Changing the Definition of Milk to “Help” Consumers

So, this came across my screen today:

“Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products

A Proposed Rule by the Food and Drug Administration on 02/20/2013

SUMMARY

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition requesting that the Agency amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener as an optional ingredient. FDA is issuing this notice to request comments, data, and information about the issues presented in the petition.”

You can, and should, read the whole thing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products

The dairy industry just wants to help you! You, as a consumer, are just too stupid to know  that there’s sugar in milk (and this is what the petition says, not me), and so they just want to make it easier for you to make completely uninformed choices.  Because, educating consumers…well, that’s just silly.

There are so many things wrong with the propose amendment that I am only going to have time to cover a few:

1. Children don’t like the label “Reduced Calorie.”  It is not the FDA’s job to market to children, so it isn’t their job to come up with a definition of food that makes kids want to eat more of it. It’s their job to monitor food safety and quality. If children have a problem with “reduced calorie,” education of both children and parents, not re-labeling for better marketing, is a far more ethical way to deal with that issue.  And, it’s been proven to work.

2. “Safe” sweeteners. No one thing is “safe” for everyone. People have allergies, medication interactions, and other issues that can make what is “safe” for one person a life-threatening issue for another.  Having unlisted ingredients on any product is a safety hazard; but, especially in a product like milk, where the only ingredient ought to be “Milk,” it’s a large and irresponsible safety risk. Those with allergies, or their parents, would have no reason to suspect added hidden or new ingredients in what is supposed to be a whole food (would you look for aspartame in an apple? a green pepper?), and because these ingredients  can be listed as many different things (or, not listed at all, depending what they are and how much of them is present), they would have a difficult time finding out that they were present.

This would, of course, disproportionately impact the poor, especially children who receive free or reduced lunches and breakfasts through school, which almost always include milk. These parents and children often do not have the resources to research hidden ingredients, or access to news that they are now being added to a food that is generally considered a “whole” food.

3. Promoting good eating habits and reducing childhood obesity.  Yes, I can definitely see how including more processed additives to a whole food is going to promote good eating. Wait..what? No, no I can’t.  Added processed ingredients and sweeteners are part of what has gotten us in this mess in the first place.  That children are more likely to drink sweeter milk is no shock. The shock is that we keep giving it to them. Kids are also more likely to not do their homework, not take their bath, not do their chores, and not clean their room if left to their own devices. That is why we have parents and other adults who supervise them.

Also, the whole “kids won’t drink it” line regarding white milk is just wrong. When flavored milk is taken out of schools, milk consumption initially drops, but rebounds quickly.  And, of course, this isn’t just about flavored milk. This is about 17 different dairy products, including yogurt and white milk, having added sugars and artificial sweeteners (you can use the term “non-nutritive” all you want).

4. Consumers don’t know there’s sugar in milk*. This is a straw-man argument. Whether it is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with adding hidden sweeteners to milk and changing the definition of milk to accommodate that. If consumers don’t know there’s lactose in milk, or that lactose is a sugar, then the problem is (again) education. Lack of education isn’t solved by taking choices away from consumers, it’s solved by…well, education.

5.  The proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity would promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace and are therefore appropriate under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  I have no idea how changing an established definition of a whole food to include ingredients that are not naturally found in that food, with the express purpose that the consumer have no indication those ingredients are present, can be seen as “honest and fair dealing.”  Lack of disclosure, bait-and-switch definitions, and pretending it’s all for the “good of the consumer” is pretty much the antithesis of “honest and fair dealing.”

6. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”  To be read: consumers are so stupid that they just can’t handle more words on a package, and so it’s just better not to clutter their pretty little heads with all that crazy nutrition talk. The dairy lobby and the FDA should just take that horrible burden off their shoulders by lying and hiding the truth, because blissful ignorance is much better for everyone.

It is not the FDA’s job to treat consumers like 2-year-old children who can’t be trusted to make reasonable decisions without being baby-talked into it. I don’t need to be goo-goo and ga-ga’d at, thanks.

So, why is the dairy industry even doing this?  Are they just concerned for all of us uneducated consumers making poor eating choices for ourselves and our families? No. There are several reasons the industry is lobbying for this amendment: decreasing costs by lowering quality and camouflaging it with cheap additives, and increasing consumption by providing unnaturally sweet dairy products to the public. But, of course, they want to do it under the flag of public health and concern. Don’t let them.

If you are as outraged at this idea as I am, please take a moment and leave a comment on the FDA’s page. Consumers do not have the same money and political leverage as the dairy lobby. All we have are our voices, and they need to be loud and numerous if we want to keep special interests out of our food.

*Citation needed. 

Volume Discount. Or, Stop Playing With Your Food!

We’ve been mislead about how to have a healthy relationship with food. For some reason, we’ve been taught to think that “good” or “healthy” eating and nutrition is about getting the largest volume of food into our stomachs with the least amount of calories. I am not sure where this trend started, but it’s definitely perpetuated in our food marketing, media, and a lot of nutrition advice.  Our society’s idea of nutrition has become about how much sheer volume we can pack into ourselves without “exceeding calories.”

This is not a healthy way to eat. It’s not a healthy relationship for our nation to have with food. If it were, we wouldn’t have the skyrocketing obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other lifestyle-related disease rates we do today. The answer is simple, but it goes against the unfortunate American value that “bigger is better,” and the more you have the more you’re worth. Ergo, the more you can eat and stay “skinny,” the better you are, the healthier you must be.

There are many reasons that most people who lose weight put it back on, but one of the biggest is this: they have not changed their relationship with food and food culture. We’ve gotten used to feeling “full” all the time, and believing that it is necessary and good to feel this way. That we should be able to eat large amounts of food without gaining weight. That we all “deserve” to be able to eat whatever we want, whenever we want, and that it’s nutritionally reasonable to poke, pull, and tweak foods to fit into what we want them to be instead of what they are.  That we should be able to eat the way we want to eat, instead of the way we need to eat, without consequences. All of this despite demonstrable evidence that it’s a failing formula.

The fix for this is simple, and the more research that is done, the more it’s holding up: eat quality, whole, nutrient-dense foods, and eat them in an appropriate quantity.

A skin-on, bone-in chicken breast has only 50 or so more calories than it does skin off, and only about 2.5g saturated fats.* If you’re watching your weight, the answer isn’t to skin your chicken to save 50 calories, it’s to eat less chicken or do more exercise. In my last series about nutrition rules, you’ll note I said eat more veggies, and stop eating whole cuts of meat as frequently. Why? Because it makes far more sense to eat more vegetables and get the fiber and nutrients, while eating less meat and dairy but still getting the complete and natural fats, than it does to find “work-arounds.”

But what about those FDA “portion” sizes? It’s important to remember those are generalizations (and, frankly, bad ones). For a smaller/shorter person, a reasonable portion is much less. For a taller/larger person, much more.   Yes, as a small person I’ll be able to eat less skin-on chicken or whole milk than my partner, who is extremely tall, will be able to eat. And, that’s okay. It’s okay to eat less food, or less than than an “FDA” portion of a certain food. It’s okay to stock up on green veggies and take a smaller portion of the whole higher-calorie whole food, of which more and more studies are showing that removing nutrients (including fat) has detrimental effects (or, at the very least, removes potential beneficial effects and essential nutrients). Saturated fats are now being shown to help balance HDL and LDL cholesterol, for example. Which doesn’t mean an overabundance of saturated fats are good for you, either. Again, the answer is simply to eat it, just eat less of it.

This isn’t a new or even radical viewpoint on my part. Pretty much this same thing has been said in countless works on the subject, including the best-selling “French Women Don’t Get Fat.”  French cuisine isn’t exactly known for it’s use of skim milk, margarine, or skinned chicken. Yet, despite it being a best-seller and making the talk-show rounds, eating habits in the US have not changed. We still demand larger and larger portions, and try to find ways to make those portions contain less and less calories.

And yet, as a nation we continue to wonder why we’re getting fatter and sicker.

(Author’s note: Any inflammatoy/name-calling/trolling posts or off-topic vegan/paleo/locavore/whatever proselytizing comments will be deleted.)

* Info from Julie Upton, dietician writing in “Eating Light” magazine. I don’t have this online, so you’ll need to find the issue for yourself.

Raw Milk: The Choices I Make, and Why

Raw milk has risks. It just does. That means it is exactly no different from anything else we ingest, from lettuce to alcohol. I choose to accept these risks,because I know what they are, and I’ve decided that any potential risks from raw milk from a local, well-vetted farm with excellent husbandry and milking practices is still lower than that of drinking conventional milk.

Here’s the deal:

-Not all of us who drink raw milk are uninformed, on jumping on some bandwagon. I’ve done the research. In fact, part of my job is literally to research food illness, benefits, husbandry practices,etc. I didn’t just hear someone says “raw milk is awesome” and decide “hey, I must drink that!” Raw milk isn’t a recent thing for me. I grew up drinking milk warm, directly from the teats of the cows and goats I milked on our farm. We didn’t pasteurize, but we were taught really excellent husbandry and milking practices. And yes, we milked by hand. We weren’t a dairy, we were too poor to have a milking machine, and as kids we were excellent free labor for our parents.

-I trust my local farmers far more than I trust corporate agriculture. I can stop by and visit my cow, help feed, watch the milking, and see what they do with the milk (including the fact that they’re drinking it, the same as we are) anytime I want, without notice. They provide any information I ask, including testing/herd testing information, with appropriate  verification if requested. I didn’t just wander onto some field with a guy milking a cow and say “hey, can I have some of that?”  Which is essentially what I’m doing if I buy food from corporate agriculture. Corporate Ag sickens thousands each year, from eggs to dairy to produces. Do people get sick from local goods? Of course. But, after looking at all the facts, I believe that–for my family–the risks of non-GMO, grass-fed, pastured, unpasteurized cow’s milk is simply far less than trusting a corporate food system we already know is horribly corrupt. I’ve been sick from mass-produced goods. I have never yet been sick from anything I’ve gotten from my local, vetted farmers. I realize that’s anecdotal, and I don’t expect others to make my choices. But *I* should have a right to make an informed decision about what I eat.

-The risks are, from all the data I can collect since the data is fairly sparse, pretty statistically insignificant. I know that when it’s you or a family member, statistics become irrelevant; but, when making reasonable food choices, they can be helpful. Depending who you listen to, between 3 and 10 Million people drink raw milk in the US. There is, from all the data I could find, an average of 100-150 cases of hospitalization a year reported, meaning they were serious enough to be diagnosed and hospitalized. Only 2 recorded deaths since 1998 that I could find (there may be more, I am willing to revise this, so please let me know). This means that reported cases of illness are between .00005% and .00016%. Even assuming there are, say, 100o unreported cases a year, you’re still only looking at well below a 1% chance of getting ill from raw milk.  I’ll live with that.

-Not all of us who drink raw milk espouse Weston A. Price Foundation values. I am not a member. I do believe in whole foods, I do believe in not eating processed sugars or many simple carobhydrates. I do think we get too few CLAs, Omegas, and the like in our diets as Americans overall. That is about where my paradigm similarities with them ends. I don’t have a problem with them. They’re free to make whatever food choices work for them, and I do applaud the fact that most members bother to educate themselves on what they’re eating, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of Americans who choose to eat crap “food.” I just don’t believe everything they do, and their paradigm borders too closely on fanaticism for me, personally. It’s also frequently tied to religion, and I prefer to keep religious issues out of my food choices.

-I don’t think raw milk is magic. Yes, there are many people who’ve got stories about it curing this or that, and maybe it does. Or, maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know, and that’s not why I choose it. I’m healthy, I am not looking for a panacea. I, personally, notice my (very mild) seasonal allergies are non-existent when I am drinking local, raw milk regularly. The same is true of local, raw honey. Is it psychosomatic? Possibly. But, since that’s not why I drink it, I don’t actually care. I drink it because I like the fact that the cow (from my farm) has been fed no corn or GMO feed, that it eats grass and therefore likely has higher levels of good fatty acids, that the milk tastes better to me, has a higher fat content (yes, we do actually look for that–Thadd needs something like 4 thousand calories a day, and we get almost none of them from simple carbs or sugars) , that it actually contains no hormones or antibiotics (as opposed to “allowable” amounts), that it’s only hours old when I get it, that it supports local agriculture, and that I can make cheese and other products from it much more readily than I can from high-heat pasteurized milk.

-I don’t feed it to the world. Thadd and I drink it. I do make my own cheese, and some of those cheeses can only be made with raw milk or, in some cases, low-heat pasteurized milk. Unfortunately, the latter is not available literally anywhere near me, so the former is my best choice, even if I didn’t want to drink it. These products, and the raw milk itself, are used for only ourselves. We have no children, and typically when we have guests over, we’re drinking local wine, cider, beer, or freshly-made lemonade, not big glasses of milk.

-You can know the risks, and still elect to take them. Simply because someone chooses to do something someone else views as “risky” does not mean the chooser isn’t aware of the risks. People who climb Mt. Everest are doing something I would personally never do, but I am pretty sure they’re aware of what they’re getting into. People have many different reasons for choosing what they choose to do, and can look at the same information, and come to a different decision. For some people, any germ associated with food is abhorrent. For me, food without germs is abhorrent. I think, overall, that germ theory has led us in the wrong direction, and is one reason we’re so sick as a nation. (I don’t use hand sanitizer, but I do wash my hands thoroughly. I don’t use bleach to clean my house, but I do clean well with soap and water.)  Of course, germs are not the same as pathogens, and while I realize that pathogens can be present in raw milk, appropriate practices keeps the risk of that very small. Small enough, in fact, that I choose to take it because for me, it’s a smaller risk than the long-term effects of what is in much commercial milk.

-Not all of us believe that raw milk should flow freely like a river down a mountain, unhindered and unregulated. I certainly don’t. I would love it if our government could take a step back from lobbyists who contribute heavily to their campaign funds, and draft real, reasonable regulation that would help ensure the safety of a raw milk supply and the products thereof. It’s not impossible. Other countries have done it well (some so well it can actually be gotten at vending machines, and the instances of illness are reported to be the same as pasteurized). Europe is famous for its fresh, raw milk cheeses. People are not hospitalized or dying in droves from fresh ricotta or aged Roquefort (the latter of which is required, by law, to be made from fresh, raw sheep’s milk). Unfortunately, our government, and many people who seem to speak on either side of this issue, seem to see no middle: it’s either a free-for-all, or a felony.  When really, it should be more along the lines of: here are solid regulations for husbandry, milking, testing, storage, and transport. Follow them, or you will be liable, just like other food companies (oh, wait…other food companies get people sick and hospitalize them all the time with no real consequences). So, until and unless those who do the regulation can get their collective heads out of their collective arses,  it leaves those of us in the middle with a lot of vetting to do on our farms.

Raw milk is not for everyone. There are plenty of instances when pasteurized milk is the better choice. But, there’s no good reason why the choice can’t be offered in a safe way.

Related Articles

• Why Hide Serious Government Data on Raw Milk Drinkers? (via Food Freedom) (healthisahabit.wordpress.com)
• Real Raw Milk Facts

The School Lunch Nanny State Rant

Image via Wikipedia

Let’s just say it like it is, and stop pussyfooting around, shall we?

This whole “Oh, no, the government setting up better nutrition standards for my kid’s lunches is a Nanny State!”  is complete crap. You want to know what a Nanny State is? It’s one where our schools provide any food to kids. Actually, it’s having public schools at all. Our schools spend 8 hours a day being nannies to our nation’s children: they teach them, they discipline them, they socialize them, and yes, they feed them. That is pretty much the definition of “nanny,” folks. (If you want to argue everyone should therefore home school, get your own blog and do it there.) Our country agreed to a “Nanny State” in this regard a long time ago, for the social good of having an educated populace. Our society also agreed that the schools would provide food to the children they were educating, for the same reason.

You can argue that our schools shouldn’t be providing food for kids at all. There’s an argument to be made for that (not one I necessarily agree with, but one that can at least can be logically made–just don’t make it here, that’s a whole different issue).  But, if you believe that it’s a public school’s job to provide children with food during the school day, you therefore cannot be against them “controlling” what your child can eat. Why not? Follow me here, because it can’t be any clearer:

THEY ALREADY DO THAT!

And they have to do that. There’s literally no way to not do it.  How do those people screaming that their rights as parents are being taken away because their kid no longer gets chocolate milk in the lunch line suppose food gets into those cafeterias? Someone, somewhere, in some form of public, governmental office, decides what company gets the food contracts and what the menus for schools will be. Ergo, that person or persons (or policies set by them) are controlling what’s in the cafeteria, and therefore what children are eating. This isn’t rocket science. Food has to be purchased, and someone has to decide what gets purchased. Anything not purchased is, by definition, excluded. Someone not the child’s parent is making that decision already.

So, following through, the government already controls what your kid is getting at school and “violating parent’s rights.” Somehow, offering chocolate milk and pizza makes this less of a violation? Does it really make sense that this control should be used to teach kids bad eating habits, to feed them food that is provably unhealthy and that puts them at risk for poorer learning and future disease? Really? A parent could just as easily yell and berate the system as a “Nanny State” that is violating their rights because the school doesn’t provide organic, dye-free, free-range scrambled eggs. Or not offering gluten-free or vegan meals.

As a society, we’ve also agreed that we have a responsibility to protect and nurture children, even if their parents do not, or cannot, do so. Again, there’s an argument to be made against this, but unless you’re also arguing against Social Services, police intervention in child abuse, etc., you’re cherry picking (and if you are arguing against all those things, it’s way outside the scope of this blog, so move along).  Doesn’t it follow that, since we believe (and have legislated as such) that the government does have a role in protecting and nurturing children, that it has the responsibility to make decisions about those children with their best interest in mind? It’s hard to find a reasonable argument that chocolate milk, processed,  and sugar-laden foods are in anyone’s best interest, especially children’s.

Let’s recap, just for those who haven’t gotten it yet:

1. School lunches are already government controlled.

2. Schools, meaning government, decides what food goes into those cafeterias for kids to eat simply be deciding what food will be purchased and what food will not.

3. There IS NO CHOICE for the government to provide food without proving control.Your choices are for schools to provide healthier options with higher nutrition value, lower sugar, and less processing, or unhealthy options low in nutrients and high in known problem substances like sugar.

Here’s the truth: either you fight against school lunches being provided at all because you believe governmental interference is violating parent’s rights by dictating what food is available to children, or you fight for better quality food. Fighting for the government to limit your child’s food options to junk is just irresponsible.

 

Side note: I read a comment recently that said “vote with your dollars! If you stop buying school lunches, then they’ll have to change them.” People are so very out of touch with reality.  Children who receive free or discounted lunches can’t exactly stop buying lunches and pack their own. They’re poor, which is why they’re getting the free or discounted lunches. They don’t have the money, and often don’t have the parental involvement, to pack their own lunches. A 7-year-old can’t go to the store with his mom’s food stamps and get healthy options to pack in his lunch, even if he understand what those might be. So, effectively, this commenter believes that wealthier kids should have good food available for the government, but if you’re too poor to protest financially, you’re screwed. Nice.

Related Articles

• Berkeley School Lunch Program: How to Improve School Lunches (ecochildsplay.com)

Healthy Eating for Monday, Jan. 31st.

We’re one month into the new year.  Many folks out there made a resolution to eat better, and I am wondering how it’s going. Feel free to comment and let me know!

My healthy eating tip today is to ignore the USDA food pyramid. Seriously, this thing is a travesty calling itself nutrition. What should you do instead? Eat real food. It’s difficult to go wrong eating fresh vegetables, unprocessed grains, and lean proteins. The “new” USDA guidelines–while, I suppose, an improvement in that they suggest cutting sugars and salt–are not much better than the old. Ketchup is still not a vegetable, and fruit loops will never be an appropriate breakfast for you or your children.

Check in tomorrow for On the Menu! See what we’re eating this week, and why.

Related Articles

• Monday Healthy Eating: Jan. 11, 2011 (eclecticedibles.wordpress.com)
• Monday Healthy Eating, December 27th (eclecticedibles.wordpress.com)
• New U.S. Diet Guidelines: What Not to Eat (webmd.com)

Fast Ones Friday

Fast One: The Department of Justice completed it’s series of agriculture antitrust workshops. What this means to you: The USDA is, hopefully, finally starting to understand that having 1 company own the majority of seeds and 4 companies supplying the vast majority of meat, poultry, dairy, or eggs is a really bad idea. Watch the trials yourself, starting here. Profit margins for farmers are often a penny on the dollar to farmers if they have to sell through buyers like Tyson, Monsanto, or Horizon. Be a rebel in an effective way, folks: buying local is voting with your dollar, it’s sending message to the USDA that it’s time to break up some of these companies.

This is all I’m going to say on food politics today, because hopefully you can use the extra time not reading my two cents to watch for yourself what is going on.

Monday Healthy Eating, December 6th Edition

So, most of my posts in this series have been about how to achieve or maintain a healthy weight; but, there’s more to healthy eating than weight. What you put into your body has far-reaching effects that go beyond weight. Today’s healthy eating tip is about long-term health, about minimizing your risks for serious diseases:

Eliminate as much Bisphenol A, also known as BPA, from your diet. More importantly, eliminate as much as possible from your kid’s diet, especially infants.

BPA has been linked to developmental and neurological damage, reproductive health damage, and so many other things in kids I can’t even list them all here. In adults, it’s been linked to breast cancer, obesity, Down’s Syndrom, endocrine disruption, and a host of other things. Many other countries have banned BPA in infant toys and bottles, and some have banned it in containers; but, big industry still rules here in the US, and it’s interests come before those of the general population. So, this is going to take a concerted effort. It won’t be possible to remove it all unless you live off the grid, but you can work to minimize your exposure.

BPA is the chemical that makes many hard plastics hard. It’s found in almost all hard plastics, from PVC water pipes to food containers, to the liners in aluminum cans. It’s fairly all pervasive, but there are some steps you can take:

-Use glass containers to store food. There are “BPA Free” containers that are plastic, but even many of these have been shown to have some BPA in them. Use glass whenever possible, and the BPA free when it’s not. If you must use plastic containers, wait until food is cooled before putting into the container, as heat leaches out more BPA faster.

-Stop using that plastic water bottle–right now. Yes, even your beloved Nalgene has been shown to leach BPA into drinking water. Disposable bottles are generally the worst, but the hard plastic water bottles for the gym aren’t a lot better (again, even the “BPA free” bottles have been shown to leach out BPA). Use a metal water bottle.

-Use glass baby bottles. See above.

-Stop using food canned in aluminum cans, unless they are BPA free cans. Some manufacturers have started using an alternative lining that does not contain BPA, but this is still pretty rare. Switch as many foods as possible to dried, fresh, or jarred.

-Replace your water pipes with copper. Right, I realize we can’t all do this. I can’t, we live in a rental. But, if you can, do. If you can’t, just be aware that BPA has now been shown to be absorbed through the skin, so forget setting in those long, hot baths.

The bottom line is to reduce your family’s use of hard plastics. I did an article on this a while ago that has more ideas, and please feel free to contribute yours in the comments.

Fast One Fridays, Oct. 29, 2010

Fast One: More bad news for HFCS:  The HFCS in many sodas contains significantly more fructose than the companies reported. What This Means To You: HFCS could be an even greater contributor to obesity than previously thought. And, as importantly, there’s NO SUCH THING as moderation of this product, because you simply cannot have any idea how much you’re getting in anything you eat that contains it.  We all know that too much sugar of any kind is bad for us, whether it be table sugar, honey, maple syrup, or HFCS. The difference here is that HFCS is in so many things because it is artificially cheap, and you can’t know for sure how much or in what formulation you’re intaking it. So, just stop eating it. If you need something sweet, make some homemade cookies, or lemonade with local honey. You’re waistline (and your brain, since mercury has been found in a large percentage of HFCS) will thank you for it.

Fast One: Morningland Dairy is headed to court, after lodging a formal complaint against Missouri Milk Board’s order to destroy their products. What this means to you: Do you like having a choice in what you eat? Do you want to be able to eat raw foods, or local foods, or foods produced by someone with a face that’s not employed by one of the Big Ag companies that already own 90% of our farms and dairies (which, btw, they still try to tout as “family farm,” so be aware of that misrepresentation)? If you do, you need to speak up. Donate (see button at the end of this post), write your representatives and let them know the FDA needs to follow due process, blog about this, and just generally raise some hell. I don’t know about you, but I am terrified to see our food options continually taken away from us.

Fast One: Only 1% of chemicals on the market today are tested for safety, says Senator Lautenburg (D-New Jersey).  The laws are lax, and only 5 chemicals have been banned in the last 34 years. This means of all the chemicals on the market, only about 200 have been tested at all. What this means to you: Who knows, since this stuff isn’t tested? Okay, that was flip, I know. The point is there, though: we can’t have any real idea of the implications. It is terrifying to think companies have little regulation, and few rules about what they can or cannot put on the market without testing. We come into contact with these things every day, regardless of how “crunchy granola” we are, because they’re in everything from flooring to cell phones to clothing. What can we do about it? Write your representatives, and ask for tougher laws. Minimize what you can (chemicals in food, etc.).

Got interesting food news?

Morningland Diary–Fight For Your Food Rights.

If you care about food rights and haven’t read about this, you need to. This is an outrageous violation of due process, and a blatant attempt by the FDA to  crack down on raw foods.

Was Hillendale Farms, who produced *millions* of contaminated eggs that sickened thousands of people, asked to destroy it’s chickens, or it’s undistributed eggs? No.

Have *any* of the conventional, large, corporate dairies had to destroy all their remaining product when their milk or cheese made someone sick? No.

Yet this farm-run dairy, with no reports of illness or contamination in it’s 30 year history, is being told to do exactly that, with no reliable evidence of contamination, improper testing procedures, and no due process. This impacts not just the farm, but also the people who rely on them for employment.

Please read their story and pass it along. If you can, please contribute to their legal fund.

Related Articles

• FDA Orders Morningland Dairy to Destroy 50,000 Pounds of Raw Cheese (eatdrinkbetter.com)
• Morningland Dairy recalls cheese over Listeria and Staphylococcus risk (walletpop.com)
• We’ve got Regulatory Authority! Get Used to It (barbaradiamond.blogspot.com)
• Criminalizing Nature’s Most Perfect Food: FDA’s war on private food contracts (radyananda.wordpress.com)
• Morningland Dairy Stops Cheese Production After Listeria Fears (nowpublic.com)
• Morningland Dairy Recalls Raw-Milk Cheese Sold in 48 States (organicauthority.com)
• Almost 69,000 Pounds of Cheese Recalled Over Possible Contamination (aolhealth.com)

Friday Fast Ones, Oct. 21, 2010

Image via Wikipedia

So, for those of you waiting for it: Yes, I am diligently working on a Part II to the whole “Feed the World” thing. It’s long, it’s complicated, and I’m writing it in between Life and Everything Else. So, keep checking, it’ll be here soon. Now, onto…

Friday Fast One: Hershey sources it’s chocolate from areas and suppliers known for child and forced labor. It’s a well-known problem, one that other chocolatiers have taken steps to help remedy. Except Hershey.  What This Means To You: Well, that depends on how much chocolate you eat. For me, it means taking a stand against Scharffen-Berger, a chocolate that was amazing and is unfortunately now owned by Hershey. It means buying chocolate from other candy companies, or forgoing it. If you purchase Hershey chocolates or candies, you’re supporting their practices. Chocolate shouldn’t be an indulgence built on the backs of children and slaves.

And…that’s it. I know, slow week, largely because the issues of the past few weeks (The Rawsome Food raid vs. the Egg Debacle) is still ongoing. And, enough bloggers have hopped on that issue and done it better than I could that I don’t feel compelled to do a Friday Fast One on it. Suffice it to say that you should eat local eggs and do all you can to support local dairy.

Have a great weekend, and swing by for Monday Healthy Eating on..well, Monday!

Related Articles

• Make A Reese’s Ad Asking for Fair Trade Chocolate (humantrafficking.change.org)
• Tagged Cocoa Beans Help Eliminate Blood Chocolate (food.change.org)