of producing healthful food.

National Family Farm Coalition
The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) provides a voice for grassroots groups on farm, food, trade and rural economic issues to ensure fair prices for family farmers, safe and healthy food, and vibrant, environmentally sound rural communities here and around the world.

Rural Coalition
The Rural Coalition is an alliance of regionally and culturally diverse organizations working to build a more just and sustainable food system which: brings fair returns to minority and other small farmers and rural communities, ensures just and fair working conditions for farm workers,
protects the environment, delivers safe and healthy food to consumers

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.

Grain
GRAIN is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people’s control over genetic resources and local knowledge.

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture explores and cultivates alternatives that secure healthier people and landscapes in Iowa and the nation.

Rodale Institute
The Rodale Institute works with people worldwide to achieve a regenerative food system that renews environmental and human health working with the philosophy that “Healthy Soil = Healthy Food = Healthy People ®

• New Farm (Rodale Institute)
  Helping consumers, brokers, restaurateurs and other farmers find the farm services they’re looking for.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program has helped advance farming systems that are profitable, environmentally sound and good for communities through a nationwide research and education grants program.

National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture
The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture is a diverse nationwide partnership of individuals and organizations cultivating grass roots efforts to engage in policy development processes that result in food and agricultural systems and rural communities that are healthy, environmentally sound, profitable, humane and just.

National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
ATTRA provides information and other technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, educators, and others involved in sustainable agriculture in the United States.

Family Farm Defenders
The FFD mission is to create a farmer-controlled and consumer-oriented food and fiber system, based upon democratically controlled institutions that empower farmers to speak for and respect themselves in their quest for social and economic justice.

The Center for Food Safety
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is an interest and environmental advocacy membership organization established in 1997 by its sister organization, International Center for Technology Assessment, for the purpose of challenging harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable alternatives.

ETC Group
ETC group is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.

Environmental Working Group
EWG specializes in environmental investigations. They have a team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers who pore over government data, legal documents, scientific studies and our own laboratory tests to expose threats to your health and the environment, and to find solutions.

WorldWatch Institute
WorldWatch is an independent research group working for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society. An excellent book published by WorldWatch institute is by Brian Halweil, Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket, 2004.

Union of Concerned Scientists
UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.

Institute of Science in Society
ISIS promotes science responsible to civil society and the public good, independent of commercial and other special interests, or of government control and a science that can help make the world sustainable, equitable and life-enhancing for all its inhabitants.

Organic Consumers Association
OCA is building a national network of consumers promoting food safety, organic agriculture, fair trade and sustainability.

Organic Center for Education and Promotion
OCEP generates credible, peer reviewed scientific information and communicate the verifiable benefits of organic farming and products to society.

Food and Water Watch
FWW is working on issues such as food and water safety, mad cow, sustainable agriculture, irradiation. Also has a factory farm campaign which aims to change government policies that promote factory farms, fight corporate control that forces farmers “to get big or get out,” and encourage sustainably raised meat.

United Poultry Concerns, Inc
UPC is dedicated to the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.

Sierra Club
(Including a toolkit for Factory Farm Pollution Activists)
The Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth. Practice and promote the responsible us of the earth’s ecosystems and resources. Educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment. Use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Beyond Factory Farming
Beyond Factory Farming is a coalition of citizen’s organizations from all across Canada that share a vision of livestock production for health and social justice. Their mission is to promote livestock production that supports food sovereignty, ecological, human and animal health, as well as sustainability and community viability and informed citizen/consumer choice.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Wegmans Cruelty
Video showing what goes on inside a factory chicken farm. Includes news and events.

Humane Society of the US
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has worked since 1954 to promote the protection of all animals.

Humane Farming Association
HFA is an animal protection organization. Campaigns against factory farming and slaughterhouse abuse. Also home to the world’s largest farm animal refuge.

Compassionate Consumers
Compassionate Consumers was founded in 2003 by a small group of people concerned about animal welfare in the food industry.

Chicago’s Green City Market

Chicago’s only sustainable market with the highest quality locally farmed products.

Demand from students, farmers and schools grows for farm to school programs

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn – March 9 – The number of Minnesota school districts purchasing fresh food from local farms has more than doubled in the last 15 months, according to asurvey released today by the Minnesota School Nutrition Association (MSNA) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

Farm to school programs link school children with local farmers and farm products, including fruits and vegetables, meat, grains and other items. Farm to school provides fresh, healthy food choices, helps children develop healthy eating habits and supports small and mid-size farmers.

The survey gathered input from MSNA’s membership, which includes foodservice professionals from nearly 100 public school districts serving approximately 550,000 K-12 students across the state. Sixty-nine districts reported purchasing Minnesota-grown products in 2009, more than double the figure from late 2008. Further, 77 percent of the districts now involved with farm to school initiatives expect to expand their activities in the upcoming school year, a sign that these programs are taking root and growing.

“Farm to school benefits our students, communities, farmers and the local economy throughout the state,” said MSNA President Mary Anderson. “This is a very positive program on so many levels. The  potential for growth is enormous.”

“Parents, students and educators know that good nutrition is essential if our kids are to be healthy and ready to learn. Small and mid-size farmers, whose products have largely been absent from America’s lunch trays, can offer our children fresh, less-processed choices and a chance to learn how and where their food is grown,” said IATP’s JoAnne Berkenkamp. “The momentum is rapidly building for farm to school programs and it’s great to see schools and farmers embracing this opportunity.”

Other key findings from the survey include:

• The most commonly used local foods were apples, potatoes, peppers, winter squash, sweet corn and tomatoes. A growing number of schools are also purchasing Minnesota-grown bison, wild rice, dried beans and grains.
• Nearly 43 percent of school districts purchasing Minnesota-grown food in 2009 did so by purchasing directly from a farmer or farmer co-op.
• While 84 percent of the survey respondents reported purchasing foods grown in Minnesota, 35 percent also purchased foods grown in neighboring areas of Wisconsin, Iowa and/or North or South Dakota.
• The biggest barriers to expanding farm to school purchases were the need for extra labor and preparation time in the cafeteria, pricing and tight food budgets, and difficulty finding nearby farmers to purchase from directly.
• In the future, schools are most interested in purchasing local vegetables and fruit, with growing interest in bread and grains, dairy and meat.  The survey also showed strong interest in expanding student education about Farm to School and growing food in school gardens.

In the coming year, IATP and MSNA will build on the growing momentum for Farm to School to expand farmer involvement, increase foodservice staff training opportunities, work with more students and increase public awareness

IATP’s work on expanding farm to school initiatives is supported in part by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota as part of Prevention Minnesota, Blue Cross’ long-term health improvement initiative that is working to tackle the root causes of preventable heart disease and cancer.

You can learn more about the farm to school survey at iatp.org and mnsna.org.

The purpose of Minnesota School Nutrition Association is to provide our members opportunities for professional development and to build relationships that make a difference in the lives of children. www.mnsna.org.

The Impact of Food Waste on Climate Change (and just about everything else).

BUZZ UP!

It is estimated that 40% of the food produced in America is wasted; it amounts to 1400 calories per person every day. According to the EPA, 31 million tons is thrown into landfills. Much of that produces methane as it rots; the gas is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The UK website Next Generation Foodestimates that each tonne of food waste is equivalent to 4.2 tonnes of CO2. They conclude that if we simply stopped wasting food, it would be the equivalent of taking a quarter of all the cars in America off the road.

The numbers are extraordinary:

In the US, a report in Plos One at the end of last year found that per capita food waste has progressively increased by 50 percent since 1974 reaching more than 1400 calories per person per day or 150 trillion calories per year. Food waste now accounts for more than one quarter of the total freshwater consumption and 300 million barrels of oil per year.

The consumption of water and fossil fuel making food that is thrown out, the 150trillion calories per year, landfilled, that could have fed people around the world, the statistics just pile up.

It seems that so many of our problems, from energy independence to climate change to world hunger to water, could be significantly mitigated if we could just get control of our food system and stop wasting so much.

See the entire infographic here . Thanks to the tweet from @takeoutwout.

BY KATHERINE GUSTAFSON

CATEGORY: HEALTH

PUBLISHED MARCH 04, 2010 @ 06:00AM PT

• 1809 Views

In the discussion of our obesity epidemic, a lot of emphasis is placed on personal responsibility. Cut back on the amount of soda you drink, the argument goes. Or buy a bunch of grapes instead of a bag of chips. Kids, get outside and play.

These are all laudable ideas, so a discussion of how they aren’t enough gets tricky; you don’t want to sound like you’re saying personal choice is not incredibly important.

Yet, the choices people make in the United States occur in a context that makes it all but impossible for them to choose well enough on a consistent enough basis to fix the obesity problem for good.

If the basics of the eating universe — both the material reality of what’s available and promoted as well as the widespread understanding of what’s a “normal” amount of various elements in a diet — don’t change, then nudging people to make better choices on a one-by-one basis is only going to be like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound.

A New York Times article on the topic emphasizes that losing weight over the long term isn’t as easy as cutting out an indulgent snack here or there. “There is a much bigger picture than parsing out the cookie a day or the Coke a day,” Dr. Jeffrey M. Friedman, head of Rockefeller University’s molecular genetics lab, told the Times.

What we really need are “significant lifestyle changes,” which are hard to accomplish in a world designed to push us toward less-than-healthful food choices and woefully inadequate amounts of physical activity.

The Small Bites blog provides a good example of the way normal daily routines are actually dramatic downfalls in people’s diets. The writer asked readers to guess how many teaspoons of sugar are in a large Dunkin’ Donuts mocha coffee. The eye-popping answer: 11.5. That is a teaspoon and a half more than you find in a 12-ounce can of soda.

This one coffee drink — undoubtedly the go-to morning Joe for many a commuter — exceeds the recommended daily amount of added sugar for both men or women. According to MSNBC, most women shouldn’t be consuming more than six teaspoons of added sugar in a day, and most men should limit themselves to nine.

So even after targeting our favorite villains — the sodas and chips of this world — we are going to be remarkably far from changing people’s dietary habits in a real way. Until we start seriously developing a food culture in which, for example, consuming a sugary coffee beverage in the morning is an unthought-of indulgence, we are going to get nowhere fast.

Until we change entirely what is considered a baseline acceptable diet, our biology will not cooperate with us; the small changes many encourage are not enough to get us back down to a healthy size.

“We need to know what we’re up against in terms of the basic biological challenges, and then design a campaign that will truly address the problem in its full magnitude,” Dr. David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children’s Hospital Boston, told the Times.

Photo: Pink Sherbet Photography on Flickr