Latest News on Recipe for America 
Book Tour Dates + Pre-Order Info
posted by Jill Richardson 2009-06-15 10:28:01
If you want to catch me on tour, here are the plans so far:
August 2 - San Diego, Sea Rocket Bistro in North Park at 6pm
August 6 - Philadelphia, PA at Big Blue Marble Books at 7pm
August 7 or 8? - Lancaster, PA
August 10? - New York City
August 13-16 - Pittsburgh, Netroots Nation
September 5 - Tacoma, WA, Farmers market in the AM; King's Books at 3pm
September 8 - Portland, OR, InFARMation
September 9 - Portland, OR, Powells Books at 7:30pm (1005 W. Burnside)
September 10 - Portland, OR, Drinking Liberally
September 25 - Los Angeles
October 10-13 - Des Moines, IA, Community Food Security Coalition conference
Week of November 30 - Naperville, IL/Chicago
If your city isn't on this list and you want me to visit, please contact me at OrangeClouds115 at gmail. I am hoping to visit several other places, including: CA: San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange County; Vermont; Western Mass; Boston; Austin, TX; New Orleans; Madison, WI; Appleton, WI. I just don't have dates or solid plans for any of those places yet.
permalink
My Book is Available For Pre-Order
posted by Jill Richardson 2009-04-04 22:37:47Great news! My book, Recipe for America: Why Our Food System is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It, is ready for pre-order. You can buy it on Amazon, Powells, or Barnes & Noble.
permalink
A New Blog on Food
posted by Jill Richardson 2008-07-05 23:28:28There's a new blog about food! Check out La Vida Locavore - a blog for anyone whose crazy life includes planting, growing, weeding, fertilizing, raising, picking, harvesting, processing, cooking, baking, making, serving, buying, selling, distributing, transporting, composting, organizing around, lobbying about, writing about, thinking about, talking about, playing with, and eating food!
permalink
The Dirt on Our Farms
posted by marrael 2006-12-26 10:03:44Check out The Dirt on Our Farms at Tompaine.com.
What are your kids eating?
posted by marrael 2006-12-07 14:52:53Check out Improving School Lunches by mona (anais on Dailykos)!
permalink
More news from our favorite news sources!
La Vida Locavore
Pot Luck
Pot Luck is an open thread. Share with us whatever happens to be on your mind, food-related or not...
Obesity and Smoking Trends Over Time
I've been trying to look at whether or not increases in chronic illnesses can be linked to changes in the food system over the past century. I agree that it's not necessarily accurate to look at obesity alone as a proxy for "diet-related chronic illness" but the other data? Well it's a bit harder to come by. The really tricky thing to factor in is that smoking went down while obesity went up. Oh - and the CDC - bless them - gives smoking statistics over time for all ages but split between men and women and then gives obesity trends over time with men and women lumped together but split out by age group.
I'll give you the raw data I've been able to find thus far, but as you'll see, we're going to need some real experts to sort out what diet actually has to do with disease.
For the data below, I used CDC statistics and occasionally extrapolated a little bit (i.e. if I had a data point for 1990 and one for 1994, I would average them to estimate for 1992).
My Grandparents
My Dad's parents were born in 1920. We don't have obesity data on them until they hit age 55 or so, in 1975. That year, 37.2% of people ages 45-64 were overweight and 18.0% were obese (55.2% were overweight OR obese). Looking at people of all ages in 1975, 48% of men and 32% of women smoked.
In 1990, they were 70. By then 38.5% of people ages 65-74 were overweight and 25.6% were obese (64.1% were overweight OR obese). As this generation aged from 55 to 70, about 9% of them entered the overweight/obese category. That year (for people of all ages), 28% of men and 22.9% of women smoked.
Note here that as they were aging from 55 to 70, some of them were dying. Therefore, the increase in overweight/obesity as a percent of the total population isn't entirely explained by people gaining weight. Part of the explanation could be that some skinny smokers were dying.
My Mom's parents were born in 1930. When they were 55 (in 1985), 36.6% of people ages 45-64 were overweight and 29.5% were obese (a total of 66.1% of the age group was overweight or obese). At that time (for people of all ages), 32.2% of men and 27.9% of women smoked.
So my mom's parents' generation was fatter than my dad's parents' generation at age 55. Fewer people smoked when my mom's parents were 55 than when my dad's parents were that age, but this data doesn't tell you the ages of the smokers, nor does it tell you who used to smoke and quit. Of my four grandparents, two smoked and quit. One smoked well into the '90's until he nearly killed himself from it, and one never smoked. One grandparent who smoked and quit died of lung cancer.
In 2000, my mom's parents were age 70. That year, for people ages 65-74, 37.2% were overweight and 36.3% were obese (a total of 73.5% were overweight or obese). That year (for people of all ages) 25.2% of men and 21.1% of women smoked.
My Parents
How about my parents? They were born around 1950. When they were 24 years old (in 1974), 20.6% of 18-29 year olds were overweight and 7.9% were obese (28.5% were overweight or obese). That year (for people of all ages) 42.8% of men and 32.2% of women smoked.
When they were 37, in 1987, 31.9% were overweight and 22% were obese (53.9% were overweight or obese). That year (for people of all ages) 30.9% of men and 26.5% of women smoked. There probably weren't too many deaths from smoking in this group as they aged from 24 to 37, so the increase from 28.5% overweight/obese to 53.9% overweight/obese is a significant jump.
By the time this bunch hit 55 in 2005, 33.0% were overweight and 40.7% were obese (73.7% overweight or obese). Holy crap. In 2005, for people of all ages, 23.4% of men and 18.3% of women smoked.
People Born in 1965
I don't have any relatives (other than cousins) born around 1965, but it's about halfway between my parents and me so I'm going to look at it. Somebody born in 1965 would have been age 9 in 1974. 4% of children ages 6-11 were overweight (no stats on obese). Hopefully few kids that age were smoking
In 1980, that generation was age 15. That year, 5.0% of teens (ages 12-17) were overweight. That year, 37% of men and 30% of women smoked. So as they aged from 9-15, really very few kids were becoming overweight.
That changes as they get into their twenties. In 1989, when this generation was age 24, 23.1% of people ages 18-29 were overweight and 13.2% were obese (26.3% overweight or obese). That year, 29% of men (of all ages) and 24% of women (of all ages) smoked.
By the time the people born in 1965 reached age 37 (in 2002), 33.4% of people ages 30-44 were overweight and 29.0% were obese (62.4% overweight/obese). That year (for people of all ages), 24.6% of men and 20.0% of women smoked.
My Generation
How about my generation? I was born in 1980. When I was 9, in 1989, 11.3% of children ages 6-11 were overweight (no stats on obese). That's more than double compared to people born in 1965.
When I was 15, in 1995, 12% of my peers (ages 12-17) were overweight (no stats on obesity). Again, that's more than double for the kids born in 1965. That year (for people of all ages) 26.5% of men and 22.2% of women smoked. Of course, my generation was in high school, where we knew everything, and 34.8% of high schoolers smoked then.
By the time I reached 24, in 2004, 26.3% of my generation (people ages 18-29) was overweight and 24.1% were obese (50.4% overweight or obese). That is a HUGE increase over the generation born in 1965 (nearly double!) and about two and a half times as many as my parents' generation. As for smoking, in 2004, for people of all ages, 23.0% of men and 18.7% of women smoked.
My Brother's Generation
How about my brother? He was born in 1985. When he was 3, 7.2% of his generation (kids ages 2-5) were overweight. We don't have data before then to compare it with, but consider that only 4% of kids ages 6-11 were overweight in 1974 (kids born in 1965, twenty years before my brother).
When my bro was age 9, in 1994, 11.3% of kids ages 6-11 were overweight.
In 2000, when my bro was 15, 14.9% of teens (ages 12-17) were overweight (by now the high school smoking rate was down from 34.8% when I was in high school to 31.5%).
This year, my brother would have turned 24. The last year we have data for is 2005-2006 but in those years (Adam would have been 20-21), for people ages 18-29, 27.8% were overweight and 24.3% were obese (52.1% were overweight or obese).
If I Had Kids
What if I had a kid? For children born in 1995 (Ok that would make me a REALLY young mother), at age 3, 9.5% (of kids ages 2-5) were overweight. At age 9, in 2004, 18.8% of kids ages 6-11 were overweight (quadruple from 1974, double from 1984).
If I had a child at age 20, in 2000, by the time my child was 3 years old, 13.9% of kids ages 2-5 were overweight.
It appears to me that the overweight/obesity numbers started going up dramatically between 1980 and 2000. Some age groups saw moderate declines since then (13.9% of 2-5 year olds were overweight in 2003-2004 compared to 11.0% in 2005-2006) but for the most part the numbers are still slowly going up.
Also, note that people of my parents' generation and older came of age when nearly half of men and a third of women smoked. Even if they haven't smoked for decades now, their tobacco history is still going to play a role in their overall health.
Life expectancy has gone up continuously throughout the past century. This is not just due to diet and smoking but also advances in medicine and improved access to health care. If you look at this chart below, even as you go from 1970-1990 you're going to have a pretty big drop in people who smoke at all during their lives (high school smoking was at 27.5% when they began measuring it in 1991, it rose to 36% in 1997 and then began dropping, reaching 20% in 2007... it looks like smoking got a lot cooler to teenagers once the adults all stopped doing it).
Life Expectancy At Birth
| Year | Men | Women |
| 1900 | 46 | 48 |
| 1970 | 67.1 | 74.7 |
| 1980 | 70.0 | 77.4 |
| 1990 | 71.8 | 78.9 |
| 2000 | 74.3 | 79.7 |
| 2005 | 75.2 | 80.4 |
So - what does all of this mean? I don't know. We're living longer and that's great. We're fatter. We smoke less. Obviously there's a health benefit to the decrease in smoking. But what's the effect of our food on health? Could it be that the advances in medicine are slightly outweighing the effects of unhealthy food, so that we're getting sick from our food but we're living longer all the same? I'll see if I can find out.
The E. Coli Vaccine
I just got back from Planned Parenthood. In my financially-depressed state I figured it'd be best to let Uncle Sam pick up the tab for my birth control pills. Why do I bring that up here? Well, in my book I compare our approaches to food safety with our approaches to safe sex. I had to fill out a bunch of forms and chat with a nurse before getting my pills. They wanted to make sure I was taking precautions for all kinds of STDs as well as for pregnancy. They gave me some handouts to warn me that the birth control pills alone don't prevent STDs. They verified that I'd been tested for STDs within the past year and that my tests were negative. And then I got my pills. Voila! Safe sex accomplished.
That's how we should deal with food safety. Not with condoms and birth control pills but by decreasing risky behaviors and preventing the spread of disease and the contamination of our food, AND by following that up with testing. In the case of E. coli, we could do that. Don't keep the cows in feedlots. Let them graze on pasture. Or - still better than what we've got now - keep them in the feedlots but let them eat grass for the last few days of their lives. And even then - even if there is E. coli 0157:H7 in the cow's gut, it's STILL not in the meat until somebody screws up at the slaughterhouse. But we allow slaughterhouses to run so fast (to maximize profits, at the expense of animal welfare, worker safety, and food safety) that occasionally somebody at the gut table screws up and splatters manure everywhere. Now, if E. coli 0157:H7 was in the cow, it's in the meat. And that meat might get mixed up with many other animals and sold in one big tainted batch as ground beef.
So what's our plan? Raising the cows in cleaner, healthier, safer conditions? Slowing down the line speed in slaughterhouses? Nope. An E. coli vaccine for cows. Which is - if anything - a very short term fix. If the cows are still in filthy conditions, and the manure's still getting into the meat, it's only a matter of time before some new bug comes along that can harm us. Going back to safe sex, I got the HPV vaccine but that's not a get out of jail free card to go out and have unprotected sex. Even with the vaccine, I'm still susceptible to all other STDs - and the cows and meat will still be susceptible to all kinds of pathogens even after being vaccinated for E. coli.
I'm not saying the E. coli vaccine is a bad thing. If it works, great. I mean, when given the choice, I got the HPV vaccine. But it's not a substitute for preventing disease by keeping the cows in healthier conditions, just as the HPV vaccine doesn't mean I can take home a new guy from the bar every night to have unprotected sex (umm, not that I would, or would want to). Nor does it mean we don't need to test the meat for pathogens (just like my vaccine doesn't mean I no longer require annual pap smears).
And yet, the USDA tests ground beef up to 4 times per month but STILL doesn't have the legal authority to shut down a plant that consistently fails its tests. And who knows how often the processing plants actually test for pathogens - or if they actually throw out tainted meat when their tests find any. We know from the peanut and pistachio salmonella outbreaks earlier this year that those companies still sold the tainted nuts even AFTER they tested positive for salmonella.
Once the food safety bill passes (assuming it does) food companies regulated by the FDA will be required to report positive test results to the FDA - but beef falls under the USDA and so they won't be affected by the new law. Pathetic.
Recipes for Noxious Trolls!
here is nothing more annoying than trolls, and as trolls go, they need to be properly fed as they do possess not only numbskulls but highly developed digestive systems (though some might argue that it is usually the retentive kind). Having spent the best part of yesterday under an usually hot sun, I became feverish and "cooked up" the following recipes, which you can steal and post appropriately, whenever needed. Sarah P., please note.
Moose Spread Palinesque:
1 dressed moose, 100 pounds of cooked potatoes, 10 kilos of cheap margarine, 5 liters of spicy Barbecue sauce, a large fork and plenty elbow oil.
Place the moose whole into a large pit, cover with hot stones and wait for a day or two while playing the ukulele. When cooked, flake it finely with a fork. Beat the mashed potato into the flaked moose until the mixture is smooth and creamy. Then beat in the margarine and barbecue sauce. Use as sandwich fillers. If you're not hungry procure yourself a few party balloons and fill them up with the mixture, add some grease and throw at will at WAPO shills at their annual barbecue.
Moose Broth Supreme:
1 moose, freshly killed from an Alaskan flying craft, cut and quartered; 20 kilos of carrots, 20 kilos of turnips, 20 kilos of brown onions, 40 liters of pure alcohol, 40 liters of still water, a shitload of salt & pepper to disguise the taste.
In a very, very large cast-iron pot throw in all the liquids and the unpeeled vegetables then the moose bits and cook till tender. Add salt & pepper, and make sure you're wearing pants that can glow in the dark! Serve in desert boots, add sweet paprika if desired. A good tune to go with that dish is "When I'm calling you, Rosemary, Rosemary..."
Chili Moose de Luxe:
This is a superior dish for corrupt hardened politicians and a sure winner at Hannity's summer bash: 100 kilos of moose mince (that can be done using a contraption similar to the one seen in the background of Ms Palin's Thanksgiving interview), 50 kilos cooked and refried kidney beans; 25 kilos fresh chilies, the hotter the better; 40 liters of tomato paste; 10 kilos of yellow moose fat; 1 single yellow onion and a very sturdy wooden spoon.
In a big stainless steel vat throw the moose fat, then the onion - watch it sink into the fat while you down a large glass of chilled Tequila - then the moose mince and cook furiously for 20 minutes. Add the tomato paste, the beans, the (whole) chilies and a little water so it doesn't stick too much and cook for a further 2 hours. Serve on giant toasts while watching a re-run of a moose hunt on Focked News (don't forget to save a portion for Rupert!)
Alaskan Moose Smoothie :
1 moose, dressed up in usual manner sans hair, 500 liters of plain vanilla ice-cream, 20 liters of Beano (optional).
This most healthy recipe can be done on the hoof, so to speak, using a rather strong blender. If a blender that can break moose bones can't be found use the local incinerator by placing the whole moose into a gurney for about 15 seconds. Take out immediately and place into a large cement vat. Look for about 10 wingnuts to smash the moose into pieces and blend in the vanilla ice-cream and the Beano (optional) to smooth it out. This is quite soothing and packs a punch!
For those who don't care about recipes use this equally effective repellent:
An Interesting Debate
Yesterday I posted clips of an article by Abigail Haddad and I made an off-the-cuff remark about the fact that we've decreased the amount we spend on food as a percent of disposable income from about 25% in the 1930's to closer to 10% now and my thoughts on that. (One study found that Americans spend 9.7% of total expenditures on food.) Well, to my surprise, I received a very nice email from Abigail Haddad herself this morning, gently disagreeing with my and pointing out some data to support her points. I certainly appreciate the debate, and I must concede a few points where I was mistaken.
Here's my specific remark that she took issue with:
To her, this [the decline in spending on food as a percent of disposable income] is proof that Americans want their food to be cheap and convenient. I would cite it as evidence of how we are being squeezed by the society we live in, in which productivity has risen but wages remained stagnant; in which many parents have no option to stay home to raise their children and many people work more than one job to make ends meet. Americans are doing what they must do to survive, but that doesn't mean they prefer it (nor is it healthy for them, as evidenced by our epidemic rise in diet-related chronic illness).
In the first few decades after World War II, our middle class was growing and many families did live on one income with the other parent staying home to raise children. Yet, even then, Abigail notes that Americans were already spending less and less on food. She's right. According to a 1999 article in Monthly Labor Review, consumer spending on food was more than 1/3 of all spending in 1935-36, under 25% of all spending in 1960-61, a little over 20% in 1972-73, and 16% in 1996-97.
At what point did the obesity epidemic start? The CDC's data begins in the 1980's, and they don't gather data from every state for the first few years. But if you look at their data for 1990, you see that no state has over 15% obesity and some are under 10%. By 2007, only Colorado had under 20% obesity, and some are over 35%.
A point where I think Abigail and I agree is that obesity doesn't necessarily equal poor health. You can be overweight and healthy, and you can be skinny and unhealthy. What we really need to look at is longitudinal data on the rates of diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, stroke, and certain cancers that are linked to diet. That's not data I have handy but that a more accurate way to evaluate our diets, rather tha simply looking at obesity.
Another area where I think Abigail and I agree is that there are trade-offs between cheap, convenient food and whatever we're trading it for (environmental degradation, poor health, inferior taste, etc). My hunch is that she thinks people have a more active role in making those choices than I do.
Energy and Food Independence
Originally posted at the Commonweal Institute's Uncommon Denominator blog
It seems fitting that the same week we celebrate the independence of our Nation, the House passed historic climate change legislation. In theory, this bill should bring us closer to the goals of oil independence and freedom from the disastrous future of a warming, melting planet. If America is to prosper in the 21st century, then we must take immediate action to reduce our role in causing the climate crisis. And yet, the bill left those of us who care about our shared environment shaking our heads. Is the Waxman-Markey bill is even slightly better for the planet than the status quo, or will it pave the way to increased, legalized pollution? Perhaps the most tragic part of the bill was the compromise with agribusiness interests that was required to secure its passage through the Agriculture committee.
Agribusiness likes to claim that "farmers are the first environmentalists" - a statement that should be true. Sadly, the large corporate interests that drive the agribusiness lobby like to hide behind the image of the American family farmer. And while the American family farmer may in fact be an environmentalist, the new climate change bill further entrenches the status quo of an agricultural system based on unsustainable usage of oil, water, and soil.
Soil represents one of our most powerful tools to sequester carbon, removing it from the atmosphere. However, in the last half-century oil-intensive industrial farming practices degraded our soil from up to 20 percent carbon to between 1- and 2-percent carbon. The chemical fertilizers and pesticides that degrade the soil also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we all need to eat, so ending agriculture is not a viable option to combat global warming or to reduce our dependence on oil. But when it is done right, agriculture can sequester carbon, playing a positive role in the fight against climate change.
For example, if organic, regenerative methods were adopted on all the world's farmland, agriculture has the potential to sequester up to 40 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, for corn, studies show that organic, no-till methods reduce fossil fuel needs by two-thirds over a conventional, tilled system. Last, measured over several decades, organic corn and soy yields matched conventional yields in most years. The exception was in drought years, when organic yielded 30 percent more corn than conventional. These findings, that organic methods can match conventional yields for corn and soy, are consistent with the findings of another study that evaluated a large number of crops around the world. That study found that organic agriculture yields, on average, 92 percent as much as conventional in the developed world.
We must also consider that in the developing world, organic outproduces conventional agriculture by 80 percent. That is not because organic produces more; it is because chemical-based methods yield less. Agriculture in the developed world relies on heavy amounts of petroleum-based fertilizer and other inputs, resources the developing world lacks. These numbers paint a disturbing picture for our future here at home as our oil runs out. Without abundant, cheap oil, our conventional agriculture may more closely resemble the decreased yields of the developing world.
In other words, in a warming world that is running out of oil, organic agriculture may be our best shot at feeding ourselves. Simultaneously, organic agriculture may be our ticket to reversing global warming by sequestering carbon into the soil. Yet, when faced with what could have been a very ambitious effort at curbing emissions, agribusiness fought for and won the right to continue business as usual. The average farmer might like the idea of decreased reliance on oil. Preventing a climate crisis will ensure these farmers can pass their farms down to future generations. But the corporations selling chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and genetically modified seeds to the farmer prefer to secure their own short-term profits over the long-term well-being of humanity. The passage of Waxman-Markey represents a loss for science, conservation, the family farmer, and the human race, but a big win for agribusiness. Independence from oil and freedom from climate change will have to wait for a future Fourth of July - it certainly didn't happen this year.
Site Outage & Our Birthday
La Vida Locavore just had a rather obnoxious way of celebrating its first birthday. The site went down. We've been online for a full year now, and as such, somebody was supposed to pay to renew the domain name. Whoops. When I realized what the problem was, my first thought was "It hasn't been a year yet! Has it?" So then I thought back to when we started - July 2008 - and thought "It can't be July yet!" Oh yes, it can. This is part of the problem of living in San Diego. Seasons lose their meaning. There's a holiday this week and my poor Southern Californian brain can't remember if it's Memorial Day or Labor Day or the Fourth of July, and I wouldn't be too shocked if somebody told me it was Christmas.
At any rate, if you are reading this, then you know that the site is back up again. And now we can celebrate our first birthday! Woohoo!
Pot Luck
I love this poem, which new La Vida Locavorean Anne shared with us in yesterday's Pot Luck. A couple lines in there, I'm thinking about turning into my new sig.
Was down in the beautiful Sellwood / Westmoreland neighborhood here in SE Portland earlier this evening (yeah, I changed my mind and hit a different market. Yes, way!) for a midweek market haul. Haven't hit this one yet this year, it's bigger than I remember! Had a lot of fun. Music, great people, a stroll down Milwaukie Avenue checking out all the cool little shops and restaurants while waiting for the bus back home, and everything else...
Wednesday Moreland Farmers' Market Haul:
- 1 pint blueberries (yeeearrgh! my first of the year)
- 1/2 pint raspberries
- 1 lb. broccoli
- 1 cucumber
- 1 zucchini
- 1 lb. new potatoes
- 1 sweet onion
- 1 pint snap peas
I also drooled over the feta. I believe, when my vegan thingy is up, the first thing I will have (August 1!) will be a gigantic tomato, greens and feta salad.
Pot Luck is an open thread. Share with us whatever happens to be on your mind, food-related or not...