A resurrected draft
This letter I wrote in the Fall and never finished it. So it sat as a draft for the past few months, but here it is.
Friends,
Part of my brain is trying to digest all this new information about the markets and about food, which may be why I have had a hiatus in my letters to you. First, I lost a letter due to technical issues - very frustrating. Then two things happened. I spent about four hours helping out Scott at the PRMC stand selling meat and answering questions the other weekend. Also, we had this spinach debacle (and a unrelated but similar milk debacle).
You see when I go to the farmers' market my experience is that I am generally talking with individuals who have, at the very least, a high level of expertise about what they are selling. (It turns out that these people are just generally pretty bright). So the market is a wealth of wonderful food and its associated knowledge. I am not an expert on broccoli raabe. I could not tell you why a given variety of apples can display such a variation in skin color. But today I got a great tip on handling broccoli raabe from Ute at Capay and Dave Hale schooled me on skin coloration, light, and fruit position in the tree regarding his lovely apples. Dave also explained that skin color is not a completely reliable indication of the apple's taste.
It turns out that giving out this information and education to the poor, uninformed masses (like me) is a challenge. Thanks to Doug's (of PRMC) patience I know enough information to explain the raw basics of a humane, pasture-raised beef operation. I owe similar thanks to most of the other vendors I frequent for their patience in answering my various and insidious questions. Now I deeply appreciate this information. I would go so far as to say I love learning about all this. I feel more connected to the people who provide my family with sustenance. I feel more tied to the food that sustains me and the land upon which it is raised. This is an important part of my life.
But as a vendor, whose business is selling meat, produce, fish, or other food related items, customer education is not one's primary mission. The challenge is, especially for specific items like humane meat and speciality produce, without education consumers may not be able to appreciate the difference between a $1.50 per pound conventional Fuji apple and a $3.00 per pound organic, heirloom Spitzenburgh apple.
So as these questions of food safety are raised into the public consciousness and concerns about the safety and quality of our food supply momentarily rise transiently in importance, I am left thinking that we do not even have a context for the debate. The issues are very complex. This is not to say I am unsympathetic to the families of the people who became sick eating E Coli-infected spinach or I do not care that three kids got ill allegedly related to raw milk, but these relatively minor issues (though not for the families involved) underscore how little attention is paid to the safety of our food supply. Additionally, we must understand that our individual health determines whether we can suitably and safely risk consuming products that may naturally contain healthy and potentially unhealthy bacteria. As an analogy, immunocompromised individuals should not regularly hang out with groups of pre-schoolers (noted germ carriers). It is also not recommended that raw honey be fed to small children, who have not fully developed their immune systems.
One set of solutions that the commercial food industry, especially the meat industry, wants to increase the use of is the sanitizing of food. These types of procedures, including pasteurization, irradiation, chemical preservation and others, typically diminish the underlying value of the food product. In some cases, while it reduces the presence of microorganisms, the process may expose consumers to insidious long-term risks. The irradiation of meat is insufficiently studied to understand if it creates any long-term risks for humans. The conventional dairy industry proposes that bovine growth hormone is completely safe, yet it is understood that bovine growth hormone increases a hormone in milk called insulin-like growth factor I (IGF I). IGF I is raised in human milk drinkers versus non-milk drinkers, lending support to the notion that milk influences IGF I levels in milk stimulates IGF I levels in humans. Of course, increased levels of IGF I are linked to an increase incidence of various cancers. The conventional milk industry wants to remove the requirements on the labeling of milk (heard on radio show) because the studies show it is safe. Consumers are choosing milk from cows not treated with hormones over cows that have been treated. So safety is not a simple issue.
Be well and eat well.
Friends,
Part of my brain is trying to digest all this new information about the markets and about food, which may be why I have had a hiatus in my letters to you. First, I lost a letter due to technical issues - very frustrating. Then two things happened. I spent about four hours helping out Scott at the PRMC stand selling meat and answering questions the other weekend. Also, we had this spinach debacle (and a unrelated but similar milk debacle).
You see when I go to the farmers' market my experience is that I am generally talking with individuals who have, at the very least, a high level of expertise about what they are selling. (It turns out that these people are just generally pretty bright). So the market is a wealth of wonderful food and its associated knowledge. I am not an expert on broccoli raabe. I could not tell you why a given variety of apples can display such a variation in skin color. But today I got a great tip on handling broccoli raabe from Ute at Capay and Dave Hale schooled me on skin coloration, light, and fruit position in the tree regarding his lovely apples. Dave also explained that skin color is not a completely reliable indication of the apple's taste.
It turns out that giving out this information and education to the poor, uninformed masses (like me) is a challenge. Thanks to Doug's (of PRMC) patience I know enough information to explain the raw basics of a humane, pasture-raised beef operation. I owe similar thanks to most of the other vendors I frequent for their patience in answering my various and insidious questions. Now I deeply appreciate this information. I would go so far as to say I love learning about all this. I feel more connected to the people who provide my family with sustenance. I feel more tied to the food that sustains me and the land upon which it is raised. This is an important part of my life.
But as a vendor, whose business is selling meat, produce, fish, or other food related items, customer education is not one's primary mission. The challenge is, especially for specific items like humane meat and speciality produce, without education consumers may not be able to appreciate the difference between a $1.50 per pound conventional Fuji apple and a $3.00 per pound organic, heirloom Spitzenburgh apple.
So as these questions of food safety are raised into the public consciousness and concerns about the safety and quality of our food supply momentarily rise transiently in importance, I am left thinking that we do not even have a context for the debate. The issues are very complex. This is not to say I am unsympathetic to the families of the people who became sick eating E Coli-infected spinach or I do not care that three kids got ill allegedly related to raw milk, but these relatively minor issues (though not for the families involved) underscore how little attention is paid to the safety of our food supply. Additionally, we must understand that our individual health determines whether we can suitably and safely risk consuming products that may naturally contain healthy and potentially unhealthy bacteria. As an analogy, immunocompromised individuals should not regularly hang out with groups of pre-schoolers (noted germ carriers). It is also not recommended that raw honey be fed to small children, who have not fully developed their immune systems.
One set of solutions that the commercial food industry, especially the meat industry, wants to increase the use of is the sanitizing of food. These types of procedures, including pasteurization, irradiation, chemical preservation and others, typically diminish the underlying value of the food product. In some cases, while it reduces the presence of microorganisms, the process may expose consumers to insidious long-term risks. The irradiation of meat is insufficiently studied to understand if it creates any long-term risks for humans. The conventional dairy industry proposes that bovine growth hormone is completely safe, yet it is understood that bovine growth hormone increases a hormone in milk called insulin-like growth factor I (IGF I). IGF I is raised in human milk drinkers versus non-milk drinkers, lending support to the notion that milk influences IGF I levels in milk stimulates IGF I levels in humans. Of course, increased levels of IGF I are linked to an increase incidence of various cancers. The conventional milk industry wants to remove the requirements on the labeling of milk (heard on radio show) because the studies show it is safe. Consumers are choosing milk from cows not treated with hormones over cows that have been treated. So safety is not a simple issue.
Be well and eat well.
posted by Alex C at 9:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home