Raisins

I needed some sultanas (golden raisins) for a recipe, and came across this on the 'Net.



Feds vs. Raisins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8S4S49TyDk&feature=player_embedded

Gonna Quit going to see Doctors...

Yep, I'm thinking to quit going to see any doctors. (No, not really, it's just a negative thought wave I was having.) It seems every time I go, they find more problems, with some now showing up as severe.

I am a firm believer that we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions (including what and how we choose to eat), and I'm no different than anyone else in the aspect of how those choices affect us individually. However, I DO wish I had been better informed years ago about what consequences our food choices have on our health.

My food choices have been great for the last several years, but not so for the first 60 years of my life. (I think I can thank mis-information, advertising and greed for that.) I cannot change the earlier damage that's just now showing up, although hopefully I CAN keep it from getting worse by continuing a healthy, real food diet. I also hope I can pass along lots of healthy food information!

My young (under age 40) primary care physician will not agree with all my food choices, but I have to remember she's a product of what she was taught in medical school, which generally has little emphasis (if any) on good nutrition. She has already recommended a low- to almost non-fat diet and we know the brain thrives on saturated fats!

Medical schools teach how to treat or cure diseases, not how to prevent them. I simply cannot buy the concept of a low-fat diet (and those are too high in bad fats anyway), the excessive sugars found in many fruits and grains, and "foods" filled with fake chemical ingredients... vs. the real foods Nature intended.

The're doing it again: "Raw" Almonds

http://www.flickr.com/photos/healthaliciousness/5604663581/

Many years ago, raw almonds were part of my daily diet. Adele Davis advised 3 raw almonds daily to avoid cancer. (Almonds contain laetril, a cancer-fighting agent.) In the outbreak of salmonella in raw almonds a few years back, thirty-three people became ill, but no one died. (Contrast that to the thousands of deaths caused by prescription drugs each year!)

"Almonds have tremendous health benefits. They are an excellent source of manganese, copper, and vitamin B2 (all of which are important for the body’s energy production). Almonds are rich in magnesium, phosphorus, zinc and vitamin E, and high in health-promoting monounsaturated fatty acids and many other nutrients.

Raw almonds (with no heat applied) are particularly healthy. According to USDA data, raw almonds have more calcium, iron, potassium, fiber, manganese, and vitamin E. By insisting that raw almonds be “sterilized,” USDA is trying to take an extremely healthy food sound scary—something the public needs to be “protected” from, when actually the public may be more at risk from the chemical used to treat the nuts. Raw, organic almonds are not scary. As we point out in our brief, no salmonella outbreaks have been associated with organic almonds because they follow higher-quality processing controls. Therefore, organic raw almonds should not have been subject to the mandate in the first place." Source
 

So now all US raw almonds are being sterilized "for our safety" but the problem is HOW, and the effects of different methods, plus lack of labeling to tell us which method was used. Over 68% of US almonds are treated with PPO.

"Imported almonds are not subject to the almond rule (how is that for logic?)—so if consumers want real raw almonds, they will have to buy the imported ones. What a tragedy that our public policy is deliberately hurting the domestic market—especially small organic farmers, who need every sale they can get!

According to the Almond Board, five methods of “pasteurization” are permitted: oil roasting, dry roasting, blanching, steam processing, and the use of propylene oxide (PPO). A sixth method involved irradiating the almonds, and this was used for a number of years, but now the Almond Board states that “Almond pasteurization does not include irradiation.”

What is PPO you ask?

PPO is an extremely volatile liquid used in the production of polyurethane plastics. It was once used as a racing fuel, but was banned by both the National Hot Rod and American Motorcycle Racing Associations for being too dangerous—it’s so volatile that it is used in fuel–air bombs.

The material safety data sheet for PPO warns:
"Causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure. Aspiration of material into the lungs may cause chemical pneumonitis, which may be fatal…. May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. May cause heritable genetic damage."

According to the EPA, acute (short-term) exposure to PPO has caused eye and respiratory tract irritation, and skin irritation and necrosis. It’s also a mild central nervous system depressant and causes inflammatory lesions of the nasal cavity, trachea, and lungs. In animal studies, PPO causes neurological effects and tumors, leading EPA to classify it as a class B2 carcinogen, and California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Massachusetts to list it on their state right-to-know registries as a known carcinogen.

Certainly the first three methods completely cook the nuts, so they are no longer raw. Of the last two, steam causes a marked reduction in nutrient content and partially cooks the nuts, and PPO is, according to the EPA, a “probable human carcinogen.”

So for raw almonds, your choice is to either cook them or make them potentially toxic. Steam treatments are running up to $2.5 million, whereas PPO starts at $500,000. Which do you think most farmers choose?

The “pasteurization” rule was introduced in 2007 in response to a string of salmonella outbreaks linked to large almond processing plants in 2001 and 2004. California’s Almond Board colluded with the USDA to propose mandatory “sterilization” across the industry, and the USDA agreed to implement and enforce the new rule.

Raw organic almonds not treated with PPO may be heat pasteurized with steam. But heat may oxidize the omega 3 fatty acids in almonds, potentially turning them rancid and producing free radicals, which are believed to play a role in the development of cancer and other degenerative diseases.

Even worse, there is no labeling requirement to show that almonds have been steamed or treated with PPO, so consumers are misled into thinking they are eating truly natural raw almonds when in fact they are not. Labeling is an absolute necessity for consumers to make an informed choice.

When the rule was instituted, raw and organic almond farmers were outraged and pushed back. They fought the USDA, and in 2010 a federal appeals court ruled they could challenge USDA’s almond regulation.

Now ANH-USA has submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs (an amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court,” is an outsider who provides information to assist the court in making its decision). Our brief will allow ANH-USA to raise issues that may not be brought up by the plaintiffs during regular trial proceedings. It will also let us take a stand against the USDA and call attention to the public policy and public health implications of the almond rule.

Besides the aforementioned problems with the “pasteurization” process, there are serious legal concerns about the rule-making process. USDA did not go through the normal, open public hearing and comment process when issuing the almond rule. The agency contacted only 115 select almond growers and handlers—out of a total of over 6,000—to invite them to comment on the proposed rule, and consumers and retailers were almost universally unaware of the proposed rule. Only eighteen public comments were received from the entire country.

ANH-USA sees the almond rule as a slippery slope, because for the first time USDA is establishing minimum “standards” for how farm products are processed, setting a dangerous precedent for the potential sterilization of other organic agricultural products. Will they try to irradiate spinach, or will they realize the process will actually destroy the delicate product? We argue in our brief that the USDA is not a food safety agency and thus such decisions are not within their mandate.

The lack of labeling is arguably a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices to be unlawful. A “deceptive act” includes a “misleading omission.” Labeling steam-heated almonds as raw is intentionally misleading; and we would argue that not disclosing the fact that almonds are being treated with PPO, when the public, if they knew of the practice, would surely refuse to buy them, is extraordinarily deceptive.
Source

Knowing Your Local Farmers

Photo by Watershed Post

Meat recalls... I get bulletins almost every day from FSIS (the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service) about meat recalls. It's disgusting. This month, Cargill recalled 29,000 pounds, (more than 14 tons) of ground beef as a salmonella outbreak sickened dozens of people in seven US states. 

I follow a blog about permaculture written by a medical doctor serving in the US military, and he also writes for AgriTrue.com, where he posted some interesting comments about beef recalls.

"First, this is a lot of meat. I wondered how many steers (or old dairy cows) it takes to make 14 tons of ground beef. This is not such a simple question to answer. Was the beef made from mostly old dairy cows, which would be used almost entirely for ground beef, or was the beef from large-breed, healthy steers, which would be used for steaks, roasts, and other cuts, with a much smaller portion going into ground beef production? Let’s for arguments sake pick a weight number somewhere in the middle of the two realms… 500 lbs. This would mean that it would take 56 animals to produce 14 tons of ground meat.

Unfortunately, this recall pales in comparison to the 71,500 tons of beef recalled in 2008. Using our math, that would be over 280,000 animals “wasted”.  

 

I also thought about how these types of recalls are really a product of large scale agriculture. Is there anything inherently wrong with large scale agriculture? Well, I don’t know. I do know that there are a lot of problems that arise from the practices associated with it. I know that there is a lot of waste. I know that there is a lot of environmental damage. I know that the product being produced is typically far inferior in flavor and nutrition. I know that when a mistake is made, that mistake is proportionately as large as the corporation behind it. So, yeah, maybe there is something inherently wrong with large scale agriculture.

Now, I also had to admit that there can be contamination and illness issues from small, local producers. However, these issues are going to be significantly smaller. They will affect substantially fewer people. In addition, when it is a smaller operation, fewer mistakes are made. This is just logical. When you are only processing five animals from your farm, you will have much greater attention to detail. Your mind won’t start to drift and daydream because you are doing something new the whole time. You will not be lulled into autopilot as you do the same thing over and over again. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens on the factory floors of the large animal processing facilities. Of course I understand that the small scale beef producer rarely processes his own meat, but the point is that smaller is usually safer."

His point is well taken by me. I buy beef from a man who slaughters only half a dozen beef a year. I know how he raises them, and I know how he amends the soil that grows the grasses they eat. I don't much like the processing facility he uses, but it's the only one for many, many miles around. (The USDA inspector has a permanent office there.) They make as much money from the non-meaty parts (offal, hides, hooves, etc.) sold to outside buyers as they do processing the meats for local farmers.

This leads me into our drought conditions and the price of feed for CAFO beef, which are mostly grain-fed, but that's for another post. 

Government Crackdowns and Food Control

I haven't posted a rant about the government controlling what I eat in quite a while, but this news item below caught my eye. To me, it just sets up another means of the government tracking and ultimately controlling what I can grow in my own garden.

Utah Garden Challenge (for Suckers)

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food is promoting the Utah Garden Challenge in order to collect information about independent food production for the USDA.

The Utah Garden Challenge is a voluntary contest to register 10,000 gardens. The data mining project has a broad interest in any "resource" who is growing food:

"Whether you grow a tomato in a pot, a row in a community garden, have backyard gardens, a CSA or working fruit and vegetable farm, we want to hear from you because you are an important resource as a food producer."

While the contest paints a proud face on independent food production, it is important to remember that registering with the government sets up a system to track, tax, permit or confiscate the registered item. Gun ownership is a good example of this scheme.

According to a pop-up window on the official website, participants' gardens will be registered with the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS):

"We need to know how much food is being produced in Utah. The Census of Agriculture is done every 5 years.  Every agricultural operation in Utah, regardless of size, is vital to this question.  If you produce $1000 of agricultural products, you can influence economic development and decision making by filling out a NASS survey.  We will only share your information with NASS by your permission.  Your response to the census of agriculture is protected by law.  For more information, you can go to www.agcensus.gov  "

In other words, people who produce $1000 or more worth of food have an impact on the food market, and the USDA wants to know about what you are doing in your backyard.

Victory gardens in America produced up to 40% of all vegetables consumed during World War II, with over 20 millon home gardens and community plots that produced over 9 million tons of food.

The USDA is notorious for its corrupt partnerships and revolving door business relationships with big commercial agriculture.

Government Crackdowns and Food Control
Food is under attack because if you can grow your own food, have access to water and shelter, then what use do you have for a government master?

The federal government has profoundly overstepped its constitutional authority on all fronts, and there are a number of examples of the USDA's outrageous control over food that include SWAT team raids on raw milk sellers and fruit tree confiscation. 

The Food Safety Modernization Act expanded the power of the FDA and its sister agency, the USDA.  The law is bad for many reasons and is an overwhelming burden on small and independent farmers due to over-regulation and increase in paperwork and reporting. 

Additionally, the FBI identifies people who store food as potential terrorists! 

Why Is Utah a Threat?
1.  A few months ago Utah voted down a Food Freedom Bill that would have made it a crime for anyone, including Utah state agents, to enforce the Food Safety Modernization Act's unconstitutional mandates.  It would have made farmers who trade only inside of state lines exempt.  The bill was a direct constitutional challenge to federal overreach.

2. Highland City, Utah passed a Food Freedom ordinance that exempts residents from federal regulations on food that is produced, exchanged and consumed within city limits (state laws still apply).

3.  Utah has the largest concentration of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons) who have an official policy of food storage, currently set at a 1-year minimum supply.  This may be construed as a threat by the FBI, especially since a 1-year supply of food can cost as little as $225.

Conclusion
Survivalist.com points out that the Utah Garden Challenge is linked to the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development plan for totalitarian control. 

The Utah Garden Challenge is enticing Utahans with meager prizes (a 1-in-1000 chance of winning a giftcard or free restaurant dinner) to register their gardens and subject themselves to invasive government data mining.  But is your food independence worth it?

"Pink Slime" in Hamburger, what about Chicken???

This is mechanically separated chicken, an invention of the late 20th century. This particular paste, chicken -- is the main ingredient in chicken nuggets, chicken hot dogs, chicken bologna, and an ingredient in things like pepperoni, salami, jerky etc, etc. Mechanically separated chicken is also treated with ammonia for sterilization purposes, just as is Pink Slime. If you see the words 'finely textured' before the name of the meat, this is what you are eating...

Someone figured out in the 1960′s that meat processors can eke out a few more percent of profit from chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows by scraping the bones 100% clean of meat. This is done by machines, not humans, by passing bones leftover after the initial cutting through a high pressure sieve. The paste you see in the picture above is the result.

The industry calls this method AMR – Advanced Meat Recovery.

The definition of "meat" was amended in December 1994 to include any "meat" product that is produced by advanced meat/bone separation machinery. "This meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand." This machinery separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Product produced by advanced meat recovery (AMR) machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (e.g., "pork trimmings" and "ground pork").

Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)
Mechanically separated meat is a paste-like and batter-like meat product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue.

Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP)
Mechanically separated poultry is a paste-like and batter-like poultry product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible tissue, through a sieve or similar device under high pressure to separate bone from the edible tissue. Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions. However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or turkey" in the product's ingredients statement. 

The final rule became effective November 4, 1996. Hot dogs can contain any amount of mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
Source

Are you really comfortable now with the meats the supermarkets are selling, or those in the fast food drive-throughs? Actually I do not blame them in general... they just buy a product they are told is edible (and aren't we all gullible?), and sell it to us. I blame the USDA and FSIS for allowing the corporate pressures and financial contributions of BigAg to determine what we eat.

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”

I certainly agree that kids should have a balanced lunch, and not just the pre-schoolers, but all kids. But for some inspector to decide that cafeteria chicken(?) nuggets breaded and fried in a GMO oil are better than a homemade turkey and cheese sandwich just doesn't cut it. 

Moreover, what kind of message are they giving a 4 year old by the state officers inspecting their lunch bags? A message that the state is all-knowing and in control, and the mother is just dumb and too incompetent to pack a good lunch? This is really outrageous!!

I also notice there's nothing about a child's food allergies included in the mandates. Will kids have to have their allergies tattooed on their arms so every new inspector can read it? 

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”

State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead 

By Carolina Journal News Reports (click for full story)

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich [on white whole wheat bread, ~editor], banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

Some USDA school and general nutrition links:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/regulations.htm

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/nutrition.htm

"Specialty Crops" and the Farm Bill

In trying to understand how and why our government has allowed so much adulteration of my food supply, I finally had to start following the money. A lot of the money comes from Farm Bill subsidies...and the Farm Bill must be the recipient of the most expensive lobbying in our history, outside of maybe the presidential campaigns!

I bet you have never read any portion of the Farm Bill. It's not an easy task, reading through the Farm Bill. The last one, passed in 2008 (good for 5 years) weighed in at 1,770 pages. I wonder if even those that write it have a clear, full picture of all of it... too many fingers in the pie. I certainly don't understand much of it, yet it affects us all, daily. 

There are, however, some glaring facts and omissions, plus at least one or two really good programs. 

First, the good: 

Programs like SNAP (formerly called food stamps) are fully funded by the Farm Bill, and the National School Lunch Program and other school-based child nutrition programs get some funding from it,as I understand the inter-agency convolutions. Another small Farm Bill program gives farmer's market vouchers to low-income senior citizens like me. Although the vouchers are cumbersome to use (each voucher is for $5 and no vendor is allowed to give change), I made some use of the $40 I got in vouchers in 2011, probably getting around $20 total in produce for my vouchers. But it wasn't really very fair economically, because our tax dollars paid $40 for my $20 of produce. The vendors should be able to give change, even if if it's just another smaller-amount voucher to use later.

Did you know that the fruit and vegetable products that hit our grocery stores are only considered as "specialty crops" by the USDA, and that is how they are handled by the Farm Bill? Handled only as "bit players" on the sidelines in the Farm Bill.  Only 1% of the Farm Bill goes towards specialty crops.

I don't know about you, but I'd choose to use some of our tax dollars to support local, ethical family farmers who grow my apples, carrots, beans and broccoli. And more specifically, the organic farmers who do not infuse my fruits and vegetables with pesticides and herbicides.

The not-so-good

The products the Farm Bill mainly subsidizes are the five big commodity crops: corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and cotton. The dollar value of the commodity crops the US exported in 2010 was $108,662,000,000, and we subsidized them to grow it. The payments go out regardless of need. In fact, since 1995, a mere 10 percent of all subsidized farms – only the largest and wealthiest operations – have raked in 74 percent of all subsidy payments. The money kept on coming right through the five highest earnings years ever for farm income. (Source)

Commercial corn farmers made a killing in 2011, mainly because they were subsidized to provide corn for the failing ethanol program, feed corn for CAFO's, and of course, for the high fructose corn syrup used in far too many packaged items on the grocery shelves. 

Then there's soy...

Soy is a known obesogen (which leads to weight gain) as well as a known goitrogen (substances that suppress the function of the thyroid gland which also leads to weight gain; think: goiter) and in spite of the rising obesity levels and consequential health care costs in the US, the 2007-2012 Farm Bill allocated $42 billion of our tax money for industrial farmed GMO soy beans. Data from the USDA indicates 94% of all soybean crops in the US are GMO, and the FDA even pushes soy... “Diets that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease.” 

Did I miss somewhere that being overweight (thanks in part to chemicals in soy) reduces the risk of heart disease?

There are three problematic monocultures in industrial agriculture: corn, soy, and sugar. U.S. Farm Bill subsidies for these (as well as for other commodity crops) encourage cheap and unhealthy foods and food fillers, sick GMO-fed animals whose meat enters our food system, extreme pesticide use, and damage to soil and water sources. The Commodity Cropism project seeks to expose veiled information about these crops, and provide the public with data left out or obscured by loosely monitored food production and labeling systems.

Monsanto’s GMO Beet sugar seed is now used by 95% of beet farmers (usually under multi-year binding seed contracts they can't get out of), who supplied around 50% of the nation’s sugar in 2011... 64 pounds per person per year, up 28%.

I have read that US foreign aid policies are very often include a clause that requires the receiving nation to accept and use Monsanto GMO seed as a requisite for getting our aid. What's with that??

When was the first food and farm bill signed into law and why?

The first one was signed into law as a temporary measure in 1933 as a way to aid farmers suffering in the Great Depression. Since then it has come before Congress roughly every five years. Nutrition programs were added to the farm bill in the late 1970s to win the support of lawmakers from urban districts. The 2008 Farm Bill had a price tag of nearly $300 billion. It expires in 2012.

Since a lot of the money does go to nutrition programs like SNAP, it’s time to start calling it a "food and farm bill" and to increase investments in healthy food programs. A top priority is to protect food assistance programs for the neediest, especially in the lingering aftermath of the 2008 recession. ... work to improve and expand programs that increase access to healthy foods, strengthen local and regional food systems and provide new markets for diversified, local, sustainable and organic growers and ranchers. (Source)

I'd like to see subsidies (IF THEY ARE REALLY NECESARY) used properly, and not just be "gimmies" for BigAg... and I agree with the Environmental Working Group... I, too would like to see a chunk of the farm subsidy dollars shifted to conservation programs. This would help fund programs that protect soil, water and air quality, preserve wildlife habitat, and conserve energy and water. In my opinion, if we don't conserve what's left (pitiful as it may be) there won't be many future crops.

Update: I wrote this about mid-January 2012, and on Feb. 1 read an interesting article on this general subject by Sharon Astyk that you may wish to read. She does a great job of explaining the cost of a gallon of milk, although there's much more to the article. Click here.

Cooking a Frog

You’ve probably heard the old saying before: "If you want to cook a frog, you can’t toss it into a pot of boiling water because it will just jump out. Instead, you put it in the water first and then slowly turn the temperature up. The frog will slowly adjust to the change until it’s too late."

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't what's happening to the control over the foods we eat. Rather than implementing strict controls all at once, "incrementalism" makes small changes over time in an atmosphere where people are usually resistant to change. This is especially easy if you add the fear about food "safety" to the mix.

The fear about food safety is now so wide-spread that it ranks right up there with terrorism. The American Public, thanks to government and media hype, has come to believe that even our food and water is subject to a terrorist attack; therefore, we have become hypervigilant and have allowed laws to be passed that curtail our basic food freedoms. In fact, the FBI now can prosecute anyone as a terrorist if they expose animal welfare abuses taking place on factory farms like feedlots, slaughter houses or poultry houses.

Now I am not saying an attack on our food and water could not happen... surely some home-grown malcontent, or even a foreign terrorist, could find a way to poison any water supply, or any fresh produce shipment, but is it prudent to control the entire food supply (and diminish the nutrients) to the extent the government now does, or proposes to do? Where is MY choice for the chemical-free food I prefer to eat?

The Devil is in the Details. "It’s the Farm Bill that largely shapes food and agriculture policy, and — though much of it finances good programs [like food stamps and WIC ~editor] — ultimately supports the cynical, profit-at-any-cost food system that drives obesity, astronomical health care costs, ethanol-driven agriculture and more, creating further deficits while punishing the environment." (Source)

I eat fresh local fruit and vegetables from family farmers I have come to know personally. (I'm pretty sure there are no terrorists among them, nor do I believe they are out to poison me.). So why should that fresh food be subject to the same, and very expensive food packaging mechanization, chemical washing, and handling requirements for the massive produce shippers from several thousand miles away, who must contend with multiple handling of the foods and multiple storage sites of their "fresh" foods for weeks until it finally hits the shelves?

Will the next regulation require Federal testing of the produce I grow in my own garden before I am allowed to eat it?

"If you control the food supply, you control the people." ~Henry Kissinger

ps... I'm almost through ranting about adulterated food... for a while, at least. Soon it will be time to start the 2012 garden and have my own real foods to eat again!

2012... and Beyond

NASA Goddard Photo

The year 2012 should be interesting.

Many folks have an underlying (or at least partial) belief running through their subconscious mind that Nostradamus' and the Mayan "end of the World" scenarios might happen. However, most of our overt behavior indicates total disbelief not only in Doomsday predictions, but also in accepting the critical food/water/health situation worldwide. (Isn't the media wonderful?) Our changing weather patterns continue to impose hardships on many of our lives and gardens, giving credence to possible violent environmental changes that could be coming to this lovely blue planet we occupy.

Personally, I do not believe the "end of the world" will happen in December 2012. However, the environmental, economical and political changes are not only continuing, but increasing... and it could get right nasty down the road.

There is another prediction out there, proclaimed by many, that the "changes" will usher in a "thousand-year era of Peace". IMO, there is much that needs to be significantly altered before real Peace can happen.

On our food and health aspects for change, it is time for us to increase our awareness and ethical/moral responsibility beyond what the for-profit television and advertising media tell us... because ultimately our health/future Is NOT Up to Someone Else.

GMO's have proliferated simply because we didn't raise any flags in the beginning. It is our own fault. For too many years we have allowed ourselves to believe that others ("medical professionals and government officials?") know best, or at least know what they are doing. We are bombarded hundreds of times a day by subtle advertising messages indicating "they" are more educated and/or informed than we are, so the vast majority have given up individual responsibility for our own health and well-fare. Our self-inflicted ignorance has let the government (and us) buy into corporate hype of all kinds (which interestingly also put money in many, many pockets). 

Thus the many corporate tribes and alphabet government agencies motivated by... (power? greed? or something else??) have given us obesity and disease by catering to and building on a human weakness for convenience, sugar and other junk foods. We have become a nation of addicts... and we are addicted to all kinds of substances. For far too many people [including children], it is sugary beverages and junk foods, while for others it might be an escape into alcohol or drugs. But as with any addiction, we never think with 100% clarity under the influence... and will do almost anything to keep getting our "fix" in spite of what our minds know. 

As a nation, we eat more so called "food" and gain less energy (nutrition) from it all the time. The working mother eating the SAD diet (Standard American Diet) has NO energy left to prepare real food meals when she comes home from work, even if she could buy real food anymore in most places. (She says she doesn't have "time" but in reality, she also doesn't have the "energy".) So instead of having enough energy to prepare a real food meal, she barely has the energy to pick up junk fast food on the way home, or frozen boxed junk food to nuke for dinner for the family. Eating this way, she never gains a storehouse of energy for the next day, and simply repeats the process over and over, becoming more frazzled every day from lack of good nutrition. 

Adele Davis always said a food without nutrients would not support life, and her example was a loaf of factory bread left on the counter (unwrapped) for weeks. It might dry out, but it would not support any bacterial life to decompose it. If it won't even support bacterial life, how could it support life for us?? Recently someone left a McD's cheeseburger on the counter for a whole year, and nothing grew there either. It sustained no bacterial life. (Source)

Change is never easy, but for the most part it can be started in small steps. Two years ago when I changed my food intake drastically to eliminate adulterated foods all at once (including foods with added sweeteners), I thought I would starve to death during the first 2-3 weeks. It took a long time for me to learn to think outside the box and change from what I had been accustomed to eating for years, to finding real foods to eat. Then as I started feeling the increased energy every day from eating real food (and probably eliminating some built-up toxins during that time), I began to understand what sugar and chemical-laden foods do to my body.

Unfortunately over the last year, I have slowly added some adulterated foods back to my diet, and I really see the poor consequences, both in my energy levels... and my weight. The good news is that I never deviated from my commitment to eating only grass-fed meats. I'm doing much better now in avoiding chemical-laden packaged foods (thus no GMO's) but where I am still struggling is to get sugars out of my diet again. The traditional and accepted flush of sweet goodies over the holidays put me right back into sugar addiction, and I really cannot totally blame the food industry... They only make the stuff; it's my hand that lifts the cookie to my mouth. 

Then there are the sweets in other foods... "research and development teams have done studies and conducted taste panels that have found sweet sells. The more we sell sweet stuff the more people come to expect it. Sweet is found in loads of savory items. Sweet tomato sauces, crackers, salad dressings, mustards, coated chicken products, sausages, and more. Many of our fresh products are enhanced with sugar also. Butterball turkey, pumped brined pork loins, stewing hens. Our palates are being distorted by sweet." (Source)
 

Some small but positive steps:

Make a commitment to one family meal every week or two that contains only real foods. Nothing from a chemical-laden package (cookie/cake mix, packaged salad dressings, sweetened yogurt, BBQ sauce, yada, yada), no GMO's. You probably cannot escape the GMO's in the meats from factory meat animals, including chickens and their eggs, unless you can afford pastured meats... but start somewhere. No fake butters, no canola or soy oils (both GMO's), no sugar substitutes, nothing fake. I know many of the regular readers of this blog eat real foods almost exclusively... but perhaps just as many readers do not.

Make the time for a friendly email or telephone call to your local congressional representative saying you'd like to see food labels that state GMO or not, and hopefully even whether routine animal antibiotics in healthy animals were used. Tell them politely that you'd like to know what's actually in your food.

It may take years of persistence, but remember the soil in our yards is the result of eons of weathering effects on rocks that turned them into soil.

It CAN Happen Here

There is a long history of populations saying, "It can't happen here..." and then it does. There is a new food bill pending in New Zealand that takes away the human "right" to grow food and save seeds, and instead makes it a government-authorized "privilege" that can be revoked on any pretext.

I've heard for years about the freedom hazards of adopting Codex Alimentarius, which is a world-wide attempt at regulating foods, vitamins and OTC medicines/herbal medicines, and now even water. Codex is what's behind the move to take supplements off the shelves in the US and make it necessary to get a doctor's prescription for vitamins.

The spin on Codex is food safety, but I believe it is more about control pushed by BigAg, BigPharma, and BigBusiness in general. For sure, food safety is a major concern to all of us, but that phrase is used to push the buttons on an uninformed public to get legislation passed. We'll pass almost any ridiculous Law if it guarantees food safety, even with a great but hidden expense to our freedom to choose.

I get frequent email updates from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS), along with updates from CMS.gov and and every week we move closer to full acceptance and implementation of Codex here in the US.

Here are 2 quotes from the article I read about the New Zealand Bill: 

"I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO [World Trade Organisation], which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org".

"- The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another." (emphasis mine)

Already in the US, new regulations about cleaning seeds (Multi-million dollar special equipment now required for each seed type) has put many non-GMO seed sellers out of business.

I just downloaded the 252 page Codex bulletin on milk. It will take a while to read and decipher because many regs are based on mandates listed elsewhere on Codex, rather than in the brochure. Typical legalese! I suspect I will find the USDA push against raw milk has a foundation somewhere in Codex. JMHO.

GMO's Strike Aagin, tacit USDA Approval?

Photo from PlantFiles by bigcityal

Just in case you thought I was giving up fighting against GMO's being forced down out throats...

Round-Up Ready Kentucky Bluegrass approval was snuck by us recently, late on a Friday afternoon while we were busy planning weekend activities. The Round-Up Ready Kentucky Bluegrass is a product of Scott's Miracle Gro.

Now, I don't necessarily care a whole lot if lawn grass is genetically modified (other than the overall environmental implications) since I don't eat grass... although cows sometimes do, so it's possibly in the milk and beef ... but there are huge implications for other human and animal food crop GMo's in the whole process.  There are now 2 grasses (Bentgrass is the other one*) that resist Round-Up. I DO worry about the GMO grass seed that will fly on the wind, and what it might do eventually to other crops, and my garden... and I worry about all that additional glyphosate (Round-Up) that will now be used on our soils which will end up running into, and contaminating, our waterways. Most of all I worry about pastured cows eating GMO grass.

Actually, the "acceptance (aka tacit approval)" of Round-Up Ready Kentucky Bluegrass opens the door for more unregulated GMO's, due to the convolutions of USDA regulations (Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology). It is much too intricate to explain here, and even difficult for me to understand with adequate explanation, which you can find here. 

It gets really involved trying to understand the 1950's era Plant Pest Act, and the 2000 Plant Protection Act which broadened the Plant Pest Act slightly, adding one more regulatory hook to the USDA’s sparse GMO-regulation toolkit. That was the “noxious weed” status... any engineered crop that threatens to go rogue in the field and become a hard-to-control weed may be regulated. Most of the data below is from here.

Scotts requested that [USDA] confirm that Kentucky bluegrass is modified without plant pest components…therefore is not a regulated article within the meaning of the current regulations.

In its July 1 response, the USDA agreed: “None of the organisms used in generating this genetically engineered (GE) glyophosphate tolerant Kentucky bluegrass…are considered to be plant pests,” so Roundup Ready bluegrass “does not meet the definition of a ‘regulated article’ and is not subject” to the Plant Protection Act. 

In other words, go forth and multiply.

Homeowners dealing with rogue Roundup Ready bluegrass may have to resort to chemicals far more toxic than Roundup. (See note below on Bentgrass Trials.)

What this whole mess really means is that the USDA has no obligation to perform environmental-impact or endangered-species analyses of new organisms in the biotech pipeline, including plants engineered as pharmaceutical substances and biofuel feedstocks.

In an email exchange, a USDA press officer confirmed that the agency would not be conducting an environmental-impact statement on Roundup Ready bluegrass—and by extension, any other crops that don’t count as plant pests or noxious weeds.

But Kimbrell (George Kimbrell, senior attorney, Center for Food Safety) made an important point: “Look, [the USDA] is a rogue agency,” he said. “It has been rebuked time and time again by the courts for its failed oversight of these crops.”

Implication: Take away the plant-pest and noxious-weed hooks and the courts can no longer intervene. The industry gets free rein to plant whatever it wants—wherever it wants. This development worries Gurian-Sherman (senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program). “Will some companies still want to have the fig leaf of USDA regulation even if they’re not using plant-pest material? Probably,” he says. “But they don’t have to. It’s now their choice.”

Moreover, he adds, “the noxious-weed standard has been set so high as to be virtually meaningless.” 

The industry has begun using nonpest material to develop novel crops. “If the companies don’t use plant pests, then the USDA ostensibly doesn’t have a legal hook to regulate the crops,” he says.

The USDA notes that conventional bluegrass is already widely planted across the country without causing much harm; from there it assumes that Scotts’ engineered bluegrass won’t be a problem either, concluding that it need not be declared a “noxious weed” after all. And if it’s neither a plant pest nor a noxious weed, the USDA has no right or obligation to regulate it.  

Game, set, match to Scotts Miracle Gro.

The new regime laid out in the bluegrass announcement would “drastically weaken USDA’s regulation” of genetically modified crops.

Long story short, it means that the USDA theoretically regulates new GMO crops the same way it would regulate, say, a backyard gardener’s new crossbred squash variety. Which is to say, it really doesn’t. But that’s absurd. GM crops pose different environmental threats than their non-modified counterparts. The most famous example involves the rapid rise of Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton, which were introduced in the mid-late 1990s and now blanket tens of millions of acres of US farmland. Spraying all of that acreage every year with a single herbicide has given rise to a plague of Roundup-resistant “superweeds,” forcing farmers to apply more and more Roundup and also resort to other, far-more-toxic products. 

Crops that aren’t engineered to withstand an herbicide could never have created such a vexation.

*Bentgrass: In 2005, Scotts grew trial plots of its bentgrass in Oregon. It escaped the boundaries of the experimental plot and is still creating problems for homeowners miles away.
.

Slow Cookers and the Danger Zone

My new slow cooker

I have a new slow cooker, and it is lousy. It overcooks, scorches and burns. At first I just thought I had a cheap cooker, but then I began to hear my friends voicing the same concerns. It appears the Powers That Be have decided they know more about what is right for me than I do. The old slow cooker I had for years finally died and I had to buy a new one. They are all the same except for looks and control gadgetry, right? Well the answer is Yes... and No. 

Yes, the new models all work just about the same... and No, they do NOT work like the old ones! They get much hotter, to the point of abusing the food in them.

Every person who has ever packed picnic food, or who has canned food at home, or made cured meats knows there is a DANGER ZONE in food for safety. That danger zone is between 40ºF and 140ºF,  because it is within that temperature range that the pathogens proliferate. (Bacteria that cause disease are called pathogens; not all bacteria are pathogens however. When certain pathogens enter the food supply, they can cause foodborne illness.) That's why our refrigerators are designed to keep foods chilled below 40ºF (or frozen to 0ºF or below). Pathogens will still grow at low temps, just very slowly. Cooked foods need to reach at least 140ºF to kill any pathogens in them, and kept at 140ºF or warmer after being cooked, OR chilled to below 40ºF.

Water is pasteurized at ~150ºF and food is pasteurized at ~160ºF. Note that pasteurized means the destruction of all bacteria that may be harmful to health (pathogens). There are two primary methods of pasteurization: the liquid can be heated to 145ºF and held there for at least thirty minutes, or the liquid can be flash pasteurized at 161ºF  for a minimum of 16 seconds. After pasteurization, bacteria can still appear. It is important that foods be safely handled and stored at every step of the supply process from animal, fruit or vegetable to stomach. In most cases, after food is pasteurized it should be refrigerated.

After pasteurization, bacteria can still appear. It is important that foods be safely handled and stored at every step of the supply process from animal, fruit or vegetable to stomach. In most cases, after food is pasteurized it should be refrigerated. Keep cold foods cold. Keep hot foods hot.

Fish is cooked at 125º-140ºF; beef is cooked at 145º-170ºF; pork is cooked at 160º-170ºF and chicken is cooked at 165º-180ºF. According to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the recommended minimum temperatures, to kill off potentially harmful bacteria are:

* Beef, veal, and lamb steaks, roasts and chops: 145ºF

* All cuts of pork: 160ºF

* Ground beef, veal and lamb: 160ºF

* All poultry: 165ºF

* When reheating cooked food, heat to a minimum internal temperature of 165ºF.

My old slow-cooker

The older slow cookers generally had a temp range on the low setting of around 185ºF, which was acceptable even if a bit high for slowly cooking foods over a long time. Newer slow cookers generally heat to something over 200ºF on the low setting, and over 300ºF on the high setting. I couldn't find the average temp for the "keep warm" setting, but my new slow cooker simmers with tiny bubbles on "warm". There is a thread on one of the forums I read about the newer slow cookers. NO ONE is happy with them. They now cook with higher temps that overcook and sometimes burn the food.

I decided to check out the heat range in my new cooker by filling it 2/3 full with warm water (115ºF) and see what it actually does. I started it on HIGH, as I would do for food. Note, times are from the beginning, or from the previous change in temperature setting, NOT from the previous reading.

Initial water temp: 115ºF
Set Temp Control to HIGH
After 1 hour: 160ºF
After 1½ hours: 175ºF
After 2 hours: 200ºF

After 3 hours: Boiling, 212ºF
Reduced Temp Control to LOW
One hour later: 200ºF
Two hours later: 200ºF
Three hours later: 200ºF.
Reduced Temp Control to KEEP WARM
One hour later: 175ºF
Two hours later: 175ºF
Three hours later: 175ºF

I am going to let it cool down overnight, and start again set to WARM tomorrow. I need to know if 175ºF is the temp it will heat to initially after setting just to WARM, or if that's the temp a cooked food will cool down to and then stay there to keep warm.

My, my... how interesting (and possibly dangerous)! I started my slow cooker on KEEP WARM, with the cooled water from last night, now @ 75ºF.

One hour later: 100ºF
Two and Three hours later: 125ºF
One more hour: about 150ºF, and a bit higher (165ºF) as the heat cycled on.
Then I turned the control to LOW
In one hour, it went to 175ºF
In another hour, it went to 180ºF
In another hour, it jumped to 200ºF, and stayed there all night.

Here are my conclusions:
1. Using the HIGH setting is clearly too high, and overcooks.
2. Starting on LOW with something already lukewarm still cooks it too hot to suit me, although it takes almost 2 hours to get to 200º. It will maintain 200º as long as it is turned on.
3. Starting a refrigerator-temp meat on KEEP WARM has the meat in the DANGER ZONE (40ºF - 140ºF) for far too long, over 4 hours. But then it keeps it between 150º and 170º.

So, what seems safe to me now, is to begin with a heated liquid (over 140º) and perhaps browning any meat before putting it in the warm liquid in my slow cooker, and setting it to Keep Warm, where it will stay in the 150º-170ºF range. I will be satisfied (but not happy that it's not like my old one), and feel my foods are safe and not overcooked or burned by doing it this way.

Research shows the common causes of food poisoning in the home are generally due to unsanitary conditions, and leaving cooked foods or raw fish and meat at room temperatures too long. There are occasionally reports of food poisoning from undercooking foods, but no data linking between those undercooked foods and a slow cooker!

At any rate, the manufacturers have determined that making the slow cookers cook hotter is in our best interests. (It probably IS the best option for my sister!) However, any idiot can still turn a slow cooker OFF before food is fully cooked. What's next... a "hot" slow cooker that will not turn off in less than 8 hours, or not even allow us to unplug them??

Apropos of nothing in particular but Dismay

Three or four years ago I had my gall bladder removed, which was to be an easy-in, easy-out outpatient procedure. I ended up 3 days in ICU.  I went home with my brother, who had come to stay with me. The next morning, trying to get out of bed, I tore my rotator cuff, and my mobility worsened as days passed. 

My brother had gone back to Florida, and I found myself losing my balance, falling often... and unable to manage working in the kitchen. Social Services was providing a home-care person for OT/PT once a week, and finally they signed me up for Meals on Wheels.

Let me tell you, it was a godsend... until I tried eating them. The meals came frozen, 1 meal a day (kinda), total of a 10 day supply every 2 weeks. (I guess the other 4 days are supposed to be fasting? No lunch, no breakfast?) There was absolutely NO nutritional information on the packages, and even portion names were vague... but I did finally find a phone number on the cardboard box.

I placed a phone call to the outpost who package the meals for several counties; they use local handicapped services (which I thought was wonderful) but they had NO data on nutritional values, as the food comes to them from the USDA (or FDA, I forget now); they merely package it in portions for delivery.

Not only could I not get any nutritional values from them, they could not direct me to anyone who could. I knew just from taste that everything was too high in sodium, but there was little else I could discern. Most of it was tasteless, and totally unappealing or even filling. A single sandwich plateful to feed me for 24 hours. Mystery meat, sometimes but not always labeled 'chicken' or 'beef', and questionable side portions. The single bagged slice of wonder bread was always recognizable. After the second batch of 'meals' was delivered, I decided I'd rather starve so I discontinued the service and asked them to pick up the box of frozen meals.

My point in all this is that we are being sold a Bill of Goods on the National Nutrition Program. If you know someone getting Meals on Wheels, do them a favor and take them a real meal occasionally. The folks who deliver the Meals on Wheels are all Volunteers, and deserve a big hand for their efforts. It is just too bad that in this country where food stamps run rampant, our shut-ins have to eat so poorly.

Grade B Milk?

Yes, there actually IS a Grade B milk... but you will not find on the grocer's shelves in fluid form. Nevertheless, Grade B milk is consumed daily; most of it in the form of cheese.

Did you know that Grade A milk actually is further graded into classes? 

* Grade A Class I milk is used for all beverage milks. 

* Grade A Class II milk is used in fluid cream products, yogurts, ice cream, cottage cheese and other perishable manufactured products.

* Grade A Class III milk is used to produce cream cheese and hard manufactured cheese.
* Grade A Class IV milk is used to produce butter and any milk in dry form.

Grade B milk is also called 'Manufacturing grade' and it is milk not meeting the fluid Grade A standards. The USDA says "less stringent standards" may apply. Some examples are: how often the facilities are inspected for cleanliness of the facility and of the cows, suitability of the milking parlor and sanitary handling (and cooling) of the milk, and the allowable bacterial count in the milk. Grade A farms are inspected every six months, while Grade B farms are inspected every two years. The bacterial plate or loop count of Grade A milk may not exceed 100,000 per mL, while Grade B milk may not exceed 300,000 per mL.

Grade B milk can be used only for manufacturing selected dairy products, such as cheese, butter, or reduced fluid-content like condensed milk, evaporated milk and dried milk. Some manufactured dairy products, such as ice cream and drinkable milk beverages, can only be made from Grade A milk. 

It gets a little complicated, though, for us as consumers. When Grade B milk is made into another product, the new grade assigned is not based on the grade of the original milk. Instead, the new product is graded after it is manufactured, on the standards set for that 'new' product. So, you could have butter or cheese that is Grade A by the standards for butter/cheese even if it started out as lesser quality Grade B milk.

Not all manufactured products are made from Grade B milk. Since milk is perishable, sometimes Grade A milk nearing its expiration date may be quickly used (rather than losing it to spoilage) for a manufactured product that will keep longer in cold storage. 

By the way, from the get-go, farmers are paid far less for Grade B milk than even the pitiful amount BigAg pays for Grade A milk. So following the money, my assumption is that all of the dry powdered milk and less expensive cheese or butter (esp. store brands) probably started out as Grade B milk by design, simply because the profit is higher for the manufacturer.

There is another category of milk, although we seldom see it in stores. Certified milk is produced under exceedingly high sanitary standards and is sold at a higher price than Grade A milk. Certified specialty milks include Golden Guernsey milk, which is produced by purebred Guernsey cows, and All-Jersey milk, which is produced by registered Jersey cows. Both command a premium price because of their higher milk fat content and creamier taste.

Source: USDA: Milk Pricing in the United States/AIB-761.

Join Me in the Uncheese Party

The FDA is trying very hard to kill our nation’s local Real Food supply. This is the time for us, the people who grow and/or consume wholesome real foods to stand up and say ‘Enough!!".

If you have been reading this blog for a while, you know I promote and back Real Food 100%. I eat as much Real Food as the Government allows in my state, which isn't as much as I'd prefer to eat. I would prefer to buy and use nutritionally superior raw milk, and raw milk products, from a dairy (hopefully local, with good sanitation) but the government says I have no right to make that choice.

I've been following the increasing number of FDA food raids in the recent months, knowing I am helpless to do anything except to rail against the PTB (Powers That Be), and Vote. Now, I can actually DO a small part to help a family the government has chosen to ruin, the family who owns Morningland Dairy.

Morningland Dairy (in Missouri) has been making raw milk cheese for 30 years, with not one person becoming ill from their products. Now the government has mandated the destruction of 50,000 pounds of their cheese without any actual testing of the cheese. If you are not familiar with the situation, read here.

We cannot do anything about that particular batch of cheese, but we can help the family to overcome the financial loss in the hopes that sane minds might somehow prevail, and the family can once again make and sell healthy raw milk cheese. 

The Uncheese Party is running a campaign to raise the amount of money the family is losing, to help them from also losing the dairy. A contribution of $5 will 'buy' one pound of 'uncheese'... not actual cheese of course, but compensation for one pound of cheese. As broke as I always am at the end of the month, I still managed just now to 'purchase' some Uncheese. Won't you do the same?