Food


See this post on Vermont2China.

I really want to know more about this.  This video, showing the use of Coke and Pepsi as a pesticide, is both fascinating and horrifying.  For both environmental and public health reasons, I’m concerned by the amount the chemicals finding their way into our bodies and natural environment on a daily basis.  Rumor has it that ‘Organic Coke’ is on the horizon, and from a marketing standpoint I’m not surprised.  Pesticide residue limits on commodities are set by the FDA, but now I need to research the amount of pesticides that actually end up in finished processed products, especially drinks.  Since the Organic Food Production Act is a production process statute (the organic label is not based on product testing for pesticide residue), I’d like to know the amount of pesticide in, for example, a bottle of organic juice versus conventional juice verus Coke/Pepsi.

I take the position in my forthcoming book that the industrial organic food market will eventually become the dominant American food market.  Now, Wal-Mart is buying more local produce, defined as produce grown within the same state as the store.   Perhaps an industrial organic and ‘industrial local’ model will become dominant.  But either model–industrial organic food that does not use pesticides, or ‘industrial local’ that limits food miles– can have a very large environmental and carbon footprint due to factory processing, packaging, pesticide use (if not organic), and large distribution chains (if organic but from far away).

The industrial organic model and this ‘industrial local’ model no doubt provide significant improvements over the industrial conventional food system.  But a more sustainable food system has to be more holistic–more organic, less processed, and have a smaller carbon footprint where food miles are implicated.  This can only happen via diversified food markets (which includes better industrial food models), and changing consumer food choice options via informational (e.g., environmental life-cycle analysis), education (e.g., changes in dietary guidelines) and structural change (e.g., better access to local organic food).

First, Ben & Jerry’s decided to remove their ‘All Natural’ label due to public interest group pressure.  Now Log Cabin All-Natural Syrup’s label is being challenged since the product contains only4% maple and comes in a real maple syrup style jug.  Are caramel coloring, xanthan gum and citric acid natural?  The FDA regulates marketing claims (thus, Log Cabi is removing the coloring), and Vermont has it’s own maple syrup regulations, but the term “natural” is not defined from a production process standpoint under federal law like the word “organic” under the Organic Foods Production Act.

The article states: Ben & Jerry’s agreed to remove the “all natural” labeling after the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest questioned the claim last month, saying ingredients such as alkalized cocoa, corn syrup and partially hydrogenated soybean oil “either don’t exist in nature or have been chemically modified.”

This is a general problem with food labeling.  What does “natural” mean?  What does “organic” mean? As an example, if you see the USDA Organic Label, it means the product could only be 95% organic, unless it specifically says “100% organic.”

For those readers interested and concerned about large scale commodity agriculture in the U.S., the reliance of the American diet upon corn and high fructose corn syrup (read Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma), obesity, and/or the carbon footprint of corn (see this article), this video may be of concern.

If this issue is of interest to you check out this article, Fish or frankenfish? FDA weighs altered salmon.  Also on my reading list is the book Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food.

UPDATE: Greenwire reports, “Consumer and environmental groups want genetically engineered salmon clearly labeled in the supermarket, but the Food and Drug Administration demurred yesterday, saying that such labeling is outside its rules.  FDA is considering whether to approve the sale of salmon that are engineered to grow to full size in half the time as their normal counterparts.  If approved, the fish would be the first genetically engineered animal to enter the food supply. FDA said its rules do not allow labeling of a food merely because it is genetically engineered, and there needs to be outside reasons such as modified taste, nutrition or safety to warrant the action.”

Interesting article in the NY Times about how champagne bottles are being modified in an effort to reduce the carbon foortprint in transit by reducing the weight of the bottle.

So asks this article about the Swedish music scene.  But the same question applies to the Swedish environmental scene, for a country that has proven to be a leader on the issue of climate change, especially in the context of food.

On October 23, 2009, the New York Times ran an article entitled To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates.” This Swedish movement is driven by two major events: (1) the creation of new national dietary guidelines that give equal weight to health and the environment, and (2) the major organic labels in Sweden embarking on a new initiative called “Klimatmärkingning för Mat,” or “Climate Labelling for Food” in English.

For a few weeks next spring I plan to be a Guest Researcher at Uppsala University Faculty of Law in Sweden to lay the groundwork for a comparative project one environmental labeling for food in the United States and Sweden.

(To hear the music click here and here.)

Dan Farber on Legal Planet posts about when an environmental impact statement is necessary for USDA approval of genetically-modified crops, and Friday’s federal court decision revoking the USDA approval of genetically modified sugar beets for violating the National Environmental Policy Act.  The concern is that, absent safeguards and due to cross-pollination, genetically-modified crops will over-run conventional crops, i.e., farmers won’t be able to produce non-GMO crops.  This issue has garnered attention of late with the Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Geerston Seed, and Vermonters should find this case of interest since both the sugar beet and Monsanto (about Roundup Ready alafalfa) cases included High Mowing Organic Seeds of Wolcott, Vermont as a plaintiff.  Their involvement should be of no surprise given that that area of Vermont has been home to, according an article to author Bill McKibben, “the most interesting agriculture experiment in the country,” where neighbors are eating solely from locally produced foods rather than industrial processed foods.

[Note: In writing this post, I learned of a book I will ask the Vermont Law Library to acquire, The Town That Food Saved: How One Community Found Vitality in Local Food by Ben Hewitt.]

« Previous PageNext Page »