Request Monday (07/09/2012): You are what you...

"I see so many labels for different types of food, and so many suspect companies using them, that I don't know what to pick. Which of these matter, and how can I tell if I'm getting something of value?"
- Camille from Brooklyn, NY

As one of the three essentials of life, food represents the biggest challenge because we have so many options, and so much marketing and advertising trying to sway our choices, that it can seem daunting to make the right decision. I review some of the main labeling below, but more importantly, you and your family should take some time and talk about the importance of food, the ways in which we produce food, and the different needs food meets in our lives. Then, you should identify some priorities to help guide your purchasing decisions. Although not an inclusive list, some of these might include: taste, cost, ease of preparation, use of chemicals, availability, or socially just food. Setting some priorities will help you sift through the morass of labeling and make the best decision for your family.

The following list notes some of the most common food labels related to environmental attributes:

Organic - The most common and contested of the group of labels refers to the method of crop growth.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, food grown organically "has been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used." The USDA manages the review of products grown organically, and as you can imagine with any regulation program, groups on both sides of the issue have their concerns. Growers and retailers (especially Wal-Mart after making some commitments to organic produce) want the requirements as open as possible while consumer and environmental advocates want more stringent guidelines. Foods grown organically carry higher price tags most of the time for several reasons: 1. The demand for them is largely among more affluent people so retailers can charge more, 2. The USDA certification requirements add cost, 3. The market is smaller. Interestingly enough, if all US farmers grew crops organically, requiring no special certification, no cost difference would exist. As an interesting case, look to Cuba's transition in the 1990s to a mostly-organic farm economy because of the embargo.
Bottom line: Because of food industry influence, it is tough to police. Your best bet is to become familiar with the additives in food and the growing practices associated with the ingredients in each product you normally purchase. I know this is time consuming, but given our habitual purchasing practices, you should not have to do it very often.

Local - The most ambiguous of the labels refers to the distance traveled by the crop from farm to customer.
No set standard exists for defining food as local. For some it can mean grown within their state, within a certain radius of miles, or even by a specific type of grower (independent vs. corporate farm). The USDA has done some more exhaustive research, and there are ardent critics of an entirely local food movement, but supporters point toward lower energy and emissions due to less transportation, better transparency of growing practices, and stronger local economies as reasons to support local farmers.
Bottom line: I personally am not about to give up my bananas, so as with anything, this requires some moderation. Look at your family priorities, and source as much as you can within your local area. Go to your community farmer's market, purchase some of your produce from a CSA, and make informed choices. For almost all of us, a completely local diet is impossible, but supporting local farms has benefits beyond our dinner table.

Fair Trade - The least impactive label on the quality of the food tries to express the social justice associated with the growing and production of a product.
Fair trade labeling gained most of its fame from coffee and cocoa production, where for years activists have claimed that corporate influences have decreased the quality of life for the growers and processors of the crops. According to Fair Trade USA, a non-profit that certifies products, fair trade means that each point in the supply chain has "farmers and workers who are justly compensated". Although that sounds a bit nebulous, FLO-CERT, an independent organization established to develop and maintain standards, has produced an ISO-certified process for determining a product's compliance with fair trade standards.
Bottom line: It will not tell you anything about the quality or environmental impact of your menu, but our society should have moved well beyond the point where we should accept exploitation just to save a few bucks on dinner. If you buy a product that does not meet fair trade standards, ask the company why they do not....then judge them by the answer or the lack of response.

ANDI: Aggregate Nutrient Density Index - The least well known and possibly most important label provides guidance on the actual value of the food you purchase.
I often like to start discussions about food and environmentalism with the following rhetorical question: "I can purchase a soup and sandwich at Whole Foods (a notoriously expensive grocery chain for organic, local and environmentally benign products) for about $13. For that same amount of money, I can buy almost 20 packages of Hostess treats. I get so many more calories per dollar from the Hostess treats, and could easily meet my family's daily caloric intake for almost no cost. Why wouldn't I do that?" Although the answer is obvious, the quantification of food value remains elusive. Whole Foods (and other retailers) have tried to start answering this question by giving consumers (hopefully) unbiased indicators of the value of food to their well being. ANDI provides just such a measure "by evaluating an extensive range of micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidant capacities".
Bottom line: Probably the best potential guidance for the consumer, ANDI and similar systems have yet to become part of the standard lexicon...like say MPG has for car fuel efficiency or Better Housekeeping for household products. It is well worth the time to review ANDI and become familiar with its application.

Overall bottom line: Each of these labels helps draw attention to what goes into your food, where it was grown, how it was produced, where it comes from, and who handled it at every step of the way. Educate yourself and make informed decisions. Do not buy a product with an ingredient you do not know, and do not buy a product from a company that does not provide living wages at each step of production. For years, we have made decisions based on "brand loyalty" (another form of labeling) assuming that companies performed this due diligence for us. Now that we have information systems that make the attributes of food production readily available to us, it is time we lower the veil and make the most informed decision that is in line with our family's priorities and values....regardless of what else is on the label.

The trouble with resources: Water (Part 1)

Image courtesy of US Geological Survey

Water is life.

An old rule of thumb says you could last three months without food, three days without water, and three minutes without air. I deal with water first even though we need air more urgently because of air's ubiquitous nature. Obtaining water requires conscious choice, and lacks the sense of urgency of air, so we may tend to put it off if we do not have a strong and immediate sense of thirst. This leads to varying levels of dehydration that create anything from mild memory loss and fever to death, and this just covers the water needed within our bodies to maintain function. We also use water to grow crops and maintain human health through waste conveyance. To understand whether or not we have enough water to support our life, we need to know how much we have available to us, how fast we use it, and how quickly nature makes it available to us again.

Water is a finite resource. Most of us learn about the water cycle (or hydrologic cycle) in school, but do not pay attention to the most interesting consequence of the use of the word "cycle". It reminds us that we do not create water or destroy it through our existence; water merely changes form, and sometimes location, then becomes available to us again, and again. The table below lists data that the image below does a great job of making visual:





The visual only tells part of the story. As we can see in the table, of that 27,000 cubic miles of surface-available freshwater, almost 25% is either in the atmosphere, in swamps or in us, making it immediately unavailable for use. That leaves about 22,000 cubic miles of surface water. According to the American Water Works Association, the average daily direct water use for Americans is 69.3 gallons inside and an additional 280 gallons per day outside. That use covers daily water intake and personal health. Add to that between 2,500 gallons per day of virtual water that goes into the energy, food, and resources we require each day including construction and production of goods. (Remember, that although equivalent daily, per capita water draws for the US are around 1,350 gallons per day, many of the crops and products we consume come from overseas, so we are not limited to our borders when considering the water needed to support our lifestyle.) If 9 billion people used water at that rate, that would total 25 cubic miles of water a day or about 0.1% of our available surface water. Allowing for water in transit (both to us for our use and to wastewater treatment) and for water in the treatment process for return to the surface water stores, we would have 0.3% of our world surface water supply withdrawn each day for our use.

Assuming we can keep up with the treatment of the water - a task that would require construction of thousands of water treatment facilities across the world - we can make choices that allow us to recharge our sources of freshwater at the same rate we use them. With this, and taking into account the fact that several areas of the world have the ability to tap into the 2.5 million cubic miles of ground water, it would appear that our planet has more than enough water to supply 9 billion people living the American lifestyle. So why does water present such a huge challenge, with 2.7 billion people currently short of water and some calling water the "oil of the 21st century".

The answer to that question is availability and quality...location, location, location.

Next week - water availability and quality.

Friday Five: June 22, 2012

Do we have the right to make the choice to be unhealthy?
If Every Country Were As Heavy As Ours the World Would Have 1 Billion Extra Mouths to Feed
"Until now, we've generally thought of overpopulation in terms of numbers of people on earth, with milestones for 5 billion, 6 billion, and so on. But one of the paper's authors suggests that measure may soon be superseded -- or at least rivalled -- by the sustainability of our growing waistlines."

Do the manufacturers bear any responsibility?
Pop Goes the Weasel: Can Good Deeds Help Keep the Soda Industry Super Sized

"These companies are not afraid to push the boundaries. In fact, if there’s a particularly disconcerting element to soda company CSR campaigns, it’s that many seem designed to get around restrictions on selling soda in schools. As the report observes: 'While soda companies agreed to remove full-calorie drinks from U.S. schools, CSR programs like the Refresh Project keep the brand in front of young people with promises of grants for children’s schools, parks, or other programs.'”

Should a person speaking a common sense truth have to defend themselves?
In defense of walking
"And you emailed and commented and tweeted that I had it all wrong and I wasn’t thinking about the disabled, or that I was discounting every transportation advancement since we learned to ride horses. But I was considerate of genuine use cases (read: disabilities) and I maintained that my main point was valid: we should walk!"

Can we make other decisions that help us to engage in more healthy behavior?
Urban Renaissance Driven By Thinking Small
"In a way, thinking small is the next logical step in America’s urban renaissance. When cities really started changing 10 or 15 years ago, the economy was booming and the Internet was a newfangled gizmo. Today, cities have less money but more ways to communicate, two conditions perfectly suited to more focused, low-cost planning."

Or will changing our relationship with food be the answer?
What Farms Can Do For Cities
"Gardens are becoming a more integrated piece of what it is to responsibly build a single-family residence, or an apartment building, or even a mall. More people are seeing gardening as a public health solution because you get both healthy food and physical activity out of it."

Happy Friday!