Comments Samuel Fromartz has made

Cooking as virtue might be quite new, but cooking as fully integrated into a culture is not -- whether we're talking of curing olives and making wine in Italy (as was once done at the farmsted) or making rice at home in Japan. I think the idea is less that cooking "should be done" (the virtue part) rather than cooking is done as part of the rhythm of daily life.�

Sure, people who could afford it always had cooks -- just like they had people to do every sort of menial task around the home. But there was also a culture that flourished among those who could not afford such things and created food traditions. And that is what gets lost in the fast food (or upscale restaurant) culture.�

�

The problem with Peterson's quote is that he is flat out wrong. NOAA yesterday stated in a climate change report:

“Even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean rice, cotton, and peanut crops.” Guess he didn't get the memo. 

Wedge

Don't forget the Wedge and other co-ops in the Twin Cities! Highly successful and a great store. They compete head-to-head with WFM and win. On Why the FTC is right to block Whole Foods' buyout of Wild Oats posted 2 years, 4 months ago 28 Responses

Heavy Reliance on Mackey

The argument that WF is a monopolist relies heavily on John Mackey's assessment, but is he right? And is his opinion relevant. There's a pretty steady posting on this issue going on over at http://www.truthonthemarket.com. I pulled a couple of relevant quotes from Geoffrey Manne, an asst prof of law at Lewis & Clark law school.

...when you're looking at marketing materials and reports to the board to identify anticompetitive intent (hmmm.  I didn't know intent was relevant in merger cases . . . .) through "fighting words" and "smoking guns," you're barking up the wrong tree.  It is little or no evidence of likely anticompetitive effect that Whole Food's outspoken CEO claims that purchasing Wild Oats will remove "forever or almost forever" the threat to Whole Food's market.  I'm delighted that he believes so strongly in his product and in the strength of his brand.  I think it's great that he can find ways to differentiate Trader Joe's, Safeway, Kroger, the local produce stand and Wal-Mart from his stores  (He might also have pointed out that they are all found in different locations, have different names and sell a different mix of products.  Some don't even offer plastic bags to take your groceries home in.  Now that's the sort of differnetiation the FTC can make a market out of!).  But this is not antitrust-relevant evidence.

Whole Foods and Wild Oats may view themselves as operating in a different world than Wal-Mart.  But their self-characterization is largely irrelevant.  What matters is whether customers who shop at Whole Foods would shop elsewhere for substitute products if Whole Food's prices rose too much.  The implicit notion that the availability of organic foods at Wal-Mart (to say nothing of pretty much every other grocery store in the US today!) exerts little or no competitive pressure on prices at Whole Foods seems facially silly.  

Simplification - Oxfam

I just got off the phone with Oxfam and they emphatically made the point that they are not against taxpayer funded support for farmers in the US. What they are against is the current system of subsidies that encourages over-production and low prices - a point that has been made numerous times.

"Also, Oxfam also buys into the dangerous myth that third world countries can "export" their way out of poverty."

You'll always have dueling studies but see the most recent one on cotton farmers in West Africa, that was in the Times and Post. Exports do offer vital income, even for those at the bottom of the ladder, creating an income stream for subsistence farmers.

This isn't about the "free trade" agenda that the ADMs of the world seek but "fair trade" - and that is clearly better than no trade. Or at least, that's the way the developing world sees it.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Point

Tom, my only point about the medical issue is that all people should have access to it in the same way they should have access to food. Right now, that's not the case. Same for heat, electricity and water. These are all necessities - I am not sure farms should be singled out because they are more imp't in terms of providing a life necessity. On Don't blame farmers for the farm-subsidy mess posted 2 years, 5 months ago 21 Responses

Alaska

Sammie, such gloom and doom about Alaska. I think that with more awareness about these issues and political pressure, the fishery can be protected. Also, don't forget there is an impetus from fisherman who are doing things right to prevent a collapse. So the best we can do is support them - and the fish.

What I'd really like to see though is a strong movement for marine sanctuaries. The description of them in New Zealand is amazing, teaming with schools of fish, becoming popular, well-managed parks for people to see the aquatic life.

Charles Clover made the point to me that one reason Alaska has avoided the fate of the NE cod is that it began fishing much later - which dovetails with your point. They had less time to screw it up.

And another point: I'm not actually endorsing Mickey D's sandwich. It's got more calories and fat than the plain cheeseburger (though less saturated fat). Though truth be told, I like a good fish and chips.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Murkey

David if you come to Capitol Hill I'll meet you at Murkey Coffee. I turned Tom onto it and he got religion, a true convert! I can only drink the other stuff, from that national chain whose name escapes me right now, in a pinch.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Here's another one

How many people know a cow has to have a calf in order to produce milk? In other words, milking cows are also calf-making cows  and around half of all calves are male that go to veal... I am not subcribing to a vegan screed but many people don't know this.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

German?

Sounds Swedish to me. Any other guesses?

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

WMT

Wal-Mart's like the battleship in the water - a lot of smaller boats feel its wake, no matter which direction it's going....

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Noted

Emily, thanks for posting that correction - and for participating. (Emily works for Pennsylvania Certified Organic and has been involved with organic regs for a long time.)

For those who don't know the background, the regs instituted a wall that prevented certifiers from working directly for the companies they certify. That created distance that gave integrity to certification.

The question, though, as Ted points out, is whether internal inspection can be overseen in a way that has integrity.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Can't Do Queens

Stephanie, if you grew up in Brooklyn, like I did, you can never live in Queens, or in New Jersey, for that matter. It just cannot be done. Better Seattle, which when I visited, left me just as wide-eyed as David in Fort Green.

Speaking of which, Fort Green Park has changed a lot over the years. When I was in grade school, the park was actually deserted, littered and the buildings around it burned out. Our entire school descended on the park for the first Earth Day and cleaned it up, beginning a long process of renewal that culminated in David's excellent vacation...

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Certification

Barth, as I understand it, WF was certifying their stores using the grower group method. Now each store will need to be inspected, but yes, retailers are not required to be certified to sell organic food, nor are restaurants - but some choose to certify anyway as a way to raise the bar.

Yes, too, on multi-site organic farming corporations if each site has a separate farm plan - but no, if there are, say, multiple fields on one farm. Each and every field does not have to be inspected - it's up to inspector, as I understand it.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Plus

Markets are a great way to begin conversations, as long as they don't end there. That's what I fear is happening with green consumption - it's becoming an ad category, very trendy, but does it go beyond buying an efficient light bulb at Wal-Mart?

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

What about Wulfgang?

Not that I'm about to run and buy Mario Batali's frozen meals (two of his cookbooks serve me just fine, thank you) but consider the reach of Wulfgang Puck's decision to up the ante on humane treatment. He made the Times editorial page.

Here's a guy who is both high and low - his little cafe restaurants frankly are just one notch above Micky D's - but that reach has given him influence and he's using it.

You can go mainstream, get big and do great things, or just line your pockets. Tom wants Batali to step up. So do I, but that doesn't preclude pimping in the freezer case.

By the way, has anyone tried his frozen stuff?

Rick Bayless' Frontera salsas are pretty tasty, especially as marinades for meat or fish on the grill. I'm in Chicago next week and will likely stop in for a meal at the sellout's palace.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

Response

Mmimika, actually the effect may be increased immigration from Central America to the USA - or that's what a couple of coffee roasters mentioned. I also think this fits into the wider issue of access to developed world markets for farmers in the developing world - an issue that has undermined world trade talks.

GreenEngineer - The NOP actually might have done this because of widely voiced concerns of lax standards. It will effect a lot of product coming in from the developing world, and if you listen to some activists out there hammering away at untrustworthy imported organics, this may have been the result. This is just speculation on my part, however.

Mmimika. What you're looking at in your second post is the NOSB - National Organic Standards Board. This decision did not come from that body, which I think has integrity (at least, I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to believe it does not). I first heard about this issue at the NOSB meeting last week in DC and the NOSB said they would begin looking into it. It was a surprise to them too, since it came straight from the NOP.

GreenEngineer. I am not a coffee expert, but roasters told me that organic is a higher bar environmentally and is usually  shade grown. Whether that's 100 percent, I can't say - it probably depends on the bio-region. The converse is not true - not all shade grown is organic, either because the farmers use prohibited materials or just aren't certified.

The point is that many organic coffee farmers are organic by default - they follow traditional coffee growing methods of small scale production, heirloom varieties and probably could not afford to buy chemicals. Then, with the rise of organic in the developed world, they began to get a premium. Whether that remains the case with non-organic coffee in the future is hard to say. Organic has a far higher recognition than either shade grown or fair trade - which is also why 80 percent of fair trade is organic.

I'd be curious to hear what Starbucks has to say about this  issue - so far I haven't seen anything or asked them.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Nice piece

Tom, nice piece. When I was researching my book I couldn't figure out why more people didn't know about Albert Howard, and the revolution he launched in farming. Rudolph Steiner of the Biodynamic school was talking about many similar issues at the same time. I think you would like this other book that puts Howard's work in context:

Philip Conford, The Origins of the Organic Movement On Reviving a much-cited, little-read sustainable-ag masterpiece posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Omnivore's Indulgence

One way to use meat is more as a side than a center, meaning you can afford sustainable producers. We use Niman bacon (which is incredible) in soups. You need very little, which is good, because it's loaded with saturated fat (that's why it tastes good).

I occassionally buy chickens - organic, raised by a farmer who uses mobile chicken homes in pasture (the Joel Saletan model). They are more gamey in flavor. Indulge occassionally in grass-fed and natural-plus beef (no antibiotics, homones, vegetarian feed).

As for dairy and artisanal cheese - I don't drink milk but met too many exemplary dairy farmers now to avoid it.  

This winter we're eating more parsnips than ever. Blanched quickly then sauteed in olive oil with a hit of balsamic vinegar at the end. Nice side.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Tags

Like categroies, contributors could assign tags. But don't have too many, mabe a dozen. Then people could just read posts under that tag, rather than scrolling through everything.

And, ah, by the way, I was thinking of sending a post today. Should I bother?

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Incisive

Tom's article was an incisive critique, getting to the heart of the matter. He was not simply taking "pot shots," but questioning the underlying premise of the article: why does the Economist advocate leaving the free market in the hands of government and minimizing the role of the consumer? Tom also made the additional point that food choice is inherently political - it's not simply that buying will change the world but thinking about what we buy can change it. That's how change happens. It's grass roots political change.

Agriculture's apologists always fall back on the line: we've fed the world so what we're doing is right. What that argument does not consider are the larger costs of the approach and the inability to consider alternatives (because of the entrenched interests at stake).

Finally, conventional ag points to grain yields and output to say how well it's been doing. Ninety percent of grain feeds livestock, which in turn is sold to people who can afford to buy meat. But the most food-scarce people in the world cannot afford to buy grain, let alone meat. So boosting yields and output without considering crop choice and distribution is not a solution.On Why The Economist's recent assault on "ethical food" missed the mark posted 2 years, 10 months ago 16 Responses

J.S.

"Buying local is part of a "free market" solution"
- Not according to the Economist.  They argue the reason we buy local is because of distorting subsidies and misguided reasoning on the part of consumers. If we knew better, we wouldn't buy local. I beg to differ. Consumers are smart and are making a free market choice for commodies whose value is not only determined by price.

"These are very smart people who are not simply mouth pieces for rightwing orthodoxy"
- Well, they took the Hudson Institute line hook line and sinker and that think tank has repeatedy distorted studies and spread mistruths (claiming the entire spinach e. coli situation was due to organic spinach for example.).

"As to organics- even a 10% differential in land use multiplied across the world is huge."
- As the FAO has pointed out, there are food surpluses in the world and ample grassland for expansion, especially in near Asia. People aren't starving because we don't produce enough food - they are starving because they cannot afford to buy the food we produce. Organic is a low-cost method of producing higher-yielding crops in the third world, where farmers cannot afford chemical inputs.

"Also, many organic inputs are worse for the environment than conventional under some circumstances"
- Many? Such as? The article mentions copper, which is used by conventional farmers as well. Organic farmers are limited in its application. The article makes the case for no-till farming, which in conventional farming is possible with huge herbicide use and GMO crops. Anyone reading Acres USA realizes no- and low-till  IS practiced by organic farmers but they rely on crop and rotation strategies rather than herbicides.

"Agricultural development is almost always the first step in development but it needs to transform from small-scale peasant agriculture- if it stagnates on that level the countries are doomed to poverty."

But there are many cases where intensive agriculture simply concentrates land and production in the hands of the few, and leaves the masses in teaming cities. This is development? There is a way to approach agricultural development, without the downside of intensive, costly and concentrated production, which leaves farmers unemployable. Simple steps like drip irrigation on small-scale plots and yes, organic methods, which as I said earlier are low cost. India is pushing forward in this direction precisely because intensive agriculture has left so many people out of the equation, has required so much water, and still not provided adequate sustenance for its population.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Debate on Soy

Soy has long been the focus of rampent criticism, especially by those at places like the Westin Price Foundation who promote a Western diet around milk, butter and meat and question whether cholesterol is a problem in heart disease.

Soy is traditionally part of an Eastern diet - it goes back thousands of years in China - with fermented foods such as soy sauce, tempe, black beans, and cooked soy foods, such as soy milk, and tofu (soy curds gathered from soy milk by adding a coagulent).

There are thousands of studies on soy, and critics usually cite the same ones. Supporters point to others. Epidemiologists studying people on traditional Asian diets point to the benefits of soy, it goes on and on.

What we do know is that soy is high in protein, may moderately lower cholesterol and is very low saturated fat (unlike meat). If you cook it or buy fermented soy foods, it can be a good source of protein among many other foods. But it also has substances that act like estogens. These may be protective against or may promote certain breast cancers (conclusions differ in various studies).

The simple answer: eat soy in moderation. I find it hard to view, like just about any food, as either a health wonder or a toxin. As for infants and children, it is often given in cases of dairy allergies. I have not heard of anyone giving soy to kids to promote the growth of  homosexual tendencies.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Retirement?

You mean a retirement home for chickens?

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Flu spead

In the SARS virus, the source was wild animals raised in cages for human consumption - for the so-called Wild Flavor restaurants in southern China. The virus spread by feed, fecal matter and blood - from slaughtering. Once in humans, it spread through respiratory channels - coughing - or air conditioning. It was extremely contagious.

 In one case, a leaky drain pipe that spewed sewage from the toilets of infected people got into an apartment complex air duct and infected the entire building.

One of the most effective ways to combat the disease was to isolate patients and also allow for a lot of fresh air as opposed to recirculated air.

This all from Karl Taro Greenfeld's excellent book on the SARS epidemic.

These quesions all have to do with vectors - that is, how the infectious agent spreads. In the recent e. coli outbreak, the vector apparently was in the washing - all the spinach was isolated to one day's production in the salad processing plant. The cause of the outbreak was apparently a ferel pig but it was not the vector. In Asia, with SARS, it was the air conditioning and proximity to infected people.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Low-cost

By the way, Tom, I agree with you on commodification but that is the way capitalism works. Even within the confines of the organic regs, producers will try to be low-cost -- consumers will go for that UNLESS they recognize that the nature of the farm is also part of the cost. That's what OV's doing in all its marketing materials, playing up the farmers and the fair price it pays them.

Whether the current attempt to rewrite the regs in organic dairy prevents that race to the bottom - by mandating a set amount of pasture for all producers and thereby outlawing a continuous feedlot model - remains to be seen. The new reg looks like it has a good chance of passing, though the regulatory wheels turn slowly...

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

On the rebound

I am sympathetic with the "farmer" above. I buy local from OV (actually, the private label Whole Foods milk now supplied by OV) and also agree that smaller-scale farms with enough land can more easily meet the requirements of pasturing organic dairy animals.

What I am less certain about is that the pasture improvements Horizon is making on their farm will necessarily fall short of meeting the basic floor required, or that will be required, by the organic regs. Remember, it's a floor not a ceiling. Which is why I usually choose local. I want something above the floor.

As for Tom's comment:

If Dean Foods makes a buck by paying a decent price to small-scale organic growers, I say, fine. (Although I will still try to locate a nearby dairy farmer and buy milk directly from him/her). But if their plan is to slash costs by consolidating production into 5,000-cow feedlots, and feed the cows "organic" corn, then I say, the hell with them.

Well, what do you do if they pursue both of these supply streams? Because that is what Horizon is doing. They are adding small farm suppliers and also sourcing from larger farms (though they did shut off the spigot from Aurora Organic, another feedlot farm).

It's a complicated picture.

As for Tom's other comment, that scale always leads companies to look to lower costs - as a longtime financial reporter, I don't agree. They look for the best "value" but not necessarily the "lowest cost." It all depends on what you're selling. If finding a low cost consistent supply was the aim of organic retailers, then everyone would source organic produce from companies like Cal-Organic.

But something else is going on. Retailers are also sourcing locally. Why? Not because of low cost, but because customers want it.

I think the confusion here is that this market is viewed as an either/or proposition - that either it is about small scale, local foods, or it is about Wal-Mart and Whole Foods. What is harder to grasp is that both trends are happening at the same time, because it's not a zero sum game. Local is growing and so is large scale, on the size of Wal-Mart. Many companies are staddling the divide, such as Stonyfield which sources from small farms but sells at Wal-Mart.

So you can vote with your dollars on which market you want to support, which direction you want organic to go in, but I think right now consumers are voting for both because, frankly, there is not one organic consumer. There are many.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Organic Bashing

Part of the problem of slamming the organic market for going corporate is that you throw the baby out with the bathwater - in this case, the thousands of organic farmers who like the fellow above are making a living from the organic market.

When I was writing my book, Organic Inc., I came across a number of tragic stories, especially among dairy farmers. Like those who were eating their cows because they couldn't afford food. Or those who were selling their cows when the Atkins diet pushed up meat prices because they needed the money. Obviously, it's not sustainable when you're eating your livlihood. Which is why so many small dairy farms who didn't go organic have gone under.

The organic market has been a savior for a lot of these farmers due to the DEMAND of companies like Stonyfield Farm for their milk.

If we continually bash the organic market as a corporate sellout, the impact could well be that consumers decide it's little more than a marketing ploy. That in turn crushes the smaller farmers who rely on the market for a living.

If we stop buying it, all the big food companies will take a small loss (a rounding error on their income statements) but the farmers who depend on the market won't have an alternative. They can't go on and feed the next diet craze. I don't have a problem with people avoiding Organic Rice Crispies or any other product, but if you bash the whole idea real people get hurt.

It was interesting though that Stonyfield felt it had to issue this clarification. Obvoiusly, they got some heat, I assume on blogs, for sourcing their products from overseas.

In order to sell yogurt (and help those family farmers in Vermont and NH and Maine) they might have to source some ingredients internationally. Is there really anything wrong with that? I don't see it, especially as it serves the greater good of helping farmers across the board and providing a cleaner product for people who want it.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)

Murky Coffee

Tom, Next time you're in DC let me treat you to a cup at Murkey Coffee - the best I've had. These guys are so fanatical about everything coffee - from the beans to the grind to the temperature of the brew to the way you drink it (they refuse to make some drinks to go) - they make the Taliban look like a bunch of sissies. But ah, what a cup it is... Sam

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)