ChewsWise Blog

ChewsWise Blog

France, UK, seek to give bluefin a chance, what about US, or Nobu?

President Sarkozy announced Thursday that France was going to back a ban in the international trade of endangered bluefin tuna -- a significant step since France has the biggest tuna fleet in the Atlantic. "Ours is the last generation with the ability to take action before it's too late," Sarkozy said.

Although France has the biggest fleet, it doesn't actually consume all that much bluefin. The tuna caught in the Atlantic and Mediterranean largely ends up in Japan, so if trade is banned, the species has a chance of rebounding -- eventually. Studies have estimated that in a few years, there will be no tuna of breeding age left in the Atlantic, meaning the commercial extinction of the species is in sight. 

"Clearly President Sarkozy has had advice that there is little left to catch and so he might as well come out smelling of roses," Charles Clover, author of End of the Line, told me via email. He adds more insight on his blog.

What's less clear is the US position, since bluefin can migrate over the entire Atlantic and also breed in the Gulf. Hopefully, the US will get on board and support this trade ban before there's no more bluefin tuna left to protect. Whether the tuna will be able to avoid the fate northern cod, which crashed and never rebounded, is another question. 

Meanwhile, chefs such as Nobu and his notable restaurateur partner Drew Nieporent are still serving the fish, despite Nieporent's blather about doing "the right thing." 
- Samuel Fromartz

Kids Pushing Food Policy; Weight Policy; Annals of Meat; Wal-Mart Defines "Sustainability;" Pizzaiolis

In the WaPo, Jane Black weighs in with a thoughtful piece on the White House garden, pointing out, "It's about kids." Then Ezra Klein has a piece on policy measures to tackle obesity, though I don't buy his facile dismissal of a tax (a more thoughtful take by Tom Laskawy here); the bigger problem with a food tax is that it would be regressive. But dare I say, is the WaPo food section looking up these days?

Tom Philpott on Grist mulls meat contamination, but don't eat lunch while you read this piece.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Will be met with a symbolic organic milk dump Thursday in Wisconsin to protest falling prices and lost livelihoods.

Marc Gunther over at Slate's The Big Money had the biggest scoop of the week on Wal-Mart's new "sustainability index." The company will become a de facto regulator of sustainability, because its suppliers will have to adhere to the policy. The question is: Can one company - this company - get it right? 

New York magazine dissects the pizza boom in New York, following Frank Bruni's piece last week in the NY Times. Does this blanket coverage signal that pizza has peaked? Me thinks, but hopefully, DC will catch up with a few more ambitious pizzaioli before it's long gone (2Amys notwithstanding). 
- Samuel Fromartz

USDA's Merrigan on Organic Standards: "The honeymoon is over. It’s time to show the world that our standards have teeth"

In an interview with Organic Processing magazine, USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan made extensive comments on the national organic program, regulations and the state of the industry. Here are some excerpts.

...In terms of enforcement, the integrity of the organic label is fundamental to the growth of this industry. If consumers don’t have confidence in the label, industry growth will stall—it’s just that simple. It’s not a matter of expanding standards, but making sure the standards we have are enforced. I understand that it takes a while for standards to really sink in and for people to fully understand the rules of the game.

But, the honeymoon is over. It’s time to show the world that our standards have teeth; that we mean them and if people are not adhering to the standards, they’re going to be kicked out of the program. It will take staff work and it will take eyes out in the field because the USDA can’t be everywhere all the time. Part of our enforcement program has to be based on whistle blowing within the industry itself.

OP: What other challenges do you see for organic? Do you have suggestions about ways in which the industry will be able to meet these?

Merrigan: I’m going to tell you what I think the biggest challenge is—and I know I’m like a broken record on this, or a broken CD or iPhone—but the point is that the biggest challenge the organic community faces is internal. It is about not letting the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good”; not to self-destruct by pointing accusing fingers at each other.

There’s definitely a need for whistle blowing on enforcement issues, but I think this community sometimes explodes issues unnecessarily on the front pages of the newspapers, which leads to consumer confusion and erosion in belief for the organic label. People need to keep their eyes on the prize and think of this as a long-term haul and to just be really cautious before they throw bombs. (Emphasis added).

OP: How do you think the Obama administration is going to help support organic growth, and what opportunities do you see for organic now that there’s finally support from Washington?

Merrigan: President Obama and the First Lady are deeply interested in healthy food choices and are particularly concerned about the childhood obesity epidemic in this country.

More than ever, they are going to bring visibility to the issues of healthy eating. That presents those of us working at USDA with great opportunities, as well as great opportunities for those in the organic community.

Is Organic in an End Game?

By Samuel Fromartz

Last week, the WaPo ran a story headlined “Purity of Organic Label is Questioned” -- a quasi-investigative story on how the organic “program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself.” 

I say quasi-investigative because it wasn’t particularly news. The tension discussed in the article, between those who have always sought to expand the industry and those who seek a more purist vision, has been fodder for many articles and was the subject of my book Organic, Inc. -- published 3 years ago. Often those camps are presented as big corporations on the one hand (chipping away at regulations) and small farmers striving to keep things pure on the other, both at one another's throats.

Consistent with that narrative, the article asserted that big corporations were compromising the organic label by lobbying for questionable “synthetic” ingredients in organic food. Small farmers like Arthur Harvey -- a blueberry farmer -- were trying to limit these additives. But before we get into that simplistic framing of the debate a bit of background would be useful.

What are synthetics and why are they important?

Under the USDA rules, a product can carry the “organic” label if 95% of the ingredients are “organic.” Processed organic foods, such as organic yogurt, crackers, cookies, cereal, etc., can carry the word "organic" if they meet this 95% threshold. But they can use approved non-organic ingredients in the remaining 5%. And these may be “synthetics” that must win a specific exception. Among them are baking powder, Vitamin E and C, xanthum gum (a thickening agent), pectin and lecithin. But as the article points out, the list has ballooned to 245. 

Although "corporate firepower" has lobbied for these exceptions, nearly every company in the processed organic foods business uses them, from independents like Newman’s Own Organics to farmer owned co-ops like Organic Valley and companies like Stonyfield Farm, which has a cameo in the film Food Inc. In short, though some are controversial, you would be hard pressed to find any processed organic food business arguing for a blanket dismissal of all synthetics. (For more background on synthetics, see “How the Media Missed the Organic Story”). 

Who controls those decisions? The National Organic Standards Board -- a citizens advisory panel -- explicitly controls the list of synthetics and makes its decisions at public hearings. But as the article pointed out, the National Organic Program at the USDA has taken a few decisions on its own that have stirred much controversy and tarnished the program's reputation.

The article states that the organic law enacted in 1990 prohibited synthetic ingredients in processed foods. This was true, if only because there were very few processed foods at the time. It should also be noted that synthetics were and are used in organic farming (chemical pheromones to disrupt mating cycles of insects, plastic mulch to prevent weeds, copper fungicides with limitations) but these were exempted because they were viewed as more benign than toxic chemical pesticides and herbicides. Plus, organic farmers had used them for years.

Harvey, the Maine blueberry farmer, sued to disallow all synthetics in processed organic foods and he won his case in 2005, causing a world of worry in the organic industry. But, as the article states, the Organic Trade Association lobbied for a rider to be inserted into an appropriations bill that changed the underlying organic law a year later and allowed synthetics to be used after all. This was not, however, just at the behest of big business. Smaller and independent companies that depended on these substances wanted a change as well, though many NGOs and some companies opposed it. The issue caused a lot of conflict in the organic world.

As for corporations, they haven't always lobbied for looser regulations. Earthbound - the organic produce giant - had misgivings about changes to the organic law and lobbied against it. Mars Inc.'s organic seed company, Seeds of Change, has fought to require farmers to use organic seed (a stricture too-often ignored by even small farmers) and Dean Foods, the owner of the Horizon Organic label, lobbied for a tougher pasture regulation, even though the company had previously benefited from loose regulations on its giant dairy farms. 

Why would a "corporate giant" lobby for a tougher law or regulation? Once they produce an organic product  it is in their interest to keep the regs tight so that it makes it harder for newcomers to enter. If they are loosened, it lets new players in who don't have to face the expenses and trials of doing organic right. (That's why a lot of transitioning farmers complain or avoid organics altogether -- it does take a different skill and knowledge set to farm organically and many won't bother or don't want to take the risk). 

In the WaPo article, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont -- the father of the organic law -- says, "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight." He is right. But when a lot of these conflicts were going down -- in the pitched battles over synthetics, in the fights over the rider -- Leahy was publicly silent. My sense is he knew this was a factional battle and was unwilling to take sides; his larger concern was at the USDA itself, whose bureaucratic fumbling on a number of matters now is front page news.

In trying to notch up the volume on this age-old fight, the article veered into histrionics and inaccuracy:

...the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.

The article never supports that particular assertion. How have these compromises allowed pesticides into organic food? How have they eroded the environmental claims of organic farming? 

Although pesticide testing is not mandated for the organic label, studies could not find any signs of pesticides when children ate an organic food diet. (In contrast, when they ate conventional foods the pesticide residues showed up). These studies are more conclusive than testing for residues on the food because researchers actually looked at what children were eating and what came out in their urine. The pesticides weren’t there. In my reading that shows consumers are getting what they pay for: foods without chemical pesticide residues. 

As for synthetics in processed food, there will always be two camps on this -- and both present risks. If synthetics are taken out, even over a sunset period, as Harvey had sought, organic processed foods would fade off the shelves. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but the organic industry would be a lot smaller. If, on the other hand, too many synthetics are let in, and we start getting more organic junk food with a long list of  unpronounceable ingredients, that will spell the end of organics too. (A memorable petition at one NOSB meeting I attended came from an English muffin manufacturer who claimed they needed a synthetic ingredient to extend the muffin's  shelf life. My feeling was -- don’t make a fucking shelf-stable organic English muffin!).

Many people in the organic world recognize these tensions. They usually aren’t the ones quoted in media stories because they don’t have prominent web sites with action campaigns. But they are out there. Many had a hand in writing the laws and regulations. They attend every NOSB meeting. And they are still active today. Many sat on the NOSB. Few if any work for corporations.

There have been many stories about the corporate sell out of organic food, and people often say to me, "organic doesn't mean anything any longer." In other words, why buy it? That's the conclusion people come to because they read more about big brands compromising organics than about organophosphate pesticide residues in kid's urine. 

Companies like Dean Foods aren't helping their own cause by launching a line of non-organic milk under the Horizon label, just as they did with Silk soy milk. Their rationale probably was, well nearly everyone has a non-organic natural label, even Stonyfield, so why not us? Meanwhile, prices are being cut for organic dairy farmers and they are being told to reduce production. 

Writing in 2005, I concluded Organic Inc. by saying I didn't think organic food would be more than a niche in the overall food market and that the factions within it might well blow it apart. Sadly, in the midst of a deep recession, both assertions seem to be playing out.

Fish, Beef and Crabs, but this isn't Lunch

Recent links:

New England fisherman vote to start a catch-share program as a way to rebuild dwindling stocks of groundfish, such as cod. It's a last ditch effort to save the fish -- and the fishermen.

The UK Guardian on French bluefin tuna fishermen, who believe their days are numbered. Related: bluefin tuna serving Nobu ignores a question about ethical fish sourcing (though I wish the article gave a direct quote).

Just in time for July 4th, Obama Foodorama, on the latest massive beef recall, "advises to avoid beef like it's the plague." Another option is to follow government advice and cook burgers until 160F (like a hockey puck?) or reduce risk by getting  hamburger from a butcher who grinds meat in the shop.

Ethicurean has a hopeful piece by a young farmer student who is studying agroecology in Germany and who worked on organic farms in Italy.

A soft shell crab salsa recipe from Mark Bittman's Bitten blog was a winner, though I substituted the slightly numbing szechuan pepper corns for the hot peppers. But are the crabs sustainable? Glad you asked. Blue claw crabs generally rank as a good alternative on sustainable seafood lists, but they also carry a toxicity warning. Don't eat them often but savor them when you do.

President Obama cooks South Asian cuisine, but I have yet to see any DC food blogs round up the ethnic take out joints he should visit to complement his burger photo-ops lunches. Come on Young & Hungry, get with it!
- Samuel Fromartz

Doctors Rx at AMA: Eat Local and Organic

A couple of weeks ago, the New Yorker had a fascinating article on McAllen, Texas, a  county that ranks among the highest in the nation in health-care costs. Funny thing is, the outcomes of the patients in the system weren't any better than places that spent far less. The moral of the story, by physician and writer Atul Gawande, was that you must control the culture of spending (and earning) to contain out-of-control health care costs.

What he spent less time on was the make-up of the county, which ranks high in alcohol consumption, diabetes and heart disease. The per capita income, he noted, was $12,000 a year and the Tex-Mex diet contributed to a 38% obesity rate (the national average is 34%). While acknowledging these social causes of illness, Gawande didn't take the next step and consider diet as a cost-efficient way to rein in health costs. Obviously, costs have to be contained in the system, especially one that rewards doctors for every test, procedure and visit. But why not include or integrate factors outside the health-care system that breed disease in the first place? Why not change the playing field so there are, in effect, fewer patients for doctors to over treat?

If Gawande didn't consider this argument, I was surprised that the American Medical Association did this week. In a fairly remarkable development, the AMA voted at its convention to support "practices and policies within health care systems that promote and model a healthy and ecologically sustainable food system."

"Preventing disease is paramount in the provision of health care.Hospitals, physicians and nurses are ideal leaders and advocates for creating food environments that promote health. This policy is an important contribution to a prevention-based health-care delivery system," said Jamie Harvie, director of the Health Care Without Harm Sustainable Food Work Group.

This statement wasn't just your usual "eat your fruits and vegetables, cut down on fatty food and exercise" type of recommendation. It was a blanket endorsement of organic and local foods, recognizing that the way food is produced effects health, the environment, even the conditions of workers. The resolution, in turn, was based on a report by its Council on Science and Public Health, which presents an informed view of the current nutritionally deficient food system. The report (pdf) states:

The current US food system is highly industrialized, focusing on the production of animal products and federally subsidized commodity crops, such as corn and soybeans. This has resulted in a highly processed, calorie-dense food supply, instead of one rich in a variety of fruits vegetables, and whole grains ... The poor quality diets supported by this system contributes to four of the six leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some cancers.

The report then describes the way industrialized food production has actually threatened health. "These methods have contributed to the development of antibiotic resistance; air and water pollution; contamination of food and water with animal waste, pesticides, hormones and other toxins; increased dependence on nonrenewable fossil fuels (including fertilizers)," the doctors' report says.

It also adds the clincher that I wish Gawande had considered: "Clinical approaches to addressing diet-related health concerns are costly and not sustainable."

The resolution passed this week states:

  • That our AMA support practices and policies in medical schools, hospitals, and other health care facilities that support and model a healthy and ecologically sustainable food system, which provides food and beverages of naturally high nutritional quality.
  • That our AMA encourage the development of a healthier food system through the US Farm Bill and other federal legislation.
  • That our AMA consider working with other health care and public health organizations to educate the health care community and the public about the importance of healthy and ecologically sustainable food systems.

Industrial food producers are already in a tizzy over the documentary Food Inc., but I bet they didn't expect to be facing the nation's doctors.

I would note a last bit of irony to this resolution. For years -- back in the 1950s and 1960s -- the AMA did battle with one of the earliest proponents of organic farming, J.I. Rodale. They investigated him, and brought complaints to the Federal Trade Commission (over Rodale's over-zealous promotion of vitamins). It took a few more years -- OK decades -- for the AMA to change its position and at least endorse one point that Rodale got right: That the way food is produced effects health. He realized this in the 1940s. The AMA acknowledges it today.
- Samuel Fromartz

 

In the News - Baguettes, Gardens, Fish

Susan over at Wild Yeast blog tried my baguette recipe and the results were stunning. Just take a look at the pictures to see her results. If you have a great loaf nearby and want a simple treat, dip a piece of bread in a good olive oil and sprinkle a few grains of fleur de sel on it. I gave this tip to my friend Roger, a former newspaper reporter now blogging for the California Olive Ranch.

In other links, Obama Foodorama has an astute analysis of the White House garden and Michelle Obama's mission to change the way the nation eats. I was also pleasantly surprised to see that the Queen mother has planted an organic garden in a corner of Buckingham Palace. (Maybe that's why Michelle Obama was gently putting her arm around the Queen.) NYT also has a piece on rooftop gardening, which in part has been spurred by tax incentives.

Clare Leshin-Hoar stirs the pot in the WSJ, with a piece on how CSAs (community supported agriculture schemes) have come to the seafood world, with CSFs (community supported fish). Fish lovers in Boston can buy a share of the catch, though with this caveat: not everything is sustainable (cod, for instance).

In follow-up news, the campaign to stop Nobu from serving endangered bluefin tuna has not yet yielded results. Although partner Drew Nieporent told the New York Post, "At the end of the day, we are going to do the right thing," so far that has meant doing nothing. They are clearly betting this campaign will blow over and they will continue to serve bluefin tuna until it is literally gone.
- Samuel Fromartz

Hey Bittman, What About Blow Torch Mackerel?

Fish

I loved Mark Bittman's piece, a kind of "confessions of a fish lover," in which he recounts his personal evolution with seafood. Even in one lifetime, in one career, his choices on seafood took a dramatic turn because of overfishing. "Sadly, the list of fish I don't eat is much longer than the fish that I do," he writes.

Unlike him, though, I don't find sustainable seafood choices that confusing but maybe because I stick to a few species I like (like flash frozen Alaskan salmon or Mahi Mahi or mussels). The NY Times "room for debate" blog on this issue was also well done, garnering expert opinion on good seafood choices.

And while he noted that mackerel, a sustainable but oily fish, "has never been popular," that may only be true recently. It was once the most popular catch on the Eastern seaboard, rivaling cod. It's also a common dish in Japan, often served in home kitchens. Much of it, luckily, comes from stocks in Norway that are being certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

Here's perhaps the best way I've had mackerel -- in the picture above at a bar in Tokyo. The mackerel was brined then the skin crisped up under a torch by the waitress. OK, maybe this isn't a recipe Bittman would recommend for the home cook!
- Samuel Fromartz

Bluefin tuna issue building in UK, will it jump the pond?

Now that a bevy of stars including actress Charlize Theron and Sting are aboard the campaign to save Bluefin tuna, even disrobing to promote the cause (weirdly, with a cod), the question remains, How far will the movement go?

Nobu restaurant group has not budged on the issue, other than issuing a warning label on its menu that the bluefin it serves is "threatened." Restaurateur Drew Nieporent who works with Nobu told the NY Post, "We're evaluating it. At the end of the day, we are going to do the right thing." But he did not say what he thought the "right thing" was. A stalling tactic? Or perhaps they're wondering how they can act without seeming to cave to the pressure. (For background, see my previous post: What Nobu Should Do on Bluefin Tuna).

The BBC points out that a couple of major British companies this week issued a ban on bluefin and are changing tuna sourcing: Pret A Manger, the sandwich chain in the UK, was getting rid of tuna. Marks & Spencer, another UK chain, also said it was switching to pole caught skipjack tuna, avoiding the purse seining method that also ensnares a lot of bluefin and dolphin in nets.

Tuna is a staple around the world, though whether it's sustainable depends upon the species, the place it was caught and the way it was caught. These are tough issues for a consumer to navigate, which is why it's worth checking out Seafood Watch, Blue Oceans Institute and EDF, which have done the leg work and have handy cards (and cell and iPhone apps) for sustainable seafood choices.

For a bit of history on tuna, check out How Tuna Conquered the World. And thanks to the shout outs at Blogfish and Gourmet.com on the Nobu piece.
- Samuel Fromartz