Gendreck Weg! Germans vs Monsanto A wide and diverse coalition of beekeepers, anarchists, activists, farmers and politicians are fighting to ban GM corn in Germany. (Spiegel International)

One more reason to love the first lady Michelle Obama is emerging as a spokesperson, if not quite yet an advocate, for unprocessed, local food.

Vilsack still talking ethanol Addressing the National Farmers Union on Monday, Vilsack said he’d like to increase the amount of ethanol in your gas tank. Pooja refutes his reasoning at Breaking Green.

Crist to meet with CIW This just in — After an aggressive letter-writing campaign followed by a group of high-profile food activists travelling to the area, Florida Gov Crist has agreed to meet with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers.

Obama Foodorama is the brainchild of one Eddie Gehman Kohen, who has spent the last few days reporting from DC, and has apparently spent the last few years creating and collecting amazing foodie web art. Check out the buttons (we’re particularly fond of the Broc Obama head, and not just because it links to us) in the right side bar, and see more from Gehman Kohen’s other site (which she runs with her sisters Pleasant and Meghan), the Haphazard Gourmet Girls. Good stuff! (Side note: Eddie is so great that she actually offered to bake some Obama cookies for us to use as a visual image to accompany our post on our Inaugural Travel Guides, but wound up putting us in touch with the folks from Little Rae’s Bakery, instead)

While I’m at it, I’ll take the opportunity to point a few more of our favorite new food blogs, including Change.org’s new sustainable food blog, Slow Food Nation spin-off Civil Eats and Pooja (who’s graced our web pages a time or two) Mottl’s Breaking Green.

It’s inspiring to see this surge of such high-quality voices join the ranks of the sustainable food choir — and as we, as a country, get to work on the myriad social, environmental and economic problems we face, we will need all the voices we can get to help keep people informed, inspired and engaged. We hope that President Obama, or at least his team, will lend an ear to our efforts, and we hope that you will raise your voices among ours and our friends’ to let the incoming administration know how you feel about issues like CAFOs, food security and access, genetic modification and farm subsidies. And as always, we invite you to chime in here on the Green Fork, whether you send us a story or drop a note in the comments section.

If you had an inkling that fish farming may be picking up the pace, you are on to something. As global seafood demand continues to outpace supply, the industrialization of farmed fish (otherwise known as aquaculture) has been tapped as the new purveyor of choice in the seafood industry. In 2008, for the first time, according to a report being prepared by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), humans will have eaten more farmed fish than wild fish.

Farm fishing has been named the fastest growing sector of the food economy and has even been dubbed as the “Blue Revolution” in an effort to equate its ability to tackle crises in the fisheries industry in the same way the so-called Green Revolution paved the way for solutions to agricultural shortages almost four decades ago.

However, just as we found problems with industrial agriculture, we find ourselves faced with a similar round of questions with aquaculture, most specifically questions relating to standards of practice, impacts on nutrition and health and negative consequences to our ecosystems. And on the consumer level, what does fish farming mean for our consumption choices and our shopping habits? What do we need to know in order to make the best decisions about what to eat?

Regulation & Standards

To be brief, fish farming involves the cultivation of a population of fish under controlled conditions. Fish are usually packed into bins hundreds if not thousands deep, and fed meals in the form of pellets each day, similar to the livestock industry’s confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. Such vast operations could conceivably be universally regulated, but because a majority of aquaculture operations take place in several different countries around the world (China is responsible for two thirds of the global supply of farmed fish, for example), many nations have different standards in place and unfortunately some do not adequately regulate their industries.

Inadequate regulation can lead to problems in the health and safety of the farmed fish food chain similar in scope to the outbreaks we have encountered in the produce and meat industries such as E.coli and Salmonella. As recent as March of this year a virus called infectious salmon anemia (I.S.A.) spread through Chile’s farm fishing industry, killing millions of salmon destined for American supermarkets.

Healthy Choices

And farmed fish do not necessarily imply lower levels of Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other contaminants, as some may have guessed. A study funded by the Pew Charitable Trust in 2004 found that farm-raised salmon contained significantly higher levels of 13 pollutants, including dioxins, PCBs and other potentially cancer-causing agents relative to salmon caught in the wild. And, like their industrially-raised bovine counterparts, farmed salmon have lower levels of less Omega-3 fatty acids than wild salmon (or, in the case of beef, pasture-raised cattle).

In general, because farming operations rely on antibiotics, disinfectants and other chemicals to combat disease and promote growth, farmed fish can be tainted with residues. And because farmed fish typically swim a lot less than fish in the wild, overall levels of fat, where most of these toxins are stored, are higher.

A recently publicized report financed by the Pew Institute for Ocean Science focusing on the food pellets fed to farmed fish also raises concern. An increasing amount of forage fish — small fish like sardines and anchovies — are being used as fishmeal (pellets) and because their trace amounts of industrial pollutants are magnified when condensed into a tiny pellet form, farmed fish who dine on these pellets absorb these toxins in high concentrations. This fact makes the safety and health of human consumption of farmed fish suspect.

Labels and Guides

The best way to approach your fish purchasing choices is to arm yourself with as much knowledge on the wild and fish farming industries as possible. Try consulting some of the well established seafood guides released by organizations such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium (Sustainable Seafood Guide National 2008) and the Environmental Defense Fund (Pocket Seafood Selector). These handy pocket-sized guides can help direct you at your local supermarket fish counter and help you to answer questions like: Which fish are the most safe, abundant and in season or which farmed fish should I limit my consumption of due to concerns about contaminants?  If you’d rather stay paper-free, try sending a text to Blue Ocean Institute’s Fish Phone, which will text you back info on any kind of seafood you’re considering.  Just text the word FISH and the species in question to 30644 and within a few minutes you’ll receive a text in return, with environmental and health info, as well as alternative fish to try if the one you’re looking at is problematic.

The nonprofit organization, Food & Water Watch also has a fantastically thorough section on seafood on their website and has produced a Seafood Buying Guide which can help consumers learn more about their fish choices in an effort to make informed decisions.

In terms of labeling, you might find that your local supermarket fish counter does in fact have labels indicating where the fish originated and whether or not is it wild or farm-raised. These labels are part of the USDA’s COOL (country-of-origin labeling) rules that were enforced for seafood in 2005. The downside to COOL, however, is that processed seafood (cooked, smoked, canned, etc.) is excluded as well a majority of fish outlets such as certain fish markets that do not meet the USDA’s definition of “retailer”under the COOL standards. Therefore, there is a good chance you may not see labels on fish the next time you are out to shop.

To learn more about farmed, wild and our fish industry in general, link up with the following online resources and stay on top of the Blue Revolution wave!

Resources

Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch

Environmental Defense Fund Seafood Selector

A Seafood Snob Ponders the Future of Fish, by Mark Bittman, NYT

Food & Water Watch — Fish

fish, seafood, aquaculture, fish farms, seafood choices, healthy food

As we welcome in 2009, the opportunity to reevaluate and set goals to improve our lives (and especially our health) presents itself. Luckily, there is one key avenue that will improve your health while keeping the health of our planet in mind -eat less meat. Cutting your consumption will have tremendous positive effects on your overall health in addition to lowering your carbon foodprint. Check out Pooja’s piece from November to read further about the many benefits of consuming less meat. Nervous about cooking with unfamiliar vegetables? Not to worry, check out Meatless Monday for helpful hints and recipe ideas for cooking delicious vegetarian meals.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed by the idea of eating less meat, it would be worthwhile to read this piece by Katie Molinaro on the Huffington Post. She recommends setting your goals in smaller increments, rather than a resolution for the entire year, try to be vegetarian for a week, and then two weeks, and so on. You will likely be more successful with smaller goals, it will be less intimidating to accomplish. Mondays are a great day to renew your efforts.

Eating less meat will also free up some of your cash, so if you continue to eat meat but cut down on it, you can easily afford to eat the good stuff — locally grown, pasture raised meat, which is also better for you and the planet.

Looking for other ways to do better this year? For more ideas, check out our post from Earth Day last year, 20 ways to green your fork.

Food is getting some tech-savvy street cred as Wired magazine puts “The Future of Food” front and center in its November 2008 issue.

The magazine dishes about why the chemical age of agriculture is “running out of juice” at a time when demand for food continues to soar and output struggles to keep pace. It suggests it is time to put our heads together to innovate and incite a “new” green revolution in the midst of the current food crisis.

By way of spectacularly iridescent graphics, the article unveils some little-known and mind-boggling (and completely disturbing) facts about what really goes on behind the scenes in the food business. Through a stream of clever diagrams, charts, maps and tables, it educates us on how 31.4 gallons of water is used per ear of American-grown corn, how 4.83 pounds of methane is released in the production of one Big Mac, and how 1, 285 pounds of protein supplement is used per cow per year in our country.

What this color clad page-turner fails to point out, however, are the risks and irrefutable drawbacks this current system of agriculture represents and the externalities it has imposed on our health, our safety and our ecosystem. Although the Wired writers have added a few quotes highlighting the dangers of long food supply chains, exorbitant “food miles” and pollution from aquaculture, it never once mentions the words “local”, “sustainable” or “organic”. The cover story, instead, focuses on science and the potential of genetic engineering to solve our food woes.

There is no doubt that it is great to see food and its future take center stage in the culture and politics of technology, but we need to use America’s tech prowess in a manner that enhances and moves the methods of sustainability forward rather than having the potential to make our current crisis even worse. By promoting genetically modified crops and the hording of seeds, dependency on industrial-strength fertilizers and the impact on climate change that comes with it, the writers at Wired are taking forward-thinking in a backwards direction.

The magazine may have done better by optimizing its role as a pulpit for spreading high-tech wisdom and instead focused on how modern science may be used to promote more small-scale, local and organic systems of agriculture – those with the least number of negative externalities to us and our planet and which underscore the much needed principals of sustainability.

For example, organic methods involving intercropping, biological pest management, crop rotation, cover crops and other processes that utilize natural nutrient sources and nutrient-cycling techniques could be optimized and enhanced with the help of modern scientific innovations and focused efforts on behalf of the technology community. A case in point involves nitrogen fertilizer, an input invaluable to industrialized agriculture. Due to its intensive use, the nutrient has spilled into streams and groundwater and has caused hundreds of pollutant “dead zones”. Scientific research efforts could easily be focused on this problem and alternatives could be found to identify more effective and less harmful techniques.

Furthermore, attention to organic agriculture methods is imperative given the mounting evidence pointing to how organic systems can feed the world. Research recently conducted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that organic, small-scale farming can in fact deliver the increased yields thought to be solely the preserve of industrial farming. Commenting on a report (pdf) released earlier this month, Achim Steiner, the head of the UN’s program, noted that “the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world may be far higher than many had supposed”.

Although the writers at Wired did touch on a few, more sustainable-minded farming methods, such as “push-pull intercropping, “remote sensing” and “data-driven rotation”, dubbing them “next-gen” techniques, the publication did not make sustainable alternatives the beachhead of their food science campaign, taking away from readers the opportunity to learn about the wealth of benefits that come with these systems.

The bottom line is that although some mainstream publications are on the right track in terms of zeroing in on our food supply and underscoring the grave nature of our current global crisis, magazines like Wired should not aim to apply a high-tech approach to further strengthen industrialized, synthetically-based farming methods, but must instead use their tech genius to help showcase the importance of organic systems. This approach will not only bring more to the table in terms of solving our food crisis, but will do so in a more sustainable, less destructive fashion with a greater guarantee for future prosperity.

Today’s Healthy Monday tip: Eat Less Meat!

Surprise! Eating a bit less meat can lengthen our individual lives as well as the lifespan of our planet. This is the message coming from two recent Nobel Prize winners and a slew of grassroots and non-profit organizations. In an op-ed released in the New York Times last April, internationally renowned economist and 2008 Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, highlighted the devastating effects of meat consumption when referring to the “march of the meat-eating Chinese”, and just 2 months ago, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, called for “one meat-free day a week” in an effort to tackle climate change.

Organizations around the world have also chimed in, such as the UK’s Compassion in World Farming which has called for governments to help promulgate a goal to reduce meat consumption by 60% by the year 2020. Here at home the Center for Food Safety and The Cornerstone Campaign along with the assistance of Take a Bite blog, launched the Cool Foods Campaign in April to address the issues of global warming through food choices.

Experts have long noted that people in industrialized countries exceed their daily-required amount of protein routinely (and usually without notice) as our food supply and food choices direct animal-based protein to our forks. Simultaneously, researchers are waving the warning flags that Americans do not get enough nutrient-rich plant-based foods in our diets. This limits our ability to obtain crucial vitamins, minerals, fiber and antioxidants. Even the USDA underwent an extreme makeover of its dietary pyramid to help us learn how to eat more fruits, vegetables and whole grains each day.

What can you do? Start by getting more of your daily calories from foods lower on the food chain such as legumes, veggies, fruits and nuts. These calories will help us live longer, healthier lives. Meats (if not very lean in their cut) and dairy contain saturated fat and cholesterol — two demons of healthy living as they can lead to a slew of chronic diseases, particularly heart disease. Try to cut down your weekly consumption of meat to avoid these health risks.

The second blow in the one-two punch eating less meat delivers relates to global warming. The rearing of cattle and other animals for food has an increasingly disastrous impact due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and habitat destruction. The links in the chain are long and eye opening. Not only are GHG’s generated by roaming ruminants, but the production of animal feed, the oil-based synthetic fertilizers that help grow the mostly conventionally-grown feed, the transportation of the product, and the highly energy-intensive farming and clearing of ecosystems that is required to sustain these habits all sum up to an exorbitant degree of harm to our planet. Eat less meat and you can help yourself as well as the planet!

Below are some eye-opening statistics:

• 700 calories of animal feed is required to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef
• Synthetic fertilizers emit 647 million pounds of nitrous oxide per year, a powerful GHG.
• Although Americans make up 5% of the world’s people, we consume 15% of the world’s meat.
• From field to fork, animal production accounts for almost 20% of all GHG emissions globally — more than from transportation.

For more information on how meat and animal production affect our health and planet, see “Global Warming & Your Food“, a publication of the Cool Foods Campaign as well as Mark Bittman’s piece from the New York Times, “Putting Meat Back in Its Place“.

Today’s Healthy Monday tip: Watch your bread (labels).

We’ve talked about reading between the lines of the label-crazed food industry before. Earlier this month, our government’s watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), released a report giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for oversight of our nation’s food supply, a failing grade when it comes to preventing false and misleading labeling.

According to the report, the agency’s enforcement efforts “have not kept pace” with the large increases in food products, and as a consequence, food labels.

A case in point highlights the misguided nature of whole grain and grain-product labeling, in particular. The non-profit Center for Science in Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a formal complaint with the FDA urging it to stop the mislabeling of a product by Thomas’ brand that boasted its muffins were “made with whole grain” when in actuality its primary ingredient was refined white flour.

The Thomas’ incident is not alone. Since 2005, when the USDA promulgated the need for at least 3 ounces of whole grains daily in its revamped food pyramid, products touting the virtues of whole grains have soared. Unfortunately, detecting and purchasing whole grain foods has become a challenge. Labels and food claims flank boxes and packages in supermarket aisles all across our nation. However, surprisingly, whole grains still account for only 10-15% of products on store shelves.

Sadly, we may have become a nation so ignorant about food claims that getting hoodwinked by manufacturers is commonplace. Ingredient formulations have become increasingly complicated, especially when it comes to grain-based products. Recently, upon a more thorough investigation of a product’s label, I found the first ingredient read:

Unbleached unbromated enriched flour (Wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid)

Apparently, some grain-based ingredients need to be defined by an additional set of even more ingredients.

Moreover, we have processed grains so much that we have lost touch of what “whole grains” really are. “Wheat flour”, for example, or simply a brown-colored product can have very little to do with whole grain. A true whole grain is simply the entire seed of the grain plant and a whole grain product is made from the three component parts of the seed: the endosperm, the germ and the bran. Most flour, in contrast, is refined in a way that dissects both the bran and the germ, leaving only the endosperm to compose the final product.

The mania over whole grains is due to the extraordinary health benefits they have been found to supply. Earlier this month, a study conducted by General Mills found that a whole grain diet had the ability to “lower risk of heart disease as much as prescription drugs”. Furthermore, studies have found that whole grains can reduce risks of cancer, stroke and diabetes while supplying valuable antioxidants not found in fruits and vegetables. When grains are refined, more than half of the amount of Vitamin E, B6, Fiber, Zinc and Potassium is lost.

The labeling scheme identifying whole grains was so confusing that in February of 2006, the FDA drafted guidance for the industry on whole grain labeling. Unfortunately, the guidance hasn’t stopped manufacturers from using ever increasingly misleading tags. In 2007, CSPI threatened to sue Sara Lee for mislabeling and misrepresenting the amount of whole grain in its “Soft & Smooth Made With Whole Grain White Bread” product declaring it had as much fiber as 100% whole wheat bread. It took until July of this year for the company to agree to a settlement with CSPI, forcing it to make clear that the product consisted of only 30% whole grain.

According to CSPI, many food manufacturers try to “give consumers the impression that their white-flour-based products are ‘made with whole grain’ even if there is only a small amount”.

Here’s what we need to know:

• If a label says “100 percent whole wheat” you can be assured you are getting entirely whole wheat grains.

• Look at the ingredient list: If “whole wheat flour” is first, as opposed to “wheat flour”, the product is made with at least a major portion of whole grains – however, the actual percentage share is indecipherable.

• Be wary of labels declaring “good source of whole grain” when whole grains are not at the top of the ingredient list.

• “Enriched” flour does not mean “whole grain”.

• The words “wheat”, “durum”, “bran” and “multigrain” have nothing to do with “whole grain”.

• Look for an official bronze and black stamp from the Whole Grains Council (WGC), by the USDA on packages; a “100% Stamp” ensures that the product is entirely whole grain approved and a basic “Whole Grain Stamp” announces that the product contains at least half the USDA recommended serving of whole grains.

Bottom line: As we continue to navigate through the depths of label labyrinth, we find there are no concrete rules of engagement when it comes to whole grains apart from the FDA guidelines and the WGC stamps, so it is up to you, the consumer, to keep your eyes peeled and make your demands known by continuing to purchase whole grain products. The food industry will take notice.

You can find a list of pure whole grains at the WGC’s website.

Today’s Healthy Monday tip: Go organic whenever you can.

The buzz surrounding pesticides rages on as an increasingly larger amount (including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) continues to be used all over the world. Today, more than 5.0 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year, mainly in the agriculture market. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States alone accounted for more than 20% of worldwide pesticide used in 2001 and was responsible for nearly a quarter of the world’s herbicide usage.

That’s a lot. And even more startling is the fact that pesticide use is said to be increasing even among genetically modified/biotech crops — crops which have been engineered by the likes of Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta to actually reduce the need for pesticide applications. In other words, the riddance of weeds, insects and other pests gradual gives way over time as pests become more resistant to the chemical makeup of the crops. A study released in February by the Center for Food Safety found that GM crops have actually increased pesticide use and helped the spread of what they call “superweeds”.

Given the great scale of this industry, regulation seems to be critical. So who is in charge of its oversight?

The EPA is our government’s regulating body in the pesticide market. The agency is in charge of accepting and registering a particular pesticide before the selling or distribution of any product. However, earlier this year, as mentioned over at Gristmill, funding for a vital government program, the Agriculture Chemical Usage Program, a collection tool that tested levels of pesticides in fruits, vegetables and field was cut out of the budget according to the USDA, the entity that administered the 18-year-old program. Tragically, the EPA relied upon this very data as a resource to set safe limits of pesticide usage.

This decision is shocking to a ream of sustainable food advocates and organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists which drafted an open letter in response to the government’s actions citing that the “elimination of the program will severely hamper the efforts of the USDA, the EPA, land grant scientists, and state officials to perform pesticide risk assessments and make informed policy decisions on pesticide use.”

These recent actions combined with the fact that increasing evidence from research suggests that even low, trace levels of pesticides can have an effect on human health, should propel our focus and awareness on pesticides. While there is insufficient proof linking the substance to cancer and other human harm, there is no conclusive evidence to repudiate this claim (particularly over longer periods of time). The Environmental Working Group notes that the more “scientists learn about the toxicity of pesticides, the more questions are raised about the potential toxic effects on people”.

A now well-known study conducted by the EWG that analyzed the results of nearly 51,000 tests conducted by the USDA and FDA between 2000 and 2005 provides us with an easy, go-to list for uncovering how much pesticide is actually used and detected in conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. The EWG coined the worst 12 varieties of produce the “dirty dozen”:

1. Peaches
2. Apples
3. Sweet Bell Peppers
4. Celery
5. Nectarines
6. Strawberries
7. Cherries
8. Lettuce
9. Grapes (imported)
10. Pears
11. Spinach
12. Potatoes

Consequently, until further notice, reducing exposure to pesticides is not only smart, but also the safest, most prudent way to ensure our long-term health. As we continue to spread the word on eating organic and uncovering what is truly going on with trends and methods in pesticide manufacturing and usage, we must keep in mind that lack of evidence does not equate to guaranteed safety!

This Healthy Monday post was written by Pooja Mottl.

Labels. They are truly becoming ubiquitous in the food industry. On even a quick run to your local grocery, you can’t pass an aisle without reading words like: “all natural”, “nitrate-free” or “gluten-free”. According to a recent report by Mintel, a global market research firm, the label “no additives or preservatives” was featured on nearly one quarter of new food products launched globally between January and September of this year.

Although these types of labels seem to be gaining ground due to consumers’ increasing demand for natural, safe and healthy food products, the labeling frenzy may at times confound rather than help the customer in making purchasing decisions.

I came across this dilemma firsthand while taking a stroll through my local Whole Foods Market in search of eggs. As I studied the labels of nearly five different boxes, I found that each box had something to say about how its eggs were better than the next. One such dozen advertised: “all natural”, “vegetarian feed”, “cage free hens”, “no antibiotics”, “DHA 75mg”, “Omega-3 225 mg”, “USDA Organic”. And this was just one carton! Another box read: “no animal fat in feed”, “chickens roam freely in barns”, “75 mcg of folic acid”, “fed pure grains without the use of antibiotics” and “raised naturally”.

You see how this can get complicated! Here is a quick and dirty Egg Glossary to help us plod through the confusion.

Cage Free:

Cage Free simply means that egg-laying hens are not confined to battery cages (67 square inches of space) where they are denied their natural behaviors such as perching, spreading their wings and nesting. However, birds can also be called cage-free without ever being outdoors or “on pasture”. The USDA does not regulate this label. “Cage Free” must be differentiated from “Free Range”, a term that is defined by the USDA and used for poultry (chickens raised for consumption rather than egg-laying).

All Natural:

The “all natural” label, although quite popular, is not regulated by the US government or verified by third party inspectors. The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA states that “natural” is defined by a product “containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product)” and it must explain the use of the term by stating on its label phrases such as “no added colorings or artificial ingredients”, etc.

No Antibiotics or Hormones Administered:

These labels are defined by the USDA, but only for poultry, pork, beef and red meat, not eggs. Consequently there are no controlled guidelines or verification by third party inspectors.

Omega-3 of 225mg in Each Egg:

With the increasing awareness of the nutrient value of Omega-3 fatty acids, an increasing number of egg cartons contain this label. Most often it means that the hens were given a diet rich in flax seed — a good source of this fat. DHA, a type of Omega-3 fatty acid is also labeled similarly.

Vegetarian Fed/Organic Vegetarian Feed:

Again, this label is not defined by the USDA. Vegetarian fed simply means that the hens were given a diet containing no animal by-products. Grains (e.g. corn, wheat), silage, hay and similar vegetarian feed is common. Vegetarian fed does not guarantee that antibiotics or pesticides were not used in the production of the feed or that the feed was not genetically modified. Organic vegetarian feed, on the contrary, does.

75 mcg of Folic Acid:

Folate, a vital B vitamin, especially necessary for a healthy pregnancy, is present in eggs (mainly in the yolk). However, similar to the development of Omega-3 eggs, egg producers have opted to enrich eggs with folic acid by supplementing feed. Therefore, instead of the 24 mcg or so of folic acid you may receive from a standard egg, enriched eggs contain three times as much.

Although this glossary can help us in the short term, the proliferation and changing nature of marketing via the use of labels is increasing. In order to stay on top of the labeling sensation, continue to do your share of research! What is evident is the fact that multiple labels bundled together en masse, don’t necessarily equate to healthier, more nutritious, safer products for you. Furthermore, most USDA defined labels pertain to meat and poultry as opposed to eggs.

When in doubt, try sticking to the basics. Organic, pasture raised varieties of eggs are always best. For example, the claims “No antibiotics”, “cage free”, and “raised naturally” are all encompassed in these kinds of eggs. Due to the organic and sustainable methods used to raise hens, these eggs usually have higher levels of key nutrients like folate and riboflavin, terrific added benefits. So the next time you make a move for eggs, look out for these labels first while using your newfound Egg Glossary (not to mention the Sustainable Dictionary). You will save yourself time and headaches!

]]> http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2008/09/eat-healthy-monday-19/feed/ 2 http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2008/09/dispatch-from-paris-the-eu-loves-organics/ http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2008/09/dispatch-from-paris-the-eu-loves-organics/#comments Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:23:05 +0000 pooja http://blog.eatwellguide.org/?p=179 Here’s another one from Pooja Mottl, our newest guest blogger, who was lucky enough to get over to Europe a few weeks ago. Enjoy!

During a recent visit to Europe, my taste buds couldn’t help but take note of some fantastic organic produce and meats while my eyes couldn’t believe how many listings of “free-range” and “organic” I saw on menus, particularly at the reasonably priced Parisian bistros. So what can we learn from the prevalence of organic and sustainable food choices of our Old World compatriots?

One glaring statistic is that more than three times as many hectares of agricultural area are devoted to organic farming in Europe in comparison to the U.S. and this land is managed by approximately 190,000 farms while only 12,000 farms are responsible for organic agriculture in America. In 2005, Europe accounted for the highest percentage share of the organic market in the world valued at nearly $13-14 billion.

What gives Europeans a big boost in the organic movement may lie in something called the European Action Plan on Organic Food and Farming, which was instated in 2004 by the European Commission. This government-backed plan not only provides for rules of engagement over the organic trade and improvement in production standards, but more impressively, it also funds a EU-wide promotional campaign to inform consumers, schools and other public organizations of the bountiful benefits of organics.

On top of that, European policy has also called for a budget valued between $60 and 70 million each year to be set aside for research on the organic foods sector.

America’s counterpart to the Action Plan is what the USDA coins the National Organic Program (NOP). It was instated in 2002 and regulates the standards for selling organically produced agricultural products. It requires that all farmers or food processors that wish to use the label “organic” on their products must be certified via a detailed array of rules and guidelines. According to the USDA, “efforts to boost organic production have focused primarily on developing national certification standards to assure consumers of consistent product quality and on streamlining interstate commerce in organically grown products”.

So although standards are clear, the NOP does not specifically state a budget of funds used to promote the organic label in public media and federally funded research on organic production methods is minimal. USDA agencies have, however, started pilot projects to help various farmers with production and marketing obstacles. According to The World of Organic Agriculture’s 2007 report, in the U.S. there is “little or no government support for being organic”. Less than 1% of America’s total agriculture area is designated for organics.

In spite of all that, the value of the organic market in the U.S. came in a close second to Europe in 2005 at €11.5 billion and our growth rate for these products continues to soar. In the U.S., organic products are all the rage and according to industry professionals, the market is at a new tipping point with regards to overall consumer acceptance and mainstream interest. It is projected that organics will experience double-digit growth in America in the foreseeable future.

By taking a look at how our European counterparts are faring in their support of organic agriculture, we can round up even more enthusiasm for the future growth and dynamism of the global organic food industry and we can state with confidence that this sector of the market is here to stay. By focusing more on informing the masses via campaigns and publicity, and supporting private and public research, in line with the EU’s Action Plan, America’s organic market could be poised to reach incredible heights. At some point, in the not-so-distant future, it may be possible to read the words “organic” and “sustainable” on even the most basic menus of our neighborhood haunts. Now that’s something to look forward to!