Local Food Beat The Business of Redeeming Food

Welcome! This website is intended to be a help for you in finding out more about eating in a sustainable way and to be a resource of where to find local foods.

Four Reasons to Eat Local and Sustainable

May 9th, 2012

As eating locally becomes more and more popular and quite the buzz word, it is important that the consumer really understand why it is important to eat local food that has been grown sustainably (grass-fed and/or pastured raised). 

First, raising animals on pasture instead of factory farms is a net benefit to the environment. A diet of grazed grass requires much less fossil fuel than a feedlot diet of dried corn and soy. Traditional farming has minimal carbon dioxide emissions because animals on pasture require the use of very little machinery.

Second, grazing animals do their own fertilizing thus limiting polluting emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency says, “Before the 1970s, methane emissions from manure were minimal because the majority of livestock farms in the U.S. were small operations where animals deposited manure in pastures and corrals,” Unfortunately, the EPA found that with the rise of factory farms, the inevitable sewage ponds became the “norm and methane emissions skyrocketed.” According to a July 2011 study conducted by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, a 10,000 cow confinement dairy in Idaho produces staggering amounts of greenhouse gases. Every day, 37,075 pounds of pollution spew into the air. This breaks down into 33,092 pounds of methane, 3,575 pounds of ammonia, and 409 pounds of nitrous oxide. Raising dairy cows on pasture results in a fraction of this amount of pollution.

Third, and maybe the ultimate benefit,is that  pasture-based farming does an excellent job of harvesting solar energy. Enough solar energy hits the Earth in one hour to power the world for a year. One sustainable farmer stated, “While food is what we sell, we are really in the business of harvesting solar energy by means of living plants grown on healthy soil. Then grazing animals package the natural resources of these plants into a very healthy food product for people to nourish themselves with.”

Fourth, eating pastured foods is more healthy for you than eating foods from confined animal operations. Nicholas Perricone wrote in 7 Secrets to Beauty, Health and Longevity, “Researchers have also compared key antioxidants in meat from pasture-fed and grain-fed cattle. The grass-fed meat was higher in vitamin C, vitamin E, and folic acid. It was also 10 times higher in beta-carotene.”  Nature always has the best solutions. For instance, the richer the soil (back to the ultimate solar energy), the more nutritious the grass. Cows that eat that wonderfully nutritious grass make extra-nutritious milk that has more antioxidants, more omega-3 fatty acids, and more beta-carotene for us to consume.

Got milk? Got grass fed beef?

To find a grass-fed farmer near you (in addition to the ones who will be with us this coming weekend), please visit the following websites: www.eatwild.com, www.futureharvestcasa.org, www.localharvest.com, and for other resources in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, go to www.cbf.org (under ACT tab – Buy Fresh Buy Local).

2012 Farmers Market Schedule

April 18th, 2012

  Go here.

The Industrial Food System Depends – To Its Peril – On Cheap Oil

April 4th, 2012

 This was written by Patrick Crawford from The National Fork and has been used by permission.
 

With a gallon of gasoline in America now averaging almost $4.00, the topic of oil dependence is timely.

Cheap oil and other fossil fuels have helped create the modern American economy, and to a lesser extent, the economies of other industrialized cultures around the world. Big industry totally depends on them. Naturally, this includes the food industry.

Let’s list some of the ways in which cheap fossil fuels sustains the conventional food system in America.

  1. Factory farm grain is sown and harvested using enormous tractors that run on fossil fuels.
  2. Factory farms depend on fertilizers, which are made using fossil fuels.
  3. Factory farm chemicals are dispersed with vehicles that run on fossil fuels.
  4. Factory farm corn and soy are transported long distances to industrial feeding operations in vehicles using fossil fuels.
  5. Factory farm animals are transported to industrial feeding operations in vehicles using fossil fuels.
  6. Factory farm manure is managed with vehicles using fossil fuels.
  7. Factory farm animals are transported to slaughterhouses in vehicles using fossil fuels.
  8. Factory farm corn and soy are transported long distances to industrial processing facilities in vehicles using fossil fuels.
  9. Industrial processing facility workers are transported long distances to and from work in vehicles using fossil fuels.
  10. Factory farm dairy, meat, vegetables, and processed foods are packaged with materials made from fossil fuels.
  11. Factory farm dairy, meat, vegetables, and processed foods are transported long distances to supermarkets using fossil fuels.
  12. Factory farm consumers travel to and from supermarkets in vehicles using fossil fuels.
  13. Industrial food products are shipped around the world in vessels using fossil fuels.

According to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivor’s Dilemma, in the industrial food system, “it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food, ” and that’s before the food even leaves the farm! Pollan states, “from the standpoint of industrial efficiency, it’s too bad we can’t simply drink the petroleum directly.”

According to Polyface Farms farmer and author Joel Salatin, the current industrial food model that fossil fuels made possible is revolutionary. In his new book, Folk, this ain’t normal, he explains that, prior to the modern age, energy was a precious and rare commodity. He states:

Not very long ago, the average person was responsible for his own energy. … [A person] had to maintain a horse to travel somewhere. That horse required care and feed. [The person] had to cut wood with an ax and crosscut saw to feed the woodstove and, before woodstoves, the incredible inefficient fireplace. Waterwheels often powered grain mills and sawmills. Later, steam engines powered these things, as well as trains. Coal gradually replaced wood. Lights came from candles made from animal fat. All of this took lots of time.

Joel then goes on:

Because energy was precious, people tended to live close to their work. Driving to the office was too expensive and laborious. … Craftspeople tended to live over their shops. Communing into work was not only impractical, it was undesirable and inefficient. Suburban developments only became possible, and will only remain so, as long as energy is cheap. … Food had to be grown close to consumption because transporting it was too expensive. Feedstuffs for animals, whether it was grain or grass, had to be grown and consumed on the same farm; nothing else was possible.

Joel then explains that cheap energy is what allowed for the growth of industry and the removal of industry from their locations within small communities. He explains that, with the arrival of cheap energy:

The butcher, baker, and candlestick maker, formerly embedded in the village, were summarily removed from the community because with cheap energy, their businesses could grow beyond local energy carrying capacity. … Ordinary industries that had been shackled to a village scale could suddenly grow unimpeded. … The huge industrial factories could not be nestled into the village.

Joel argues that this big-ness and isolation of industry had serious downsides. First, removal of industry, including the food industry, from villages and towns where consumers could interact with producers removed transparency from the industrial process and fostered ignorance and complacency among consumers on the topic of industrial processes. Joel states:

These mega-industries actually became repugnant to neighbors, so much so that the businesses erected large security fences to keep out curious eyes that could testify about pollution or worker abuse. Whenever an economic sector cloisters itself behind opaqueness, it will begin taking environmental, social, and economic shortcuts. Integrity occurs when people can see what’s going in at the front door and what’s coming out the back door. Absent that accountability, you lose integrity.

Second, large industry’s dependence on cheap oil leaves it very vulnerable to destruction in the event that cheap oil ends. In other words, large-scale industry made possible by cheap oil is not only revolutionary, it is temporary and may someday disappear. According to Joel:

The reality is that bonanzas don’t survive for very long, and that is what cheap energy is: a bonanza. I don’t know how long it will last, but the way to bet is that we will return to a more normal energy cost sometime in the future.

Energy costs could skyrocket for many reasons. An increasingly discussed reason is the arrival of “peak oil”, the point at which the maximum rate of oil extraction is reached, after which the supply of oil will enter permanent decline. Debate exists on whether peak oil has already occurred.

Regardless of whether peak oil has occurred, the question remains. When fossil fuel is no longer affordable, and therefore, food from the conventional food system is no longer affordable, who will have food to eat?

I’ll put my money on those who eat local.

Eating as an Environmental Act: Part III – So What Do We Eat?

February 14th, 2012

So far we’ve discussed how the way we eat represents our most profound engagement with the natural world. We talked about how the “food system” is everything required to produce, process, move, sell and consume food. The things used to grow food include land, fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and water – and our current industrial food growing system has resulted in pollution and animal waste. In addition, excessive amounts of energy and fossil fuels are used to process, package, advertise and transport this food.

We also took into consideration how in 2008 Americans spent, on average, less than 10% of their disposable income on food – that’s only half of what we spent on food in the early 1960s. That’s a direct effect of our continuing quest to spend less for more. Our demand for, out-of-season foods come with a huge cost – both nutritional and environmental – because of our insatiable demand for cheap food. Our insistence for cut-rate food is so huge that it has betrayed us.

You may be left wondering…well, then what do I eat? When I began eating locally nearly five years ago, I could barely locate grass-fed beef in the State of Maryland.  Now my butcher – less than a mile away – carries grass-fed beef from a local (as in less than 50 miles away) sustainable producer.

Cheap foods come with hidden costs; thankfully locally grown foods come with hidden benefits.  There are many farmers who farm without fertilizers and pesticides and the numbers are growing. Like old timers they utilize crop rotation and other good soil management practices. Buying your food from local producers reduces the need for unnecessary food packaging. As a result less fossil fuel is used resulting in a lower carbon footprint.

Critics of the local food movement argue that the higher cost of organic and/or locally grown food is unattainable to the average consumer. But we’ve already discussed why better costs more. The food industry talks a great game, but it’s hard to deny the health issues their fake foods have created.  Further, if organic farming were subsidized as much as corn and soy, the cost would decrease significantly.

It all comes down to a personal decision about what kind of world we want and what kind of food we are going to put into our bodies.  It should never be okay to eat meat or drink milk from a cow whose biology has been manipulated for profits.  For me, personally, I would rather have a little bit more of my money go to a local farmer – and my local economy. My personal experience has been that the more I spend on good food, the less I pay for prescriptions and doctors.  It’s that simple.  The father of medicine, Hippocrates, said let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.  I wish doctors would start by asking: “What are you eating?”

The other big argument one hears about a local food system is you cannot possibly feed the world – thus laying the foundation for the use of genetically modified foods.  So can we feed people?  The answer is a big Yes!  A wonderful example is Havana, Cuba. When the Soviet Bloc collapsed in 1989, Cuba lost its food and agricultural support, compounded with the US Embargo led to a serious food shortage affecting the entire country, but most of all Havana.  “Havana residents responded en masse, planting food crops on porches, balconies, backyards and empty city lots.” By 1995 there were approximately 26,000 state owned gardens ranging from a few square yards up to three acres growing food on vacant or abandoned properties.  These gardens continue to flourish even today and provide food security and nourishment to the citizens of Havana.  To read more click here. 

However, Havana is not a new idea or a communist idea.  In 1943, Eleanor Roosevelt began the Victory Garden movement which helped to feed a lot of families during WWII.  By the way, she did this over the objections of the USDA who feared that home gardening would hurt the American food industry – sound familiar? It’s hard to believe that if our system of food fails, we are all going to Havana for lunch.

In conclusion to this three part series, eating local “real” food has immeasurable benefits.  I urge all of you to join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) and buy your food directly from a local farmer and enjoy an increased sense of community at the same time. You can find a CSA in your area by going to http://www.localharvest.org/ and Eat Grown Local. It is very satisfying to have a relationship with the person who is growing the food you use to feed your family.  It is very personal.   So this Saturday morning head down to your farmers market and get to know the farmers who labor to grow your food. Reduce your ecological footprint and at the same time cultivate a healthy, sustainable way of life.

This blog was originally written for Solar and Wind Living.

Eating as an Environmental Act: Part II – The High Cost of Industrial Animal Food Production

February 8th, 2012

Last time we discussed how the way we eat represents our most profound engagement with the natural world. I discussed how the “food system” consists of everything required to produce, process, move, sell and consume food. The things used to grow food include land, fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and water – and our current industrial food growing system – has resulted in pollution and animal waste. In addition, excessive amounts of energy and fossil fuels are used to process, package, advertise and transport this food.

In this installment we take into consideration how in 2008 Americans spent, on average, less than 10% of their disposable income on food – that’s only half of what we spent on food in the early 1960s. That’s a direct effect of our continuing quest to spend less for more. As we learned in Part I, our demand for, out-of-season foods comes with a huge cost – both nutritional and environmental – because of our insatiable demand for cheap food. Our insistence for cut-rate food is so huge that it has betrayed us.

For example, to satisfy this desire, the food industry has created a diabolically efficient way to “grow” cheap meat. Concentrated area feeding operations, or CAFOs, house thousands of animals (cattle, dairy, hogs and chickens) in pens or cages with as little space as possible. This is done to keep animals from burning calories so they can gain more valuable weight.

Another problem with this system arises from the food source used as feed. Remember this is only an example of the reality that cuts across all types of animal farming. We have to ask ourselves: What is my food eating? For confined cows, it’s grain.

From The National Fork: “The digestive systems of ruminants are not designed to process large amounts of grain, and the grain-based diet causes abnormal changes in the acidity of one of the animal’s stomachs, called the rumin. This abnormal acidity allows for the proliferation of harmful bacteria like E. coli in the animal’s digestive system, and during the butchering process this harmful bacteria often finds its way into the meat.”

This is why more than 80% of antibiotics (used prophylactically) in this country are sold to CAFOs. The overuse of antibiotics is causing growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria strains. The animals are fed a steady diet of hormones and antibiotics and grains. Meat produced like this requires an intense amount of energy…more than 40 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of grain-fed beef (more on this in the next issue).

The following map illustrates where the CAFOs are located around the country – the darker areas represent concentrations of these farms. Americans eat 8.7 billion broiler chickens per year, 100 million hogs and 100 million cattle per year. CAFOs is where that food comes from, unless you buy grass fed beef and sustainably grown foods (more on this on the next issue).

But the damage doesn’t stop there. It is currently estimated that 173,000 miles of national waterways are impacted by runoff from the CAFOs. Confined animal farming is also responsible for 55% of soil and sediment erosion across the country, 37% of nationwide pesticide usage, and for more than 30% of the total nitrogen and phosphorus that ends up in our national drinking water because of this reckless activity. In no time in our past have we faced such detriment to our way of life. It is yours and my duty to stop this thoughtless behavior. Tune in next week when I will present possible solutions.

 

Eating as an Environmental Act: Just How Much is that Grape?

February 3rd, 2012

Michael Pollan says that the way we eat represents our most profound engagement with the natural world. Unfortunately, our food system has less and less to do with the natural world than ever before.

So what do I mean by the term “food system?” The food system is everything required to produce, process, move, sell and consume food. The things used to grow food include land, fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and water – and our current industrial food growing system has resulted in pollution and animal waste. In addition, excessive amounts of energy and fossil fuels are used to process, package, advertise and transport this food.

The average food item travels more than 1500 miles to get to your plate. In 2004, agriculture was responsible for 13.5% of greenhouse gas emissions – more than transportation! So next time you want to buy those grapes from Chile or blueberries in December think about the true cost of how it got to you.

Agriculture accounts for two-thirds of water use worldwide – far above industrial or municipal use. It also accounts for 8% of river and stream pollution and 41% of lake pollution due to current farming practices. Case in point: Forty percent of the Chesapeake Bay was declared a dead zone for part of the summer of 2003. Dead zones, where there is insufficient oxygen for living things to…..well live….are caused by too many nutrients reaching the water. These “nutrients” include fertilizers and animal waste. They feed algae which decompose, and in the process use up the oxygen all the other critters need to live.

How did this current system evolve? In the 1940s, crop yields increased dramatically due to application of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides and the development of mechanized farm equipment and automation. In fact, we became so efficient that fewer and fewer people are needed. In 1920, agricultural work made up 27% of the U.S. labor force. Today, only 2% of Americans work in agriculture. In our “efficiency,” we have made our food system unsustainable and in the process, we have also harmed our environment, health and communities.

We have to ask ourselves what’s the true price of the food on our plate? And the answer is depletion of fossil fuels and healthy top soil, loss of biodiversity, polluted air and water, increased health care costs (obesity and new inflammatory diseases) – and we haven’t even begun to discuss the economic and social costs to communities (unemployment, reduced land value to name just a few).

But in my opinion, maybe the biggest loss from the rise of “Big Ag,” is the loss of our nations’ farms and farmers. In 1952, 47 cents of every dollar went to a farmer; in 2006, only 10 cents did. I have a baseball hat that says “No Farms, No Food.” Maybe I’ll see you wearing that same hat soon.

Coming next week Part II: The Real Price of Animal Food Production

A Fork in the Road…guest blog.

January 19th, 2012

Please read George Lopez’s review of Michael Pollan’s lecture last night which I had the privilege of attending.  George Lopez is the Executive Director of Solar and Wind Living - home of the Solar  and Wind Expo. I know this is a food blog, but food and energy intersect more than we realize and that is something I hope to be expounding upon in the coming year.

Last night Elvia Thompson of Annapolis Green, Sharon New of Local Food Beat and I had the pleasure of attending the Baltimore Speakers Series hear Michael Pollan, the renowned and extremely popular food expert. He spent over an hour describing what is wrong with our food choices at the market in a way that only Pollan can. Afterward he answered questions from the audience. What a great speaker.

After being introduced, Mr. Pollan came out of the side entrance with about eight plastic bags full of (you guessed it) groceries; it was great showmanship. He had earlier in the day visited a local supermarket (I think he said it was Safeway — not that it matters since they are all mostly the same). He reached in the bags and proceeded to bring out boxes of processed this and processed that. He described in detail why each one of these products was sold and packaged as it was. He explained that the food industry has taken the wholesome goodness that Grandma used to make and transformed it into some unrecognizable thing while telling you that it’s good for you. When the food industry claims it has removed something conspicuously dubbed harmful for you (like sodium or saturated fat), it neglects to mention what it put in to replace it – often even worse for your health.

Now I realize that this is not a food website and we are mostly here for energy news, but something about the food industry resembles the energy industry so bear with me while I make this point.

Vegetables, fruit and animals are out there just going through life not bothering anyone, not telling you how much or what to eat. Grandma used to be the one in charge of this duty. But times have changed.

Now the food industry with its money, lobbyists and studies they commission, is attacking the food that Grandma used to give you. It makes claims that new processed food is better, cheaper and oh so convenient. The average shopper sees this and is sucked in. Plain and simple, the cards are stacked against the food consumer.

Along comes Uncle Sam, and he is wearing some bling-bling that he just got from the industry. So Uncle Sam, in his infinite wisdom, says that to feed more people we must subsidize many of the products the industry uses to make processed foods. This includes the ubiquitous corn and soy. Now the good foods (plain old meats, fruit and vegetables) are more expensive than the bad, processed foods on the shelves so the less fortunate are more prone to buying bad foods. One great example was a package of instant mashed potatoes that claimed that is was made with real potaoes. What could possibly be in that package? A little bit of potato and 37, yes 37, other, unpronounceable, ingredients. Buying a couple of good old russets from Idaho would be a lot cheaper. And your tax dollars go to this harmful cycle. Sound familiar? Oil and coal.

Now our government feels it needs to tax the bad foods to help curb their consumption because they are making us fat and unhealthy. An example is taxing sodas – which are made mainly of high fructose corn syrup. This to me sounds like insanity. Why would you tax something that you are already subsidizing? Why not just take away those subsidies? This way you take away money that can be used elsewhere, you curb consumption and you punish the offender.

Mr. Pollan made this great point last night and is the reason that I am writing about this. We have come to the fork in the road – in the food road and in the energy road. One road goes off a cliff and the other begins to restore order. If we do not repair and begin to reverse the effects of greed by industries such as food, coal, oil (and banks too, as long as we are on this) we’ll go off that cliff. Some might say we’re already dangling on the edge.

These industries need to be regulated by the people who consume the stuff: us. Political leaders are not doing the job and it’s up to us to make the changes necessary to restore sanity to our food system. The argument that we should be educated enough to make the right choice is no longer valid when industry marketing makes really difficult to stick to plain old good food at the market anymore.

So here’s the energy connection. Subsidizing dirty energy is as harmful as subsidizing food used to make unhealthy products. We should not be dealing with the environmental issues of the Keystone pipeline or the Gulf oil spill. We should instead be focusing on renewable energy. All of us, regardless of our political affiliation, should make our displeasure known in Washington.

Your political party or tendency to swing left or right has nothing to do with good healthy foods, clean and renewable energy. Politicians, fueled by wealthy supporters, have hijacked the discourse by making everything political.

If we take that fork in the road we are going to end up with something that we just may not recognize. Our grandparents had it right. Home cooked meals and electric cars! Now that’s freedom.

George Lopez

More on Fluoride…and Magnesium vs Deodorant?

January 7th, 2012

 I read two things this past week that I thought were important enough to pass on.  First,  something I failed to write about in my post regarding fluoride  was why – if research confirms the dangers of fluoride – why do most American cities still have it in their water?  Well, my friend at National Fork also wrote a thorough article on flouride and I thought answered this question beautifully.  ”Unfortunately, while there are healthier ways to strengthen teeth, there may not be more profitable ways, at least not from the perspective of the chemical industry.  Fluoride chemicals are well-known bi-products of various industrial processes, including the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers.  The fertilizer industry is an outgrowth of the WWII chemical industry of the 1940′s, and disposal of fluoride waste chemicals has been a problem for these industries from the beginning.  Disposing of them in the drinking water, and convincing the population that the chemicals are “good for you,” may be less expensive than treating them to make them safe.  Don’t expect the media to alert people to the dangers of fluoride.  Large industry draws large profits from the disposal of fluoride chemicals via the drinking water.“  To read the full post, please go here.

The second item that really caught my attention this week was Cheeseslave’s post on the benefits of magnesium and now that she has been supplementing with adequate amounts of magnesium, she has found that she doesn’t need deodorant.  Please read her How I Quit Using Deodorant and What’s Wrong with Deodorant.  Further, post on Are You Suffering from Magnesium Deficiency really got me to thinking about minerals in general  in which I may be deficient.  I know, add it to the list for things to do in 2012!

Why You Should Avoid Fluoride

December 28th, 2011

Did you know that most of the developed world including China, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Hungary, Japan and 97% of Western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water?  I personally use a fluoride-free toothpaste and at my  recent dental cleaning I received a very patronizing and disapproving look from my dental hygienist when I told her I didn’t believe in fluoride and I wanted a fluoride-free rinse.  She didn’t say a word when she informed me that not only did I not have any cavities, I didn’t even have any “watch-spots” and had barely any plaque.  And I had not had a professional cleaning in nearly eight months!  I did have an opportunity at that point to talk to my dentist about the benefits of a nutrient-dense/real food diet on teeth and gum health.  CDC studies show that 41% of teens may be experiencing fluoride overdose which can lead to permament health effects…most notably thyroid disease.  Those of you who have taken my Thyroid/Adrenal Education Class will already know the role that fluoride (and chlorine/chloride- also in the water) play in displacing iodine.  We need adequate amounts of iodine for proper thyroid health.  In fact, it has been estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities may range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day.  To put this in proper perspective, a 1958 clinical study (yes, the evidence has been around that long) showed that with just 2.3 – 4.5 mg/day of fluoride, thyroid function was decreased (hypothyroid).  Is it no wonder then that Synthroid (a synthetic thyroid hormone) is the second most prescribed drug in America? 

To read more about all the possible sources of fluoride in your environment and diet, please read Cheeseslave’s Top Ten Dangers of Fluoride.  You can also print out the following flyer to take to your dentist and/or hand out to friends and families on the dangers of fluoride.

Congress Declares Pizza a Vegetable

November 17th, 2011

Yesterday, Tuesday, November 15, 2011, the final version of  The Spending Bill was released and contained almost a complete reversal of what the USDA proposed earlier this year for new nutritional guidelines for school lunches.  Which means pizza is now a vegetable (think tomato paste). 

 

Now I could care less what the USDA new “standards” for school lunches are because no matter what they propose, they are still going to be nutritionally deficient for growing children and continue to contribute to the increase of Type II diabetes in children.  In fact,  the primary mandate for USDA is to increase demand for US commodity agricultural products – it’s as simple as that.  The new “Dietary Guidelines” are a promotional tool and the new Choose My Plate “food pyramid” is nothing more than the results of congressional lobbying by the cheap grain and cereal-based food companies.  Case in point:   American Frozen Food Institute spent over $5 million convincing Congress to protect their $11 billion annual school lunch profits – and why frozen pizza is now a veggie.  As you know, this is the kind of corporate crony influence that thousands of Americans are protesting.  And so am I.  “Agribusiness is concentrated to a point that would make a Wall Street master of the universe blush,” Tom Philpott wrote in a recent article.

 The USDA doesn’t’ really want us to “eat less and move more.” They want us to “eat more and buy more.”

So chances are if you are a reader of this blog, you know that no amount of new guidelines the USDA puts forth will ever begin to address the real nutritional needs of our school children.   But I for one think it’s time to let Congress know that undo influence by corporate lobbying MUST END – no matter what the arena.

Next »