Why Locavores "Get It Wrong" ... And Why They Don't

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 15:35:16 PM PDT

This book doesn't provide any logical or factual arguments so far as I can tell, although it does have facts woven into it in misleading ways. The author is excellent and building up straw men and knocking them down (i.e. he tells you his version of "what locavores say" - a false argument for eating locally - and then proves that false argument wrong). You can read a book excerpt in the Wall Street Journal here

Yes! A Book Review I Look Forward to Writing

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 10:02:34 AM PDT

As for McWilliams, I've seen some of his writing in the NYT and the Atlantic recently - one was the piece calling out free range pork as bad (that relied on a study by the National Pork Board) and the other was about how GMOs could help hangovers. Except he meant migraines - but he called them hangovers. I guess he didn't research the piece well enough to know the difference, he was just busy being a contrarian.

Since the NYT piece came out, I've been in several discussions about McWilliams, and others feel that he's not necessarily against ethical eating (or what we would consider to be ethical eating) - he just wants to make a reputation for himself as a contrarian (the anti-Michael Pollan). Which he is doing quite successfully. Oh god, I look forward to reviewing this book. I'm gonna go make myself a nice bath and pour a cup of some non-GMO wine and just ENJOY reading this book.

GMOs As A Migraine Cure?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

If the presence of ML01 is shrouded in mystery, how the yeast works is not. Although laboratory studies haven't been done to prove the connection between ML01 and reduced headaches, there is little scientific justification to think that manipulated yeast won't work. ML01 converts malic acid into lactic acid, a metabolically simple process that eliminates undesirable compounds in wine called biogenic amines--compounds that are known to be a major cause of headaches and allergic reactions in many consumers of red wine, and of certain varieties of white wine. To call this yeast a surefire cure for a hangover would be extreme: everyone knows that's the job of a greasy burger. But there's every reason to assume that its preventive potential is real. [emphasis mine]

His piece claims that the chemicals responsible for causing headaches - biogenic amines - are done away with by using the GM yeast. His attribution of biogenic amines (BAs) as the cause of headaches was enough to know that he's actually referring to migraines, which some scientists believe can be triggered by a BA known as tyramine. However, study results are mixed (for example, this study found "there was no significant relationship between tyramine ingestion and the occurrence of headache") - and any migraine sufferer can tell you that scientists and doctors by and large have no freaking clue what causes (or how to reliably prevent or cure) migraines.

In other words: before claiming that ML01 leads to reduced headache, somebody should study it by signing up patients whose migraines are triggered by red wine and having them drink wines made with and without ML01 in a double blind study.  

Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

• Bill & Nicolette Hahn Niman argue that pasture raised meat should be seasonal. Okay. I agree. But they don't tell you which season.

• The outrage spawned by the hit piece on free range pork in the NYT has become a back and forth. The author James McWilliams answered his critics (which includes this blog) in The Atlantic. Paula Crossfield on Civil Eats says, "McWilliams didn't start a conversation, but instead just threw a rotten tomato."

• This title says it all: 30 Unexpected and Unusual Things You Can Compost." Like condoms. Who knew?

• Alternet says that choosing between factory farmed red meat and chicken is like choosing between an SUV and a Hummer. Agreed.

• Hallelujah! Tom Laskawy says schools don't need vending machines, they just need money. Yes!!!!

• Natasha Chart talks about biochar. And about the fact that the ag industry wants credit for sequestering carbon without being charged for their emissions. Yeah, and I want a pony.

• Civil Eats suggests getting a farmer tan during your spring break.

• The EPA finally decided that global warming is a problem. I'll put that in my "duh" pile along with the news that the sky is blue and chocolate is tasty.

• More proof that we humans can be easily manipulated. When there's a salad on the menu, you're more likely to order fries.

• Brilliant point made by Mark Bittman:

  You can't trust the supermarket companies to sell you only good, wholesome food. Yet they'll try to convince you that everything they sell is exactly that. So: skip the labels, watch what you buy, and strive for goodness, no matter where you find it.

• Yay! Wolves are thriving in Oregon! I'm such a huge fan of having top predators in the food chain - sooo much good comes from it, even if we humans don't appreciate it much when the wolves kill our livestock (as in the article). Can someone please send a few wolves to Illinois? They are freaking OVERRUN with deer.

• Toronto's considering mandatory green roofs. I hope they go for it.

In Defense of Locavores

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 16:00:00 PM PDT

Much of the critique I've seen of locavorism or other sustainable eating habits focus on scientific studies proving that grass fed or local food actually emits more greenhouse gasses. And - in the case of the study cited by McWillians' NYT op ed - it was paid for by the National Pork Board. Depending on how you count carbon emissions, depending on what you include and what you leave out, you can probably make a case for anything. But to me it's not exclusively about counting carbon.

Perhaps the efficiencies of the industrialized system could bring a Washington apple to me with less carbon emitted than an apple from Julian, an hour away. I don't know. But would that make me choose the Washington apple, as a locavore who also wants to reduce my carbon footprint? No.

Here's why. To me, sustainable eating and locavorism aren't necessarily about the numbers and the things you can add up. It's about relationships. It's about knowing who grew my food and knowing their values match mine. It's about being able to look a farmer in the eye and asking, if I'd like, whether they used sprays or not, or how the weather's been affecting their crops, or which variety of squash is extra-sweet this year.

When you buy from the industrialized food chain - even if a sign next to the oranges says "Organic and local," you don't have that relationship. You almost might as well buy from the pile of oranges that says "Grown in Chile." Who cares? You'll never meet that farmer. I buy oranges from a girl named Annie who went organic because she wants her young niece to be able to run out into her orchards and pick anything, knowing that it's as healthy as possible with no pesticide residues. That's something I'll never get in the store. And the taste of those oranges? Divine. How much carbon do they emit? I have no clue. But I'm gonna keep buying them anyway.

As for that Washington apple compared to the Julian one - how many acres of land does the Washington farmer farm? How does he or she take care of the soil? How much carbon is sequestered using his or her growing techniques? I'll never find out because I'll never meet that farmer. But the farmers near me? I can find out, and I can make sure they are caring for the soil responsibly, not just doing the bare minimum to meet the organic standards.