Organic has gone from little “o” to big “O.” As bigger growers and larger processors become involved in the USDA Certified Organic food market, smaller players get pushed out. What's threatened is the integrity of healthy, ecological food production.
At a farmer's market I frequent, there are a range of growers: larger farms that spray crops to deal with harsh rain and pest conditions, old timers that proudly display the Organic certification, and small farmers whose stalls simply say: Naturally Grown Food. For the latter group, when you ask about their farming practices, they often say that they grow without sprays or fertilizers aside from organic compost. Still, they’re too small to afford certification by the USDA. (The certification fees are structured regressively so that a small farm—grossing, for example, $5,500—might pay 6% of its gross for a year-long Organic certificate, whereas a farm making $60,000 a year would only pay 1.5% in fees. Some states, many of them in the Northeast, will subsidize part of the cost for smaller farms.) Many of these small farms grow organic, but they’re not Organic.
So what are we paying for when we buy Organic, and what are farms paying for to get Organic certification? In theory, we're investing in long-term health benefits. In the short term, we're paying for peace of mind. Yet, the machinery behind the Organic curtain is not always pretty. Under USDA regulations, there is a long list of acceptable synthetic materials for Organic crop and meat production. Some of the more disconcerting include copper sulfate and chlorine products. Copper sulfate is particularly harmful for the sprayers, who experience higher rates of anemia and liver disease. The USDA allows many of these “acceptable” materials because they occur naturally, regardless of safety to the grower, the environment or the consumer.
Foods grown ecologically and naturally may be safer, healthier and more environmentally sound than foods bearing the Certified Organic label. That’s because they rely only on natural processes, such as decomposition (to produce fertilizer from organic waste), biological pest management, and soil maintenance to create healthy farms that grow good food year after year.
A recent study from London researchers reports that organic food is no more nutritious than conventionally-grown food. Some critics have pointed out flaws in their study, but the report signals an important caveat in our concept of organic foods. Namely, we equate organic with healthy, nutritious, ecological and natural. That conception is flawed and results from marketing campaigns telling us why to buy Organic, and from an ideological faith in the beneficence of science. Evidently, the science that distinguishes between synthetic and natural substances does not account for the health of humans or the environment.
In short, what’s organic is not always good for us. Due to the unfavorable economics facing farmers today, and as organic becomes Organic, growers and processors look to the unsavory ends of the “allowable” substances list in order to find materials that promote efficient, large-scale farming. Ultimately, these organic substances may be better than the full arsenal of synthetic chemicals. But it’s time to look behind the big “O” and reevaluate agriculture based on nature rather than industry or regulatory standards. It may be necessary to forego buying Organic if it means supporting healthier, more ecological food production.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
An energy solution: What you're eating for
You just got home from a long commute. The train was hot and you’re feeling a little low, a little slow. You won’t eat dinner for a few hours and you need energy to finish some chores in order to relax for the evening. But you’re disappointed to find that there are no more Gatorade drinks and no more energy bars. You can only find a half-finished jug of milk and some unsalted cashews.
Out of luck? Hardly.
We’re trained to compartmentalize our foods: Energy foods, Junk foods, Health foods, Fast foods, Slow foods. Partly, the corporatization of the food network is to blame, but not entirely. Compartmentalization is a handy way to make sense of the flood of dietary information we receive nearly constantly from online media, health columnists, nutritionists, doctors and advertisers. The idea of eating has become so overwhelming that sitting down to plan a meal can feel like charting a course through unknown seas. The labels we apply liberally to our foods serve as buoys clanking in the night.
But referring to Gatorade drinks and Cliff bars as Energy foods obscures things. Why? Because all foods are “energy foods.” Food is energy, plain and simple. Food is other things as well, but at its essence, it is energy. And just as not all food is the same, not all foods provide the same type of energy. So rather than rely on the corporatized food groups or the trendy foodie buzzwords, we need simple, practical ways to understand what we’re eating and how it affects us in the short term.
U.S.
But the human body is not an ignorant furnace. For each person, there are energy sources (foods) that help it run optimally and others that make it run poorly. In other words, not all energy sources are the same, and since the human body is so sensitive, the calorie is nearly meaningless in terms of guiding our eating.
Fortunately, we’re already familiar with the fundamentals of food energy, though we may not always realize it. The key components of the human diet—carbohydrates, fat and protein—are also the energy sources powering the human body. Fats are the most energetic foods and carbohydrates and proteins are roughly the same, providing about half the energy of dietary fat. Of course, all three act very differently. Even within the carbohydrate family, sugars, starches and fibers (found in everything from fruits, to vegetables to meats), the body differently. Most importantly, knowing the caloric value is not enough to gauge a food’s energy impact. For example, you may find that a slice of wheat bread and a tablespoon of raisings provide the same amount of energy. Except the raisins pack a surprisingly quick energy punch whereas the bread is more slow-acting.
So, where does that leave you? There you are, looking for energy, staring at the milk and wishing for Gatorade. Comparing the two, Gatorade is super-concentrated with sugars, along with salts, potassium and other boosters. Going back to the furnace analogy, the sugars in Gatorade act like dried pine needles added to a fire. There is a burst of light, a pleasant smell and a warm feeling. With sugar, as with pine needles, the energy peaks quickly and disappears—the so-called sugar low. The so-called sports drink, on the other hand, stuffs you so full of fast, cheap energy that you’re bound to spike and crash your system (and risk long-term health complications). Milk, on the other hand, provides protein and fat (along with lactose, a more-complex carbohydrate), the type of energy that fills you up and keeps you steady. Proteins and fats are more like the sticks and logs of the food-as-fuel analogy. Choose a "whole food" and you won't be left half-fueled.
Thinking about food energy is not an easy solution to dietary conundrums. We don’t eat simply to garner energy. We also eat to feel content, to meet others, to share love and friendship, to socialize. But reimagining the daily diet in terms of energy balance makes it easier to gain confidence in your ability to make healthy and fulfilling food choices.
Out of luck? Hardly.
We’re trained to compartmentalize our foods: Energy foods, Junk foods, Health foods, Fast foods, Slow foods. Partly, the corporatization of the food network is to blame, but not entirely. Compartmentalization is a handy way to make sense of the flood of dietary information we receive nearly constantly from online media, health columnists, nutritionists, doctors and advertisers. The idea of eating has become so overwhelming that sitting down to plan a meal can feel like charting a course through unknown seas. The labels we apply liberally to our foods serve as buoys clanking in the night.
But referring to Gatorade drinks and Cliff bars as Energy foods obscures things. Why? Because all foods are “energy foods.” Food is energy, plain and simple. Food is other things as well, but at its essence, it is energy. And just as not all food is the same, not all foods provide the same type of energy. So rather than rely on the corporatized food groups or the trendy foodie buzzwords, we need simple, practical ways to understand what we’re eating and how it affects us in the short term.
But the human body is not an ignorant furnace. For each person, there are energy sources (foods) that help it run optimally and others that make it run poorly. In other words, not all energy sources are the same, and since the human body is so sensitive, the calorie is nearly meaningless in terms of guiding our eating.
Fortunately, we’re already familiar with the fundamentals of food energy, though we may not always realize it. The key components of the human diet—carbohydrates, fat and protein—are also the energy sources powering the human body. Fats are the most energetic foods and carbohydrates and proteins are roughly the same, providing about half the energy of dietary fat. Of course, all three act very differently. Even within the carbohydrate family, sugars, starches and fibers (found in everything from fruits, to vegetables to meats), the body differently. Most importantly, knowing the caloric value is not enough to gauge a food’s energy impact. For example, you may find that a slice of wheat bread and a tablespoon of raisings provide the same amount of energy. Except the raisins pack a surprisingly quick energy punch whereas the bread is more slow-acting.
So, where does that leave you? There you are, looking for energy, staring at the milk and wishing for Gatorade. Comparing the two, Gatorade is super-concentrated with sugars, along with salts, potassium and other boosters. Going back to the furnace analogy, the sugars in Gatorade act like dried pine needles added to a fire. There is a burst of light, a pleasant smell and a warm feeling. With sugar, as with pine needles, the energy peaks quickly and disappears—the so-called sugar low. The so-called sports drink, on the other hand, stuffs you so full of fast, cheap energy that you’re bound to spike and crash your system (and risk long-term health complications). Milk, on the other hand, provides protein and fat (along with lactose, a more-complex carbohydrate), the type of energy that fills you up and keeps you steady. Proteins and fats are more like the sticks and logs of the food-as-fuel analogy. Choose a "whole food" and you won't be left half-fueled.
Thinking about food energy is not an easy solution to dietary conundrums. We don’t eat simply to garner energy. We also eat to feel content, to meet others, to share love and friendship, to socialize. But reimagining the daily diet in terms of energy balance makes it easier to gain confidence in your ability to make healthy and fulfilling food choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)