Monday, January 9, 2012

Permaculture Plants: Mint

Everyone should be growing mint!  
Spearmint, Mentha spicata

Common Name: Mint
Scientific Name: Mentha species
Family: Lamiaceae (Mint family)

Apple Mint (aka Wooly Mint), Mentha suaveolens

Description:
Mint is a plant that needs almost no description.  It is a small, running, highly aromatic, perennial herb.  The leaves have been used for thousands of years in culinary and medicinal applications.  Very useful in forest gardens to cover large areas under trees, protecting soil, and providing food and shelter for beneficial insects.  I have always considered this a must-have plant, and usually have one or two clumps or pots growing somewhere.  I currently have one potted plant and one jar full of cuttings just taking root.

Spearmint, Mentha spicata (aka M. viridis) is one of the best known Mints.

History:
There are between 13 and 30 recognized species of mint and about as many hybrids; it all depends on who is citing what research.  It is hard to identify where these herbs originated as there are species on every continent.  I can only assume that this plant had its origins in Pangea before the continents separated!  Most cultures in places where mints grow have used mint in culinary and medicinal ways for thousands of years.  Many anthrobotanists (those who study plants in cultures and society) believe that it is almost impossible to find many species of mint that have not been influenced by the people living nearby... a co-evolution of plant and society.

Trivia:
  • "Mint" comes from the Greek word minthe.  Minthe, a nymph in Greek mythology, was transformed into a plant by Queen Persephone just before Minthe could be seduced by Hades (aka Pluto, the god of the underworld).  Unable, to undo the curse, Hades was at least able to give her a sweet scent.
  • Mint oil can be used as an insecticide.
  • Many of the common cooking herbs are in the "Mint Family", Lamiaceae, including rosemary, basil, sage, and oregano.
  • Peppermint, a hybrid, has been dated as far back as 10,000 years!
  • Pineapple Mint is just a variegated form of Apple Mint - meaning its leaves have white spots

Fresh mint, just before flowering, is the best mint to be used.

USING THIS PLANT
Primary Uses:
  • Fresh eating (salads, flavoring)
  • Cooking
  • Dried
  • Teas (fresh sprigs can be added to your teapot and steeped for 2-3 minutes)
  • Flavoring in beverages
  • Main flavoring component in some alcoholic drinks (Mojito, Mint Julep)
  • Jelly
  • Ice Cream

Secondary Uses:
  • General insect nectar plant, especially bees (i.e. attracts beneficial insects)
  • Aromatic pest confuser
  • Weed suppressing ground cover (Apple Mint and Horse Mint are ideal; other species should be interplanted with other ground cover plants to create enough density to be weed suppressing)
  • Dynamic accumulator of K (potassium) and Mg (Magnesium)
  • Medicinal properties (multiple traditional and modern uses)
  • Lacewings prefer laying eggs on Mentha over other plants

 Corsican Mint, Mentha requienii, looks and behaves quite different than its relatives.

Selected Species:
  • Mentha aquatica - Water Mint (Zone 4-10):  Tolerates very wet, marshy soil
  • Mentha arvensis - Field or Wild Mint (Zone 3-8):
  • Mentha longifolia - Horse Mint (Zone 4-10):  Great ground cover. Can tolerate light foot traffic.
  • Mentha pulegium - Pennyroyal (Zone: Traditionally used in teas and foods, but the concentrated essential oil is highly toxic.  It has been used as an abortifacient, sometimes with tragic results.
  • Mentha requienii - Corsican Mint (Zone 6-10): small, slow growing, very shade tolerant, can handle foot traffic well
  • Mentha spicata - Spearmint (Zone 4-10)
  • Mentha suaveolens - Apple Mint (Zone 6): Great ground cover. Can tolerate light foot traffic.  Sometimes known as wooly mint due to its hairy/downy leaves.

Peppermint (Mentha x piperita) - Franz Kohler, 1897

Selected Hybrids:
  • Mentha x piperita - Peppermint or Chocolate Mint (Zone 3-10): Cross between Water Mint and Spearmint.  One of the best known and widespread mint plants.
  • Mentha x villosa - Bowle's Mint or Cuban/Mojito Mint (Zone 6):  High shade tolerance.  Not a good individual ground cover.


Harvesting: Spring - Autumn, essential oils in the leaves are at their peak just before flowering.  This would be the ideal time for harvesting to dry leaves


Storage:  Fresh leaves do not last long.  I often will keep a bunch sitting in a glass of water in the kitchen window for up to a week.  Leaves or sprigs can stay in the refrigerator, wrapped in a damp paper towel in a plastic bag, for 3-4 days.

Mints have tiny flowers, like this Water Mint, Mentha aquatica, but vary from purple to white.

DESIGNING WITH THIS PLANT
USDA Hardiness Zone: Zone 3-10 depending on the species (see species list above)

Plant Type: Small to Medium Herb
Leaf Type: Deciduous (may be Evergreen in more mild climates)
Forest Garden Use: Herbaceous Layer, Ground Cover
Cultivars/Varieties: Many species and varieties available.

Flowering: July - September

Life Span: Indefinite as it spreads

Peppermint, Mentha x piperita, a must grow of the Mint plants

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PLANT
Size: 6 inches to 2 feet (15-60 centimeters) tall and indefinitely wide, depending on the species
Roots: Rhizomes (underground stems that send out creeping roots, shoots, and above ground stems)
Growth Rate: Fast

Horse Mint, Mentha longifolia, is a great ground cover.

GROWING CONDITIONS FOR THIS PLANT
Light: Prefers full sun to light shade (depending on the species)
Shade: Tolerates medium to full shade (again depending on the species, but many Mentha species can thrive in the shade)
Moisture: Medium to wet soils
pH: tolerates a wide range of soil (5.5 - 7.5)

Special Considerations for Growing:
Plant at a spacing of 10-14 inches (25-35 centimeters) to create a complete and efficient weed-suppressing ground cover

Propagation:  From seed, but can be more difficult to germinate.  Roots easily grow from stem or root cuttings placed in water.  Once adequate roots form, the cutting can be potted.  I have found cuttings to be the easiest method by far.

Maintenance:
Minimal.

Concerns:
Expansive - may need to trim runners

The Mojito may be one of my favorite summer drinks - just make it with lots of mint!

Mojito Recipe
  • 2 ounces White Rum
  • 2 ounces Club Soda or Sparkling Water
  • Juice from 1 lime
  • 12-15 Mint Leaves - traditionally Spearmint is used
  • 1 Tablespoon sugar

Process
  • Place the mint leaves into a tall glass.  The traditional Mojito glass is the "Collins" glass.
  • Squeeze lime juice over the leaves.
  • Add the sugar.
  • Smash the sugar into the leaves with a muddler (or back of a wooden spoon).
  • Add ice.
  • Add rum and stir.
  • Top with Club Soda.
  • Enjoy!



Dynamic Accumulators for Temperate Climates

Symphytum officinale, Common Comfrey, is one of the best dynamic accumulators.

This is a term that I first came across in Dave Jacke’s book, Edible Forest Gardens.  In brief, it is the idea that certain plants (often deep-rooted ones) will draw up nutrients from the lower layers of the soil, and these nutrients will be deposited in the plants’ leaves.  When the leaves fall in autumn and winter and are broken down, those stored nutrients are then incorporated into the upper layers of the soil where other plants will benefit from their deposition.

This is a natural method of increasing soil fertility.  It is likely one of the ways that forest ecosystems continue to thrive and remain stable with minimal external inputs.

This is also a great Permaculture tool.  By observing nature, we can mimic nature, and we can have great results with minimal effort.  As I always say, Permaculture is about design!

We can sustainably and naturally increase our land's soil fertility by using dynamic accumulators.  It can be done with almost no work, other than planting or sowing seed, and allowing nature to do what it naturally does on its own.

We can expedite the process a bit, and increase our work a bit, by cutting back fast growing plants to encourage more frequent plant growth during the growing season.  For instance, chopping a bunch of mature leaves off fast growing Comfrey will provide high nutrient green mulch.  We can drop them where they fall or redistribute them to other locations that are low in nutrients.

There are a number of other ways to incorporate dynamic accumulators.  I'll be addressing these in an upcoming article.

The tiny flowers of Stellaria media, Common Chickweed, a dynamic accumulator that has a lot of Permaculture benefits... poultry food (hence the name), ground cover, and dynamic accumulator!

The science of dynamic accumulators is an area of botany with very little research to date.  We know it is true, but unfortunately not a lot of time has been spent studying the concept of dynamic mineral accumulation, so we only have research on a few plants.  Hopefully with time, we will be able to add substantially to this data.

Here is a list of well studied dynamic accumulators that can be used in a Temperate Climate.   The nutrients that they provide are abbreviated in bold:
  1. Sugar Maple,  Acer saccarum K, Ca
  2. Maples,  Acer spp.  K
  3. Yarrow,  Achillea millefolium  K, P, Cu
  4. Chives,  Allium schoenoprasum  K, Ca
  5. Black Birch,  Betula lenta  K, P, Ca
  6. Birches,  Betula spp.  P
  7. Shagbark Hickory,  Carya ovate  K, P, Ca
  8. Hickory, Pecans,  Carya spp.  K, Ca
  9. German Chamomile,  Chamaemelum nobile  K, P, Ca
  10. Chicory,  Cichorium intybus  K, Ca
  11. Flowering Dogwood,  Cornus florida  K, P, Ca
  12. Horesetails,  Equisetum spp.  Ca, Co, Fe, Mg
  13. Beeches,  Fagus spp.  K
  14. European Beech,  Fagus sylvatica  K, Ca
  15. Strawberry,  Fragria spp.  Fe
  16. Wintergreen,  Gaultheria procumbens  Mg
  17. Licorices,  Glycyrrhiza spp.  P, N
  18. Black Walnut,  Juglans nigra  K, P, Ca
  19. Walnuts,  Juglans spp.  K, P
  20. Lupines,  Lupinus spp.  P, N
  21. Apples,  Malus spp.  K
  22. Alfalfa,  Medicago sativa  Fe, N
  23. Lemon Balm,  Melissa officinalis  P
  24. Peppermint,  Mentha piperita  K, Mg
  25. Watercress,  Nasturtium officinale  K, P, Ca, S, Fe, Mg, Na
  26. Silverweed,  Potentilla arserina  K, Ca, Cu
  27. White Oak,  Quercus alba  P
  28. Black Locust,  Robinia pseudoacacia  K, Ca, N
  29. Sorrels, Docks,  Rumex spp.  K, P, Ca, Fe, Na
  30. Salad Burnet,  Sanguisorba minor  Fe
  31. Savory,  Satureja spp.  P
  32. Chickweed,  Stellaria media  K, P
  33. Comfreys,  Symphytum spp.  K, P, Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg
  34. Dandelion,  Taraxacum officinale  K, P, Ca, Cu, Fe
  35. Basswood,  Tilia Americana  P, Ca, Mg
  36. Linden (Lime in the UK),  Tilia spp.  P, Ca
  37. Clovers,  Trifolium spp.  P, N
  38. Stinging Nettle,  Urtica dioica  K, Ca, S, Cu, Fe, Na
  39. Vetches,  Vicia spp.  K, P, N
  40. Violets,  Viola spp.  P


Abbreviation Key
Ca = Calcium
Co = Cobalt
Cu = Copper
Fe = Iron
K = Potassium
Mg = Magnesium
N = Nitrogen (in this case, these plants are nitrogen fixers)
Na = Sodium
P = Phosphorus
S = Sulfur


Friday, January 6, 2012

Let your kids DO something in the garden!

This pathetic pepper is my favorite plant in the garden.


It is almost dead.  Still barely clinging to life.  There is but one leaf that still has some green on it.  It never grew more than about ten inches tall, but it did produce one pepper.  This pathetic little pepper plant, probably the one plant that has thrived the least, is by far my favorite plant in the garden.

The reason is because my son planted it.  One day toward the end of the summer, when the blazing heat of our Mediterranean sun was at last less intense, at the time of year that was a bit too late to plant summer garden vegetables, I had a tray of seedlings that I finally got around to planting in the garden.

My two boys, ages three and two and a half, were contentedly playing with their cars and trucks on the patio and in the dirt at the edge that we call the sandbox when I started my planting.  My oldest, Isaac, enjoyed observing me from a safe distance as I knelt at the edge of the garden bed planting cauliflower, spinach, and a few pepper seedlings.  When asked if he wanted to help, his response was a short, "No fanks.  I just wanna play here with my cars."  And this he did for the next thirty minutes.

Although playing with his cars looked a lot more like watching Daddy try to keep his brother Elijah from killing every seedling Daddy was trying to plant.

My youngest son, Elijah, in classic opposition to his neat and clean older brother, within minutes of being asked if he wanted to join me, already had dirt caked under his fingernails and grass stains on his knees obtained while trying to "he'p Daddy".

I would let him carry my hand shovel to the next work area.  I would let him try to drag the bucket of compost, and then scoop up the trail of dark dirt he would leave behind.  I would let him slide the tray of seedlings.  But planting required a bit more finesse than his two year old hands and bull in the china shop demeanor could quite muster.  So I ended up planting the seedlings one after the other with my son just glad to be there with me.

Then I paused.  What was I doing here?  Was I trying to teach him to be a good helper or a gardener?  Did I want him to appreciate the grunt work and not the joy of giving a plant a new place to grow  Fortunately, when I realized this, I had at least one plant left in the tray.  It was one of the smaller pepper seedlings.  It was probably a bit too late in the season for it to even flower let alone produce any peppers.

But it was this plant that I gave to my son.  With a "saved the best for last" attitude, I relinquished control, albeit a tad late, and gave full command to my two year old son.

"Fo' me?" he asked with wide blue eyes, and yes he actually said this.  I showed him where to dig the hole, helping only a bit.  I let him take the plant from the tray and remove it from its container.  He put it in the ground and piled the dirt back around it.  I only straightened it a bit... okay, I picked it up off its side.  We both tamped the soil back around its roots.  Finally we both held the hose and watered it in.

That was too much for Isaac to resist.  Shooting water all over the backyard?  He had to help with that.

Over the next few weeks, every time I went out back to water or weed or prune or harvest, Elijah would point out his pepper plant with such pride.  "Daddy, that's mine pepper pwant!"  He would help water it with the hose when I was outside with him.  When I was not outside with him, he would just drop his pants and water it himself.  He would walk back to the porch, pulling his underwear back up and telling me that his "pepper pwant was rearey firsty."

Surprisingly, the weather stayed warm enough for long enough and a few flowers bloomed.  Shortly after that, one little pepper began to form.

As the days have gotten shorter and cooler, we have spent less and less time in the garden, but that pepper has continued to grow very slowly.  The last few weeks have been more cold, and the plant is showing signs of throwing in the towel.  With vigor that originates from deep down in the cells of that plant, it is doing all it can to grow that pepper, to mature that fruit and produce seed.  It has been time to harvest that little pepper for weeks now.

Elijah will have none of it.  That is his pepper pwant.  That is his pepper.  When I remind him that his pepper is going to have to be picked soon, he tells me, "I don't fink so, Daddy.  I don't wanna pick my pepper."

So the pepper sits.  The plant has given all its resources to keep that pepper alive.  The last leaf wilted with last night's drop in temperature.  I don't know how much longer it will survive.

I still don't know how I am going to handle that one pepper.  I am glad I have a few days to try and come up with a good idea.  But for now the pepper plant remains.  My favorite plant in my garden.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Genetically Modified Organisms Escape


Following are three articles.  The first is a report of genetically modified corn "escaping" into the "wild".  The second article is a response to this event by one of my favorite food/agricultural authors, Michael Pollan.

To me, what is so disturbing is that these articles are over a decade old!  Yet still very relevant today... actually more so.  The loss of genetic diversity is just one of my big concerns and one that makes me so wary of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's).

The third article is from just a week ago.  Very disturbing.

These articles may be a bit deep or scientific for some, but it is vital for us to understand what is going on with GMO's.  Please take the time to read these articles, so you can make informed decisions about this issue.

Read my article on GMO's here.




"Genetic Modification Taints Corn in Mexico"
Carol Kaesuk Yoon, 
New York Times
, October 2, 2001
Link to original article

In a finding that has taken researchers by surprise and alarmed environmentalists, the Mexican government has discovered that some of the country's native corn varieties have been contaminated with genetically engineered DNA.

The contaminated seeds were collected from a region considered to be the world's center of diversity for corn — exactly the kind of repository of genetic variation that environmentalists and many scientists had hoped to protect from contamination. The result was unexpected because genetically modified corn, the presumed source of the foreign genes, has not been approved for commercial planting in Mexico.

Scientists expressed concern that the foreign genes could act to reduce genetic diversity in the country's native corn varieties and in the wild progenitor of domesticated corn, known as teosinte. If any of the foreign genes are very advantageous, plants carrying those genes could begin to dominate the population.

In such cases genetic variation will be lost as the diversity of plants not carrying the foreign genes decreases or disappears. Whether that will happen or has happened remains unknown.

In addition to being one of the world's most important crops, corn is viewed with a near religious reverence in Mexico, with seeds of native varieties passed down from generation to generation. Until now, scientists said researchers had assumed that these varieties, some of which are grown only by subsistence farmers in remote areas, were pristine.

"These are the extremes, the places where you would really not expect to find contamination," said Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist at the University of California at Berkeley, saying the results are an indication of widespread contamination. "The only reason they found it there is because that's the only place they've looked."

Scientists said the results also indicated that crop genes might be able to spread across geographic areas and varieties more quickly than researchers had guessed.

"It shows in today's modern world how rapidly genetic material can move from one place to another," said Dr. Norman C. Ellstrand, evolutionary biologist at University of California at Riverside. He said the real worry was that other foreign genes — like pharmaceutical-producing genes being developed in crops — could also find their way quickly and unnoticed into distant food sources.

Genetically engineered corn, known as Bt corn because it produces the insecticide known as Bt, has been in use by farmers in the United States since 1996.

Mexico's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources made the announcement on Sept. 18 that contaminated corn had been found in 15 different localities. The announcement credited Dr. Chapela with the initial discovery but described only the results from government-led research. Neither Dr. Chapela's team nor the Mexican teams' work has yet been published.

Scientists assume the native corn became contaminated through interbreeding with Bt corn, but how Bt corn may have come to be planted in Mexico remains a matter of speculation. While not approved for planting, biotech corn is legally imported into Mexico for use in food. Greenpeace, calling the contamination a form of genetic pollution, is calling on Mexico to ban all importation of genetically modified corn.

The Mexican government has not disclosed exactly what genes were found. Exequiel Ezcurra, the director of the National Institute of Ecology, which worked on the study, did not respond to requests for an interview. But Dr. Chapela, who is familiar with the Mexican work, said the researchers had identified the presence of DNA sequences from the cauliflower mosaic virus. This DNA is used nearly universally in genetically engineered plants and does not produce Bt insecticide.

As a result, it is still unclear whether any of the contaminated corn has the ability to produce the Bt insecticide.

Scientists may eventually be able to quantify the biological effects of the contamination, but some say the cultural cost in a country where corn is a symbol of the Mexican people may be harder to measure.

"The people are corn," said Dr. Chapela, who is Mexican, "and the corn is the people."


Genetic Pollution
Michael Pollan, The New York Times, December 9, 2001

The way we think about and deal with pollution has always been governed by the straightforward rules of chemistry. You clean the stuff up or let it fade with time. But what do you do about a form of pollution that behaves instead according to the rules of biology? Such a pollutant would have the ability to copy itself over and over again, so that its impact on the environment would increase with time rather than diminish. Now you're talking about a problem with, quite literally, a life of its own.

This year, the idea of genetic pollution -- the idea, that is, that the genes of genetically modified organisms might end up in places we didn't want them to go -- became a reality. In September the Mexican government announced that genes engineered into corn had somehow found their way into ancient maize varieties grown there -- this despite the fact that genetically modified corn seed has not been approved for sale in Mexico. The country where corn was probably first domesticated, Mexico is today the source of the crop's greatest genetic diversity. Now that diversity could well be threatened.

Companies like Monsanto have long acknowledged that their engineered genes ("transgenes") might on rare occasions "flow" by means of cross-pollination from one of their crops into neighboring plants. But because sex in nature takes place only between closely related species, and because most crop plants don't have close relatives in North America, the risk that new genetic traits would contaminate the genome of the world's important crops was, the companies claimed, remote. As long as genetically modified corn seed wasn't sold to Mexican farmers, or potato seed to Peruvians, these crucial "centers of diversity" could be protected. 

So how did transgenes ever find their way into traditional Mexican corn varieties? It's a mystery, but the leading theory is that some campesinos in remote mountainous fields outside Oaxaca bought some genetically modified corn as food -- then planted the kernels as seed. No matter how it happened, Monsanto's genes have spread widely in the region.

Why does this matter? The presence of transgenes in what some experts call "the cradle of corn" represents a threat to the crop's biodiversity. Should the traits introduced into Mexican fields confer
an evolutionary advantage (for insect resistance, say) on certain plants, their offspring could crowd out older varieties, leading to the extinction of genes we may someday need. For whenever a food crop suffers a catastrophic failure -- as when blights destroyed the potato crop in Ireland in the 1840's -- breeders return to that crop's center of diversity to find genes for resistance. Next time around, those genes may be nowhere to be found, a casualty of genetic pollution.

Greenpeace has called on the Mexican government to halt imports of genetically modified corn, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Genes released into the environment can replicate themselves ad infinitum. Indeed, some studies suggest that transgenes are particularly "sticky" -- better at getting themselves around in nature than ordinary genes, possibly because of the viral and bacterial
vectors used to engineer them. So far that's just a hypothesis; we don't really know how transgenes will behave once they've found their way into a crop's center of diversity. What we do know, now, is that we're about to find out.




Bugs may be resistant to genetically modified corn
Rick Callahan, Associated Press
Link to the original article

One of the nation's most widely planted crops — a genetically engineered corn plant that makes its own insecticide — may be losing its effectiveness because a major pest appears to be developing resistance more quickly than scientists expected.

The U.S. food supply is not in any immediate danger because the problem remains isolated. But scientists fear potentially risky farming practices could be blunting the hybrid's sophisticated weaponry.

When it was introduced in 2003, so-called Bt corn seemed like the answer to farmers' dreams: It would allow growers to bring in bountiful harvests using fewer chemicals because the corn naturally produces a toxin that poisons western corn rootworms. The hybrid was such a swift success that it and similar varieties now account for 65 percent of all U.S. corn acres — grain that ends up in thousands of everyday foods such as cereal, sweeteners and cooking oil.

But over the last few summers, rootworms have feasted on the roots of Bt corn in parts of four Midwestern states, suggesting that some of the insects are becoming resistant to the crop's pest-fighting powers.

Scientists say the problem could be partly the result of farmers who've planted Bt corn year after year in the same fields.

Most farmers rotate corn with other crops in a practice long used to curb the spread of pests, but some have abandoned rotation because they need extra grain for livestock or because they have grain contracts with ethanol producers. Other farmers have eschewed the practice to cash in on high corn prices, which hit a record in June.

"Right now, quite frankly, it's very profitable to grow corn," said Michael Gray, a University of Illinois crop sciences professor who's tracking Bt corn damage in that state.

A scientist recently sounded an alarm throughout the biotech industry when he published findings concluding that rootworms in a handful of Bt cornfields in Iowa had evolved an ability to survive the corn's formidable defenses.

Similar crop damage has been seen in parts of Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska, but researchers are still investigating whether rootworms capable of surviving the Bt toxin were the cause.

University of Minnesota entomologist Kenneth Ostlie said the severity of rootworm damage to Bt fields in Minnesota has eased since the problem surfaced in 2009. Yet reports of damage have become more widespread, and he fears resistance could be spreading undetected because the damage rootworms inflict often isn't apparent.

Without strong winds, wet soil or both, plants can be damaged at the roots but remain upright, concealing the problem. He said the damage he observed in Minnesota came to light only because storms in 2009 toppled corn plants with damaged roots.

"The analogy I often use with growers is that we're looking at an iceberg and all we see is the tip of the problem," Ostlie said. "And it's a little bit like looking at an iceberg through fog because the only time we know we have a problem is when we get the right weather conditions."

Seed maker Monsanto Co. created the Bt strain by splicing a gene from a common soil organism called Bacillus thuringiensis into the plant. The natural insecticide it makes is considered harmless to people and livestock.

Scientists always expected rootworms to develop some resistance to the toxin produced by that gene.
But the worrisome signs of possible resistance have emerged sooner than many expected.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently chided Monsanto, declaring in a Nov. 22 report that it wasn't doing enough to monitor suspected resistance among rootworm populations. The report urged a tougher approach, including expanding monitoring efforts to a total of seven states, including Colorado, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The agency also wanted to ensure farmers in areas of concern begin using insecticides and other methods to combat possible resistance.

Monsanto insists there's no conclusive proof that rootworms have become immune to the crop, but the company said it regards the situation seriously and has been taking steps that are "directly in line" with federal recommendations.

Some scientists fear it could already be too late to prevent the rise of resistance, in large part because of the way some farmers have been planting the crop.

They point to two factors: farmers who have abandoned crop rotation and others have neglected to plant non-Bt corn within Bt fields or in surrounding fields as a way to create a "refuge" for non-resistant rootworms in the hope they will mate with resistant rootworms and dilute their genes.
Experts worry that the actions of a few farmers could jeopardize an innovation that has significantly reduced pesticide use and saved growers billions of dollars in lost yields and chemical-control costs.

"This is a public good that should be protected for future generations and not squandered too quickly," said Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science and Public Policy.

Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann published research in July concluding that resistance had arisen among rootworms he collected in four Iowa fields. Those fields had been planted for three to six straight years with Bt corn — a practice that ensured any resistant rootworms could lay their eggs in an area that would offer plenty of food for the next generation.

For now, the rootworm resistance in Iowa appears isolated, but Gassmann said that could change if farmers don't quickly take action. For one, the rootworm larvae grow into adult beetles that can fly, meaning resistant beetles could easily spread to new areas.

"I think this provides an important early warning," Gassmann said.

Besides rotating crops, farmers can also fight resistance by switching between Bt corn varieties, which produce different toxins, or planting newer varieties with multiple toxins. They can also treat damaged fields with insecticides to kill any resistant rootworms — or employ a combination of all those approaches.

The EPA requires growers to devote 20 percent of their fields to non-Bt corn. After the crop was released in 2003, nine out of 10 farmers met that standard. Now it's only seven or eight, Jaffe said.

Seed companies are supposed to cut off farmers with a record of violating the planting rules, which are specified in seed-purchasing contracts. To improve compliance, companies are now introducing blends that have ordinary seed premixed with Bt seed.

Brian Schaumburg, who farms 1,400 acres near the north-central Illinois town of Chenoa, plants as much Bt corn as he can every spring.

But Schaumburg said he shifts his planting strategies every year — varying which Bt corn hybrids he plants and using pesticides when needed — to reduce the chances rootworm resistance might emerge in his fields.

Schaumburg said he always plants the required refuge fields and believes very few farmers defy the rule. Those who do put the valuable crop at risk, he said.

"If we don't do it right, we could lose these good tools," Schaumberg said.

If rootworms do become resistant to Bt corn, it "could become the most economically damaging example of insect resistance to a genetically modified crop in the U.S.," said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona. "It's a pest of great economic significance — a billion-dollar pest."


Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Variety of Preserved Fruits and Vegetables

A well stocked pantry should include some of our own preserves!


My sister Katie sent me a book on preserving for Christmas.  It is a great book, and I will review it soon.  I have dabbled a bit with preserving in the past.  When I lived in Kentucky, I made some Black Cherry Jelly, Crabapple Jelly, and Blackberry Jam.  They were all great.  However, it has been some time since I made any preserves to, well, preserve.

In the last few years, I have often made a quick jam or jelly when I have just a few pieces of fruit from the market.  I'll make a tiny batch, maybe just enough for one sitting, on my stove and store it in a small glass cup covered in plastic wrap in the refrigerator.  Now after reading this book on preserving, I am excited about doing some more larger scale production again soon.

As I read, I noticed that there are a lot of terms used in preserving fruits.  Vegetables are often preserved in similar ways or even mixed with the fruits as well depending on the preparation.  Whatever the ingredient, there are specific terms and definitions for what is made.  I thought it would be interesting to actually figure out what they all were.

Following is a list of the most common types of preserves along with a quick definition of each.

Jam
Made with whole fruit (or vegetables), crushed or chopped, and sugar.  Typically made with just one fruit, but some say it may be made with two fruits, and any more would be called a Conserve.  Consistency should be thick but spreadable and do not hold the shape of the jar (contrast to jelly).

Conserve
There are two definitions:
First - Made like jams, but are mixed with two or more fruits (or vegetables).  Often dried fruits (often raisins) and nuts are added.  Nuts are typically added at the last five minutes of cooking.  Consistency should be as Jam.

Second -  A fruit jam made of fruit stewed in sugar.  Often the whole or roughly chopped fruit is layered with sugar and left for a day before cooking.  Usually the fruit(s) are processed with as little water as possible to set.

Jelly
Made by cooking fruit (or vegetable) juice with jelly and sugar.  Ideally, the juice should be processed in a way to maintain clarity (clear or translucent) in the final jelly.  Consistency should be thick enough to hold its shape on a spoon, but be soft enough to be spreadable.

Marmalade
Made similar to jelly, but with the addition of small fruit pieces and/or peel evenly suspended throughout the jelly.  Consistency should be as Jam.

Preserve
While all of these items listed on this page are "Preserves", some separately define a "Preserve".
Made similar to jam, but with whole fruit (or vegetables), that are not crushed or chopped, and sugar.  Consistency should be as Jam.

Fruit Spread
A jam or preserve with no added sugar.

Fruit Butter
Made by cooking fruit or fruit pulp with sugar.  Often spices are added.  The fruit butter is cooked low and slow until the butter is thick and spreadable.  Consistency should be thick enough to round up on a spoon.
Examples: Apple Butter

Relish
Made by cooking chopped fruits and/or vegetables in a sauce that often contains vinegar, sometimes with sugar as well.  The goal is a condiment that has discernible pieces of fruit and/or vegetable (i.e. not smooth like a sauce) with a strong flavor that will compliment or contrast the food with which it is being served.

Chutney
An Indian relish combining vegetables and/or fruit and herbs, with classic "Indian" spices.  Often cooked for long periods of time.  Sometimes with a smoother consistency.
Examples: Mango Chutney, Mint Chutney, Coriander Chutney, Tamarind Chutney, Red Chili Chutney

Chow-Chow
A Southern American pickled relish made from a variety of vegetables.  Cabbage is often an ingredient and may be the origin of the name (chou is French for cabbage), although green tomatoes are also very common.  A very similar product made with more spices is the British piccalilli.

Confit
Pronounced "con-FEE", comes from the French confire, to preserve.  Typically made from meats, often poultry (Duck Confit is world famous) and pork, cooked and left in their own fat until the fat sets.  This old world style of preserving allows meats to be stored in a cool place for months with no refrigeration.  A less common variation is to make sweet confit with a fruit base and honey or sugar syrup preserving agent.  A savory confit calls for vegetables, like tomatoes and/or garlic with an oil, often olive oil, preserving agent.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Permaculture Plants: Jujube

The Jujube is an uncommon fruit in the West, but very well known in the East.

Common Name: Jujube, Chinese/Korean/Indian Date, Tsao
Scientific Name: Ziziphus zizyphus (a.k.a. Ziziphus jujuba)
Family: Rhamnaceae (Buckthorn family)
Description:
The Jujube is a small, drooping, deciduous tree or large shrub with prominent thorns (in most varieties) and small, dark, shiny leaves.  The Jujube will produce a small fruit (0.5-2 inches / 1.5-5 cm in diameter) with thin, edible skin that can be eaten fresh and is reminiscent of an apple, or it can be left on the tree will it will shrivel, darken, and dry and looks and tastes like a date.  

The Jujube can tolerate a wide variety of soil conditions, but a warm to hot summer and plenty of water will give the highest yields.  It spreads easily by root suckers and seed, so left unchecked, it can produce a thicket.  We can use that to our advantage in using this plant for a hedge or windbreak.

I have yet to try one of these fruits, but considering the long history of cultivation, the large number of varieties (over 400!), and the long list of uses (see below), I think it is safe to say that while rare in the U.S., there is ample reason to include this tree in my future forest garden.  I am hoping to find some fruit to sample this coming summer.

Illustration of Ziziphus zizyphus by Adolphus Ypey, 1813
Tab. 54 from Adolphus Ypey, Vervolg ob de Avbeeldingen der artseny-gewassen met derzelver Nederduitsche en Latynsche beschryvingen, Eersde Deel, 1813

History:
Likely originating in what is southern Asia, some scholars believe as early at 9,000 BC.  Over 400 cultivars have been developed in many parts of Asia.  

Trivia:

  • The leaves, fruit, and bark are used extensively in traditional Chinese and Korean medicine, and in many places in India and Africa.
  • The most expensive honey in the world is made from flowers of a close relative, Ziziphus spina-christi (Christ's Thorn Jujube or Sidr Tree).  The honey sells for about $100 USD per 1 lb (~500 grams).
  • The resin (called Lac) secreted from the scale insect (Kerria lacca) after it feeds on another close tropical relative of the Jujube tree (Ziziphus mauritiana) is refined and used to make a high quality shellac for fine lacquer work.
  • The Jujube was first introduced in Texas in 1875.
USING THIS PLANT
Primary Uses:

  • Fresh eating
  • Dried - eaten as is or mixed in delicacies, often cooked
  • Smoked
  • Cooking and baking - use fresh as you would apples, use dried as you would dates

Secondary Uses:

  • General insect (especially bees) nectar plant
  • Shade tree
  • Windbreak
  • Hedge
  • Erosion control
  • Can be preserved, stored in liquor - known as jiu zao ("spirited jujube")
  • Alcohol from distilled fermented fruit pulp
  • Used as flavoring in teas
  • Dried fruit can be used as a coffee substitute 
  • Juiced
  • Jams, Jellies
  • Vinegared
  • Pickled
  • Fruit Butter - make like apple butter
  • Candied
  • Dried fruit can be ground into a powder and used in a variety of ways
  • Young leaves can be cooked and eaten as a vegetable, but not reported to have a great flavor
  • Can be coppiced
  • Firewood
  • Charcoal
  • Woodworking - wood is hard and strong and close-grained
  • Bark and root used in dyeing (brown, grey, or reddish colors)
  • Bark and root used in tanning


Yield: 20-60 lbs (9-27 kg) per year
Harvesting: Mid summer - autumn.  However, Jujube Trees will flower through the whole growing season with fruit ripening throughout the middle to end of the growing season.  The fruit will not ripen off the tree.
Storage: Fresh fruit does not keep well (about a week), but dried fruits can last for months in a cool, dry environment

Ziziphus zizyphus has small, almost non-descript flowers, but bees like them!

Great image showing the leaves of the Jujube.

DESIGNING WITH THIS PLANT
Chill Requirement: 50-450 hours/units depending on the species and variety

Plant Type: Small Tree to Large Shrub
Leaf Type: Deciduous
Forest Garden Use: Canopy Tree for small Forest Garden, Sub-Canopy (Understory), Shrub
Cultivars/Varieties: Many varieties available (over 400!). 

Pollination: Most require cross-pollination.  While many are Self-Pollinating/Self-Fertile, yields with these cultivars are likely higher with cross-pollination
Flowering: April-May (late spring through summer), but will often flower throughout the growing season

Life Span:
Years to Begin Bearing: 3-4 years from seed
Years to Maximum Bearing: No good data, but likely just a few years after fruit production begins
Years of Useful Life: No good data, but many reports show this to be a long lived tree
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PLANT
Size: 16-32 feet (5-10 meters) tall and 23 feet (7 meters) wide
Roots: Forms a main, deep taproot, but it is also suckering (the tree will send up shoots from the roots many feet from the main tree)
Growth Rate: Fast


GROWING CONDITIONS FOR THIS PLANT
Light: Prefers full sun
Shade: Tolerates very light shade (less than 25%)
Moisture: Tolerates a wide variety of moisture levels
pH: Tolerates a wide pH range

Special Considerations for Growing:
None really.  Bright sun and hot summers will give best fruit yields.  Likely not tolerate of juglones (so don't plant next to walnuts).

Propagation:  Suckering: divide from mother plant during dormant season..  Seed (requires 3 months stratification).  Cuttings: use mature wood of the same season's growth, try to keep at 40-50 F (5-10 C) - a greenhouse in the winter months is ideal.  With all methods, try to place plant in permanent location as soon as possible to prevent damage of the main taproot.

Maintenance:
Minimal.  Some branches will often die back each year.  While there are a few pests in its home range, in North America, there are almost no pest or disease problems.

Concerns:
Can spread easily through seed or root suckering.  

Monday, January 2, 2012

Questions and Answers by Michael Pollan


Michael Pollan is my favorite non-farmer food author.  He has written a few of my favorite food/agricultural books (In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto and The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals), and his writing often appears in The New York Times.  While I don't always agree with him, I tend to side with him over 90% of the time.  The following is a great article:


Michael Pollan Answers Readers’ Questions
By Michael Pollan
The New York Times Magazine, October 6, 2011


Link to the original article can be found here.


These questions for Mr. Pollan were submitted by New York Times readers. The first 10 questions below were the most popular among those we received. They were answered by Mr. Pollan on Oct. 6, 2011, after the Food Issue was originally published.

Our family is on a budget and can’t afford to eat all organic. Where should we direct our money to get the most benefit? Organic produce? Meats? Dairy?

This was the most popular question by far, and it’s a good one: some organic products offer the consumer more value than others, so if you’re on a budget, it’s important to buy organic strategically.

Here are a few quick rules of thumb:

If you have young kids, it’s worth paying the organic premium on whatever they eat or drink the most of organically. So if they drink lots of apple juice — which they shouldn’t, by the way — or milk, then spring for it there.

On produce, some items, when grown conventionally, have more pesticide residue than others, so when buying these, it pays to buy organic. According to the Environmental Working Group, the “dirty dozen” most pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables are: apples, celery, strawberries, peaches, spinach, imported nectarines, imported grapes, sweet bell peppers, potatoes, blueberries, lettuce and kale/collars.

The “clean 15″ are onions, sweet corn, pineapples, avocado, asparagus, sweet peas, mangoes, eggplant, cantaloupe, kiwi, cabbage, watermelon, sweet potatoes, grapefruit and mushrooms. So if you’ve only got a little money to devote to organic, buy the organic apples and skip the organic onions. But do keep in mind that it’s important to eat fruits and vegetables regardless of how they’re grown.

In meat, organic is very expensive, and doesn’t necessary ensure that the animals didn’t live on feedlot. I look for grass fed for beef instead, milk and butter, too.


If you could rewrite the farm bill from scratch, with no political constraints of any sort, what would it look like?

I don’t have the space, and you don’t have the time, to sketch out a complete alternative-reality farm bill. But as a guiding principle, I would say it needs to be aligned with our public health and environmental goals. That is, every provision in it — from crop subsidies to meat inspection — needs to be “scored” for its impact on public health and nutrition.

I went into more detail on the farm bill in a 2008 piece for The Times, “Farmer in Chief.”


What are the pros and cons of a vegan diet?

There’s research to suggest that vegetarians and vegans are generally healthier than the rest of us; however “flexitarians” — carnivores who eat meat once or twice a week — are just as healthy. I know vegans who thrive on the diet, but also many who have trouble keeping it going: it takes a lot of work and care, much more than vegetarianism, which I would count as a con. You really have to organize your life around your eating. It’s also possible now to be a “junk-food vegan,” eating all sorts of processed vegan foods and mock meats. I guess if your goal in life is to keep from eating animals, this option makes sense, but from a health standpoint processed food is processed food. But I admire anyone who has gone to the trouble of thinking through the full implications of their eating choices, and then acted on that knowledge.


How much soy is too much? Can I eat tofu and drink soymilk every day? What are the true pros and cons of soy? I cannot seem to find unbiased information.

The honest and complete answer is that we don’t know — the jury is still out on soy. I do know we’re eating soy in forms it was never eaten before — highly processed and novel. The F.D.A. has declined to list an additive like soy isoflavones as “GRAS” (“Generally regarded as safe”). It’s worth noting that Americans are now eating more soy than Asians, and we eat it in novel new forms. Asians eat it only after it has been processed in traditional ways — fermented, or curdled in the form of tofu. These products have been eaten for centuries, which is reassuring. Now soy protein isolate, soy isoflavones and soy lecithin are found in myriad processed foods. If you see any of these in your snack foods, I would+ lay off. Soy can act like estrogens in the body, which may or may not be a good thing. There’s a section on soy in my book, “In Defense of Food.”


I’m torn between artificial sweeteners and regular sugar. I know that both aren’t good for your health, but if I just can’t live without some form of sweetener in my morning coffee, which would you pick? In other words, which one is better for you health-wise?

Sugar is probably the biggest culprit in obesity and diabetes, but I wouldn’t make a capital case of a teaspoon of sugar in coffee. In soda, there’s research suggesting that switching to artificial sweeteners does not lead to weight loss, so whether they’re safe or not, they may not do what they purport to.


Should I buy local foods or stick to organic?

It depends on what you value most. If keeping pesticides out of your food is your highest value, then buy organic. If you care most about freshness and quality or keeping local farms in business and circulating money in your community, buy local. But very often you can do both. Some local farmers are organic in everything but name, so before you decide to pass them up, ask them not “Are you organic” — to which the answer must be no if they haven’t been certified — but rather, how do you deal with fertility and pests? That starts a more nuanced conversation that may convince you to buy their produce.



What is the single best food we all should be eating every day? Cutting to the nitty-gritty, here.

Single best? Probably whole grains — they offer a lot that’s missing from the industrial diet, from fiber to important antioxidants and healthy fats. People who eat lots of whole grains are generally healthier and live longer than those who don’t. But if I could add to the list of important foods missing from the standard American diet, I would add leafy greens and fermented foods with live cultures.


“In Defense of Food” focused on debunking nutritionism and the lipid theory. What about our carb consumption? A lot of research I’ve seen lately indicates they’re the real culprits in our diets.

Current trends in nutritional research implicate refined carbohydrates and, to a large extent, exonerate most fats. The increase in sugar consumption alone can account for the obesity and diabetes epidemic, and scientists have come a long way in understanding the mechanisms by which calories from refined carbs — fructose especially — have a disproportionate effect on weight and insulin resistance — see the work of Robert Lustig and Gary Taubes for more.


You must be on the road a lot. Where do you eat when you are on the road?

It’s a challenge, no doubt about it. Airports are the worst. If I absolutely must have a meal in an airport, I’ll look for a Mexican place and get a rice-and-bean burrito. “No airport meat” is a rule with me. But I find that today, nearly every city in America has at least one restaurant that focuses on the best local ingredients, and the Internet makes it much easier to find that place.


What is the “real deal” on egg consumption? Good or bad?

Eggs are great and always were. The nutrition researchers have rehabilitated them in recent years — they used to think that cholesterol in eggs raised cholesterol in the blood, but this turns out not to be the case for most people. So enjoy, but look for at least “cage-free,” (most other laying hens are raised in crowded cages) and ideally “pastured” eggs, which come from chickens that have actually been out on grass. This makes for happier, healthier hens and tastier, more nutritious eggs.


How can you tell if a food is genetically engineered?

You can’t, unless you’re willing to move to Europe or Japan, where the government requires that it be labeled. Ours doesn’t, so there’s no way to tell. This is despite the fact that 80 to 90 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want it labeled, and Barack Obama, as a candidate, once promised to make it happen. But the industry is afraid you won’t buy genetically modified foods if they’re labeled — and they’re probably right. Why would you? So far at least, genetically modified food offers the consumer no tangible benefit. In America, the only way to be certain you’re not buying genetically engineered food is to buy organic; the U.S.D.A. rules for organic prohibit it.


What will our food system be like in 100 years?

My best guess is that the food system will look very different in 100 years, for the simple reason that the present one is — in the precise sense of the word — unsustainable. It depends on fossil fuels that we can’t depend on and exacts a steeper price in human and environmental health than we can afford. So it will change, whether we want it to or not. We certainly won’t be eating nine ounces of meat per person per day, as Americans do now — there won’t be enough feed grain, worldwide, to continue that feast, and presumably we will have faced up to meat-eating’s disastrous toll on the environment. If we haven’t, we’ll have much bigger problems on our plate than what to have for dinner.


How do we take Into account cultural differences when telling people what they ‘should’ be eating?

I have yet to hear of a traditional diet — from any culture, anywhere in the world — that is not substantially healthier than the “standard American diet.” The more we honor cultural differences in eating, the healthier we will be.


What do you think of in vitro meat?

I think I’ll pass, but probably won’t have to. Cloning meat, or making it in an incubator, is an interesting thought experiment for animal rights philosophers and journalists, but I doubt we’ll actually see it on menus any time soon. Meat has a lot more to it than muscle cells — not to put you off your feed, but you also have to get the fat and sinews, the connective tissue and the blood right to make it organoleptically acceptable. To date, our food scientists have not demonstrated they have the technical or aesthetic skills to simulate real foods with notable success. I will be surprised if they come up with synthetic meat that is as close to the real thing as margarine is to butter. Think about baby formula: we’ve been working on that one for a century and a half, and for reasons we don’t totally understand, it still doesn’t do all that genuine mother’s milk does. We flatter ourselves by thinking we can outdo or even approximate nature’s foods. Though come to think of it, it might be possible to simulate a chicken nugget, which is already once removed from the real thing.


Is frozen produce as nutritious as fresh?

Frozen vegetables and fruits are a terrific and economical option when fresh is unavailable or too expensive. The nutritional quality is just as good — and sometimes even better, because the produce is often picked and frozen at its peak of quality. The only rap is that freezing collapses the cell walls of certain fruits and vegetables, at some cost to their crunch. But this has no bearing on nutrition. Do look for frozen foods with a single ingredient — no fake herb-butter sauce!


Why Is the expiration date on organic milk sometimes a couple of months away while regular milk has a sell-by date normally within a week or 10 days?

Much of the organic milk in your market is “ultrapasteurized” rather than simply “pasteurized” — that is, it has been heated to a higher temperature in order to extend its shelf life. This is a holdover from when organic milk sat longer on grocery shelves. Some nutritionists believe that ultrapasteurization damages the quality of milk; many cheese makers won’t use it. In some busier markets, you can find organic milk that has not been ultrapasteurized.


What must government do to make a healthful food as affordable as its evil counterpart?

This is the $64,000 question. There are certainly steps the government can take to make healthful food somewhat less expensive: underwrite farmers’ transition to organic and other kinds of sustainable agriculture; support the renaissance in local meat production by making it easier to build and run small slaughterhouses; use crop subsidies to reward farmers for diversifying their fields and growing real food rather than “commodity crops” like corn and soy; enforce federal antitrust laws to break up the big meatpackers and seed companies.

But these measures will never make high-quality food as cheap as industrial food, some of which will only get more expensive if we take the steps needed to civilize feedlots, clean up water and protect farmworkers from exploitation. Faux populists in the food industry battle such measures on the grounds they want to keep food prices low for the poor. But the institution of slavery kept crop prices low, too — at a cost we ultimately decided was too great for a democratic society to pay. (Come to think of it, slavery still exists in parts of the food system, according to reports out of Florida.) Cheap food has become a pillar of our low-wage economy, one reason Americans have managed to stay afloat as their wages have declined since the 1970s. In the end, if we want healthful and conscientiously produced food for everyone, we’re simply going to have to pay people enough so that they can afford to buy it.


How in the world do I cook fish?

Less is more: the big trick to cooking fish is to undercook it. The center of a fillet should still be slightly translucent when you take it off the heat. (Remember, it will continue to cook for a few minutes.)


Could you address the controversy regarding small-farm, raw-milk cheese producers?

Raw milk is delicious and nutritious — and more risky to drink than pasteurized milk. It also makes much more interesting cheeses, because some of the bacteria and enzymes destroyed during pasteurization contribute striking flavors. But producing raw milk safely takes a lot more care, and in recent years there have been several cases of people, especially children, getting sick after consuming raw milk.

There is a strong libertarian streak among many in the food movement, who demand the right to eat whatever they want, without interference from the government. They have a point — how is it that cigarettes are legal in this country while, in most states, raw milk can’t be sold in stores? On the other hand, doesn’t the government have a compelling interest in protecting children from a product about which they can’t make an informed decision?

You do have to wonder about the Food and Drug Administration’s priorities. Why is the government putting its resources into shutting down raw-milk producers, a teeny-tiny “industry,” when there are many more serious threats to food safety on factory farms? (In fact the overwhelming majority of illnesses tied to milk and cheese come from pasteurized products.) While Amish dairymen are being raided by the F.D.A., Jack DeCoster, the notorious Iowa egg producer whose filthy, salmonella-infected eggs were linked to an outbreak that sickened more than 1,500 people last year, received a mild warning letter from the F.D.A. What is going on here? Sounds like political theater to me.


How do generic brands in supermarkets work? Are they worse than name brands?

There are generics, and then there are generics. Some generic products may be the exact same as the branded product they resemble — they’re made by the same manufacturer and simply sold under a different, usually more boring, store label. These are a great deal — you save by not paying for the marketing and advertising behind the big brand. But there are also many more generic products that are reformulated or made with cheaper ingredients. So how can you tell what kind of generic you’re getting? Compare the ingredient and nutrition label: if they’re identical, then the products are almost certainly identical, too.


When I purchase vegetables and meat labled ‘organic,’ why are they so much more expensive than similar items without the ‘organic,’ label?

There are several reasons organic food costs more than conventional food. First, the demand for it exceeds the supply, and presumably, as more farmers transition to organic, the price will fall, though it will never match conventional prices. For one thing, organic farmers receive virtually no subsidies from the government. (European governments significantly subsidize the transition to organic; ours doesn’t.)

But even on a level playing field, farming organically would probably remain more expensive. Farming without chemicals is inherently more labor-intensive, especially when it comes to weeding. In animal agriculture, raising animals less intensively is always going to cost more.

Think about it this way: The “high” price of organic food comes a lot closer to the true price of producing that food — a price we seldom pay at the checkout. It’s important to remember that when you buy conventional food, many costs have been shifted — to the taxpayer in the form of crop subsidies, to the farmworker in the form of health problems and to the environment in the form of water and air pollution.

O.K., apart from a clearer conscience, what does the premium paid for organic food get you as a consumer? Organic food has little or no pesticide residues, and especially for parents of young children, this is a big deal. There is also a body of evidence that produce grown in organic soils often has higher levels of various nutrients. (But whether these are enough to justify the higher price is questionable.) Probably for the same reason, organic produce often tastes better than conventional (though a cross-country truck ride can obviate this edge).

So it’s possible to make a case to the consumer for the superiority of organic food — but the stronger case is to the citizen. Farming without synthetic pesticides is better for the soil, for the water and for the air — which is to say, for the commons. It is also better for the people who grow and harvest our food, who would much rather not breathe pesticides. Producing meat without antibiotics will also help stave off antibiotic-resistance. If you care about these things, then the premium paid for organic food is money well spent.


What do you think of gluten-free diets?

They are very important if you have celiac disease or can’t tolerate gluten. But it’s hard to believe that the number of people suffering from these conditions has grown as fast as this product category. Gluten has become the bad nutrient of the moment, the evil twin of Omega 3 fatty acids. Could it really be that bread, a staple of Western civilization for 6,000 years, is suddenly making millions of us sick? I’m dubious.


What healthful breakfasts can you recommend?

Can’t go wrong with oatmeal. I like the steel cut that I soak in water overnight. (The soak speeds cooking and makes more nutrients available.) In the summer, I like fresh fruit with yogurt. But my favorite breakfast is two eggs from chickens raised on pasture, served on whole-grain toast.


Are there real opportunities for consumers to make an impact on factory farming, unsustainable agriculture and animal cruelty?

Absolutely. As the market for humanely raised meat grew in recent years, the industry responded. The egg industry recently committed to an effort to phase out tightly confining cages for laying hens; some pork producers are phasing out gestation crates; McDonald’s has taken steps to ensure that the meat it buys is slaughtered more humanely; Chipotle now buys only humanely raised pork. There is no question that agribusiness responds to the “votes” of consumers on these issues. The food industry is terrified of you. And PETA!


How would our food landscape change if the government no longer subsidized corn? Is there a better alternative — subsidizing fruits or vegetables?

I’m afraid it would change less than you might think. Though crop subsidies certainly helped to make corn (and its boon companion, soy) the mainstay of our food system, eliminating those subsidies might not by itself be enough to topple king corn. Decades of crop breeding, advances in farm machinery and the building of a rural infrastructure all devoted to these crops means a Midwestern farmer can produce a bumper crop of corn with just a couple months of work while at the same time holding down another job. Growing anything else would mean a lot more time and work in the fields, and at this point that farmer probably depends on the other source of income.

As for subsidizing vegetables, that, too, is trickier than it seems. Subsidies tend to result in surpluses, which in the case of grain is fine: you can store surplus corn or soy in a silo for years. Try doing that with broccoli. In the case of “specialty crops” — the U.S.D.A.’s term for crops you can actually eat — we would be better off subsidizing demand rather than supply: giving vouchers to the poor to buy fresh produce, say, or incentives to retailers to lower prices in the produce section.


I’m of Asian descent, and I don’t understand why everyone seems to be saying that white rice Is bad for you, when Asians have been eating it for thousands of years. Do I really have to give up rice to lose weight and prevent diabetes?


In general you’re better off eating brown rice than white, which (unless it has been fortified with vitamins) is pretty much pure starch. But a little white rice isn’t going to kill you or give you diabetes. Especially if you eat it with lots of vegetables and some fats, which will compensate for the lack of nutrients and slow your body’s absorption of all that glucose. That said, the Harvard School of Public Health estimates (how, I don’t know) that changing from white to brown rice will reduce your risk of diabetes by 16 percent.

Yes, it’s true that people have been eating white rice for centuries. But the rice has changed, and so have we. Millers today do a much more thorough job of “polishing” rice than they once did — that is, whitening it by removing the nutritious bran and germ from the grain. (The same is true of “white flour” as well — it’s a whole lot whiter now than it used to be and therefore less nutritious. Nice going!) As for the eaters of old-timey white rice, chances are they were working in the fields, and so burning those extra carbs that sedentary people store as fat.

If you don’t like brown rice, consider “converted rice.” This is rice that has been parboiled before it’s milled, which forces some of the nutrients — though not the fiber — out of the bran and into the kernel.

As a result, converted rice is more nutritious than ordinary white rice and its sugars are absorbed more slowly by the body. Uncle Ben was onto something.


Are There Any Foods You Won’t Eat?
Feedlot meat. And tomatoes that have been in the refrigerator.


Link to the original article can be found here.