Real Food Blog

Father's Day At Lehman's

Cancer Cells Thrive On High Fructose Corn Syrup

August 4th, 2010

* Study shows fructose used differently from glucose

* Findings challenge common wisdom about sugars

Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

“These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation,” Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

“They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.”

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.

Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola (KO.N) and Kraft Foods (KFT.N) have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda. [ID:nN12233126]

The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. “Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different,” Heaney’s team wrote.

“I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets,” Heaney said in a statement.

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter

August 3rd, 2010

Listen to: Food for thought MP3 (7:46)

Our earliest ancestors ate their food raw — fruit, leaves, maybe some nuts. When they ventured down onto land, they added things like underground tubers, roots and berries.

It wasn’t a very high-calorie diet, so to get the energy you needed, you had to eat a lot and have a big gut to digest it all. But having a big gut has its drawbacks.

“You can’t have a large brain and big guts at the same time,” explains Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation in New York City, which funds research on evolution. Digestion, she says, was the energy-hog of our primate ancestor’s body. The brain was the poor stepsister who got the leftovers.

Until, that is, we discovered meat.

“What we think is that this dietary change around 2.3 million years ago was one of the major significant factors in the evolution of our own species,” Aiello says.

That period is when cut marks on animal bones appeared — not a predator’s tooth marks, but incisions that could have been made only by a sharp tool. That’s one sign of our carnivorous conversion. But Aiello’s favorite clue is somewhat ickier — it’s a tapeworm. “The closest relative of human tapeworms are tapeworms that affect African hyenas and wild dogs,” she says.

So sometime in our evolutionary history, she explains, “we actually shared saliva with wild dogs and hyenas.” That would have happened if, say, we were scavenging on the same carcass that hyenas were.

But dining with dogs was worth it. Meat is packed with lots of calories and fat. Our brain — which uses about 20 times as much energy as the equivalent amount of muscle — piped up and said, “Please, sir, I want some more.”

Carving Up The Diet

As we got more, our guts shrank because we didn’t need a giant vegetable processor any more. Our bodies could spend more energy on other things like building a bigger brain. Sorry, vegetarians, but eating meat apparently made our ancestors smarter — smart enough to make better tools, which in turn led to other changes, says Aiello.

“If you look in your dog’s mouth and cat’s mouth, and open up your own mouth, our teeth are quite different,” she says. “What allows us to do what a cat or dog can do are tools.”

Tools meant we didn’t need big sharp teeth like other predators. Tools even made vegetable matter easier to deal with. As anthropologist Shara Bailey at New York University says, they were like “external” teeth.

“Your teeth are really for processing food, of course, but if you do all the food processing out here,” she says, gesturing with her hands, “if you are grinding things, then there is less pressure for your teeth to pick up the slack.”

Our teeth, jaws and mouth changed as well as our gut.

A Tough Bite To Swallow

But adding raw meat to our diet doesn’t tell the whole food story, according to anthropologist Richard Wrangham. Wrangham invited me to his apartment at Harvard University to explain what he believes is the real secret to being human. All I had to do was bring the groceries, which meant a steak — which I thought could fill in for wildebeest or antelope — and a turnip, a mango, some peanuts and potatoes.

As we slice up the turnip and put the potatoes in a pot, Wrangham explains that even after we started eating meat, raw food just didn’t pack the energy to build the big-brained, small-toothed modern human. He cites research that showed that people on a raw food diet, including meat and oil, lost a lot of weight. Many said they felt better, but also experienced chronic energy deficiency. And half the women in the experiment stopped menstruating.

It’s not as if raw food isn’t nutritious; it’s just harder for the body to get at the nutrition.

Wrangham urges me to try some raw turnip. Not too bad, but hardly enough to get the juices flowing. “They’ve got a tremendous amount of caloric energy in them,” he says. “The problem is that it’s in the form of starch, which unless you cook it, does not give you very much.”

Then there’s all the chewing that raw food requires. Chimps, for example, sometimes chew for six hours a day. That actually consumes a lot of energy.

“Plato said if we were regular animals, you know, we wouldn’t have time to write poetry,” Wrangham jokes. “You know, he was right.”

Tartare No More

One solution might have been to pound food, especially meat — like the steak I brought. “If our ancestors had used stones to mash the meat like this,” Wrangham says as he demonstrates with a wooden mallet, “then it would have reduced the difficulty they would have had in digesting it.”

But pounding isn’t as good as cooking that steak, says Wrangham. And cooking is what he thinks really changed our modern body. Someone discovered fire — no one knows exactly when — and then someone got around to putting steak and veggies on the barbeque. And people said, “Hey, let’s do that again.”

Besides better taste, cooked food had other benefits — cooking killed some pathogens on food.

But cooking also altered the meat itself. It breaks up the long protein chains, and that makes them easier for stomach enzymes to digest. “The second thing is very clear,” Wrangham adds, “and that is the muscle, which is made of protein, is wrapped up like a sausage in a skin, and the skin is collagen, connective tissue. And that collagen is very hard to digest. But if you heat it, it turns to jelly.”

As for starchy foods like turnips, cooking gelatinizes the tough starch granules and makes them easier to digest too. Even just softening food — which cooking does — makes it more digestible. In the end, you get more energy out of the food.

Yes, cooking can damage some good things in raw food, like vitamins. But Wrangham argues that what’s gained by cooking far outweighs the losses.

As I cut into my steak (Wrangham is a vegetarian; he settles for the mango and potatoes), Wrangham explains that cooking also led to some of the finer elements of human behavior: it encourages people to share labor; it brings families and communities together at the end of the day and encourages conversation and story-telling — all very human activities.

“Ultimately, of course, what makes us intellectually human is our brain,” he says. “And I think that comes from having the highest quality of food in the animal kingdom, and that’s because we cook.”

Source: NPR

Bookmark and Share

Raw-Food Warehouse Club Raided In California

July 31st, 2010

With no warning one weekday morning, investigators entered an organic grocery with a search warrant and ordered the hemp-clad workers to put down their buckets of mashed coconut cream and to step away from the nuts.

Then, guns drawn, four officers fanned out across Rawesome Foods in Venice. Skirting past the arugula and peering under crates of zucchini, they found the raid’s target inside a walk-in refrigerator: unmarked jugs of raw milk.

“I still can’t believe they took our yogurt,” said Rawesome volunteer Sea J. Jones, a few days after the raid. “There’s a medical marijuana shop a couple miles away, and they’re raiding us because we’re selling raw dairy products?”
Cartons of raw goat and cow milk and blocks of unpasteurized goat cheese were among the groceries seized in the June 30 raid by federal, state and local authorities — the latest salvo in the heated food fight over what people can put in their mouths.

On one side are government regulators, who say they are enforcing rules designed to protect consumers from unsafe foods and to provide a level playing field for producers. On the other side are ” healthy food” consumers — a faction of foodies who challenge government science and seek food in its most pure form.

They want almonds cracked fresh from the shell, not those run through a federally mandated pasteurization process that uses either heat or a chemical to kill off salmonella and other possible contaminants. They hunger for meat slaughtered on the farm. And they’re willing to pay a premium — $6, $8 or more — for a gallon of milk straight from the cow.

So despite research outlining the dangers of consuming raw milk and other unprocessed foods, they’re finding ways to circumnavigate federal, state and local laws that seek to control what they can serve at the dinner table. Such defiance, they said, comes from growing distrust of a food sector that has become more industrialized and consolidated — and whose products have been at the root of some of the country’s deadliest food contamination cases.

“This is about control and profit, not our health,” said Aajonus Vonderplanitz, co-founder of Rawesome Foods. “How can we not have the freedom to choose what we eat?”

Scientists and regulators point to epidemiological evidence linking disease outbreaks to raw milk: The milk can transmit bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7, salmonella, campylobacter and listeria, which can result in diarrhea, kidney failure or death.

“This is not about restricting the public’s rights,” said Nicole Neeser, program manager for dairy, meat and poultry inspection at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. “This is about making sure people are safe.”

Demand for all manner of raw foods — including honey, nuts and meat — has been growing, spurred by heightened interest in the way food is produced. But raw milk in particular has drawn a lot of regulatory scrutiny, largely because the politically powerful dairy industry has pressed the government to act.

It is legal for licensed dairies to sell raw milk at retail outlets in California and 10 other states, according to research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Twenty states allow people to buy unpasteurized milk directly from farms, or take part in a “cow sharing” program (in which a person buys part ownership of an animal and gets some of its milk).

But in the case of Rawesome, regulators allege that the group broke the law by failing to have the proper permits to sell food to the public. While the raid was happening at Rawesome, another went down at one of its suppliers, Healthy Family Farms in Ventura County. California agriculture officials said farm owner Sharon Palmer’s processing plant had not met standards to obtain a license. Palmer could not be reached for comment. Click to continue »

Bookmark and Share

Farmers direct dairy sales grow

July 15th, 2010

Tumbling milk prices have enraged European dairy farmers over the past two years, but one Czech farmer has found a creative way to increase profits by bringing his milk directly to customers and, in the process, has created a new business model.

Residents of Plzeň, west Bohemia, have seen something new at farmers’ markets in the past few weeks as dairy farmer Jaromír Boháček has inaugurated an innovative way of selling milk: a milk truck. Boháček, owner of Líšťany Farms, which produces 6,000 liters of milk daily from 236 cows, says low milk prices over the past two years left him in dire straits but have sparked a successful solution.

“We’ve sold milk below cost for the past two years, and of course this has caused us difficulty. We had to come up with a suitable solution for us as well as the customer,” he said. “So we came up with the idea of selling milk from a mobile milk vender.”

Boháček said the mobility of his milk vending machine allows him to sell milk in every district of Plzeň, as well as the suburbs, for 15 Kč (75 U.S. cents) per liter, about the same price as milk in a supermarket. And of course, customers have the chance to buy fresh milk, which has proved a popular novelty. Boháček is considering spreading his route to other villages and cities, depending on demand.

Boháček stopped short of recommending a mobile milk van for every dairy farmer on the market but said dairy farmers need to begin taking their fate into their own hands.

“It’s difficult to recommend anything to other farmers, because every farm has its own specific needs and conditions, so each farmer has to sit down with a calculator and make sure something like this will be profitable. But generally it is a good practice for farmers to sell directly from the farm, and I think it should escalate,” he said.

The mobile milk van is unique in the Czech Republic, but Boháček’s innovation builds on a burgeoning industry of farmer-operated milk dispensers. Milk dispensers are maintained by dairy farmers who are able to deliver raw milk directly to potential customers, cutting out the supermarket middlemen and getting more of a handle on their profits.

Milk dispensers began appearing in the Czech Republic in October 2009, as milk prices hit historic lows of about 6 Kč per pint, leading to 4.5 billion Kč in losses for dairy farmers in the first half of 2009. Industry representatives were unanimous in voicing the need for regulation, but there was no agreement on exactly what form that regulation should take.

“The idea is that, if you put more and more money into the dairy industry, you don’t know if you’ll get it back. But the situation is so bad that we’ve got to do something,” said Barbora Daňková, spokeswoman for Czech milk-processing company Madeta.

The European Union’s solution was to offer a total of 318 million euros in support funds for European dairy farmers in dire need, beginning in December 2009.

But for many Czech dairy farmers, a more fundamental shift in the way they did business was necessary. Milk dispensers offered an immediate solution, both allowing farmers to charge almost twice as much for milk as supermarkets – about 20 Kč per liter – and requiring the customer to provide the bottle, thus advantaging farmers rather than retailers.

Milk dispensers were lauded by the Czech and Moravian Dairy Association, which nevertheless cautioned that more is needed to be done to help support domestic dairy farmers. Milk dispensers are only a viable solution for small dairy farms, according to Dairy Association President Jiří Kopáček.

Nonetheless, “the milk dispensers have improved markedly, and at the moment, there are about 200 in the Czech Republic,” he said.

Many of these dispensers are located at farmers’ markets, such as the one at Prague’s Kubánské náměstí, where excited customers lined up for fresh milk July 10. Toko, the company that supplies most of the milk dispensers, has also begun manufacturing machines offering meat, vegetables, fruit juices and other fresh farm products.

An increase in the popularity of milk dispensers, however, coupled with the growing number of urban farmers’ markets, has given rise to opposition. Tetra Pak, producer of milk cartons for all major Czech milk companies, issued a warning April 26 about the dangers of drinking raw milk from dispensers, saying, “It is important to realize that drinking raw milk, which means untreated milk, is always a risk.”

Jan Veleba, president of the Czech Agrarian Chamber, has called the warnings against raw milk “lies,” saying they unnecessarily disadvantage farmers struggling to make ends meet.

Boháček seems unconcerned about the controversy, which doesn’t seem to have harmed his brisk milk vending business.

“All we are doing is putting 100 percent milk on the market,” he said. “What you usually see in the markets under the dairy products sign should really be under a chemical products sign.”

Source: The Prague Post

Bookmark and Share

Want To Grow A Bigger Potato? Organic May Be The Way

July 4th, 2010

The balanced mix of insects and fungi in organic fields does a superior job of keeping pests in check, leading to larger plants, according to researchers at Washington State University in Pullman. Potato plants exposed to conditions typical of pesticide-treated fields fared more poorly in the research team’s experiments.

The findings may help potato growers cut back on spraying and make more effective use of natural predators to control pests, said entomologist David Crowder, who led the study published Thursday in the journal Nature.

“The goal is to learn as much as we can about how these natural enemies are doing their jobs and what impact they’re having, so we can incorporate their effects into management practices,” he said.

Washington is second only to Idaho in potato production in the nation, and the state’s crop is valued at nearly $700 million a year. But potatoes can be very vulnerable to pests. Washington potato farmers applied more than 19 million pounds of weed- and bug-killing chemicals in 2005, according to the latest data available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Less than 1 percent of the state’s potatoes are organically grown, and even many organic farmers use some type of chemicals or natural toxins to control pests. But farmers are under pressure from such companies as McDonald’s — the nation’s top potato customer — to green up their practices.

“People who buy a lot of potatoes are asking the growers to reduce insecticide use as much as possible, to document pesticide use, and include biological control as a consideration,” said WSU entomologist William Snyder, a study co-author.

Snyder recently received a $2 million USDA grant to help potato growers shift their practices.

“We have some pretty progressive farmers who already spray much less, compared to the industry average,” Snyder said. “It’s kind of ‘organic lite.’”

The Washington State Potato Commission also funds some of Snyder’s research and hopes to translate the science into practical advice its members can use, said Andrew Jensen, the group’s research director.

For the Nature study, the WSU scientists wanted to find out whether a balanced mix of insects could be beneficial. They examined bug counts from conventional and organic fields around the world, growing a range of crops.

Since many pesticides wipe out the majority of insects, it wasn’t surprising to discover that the conventional fields were often dominated by only a few hardy species. In contrast, the organic fields had a much more even mix.

But would that mix provide any real-world advantage? To test that, Crowder set up 42 potato plots enclosed in fine mesh. He seeded each of his mini fields with Colorado potato beetles, one of the industry’s worst scourges. Then he added varying numbers of insects, fungi and microscopic worms called nematodes that attack the beetles’ eggs and larvae.

The potato plots with the most balanced mix of insects and fungi, typical of organic fields, performed the best: Pest numbers were 20 percent lower and plants were 30 percent bigger than in the plots with the lopsided insect mix typical of pesticide-treated fields.

The study didn’t follow the potatoes to harvest, but plant size is closely correlated with potato size and yield, Crowder said.

Though it’s not clear how the results would scale up, the study does suggest that farmers who reduce pesticide use might be able to rely on a mix of natural predators to take up the slack in controlling pests, he added.

The work also suggests a way to short-circuit the “pesticide treadmill” that forces farmers to use more and different chemicals as pests evolve resistance, said an accompanying article in Nature from researchers at the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

The results have broader ecological implications, Crowder said. Scientists have long focused on the number of species in an ecosystem as a measure of its health. The WSU experiments show that it’s also important to have a balanced mix of species.

Research on organic farming has received short shrift in the past, said Jennifer Miller, sustainable-agriculture coordinator at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides in Boise.

“Often the natural pest control that’s happening on organic farms is overlooked,” she said. “It’s really great to see research looking at the value of this effect and cheaper ways of pest management that come with reduced pesticide use.”

Source: Seattle Times

Bookmark and Share

Wholesale Ocean Destruction – Courtesy of CostCo

June 29th, 2010

Everything about Costco is bigger than normal. Costco is the largest wholesale club operator in North America. People shop at Costco because of its bulk goods, low prices, and the wide variety of merchandise available in their giant warehouses. But, while Costco continues to grow bigger and bigger, so does its footprint on the environment. Costco is destroying our oceans through its horrible seafood purchasing practices, leaving its customers in the dark by hiding the truth from them.

Bookmark and Share

Real Food Under Attack In Minnesota

June 28th, 2010

By Pete Kennedy, Esq.

For the past month, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has been working to erode the freedom of the state’s residents to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice, particularly raw milk.  Through various enforcement actions taken since the last week in May, MDA has created a chilling effect on the exercise of basic rights by consumers to purchase the foods they believe best for the health of their families.  Likewise, MDA’s actions have shown little regard for rights of farmers guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution to sell the products of the farm direct to consumers.

MDA’s first enforcement action occurred on May 26 when officials from MDA and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) along with the Sibley County Sheriff and eight armed deputies set foot on the farm of Mike and Diana Hartmann to execute a criminal search warrant.  The officials were at the farm for more than six hours and embargoed (i.e., ordered the Hartmanns not to sell existing inventory) thousands of dollars in meat and dairy products as well as ordering the Hartmanns to discontinue the sales of any product whose production, processing or sale was not in compliance with applicable law, including an order that the Hartmanns cease delivering raw milk and that they only make occasional on-farm sales to consumers.

The reason MDA and MDH obtained the search warrant was that the agencies suspected raw milk produced at the Hartmanns’ farm was responsible for three cases of illness from E. coli O157:H7.  When the officials were at the farm, they collected samples of various dairy products as well as fecal samples from the farm animals for testing.  According to an MDH press release issued the same day the warrant was executed, the department was investigating a cluster of four E. coli O157:H7 illnesses that all have the same DNA fingerprint, with three of the four cases reporting a link to raw milk from the Hartmann farm.  A subsequent MDH press release issued on June 3 stated, the “strong epidemiological link [to Hartmann Dairy] is now reinforced by the laboratory confirmation that the specific strain of E. coli O157:H7 found in the ill patients has also been found in multiple animals and at multiple sites on the Hartmann Farm.”  In a press release issued shortly afterwards on behalf of the Hartmanns, it was pointed out that MDH had not found the matching strain of E. coli O157:H7 in any of the food samples tested.

On June 16, MDA officials raided the Hartmann farm a second time.  By this date, MDA had concluded that eight people had become ill consuming the milk produced at the Hartmann farm.  This time the officials not only embargoed additional meat and dairy products but also issued the Hartmanns an order requiring them to stop the sale of all food products except eggs and poultry processed at a state-inspected plant.   The officials also ordered the Hartmanns to keep records on the “quantity and use date” of any of the embargoed food they removed for their personal consumption.   Overall, the agency issued the Hartmanns twenty-six (26) orders for the farmers to comply with, including one for the farm to register with the FDA as a ‘food facility’ per the federal Bioterrorism Act.  When the agents left the farm, they took financial and processing records as well as the Hartmanns’ computer hard drives.

The day before the second Hartmann raid, officials from MDA and the Minneapolis Health Department paid a visit to the Traditional Food Warehouse (TFW), a store featuring foods made by local small-scale producers that is open only to members of a private buying club.   After being in the store for about one and a half hours, the officials who were accompanied by a city policeman went to the store manager and informed him that either he could close the store on his own or the officials would do it for him.  Before the manager closed the door, one of the buying club members reminded him that he had the right not to answer any questions the officials asked him. One official asked to the see the member’s I.D.; when she refused, the official asked the policeman to request her I.D.  When the policeman asked for her I.D., she declined and left the store.  At that point, the MDA official in charge of the group asked another agency official present to take pictures of the member and her car as well as taking down her license plate number.

After the patrons had all left the store, the officials conducted an inspection and wound up embargoing every single food product in the store.  MDA left an inspection report with one of TFW’s owners which contained an order prohibiting the store owner from reopening until a license had been obtained from the Minneapolis Department of Health.  The question for MDA is:  why did the agency have to resort to this type of enforcement action and treat TFW like it was a criminal enterprise?  TFW had made no secret about its existence; since it opened in September 2008, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has run two major stories on the warehouse.  It is not possible for MDA to have been unaware of it.  There had never been a complaint filed against the warehouse nor had there ever been any allegation that food purchased at the warehouse had made someone sick.  MDA could have made its position on the licensing issue known to the TFW owners without having to embargo every food product in the warehouse.

As uncalled for as was the MDA enforcement action against the Traditional Foods Warehouse, it pales in comparison to the action the department took against a family whose private residence in the Twin Cities area MDA discovered was being used as a distribution point for products from the Hartmann farm.  When MDA officials raided the Hartmanns’ on May 26, they obtained a list of drop sites for the distribution of the farm’s products that led them to obtain a criminal search warrant against the family.

The warrant stated,

. . . the Court finds probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant upon the following grounds:

  1. The possession of, particularly the sale or distribution of raw, unpasteurized milk or milk products and the packaging or sale of other food products at a home, the property above-described constitutes a crime;
  2. The property above-described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.

The Court further finds that probable cause exists to believe that the above-described property and things are at the above-described premises.

On June 10 two MDA officials, two city government officials and three plain clothes policemen descended on the family’s residence.  Here is the wife’s account of the seven entering her home to execute the warrant:

A friend of our family’s daughter was married Wednesday night, June 9th.  We got to bed late and decided the boys could sleep in the next morning; we have three boys at home right now, ages 20, 17, and 14.  My husband and I, at about 7:15 a.m., received a call from our 4th son who lives out of town.  At 7:30 a.m., we went down to our sunroom or sanctuary, as we call it, to pray for the events of the day.  I proceeded to go back upstairs about 10 minutes to 8:00 to take a shower.

My husband, I was told later, met the seven unexpected visitors outside.  This woke up our youngest son.  He came into my bathroom to tell me that people were here from the State.  It must have been just a few minutes after 8 a.m. when I heard heavy footsteps coming up the stairway and down the hall.  With hair dripping wet, I threw on some clothes and was met at my bedroom door by my husband and two or three large men (these were plain clothes officers from the city police department.)  They allowed me to towel dry my hair, watching all the while.  The other officers went into my children’s bedrooms, waking them, telling them to get downstairs into the kitchen.

One of my sons asked if he could put on a shirt and one of the police officers responded, “Just get down to the kitchen.”  I walked downstairs and saw four people peering into my refrigerator (three women and one man: all of whom I had never seen before).  My husband explained who they were – the visitors took it from there and quickly introduced themselves.  Two from the Ag department; John gave me his card the girl didn’t have one.  Two from the city–names were rattled off so fast and only Lynn had a card.  I believe one police officer told me his name and that he was the person in charge; but I never received the other officers’ names.  They were in our home for over two hours.

The only thing the family did for the Hartmanns was to let someone from the farm park at their home so friends could conveniently stop by to pick up farm products.  The family neither handled money for the Hartmanns nor distributed any of their products.  Nothing produced by the Hartmanns was kept in the family’s refrigerators or freezers other than products for their own use.  The only other thing the family did for the food pick-up at their house was to buy food products at bulk discounts that they redistributed to their friends.  All products picked up at the residence were pre-ordered.

Before executing the search warrant, MDA had sent an official to interview four neighbors of the family who pick up food at the drop-site.  One neighbor who was interviewed called the wife and said she feared for her.

When the officials were conducting the search, they asked the family to give them product from the Hartmann farm that the department would test for E. coli O157: H7.  The family felt it had no choice and gave them a container of raw milk and a pound of hamburger.  The officials offered to pay for the food but the family refused to accept any money.

While the search was taking place, the wife repeatedly asked the officials if she were doing something wrong.  Their response was that it was wrong to let the Hartmanns use their driveway to distribute their products.  This was the “crime” that convinced a judge to issue a warrant so government officials could violate the sanctity and privacy of a home.

The official who has been the driving force behind these recent enforcement actions is John Mitterholzer, whose title is Food Standards Compliance Officer in the Dairy and Food Inspection Division of MDA.  Mitterholzer was the official who was in charge of the “inspection” at the Traditional Foods Warehouse and the search of the private residence.  He is a long-time nemesis of the Hartmanns.  Mitterholzer led an enforcement action against the Hartmanns that turned into a case that went all the way up to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2005.

The Minnesota State Constitution has a provision which states, “any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor.”  Until the Hartmann case, the MDA had interpreted this provision to cover only the sale of produce.  The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Hartmanns could sell meat from animals raised on their farm.  Moreover, the Court ruled that “the language of the provision extends its protection to all products; the only limitation is that the farm or garden must be occupied and cultivated by the seller.”  In attempting to crack down on the off-farm distribution of raw milk, MDA is relying on a statute in the state dairy code which provides that raw milk and cream can only be “occasionally secured or purchased for personal use by any consumer at the place or farm where the milk is produced.”  The statute, however, is written from the standpoint of the consumer, not the farmer.  The provision in the state constitution has no limitation on how much can be sold nor on where the sales can take place.

It is crucial that the constitutional provision be upheld.  The farms of most raw milk producers are fifty to a hundred miles away from the Twin Cities.  Their sales would suffer significantly if raw milk could not be delivered in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.  MDA should respect the right of farmers and consumers to enter into agreements on the distribution and delivery of raw milk and other farm products.  The agency has used the E. coli outbreak blamed on the Hartmann farm as a pretext to carry out heavy-handed enforcement tactics that have created a climate of fear among raw milk producers and consumers.  MDA has been treating people who are upstanding citizens in their community like common criminals.  Even as this article was being written, another farm was raided.  MDA’s inquisition needs to end.

Source: farmtoconsumer.org

Bookmark and Share

Dangerous Levels Of Lead Found In Juice Boxes, Baby Food

June 14th, 2010

On June 9, 2010 the Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”) filed Notices of Violation of California Proposition 65 Toxics Right to Know law, alleging the toxic chemical lead was found in a variety of children’s and baby foods. The specific food categories included apple juice, grape juice, packaged pears andpeaches (including baby food), and fruit cocktail. A complete list of the companies and products named appears with the notice and is located on the ELF website.

The notices claim that the children’s foods contain enough lead in a single serving that they require a warning under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (aka “Proposition 65” or “Prop 65”). Toxicologist Barbara G. Callahan, PhD, DABT, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst,
who has spent two decades performing public health and environmental risk assessments, called the lead concentrations in the ELF test results “alarming.”
Under Prop 65, the Governor publishes a list of chemicals “known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive harm.” Lead is listed as both and was among the first chemicals listed in 1987. If any consumer product contains a listed chemical at a level that presents a “significant risk” the manufacturer and retailer must give a “clear and reasonable warning” about the exposure.

ELF pinpointed categories of food and beverages for testing by examining publicly available government-sponsored testing and published studies—focusing on food product categories that children like and eat often and which the data showed had widespread presence of lead. ELF collected and tested as many brands in each category as it could locate in California.

Scientists agree that there is no safe level of exposure to lead. Lead accumulates in the body from multiple exposures over time and from multiple sources. According to Dr. Callahan, “Lead exposure among children is a particular concern because their developing bodies absorb lead at a higher rate and because children are particularly sensitive to lead’s toxic effects, including decreased I.Q.” Lead exposure also represents a heightened risk among pregnant and nursing women because lead passes from the mother to the developing fetus or infant. “Lead already stored in the mother’s bone tissue is mobilized along with calcium,”
explains Dr. Callahan, “and additional lead exposure to the mother can further compromise the health of the most vulnerable among us.”

Lead has been and continues to be released into the environment from decades of lead-based pesticide application, use of leaded gasoline and lead paint, and burning of coal in power plants. The lead in the environment then can make its way into the food supply. But not every category or even foods within categories contains lead. There are things that consumers can do if they are concerned about their families’ exposure to lead.

  • Make informed choices.
  • Demand information before you buy.
  • Advocate for cleaner food and more comprehensive environmental health policies.

ELF’s Notices were sent to law enforcement officials, including the California Attorney General and 58 county District Attorneys, and to the affected
manufacturers, retailers and distributors, notifying them that particular food products frequently consumed by children contain lead at levels high enough to
require a warning under Proposition 65. These notices start a clock for the companies to bring themselves into compliance with Proposition 65 by either (a)
reducing or eliminating the lead or (b) placing “clear and reasonable warnings” on the food packages. If, at the end of 60 days, no law enforcement agency is
prosecuting the violation, ELF will file suit to enforce the law.
The notices were based on testing performed on 398 samples of 146 different branded products in the five categories. Samples were purchased throughout
California. A list of all products tested and whether they did or did not exceed Prop 65′s warning threshold is also found on ELF’s website.

“ELF has fought to protect families from lead exposures for two decades,” said Jim Wheaton, President of the Environmental Law Foundation. “We know the risk
these exposures pose for children, and we know that our efforts can help keep children safer.”

More information about lead and Prop 65 can be found in a Frequently Asked Questions document, also on ELF’s website.

Bookmark and Share

US Military Calls For Expansion Of Child Nutrition Programs

June 10th, 2010

Claiming that millions of young Americans age 17 to 24 – prime candidates for military recruitment – are “too fat to fight” and would be rejected for military service due to weight problems, a group of 130 retired generals, admirals, and other senior military leaders has endorsed a sizeable increase in funding for school meal programs to assist in strengthening our military.  “When that many young adults can’t fight because of their weight, it affects our national preparedness and national security,” said retired rear admiral Jamie Barnett, representing the group, titled “Mission:  Readiness, Military Leaders for Kids.”

“Our national security in 2030 is absolutely dependent on reversing the alarming rates of childhood obesity,” claimed Barnett, who called on Congress to pass legislation reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, including the Obama Administration’s  recommendation to increase funding by $10 billion over ten years.  Mission:  Readiness also endorsed adoption of nutrition standards for food sold in schools as recommended by the Institute of Medicine.

School meal programs owe their existence to defense policy; the National School Lunch Act was passed in 1946 in response to large numbers of draftees failing to qualify for military service in World War II due to diet-related health problems.  Back then, the main concern was not obesity but malnutrition.

The more traditional child nutrition supporters welcomed the show of military muscle. “Schools have already made tremendous strides in offering children healthy food options, but it will take the support of the entire community from parents, to our military leaders to Members of Congress, voting to fund these critical efforts, to turn around the childhood obesity crisis,” said Dora Rivas, director of food services for the Dallas, TX school district and president of the School Nutrition Association.  “The fact that so many youngsters are not fit for military service is, indeed, a wake-up call for this country,” echoed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the Mission:  Readiness news conference.

Military recruitment efforts have been more successful of late, as the recession makes military service a more attractive alternative to unemployment.  And it is recruiters who work with young people to help them get into shape so they are ready for boot camp, Barnett said.  “But given the fact that so many more kids are carrying so many more pounds, asking recruiters to fix the problem is like asking for a safety pin after the seams have burst,” he commented.

Source: TEFAP Alliance

Bookmark and Share

Seattle’s Urban Farm Success Stories

June 7th, 2010

Even as the idea of buying local finds eager audiences at the area’s many farmers markets, few might imagine that “local” means anything closer than a swath of farmland somewhere in Carnation, Mount Vernon or Monroe. That’s where produce comes from, right?

But in Seattle’s North Beach neighborhood, the radishes already are appearing for Noelani Alexander, who spent a recent morning planning an irrigation system for her 1,200-square-foot plot behind a home on Northwest 91st Street.

By summer’s end, on the five Seattle plots that comprise the urban farm operation she calls City Grown, she expects to see carrots, leeks, lettuce, spinach, squash and cucumbers and more — all destined for local sale, mostly online.

While many more people are growing their food, either to go green or save money, the notion of growing for profit — a Depression-era activity briefly revived in the 1960s — is another, more challenging matter.

“It’s kind of new for America to be going back to urban farming on a commercial scale,” said Josh Parkinson, of similarly minded Magic Bean Farm in West Seattle. “This is about as local as you can get.”

The practice has been rapidly resurrected over the past few years in cities such as San Francisco, Austin, Texas, and Boulder, Colo., seeded by economic need, the sustainability movement and national groups such as SPIN-Farming (Small Plot Intensive Farming), which works with farms in the United States and Canada.

In recession-ravaged Detroit, for example, efforts are under way to convert 40 acres of the Michigan State Fairgrounds into what organizers say would be the world’s largest commercial urban farm.

“Productive space”

Alexander, a 32-year-old former farm employee who had gone into landscaping, figured she eventually would leave her Wallingford home for a rural spread where she could return to food production, “but things weren’t going that way,” she said. Now, “getting food into the city is more important to me.”

While some of City Grown’s produce is grown at her Wallingford home, the bulk of the operation’s nearly 4,000 square feet of growing space — about one-tenth of an acre — is divided among four other residential properties in North Beach, Ballard, Wallingford and the Central District.

Those homeowners will receive weekly produce, and besides, “they get their yard developed. Most are lawns they weren’t using — and now it’s productive space.”

Commercial urban farming “makes the most of underused urban natural resources, and provides fresh food to people right where they can see it growing from seed to harvest,” Nicole Jain Capizzi, former director of a for-profit urban farm in Milwaukee, wrote on the Seattle-based website UrbanFarmHub.org.

But Capizzi, who since has moved to the Seattle area, noted challenges — untested business models, unpredictable weather and the difficulty of cultivating non-arable land. Throw in pests and the cost of real estate, and one wonders: Are urban farms really possible?

Seattle already has Seattle Market Gardens, a year-old program in which consumers can purchase carrots, peas and other produce grown by immigrant farmers throughout the city’s South End. Proceeds from the program, sponsored by nonprofit P-Patch Trust and Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods, go mostly to the farmers.

Click to continue »

Bookmark and Share