Latest News on Recipe for America 
Susan G Reviews Recipe for America on DailyKos
posted by Jill Richardson 2009-09-07 23:26:43Susan G posted a review of Recipe for America on DailyKos. Here's an excerpt of what she had to say:
"Richardson, who first discovered her talent for writing about food issues here at Daily Kos as OrangeClouds115, has turned in a terrific book in Recipe for America, managing to organize into one smooth narrative information as disparate as employing undocumented workers and the lobbying that goes into the Farm Bill. Under her educated eye, the pieces of the enormous puzzle of legislation, policy, science and environmentalism are woven together in a book that can serve as an introduction to those unfamiliar with the sustainable food movement, while expanding the base of knowledge of those who've been reading on the topic for years.
"This is no small feat. Juggling the needs of newcomers to a topic without losing the interest of the already informed is a problem that many writers with many more books under their belt than Richardson have failed to solve."
permalink
Book Tour Dates + Buying Autographed Copies
posted by Jill Richardson 2009-06-15 10:28:01
If you want to catch me on tour, here are the plans so far:
December 1 - Chicago, IL at Hull House's re-Thinking Soup at 12-1:30pm
December 1 - Oak Park, IL at Borders Books at 7pm
Past events:
San Diego
Philadelphia
Lancaster, PA
New York City
Pittsburgh
Morrisville, VT
Rutland, VT
Bellows Falls, VT
Boston
Shelburne Falls, MA
Northampton, MA
Seattle
Tacoma
Duvall, WA
Portland, OR
Madison, WI
Des Moines, IA
Los Angeles
Austin, TX
Orange County, CA
If your city isn't on this list and you want me to visit, please contact me at OrangeClouds115 at gmail.
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.
More news from our favorite news sources!
La Vida Locavore
Ex Monsanto Lawyer Clarence Thomas to Hear Major Monsanto Case
In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto's third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion.
Here's where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of interest.
Stephen Breyer
Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen Breyer's brother, who apparently views this as a conflict of interest and has recused himself.
Clarence Thomas
From the years 1976 - 1979, Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused himself.
Fox, meet henhouse.
The lawsuit was filed by plantiffs which include the Center for Food Safety, the National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Dakota Resources Council and other farm, environmental and consumer groups and individual farmers. The original decision:
The federal district court in California issued its opinion on the deregulation of “Roundup Ready” alfalfa pursuant to the Plant Protection Act on February 13, 2007. Upon receiving Monsanto’s petition for deregulation of the alfalfa seed, APHIS conducted an Environmental Assessment and received over 500 comments in opposition to the deregulation. The opposition’s primary concern was the potential of contamination. APHIS, however, made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and approved the deregulation petition, thereby allowing the seed to be sold without USDA oversight. Geertson Seed Farms, joined by a number of growers and associations, filed claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as the Endangered Species Act and Plant Protection Act. In regards to NEPA, they argued that the agency should have prepared an EIS for the deregulation.Addressing only the NEPA claims, the court agreed that APHIS should have conducted an EIS because of the significant environmental impact posed by deregulation of the alfalfa seed. A realistic potential for contamination existed, said the court, but the agency had not fully inquired into the extent of this potential. The court also determined that APHIS did not adequately examine the potential effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa on organic farming and the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds and that there were “substantial questions” raised by the deregulation petition that the agency should have addressed in an EIS. Concluding that the question of whether the introduction of the genetically engineered alfalfa and its potential to affect non-genetic alfalfa posed a significant environmental impact necessitated further study, the court found that APHIS’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the agency to prepare an EIS. The court later enjoined the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa from March 30, 2007, until completion of the EIS and reconsideration of the deregulation petition, except for those farmers who had already purchased the seed. In May of 2007, the court enjoined any future planting of the alfalfa. An order by the court in June, 2007 required disclosure of all Roundup Ready planting sites.
Monsanto filed appeals in 2008 and 2009. In both instances, they were unsuccessful in having the original decision reversed, so they appealed to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear the case.
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States, behind corn, soybeans, and wheat.South Dakota alfalfa farmer Pat Trask, one of the plaintiffs, said Monsanto's biotech alfalfa would ruin his conventional alfalfa seed business because it was certain his 9,000 acres would be contaminated by the biotech genes.
Alfalfa is very easily cross-pollinated by bees and by wind. The plant is also perennial, meaning GMO plants could live on for years.
"The way this spreads so far and wide, it will eliminate the conventional alfalfa industry," said Trask. "Monsanto will own the entire alfalfa industry."
Monsanto has a policy of filing lawsuits or taking other legal actions against farmers who harvest crops that show the presence of the company's patented gene technology. It has sued farmers even when they have tried to keep their own fields free from contamination by biotech plants on neighbouring farms.
The case has implications beyond alfalfa crops. About eight hundred reviewed genetically engineered food applications were submitted to the USDA, yet no environmental impact statements were prepared. Even as this diary is being written, a federal judge in San Francisco is reviewing a similar case involving genetically modified sugar beets. The decision is expected this week and could halt planting and use of the gm sugar beets, which account for half of America's sugar supply.
Back to the Supreme Court case, oral argument is slated to begin on April 27, 2010. With Breyer recused and Thomas opting not to recuse, the bench appears to be heavily tilted to Monsanto.
Once more with feeling. Fox, meet henhouse.
Update on Thicke's campaign for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture
Organic dairy farmer candidate Francis Thicke has hired staff and opened an office for his campaign to become Iowa's next Secretary of Agriculture. Iowa is one of the few states in which this is an elected position.
The incumbent Republican, Bill Northey, will be heavily favored in this race and will raise more money than Thicke. However, Thicke has outstanding qualifications, and his vision for agriculture deserves our wholehearted support. We don't often hear Iowa candidates speak out against excessive concentration of agricultural markets or advocate stronger regulations for confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). I recommend reading the four-part interview Blog for Iowa did with Thicke last year (part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4). Francis and Susan Thicke operate a successful organic dairy farm and won the 2009 Spencer Award for Sustainable Agriculture.
Those who share Thicke's views about farm policy may want to consider donating to his campaign via ActBlue. Incidentally, his name is pronounced "Tic-kee."
Sampler Platter
- The NYT reported on how Blanche Lincoln is caught in a pickle, trapped between election opponents on both the right and the left. I've got very little sympathy for her.
- Obesity risks start before birth. It's a new article but not a new idea. It's also a very good article.
- Kathleen Merrigan recently gave a talk at The New School. See it here.
- Hmm, here's some old news recycled as new news. It's from FarmPolicy.com, reporting on Vilsack's perception of U.S. agriculture. They quote heavily from a talk that I was present at, back in October. You can see my write-up here. I don't quite agree with the assessment of Vilsack provided on FarmPolicy.com. Organic CAN feed the world. That's exactly the point, and Vilsack doesn't get it.
- Want to know where your milk is from? Check out WhereIsMyMilkFrom.com.
- This NYT piece on Crop Mob made quite a splash. It's an idea we've been doing here in San Diego too (although we aren't the focus of the piece) where a group of volunteers gather on a farm and work on whatever needs to be done for a day. In San Diego we do this for home gardens primarily instead of farms. I've been jokingly calling them "garden raisings" because they remind me of Amish barn raisings, where the entire community comes together to help one member of the community build a barn in a day.
- How sick is this? "Nutrients For Life" is holding a contest for Future Farmers of America chapters (i.e. middle school and high school students), asking them to promote chemical fertilizer. They are giving away $60,000 in prizes. If you check out their website it is quite an amazing greenwash job. (The Rodale Institute is holding a competing contest for FFA members to make 2-minute videos promoting sustainable ag.)
- The LA Times has an interesting piece on plans in CA to convert cow poo to energy.
- Gahhh! Haven't we had enough Free Trade Agreements? Why do we need a Trans-Pacific one? This past week, Congress held a hearing and invited R-CALF's CEO to testify on his organization's opposition to the Trans-Pacific FTA. My big question is: Why are other countries silly enough to keep signing FTAs with us, if they've already got over a decade of results from our previous FTAs to look at?
- Can I hug Marion Nestle? Check out what she's saying about soda consumption in schools. Get the vending machines out of schools. Woohoo!
- Here's some obvious news: calorie labeling on menus has a bigger effect if the menu also tells you how many calories you SHOULD be eating:
Seeing that an appetizer is over 1000 calories doesn't really hit home until you realize you should only be eating about 2000 calories per day and that appetizer will get you half way there!
- Hey, how about another toxic chemical (antimony) that leaches from plastic bottles into your drinks? Only in very small quantities apparently, but geez already - how many toxins are we consuming without knowing it?
- Here's another one from Marion Nestle: Three year olds recognize food brands. Yup, I could've told her that. Our three year old doesn't know a square from a triangle and she can't recognize any numbers or letters, but by god, she can point out the brand logo for the food she wants to eat. ESPECIALLY when there's a kids cartoon character or a cute animal on the package.
- Civil Eats loves pluots (a cross between a plum and an apricot). I love stone fruit but I wouldn't say that pluots are my favorite. I get most excited when the cherries show up at the market, even though I can't afford them.
- Change.org says "We can't fix obesity one candy bar at a time." Nope, we need big lifestyle changes. That means taking time to eat, taking time to cook, and taking time to grow or otherwise obtain good food. And, believe it or not, you can have fun and spend "quality" time with your family or friends while doing this. Just don't expect to escape without a lot of messes in the kitchen to clean up.
- Kathleen Sebelius is recruiting Olympic athletes for "Let's Move," Michelle Obama's anti-childhood obesity campaign. Imagine that! Getting the most physically fit people in the nation to advocate for something other than McDonalds. I like it! Although I'll be quite disgusted if I see any athletes advocating for BOTH Let's Move and McDonalds.
What about an added sweetener tax instead?
Once again the debate over a "soda tax" is going strong here in New York and throughout the entire nation. The pros and cons of this tax are complicated but something needs to be done. Except what is being floated around here and by many governments in a nation of drinkable disasters is really both a natural sweetener tax and a promotion of artificial sweeteners.
The embattled Governor David Paterson proposed it last year as an "Obesity Tax" before public outcry temporally crushed it. The outcry was over this tax being a regressive tax that poor people would be forced to pay with little thought about parents telling their children "No you cannot have 87¢ for a Coke but you can have 75¢ for a Diet Coke." When diet sodas are exempt, since budget conscious shoppers will find drinks with artificial sweeteners and other chemicals to be money saving choices, it translates to government preaching better living through chemicals.
This tax seemed dead until Michael Bloomberg began presenting it as what it really is, an income generator. Now with Bloomberg's endorsement this tax is getting the "full court press" again and Paterson is holding multiple meeting on taxing sugary drinks. Meanwhile there are dueling TV ads here now but little thought about what is being taxed to curtail empty calories through a straw. In this battle of interest groups is anyone actually thinking?
Of course diet drinks might sound harmless enough but a study in 2005 claimed that diet soda drinkers not only gained weight;
The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at this week's annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego."What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."
In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.
Bloomberg for all of his faults does seem to make an honest effort towards improving New Yorkers health and new sources of income that can be put to many good uses are desperately needed. Since there is no evidence to be found of anyone mentioning the drawbacks of promoting diet soda, public health policy being set by myopic calorie counting could be an oversight.
Since this new tax seems to be taking roots all over the public debate should move beyond "loss of small business" vs. "it worked for cigarettes."
There is another serious issue here. As you probably know from reading soda ingredients this is not really a sugar tax, this is a high fructose corn syrup tax. HFCS is rarely scrutinized and has never once been mentioned by the politicians in this debate. Mayor Bloomberg should consider the part played by the federal government in making soda cheaper than milk, juice and even bottled water. Federal subsidies play a big part in fast food restaurants offering bottomless soda cups.
While both sugar and HFCS represent empty calories, considering whether a substance so heavily subsidized should be curtailed by a state tax can give you a headache. The fact that a portion of our federal payroll tax is devoted to making soda as cheap as possible isn't really an argument against paying the state so we can consume it but it seems sort of crazy. Local politicians addressing what Washington has been doing to promote obesity would seem to make better sense than using their positions so that voters will pay once to make soda cheap and again to make it expensive.
This tax to save Americans from their obesity has been floated around on the fed level, even endorsed by our Diet Coke loving president. But since lobbyist make all the decisions there the best we can hope for is federally subsidized sodas that are taxed by our states and cities.
Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed bills to tax candy and soda last month and Illinois has found a sweet source of state revenue. California is considering legislation and Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia wants twice as much as Mayor Bloomberg.
But this exemption for diet drinks is troublesome. Even if studies like this one are exaggerating;
In support of this possibility, a recent study found that rodents fed the artificial sweetener saccharin lost the ability to accurately regulate calorie intake and gained weight. Another concern is that habitual consumption of artificial-sweetened beverages may "infantilize" taste preferences, especially among children. Compared to the hyper-intense sweetness of these beverages, fruit may seem bland and vegetables may seem inedible, adversely affecting overall diet quality. Indeed, two observational studies have linked artificially sweetened beverage consumption to higher risk for obesity, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.
Even if these artificial or chemically adjusted natural calorie free sweeteners have been tested enough, as this revenue generator spreads across the nation the message from cash strapped parents to their children will be that "aspartame is good and sugar is bad" has got to be a hindrance to children developing good eating habits.
Simply taxing added sweeteners no matter what the caloric value would be the more sensible solution. The exemption for products that contain seventy percent natural fruit juices should be for 100 percent natural juices because 29 percent HFCS apple juice will become an overnight sensation.
If the success of the cigarette tax is going to be quoted over and over;
"It's an interesting experiment and one that's worth trying," said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. "The theory behind this approach is that it worked for cigarettes, and that soft drinks are demonstrably related to obesity in children."
Than the cost to consumers should be set somewhere much higher than just some nickel and dime tax. A pack of cigarettes in NYC cost over ten bucks. One penny per ounce is just going to be government income where many people are concerned and will only modify the behavior of people on tight budgets.
Tonight this new local tax has come up everywhere. The NBC Nightly News video covered how this tax will reduce American's weight and Katie Couric pointed out that New Yorkers favor this new tax while covering the war on soft drinks bubbling out of our schools.
Both of these stories mentioned a public relations victory for the soda industry because they played a role in reducing soda consumption in schools. President Clinton was the real player and he gave a fun answer when an American Beverage Association representative tried to get him to make a commitment against a soda tax;
"It's dumb for me to get involved in (the tax) debate when I can save God knows how many kids lives by making other agreements."
I'll get involved. I think a soda tax is good but not as a promotion of artificial sweeteners. How many years was sodium cyclamate considered safe? Not to mention that this government lost the battle to ban Saccharin while others succeeded. So why promote the unnatural?
Pot Luck
Pot Luck is an open thread...
PepsiCo opens "research" center at Yale Medicine - I may return my degree
This is really embarrassing. I attended the Yale School of Public Health back when it was still a separate department within the Yale School of Medicine. I just received my alumni newsletter, only to find out that Yale Medicine has teamed up with soft drink and snack food giant PepsiCo to create a "research laboratory" in Science Park, which is adjacent to Yale's campus.
What will sort of alleged science will this Orwellian place produce? Why, the "development of healthier food and beverage products," what else? But that's not all. It seems that Yale's price tag was a tad higher. To complete the sell-out, PepsciCo is also sponsoring a fellowship in Yale's M.D.-Ph.D. Program. According to the company's press release, "the endowment will specifically fund work that focuses on nutritional research, such as metabolic syndrome, diabetes and obesity." Just great. Here's how Dr. Robert Alpern, Dean and Ensign Professor at Yale School of Medicine justifies the deal:
PepsiCo's commitment to improving health through proper nutrition is of great importance to the well-being of people in this country and throughout the world. We are delighted that they are expanding their research in this area and that they have chosen Yale as a partner for this endeavor. Extending this partnership to the M.D.-Ph.D. Program represents a visionary investment in one of the finest researcher training programs in the world and thus to the future of science.
Sickening. And ironic since Yale is also the home of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which is fast becoming the nation's leader in the field. I can't help wondering if this is a coincidence, of if PepsiCo figured this was a good way to neutralize the Rudd Center's increasing influence over policies detrimental to the company's bottom line. Let's take, for starters, how Rudd is gaining national expertise on soda taxes, as evidenced by numerous articles penned by Rudd director Kelly Brownell such as this one published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Also making me suspicious is another Yale / PepsiCo connection. When the Rudd Center was first formed, Derek Yach, formerly with the World Health Organization and tobacco control hero, was on staff there. Then in 2007, to the great shock and dismay of public health advocates around the world, he became PepsiCo's Director of Global Health Policy, whatever that means. It's almost like he has returned to buy out his previous company.
Now I understand that everyone is hurting for money these days. The dean whines here about the university's projected 25 percent drop in its endowment for 2009. But really, I don't think that can possibly justify this arrangement. It's not like the alternative was laying off faculty. The alternative was not affiliating with the purveyor of Cheetos and Mountain Dew.
Even though I always say I never learned a damn thing about nutrition at Yale Public Health, at least I could say I went to Yale. But now I am not sure I want to anymore. After writing my book, I admit to being pretty jaded and not easily shocked by industry influence, but this one really hurts. Who can I even complain to? Is nothing off limits to corporate control?
Also posted here and here. (with photos)
My Visit to the Bay Area
I'm going to be speaking in the Bay Area this week. Here's the schedule:
Tuesday March 9: San Jose Public Library Joyce Ellington Branch at 6:30-8pm (491 E. Empire St.)
Wednesday March 10: UC-Berkeley, 101 Morgan Hall at 7:30-9pm (with Michele Simon)
Thursday March 11: San Francisco at Viracocha at 6:30pm
Saturday March 13: Work day at VeggieLution Farm in San Jose at 10am
Sampler Platter
- A CA bill would increase the number of farmers markets that take food stamps. And it's already passed CA's state assembly. Ditto for Illinois' HB4756 (The Farmers Market Technology Improvement Program Act), which passed the IL House almost unanimously.
- Rep. Rush Holt introduced a Farm to School bill, H.R. 4710. Check out this YouTube video of Rep. Holt discussing the bill with nutrition experts. And, Holt is on the committee that will write the upcoming child nutrition/school lunch legislation.
- So Food Inc didn't win an Oscar. But Cattle Network and the corn industry were pretty worried... and just pissed off in general that it even got nominated. My hunch is that in almost any other year it stood a good chance. This year, it was hard to imagine anything other than The Cove getting the Oscar.
- Wow. Check out this amazing piece on greenwashing from The Nation.
- Here's a great post and video about organic dairy (in light of the new so-called pasture rule that closes a loophole in organic dairy regulations to hopefully prevent factory farms from getting certified as organic).
- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for dairy products.
- Ummm... holy shit! A whistleblower says that the USDA ignored unsafe and cruel slaughterhouse practices. That's bad.
- According to a survey, nearly 70% of consumers will pay more for "ethical" food (PDF). Of course, "ethical" means different things to different people, and then there's the question of marketing that fools people into believing a food is more ethical than it truly is. But at least most consumers have the right idea.
- OK, cities that get their panties in a wad when eco-conscious citizens let their lawn die during a drought need to get a life. Although apparently the city "won" when the lawn-less resident planted drought resistant plants.
- Everyone's talking about this piece in the NYT about the importance of grasslands.
- The USDA, FDA, and CDC are meeting to talk about food safety. Imagine that. What a good idea, for various agencies of the government with overlapping jobs to all talk to one another. Wouldn't it be crazy if we had just one federal agency that was charged with all food safety duties?
- Hahahahaha. The FDA sent warning letters to a bunch of companies that violated the rules for front of package labeling and then posted the entire list of companies and violations online.
- Consumers Union did some polling about consumers opinions and buying habits for organics, alfalfa, and GMOs in order to better understand how Americans feel about the potential legalization of GM alfalfa for commercial use.