Chews Wise

Las Vegas’s Daily Diet of 60,000 Pounds of Shrimp

That figure comes from Rick Moonen, the chef at RM Seafood in Las Vegas who has a passion for sustainable fish. He mentioned that Las Vegas’s daily consumption of 60,000 pounds per day is more than the rest of the nation combined.

Where does that shrimp come from? Largely from farms in southeast Asia, which have a number of problems: the destruction of mangrove swamps where the farms are based, the application of pesticides and antibiotics in the fish farms that are banned in the U.S., the reliance of low-wage labor. His solution? He uses only wild caught US species.

This came out of a panel at the Cooking for Solutions conference at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which brings together about 60 journalists to learn about sustainable food. It’s one of the few conferences that gathers terrestrial and oceans experts in one forum and is flat-out one of the best conferences I’ve attended on these issues.

The day was opened by Gene Kahn, a founder of the organic food industry, who has since moved onto greener pastures at General Mills. As global sustainability officer, he set the theme of “continual improvement” -- that there is not one singular solution to sustainable food systems and that it demands incremental gains, not either/or approaches.

Kahn said he’s most interested in changing the mainstream since 1 percent change at General Mills is “revolutionary.” As a former organic food entrepreneur, he said he’s no longer interested in “selling food to yuppies” and that the mainstreaming of these values in everyday products represents a “democratization.”

Interestingly, he said the biggest risk to this entire movement is “greenwashing,” that is the practice of companies making claims that are so limited as to be functionally meaningless. The solution was to have transparent goals, processes and results. 

But back to shrimp, which along with tuna and salmon were the topics of the first panel.

The major issue with salmon is the destructive practices of farmed fish, both in pollution and the use of wild caught fish as feeder stocks. None on the four-person panel could endorse any farmed product. Indeed, the only positive farmed products mentioned were tilapia, trout, with a nod to Kona kampachi and barramundi. And of course, mollusks, such as mussels and oysters, which have been highly successful in farmed systems.

Tuna is one of the most widely eaten species, but the only population that won an endorsement from the panel was the pole caught albacore on the West Coast (low in mercury toxins, high in omega 3 fatty acids) and a few poll caught species off of Hawaii. The other major issue with tuna is that governmental norms over its harvest differ or are non-existant. Illegal fishing is also rampant.

“It’s a highly migratory species and requires international agreements that have not been forthcoming,” said Brad Ack of the Marine Stewardship Council. “The (consumer) market has not begun to drive that change, and that’s going to have the biggest influence.”

Pen-raised tuna (much of it in Australia and the Mediterranean) has been put forward as one solution, but Corey Peet of the Aquarium mentioned that these tuna require 25 pounds of feeder fish to create one pound of tuna - a horrendous ratio that is not sustainable. Furthermore, wild caught  juvenile fish are farmed in these pens, depleting wild stocks in which they might breed.

Paul Johnson, owner of the Monterey Seafood Market, said he expected some blue fin tuna populations to be extinct within the next three or four years. Whether he’s right or not is only a matter of degree.

As for salmon, the familiar advice to buy Alaskan wild salmon was widespread; species such as coho and sockeye will be more prevalent and cheaper than king salmon.

But Johnson said, “We are going to pay more for seafood if it’s sustainable.”

The solution: eat a smaller portion ... or different species.

Moonen said that smaller species are generally more sustainable - mackerel, sardines, trout - but that consumers have to learn how to cook them. To that aim, he recently published a cook book on this topic, Fish Without a Doubt, which we soon hope to review.

- Samuel Fromartz

Who Knew? International Compost Week

This is from the "who knew?" department. It's International Compost Awareness Week. I realized that cruising around a site in Australia of all places, then found a link here about events in the United States running this week.

I get asked a lot of questions about compost, since I have a bin in my yard and we compost all plant waste from the kitchen.

Kellogg Meeting Notes: Good Food, Good Business

I’m attending the Kellogg Food and Society Conference outside of Phoenix, which is notable in a couple of ways. The meeting gathers about 550 leaders from the non-profit world - everybody from policy wonks working on the Farm Bill to those working with farmworkers, in urban community gardens, on immigration or with inner city healthy food initiatives.

Secondly, it’s being held at the luxurious Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort, a complex in the middle of the Gila River Indian Community which is actually owned by Indian tribes. The upscale nature of the place is certainly jarring for non-profits more accustomed to pinching pennies (Kellogg is picking up the expenses). But notably, the entire place was designed with Indian themes - artwork, bedspreads, even the architecture - and it provides a lot of jobs at all levels to the local Pima and Maricopa tribes.

Unlike the focus of much of my past work, the people at the conference are coming at things from the not-for-profit angle. Curiously, though, I’ve been engaged workshops where the overt theme was business - how do you grow local food? How do you bring more food to people? What’s needed in distribution? What type of ventures can make this happen? There’s a recognition that business can do this, but it’s business incubated or formed by non-profits for clear social goals.

Given the discussion, it’s clear these people would benefit from engaged business people on their boards, as advisers, if they’re not there already. In the food world, at least the organic wing of it, there are many people who have dealt with the same issues, who have gone from small to big, who have done so with clear missions. While those businesses might not always have a social component, the veterans of those paths could offer tools and strategies to get the business right -- so that it provides a solid foundation for the social goals these non-profits want to pursue.

It’s also clear from the discussions I’m having that the food movement is out-growing the farmer direct models that have been extolled for so long (farmers’ markets, CSAs). The new emphasis is on wholesale models that are necessary to bring more food to places where people actually shop - like supermarkets. That’s the next wave. But I will be interested to see how non-profits play a role in tackling this scaling issue, or whether they will be a footnote among the efforts of profit-minded entrepreneurs.

I would also note that the profit-based companies involved in the food world have largely sidestepped social justice issues. Environment, animal rights (to a degree), worker participation (to a degree), fair prices for farmers (to a degree) find a place, but social justice and affordability don’t hold an equal place at the table. That is, for people on the bottom income rungs. What businesses are starting grocery stores in inner city low-income areas - those food deserts we hear about so often? Can it be done? Or is the food bank, or government-led effort the only solution? I mean, the model exists for the unhealthy kind of store in these neighborhoods - liquor and convenience stores. Why can’t there be a healthy store model? Or maybe I just don’t know about ones that exist.

Maybe that would be a source of non-profit/for-profit partnerships going ahead, much like my impression of the economic development provided by this resort. It’s transforming the community (as one of several economic ventures) creating a social outcome but with the tools and methods of business.

- Samuel Fromartz

Do Higher Prices Mean Better Food Choices?

Well, now that  I'm back in the saddle and already forgetting what little Japanese I learned, I'm catching up with the news. (And by the way, I'll be posting more on the Japan trip soon...)

Right now, in the food world, the big issue is food prices -- and my sense is it's gonna be for a long time. I noted previously that bread bakers organized a march in DC, and now we have independent truckers protesting higher diesel prices. But these are feint social  stirrings compared to what might happen with continued fuel and food inflation.

And this is not necessarily the impetus that will drive people to make better food choices, as Kim Severenson's recent article in the Times suggested.

I always thought the assertion that people "should pay more for food" was a non-starter with consumers. Although I agree with the underlying argument - that cheap food production externalizes costs in pollution, pesticide use, even obesity - it is not an easy one for people to grasp. What they hear is that they should pay more for food. People don't want to pay more for food, especially when they are having trouble paying the mortgage. But they will, in some cases, pay more for products they perceive as higher value.

Example: consider the $40-plus billion spent on dieting products (twice as large as the organic food industry). People are spending that money because they perceive they are getting value - in this case, products that will make them thin. What is the value people get by making sustainable food choices? Until now the most compelling argument, surveys show, is that they are making a "healthier" choice. That has resonated most with the public and been the major factor behind the growth of this industry.

Unlike my friend Michael Pollan in the Times article, I have doubts about whether the current rise in commodity food prices will cause a shift to sustainable alternatives. The argument presupposes that price is the main factor keeping people away from better food choices. I think the bigger factor is education and availability. You will not buy the product if you don't perceive it as better. Instead, you'll stick with your current brand choice, even if the price goes up. Maybe you'll just buy less of it.

Perhaps I sound a little cynical, but this movement will not expand if it's predicated on the idea that you should pay more for food. You should buy better food, even if, in some cases, it's more expensive. Why? it's a better value (and that value can be defined in many ways). This post on the Jew and the Carrot blog had a similar perspective.

And not to throw more cold water on the argument, but it should be noted that rising commodity prices undermine one of the main arguments for producers going organic or pursuing more sustainable solutions. (I wrote about that in my column here). Already, a handful of organic dairies are switching back to conventional production because the economics are now better. And fewer farmers are converting to organic -- meaning more organics will come from overseas.

Desire, not Guilt, to Do (or Eat) the Right Thing

Mark Powell over at BlogFish had a very interesting post on the role of desire - rather than guilt - in getting consumers aboard the sustainable seafood cause.

We tell stories of impending crisis so they’ll stop out of fear, or we try to make rules that stop the damage by denying people their desires. Conserve water or we’ll run out and you won’t be able to flush your toilet! Stop driving your SUV or we’ll all cook together on a warming earth! Etc., you’ve heard it before.

It’s a reasonable way to go, but it isn’t working. And perhaps even worse, it creates problems for the environmental movement. It casts us as the enemies of human desire, not a good role to be in.

Mark's essay speaks to a broader issue that food advocates confront, which involves changing habits. And the best way that can be done is by creating new desires - whether for new (sustainable) fish they haven't yet eaten, fresh local food, slow food or what have you. But I imagine the purveyors of guilt won't be happy with this message. I'm not sure I'm convinced either.

Maybe the point is, convincing people takes desire (a taste of that rich dark, fair trade, organic chocolate bar) but it works especially well when people see the flip side (of child laborers picking cocoa in the Ivory Coast).

- Samuel Fromartz

Behind the Most Traded Animal Commodity - Fish

Fish from all over the world are on display at Brixton Market in London.
Image source and caption: New York Times

"There are no fish in the sea here anymore," says one Senegalese fisherman. Without a livelihood, he tried to immigrate to Europe, following a route that has claimed 6,000 lives, including his cousin's. He failed but will try again.

This is just one of the revelations that appear in a New York Times story on the disappearance of African fish, due to foreign fleets plying the waters without oversight. Europe, facing its own fisheries collapse, is importing its supply globally, aided by such companies such as "China National Fisheries Corporation, one of the largest suppliers of West African fish to Europe." In the second story in the series, the Times points out:

Fish is now the most traded animal commodity on the planet, with about 100 million tons of wild and farmed fish sold each year. Europe has suddenly become the world's largest market for fish, worth more than 14 billion euros, or about $22 billion a year. Europe's appetite has grown as its native fish stocks have shrunk so that Europe now needs to import 60 percent of fish sold in the region.

None of this is particularly new -- you can read Charles Clover's book The End of the Line, which documented the practices that led to the collapse of cod stocks in the North Sea and which also spent many pages on the free-for-all underway in Africa.  (I interviewed Clover, Environmental Editor of the London Telegraph, on Salon). But it is news on this side of the pond, where we see very little about the depletion of distant fisheries, such as those in Africa.

The impact of that decline is measured in attempts by idle African fisherman to immigrate to Europe, the  disappearance of subsistence fish protein for Africans, and the rising price of fish in London.

Prices have doubled and tripled in response to surging demand, scarcity and recent fishing quotas imposed by the European Union in a desperate effort to save native species. In London, a kilogram of lowly cod, the traditional ingredient of fish and chips, now costs up to £30, or close to $60, up from £6 four years ago.

It's doubtful that Europe will be able to control or manage this global fish trade responsibly, given its consistent inability in the Mediterranean of staving off the collapse of blue fin tuna. (That link, by the way is to Carl Safina's blog -- the MacArthur fellow who wrote an amazing narrative on the blue fin's plight in his book, Song for the Blue Ocean).

As for sustainable alternatives, a Times sidebar pointed to a fish and chips joint in London where the chef is sourcing all his stocks sustainably -- at a price. A portion costs 10 pounds (about $20).

What the series so far has not examined are the use (or misuse?) of sustainable fisheries. Clover, in his book, for example, revealed that McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich is sourced from sustainable fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, such as Alaskan cod and pollack. (You wouldn't know it, since McDonald's does not pay the licensing fee to use the MSC certification seal on its meals).

Is this practice still underway and does it extend to Europe as well?  I'd like to know...

- Samuel Fromartz

Is "Green" the New "Natural"?

The explosion of the green marketplace in the past year has been stunning, but it turns out it's not really clear what "green" means. A recent New York Times piece on Home Depot reports:

“Everybody is in a mad scramble to say how green they are,” said Jim O’Donnell, manager of the Sierra Club Stock Fund, which handles $50 million in a portfolio of companies it considers environmentally friendly. He added that he was hopeful the product greening would become more meaningful over time.

One reason for the scramble is that there are few verifiable or certified standards to substantiate claims. Crest has introduced a toothpaste containing green tea extract and natural mint, sold under the “Nature’s Expressions” label, even though it contains artificial ingredients like most toothpastes. Raid sells a wasp and hornet killer in a green can marked “Green Options” with “Natural Clove Scent.”

“You almost have to be a scientist with a lab to decipher the dizzying array of claims,” said Robyn Griggs Lawrence, editor in chief for Natural Home magazine. “It’s hard to get information on what makes a product green.” (Emphasis added)

The food business went though a similar progression, with the term "natural." The term was slapped on just about every product and only regulated by the USDA in one specific arena - meat. The word "natural" in meat means "minimally processed" and without colorings or additives, so virtually any meat product could qualify. Looking for beef produced without antibiotics or synthetic hormones? The word "natural" does not identify such a product.

Organic food proponents saw what happened to the word "natural" and decided they wanted more rigor for the word "organic," so set up a system of verifiable claims that ensured the word had integrity. Hence, the national regulations for organic food.

As for the word "natural," the Hartman Group market research firm reports it is now virtually meaningless. "In fact, the word has become so diluted that many actively avoid products bearing this word out of fear that they could be 'imposters,'" the firm says.

Which only leads one to wonder about the fate of the word "green."

A Class Act on Food

Tom Philpott over at Grist has an extremely thoughtful essay on Slow Food exploring tough issues like  elitism in the sustainable foods movement.

For all its good work -- and despite its roots within the Italian labor movement -- Slow Food has itself been hounded by charges of elitism. The critique goes like this: Who but a rich few can spend time wringing their hands over whether, say, a cheese that's been made in some Tuscan village for hundreds of years goes extinct -- a cheese that only the well-off can afford anyway?

Yet Slow Food's class problem really applies to the sustainable food movement in all industrialized nations, including the U.S. In short, our economy runs on cheap food; many people rely on it to feed themselves; and advocates of farmers' markets, CSAs, and organic food are asking people to pay more for food without giving them a strategy for raising wages.

The movement is caught between two poles, of wanting to provide more affordable food but also trying to maintain a decent living for its farmers. Closing that gap, Philpott argues, is a primary challenge for the movement ahead.

Bananas with a Face

Dole Organic began putting a little sticker on its bananas earlier this year, allowing consumers to see where the fruit was grown. I blogged on this months ago. Now they've taken the program further, allowing for interaction with the farm. Dole has posted an email one customer wrote and then an amazing number of responses from workers on the banana plantation in La Guajira, Colombia.

Photos: Dole Organic

Among a few choice quotes:

"I evaluate the agronomical practices at the banana fields. Your letter made me feel that my work is appreciated. Thank you very much!" - Dulcinis Atencio

"You said you will keep us in your mind every time you eat an organic banana, we promise to keep you in mind every time we pack your bananas. Thank you for your letter." - Midelfi Mejías

"Everything started with this small sticker with the three digits... It is hard to believe that this tiny piece of paper created a beautiful link between you and all of us in Don Pedro ...I put the stickers on the organic bananas." - Tatiana Barros

OK, I know this is PR. I know the statements come through the company. I know this reveals little about the actual operation. But the appreciation expressed by the workers was pretty amazing, as if they were finally recognized for growing food! What a thought.

I encourage people to read this new experiment in the farmer-consumer connection over thousands of miles. Thanks to Luis Monge, regional certification officer for Dole's Organic Program, for the shout out on this development.

Setting a Sustainable Bar

What a mouthful, but it came to mind after reading this thoughtful post in Blogfish, a blog on the oceans by Mark Powell, US director of Fish Conservation-Ocean Conservancy:

Conservationists should try to help create a viable path to sustainability. It’s not good enough to articulate some grand high goal, and stand back and criticize anyone who doesn’t meet it. That’s preachy, soapbox environmentalism, and it’s not going to solve the problem. It’s fine to talk about ultimate goals, but it’s even better to help fisheries get to the goals. I think too many of my colleagues don’t see the need to create a path to sustainability, they prefer to talk about how high to "set the bar" of sustainability. And many think the most noble thing is to set the bar so high that there isn't one fishery in the world that meets the standard. Those can be fine ideas, but they don't have much practical value.