If you've done all or most of your shopping for Thursday's big dinner, you might find you've got a little more jingle in your pocket than you were expecting.
Based on the results of their 24th annual survey, the Farm Bureau estimates that the average cost of a feast for 10 is $42.91, $1.70 less than last year’s average of $44.61.
Ingredients included in their typical holiday meal are turkey, bread stuffing, sweet potatoes, peas, cranberries, rolls with butter, a one-pound tray of carrots and celery, pumpkin pie (with whipped cream, of course!), coffee and milk, all in quantities sufficient to serve 10 people.
Unfortunately for the struggling dairy farmers, milk alone makes up $.92 (54%) of the $1.70 savings this year, but the $.44 (26%) drop in the price of a 16-pound turkey significantly contributes as well.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Need to know how much turkey to buy for your feast? Or how long to defrost a frozen turkey? If so, you've come to the right place.
The quantity question is easy. When buying a whole bird, figure one pound per person, whether the turkey is fresh or frozen.
Those quantities go down if you're opting for a turkey breast instead of a whole bird: 3/4 pound per person with the bone in, 1/2 pound boneless.
These estimates should allow for as much as two servings per person and leftovers, so don't be tempted to round up too much, even if your big cousin Hank is coming this year.
As for thawing a frozen turkey, it all depends upon the bird's size and the thawing method chosen.
The best way to defrost a turky is in the safe, cool confines of your refrigerator. The slow thaw yields a thoroughly and evenly defrosted bird, but it does require more time, so planning ahead is essential. (Which, of course, is why we're covering this topic today.)
The basic rule of thumb: allow approximately 24 hours for every four to five pounds of bird weight.
Despite today's math theme, here's an easy chart with weights and thaw times. I know your math skills will get enough of a workout next week when you have to quadruple your favorite sweet potato recipe, so I'm taking it easy on you today.
In the Refrigerator (40°F or below) Allow approx 24 hours for every 4 to 5 pounds
4 to 12 pounds
1 to 3 days
12 to 16 pounds
3 to 4 days
16 to 20 pounds
4 to 5 days
20 to 24 pounds
5 to 6 days
See that last line? If you've got a big bird, you might very well need to start the thawing process today. No time to waste.
For the fridge method, keep the frozen turkey in the original wrapper and place it in a tray or pan to catch the runoff. Thaw the turkey with the breast side down so the juices will flow into the breast.
Once thawed, the turkey may remain in the refrigerator for 1 to 2 days, so even if you have a mid-sized bird, it might be okay to start thawing it today.
For those looking for faster thawing options, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service spells out the cold water and microwave methods.
Be mindful though. The cold water method will cut the time required to thaw your turkey (8 hours vs. 4 days for a 16 pounder), but it could also cut into your sleep.
This process requires that you change the water every 30 minutes, so unless you're planning on a late dinner on Thanksgiving, you'll be up very early filling and re-filling the sink (which really doesn't sound like fun, does it?).
Remember, too, that you still have to allow enough time to roast the turkey before guests arrive, so don't cut the thawing time too close.
After all, we all want leftovers, sure, but the whole bird might be a bit much if it's not done in time to be served.
So, any turkey thawing horror stories to share? Let your debacle be a cautionary tale (and a chuckle) for the rest of us.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Thank you for the helpful information about thawing the turkey. I still had a couple of questions. Can you still cook the stuffing inside the bird? Does it depend on the contents of the stuffing? For instance are there different rules for oyster stuffing? The table really helped with the calculations.
Submitted by: Cora on November 22, 2009 05:50 PM
Cora,
I'm glad this information helped.
These are the recommendations about stuffing from USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service:
For safety and uniform doneness, cook stuffing separately in a casserole. Cooking a stuffed turkey is riskier than cooking one not stuffed.
Harmful bacteria can survive in stuffing that has not reached the safe temperature of 165°F, possibly resulting in foodborne illness. Therefore, it is essential that you always use a food thermometer to check the temperature of the stuffing.
The ingredients for the stuffing can be prepared ahead of time. Keep wet and dry ingredients separated; chill. Mix wet and dry ingredients just before putting stuffing into a casserole or filling the turkey cavity. The stuffing should be moist, not dry, since heat destroys bacteria more rapidly in a moist environment.
If you choose to stuff your turkey, make sure it is stuffed loosely. Cook the turkey immediately after stuffing.
All poultry should reach a safe minimum internal temperature of 165°F as measured with a food thermometer. Check the internal temperature in the innermost part of the thigh and wing and the thickest part of the breast. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may choose to cook poultry to higher temperatures.
Stuffing must reach 165°F as measured with a food thermometer. Continue to cook the stuffed turkey until the center of the stuffing has reached 165°F before removing it from the oven.
These directions make no distinction between oyster stuffing or any other kind.
However, elsewhere, the Food Safety and Inspection Service makes this note about oyster stuffing:
If you plan to prepare oyster stuffing for your turkey it is recommended that you cook the oysters prior to making stuffing. The stuffing should be cooked to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165°F as measured with a food thermometer.
Hope this gets you what you need. Have a great holiday!
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 23, 2009 11:22 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
After yesterday's off day (or catch up day, if you'd prefer), we're rolling again.
Things get underway today with a live Facebook chat at 3 p.m. ET.
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service is making one of its experts available to answer questions about how to have a food safe holiday, from defrosting the bird through storing the leftovers.
Sure, there are lots of things you shouldn't buy yet, but now's the time for taking that list of non-perishables you made on Monday and start checking things off.
Among the things you should consider getting now are:
The turkey, if you're buying frozen
Hardy vegetables like onions, winter squash, carrots, potatoes, parsnips and turnips
Dried herbs and spices
Packaged stuffing
Rice or other dried grains
Baking necessities like flour, sugars, corn syrup, canned pumpkin and fresh or frozen cranberries
Crackers, chips or nuts
Beverages that don't need to be refrigerated before the big day
Oil, wood chips or charcoal if you've got plans to fry, smoke or grill the turkey
Any necessary cooking equipment such as a roasting pan, food thermometer, pie pans, etc.
Food storage containers for the inevitable leftovers
Getting all these now helps you avoid a good bit of the crowds at the grocery store and ensures that you're not scrambling for necessities the day before. It also means you get to be the hero when your neigbor arrives on your doorstep Thanksgiving morning asking to borrow a cup of sugar.
And who doesn't want to be the hero?
What other tips do you have for holiday prep a week out? Chime in below.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We're all about getting you ready for Thanksgiving here at InfoFarm. Since I know you're already working your way through yesterday's to-do list, I'm giving you just three simple tasks tied to today's theme of Keeping Food Safe
First, mark your calendars for USDA's live Facebook chat this Thursday, November 19 at 3 p.m. ET.
A holiday food safety expert from the Food Safety and Inspection Service will be tackling your questions about how to prepare your holiday meal safely.
Then, think of questions you have regarding holiday food preparation or storage and submit them via USDA Live prior to Thursday's chat:
What's the best way to defrost a turkey? Do stuffing ingredients need to be pre-cooked? If my big cousin Hank doesn't eat all the pumpkin pie, how long will the leftovers keep in the fridge?
You get the idea.
Finally, make a note of these other food safety resources and post them in your kitchen. They might come in handy.
USDA's Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-674-6854. [Hours: daily 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET / Thanksgiving Day 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. ET]
Ask Karen, an automated response system that provides answers to common food safety questions 24/7.
And by the way, should any of these seem like overkill, spend a few minutes reading about food poisoning and foodborne illnesses. You'll quickly see that a little bit of care can spare you a whole lot of unpleasantness.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Yes, time is flying, and Thanksgiving will be here before you know it. With a little forethought, however, the meal planning and cooking need not make you crazy. (Of course, those of you who prefer their holidays with a mix of insanity might want to stop reading. I don't want to ruin anything for you.)
This week and into next, InfoFarm is going to give you day-by-day tips that will make your holiday preparations a breeze.
Today: Laying the Groundwork
Plan your menu and gather recipes.
Check your pantry to see what you have. Verify that dried herbs and spices are not expired.
Make a shopping list of needed ingredients. If you actually make two lists, non-perishable and perishable items, it will help plan your trips to the store this week and next.
Make sure you have all needed equipment, including a large enough roasting pan, a turkey baster, and a fat separator for making gravy.
Buy a food thermometer if you don't already have one. If you do have one, make sure it is working properly.
Start using foods that are taking up space in your refrigerator and freezer to make room for your turkey and other dishes.
Finally, add @USDAFoodSafety to your Twitter feed or search for the #turkeytweets hashtag to keep the tips for Turkey Day flowing.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Where were you 40 years ago today? (For those not quick with the math, we're talking 1969.)
I can tell you where many young people were, but first, I'll give you a hint:
Sunny day,
Sweepin' the clouds away.
On my way to where the air is sweet.
Yup, you got it . . . Sesame Street!
The educational powerhouse for preschoolers made its broadcast debut November 10, 1969.
Now, 40 years later, it's marking its anniversary with an appearance by First Lady Michelle Obama, who is taking her message about gardening and healthy eating to the Street.
From establishing the White House kitchen garden to planting (not eating!) seeds with Elmo and friends, Mrs. Obama is becoming an expert on gardening and good eating. She's also recognizing how much children learn from helping to grow their own fruits and veggies.
After all, it might not be garden planting time, but it is definitely garden planning time. And if you want to have a school or family project ready to go next Spring, it's never too early to get the ball rolling.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Poetry feeds our souls. Sweet potatoes feed our bellies. And a poem about sweet potatoes -- here called "yams" -- well, I'd venture that feeds multiple appetites simultaneously, including our curiosity.
Wait. Check that.
It doesn't feed our curiosity as much as spark it, as an appetizer warms us up for eating.
But before I get into that, read today's poem. Just pay special attention to the first line.
American Life in Poetry: Column 154
BY TED KOOSER, U.S. POET LAUREATE, 2004-2006
Though some teacher may have made you think that all poetry is deadly serious, chock full of coded meanings and obscure symbols, poems, like other works of art, can be delightfully playful. Here Bruce Guernsey, who divides his time between Illinois and Maine, plays with a common yam.
Yam
The potato that ate all its carrots,
can see in the dark like a mole,
its eyes the scars
from centuries of shovels, tines.
May spelled backwards
because it hates the light,
pawing its way, paddling along,
there in the catacombs.
Okay, so we know potatoes don't eat carrots, unless we're talking compost, so we'll chalk that up to creative license and a nod toward the "yam's" orange flesh. But what about this potato business in a poem titled "Yam"? Anybody catch the problem here?
Turns out, yams are not sweet potatoes, and yet, kinda, they are.
Here's the deal. Technically, botanically, yams and sweet potatoes are unrelated. Yams are monocots; sweet potatoes, dicots. Yams are from the Dioscoreaceae or Yam family; sweet potatoes arise from the Convolvulacea or morning glory family. And the list goes on.
But here in the U.S. yams are sweet potatoes thanks to a blend of tradition and a marketing ploy the Louisiana growers trotted out some decades back. Seeking to set their product apart from the other varieties of sweet potatoes available, the folks in Louisiana took to calling their sweeties "yams" after the soft African yams they resembled.
And thus a market niche -- and consumer confusion -- were born.
But don't go thinking that's the only point of confusion here. Here's one more for the road.
Yams, as we've noted, aren't sweet potatoes, but then, just to round things out, sweet potatoes aren't even potatoes. They're distant cousins at best, with each a part of a different genus:
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Nice work, your awesome content has forced me to to leave some positive feedback.
Submitted by: zaklady bukmacherskie on November 6, 2009 04:02 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The food folks here at NAL have recently launched a couple of new tools that should make the lives of dietitians, nutritionists, nutrition educators and food service trainers a little bit easier.
You enter the basics -- a person's sex, age, height, weight and activity level -- and the tool will compute his body mass index, daily calorie needs, and the recommended amounts of various macronutrients, vitamins and minerals.
It's simple to use but not necessarily simple to interpet. Of course, that's where the healthcare professionals come in. The tool, after all, was designed for them, for the registered dietitians, doctors, nurses and others involved in dietary planning who can help John and Jane Q. Public interpret and use the information to lay out healthy ways to eat.
Also fresh on the scene is the new Education and Training Materials Database, which points you to all types of educational materials related to food safety and nutrition.
Looking for a game that'll teach 10-year-olds about eating a balanced diet?
How about a video on the importance of hand washing for restaurant staff?
Or food safety posters in Spanish specific to child care centers?
This comprehensive tool delivers them all and more.
You can even type in a keyword, such as "fiber," and then, with a click, easily refine your results by format -- activity, book, brochure, presentation, etc. -- to find exactly what you need for your next class.
One note here, though. You won't usually be getting the content itself. The actual activity, book or brochure won't necessarily be waiting for you one click away. But what you will find is information about how to get it, whom to contact, what it will cost, etc. The rest is up to you, but you gotta appreciate the time it saves hunting.
One place, one search, and you're quickly on the phone or on the Web ordering the absolutely perfect training curriculum.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Felled by the flu last week, I missed the launch of USDA's new Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Web site, the Department's virtual town hall on issues relating to food, agriculture and local and regional food systems.
Maybe, then, this is all old news to you, but I'm guessing there are still a few of you out there who don't know the scoop on KYF2.
The overarching initiative shines a light on local agriculture. It looks to develop local and regional food systems, spark economic growth and strengthen rural areas. It also works to support healthy eating and protecting the environment. And it seeks to do all this through existing USDA programs that are innovatively applied.
KYF2 also seeks to open up the doors on this Department to let in more ideas and more perspectives. The new Web site's Ideas and Stories page, though not yet fleshed out, will be the hub for that. And the invitation there is quite compelling:
This is the start of a national dialogue between the USDA and you - farmers, ranchers, businesses, community organizations, governments, schools, consumers. Government doesn't have all the answers - the issues that we're addressing require local solutions and local resolve. That's why we need your help. Send us your ideas and stories about food, agriculture, and local and regional food systems and we'll share them. Call, email, write, videotape, photograph, you name it, and thank you for taking the time.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
While certainly not the only standard, popular culture would seem to suggest as much. Not only is the Food Network thriving, but since 2003, we've seen a proliferation of books, movies, news stories, magazine articles and blogs on agriculture and food policy. It's not that such things weren't produced before 2003, but they now seem to be reaching public consciousness at new levels, thanks, it seems, to the joint efforts of the media, the Internet and, that old stand-by, word of mouth.
Documentaries like King Corn and Food, Inc. got the type of receptions normally reserved for blockbusters. But the latter, in particular, has also generated a counter movement, including a couple Web sites specifically set up to refute its assertions, SafeFoodInc.com and Monsanto's own "Fact Site on Food, Inc."
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
There are a lot more people thinking about their health these days and where their food comes from. Organic foods and superfoods like Acai on on the rise and will be for years to come. People are getting smarter and it is about time they do before our lifespans are cut even shorter by unhealthy food sources.
Submitted by: Anonymous on September 28, 2009 03:38 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
So, you know, Michelle set up that garden in the White House. One of the things that we're trying to do now is to figure out, can we get a little farmer's market outside of the White House -- I'm not going to have all y'all just tromping around -- (laughter) -- but right outside the White House so that we can -- and that is a win-win situation. It gives suddenly D.C. more access to good, fresh food, but it also is this enormous potential revenue maker for local farmers in the area. And those kids of connections can be made all throughout the country and has to be part of how we think about health.
Well, this new market should satisfy his needs. It has a current slate of eighteen vendors offering fruits, veggies, meats, seafood, baked goods, dairy products, wool, honey and flowers.
The President is not scheduled to be at today's opening. Instead, word is Mrs. Obama, Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty will lend their star power to the event.
Truth is, though, most of us won't be able to get ourselves down to the 800 block of Vermont Avenue, NW today or even most other Thursday afternoons, but don't let that discourage you. Instead, seek out your own nearby farmers market to get fresh-from-the-farm produce, dairy and meats. Many markets run year-round, so you can always get the best seasonal offerings straight from the hands that picked 'em (at least figuratively speaking).
And we know, affordability and access are key. The White House market, like many others, accepts SNAP benefits and participates in the WIC and Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs. But thanks to grants and private donations, the FreshFarm Markets, including the one near the White House, kick those benefits up a notch, giving double their dollar value to program participants.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
And Mark Bittman's recent interview with Kass in Men's Health included Kass' simple yet delicious recipe for couscous with chard, fresh fish, and tomatoes. "Everyone -- everyone -- should have couscous in their kitchen," Kass opined. "You can make it in 5 minutes and it's terrific." (I don't disagree, but I encourage you to add quinoa to the list of must-haves. It's fantastic.)
In the same interview, Kass praised the most ordinary of dishes, stew. "To me," he said,"that's the ideal dish. You can do the prep in a half hour. You can finish the cooking in a half hour, and you can eat it for a week." (It also helps you get your veggies.)
If you've been paying attention, you might have noticed a theme to Kass' offerings: fresh, minimally-processed, simply-prepared dishes that allow the food itself to speak clearly. No heavy sauces, light on the salt, clean on the palate.
It's a general recipe we can all follow to eat better and feel better. It also yields some pretty fantastic meals.
Okay, so there's your virtual Sam Kass. It's not the same as having him cook for you, but then you knew that wasn't gonna happen, right?
Instead, when you're in your own kitchen, cooking for yourself and your family, you can always turn to NAL's Food and Nutrition Information Center and Nutrition.gov for tips on eating well. The info provided won't have that celebrity glow, but then you won't have to clear the Secret Service to get it either. And when the family's hungry, that's got to be a plus, right?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
What's your memory of the food served at your school cafeteria?
Maybe you saw a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables, but that's not the way I recall things. And school lunches got a bit of a bad rap as a result. (Well, that, and the mystery meat medley, of course.)
The last few years have seen efforts to change all that, both because of the rise in childhood obesity and because of the movement toward eating locally.
One program supporting that change began modestly in 2000 and has expanded into 40 states in just nine years. The National Farm to School Network exists to help bring farm products directly to school meal programs. Along the way, the groups at both ends of the exchange -- farmers and children -- benefit, the farmers by gaining reliable, local markets for their fare and the children by having fresh, nutritious foods regularly available.
In addition, a nutrition- and agricultural-based education program gave students a glimpse into where their food comes from, what it takes to grow it and ways we can all support the environment. In turn, the farmers strengthened their connection to their communities by hosting farm visits and talking about their work.
The "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative won't stop there, however. Across the board, USDA will be looking for ways that existing programs can be used to break down barriers that have stood in the way of local and regional food systems. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, what is your memory of the food served at your school cafeteria? Or if you have kids, what do they think of their schools' offerings? Are school meals better or worse than they once were? Are we moving in the right direction? Let us know below.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack took the media to task yesterday about the persistent use of the misnomer "swine flu" to refer to the H1N1 virus.
Each time the term ["swine flu"] is used it unfairly hurts America's farmers who are suffering severe economic losses during these challenging economic times. And each time the media uses the phrase "swine flu" a hog farmer, their workers and their families suffer.
Yes, H1N1 includes genetic material from swine influenza viruses, but it is, in fact, a novel strain with a distinctive makeup that blends genetic material from swine, avian and human influenza viruses. As such it is unique and has not been seen before in humans, birds or pigs.
Also important to note:
The H1NI virus is not known to exist in U.S. swine herds, though the Department is monitoring for such an appearance.
Pork is safe to eat. This flu is a respiratory disease, not a foodborne disease, so you can't get the flu from eating pork.
And pigs are not involved in the transmission cycle. The virus is transmitted human to human, so you have be more careful around your friends and family than around any pigs you might encounter.
And remember, urged Vilsack, that "behind that [incorrect] message there is a family sitting at a breakfast table wondering how in the hell they are going to pay the bills, when they continually have to sell pork for less than what it costs to produce as they continue to get hammered for something that they had absolutely nothing to do with."
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
‘Swine flu' may be a misnomer for the H1N1 virus, but we must still acknowledge the role that commonplace factory farming methods can and have played in human infectious diseases. The major US meat producers continue to non-therapeutically feed antimicrobials and hormones to farm animals to speed their growth and prevent the incidence and spread of disease. This is only necessary because of the intensive confinement of these animals in unhygienic conditions—that is, conditions that would otherwise slow their growth and shrink production output. This is particularly alarming, as many in the scientific community have suggested that these routine practices lead to treatment-resistant strains of bacteria and viruses that are detrimental to human health.
The non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70% of all antimicrobials used in the US are given to farm animals for non-therapeutic treatment—that is, we are expending the vast majority of these resources on healthy animals in our food system and not on sick people. This is a dangerous reality that has real consequences.
In a 2005 exposé, the Washington Post linked the outbreak of H5N1 (better know as the avian flu) to the long term, non-therapeutic use of antiviral medications on Chinese poultry farms. These doping practices made the virus resistant to many potentially life-saving drugs, making the outbreak of H5N1 much more difficult to contain. Evidence of this pattern is also emerging about outbreaks of MRSA, salmonella, E. coli, and even H1N1.
The European Union has taken steps to ban the use of antibiotics of human importance in farm animals for non-treatment purposes. Why is the US not at least taking a closer look at how our typical farming methods affect human health?
The bottom line is that we must rethink how animals are raised for food in the US. It is a broken system that cannot be sustained in the long run, not only from an environmental standpoint, but from a human health one as well. Yes, it is unfair to pork producers to perpetuate falsehoods about H1N1, but big agribusiness needs to take responsibility for its role in human health by reducing intensive confinement practices and the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics and hormones.
Submitted by: Lauren Roberts on November 9, 2009 02:26 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Libraries are, by design, intellectually neutral territory, hubs for rational exchange that give credence to the many facets of an issue, the many sides of an argument. This library is no different.
With that in mind, I'm venturing into the current cultural food wars with a quick review of a few recent offerings from different points along the ideological spectrum. All look at the American agricultural system, but each delivers its own perspective, biases and solutions.
Read them all and you should come away with a fair idea of the issues on the table, along with the multiple points of contention -- at least those present in the (more-or-less) popular media.
Time re-entered the food fray yesterday with its lengthy cover story, "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food." It's main message: The current industrial food system cannot be sustained nor can it sustain us. The solution proposed: "A distributed system of many local or regional food producers" instead of large-scale, industrial farms, and a shift in how we all think of food."
Coming from another direction, Blake Hurst's "The Omnivore's Delusion," from last month's The American magazine, vigorously defends modern agriculture and the experience, care and knowledge today's farmers bring to the process. As a long-time farmer, Hurst also highlights the consequences, many unintended or overlooked, of different production methods. In other words, states Hurst, "there are environmental and food safety costs to whatever kind of farming we choose. . . . But farmers have reasons for their actions, and society should listen to them."
"Spoiled: Organic and Local Is So 2008," Paul Roberts' piece from Mother Jones, puts traditional and organic farming through their paces, finding problems with each. Farming's future, Roberts opines, will not be found in some variation of current practice. Instead, "we're going to need not only new methods for producing food, but a whole new set of assumptions about what sustainability really means."
Similarly, James McWilliams, in an April interview in the Dallas Morning News, proves nettlesome to both sides. He roasts industrial agriculture for ignoring its detrimental impact on the environment but also skewers the locavore movement for its narrow emphasis on food miles. His agricultural future relies upon concessions from all comers, including consumers. "We [need to] stop polarizing our discussions of food into big industrial and small organic, and start seeking common ground over compromises that split differences."
Of course, food, along with the systems that generate it, is endlessly complex. These articles, then, are just drops in the bucket when it comes to really understanding what it takes to feed the people of this country (if not the world). Perhaps they've sparked your interest in learning more. I hope so.
To get started, explore NAL's Web site. Not just one page. A lot of it.
And if you've got other articles to recommend, leave a note here. Reading other points of view, like eating your vegetables, is good for you. Trust me on that. I'm a librarian.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Wow! It is "a jungle out there" - in my cupboard. I do think we all have lots to learn about the real (& unreal) possibilities and expectations we embrace with regard to food and the future (however long or short-term we might be able and willing to consider).
Thanks for this neat overview and your invitation to expand our knowledge and understanding! Some common ground will be nice to share, when/if we might find that, :)
- Karl Schneider
Submitted by: Karl S on August 24, 2009 07:25 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
How crazy does the food at state and county fairs have to be before the people of this fine country say "Enough already!"? Apparently, even more crazy than it's getting. Much more crazy.
Long gone are the days when corndogs and candy or caramel apples are the full extent of stick-borne food. And only the culinary fuddy-duddies limit themselves to potatoes out of the deep fryer.
These days, adventure at the fair is not limited to the thrill rides.
You can also distract yourself from the sudden cravings by letting us know about the craziest fair food you've ever seen. The typing will also help burn off a few calories. You might need that when you finally break down and head for the fair.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I remember our former colleague Iris Lee commenting that on a recent trip to Taiwan she had a difficult time at the theater trying to watch a movie. It seems all the patrons in front of her were busily munching on duck heads on a stick.
Submitted by: Jeff Maier on July 30, 2009 04:27 PM
Ewwwww!
Um, thanks for sharing . . . I think.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on July 30, 2009 05:08 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Wow, the folks downtown have been busy, and I hate to admit it, but I have not been paying them enough attention. Time to make up for that.
USDA recently launched a new Web site, RuralTour.gov, that lets you know where Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been and where he's going on the Obama Administration's Rural Tour. He'll be joined by a variety of Administration Officials and Cabinet Secretaries as they visit rural communities asking for people's thoughts on how to best rebuild and revitalize America. They're definitely seeking input, feedback and opinions, so if you can't make one of the tour's stops, you can submit your ideas online. The tour also has a Twitter feed, so check there for the latest info fresh from the road.
Secretary Vilsack has also committed a lot of time and attention to the new Food Safety Working Group, a team he co-chaired with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The Working Group has been formed to coordinate Federal food safety efforts and develop short- and long-term agendas to make food safer. It released its key findings just last week, after which the co-chairs participated in a online chat about the results and related food and public health issues.
Another new Web site highlights the Department's efforts to spark economic recovery and restore jobs. This site, http://www.usda.gov/recovery, also serves as a venue for Americans to share stories and provide feedback about how USDA stimulus funding is impacting their community. The site delivers a slick interactive map that allows anyone to see where and how those funds are being invested across the country.
The folks at Headquarters have also planted their flag on YouTube, establishing a USDA channel on the popular video site. That ag channel, part of the larger U.S. Government channel, currently hosts 55 videos, but that number is expected to grow quickly, so keep checking back.
And speaking of planting and growing, the Department is also nurturing what they've called The People's Garden, an organic garden on the grounds of the Whitten Building, adjacent to the National Mall. The garden is both beautiful and productive -- harvests are donated to a local food bank -- but it is primarily intended as an educational tool, demonstrating the simple ways we can all support healthy eating and a healthy environment. The garden is also playing host to a series of "Healthy Garden" Workshops every Friday from noon to 12:30pm through September 25th and is offering tours every Tuesday and Thursday at 1:00pm through the summer, the latter according to the People's Garden Twitter feed.
Does this list jibe with your priorities for the Department? Anything missing?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Well great if this tour is to really create good, however the bills before the house say otherwise, not to mention the leaders advising the president. The problem with the Us Agricultural sector is GMO's Monsanto and all the other Chemical Companies who have poisoned the food, the water , destroyed the environment and created such sickness in once a great bountiful country. If you are serious about doing good then the only way to go is to honour the farmer, get rid of Monsanto & all other companies who are so violent and destructive to life. Respect Mother nature and care for her then people are healthy the environment is healthy. The only true way forward is sustainable farming practices who respect mother earth, Biodynamics is the only way forward which will clean up the devastation wrought by these destructive companies, providing highly nutritiuos food which in turn creates healthy people. Every farmer respected, big business out of farming chemicals banned,GMO's banned, food commodities out of the stock market. The natural cycles respected.
Then & only then will you have a chance of creating a healthy environment with healthy people who will be free of this chemical cocktail and the drug drip system of big Pharma. So you also create a situation where the health system will be free of these parasites who create the sickness to begin with. We can only hope you do the right thing, we would like to see this reflected in the bills before the house and you free this country of this sick cartel of the chemical , GMO drug and weapon companies. They should all be banned then the natural environment & man can have a chance.
So take your wifes Organic Garden out to the wider farming world. Biodynamics is somewhat more sophisticated and very potent form of Organic farming. I suggest also stop the chem trails, Haarp, and all the other destructive devices at use in that country all of which have a negative effect. Get back to life, stay away from death.
Submitted by: Anonymous on July 28, 2009 09:27 AM
Mary Ann,
Thanks for providing a synopsis of what's going at HQ - we have little time to wade through all this information so your efforts to summarize are appreciated.
When I first heard of the "People's Garden", I did not realize that they were donating the produce to a local food bank. Perhaps that is "food for thought" for us to follow suit and produce a garden to benefit a food bank here in our Beltsville community.
Submitted by: Lori Finch on July 28, 2009 01:06 PM
There is some some really good and serious information here; Biodynamics, Organic farming, sustainable farming practices, healthy environment Human Health are all linked.
[gratuitous link removed]
Submitted by: steve stamos on July 29, 2009 05:30 AM
Going to head on over to RuralTour.gov and see what that's all about.
The Green Team
Submitted by: Brian on August 10, 2009 07:53 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I've been off for a couple of weeks, learning about leadership and learning about myself. As you can imagine, after ten days away from the office, I'm a bit behind on emails and other assorted tasks, so I'm just popping up a quick posting today.
This one comes thanks to a dark blue pick-up truck I saw parked in Shepherdstown, West Virginia.
Truer words have ne'er been spoken, or, for that matter, printed on a bumper sticker.
Got any other ag-related bumper sticker wisdom to share? Now's the time, and this here's the place. Have at it.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Mary Ann -
OK! Welcome back, and thanks for the neat bumper sticker note and photo. This fits rather well with a few of my own musings along similar lines. I think I mentioend here at least once my "F2-E2" idea (Food is Fundamental - Everyone Eats).
Then recently, at the AgNIC meetings hosted here in Beltsville, some discussions led to the utterance of "Evidence Based Eating".
Maybe that could do for NAL something like what Evidence Based Medicine did/is doing for NLM. Well, we *can* hope, anyway... Remember, you "are what you eat", so be careful, :).
Thanks again, and welcome home (again)!
- Karl
Submitted by: Karl S on May 5, 2009 02:07 PM
Thanks for the comment, Karl.
I went shopping on Flickr for some additional bumper stickers that relate here. The following represent a few of my favorites:
My favourite is "Soil. Don't treat it like dirt" but I can't remember where I saw it. Somewhere in Iowa, I think.
[Full disclosure: J submitted this comment on the tail end of my posting on nutrition assistance. I have moved it here to put it in its proper context.]
Submitted by: J on May 6, 2009 10:19 AM
Mary Ann,
Hi! This is my first to visit your blog. I really do not see bumper stickers like that. Well, i need to admit that this bumper stickers will help to open the eyes of other people. Thank you for sharing.
Regards,
Jiet
Submitted by: Jiet on May 10, 2009 11:55 PM
Thanks for posting this.
Submitted by: Joanne Rigutto on May 12, 2009 07:14 PM
very nice bumper sticker - i will take it also in bavarian / Germany and link your site on InfoFARM.de ;-) my Website for agriculture in Germany.
Regards,
W. Janka
Submitted by: Janka on May 15, 2009 03:46 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Amid the weakening economy, American families are turning in ever-increasing numbers toward the government for food assistance. New figures show that a record 32.2 million people, almost one in ten Americans, are now enrolled in the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program.
Notably, the record-setting itself is a trend. The January record is the third time over the previous five months that enrollment figures passed previous highs.
Clearly, the financial recession is taking its toll on low-income Americans.
But if there's any good news here it's that so many of those in need are pursuing assistance.
Research indicates, however, that fully one-third of those eligible are still not receiving benefits. That's approximately 12 million people not getting the help available to them, and untold millions of dollars not making their way into local economies. (Every $5 in SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in total economic activity.)
With those kinds of numbers, USDA has made it a priority to ensure that people who need the program get it. Toward that end, the Department announced earlier this month that it will award grants of up to $5 million to help make SNAP more accessible by simplifying the application and intake process.
Less red tape is a good thing, yes?
Also a good thing: more money. The recent stimulus package will pump up nutrition benefits at the rate of 13.6 percent per month. That translates into roughly $80 more per family of four each month, beginning in April.
No one in America should go hungry. That's why we have SNAP. If you or folks you know are having to choose between buying enough food and paying for basic life necessities, please contact your local SNAP office.
Or, if you're a nutrition educator or program administrator, check out the extensive SNAP-Ed Connection Web site. The site, a treasure-trove of training and continuing ed resources, delivers curricula, lesson plans, recipes, research, participant materials and professional development tools.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
There is no reason that anyone should go hungry in this country. The government is in a financial crisis partly (or mostly) due to their reckless spending with no accountability. Let's get it together and actually do what is best for the people in this country.
Submitted by: Dr Vic Kalman on April 10, 2009 11:45 PM
My favourite is "Soil. Don't treat it like dirt" but I can't remember where I saw it. Somewhere in Iowa, I think.
Submitted by: J on May 6, 2009 03:27 AM
Less red tape is certainly a good thing along with increasing awareness of who is actually eligible for assistance.
Increasing the quality of nutrition in the typical Western acid diet is also important. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 report talks of consuming between 5-13 servings of fruit and vegetables per day.
It is amazing that there can be people going hungry in a country as rich as the U.S.!
Submitted by: Andy on May 12, 2009 07:32 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Would you believe me if I told you spaghetti grows on trees? Or that the dreaded spaghetti weevil threatens this year's harvest?
In 1957 hundreds of Brits fell for it when a popular BBC television program, Panorama, ended its April 1st broadcast with a short segment on Switzerland's bumper spaghetti crop that year. [Original BBC Video]
"The last two weeks of March are an anxious time for the spaghetti farmer," the announcer sonorously intoned, carrying off the joke with his gravitas and some well-crafted footage of the "harvest."
But the Brits who fell for the hoax were not easily convinced otherwise. Even after the BBC fessed up, calls continued to flood their switchboard. Operators delivered this standard reply to those wanting to grow their own spaghetti tree: "Place a sprig of spaghetti in a tin of tomato sauce and hope for the best."
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
terrific site this weblogs.nal.usda.gov terrific to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor :)
Submitted by: irrinnaFub on April 10, 2009 06:55 PM
I love you because you love this.
Submitted by: Robert on April 11, 2009 12:56 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Yesterday, the Senate held its confirmation hearing for Gov. Tom Vilsack, President-elect Obama's pick for the next Secretary of Agriculture.
The hearing touched upon the most, if not all, of the major agricultural issues facing the new administration, including renewable energy, food safety, sustainable ag, rural development, trade issues, farm subsidies and commodity programs.
But some of the most enthusiastic language came in support of childhood nutrition and school lunches.
We can work with our schools to make sure fruits and vegetables are available. . . . We will be very aggressive in this area. . . . It’s going to be important for us to promote fresh fruits and vegetables as part of our children’s diets. . . . That means supporting those who supply those products.
Such ideas are in keeping with Obama's plan to work through the USDA's various nutrition programs to end childhood hunger by 2015.
The hearing, which ran just over two hours, is available as a Webcast from the Senate Ag Committee's site.
From all reports, Gov. Vilsack is expected to be confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture as early as Tuesday and sworn in soon after.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Will my daughter eat fruits and vegetables? Nutrition is good, as a small farmer I really would like more support. How are they going to get kids to eat fruits and vegetables though?
Submitted by: BradJ on February 26, 2009 05:51 PM
In the next administration, I would like to see a stronger push for organic produce at affordable prices. We need to support small farmers who choose to produce organic crops. Currently, the Agricultural Management Assistance Program reimburses 15 states in the cost to attain organic certification. However, more needs to be done, and I hope the reappointment of the National Organic Standards Board will help get the ball rolling in the non-pesticide direction.
Submitted by: Jessica G. on March 16, 2009 09:13 AM
Very nice site!
Submitted by: John1410 on May 19, 2009 07:47 AM
Terrific info! will come back...
Submitted by: immutleReully on May 20, 2009 06:44 AM
Outstanding page. i will definitely come back again soon.
Submitted by: saunseetherma on May 21, 2009 06:30 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
What is the connection between what you eat and how you feel?
Does the way an animal or crop is raised impact its nutritional value?
How are farming methods contributing to environmental problems and human health issues?
These questions and others like them represent the crossroads of agriculture and public health, that complex interdependency between what we eat and how it is raised with our individual and collective well-being.
They are the kinds of questions that seem to be popping up more and more, from the mainstream press to scientific journals and trade publications.
But clearly the frequency of the questions does not mean we have answers. In fact, as any researcher knows, most so-called answers just lead to more questions, more debate and more avenues for research.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Hey! What a rich and inviting pool you left for exploration here. Thanks!!
These connections are not new. JI Rodale started "Prevention" magazine - then soon added "Organic Gardening." This witnesses his belief in food production and health outcome relationships.
Thanks for these neat notes!
- Karl
Submitted by: Karl Schneider on November 4, 2008 09:55 PM
I take your point, Karl, that the ag-health connection isn't new, but I do see these recurring ideas as falling along a spiral. That is, we've not come back to the same point so much as we've spiraled upward. The view from here is similar, but we are further along -- at least I trust that we are.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 5, 2008 11:23 AM
Great point, MA! Good idea the spiral! Not in the same place, but with progress we cycle. Thanks for that positive note, :).
- K
[Note: Karl's response was originally posted as a comment to the following post on "Ag at the Polling Place." I've moved it here to continue the thread to which he is responding. -- Mary Ann]
Submitted by: Karl on November 6, 2008 10:00 AM
The gateway provides a central starting point for anyone interested in exploring the ag-public health connection. Keep up the awesome work, dude.
Submitted by: Water Damage on November 21, 2008 08:12 AM
I would like to encourage young farmers to consider diversifying their operations by adding a hydroponic green house. Growing food locally is a massive trend in the food production industry and it is being supported by corporate power houses like Walmart and many other grocery chains. Hydroponic growing uses 1/10 the amount of water and 1/10 the amount of land required to produce traditional field row crops. You can produce a crop all year long and smooth out some of the volatility that you are exposed to in other markets. I am not suggesting you change your whole operation, just trim off an acre.
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
Submitted by: Alex Tiller on November 26, 2008 01:42 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I'm turning the blog-waves over to USDA today to help get the word out about the upcoming Agricultural Outlook Forum, February 26-27, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia.
This year's presenters and break-out sessions will deliver on the theme "Global Agriculture & Rural America in Transition."
You'll hear scientific, policy, business and marketing perspectives on a range of ag issues, from food safety to food security, from rural America to world markets, and from conservation efforts to developments in biotechnology.
The then Secretary of Agriculture will give the keynote, with an as-yet-unnamed distinguished guest speaker to follow.
Got any ideas who that distinguished guest speaker should be? I'm collecting suggestions below. Who knows, the conference planners just might listen.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I wait, when can you send me more information about health?
Submitted by: jhjityiity on October 30, 2008 09:58 AM
For health info, you can start by checking out the "Food and Nutrition" entries on this blog, or visit the following sites:
Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 30, 2008 10:13 AM
Just to make it interesting, how about Mr. Pollan. :-)
Submitted by: Bill Harshaw on October 30, 2008 12:27 PM
Bill,
That was the first name that came to mind when I answered my own question. I didn't want to sway the input by mentioning him though.
I agree that Pollan would add an interesting element to the day.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 30, 2008 02:13 PM
Wow, Polan, sure... How about some of the folks from JHU "Ag and Public Health" -of Nov 4 post, here.
How about Pollan for Sec of Ag?. Who would *he* invite, :)
- Karl
Submitted by: Karl Schneider on November 4, 2008 10:29 PM
Great question! Who would Pollan invite?
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 5, 2008 11:31 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
It's never wise to gamble your life savings on a poker game, but if you've seen the latest food price projections, you can understand the temptation.
On Friday USDA's Economic Research Service released its current forecast, and it doesn't look so good. Food prices are expected to rise 5% to 6%, despite the recent drops in oil.
Maybe you don't want to hear about it. After all, you're going to know soon enough, like the next time you go buy a dozen eggs. But maybe you're the kind who needs to put it in context. If so, read on.
Forget the statistical averages based on official price indices. This is person-in-the-street reality pricing.
BBC reporters are heading to the same stores each week and noting the prices for five of that country's staple foods. (These are foods that are most likely to be found in the typical shopper's grocery bag.)
For example, here in Washington, DC that means bread, milk, potatoes, beef and eggs. In Delhi, it shifts to rice, ground flour, lentils, onions and milk. You get the idea.
Then those costs are tracked over time.
At this point, the BBC's pricing index has been active for only a few weeks, but you can see how, so far, some places have held steady more or less (Brussels, DC, Moscow), while others have taken a bit of a ride (Jakarta, Skopje).
Then, on each city's page (linked via the city names above), you can see what item on the list might be driving the price change. For example, potatoes take the blame in Skopje, while in Jakarta, it's clearly eggs, at least at the moment.
Where will prices head next week? Next month? Next year? Keep an eye on the BBC price index, and you'll find out. Maybe seeing it in these colorful little charts will help you prepare for seeing it on the stickers at the store.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
All this while, in the United States alone, we waste over a quarter of the country's food -- about 96 billion pounds -- every year [based on 1995 data (PDF | 104KB)].
Globally, we have seen some progress, but far too many children and adults go to sleep hungry every night.
So long as freedom from hunger is only half achieved, so long as two-thirds of the nations have food deficits, no citizen, no nation, can afford to be satisfied. We have the ability, as members of the human race, we have the means, we have the capacity to eliminate hunger from the face of the earth in our lifetime. We need only the will.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Hi, Do something to help those hungry people in Africa or India.
Submitted by: cheritycall on October 27, 2008 07:39 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bob Dole and George McGovern will formally receive the 2008 World Food Prize today in a ceremony in Des Moines, Iowa. The two former senators and presidential candidates are being honored for creating the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Nutrition Program.
Since 2000, the program has provided meals to feed more than 22 million children in 41 countries and boosted school attendance by an estimated 14 percent overall and by 17 percent for girls.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The name change, a product of the new Farm Bill, more accurately reflects what the program is about, namely, food assistance and nutrition education.
The image above comes from the SNAP Photo Gallery, which serves up a collection of photos depicting nutrition education and outreach messages. These photos, available in both low- and high-resolution, cover food shopping, meals and meal prep, nutrition education and physical activities.
The photos are designed for use by nutrition educators and others involved in administering the program, but in fact, anyone may use them for any non-profit promotion, informational or educational purpose.
The gallery is part of the larger SNAP-Ed Connection site put together by a team of some great folks who happen to sit just down the hall from me.
The site, a treasure-trove of training and continuing ed resources, delivers curricula, lesson plans, research, participant materials and professional development tools for nutrition educators. It also includes an amazing recipe database (which I've actually mentioned before), that lets you use up the last of whatever you've got in the pantry or fridge by searching by ingredients. Or, if you're working under a budget, search for recipes by cost per serving.
If you're prone to weak puns, you might say it's a snap -- but I would never do such a thing.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
On the one hand, it means that lots of foods you regularly buy in grocery stores will be sporting a sticker, a stamped rubber band or a modified wrapper -- or will be displayed under signs -- letting you know where they came from.
Foods required to be labeled include:
raw beef, veal, lamb, pork, goat, and chicken
fish and shellfish, whether wild or farm-raised
fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables
peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts
ginseng
However, not every place you buy food is covered by the law. Butcher shops, fish markets and smaller grocers that invoice less than $230,000 annually are off the hook, as are the country's restaurants, cafeterias and food stands.
Add to that that plenty of foods aren't on that list because they've been "processed," and you'll still find plenty of foods not labeled through COOL.
A package of raw chicken legs is covered. Breaded chicken fingers are not. (The breading makes them processed.)
Farm-raised salmon is covered. Smoked salmon is not. (Hot or cold smoking makes them processed.)
Frozen peas are covered. Canned peas are not. (Because they're cooked on the way to being canned.)
Fresh strawberries are covered. Dried strawberries are not. (Drying changes things.)
Raw peanuts are covered. Roasted peanuts are not. (Yup, the roasting does it.)
Even combining a couple of things that are covered by the rule makes the uncovered, so strike the frozen peas and carrots medley from the COOL list.
But that doesn't mean you'll never know where your peas-and-carrots blend came from. Anything pre-packaged abroad remains covered by the Tariff Act of 1930 and will still be marked as an import despite its exclusion from COOL.
On the other hand, if those peas and carrots are imported to the U.S. in bulk, and then combined and packaged here, then they'll have no label.
Yes, it can be confusing, but USDA is working on it.
Earlier today the Department held a news conference about the rule's implementation. There Under Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight noted that they've received 175 to 200 comments on the rule and will be taking those under advisement. Now, however, the rule is going forward as-is.
How are you feeling about it: Confused? Pleased? Irritated?
A Consumer Reports poll from June 2007 indicated that "92 percent of consumers agree that imported foods should be labeled by their country of origin," but does this rule get it done for you? Let us know.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I am glad to see some changes being made and encourage even more acurate labeling. I was surprised the other day when I got home from the grocery store (I was in a hurry there and didn't really pay attention to all the labeling) and the beef I planned to cook for supper had a small label on it that said "from USA or Mexico". I had assumed all the fresh meat we buy here would have been produced here and really felt that I had been caught off guard against something that I should not have even had to be concerned about - sort of swindled in a way. I guess it is customer beware, but I feel like we owe it to people to do the best possible job to keep our food supply as safe as possible and to support USA agriculture as much as possible. We see what kind of shap we are in by depending on foreign countries for oil. Woe unto us if we ever become so dependent on others for food!!!
Thanks for the labels - I will watch more closely!
Submitted by: Anonymous on October 2, 2008 12:13 PM
Oh, yes, meat's treatment under COOL can be rather confusing. The FAQ on COOL gives more detail, but in short, meat is labeled as "from the U.S." (and only the U.S.) only if the animals are born, raised and slaughtered here, or spend less than 60 days passing through Canada on the way from Alaska to slaughter in the lower 48.
If U.S. cattle or meat is "commingled" on production day with that from Mexico and/or Canada, then the label will reflect this mixed origin (e.g., "Product of U.S., Canada and Mexico").
Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 3, 2008 04:58 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Do you remember the big beef recall from earlier this year? That recall was prompted by a videotape showing workers at Westland's California slaughterhouse using a variety of cruel and inhumane methods to get "downer" cattle to stand for pre-slaughter inspection.
Yesterday the USDA announced a proposed rule to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to prevent such downer cattle from entering the food supply at all. Instead, under the proposed rule, any cattle that becomes "non-ambulatory" at any time prior to slaughter would be condemned and disposed of.
This new rule would apply even to cattle that have already passed initial inspection.
This complete ban is meant to simplify and clarify inspection standards to prevent any further misunderstanding of the rules regarding downer cattle. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer also hopes it will "maintain consumer confidence in the food supply, . . . and, ultimately, . . . make a positive impact on the humane handling of cattle."
Do you think the proposed rule works? Do you see loopholes that need to be closed? Or does it over-step, hurting ranchers and/or meat producers in the process?
Given the widespread and vocal response to the beef recall in February, I'm guessing you have an opinion. Share it with us below.
And if you really want to participate in government, go a step further and submit your comments on the proposed rule to USDA. You'll find the full instructions for doing so in the last few paragraphs of yesterday's press release. The deadline is September 29, 2008.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Nice bog you have here. I pretty much lurk the internet when I'm bored and read all I can about the organic lifestyle, but I really liked you view on things. I'll bookmark the site and subscribe to the feed!
Submitted by: Acai Cleanse on September 4, 2008 08:52 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Good thing, too, since a sizable chunk of the U.S. now finds itself smack dab in the middle of fresh tomato season. After all, when folks have kitchen counters laden with golden, red and green tomatoes of various shapes and sizes, they can't really brook another story about what diseases could be lurking there, even if their backyard crop is a thousand miles or more from the alleged ground zero.
Enter Arthur Allen, whose centuries-spanning look at the tomato gets us back to the love so many feel for this succulent gift of summer.
Allen's article, "A Passion for Tomatoes" (Smithsonian, August 2008) wends its way from industrial production to organic farms, from genetic hybrids to heirlooms, and from 16th century Mexico to 21st century laboratories. He also criss-crosses the country, riding shotgun during a California tomato harvest and tasting transgenic varieties in Florida, all in an effort to understand the journey this favored veggie (fruit?) has traveled.
The piece delivers a well-timed reminder of how varied and valuable the tomato is, as if six weeks without them didn't remind us enough.
And Americans do love their tomatoes. They rank as the fourth most popular fresh-market vegetable behind potatoes, lettuce, and onions, and the country is one of the leading suppliers to the world, second only to China. (We're second to China a lot these days.)
But this summer I'm seeing that nothing can spoil tomato love like having too many of them. We're already pushing bags of them onto friends and looking for ideas on what to do with what's left.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Just because this always comes to mind during Tomato conversations:
YouTube - You Say 'Tomato', I say 'Tomato'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls
Submitted by: Donna Herendeen on August 25, 2008 05:42 PM
Torrents, tomato(es), lots of sweet summer treats. Thanks for your fine work here! Rich and thick, cornstarch like was Donna's added YouTube tomato talk routine. What fun!
Thanks, again!
Submitted by: Karl Schneider on August 27, 2008 09:07 PM
After reading through some of the other food and nutrition articles and posts, I stumbled upon this tomato/ salmonella topic. I feel that salmonella has been hitting the media all too frequently, lately. Last summer it was tomatoes, and more recently it has been peanuts. Stronger regulations of the handling of food at lower stages of food processing are needed. Considering the Salmonella outbreak has spread throughout 45 different states, there may be a more cost effective way to combat this problem rather than have a multitude of state and local agencies working on the same problem. More effective monitoring of food imported from other countries and stricter sanitary guidelines may help to reduce or even eliminate the disease. Also, more awareness of how this disease is spread, through animal or human feces, will promote more hygienic practices. If the disease is found, timelier responses and treatments are needed.
Submitted by: Shannon B on March 12, 2009 02:16 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
How much are you willing to pay for a bunch of grapes?
That's all?
What if they're really, really tasty, "sweet but fresh at the same time, very well-balanced," and a product of 14 years of government-sponsored research?
The newest delicacy, the Ruby Roman, a tomato-red grape about the size of a pingpong ball, obviously piqued the curiosity of those Japanese willing to pay luxury prices to have something unique.
The average price paid for the new variety hovered around $245 per bunch, which, you gotta admit, is amazingly steep, especially compared to the still-lofty $90 per bunch the highly favored Muscat of Alexandria grape garners in Tokyo markets.
When looked at in that light, I'm not sure what made the $910 bunch so special.
But the Japanese have shown themselves quite willing to pay a premium for fruit with built-in status.
In 2001 square watermelons hit the Japanese market at $83 each. I never heard how good they tasted, but they were touted for their simplified storage, easy cutting and unique look, all of which I can appreciate but still wouldn't pay fifteen times over average for.
How about you? How much would you pay for a funky fruit? Is the novelty really worth the expense?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Everybody wants to know what's pushing food prices. Everybody also has an answer.
Of course, the answers are all different. Too many people, too much ethanol, too little surplus. Bad policies, bad weather, bad luck.
In one way or the other, it seems they all end up at the old Econ 101 stand-by, supply and demand.
But we all know the answer is much more involved than can be delivered in a sound bite.
Two days ago, two different reports looking at the quick rise in food prices hit the streets, and they each try to give a fuller answer to this widespread question.
Both reports agree: The rise in food prices results from a complex interplay of factors.
The Farm Foundation report points to three high-level forces driving the price increases:
global changes in production and consumption of key commodities,
the depreciation of the dollar, and
growth in the production of biofuels.
The ERS report also includes these three factors, while adding on a few more, including rising energy costs, increases in agricultural costs of production, and even bad weather.
Of course, the economists from both research teams provide the charts, graphs and numbers to support these conclusions, though, interestingly, neither report tries to divvy up the responsibility for the price spikes among the contributing factors. (Those wielding agendas rarely show such restraint.)
I encourage you to read the reports yourself, but even moreso, I encourage you to resist the urge to oversimplify this complicated and involved issue.
Everybody's right on this one. The answer is "D. All of the above."
And it's going to take all of us to find our way through it.
With that in mind, what's your answer to the food crisis?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
If you're a typical American, you eat, on average, two bananas a week. And if you buy those bananas at a typical American grocery store, you're getting the same kind of banana each time, a variety called the Cavendish.
Fifty years ago, that was not the case.
My parents and grandparents grew up eating a different kind of banana, the Gros Michel, that, from all reports, was both tastier and better suited for export. But for all its popularity, the Gros Michel had a weakness: it was highly susceptible to Panama disease, a fungal disease that, over time, wiped out the Gros Michel.
Enter the Cavendish.
Resistant to the Panama disease that felled the Gros Michel, the Cavendish surged to the top export spot and never looked back. Now, however, its position is threatened, not by a competing cultivar, but by a strain of Panama disease that neither it nor its growers can combat.
Back in March NAL hosted a forum that examined this situation, along with the importance of bananas and plantains in meeting the food and economic needs in tropical regions around the world. As it turns out, the Cavendish is just one piece -- though certainly a big commercial piece -- in the sustaining role bananas play around the globe.
Nearly one thousand other varieties of bananas populate tropical regions, and most never leave their home countries. These other varieties sustain the farmers that grow them and serve as staples in their surrounding communities.
But economic forces are understandably pushing small growers to abandon these other varieties in favor of marketable ones. That trend, however, threatens banana diversity.
What can we do?
While scientists chart the banana's genome, preserve their genetic resources in genebanks, and work to counteract the diseases that plague them, consumers can help by buying more than just the Cavendish. Be willing to spend a little more to try something new and to send the message to your grocer that there is a market for other varieties and the products made from them.
You can also learn more about the banana in all its forms. Over the last two years alone three major books on the banana and its history -- political, cultural, economic and otherwise -- have hit the shelves:
My library colleagues have also pulled together a collection of resources covering the agricultural and scientific research focused on the banana, along with nutritional info and recipes.
Obviously, there is much to learn, but there is also much to eat. With over one thousand varieties of bananas out there, you'd better get started. Stop back to tell us which ones you like, and if you've got a good recipe for banana bread, send it along. It's one of my favs.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I can’t say I know a lot about bananas and I have never really looked for different varieties. Occasionally my local grocer will have plantains, but I will have to check to see if there are multiple varieties of bananas. –Thanks for calling this to my attention. Are any bananas being grown in the US right now? If so, where and what kind of volume?
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
Submitted by: Alex Tiller on June 25, 2008 02:26 PM
Alex,
According to USDA's Economic Research Service, "88 percent of all the U.S. farms producing bananas on a commercial scale were in Hawaii, with over 90 percent of total production acreage." (These numbers are based on the 2002 Census of Agriculture.)
That translates to about 20 million pounds of bananas out of Hawaii.
I'm still looking to see where the other 12 percent of banana-producing farms are in the U.S. I'd guess California and Florida, since they're the other locations known for growing tropical fruit, but I haven't found confirmation yet. Stay tuned.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on June 25, 2008 03:12 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Sounds like a oxymoron at best, or a scathing insult at worst.
But two recent articles from decidedly "city" papers have exposed some depth and texture to the phrase.
Six weeks ago the New York Times ran a piece describing the urban agriculture movement that has sprung up in the Bronx and Brooklyn, along with other cities like Detroit, Milwaukee and Oakland.
There, hardworking city residents with green thumbs and lots of heart are turning vacant lots into farming plots. The food grown feeds themselves and their neighbors. They make a profit for their efforts, but more importantly, they provide fresh, local produce in places not used to getting such quality affordably.
To many, UDC's position as a land grant university makes no sense, but to others, these programs and others highlight the important role the university can play in the community.
What do you think? Is there a place for education "related to agriculture and the mechanic arts" in cities such as D.C.? If you already consider yourself a "city farmer," where do you go to learn about crops, critters and composting?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
With fuel prices compounding the issues related to food prices, I am confident that we will see a renaissance in the ways and places people buy their food. It’s not just a matter of a consumer choosing to lower their carbon foot print. Local food may very well be cheaper once local distribution gets worked out.
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
Submitted by: Alex Tiller on June 25, 2008 02:30 PM
Thanks for the follow up.
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
Submitted by: Alex Tiller on June 26, 2008 02:01 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Today in Rome, heads of state from around the globe began an intensive three-day conference on food security, climate change and rising food and fuel prices. The conference, called by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is intended to help countries devise sustainable solutions to rising food prices and to address the growing challenges of climate change and energy security.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
What comes to mind when you think of Hawai'i? Paradise, right? Sun, sand, surf, warm breezes . . . I'm with you.
Okay, but what about Hawaiian food? My top three: pineapple, macadamia nuts, and poi. (Not that I've ever had poi, but too much television has undoubtedly shaped my perceptions.)
But Hawai'i is no longer paradise for the pineapple. That industry, so closely tied with many Americans' vision of Hawai'i, is showing signs of struggle.
In 2006, Del Monte planted its last crop of pineapple, citing the expense of growing in Hawai'i as the prime reason for shutting down operations after 90 years in the islands. Their departure leaves just two pineapple companies in the state, Dole Food Hawai'i and Maui Pineapple Co.
But last year, the latter shuttered its pineapple cannery, the last one in the U.S. The closure brought an end to an era for many Hawaiians, but the company remains, redirecting its attention to fresh fruit and juice in an effort to stay profitable.
The bottom line talks loudly. Growers in Thailand, the Philippines, Brazil, China, India and Costa Rica can produce the fruit more cheaply, thrusting these countries to the top of list of suppliers worldwide (XLS|41 KB). As a result, the pineapple might become more symbol than reality in Hawai'i. Only time -- and the market -- will tell.
But in honor of pineapple's long, deep history in Hawai'i, and in conjunction with Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, let me point you to a couple of unique resources from the Center for Oral History at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa that celebrate this fantastic fruit and the people who've brought it to us for decades.
The first, a short video clip (Quicktime | 4.4 MB), shows Venicia Guiala, a former pineapple field worker, demonstrating how she prepared for work in the hot, dusty pineapple fields. If you prefer, you can read the transcript, but I heartily recommend the video. Seeing Mrs. Guiala putting on her scarves, goggles and hat conveys more strongly than the words how difficult and uncomfortable that job must be.
The second provides a short introduction to the Center's oral history project on Women Workers in Hawai'i's Pineapple Industry, a combination of narrative and oral history excerpts.
But for a more contemporary twist on pineapple processing, check out this clip from YouTube. The music makes it an almost mesmerizingly peaceful experience. (Though I'd appreciate someone telling me what the song "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" has to do with peeling and coring pineapple.)
Finally, if you haven't given much thought to the role Asian-Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have played and continue to play in our country's agricultural endeavors, jump over to NAL's site on Asian Pacific Americans in agriculture. Among many other things, you can learn from the resources there the unique niche Chinese immigrants filled in 1850s California; the key role Filipinos played in the formation of the United Farm Workers; and the impact of Alien Land Laws on Japanese immigrant farmers.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Interesting blog post, Mary Ann. With Del Monte leaving Hawaii, the last two producers are Dole and Maui Pineapple. Maui Pine was the last to close their cannery on Maui, they did it earlier this year or late 2007. So all the fruit produced in Hawaii is for the fresh fruit market. The latest statistics shows that the acreage in pineapple in Hawaii is less than 14,000 acres and seed crops has now surpassed pineapple as the number crop in terms of farm gate values. Sugarcane, macadamia nuts and coffee round out the top 5. As for poi, taro, which is used to make poi, only 9% of the taro consumed in Hawaii is produced here. All of these statistics are from the NASS Hawaii state statistics.
Doug Vincent
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii
Submitted by: Doug Vincent on May 20, 2008 09:23 AM
Thanks for the added info, Doug. I have to admit that I did not even know that poi was made from taro. As my mom used to say, "You learn something new every day."
[Note to all: Doug originally submitted his comment in association with the entry "Amber Waves?", but I added it here to put it in its correct context.]
Submitted by: Mary Ann on May 20, 2008 09:29 AM
This decline in farming in the US is a call for citizens to celebrate the farming that still does exist. American Farmer (Welcome Books), coming out October 1, 2008, is a photographic book that does just that.
Paul Mobley's spectacular and telling images of farmers all over the states as well as Katrina Fried's interviews with farmers not only give readers insight into the importance of farming but they also make unknown farmers into familiar heros. Mr. Mobley traveled over 100,000 miles, from Alaska to Maine, taking over 20,000 photos in his quest to reveal the true face of American farming. American Farmer is a result of his journeys, and it will allow the public to understand the necessity and heroism of American Farming.
Check out the website for the book:
welcomebooks.com/americanfarmer
Submitted by: Welcome Books on June 11, 2008 02:50 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Are you feeling the pinch at the grocery store yet?
Higher food prices are creating unrest in some parts of the world and simple belt-tightening in others.
The Washington Post devoted this past week to exploring the current food crisis brought on by food shortages and spiking inflation. If you haven't yet read their five-part series, I recommend you do.
The New Economics of Hunger looks at skyrocketing grain prices and their impact on the global markets and the world's poor.
Where Every Meal Is a Sacrifice focuses on the situation in Mauritania and other poor countries that are forced to import most of their food.
Emptying the Breadbasket tells of the fall in wheat production in the U.S. as more farmers turn to corn and soybeans and examines some of the forces that led to the shift.
Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars examines the tug-of-war over corn as food and fuel and identifies the winners, losers and ongoing fighters in the battle.
Clipping, Scrimping, Saving registers the impact of rising prices on American consumers across income levels and reveals what steps folks are taking to save money.
Telling graphics accompany each article in the series and reveal the impact of globalization on the world's economy and families' food supplies.
You can also hear Dan Morgan, Washington Post agriculture reporter and one of the series' authors, talk about what he learned while researching the series in an interview on C-SPAN. Morgan also answer questions during the hour-long video.
Of course, the global reach of these events means that far more than just the Post is writing about them. For other perspectives, you might also want to dip into the BBC's extensive coverage or read The Economist's recent cover story on what they termed The Silent Tsunami.
Finally, for information about food aid available from USDA and the Administration's response to recent events, see the Department's Food Aid page.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Interesting blog post, Mary Ann. With Del Monte leaving Hawaii, the last two producers are Dole and Maui Pineapple. Maui Pine was the last to close their cannery on Maui, they did it earlier this year or late 2007. So all the fruit produced in Hawaii is for the fresh fruit market. The latest statistics shows that the acreage in pineapple in Hawaii is less than 14,000 acres and seed crops has now surpassed pineapple as the number crop in terms of farm gate values. Sugarcane, macadamia nuts and coffee round out the top 5. As for poi, taro, which is used to make poi, only 9% of the taro consumed in Hawaii is produced here. All of these statistics are from the NASS Hawaii state statistics.
Doug Vincent
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii.
Submitted by: Doug Vincent on May 19, 2008 06:14 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hosted by Brian Wansink, Executive Director of the CNPP, the podcast delivers a simple tour of the Menu Planner, highlighting its ease and effectiveness. Wansink also points out the Menu Planner's usefulness for assessing how balanced your diet is and determining what small dietary changes you have to make to improve things. You can also use it to help build a list of what foods you need to buy the next time you go shopping.
So, check out the Menu Planner and the other MyPyramid podcasts and discover how small steps really can make a difference in your weight and health. And bonus points to those who listen to the podcast while exercising. You're an inspiration to us all!
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
It's not often that we get two thought-provoking documentaries on agriculture and farming in the same week, but PBS is serving up a couple of conversation starters, beginning tonight.
"King Corn," a film looking at the corn's central role in American agriculture and food production, makes its television debut in just a few hours on the Emmy award-winning series Independent Lens, PBS's showcase for independent films. Not all PBS stations will be airing the show today, however, and many will be repeating it as well, so be sure to check your local listings for air times. You still might be able to catch it.
Here in the Washington area, Independent Lens will also be re-broadcasting "The Real Dirt on Farmer John" later this week, a 2006 film that follows an Illinois farmer, John Peterson, as he tries to transform his family farm in a way that is at odds with his community. Hopefully, this film too will crop up where you're at in the coming months, so keep checking those local listings.
If PBS lets you down, or you'd just rather watch on your own timetable, "The Real Dirt on Farmer John" is already available on DVD, and "King Corn" will be released later this month.
I haven't seen either film yet, so I'm very interested in seeing what they're about. And, of course, I'd love to hear your take on things. Once you've watched either or both, come back and let us know what you thought. I'm sure our community of readers can get a good discussion going.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Let me catch you up on all that has been happening with the investigation of Westland Meat Company, since USDA first suspended them at the end of last month.
As you recall, workers at Westland's California slaughterhouse were caught on tape using a variety of cruel and inhumane methods to get "downer" cattle to stand for pre-slaughter inspection.
A few days later, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) suspended inspections at the plant after finding "clear violation of Federal regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act." This step effectively closed the company until corrective actions document improved treatment of the animals.
That was followed by the largest meat recall in USDA history. The 143.4 million pounds of meat in the recall constituted Westland's entire production run from the last two years. Since FSIS determined violations occurred off and on during that time, all beef products produced then are considered "adulterated," though the chances of getting ill from the recalled meat are considered "remote."
The Department is working to identify the locations where meat from the Westland plant might have ended up. At this point, the Food and Nutrition Service has determined that one third of the meat under recall, about 50.3 million pounds, went to federal nutrition programs, with 19.6 million pounds of that consumed.
No associated illnesses have been reported.
As an ongoing precaution, the USDA has taken steps to increase inspections at the 900 establishments across the country that slaughter livestock. Though the Department does not believe inhumane handling of cattle is widespread, "The extra checks will give us a better handle on it," said Kenneth Peterson, FSIS assistant administrator for field operations.
Back in California, at about the same time the recall notice hit the streets, the two company employees implicated in the animal abuse were officially charged with animal cruelty and arrested. The two men had already lost their jobs as a result of the undercover video. Now, the manager must respond to five felony counts of animal cruelty and three associated misdemeanors, and his assistant faces three misdemeanor charges.
Meanwhile, the food safety system is under a microscope. Editorials calling for increased oversight and investigations are thick on the ground. Four Democratic lawmakers asked the Government Accountability Office to review the process for assessing the safety of food in the school lunch programs. And pending legislation that would keep downer cattle out of the food supply is receiving renewed interest both the House and the Senate.
But what impact will all this have on consumers? A recent Reuters story suggests not much of one. The beef-loving public is expected to "shrug off" the recall, though the unwavering demand, coupled with this sudden reduced supply, has prompted economists to project a slight price increase for beef.
But if you're a member of the public who wants to stay informed, USDA has created a Web page on which are collected the Department's official statements, press releases, technical briefings, transcripts and informational Q&As pertaining to the Westland Meat Company allegations and the associated beef recall. Or see InfoFarm's overview of how a recall works from last October for a quick look at the process now underway.
More will very likely be forthcoming about all this, but for now, we're both caught up on the news.
How has all of it impacted your feelings about eating beef? Or what, if anything, do you think should be done to improve the inspection process? We'd love to hear your thoughts, so feel free to comment below.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
It's quite scary having such a huge recall. Working in schoolfoodservice I would hope that better inspections will take place knowing what grand caos this kind of action can take. Personally it makes me think of how these producers are not following all the rules and what really does go on in the
slaughterhouses
Submitted by: Nancy on March 23, 2008 07:17 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has responded quickly and seriously to the video footage released yesterday showing workers at a California slaughterhouse using a variety of methods to get "downer" cattle to stand for a pre-slaughter inspection.
Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer included in his statement on the matter word that Westland Meat Company will be "indefinitely suspended ... as a supplier to Federal food and nutrition programs" while the Department fully investigates the allegations.
The Department also held a technical briefing on the situation this afternoon. The audio briefing, which runs just short of an hour, provides some background on the animal inspection process and offers details of the Department's plans for investigating the matter.
To learn more about BSE, see the NAL resource page on the topic, or consult the Web sites on the welfare of farm animals pulled together by the Library's Animal Welfare Information Center.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This is the first I've looked at the InfoFarm. I think its a good idea. After looking at what's been posted my only comments are that I noticed how President Lincoln spoke (the style back in those days possibly)was quite different than today. Also, I finally see what is the problem with the beef recall.
Submitted by: David on February 19, 2008 12:48 PM
Has any info been released that showed "downers" infected with disease like BSE or is abuse the real story?
Submitted by: delta jim on February 19, 2008 07:34 PM
Delta Jim,
The videotaped abuse alerted USDA to the company's violations of both the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and other Federal regulations that dictate how "downer" cattle are to be handled.
The beef recall then was issued because the Food Safety and Inspection Service determined the resulting beef products to be unfit for human food because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection.
The risk of illness from the meat is considered remote, however, because keeping downer cattle out of the food supply is only one measure in an interlocking system of controls the federal government has in place to protect the food supply.
In fact, no illnesses associated with the beef have been reported.
Finally, let me just draw one thing out of that second resource: The prevalence of BSE in the United States is extremely low. Since June 1, 2004, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has sampled more than 759,000 animals and, to date, only 2 animals have tested positive for the disease under the program.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on February 22, 2008 08:05 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Just a quick heads-up about a thought-provoking article from yesterday's New York Times titled "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler."
At the time of this writing, it's still listed as the second-most e-mailed article off the Times' site. It has also kicked up some play across the blogosphere, most of it supporting the author's main thrust, that eating less meat would do us and the world some good.
But what do you think? Do we need to change our relationship to meat for the good of the planet? Or is there another way to understand the figures Bittman presents? Are we on the verge of a "sea change," as Bittman suggests, or just in the midst of a eating fad?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I am surprised at the effects of the meat industry on carbon dioxide emissions and the consumption of grain. Why, then, aren't environmentalists focusing on the meat industry as much as they are on the transportation industry? Why, then, aren't those who decry ethanol for taking grain away from the food supply saying anything about using grain to feed livestock?
As with everything, I think moderation is in order. Eating meat isn't bad by itself, but being conscious about where it comes from and how it's raised (including what resources go into it) would go a long way to helping Americans re-think their meat habits. Hopefully it would result in more individuals choosing meat raised in a more sustainable fashion.
Submitted by: Cindy on February 5, 2008 11:30 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
As a follow-up to yesterday's entry on locavores, I wanted to quickly mention the other agriculturally related words that have recently been in the running for Word of the Year.
And among the runners-up that year we had "bird flu" and "trans fats," two very different but significant challenges to our health that ag researchers are addressing.
The following year was also big for agriculture and the environment. "Carbon neutral" took the top spot, encouraging all of us to reduce our carbon emissions and to then balance "our remaining emissions...by purchasing a carbon offset, paying to plant new trees or investing in 'green' technologies such as solar and wind power."
Then "CSA," community supported agriculture, occupied a key runner-up position, and -- who knows? -- maybe contributed to "locavore's" win in 2007 by building momentum in the "buy local" movement.
For the librarians in the audience, 2006 also brought us "DRM," digital rights management, a mere hop, skip and a jump from the copyright issues we discussed the other day.
So, not bad, nine words in three years related to agriculture, the environment, nutrition or librarianship. (I cast a wide net.)
But what did Oxford miss? Any other good, new agricultural words out there? Send 'em along or make 'em up. We're always ready to push that growing edge.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Hello!
Nice site ;)
Bye
Submitted by: BersJonrete on January 20, 2008 12:26 AM
The "permalink" for this article does not work for some reason.
Submitted by: David Engel on January 23, 2008 09:57 AM
All fixed, David. Thanks for the heads-up!
Submitted by: Mary Ann on January 23, 2008 01:26 PM
Well, I have to vote for "coarse woody debris" to be my new favorite term for 2007, (but not surpassing "gubernaculum" or "logomachy"). Also known as CWD, this term was brought to my attention by the US Forest Service folks. If anyone knows about it, they do! So many terms, so little time.
Submitted by: Lori Finch on January 24, 2008 05:18 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
So, do you consider yourself a locavore? If so, you're environmentally conscious and trendy, wearing a label declared the "Word of the Year 2007" by the New Oxford American Dictionary.
For those who've never heard the term, it was coined just a few years ago by Jessica Prentice, one of four women in San Francisco who set out to eat food grown or produced within 100 miles of their homes. They weren't the only ones doing so, but their word caught on, at least in some circles, and is now, as Oxford sees it, a "word to watch."
It has gotten a few amateur (maybe even professional) lexicographers in an uproar: Should it be "localvore," (with an "l")? Should it be "localtarian," to convey the choice implied (a la "vegetarian")? Should we even care?
Of course, the last question touches upon more than just the word, but on the choices and actions the word encompasses -- eating locally, supporting nearby farmers and producers, reducing the transportation and shipping costs associated with what we eat.
The payoff comes in terms both personal and global. The food I get from our neighborhood farmers' market is generally fresher and tastes better than the long-distance stuff. Even the meat is more flavorful. And I get all that while doing something positive for the environment.
Not so fast, interjects Sarah Murray. While buying locally might supply those benefits, "food miles" shouldn't be the sole factor taken into account when buying food. We must also consider harvesting and production methods, storage requirements, food packaging, and other steps along the road from farm to fork.
Murray cites the example of a British snack company that teamed up with the Carbon Trust to measure the carbon footprint of a bag of its potato crisps. In calculating the carbon dioxide emissions in the making and shipping of the crisps, they found that the troublespot was not transportation, but "storing and frying the potatoes." Making changes there, Murray points out, could reduce emissions more than constraining the miles the crisps travel to consumers.
Okay, sounds good. But what about the formula used for calculating a product's carbon footprint in the first place? What gets included? What doesn't? And how far down the growth and production chain do you go? As an article in The Economist points out, how you answer these questions significantly impacts your formula, and, of course, the results.
And taking a consumer's position on this, how will I know which formula is "right"?
Obviously, this carbon footprint stuff is tricky business, and the scientists will be hashing out the details for some time. Until then, though, until we see standards, I'll work with what I do know and buy locally as much as I can. I might never be a true locavore -- I like chocolate way too much for that -- but I'll do what I can, even if it does address just one factor in a lengthy environmental equation.
But what are you doing? Have you tried being a locavore, even on a short-term or seasonal basis? Do you grow your own herbs or veggies? Have you joined a community supported agriculture program? Are you a regular at the local farmers market? Let's hear your tips for reducing our individual carbon footprints.
Or offer your comments on our latest Word of the Year. Does "locavore" work for you? Got a better idea? Propose it here and you might find fame via your well-chosen neologism. Wouldn't that be cool?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I have started looking into this for myself. The task can sound simple at first, but in reality may require some research. I would have to cut many things from my diet like bread and beer because ALL the ingredients weren't grown within 100 miles of my home. Then again wine would still be available. The process of researching what does grow in your area opens up your mind to what really goes into producing food and getting it to your kitchen. And as we already know the food that's least processed is usually the best for you. So I think I can do without the potatoe crisps, but I draw the limit at giving up beer. It's a challenge that I want to take soon. I'd love to hear if anyone else does this, what their personal parameters were and how it went!
Submitted by: Virgie J on July 9, 2008 07:15 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The new stories are flying, and I expect they'll soon to be followed by a flurry of op-ed pieces and blog postings.
On my morning tour through the news, I noticed that the Washington Post had broken the story on the Food and Drug Administration's approval of cloned animals for food consumption. The FDA hadn't even officially released its report yet, but the word was out that they'd found no evidence to ban or restrict meat or milk from cloned animals. The Post even included excerpts from the report.
Other news sources across the Web quickly picked up the story. In fact, each time I refreshed my search on Google News, I got more results. It would seem to be one of the day's hot topics. The New York Times is on it, as are Business Week, CNN and the Associated Press. Actually, by the time you read this, everyone might have picked this one up.
Overall, the stories summarize the FDA's report, explore the associated scientific and ethical concerns, and address the expected uproar from consumers if cloned meat and milk are allowed to sit -- unlabeled -- on store shelves with non-cloned meat.
Though all the articles convey the reasons behind the FDA's assessment and the food safety issues taken into consideration, so far, only the Baltimore Sun (that I've seen) has run a focused piece on the science behind the decision. "In Defense of Cloning" offers comments from a Unversity of Maryland professor who served as one of three animal scientists who reviewed the FDA's research. It's an informative read.
On the government side, I was about to write that neither the FDA nor USDA had release any public statement on the matter, but that's no longer true. In the last hour, both Departments posted press releases to their Web sites about the report and are providing links to more information about animal cloning and food safety.
If you'd like to learn more about cloning than USDA's Questions and Answers page can give you, I invite you to check out the books and articles on the topic here at NAL. And check back here at InfoFarm. I'll keep on eye on reactions to this story in the coming weeks and post key updates.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We all know that the year rolling over sets a lot of folks' minds toward self-improvement. I'm guessing that might be part of what inspired Nancy over at GovGab to consider her friend's obsessive consumption of grapefruits. Fortunately for us, that led her to delve into the great nuggets of info on Nutrition.gov, and she apparently liked what she saw:
For somebody who insists that banana bread counts as a serving of fruit and mint chocolate chip ice cream counts as a serving of vegetables because it's green, I have to admit, I really liked this site. From buying and preparing food to managing your weight to finding out nutrient values, the site has lots of great information.
Most of them are Registered Dietitians, so they know what they're doing when they're selecting the best sites on Weight Management or nutritional guidance for athletes, the elderly or vegetarians. (They're also great cooks, but you'll have to take my word for it on that one.)
So, thanks to GovGab for giving them their due. Please accept today's link love as an expression of my gratitude.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Nutrition.gov is one of many very useful government websites for those of us looking for health information and tools. Thanks for the information.
Submitted by: Jim Purdy on January 12, 2008 11:26 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In just the last two days I've noticed how many of the stories I've addressed over the last two months continue to pop up in the news. Given that, I thought it'd be interesting to see how things have moved on a few of them, or what fresh angles more recent coverage offers.
So, without further ado, here are the updates you don't want to miss:
Since my October 15 entry on food recalls, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a Food Protection Plan that seeks to identify potential foodborne hazards before they sicken or kill anyone, but the plan isn't impressing Congress. Members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions have made some pretty strong statements indicating that neither it, nor the plan to enhance import safety, goes far enough.
Avocado farmers who have started to regroup after October's wildfires are learning that their crop insurance doesn't cover as much as they thought it would. And even those that can expect some payments might not see money until early 2009.
The farm bill has stalled on its way through the Senate, and there's really no telling where this one's gonna end up. Today word hit that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be filing a cloture motion this afternoon. Such a motion, if passed, would limit any further debate on the farm bill to 30 hours, but a similar attempt a few weeks ago failed to get the 60 votes required for passage.
"Sometimes it pays to read the old literature." So said Dr. Peter Palese, a researcher who determined why winter is flu season. And though I've not written a lick about the flu, I thought the lesson Dr. Palese offers to be a timely reminder that some ideas have been thunk before, which was, in fact, the main point behind the Starting Right with Turkeys entry. The Web holds valuable, historical stuff. Make use of it.
If you have more updates to add, feel free to send 'em along.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
A number of years ago I read an article tacked up to a bulletin board at the gym. It offered a fascinating look at how food variety -- even just perceived variety -- affected how much we ate. That is, faced with two equal-sized bowls of M&Ms, subjects ate more from the bowl with the multi-colored blend than from the bowl holding the single-colored candies, even though they all tasted the same.
The story stuck with me, probably because I'm a big fan of M&Ms, but I didn't really hold onto the name of the researcher who made the discovery. But then I glimpsed an article in USA Today about the appointment of Dr. Brian Wansink as head of the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, and it all fell into place. Oh, I thought, that's who Brian Wansink is. My M&M guy. The "mindless eating" guy.
Wansink has been studying the psychology of eating for a while now and has found a range of external factors that lure us into eating more. Take the bones away as you eat, and you'll gobble down more chicken wings. Use a short, squat glass, rather than a tall, skinny one, and you'll pour more to drink. Keep snacks on your desk, and you'll reach for them more frequently than if they're across the room. Volume, variety, and convenience all contribute to our eating on autopilot.
The good news though is that we can use the visual trickery to our advantage. Put a rainbow of veggies on your plate to eat more of what you should be eating. Buy new glassware and eat from smaller plates. Keep fruit nearby instead of candy. These small changes can cut our overall caloric intake without us even noticing a change. The same psychology of eating that got us to eat more can get us to eat less -- or more of what's good for us.
I'm also curious to see if he'll continue his blog, FoodThink with Wansink, that has been around only since August. So far, it looks like he is -- four postings since last week's announcement (PDF | 24.5 KB) -- but interestingly, no mention of his new gig. (Though he did say he's scheduled to appear on The View today.)
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In the fall of 1621, the Plymouth colonists and their Native American neighbors sat down to an autumn feast to celebrate a bountiful harvest.
Now, 386 years later, we still gather as best we can around a special meal. Whether that be turkey, ham or veggie meatloaf, whether you like raisins in your stuffing or marshmallows in your sweet potatoes, food still occupies a central place in Thanksgiving. (Football, you'll note, was added much, much later.)
Because of food's integral place in the holiday, this week has been declared National Farm-City Week to acknowledge and celebrate the partnership between urban and rural residents. It reminds us all of the mutual benefit this relationship provides: farmers and ranchers supplying our food, consumers buying what the farmers produce.
So, do your part. Get out there and eat! And while you're at it, give thanks to the folks who made it all possible by buying locally. You'll get fresher foods, and you'll get to know first-hand some of the folks who grow what you eat.
You can also learn more about the many ways you can partner with your local farmers through the Library's resources on community supported agriculture. Or get more info on National Farm-City Week from the National Farm-City Council, organizers for each year's national events.
And instead of the annual Turkey Bowl touch football game, why don't you challenge your friends and family to a friendly game of farm trivia? It's easier, cleaner and less likely to result in strained ligaments. Trust me on this one.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
With Thanksgiving just a few days away, turkeys are getting a lot of air time, far more than their proverbial fifteen minutes. To balance the scales a bit, I'm going to spend today cruising you around the Web to learn about the simple but tasty cranberry.
According to the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers' Association, Native Americans knew about the cranberry long before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, using the fruit for food, in dyes and as medicine.
That shouldn't dimish the cranberry's importance, however. It is one of only three fruits native to North America that have commercial significance. (The other two are blueberries and concord grapes.) In fact, based on sales, the cranberry is growing in popularity in other parts of the world, thanks to a focused marketing effort overseas.
Did you know though that Massachusetts is not the leading producer of cranberries? That honor goes to Wisconsin, where cranberry production is forecasted to be 3.9 million barrels, about half the U.S. production totals. Massachusetts ranks second with 1.8 million barrels.
What about the flooded bogs? Those actually signal a wet harvest, in which the fruits' ability to float is exploited to simplify the process. (If you've got two minutes to spare, watch a video of a Wisconsin wet cranberry harvest on YouTube. It's pretty cool.) Cranberries can also be mechanically harvested dry. Fruit harvested wet heads for further processing; dry harvest is reserved for cranberries that will be sold fresh.
Good cranberries also bounce, another characteristic exploited for harvest. Soft, spoiled or damaged berries will not bounce, so they'll fall through the bounce boards and not make the cut.
Need to know more? Then take a look at these books and articles from the Library's catalog, AGRICOLA. Or bounce on over to The American Cranberry site, a great collection of cranberry-related resources pulled together by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of NAL's AgNIC partners.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
National Geographic offers another video on the cranberry harvest which is a more polished, professional profile of one cranberry grower in Wisconsin.
Heads up though: you will get a brief commercial at the beginning. Of course no endorsement is intended.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 21, 2007 10:16 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Being one in 6.2 million would make you rather special, but in this case, it'd be a dubious distinction, for that outrageous figure counts the number of undiagnosed cases of diabetes in the United States. That's undiagnosed.
Diagnosed cases more than double that, at 14.6 million. And the number is growing. The U.S. showed a 14% increase over the last two years alone.
The rest of the world is doing a little better, but only a little. Compared to our 7% of the population, the rest of the world shows an incidence rate of 5.9%, but don't let that apparently low figure fool you. That's still 246 million people. And like the U.S., the numbers are growing.
With that in mind, the United Nations declared today World Diabetes Day, the first such occasion meant to draw attention to the growing incidence of diabetes worldwide.
Small steps can yield big rewards. And they can make you special at a grander scale than one in 6.2 million. They can keep you healthy, and what could be more special than that?
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Take a moment and consider the number of chicken sandwiches served up by your local fast food joint on any given day. Multiply that by all the fast food joints in your town.
Then add in the rotisserie chickens at your local grocery, along with the packaged whole birds, the drumsticks and chicken thighs, and the frozen patties, nuggets and ready-strips.
Now, go national; multiply it all by 51 (allowing for the District of Columbia -- which, by the way, has more people than Wyoming, but that's another topic all together).
Obviously, the poultry industry has a huge impact on the U.S. economy. Production, processing, transportation, food service -- all derive benefits.
But nothing comes without a cost. Chicken's ascent to America's favorite meat has brought with it concerns about industrialization, pollution, food safety and animal rights. Even what constitutes "natural" is now up for debate.
Regardless of what side of the chicken coop you're on, there's always more to read and learn. You can start with the array of resources my colleagues have pulled together, including some original stuff for the poultry historians among you:
Of course, if you really just like chickens -- like to look at them, raise them, can't get enough of them -- then jump on over to the Washington Post for some "Cheep Thrills," a insiders' look at the ornamental poultry circuit and the folks that keep these beautiful breeds alive. And don't miss their photo gallery. Whatever you picture when you hear the word "chicken," I guarantee you these birds aren't it.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Great blog post!! Chickens rock, and all the cool people know it. I think everyone should be allowed to have a hen laying about, no matter where you live.
Check out www.henhutch.com. Even a city chicken deserves a chance!
Submitted by: Chicken Little on November 8, 2007 09:27 AM
Hello, my name is Gudvin, I like yours blog.
Submitted by: Gudvin on November 12, 2007 03:58 AM
I really had no idea that raising chickens in urban areas had become "a thing," but it's big enough that the New York Times carried a piece about the phenomenon back in September.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 21, 2007 11:31 AM
This is a great resource. With the mass production of chickens it's impossible to treat them humanely and they have no protection at all under the law. I hope as animal rights groups gain momentum they will earn protection.
Vegan
Submitted by: Vegan on December 11, 2008 02:17 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The costumed kids hit the streets tonight. If you're ready for them, you've got multiple bags of chewies and chocolates waiting at home. Maybe some of you (like me) have already broken into the bags for a sample. A little quality control on behalf of the ghouls and goblins coming tonight. I honor your commitment. Really.
The 517-page report – Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective -- finds stronger evidence than ever before linking cancer risk to excess body fat. Those findings emerged at the end of "a five-year process involving nine independent teams of scientists from around the world, hundreds of peer reviewers, and 21 international experts who reviewed and analyzed over 7,000 large-scale studies."
Did you catch that last part? This isn't just one study making the point, it's 7,000 of them.
So, what can you do?
The report provides ten recommendations for preventing cancer, but tops among them: maintaining a normal weight range and being physically active. The next six recommendations focus on dietary tips that will help with weight control, such as eating "mostly foods of plant origin" and limiting your intake of calorie-dense, sugary foods, red meat, alchoholic drinks and salt.
It's not stuff we haven't heard before, but this time it comes with that 7,000-report backing.
Fortunately, NAL and the USDA have compiled a host of Web sites and databases to help you get started -- or to keep your good habits on track. Here are just a few:
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Mary Ann -
OK, Thanks again, for another fine post (albeit late in my review). It's really incredible how much information is there to help us make the best choices we are able. Ah, the human condition(s), and our work to master and control them, :)/:(.
Submitted by: Anonymous on November 10, 2007 09:02 PM
That is really scary. But the health of effects of the obesity have long been known by common sense if not science. There are a lot of plus size costumes in the world these days.
Submitted by: Robert Smitty on November 29, 2007 08:00 PM
I have worked in environmental and human health risk assessment and groundwater protection. It's not a pretty picture sometimes what happens as a result of intensive food production and processing.
+++++++++++++
mercy
Submitted by: mercy on December 16, 2008 04:03 AM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In my effort to keep myself -- and you -- well-informed, I scour various news sources, check up-to-the-minute Web sites and talk with people in the know. Despite all of that though, one bit of news slipped passed me last week: October 18 marked the official beginning of the International Year of the Potato 2008.
Now, I don't know why Spud '08 began in mid-October '07, but let's push that aside and look instead at what this year's all about, namely, "raising awareness of the importance of the potato...in addressing issues of global concern, including hunger, poverty and threats to the environment."
'Tis true. The humble potato has been a staple in human diets since it was first consumed in the Andean highlands 8,000 years ago. It requires less land to grow than most other major crops and can flourish in a variety of climates. It provides a hefty dose of vitamin C and other nutrients to go with the carbohydrates it conveys. It's also mighty tasty, with a variety of ways it can be prepared. Together, these characteristics make it an almost perfect weapon against hunger and malnutrition.
The American poet Richard Wilbur captured all this, the crucial vitality wrapped in ordinariness, in his 1947 poem "Potato":
"It was potatoes saved us, they kept us alive." Then they had something to say akin to praise For the mean earth-apples, too common to cherish or steal. Full poem
The message: don't be fooled by its plain exterior. The potato is a complex, priceless thing, well worthy of its own year (or fifteen months, as the case may be).
So let's talk taters. Drop us a note, ask a question or share a recipe.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
What about it's cousin: the sweet potato? How many varieties of spud are there anyhow?
Submitted by: i love spuds on October 23, 2007 08:16 PM
Great article. Just wanted to join the convo. I found this amusing.
From WhatsCookingAmerica.net:
1597 - John Gerard (1545-1612), an British author, avid gardner, and collector of rare plants, received roots of the plant from Virginia where he was able to successfully grow it in his own garden. He wrote in his book The herball, the following about the potato:
"Potatoes of the Virginia. The potato of the Virginia has many coppers flexible cables and that crawl for earth... The root is thick, large and tuberosa; not much various one for shape, color and sapore from common potatoes (the sweet potatoes) but a smaller Pò; some are round as spheres, other ovals; the some longer other shortest ones... It grows spontaneously in America where, as Clusius has reported, it has been discovered; from then I have received these roots from the Virginia otherwise Norembega calls; they grow and they prosper in my garden like in their country of origin... Its correct name is cited in the title it. Poichè it possesses not only the shape and the proportions of potatoes, but also their gradevole sapore and virtue we can call them potatoes of the America or Virginia."
Submitted by: Michelle L. on October 24, 2007 08:01 AM
Hey, i love spuds! Thanks for the question -- and for a name that can't help but support the International Year of the Potato.
The short answer to your question is that there are thousands of varieties of potatoes. The European Cultivated Potato Database currently lists 4,119 varieties, mostly in Europe but some from South America, Asia, Australia and Africa.
The Year of the Potato site also mentions "thousands of varieties," with the specific note that "more than 5,000 native varieties [are] still grown in the Andes."
Note, however, that the sweet potato is not one of these thousands. This other tuber is actually a distant cousin of the potato, with each a part of a different genus.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 24, 2007 09:31 AM
Michelle,
The excerpt from John Gerard's work that you include reminds us (a) of how much language has changed in a few hundred years; and (b) that the origins of the potato have been commonly misunderstood.
The History of the Potato page from within the WhatsCookingAmerica site actually provides an interesting overview of how the potato has criss-crossed the Atlantic a time or two. Folks didn't always know what to do with it initially, but it hung on and became the staple it is today.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on October 24, 2007 09:53 AM
I came from Idaho so, this is a topic that strikes a cord. A question I have is actually about insect control using Beneficial nematodes. In the area I live in, I was wondering if these same Beneficial nematodes are bad for Cotton as well as Potato crops. There are many great garden and lawn sites that sell the Beneficial nematodes for insect control without pesticides - This would seem to be an issue for Cotton or Potatos - I seem to recall nematodes being bad for Taters. ;)
Anyone want to field that question for me?
Submitted by: Tim on October 26, 2007 11:45 AM
I was truly surprised to hear that it was the Year of the potato. Being born & raised in the "potato state"; this was the first I had heard of it. Hopefully we'll hear more before it is over.
Submitted by: toni on October 26, 2007 12:58 PM
Toni--
so you're from Maine, then?
:-)
Submitted by: mike on October 31, 2007 10:29 AM
Tim,
Nematodes are unsegmented, usually microscopic roundworms from the phylum Nematoda. There are approximately 20,000 different species of nematodes. Many species can cause disease in plants, animals and humans, while others have proven beneficial by killing insect pests.
Nematodes from the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabiditis are bred and sold as beneficial nematodes.
A successful insect control program requires applying the appropriate nematode species to the appropriate insect pest. In short, you can not use just any beneficial nematode.
My search of research literature indicates that there are no beneficial nematodes for controlling insect pests in potato or cotton crops. In fact, there are a number of nematodes responsible for causing an assortment of diseases in potato and cotton crops.
And since we're on the topic of nematodes and taters, check out a fairly recent article from Agricultural Research magazine on a new race of golden nematodes, one that attacks potato plants that had been resistant to the previous race.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 20, 2007 03:39 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Have you ever heard of the World Food Prize? It honors those "who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world." Given this lofty intent, it is considered by many the Nobel Prize for agriculture.
Of course, if you agree with the basic premise in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs -- that the physiological drive for food, water, shelter, etc. must be satisfied before any higher level needs can be fully pursued -- then you could even argue that the World Food Prize is more important than the Nobel Prizes, just with less press coverage.
Until now.
This blog has uttered nary a word about those other awards in Sweden, but we're devoting today's entry to the World Food Prize and this year's honoree, Dr. Philip Nelson.
The first food scientist to win the award -- all previous honorees came from the food production side -- Dr. Nelson grew from a 15-year-old 4-H "Tomato King" in Indiana to an internationally recognized expert in food science and technology thanks to his development of asceptic equipment and processing methods. This asceptic processing allows tomatoes, oranges and other fruits and vegetables to be held in a pathogen-free environment well beyond harvest without loss of taste or nutritional value. It also removes the element of time from food distribution and processing, making it possible to distribute seasonal foods around the world safely and economically.
Think fresh orange juice in Sweden in July, a half a year and a half a world away from its Florida harvest.
So, consumers have more choices, food stays fresher longer, and products can be imported and exported with limited loss. And the processing and packaging Dr. Nelson developed has improved the reach and effectiveness of humanitarian food programs as well. Even those in the remotest regions of the world feel his impact.
His work has not gone unnoticed. Obviously. The Institute of Food Technologists rated aseptic processing and packaging the No. 1 innovation in food technology back in 1991. Then in '95 he received IFT's prestigious Nicholas Appert Award, and now, the World Food Prize.
So, a hearty congratulations and thank you to Dr. Nelson, who will receive his award tonight at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines.
Or take a few minutes to tell us what you think is the the most important innovation in food technology. Maybe together we can pinpoint next year's World Food Prize winner.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Nicely done, MA! Thanks very much!
Submitted by: Karl S on October 22, 2007 04:26 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Turns out the whole recall process for food is voluntary. The government can recommend a recall, but it's really the manufacturer or distributor who makes it happen. Should the company refuse to recall its product, the government can seize the product or order it removed from store shelves, but most companies do comply. After all, it is their responsibility and to their benefit to do so (though Topps Meats has had to shut its doors due to the economic whallop they took after their recent recall).
And who is "the government" in these cases? The answer depends upon the type of food involved. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspects and regulates meat, poultry products and eggs. The Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction over other food, including pet and animal feed.
In the case of meat or poultry, when the FSIS learns that a product in stores or restaurants might be unsafe -- whether from the company itself, FSIS inspection or test results, or through another goverment agency or public health department -- they begin their investigation by gathering product samples, health reports, and manufacturing information. They might also interview company employees, the food inspectors, and anyone who might have been made ill or injured by the product.
The Recall Committee formed to respond to the situation then reviews these details to assess the extent of the risk to public health. The greater the health impact the more likely they will recommend a recall.
Once the Recall Committee has decided to recommend a recall, they then classify the recall based on how severe they deem the health risk, inform the company of its decision about the recall, and issue a press release to notify the public.
The work of the recall then shifts to the company, who must craft a recall plan, put it into action, and document the process. Staff from FSIS will make sure the company is taking the necessary steps to carry out the recall and that those steps are effective. The recall will not be complete until these "effectiveness checks" are satisfied.
To learn more about recalls and other food safety issues, check out the following:
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
When was the last time you really thought about where your food comes from?
Okay, maybe last week's beef recall gave you pause, or the E. coli outbreak in spinach last year pushed you toward kale instead. Or maybe your answer to the question extends only as far as deciding which take-out place to hit on your way home tonight.
I'm with you.
Many of us have the luxury of taking food, and by extension, agriculture, for granted, but then something happens to remind us of this most essential part of our lives.
I had a big shift in thinking when I started working for USDA four years ago. That prompted a small but permanent push toward awareness. But I still get the little nudges as well.
This week it came artfully in the form of a photo exhibit at the University of Maryland titled Georgic Odyssey: Where Your Food Comes From. (“Georgic” is a great GRE word, by the way. Look it up.)
Remsberg's images smoothly lure you in and get you thinking about the work, the sacrifice and the beauty that happens daily on farms across America. The exhibit description calls it “a behind-the-scenes view of where our food comes from,” and it goes on to say, “if ‘you are what you eat,’ then this is about who we are.”
I couldn't agree more.
Take a few minutes and browse these images yourself. You can see a sampling on the Union Gallery Web site at the University of Maryland or scroll through all 54 images that comprise the exhibit on Edwin Remsberg's site. And if you're lucky enough to live in the Washington, DC-area, you can catch any of the handful of panel discussions the gallery is hosting in conjunction with the exhibit. Then come back and tell us what you thought. Which image was your favorite? What did the exhibit evoke for you?
And let us know how you stay attuned to what it takes to bring food to your grocery store shelves. We can all use a little help being more aware.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
I've lived in Maryland for four years, since coming to the DC Metro area. To a large extent I know where my food comes from because my husband and I garden, and I can the results. Also my sister is still on the family farm and we (often) buy a quarter beef from her herd. Unfortunately, other things I eat I know too much about ... where they come from and what's been done to get them to the market place. I have worked in environmental and human health risk assessment and groundwater protection. It's not a pretty picture sometimes what happens as a result of intensive food production and processing.
Submitted by: Sally Benjamin on October 3, 2007 05:53 PM
For a good laugh go to www.meatrix.com
Submitted by: Leah on October 26, 2007 12:08 PM
Man, PC gone amok. Who pays for this website, PETA or moveon.org?
Submitted by: Trailboss49 on October 26, 2007 02:28 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
T minus three and counting.
T minus six and counting.
T minus seven and counting.
T minus nine and counting.
T minus ten and counting.
Poetry feeds our souls. Sweet potatoes feed our bellies. And a poem about sweet potatoes -- here called "yams" -- well, I'd venture that feeds multiple appetites simultaneously, including our curiosity. 
The food folks here at NAL have recently launched a couple of new tools that should make the lives of dietitians, nutritionists, nutrition educators and food service trainers a little bit easier. 
Felled by the flu last week, I missed the launch of USDA's new 
Okay, so the main 
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack took the media to task yesterday about the persistent 
Libraries are, by design, intellectually neutral territory, hubs for rational exchange that give credence to the many facets of an issue, the many sides of an argument. This library is no different.
Wow, the folks downtown have been busy, and I hate to admit it, but I have not been paying them enough attention. Time to make up for that.
Amid the weakening economy, American families are turning in ever-increasing numbers toward the government for food assistance. 
Would you believe me if I told you spaghetti grows on trees? Or that the dreaded spaghetti weevil threatens this year's harvest? 
Yesterday, the Senate held its 
What is the connection between what you eat and how you feel? 
I'm turning the blog-waves over to USDA today to help get the word out about the upcoming 
It's never wise to gamble your life savings on a poker game, but if you've seen the latest food price projections, you can understand the temptation. 
Today is 
Bob Dole and George McGovern will formally receive the 
Do you remember the 
Tomatoes have gotten a lot of press this year. 
How much are you willing to pay for a bunch of grapes? 
Everybody wants to know what's pushing food prices. Everybody also has an answer.
If you're a typical American, you eat, on average, two bananas a week. And if you buy those bananas at a typical American grocery store, you're getting the same kind of banana each time, a variety called the Cavendish.
City farmer.
Today in Rome, heads of state from around the globe began an intensive 
What comes to mind when you think of Hawai'i? 
Are you feeling the pinch at the grocery store yet?
With summer just around the corner, any chance you're looking for a little nutritional inspiration to help lose that winter weight?
It's not often that we get two thought-provoking documentaries on agriculture and farming in the same week, but PBS is serving up a couple of conversation starters, beginning tonight. 
Let me catch you up on all that has been happening with the 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has responded quickly and seriously to the 
Just a quick heads-up about a thought-provoking article from yesterday's New York Times titled "
As a follow-up to 
So, do you consider yourself a locavore? If so, you're environmentally conscious and trendy, wearing a label declared the "
Oh, boy. 
We all know that the year rolling over sets a lot of folks' minds toward self-improvement. I'm guessing that might be part of what inspired Nancy over at 
In just the last two days I've noticed how many of the stories I've addressed over the last two months continue to pop up in the news. Given that, I thought it'd be interesting to see how things have moved on a few of them, or what fresh angles more recent coverage offers. 
A number of years ago I read an article tacked up to a bulletin board at the gym. It offered a fascinating look at how food variety -- even just perceived variety -- affected how much we ate. That is, faced with two equal-sized bowls of M&Ms, subjects ate more from the bowl with the multi-colored blend than from the bowl holding the single-colored candies, even though they all tasted the same.
In the fall of 1621, the Plymouth colonists and their Native American neighbors sat down to an 
With Thanksgiving just a few days away, turkeys are getting a lot of air time, far more than their proverbial fifteen minutes. To balance the scales a bit, I'm going to spend today cruising you around the Web to learn about the simple but tasty cranberry.
Being one in 6.2 million would make you rather special, but in this case, it'd be a dubious distinction, for that outrageous figure counts the number of undiagnosed cases of diabetes in the United States. That's undiagnosed.
Take a moment and consider the number of chicken sandwiches served up by your local fast food joint on any given day. Multiply that by all the fast food joints in your town. 
The costumed kids hit the streets tonight. If you're ready for them, you've got multiple bags of chewies and chocolates waiting at home. Maybe some of you (like me) have already broken into the bags for a sample. A little quality control on behalf of the ghouls and goblins coming tonight. I honor your commitment. Really.
In my effort to keep myself -- and you -- well-informed, I scour various news sources, check up-to-the-minute Web sites and talk with people in the know. Despite all of that though, one bit of news slipped passed me last week: October 18 marked the official beginning of the 
Have you ever heard of the 
In just the last few weeks, we've seen a massive 