03 Jan Sat 2015
Spendavist
In a lot of ways we are environmental activist. We belong to many groups that support environmental practices. We attend continuing education classes as a way to keep our nutrient management certification or certified farmer status as it is called in Maryland.
We are members of various groups local and national that relate to specific functions associated with the farming community and specifically to environmental issues that we practice. We practice what we preach, that is how, with confidence, we can give tours of our sustainable operation and impart ways that non-farmers can help the environment in their households.
Then there is the consumer activist side that dictates my spending habits. I firmly believe, and economics proves, that my money speaks louder than I do. After each of my posts I implore the buy local mantra. I have learned that if you do not walk the walk, you cannot talk the talk. It is that simple, I am not naïve, I know that there are limits based on income. However, I know of a lot of people who are spendavist and products labeled Non-GMO Project Verified are their targets.
Once you find a genuine sustainable farmer support them. Speak up with your money and gratitude. These people are working and committing themselves to your health and the health of your family and generations to come. It is important to note that if we all made choices to support local businesses and growers then the industrial food complex will react. If you look at the countries that ban GMO's it will surprise you. One of the latest country's to refuse GMO food from US big Ag is China. China, the same producers that brought us high sulfuric dry-wall, leaden toys and clothing, killer pet food and treats.
I admit, I was stunned to learn that they rejected GMO's, then I got scared. It was one of those out of body experiences a moment of clarity that solidified my stance against eating GMO's. Then knowing that we have joined a cause that really is a worldwide issue adds to the pressure to succeed.
It is not just us in the USA, it is humans all over this planet. We are all in it together and it is a fight for future existence. What I see is that it is greater than all of us and will impact future generations. The science points this out but does not reach as drastic a conclusion. It merely states the facts as they find them. If however, nothing changes then the environmental impact continues in an increasingly negative way and we will run out of clean resources.
Buying local is not a fad, it is a core shift in how we as individuals can communally join hands and fight for those who will inherit this earth long after we are gone. Because it is those people who will suffer the greatest but it also you who will benefit now. Spend your money in a way that helps you, your community and your lineage. Be a spendavist, use your money to dictate what big Ag should be doing. It is the only voice they know to listen to. If the money stops flowing they will change course to capture it back.
Buy Local: Help make a difference and impact the future in a positive way
23 Jul Tue 2013
GMO makers have the upper hand but you have the choice.
BPA, BHA, BHT, DDT, PCB's Sodium Nitrate and Nitrites, 2, 4-D, 2, 4-T Atrazine, Glyphosate and Phthalates, all chemicals that the manufacturer has claimed were safe backed up by studies they funded. Atrazine is not supposed to stay in the human body (according to industry research), yet Canadian researchers found it in the blood of pregnant women and then in their umbilical cords. Does that mean it will be in the fetus?Scientist have reported that pigs eating GMO corn leaves them with higher stomach inflammation then those fed non-gmo corn they have also found a new mutation in the DNA of GMO corn called Gene VI known as a viral gene. Viral as in virus.
Atrazine, is an endocrine disruptor found to castrate and feminize frogs, bass and other predictor species. What do you think it is doing to fetuses? We have a problem with our food supply. Additives, preservatives and other synthetic substances are in our food with very little empirical research focusing on the affect to the human body. Bombarded by health claims that truly are false, Michael Pollan in his book “In Defense of Food,” stated rather bluntly that if the package reports to be healthy or has any other claim of benefits, to the human body, it is not. He went on to say, paraphrasing: read the ingredients, if the ingredients were not around when your grandmother was alive it is not good for you. Whole foods are good for you, fruits vegetables, nuts and berries and yes, the occasional protein input
It is our time; we as a nation are a spending economy. If we do not spend, then the one percent does not make money. Raise your voice with your wallet. Shop local, support local business, go to the mom and pop stores, and most of all source your food. Find a local farm or CO-OP and ask questions; most importantly buy products labeled as NON-GMO. Each of us has a duty to those less informed about their food choices. You will hear "I cannot afford the prices of organic or naturally grown". I know given economic choices hard decisions are made, but that does not mean you have to make the wrong choice. As Pollan pointed out in his book, we spend money now for cell phones, cable, internet, internet games, streaming video and other services that we never had to before. Once again, it comes down to choice. It is a choice that profoundly affects the future health of you and those to come after us.
I know it is a radical suggestion, but by making that choice, you are supporting people that are benefiting the air you breathe, the food you eat and the earth that your family inhabits. Besides, your taxes already go to pay for environmental ills caused by those that sell you this cheap, chemically laden food. My question is why would you want to support that? By staying local, you build your community backup. The money you spend on a farm or at a farmers market goes to pay for local labor, local supplies and kept in your community.
Do not kid yourself, you are paying a larger price then you know, the choice you make today influences the lives of our future generations. The science of today has proven the ill affects of the chemicals mentioned above. Given the greed that we see around us from big-ag, would you have any other reason to believe that this history is not going to repeat itself? GMO makers might have the upper hand but you my friend have the greatest gift to benefit yourself and future generations, you have a choice.
Buy Local: Help the hundreds of thousands of us, struggling to bring you fresh, safe, food
17 Dec Mon 2012
BPA, Atrazine and 2,4-D
There was a study a while ago linking Atrazine to the castration and feminization of frogs in test labs. Frogs are known as a predictor species. Predictor species have human genetic make-ups, that is, their internal organs and systems are most like humans so scientist can see what is happening to them and extrapolate what can happen in the human body. Industrial farms and large operations use Atrazine primarily in weed control applications.The San Francisco Chronicle wrote about the affects that Atrazine is having on the environment. The study conducted at UC Berkley and published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" spoke to the affects of Atrazine. .
As you would expect the maker of the weed suppressant is fighting the study and pointing to every flaw they can find. Interestingly, the author of the study worked for the maker of Atrazine years before. His findings showed Atrazine to be an endocrine disruptor but the manufacture dismissed the report.Remember feminized bass, they are a prime example of what an endocrine disruptor can do and bass are predictor species too. The other problem of concern, with the use of Atrazine, is the development of the super-weed.
Weeds are becoming round-up resistant. Leave it to Mother Nature to put man in his place. Therefore, we have weeds now that are resistant to Atrazine, one of the chemicals used in Round-up. Which means these new weeds are going to need a stronger chemical in which to control or eliminate them. That chemical, scientist have said, is 2, 4-D. 2, 4-D is an unknown chemical to you and me until you hear the product name it was used in. 2, 4-D was the major ingredient in Agent Orange. The use of Agent Orange occurred in the sixties and seventies until all hell broke lose when those exposed to the herbicide started getting sick. However, I digress.
The endocrine system regulates hormones like testosterone and estrogen. Any wonder feminization and castrations is taking place in frogs found with high levels of endocrine disruptors. I cannot make this stuff up, yet those charged with protecting our food, environment and health are benefiting from the very industry they are suppose to regulate. They rely on scientific data where the funds to conduct the study often comes from the manufacturer or industry pushing the chemical.
Am I missing something, is it that we die off and are replaced by other people who spend and that is why killing us to make a profit is okay. Why would we expect the FDA or EPA to crack down on the use of endocrine disruptors? Things have to get out of control like Thalidomide, DDT, Bisphenal A (plastic containers) and Phthalates (cosmetics), before the public is warned and then protected from those that seek profit no matter the outcome.
If this is happening to the frogs then what is happening to the humans that have to work around the stuff and ingest trace amounts. If you think washing the food will help think again. You just cannot wash this stuff off; if you could then it would not be affective in the field when rain comes. It has to be able to withstand water in order to be affective in the field. That and the fruit and vegetable actually absorb and contain trace amounts of the chemicals used on them.
Twenty-five years ago, we started growing organic because I learned about trace amounts of chemicals on and in my food. To me “trace amounts,” means the “existence of”. My thought was if I were trying to eat healthy why I would ingest trace amounts of carcinogenic chemicals. I am sorry, I respect science and scientist but they are human and we as a society do not have a good record of accomplishment when it comes to protecting people over profit. If we did, big tobacco would not be the standard-bearer by which we judge corrupt corporate malfeasance in the pursuit of profit over health.
Buy Local- Save a frog, a bass, yourself and the environment by doing so
17 Oct Wed 2012
What you need to know about GMO
To show you how important GMO is to the industrial food complex (IFC) you only need to look at California’s Proposition 37.It is a bill that would require food manufacturers to label foods made with GMO tainted products.Why is this important to you?Because as California goes so goes the Country.California represents about 12% of the total food consumed in the United States.
The IFC has poured in over 25 million dollars to defeat the referendum.Monsanto alone has contributed 4 million to defeat the measure.Coke, Pepsi and others have contributed as well. People are suggesting boycotting these companies. I suggest eating healthy. Eat whole foods that you know do not contain GMO's. GMO’s have been getting bad press about the ill it is causing in the human being, the environment and the flora and fauna.
More of us want food that does not have GMO added.The EU and other countries do not allow GMO in there food supply and there are reasons for that. To me the bottom line with GMO is that an anti-biotic needs to be spliced into the DNA helix in order for the DNA to accept the modified trait being introduced.Then there is the actual substance that is being placed in the DNA.Let me explain, the anti-biotic helps the DNA accept the modification into its makeup say the round-up gene. Round-up ready corn has the round-up gene spliced into its DNA with the help of the anti-biotic.Then if we eat tacos, corn chips or whatever is made with the substance that genetic modification is consumed along with the anti-biotic strain.
That is my elementary understanding, I am not a scientist, and I have no empirical facts other then observations.Those observations are the following:more viruses are becoming anti-biotic resistant, more food borne allergies are being reported, scientist report environmental impacts like feminization and castration of predictor species and flora is starting to become round up resistant.In essence making a super-weed that is impervious to weed killers and strain of viruses that are anti-biotic resistant. Which in turn leads to the need for even more nefarious chemicals to control the weeds. 2.4-D for instance would be used. 2,4-D was the checmical in agent orange.
We are certified organic and GMO drift is one of those things that must be monitored and stopped if possible.I can tell you it is not possible unless you have a very isolated well-protected field you are susceptible to GMO propagation of your plants.We take great pains to find out what is being planted around us and when the germination is going to start to take place.We then plant around that window of propagation.It is the only way I know how to safely grow food.Sometimes we will not plant corn a second time due to drift potential.
The same people that developed GMO technology are the ones that recommended the use in the US food supply. That fact alone answers the question of is it bad for you. If it was healthy wouldn't they open it up to transparency just to prove it is not harming the environment or us?
Buy Local: They do not use GMO.
06 Sep Thu 2012
Organic is cheaper when you take Pollution into account
Recently there was as a study published by a Stanford researcher about the merits of organic versus conventional food. Specifically the study looked at the vitamin and mineral content of fruits and vegetables and the cost difference between organic and conventional food. Although there are studies that refute these findings: University of Washington, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012346 , http://www.bioneers.org/programs/food-farming-1/articles-interviews/organic-food-has-a-higher-nutrient-content-an-interview-with-charles-benbrook and http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/16/best.organic.produce/index.html I tend to stay away from all of the back and fourth and look at the undisputed facts.
First, conventional food contains trace amounts of carcinogenic chemicals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/172223 . Trace amounts that are allowed per FDA, USDA and EPA standards. Yet every year we find that what was once approved is now harming us. Diactyl and Bisphenal-A (BPA) are the most recent that come to mind. Diactyl causes lung cancer, which is a fact. However, for years it was allowed in the food supply particularly in butter-flavored popcorn and other foodstuffs. That is until people started getting lung cancer due to build up of Diactyl in the body. Then there is BPA. BPA is an endocrine disrupter and is shown to cause birth defects in children and hinder their mental development. Recently studies have shown that BPA is narrowing arteries in adults. The list of approved then disapproved fungicides, insecticides, additives and preservatives just keeps growing.
Second, there is the environmental detriment big industrial farms create while they produce all of the meats, eggs, fruits and vegetables. One example is Atrazine, an herbicide. Atrazine has been linked to castrating bullfrogs and feminizing bass http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Study-says-herbicide-causes-frogs-sex-change-3197878.php . Yet it is still in use.
I would like to point out that there is a distinction between local conventional farmers and the big industrial corporate farms and imports. Our local farmers feed their family with the products they grow and produce. Their children and grandchildren play in the fields and water on the property. I know these farmers are much more judicious when it comes to using fungicides, insecticides and herbicides. I feel comfortable buying my sweet corn from Mayne’s Tree Farm or fruit from Bob Black at Catoctin Mountain Orchard.
Then there is the cost argument. What consumers do not take into account with conventional costs is that they pay for cleaning up the environment through their taxes not through the price of conventional food. With organic and sustainable farm practises, the cost of environmental protection and rejuvenation is built into the price of the product.
Your tax dollars go to environmental protection, clean up and rejuvination of our waterways and fields because of industrial farming practises. Environmental degradation from industrial farms have been well documented. So when they say conventional food is cheaper they are not telling you about these hidden costs. Ultimately, sustainable organic food is cheaper, safer and an environmentally sound agricultural practice.
Organic food does not have trace amounts of carcinogenic chemicals, steroids, hormones or anti-biotic's. That is fact. Conventional food does contain trace amounts of most synthetic substances used in the production process and these trace amounts are not being processed out of the body like we are told. "Canadian researchers this year reported that the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their umbilical cord blood samples contained a pesticide implanted in GMO corn by the biotech company Monsanto, though digestion is supposed to remove it from the body. "Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed," they wrote in Reproductive Toxicology". http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-gmo-food-labeling--20110524,0,5841902.story.
Whether they are carcinogenic or not, to me, trace amounts means the existence of a substance. You would no more stick your finger in an insecticide, wipe it off on your pants then lick your finger with your tongue. Yet in essence, that is what you do when you eat conventional food from the industrial food complex.
If you think washing the food off before eating it protects you, think about rain. These chemicals are designed to stay on the vegetables when it rains. The effectiveness of the chemical would be useless to the industrial farmer if rain did wash them off. Organic sprays are water soluble, that is why each time it rains we need to retreat those plants that are in distress (raising operational costs).
If we know anything from the use of chemicals, it is that history proves that what was once considered safe is no longer the case, Thalidomide, Agent Orange, Benzene's, DDT, Diethylstilbestrol, Cyclamates, Bisphenal A, Diactyl, and Phthalates (cosmetics) are some. So what, if from a vitamin standpoint both conventional and organic are the same. From a health, safety, cost and environmental standpoint there is no comparison.
Buy Local: The earth will be a better place,
15 Jul Sun 2012
Full time work
Off farm income is a category tracked by the USDA. When you look at those numbers, in the small farm catagory, it is appallinb. As of 2010, small farm income as a percentage of total farm-household income is projected to be a whopping 8.7 percent. Down from the 11.1 percent it was in 2008. That means that for every dollar of income a farm brings in, 91 cents is from "off farm income". As in "farms and works another job to earn enough in order to sustain an existence".
Okay, so I am late to the party, but is this normal? I mean, I know it is reality but is this normal for any industry. Let alone an industry whose main function is to provide a basic form of human sustainability. Maslow's paper, "A Theory of Human Motivation" points out the hierarchical needs of humans. The paper was accepted in academia in the forties and is still being taught today. After air and water, food is at the level that everything else in human life builds upon.
Food, water and air are what sustain human life. Would not small farmers producing food for human consumption be allowed to focus all their energies on producing that food in an environmentally sustainable way, be healthier then forcing them to use practices that are detrimental to the environment and humans because it saves time? Should not the person growing your food be able to spend the time learning new technology and methods in order to use and preserve scarce resources like soil and water? Why did we compromise the small family farm? What dove tails with the demise of the small family farm is manufacturing. As consumers, why have we left ourselves so vulnerable to other countries. We buy American as much as we can, it is almost as hard as growing. Try it, see for yourself.
You can very easily be mired in the economics of this argument but my point is to explain yet another hurdle that small farms face as part of being a sustainable, safe and eco-friendly operation. Small farms, as defined by the USDA, are those farms with net-income of $1,000 to $250,000 in gross sales. Small farms represent about ninety percent of all farms in the United States but make up only twenty percent of all gross farm sales.
Within the small farm category, there are two sub-categories, those that make fewer than 10,000 dollars and those making 10,000 to 250,000 dollars in gross sales. Sixty plus percent of small farms makes less than 10,000 dollars in gross annual sales. Thirty percent of small farms fall into the other category of gross sales over 10,000 dollars.
I am not saying that farming is the only profession in which people have to work two jobs in order to maintain some standard of living. The term “standard of living” is very subjective when it comes to the individual consumer. Economic compensation has always been disproportionate when you look at the value added to society from a particular profession. Teaching comes to mind, for instance. We put the weight of the world on our future generations but the people that are there to teach and prepare them for that burden are grossly under-paid.
The men and women that risk their lives whether in the military, law enforcement or other hazardous jobs face the same inequities. On the other side are those people that can put together complex derivatives and manipulate hedge funds such that they topple the economic stability of an entire country and they are valued economically at grossly astounding figures. Money does not feed a nation food does.
There is no wonder small farming is so incredibly hard when you see those numbers. The deck is stacked against you from the start; it is an uphill battle that most people would not think of taking on. As I tell our staff, “you all are very unique people, first off very few people choose to work such a physically demanding job and of those that try most cannot do it". We have a great staff of hardworking conscientious people. They never cease to amaze me with their eagerness to learn, there ability to understand, ask deeper questions and how they carry themselves.
We also have a business plan, one portion is strategic the other dynamic. Our long-term goals quite simply are to be sustainable both environmentally and economically. Our dynamic goals are geared more towards revenue generation and expenditure controls. The two are symbiotic but it is the strategic plan that we have the greater concerns about. Without the ability to be totally, sustainable we are not going to be in business long. At least ninety percent of small farms face this dilemma. When you find out that only nine cents out of every dollar is earned from farm activities you start to question the sanity of why anyone would get into a business like this (see Who in Their Right Mind).
We work full-time and I can attest to those numbers about outside income. We are a small farm and the total income from farm related activities, in a given year, has not been enough to cover just farm expenses, let alone what living expenses there are. Yet we persist, because each year we do a fraction better in terms of revenue, knowledge, our customer base, our reputation and our ability to expand yet keep the food safe and tasty. For us, it is important to do the right thing, to not shy away from hard work or impossible tasks and to help those that need help because that was instilled in me when I grew up. Growing safe, fresh food is as much a part of me as “off farm income”.
Buy Local: From a farmer that grows it not hucksters claiming they do
01 Dec Thu 2011
Another Atrazine Moment Brought to You by the IFC
The industrial food complex (IFC) is faced with another study showing the ills of atrazine on the human body, specifically the female anatomy. There seems to be more evidence showing reduced levels of estrogen and other abnormalities.
I read this in the Environmental Health News article. It started with this paragraph:
Women who drink water contaminated with low levels of the weed-killer atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels, scientists concluded in a new study. The most widely used herbicide in the United States, atrazine is frequently detected in surface and ground water, particularly in agricultural areas of the Midwest. The newest research, which compared women in Illinois farm towns to women in Vermont, adds to the growing scientific evidence linking atrazine to altered hormones.
In early 2010, another published study revealed atrazine was castrating and feminizing bullfrogs. Before that, it was the feminization of bass. Both the bullfrogs and the bass are known as predictor species. That means their organs and other internal workings are much like that of humans. What happens to them is an indication that it can happen to humans.
Ask yourself, how long and how many of us will have to suffer because the IFC continues to make profits off the demise of our environment and to the detriment of our bodies? Do not forget we have still yet to hear anything about Nano-Titanium-Dioxide. I cannot help but think it is here and in our food supply. Just as we found out about GMO corn, my bet is we will find out about NTD the same way.
Buy Local:
31 May Tue 2011
Another GMO Finding.
I read in the Chicago Tribune that there was a study on the existence of GMO's in the human body.It was about an article written in "Reproductive Toxicology" by Canadian researchers. The researches simply looked at blood from pregnant woman and then blood from the umbilical cord. What they were looking for was if there were any GMO's in the blood.
The Tribune article went on to say, "genetically modified crops differ in that the plants grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant.In this way, the crop can be made to withstand a weed-killing pesticide "Think Atrizine- my words" for example, or incorporate a bacterial toxin that can repel pests. Canadian researchers this year reported that the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their umbilical cord blood samples contained a pesticide implanted in GMO corn by the biotech company Monsanto, though digestion is supposed to remove it from the body".
It is the "removed from the body," that is unsettling. Here we go again with those annoying trace amounts. This is what the Industrial Food Complex (IFC) and their equally huge lobbyists want everyone to believe. The article points out that trace amounts are okay as defined by the FDA, EPA and USDA. I use Diacetyl, again, as one of those chemicals that left trace amounts, but were supposed to be, processed out of the body. Instead, it caused lung cancer when a man consistently ate microwave popcorn. OHSA required workers that made microwave popcorn to wear masks that filtered the Diacetyl while they breathed. Why? Diacetyl, a known carcinogen, caused lung cancer when breathed consistently. Research said it was safe in trace amounts but not in the concentrated amounts that workers faced.
If you have the money, you can buy scientific studies. DDT, Asbestos, Agent Orange, Atrizine, Nicotine throw a dart. The cigarette industry proved for decades that their products were not addictive. Only until consumer advocacy groups and the ethics of a scientist, proved otherwise, but at that same time millions of us suffered through the loss of a loved ones linked to one carcinogen or another from the 316 plus chemicals in cigarettes. The tobacco industry and lobbyist had thousands of studies to document the safety or their product. Have corporations turned a leaf and have they become more ethical both environmentally and with what they sell us to keep our bodies healthy. Not when the bottom line is the goal, they are not.
Not only is research purchased the statistics can be manipulated based on a few factors, like standard deviation or the amount of data collected. It is like the banking industry and the housing market. The banks created categories of loans, bundled each one separately then sold the bundles. Then they bet against the bundle holding its worth. The bankers get rich, homeowner, takes the loss.
I realize that I am using a scientific study to justify the ills of GMO's. I am not missing the paradox.However, when you learn what DNA splicing is and how it is accomplished, you do not have to be a scientist to know there will be problems. I would rather error on the side of caution, especially when you find out that in order to get the corn DNA to accept the foreign DNA gene, and anti-biotic strain needs to be spliced in to the new DNA helix. There are stories of super bugs that have bacteria resistant strains. This does makes me wonder if there is a correlation.
The article failed to mention how we, as consumers, discovered GMO's in our food supply in the first place.I think it was in 2004 that a woman ate a taco shell made with GMO corn and had a bad reaction to the food. It was eventually determined GMO corn made up the taco shell. In European countries, regulations make the food industry prove that the changed chemical or genetic make up of the additive or preservative is safe for human consumption and cause no ill affect. In the US, it is Caveat Emptor, think of nano-technology and titanium dioxide.
I would bet that it is already in our food supply, we just have not found out about it yet. It is not as if the IFC was fourth coming with the whole GMO thing.That is another strong argument for buying organic as the article points out. It is against organic regulations to use any GMO anything. However, if GMO corn that was planted in Colorado shows up in a Mexican corn field you really wonder what chance does any organic farm have against cross pollination. Could it drift into organic production fields?
You bet your sweet @$$, it can. In the US organic requirement, you need to have at least a twenty-five foot wide hedgerow or buffer zone. Most of our buffer zones are greater than one hundred feet. However, when you find the same strain of GMO corn planted in Colorado in Mexico does a buffer zone really matter?
We need better labeling on our food. That is the only way we as consumers can make the industrial food complex clean up their act. When they are hit in the pocket, they will take notice and they will take action. Right now, their action is to fight against new labeling requirements.
If you want to buy GMO food, have at it. If you do not want to buy foods made with GMO products, the only way you can do that is to buy organic or have the label indicate that GMO is in the food. The industrial food complex is fighting hard to stop regulators from requiring new labeling that identifies GMO in their products. I wonder why? It would not have anything to do with the profit motive, do you suppose? Get active write your federal officials in favor of labeling GMO products as such.
Buy Local: Keep the momentum up, tell a friend to tell a friend
08 Feb Tue 2011
In a manner of speaking
Judge not, lest ye be judged, as the saying goes. Just as you cannot tell how good a book will be by its cover, you cannot judge a reasonable person from a one-chance encounter. I have always been aware of how people pronounce the word ricotta. The national mispronunciation of this cheese bothers me more than the incorrect pronunciation of our farm name. I think one out of a hundred people will pronounce the name of the farm correctly. I am okay with that, it is any body’s guess whether the vowels are long or short in our name, Miolea, which comes from the previous owners and represents the beginning name of the son – Mike, mother – Olive and daughter Lea.
The farm name is a confusing mix of potential enunciations and inflections. We pronounced the name wrong when we first visited and a couple more times after that. When we took stewardship of the land, we decided to change the name of the farm in pronunciation to invoke an Italian theme. We changed some vows to long while others were changed to short. Over the years, if a customer mispronounces the farm name we have given up on correcting the mistake.They can pronounce it anyway they like if it helps them remember us, all the better. For some odd reason I care more about how to say ricotta, this creamy-sweet, beautiful sheep’s milk cheese than I do our farm name. For the record, My-Oh-Lay-a, is how the farm name is the way we pronounce the name.
I grew up in a predominately-Italian household with my grandmother being the last generation to speak Italian. Her children and grandchildren did not learn Italian from her as much as we learned the Italian emphasis when pronouncing words. Much like the way we pronounce words from other cultures, with their own intonation and enunciation, we as an American culture do not pronounce Italian words with an Italian articulation. I can think of Chinese - General Tao and Mexican - Fajitas as two examples of how people will use the correct pronunciation when saying these words. In Italian "P" is pronounced like a "B", so pasta would sound like "basta" in our family and millions of other Italian households. This leads me to my pet peeve.
As a nation, we had no problem pronouncing words from other cultures. My best example is Fajita. Nationally the pronunciation of that word with the correct Spanish enunciation happens all the time. Take Chinese, French, Greek and Indian culinary delights, we order these cuisines and generally pronounce them with the correct intonation, cadence and inflection. I feel that Italian cuisine is getting a short shrift in the "foodie" world when it comes to pronouncing Italian words correctly.
To that end I present these facts, most people pronounce fajita correctly, and most people pronounce ricotta wrong. Italian, much like Spanish has its different inflections and dialects. I do not know where we missed the boat on pronouncing ricotta correctly but it is almost universal. Pasta, okay, I will concede pasta instead of basta or managot for manicotti. Nevertheless, a sheep’s cheese as noble and diverse as any of the best cheeses known to humans deserves the foodies reverence relegated to other delicacies such as Foie Gras, or the more mundane like Tortilla.
Fajita is the example I use to draw my conclusions, however misguided. I have never heard, okay I once heard, a person ask for a (FA-GEE-TA), in a Hispanic restaurant. It is most always pronounced (FA HEE TA), The "JI" has a "hee" enunciation instead of a "jee or ji". You do not order FaGEEtas or Fa-jI-tas; you order faHeetas, when asking for the delicate flour tortilla. I bet you pronounced the last word of that sentence like (tor tee a) not (tor till a). You are starting to see the pattern of neglect Italian pronunciations suffer.
In my family when talking of Italian things the letter "C" was pronounced as a G (ga), the letter "P" came out as "B" and there were other slight variances. I did not get all the Italian variations, which is why I can only be the least bit indignant.
However, ricotta, pronounced correctly with the proper inflection, tone and dialect would sound like Ri- Gaw-ta. The "i" is silent the "C" sounds like "Gaw". When we hold cooking classes, if we are using the cheese I make a point to pronounce ricotta as part of the class. It is just because it sounds so much better pronounced correctly.
Rigawta is used in main dishes as well as deserts. It is a bit nutty with a creamy texture suitable for Tiramisu or in delicately stuffed ravioli. I am not asking for much, just a simple “g” when saying the word rigawta. As far as the farm name, pronounce it however, you see fit.
Buy Local: It is not just a fad, it is real.15 May Sat 2010
GMO Must Go
Why did the goverment of Mexico outlaw ALL GM (genetically modified) foods, especially corn? Then only to discover that strains of GMO corn have made their way into the corn fields of Mexican farmers. They Mexican government had the foresight to see that what represents their national pride, their heritage should not be tinkered with. The Mexican government simply wanted to keep what is there mainstay as pure as possible. Corn is their way of life always has been. Maize was discovered in Mexico from the teosinte genus. Go to www.hulu.com and search for the "Future of Food", it is a documentary that discusses corn and its origin. You will also find that GMO is not as safe as the IFC pretends.
This documentary on how genetic engineering was accomplished, how seeds are patented and then used as a big stick to force farmers into the herbicide ready club was the fore bearer of Food Inc., We are at a cross roads in our concepts of food, where you see grass root efforts like the slow food, buy local food, and support local farms movements spawn because of this. We have groups like Ark of Taste which is a movement to bring back heritage breeds from pigs, cows and chickens to tomatoes and everything else that has been genetically modified to fit the needs of the profit motive not that of the taste of the consumer.
GMO is part of the larger picture of food safety. From my stand point trace amounts of nasty chemicals on the food, or pathogens that cause recall after recall year after year is a real concern. Why? because consumers are losing their lives. What got us growing organic food over twenty years ago was that we were eating more vegetables to get healthy but I kept hearing about trace amounts of chemicals being on what I was ingesting. Not only that but vegetables were being imported from country's that used herbicides and insecticides that were ban in the U.S.
So, if I was ingesting trace amounts then why isn't that a problem? According to scientific findings the trace amount of chemicals on the fruit or vegetable isn't concenrated enough to cause harm. Okay, didn't science tell us that thalimide was safe, PCB's, DIOXIN, Agent Orange, Declomicin or (fill in the blank).
I know there are people that spend their life's pursuit in the sciences and I have the greatest admiration for them. To often the means of a few outweigh the detriment of the masses (think my old friend Atrazine). Our history is littered with examples, current and past.
But my most base of all arguments is taste, the simple fact of taste. Remember taste, remember when tomatoes tasted like sweet, soft, watery spheres of nirvana. It has been said the reason organic fruits and vegetables taste better is that they have to struggle to get nutrients out of the ground. Unlike conventional veggies that have ready supplies sprayed on them. I've learned that which does not kill you serves to make you stronger. In an organic plant that is basically the same concept. When a plant is attacked by a predator the plant releases its own sent that attracks bugs that are predators of the bug eating its leaves. This is how the plant has evolved and survived. Evolution is why heritage and heirloom species taste so much better. We all have been told nothing good ever comes from something easy, so too with the plant world. The plant grows stronger and has a better taste then the plant that was sprayed with synthetic fertilizers and insecticides.
I trust my taste buds, I know what is on my plants, I know that the more we allow large corporations to genetically modify food the greater susceptibility we all face from unknown genetic mutation and greater risk of bacterial out breaks caused by an increase in antibiotic resistant pathogens.
We are in control of our own destiny, that of the earth's scarce resources and our future generations. If we all don't start talking more about the negative affects the IFC has on all of these then it is our own fault.
Buy Local - From a local farm; Their effort is well worth yours.
13 Apr Tue 2010
You want how much for these?
I was on a local NPR affiliate, on the "Farm to Fork" movement taking place. It is part of the whole buy local, support family farms and sustainable farm practices effort happening all across North and South America and European countries. We were in studio because I had written to the local paper in response to an article about local farm produce prices.
During a break in the show a question was asked about the general demographics of our customers. At the farm we’ve found consumers to be in two groups: those that want to buy local and those that look solely at the price. In other words you get people who buy food for its nutritional value, freshness and safety. Then there are those that buy based on what they perceive as a fair amount for the commodity. From what we have observed this attitude cuts a cross socio-economic and educational lines.
I’ve gotten price grumblings from people who I know make over $100K a year and from people that work in some of the lowest paying jobs. A couple of years ago, we were selling certified organic tomatoes, two for a dollar. Closing time came and we were packing up when this man stopped by our truck. He was in a brand new convertible Cadillac. He was a gray haired gentleman with gold chains around his neck, gold rings on his fingers and a diamond pinky ring. I had a bag of six tomatoes and he asked "how much?” I wanted to get rid of them so I said “two bucks”. He then said "how bout one-fifty". I took the bag back from him and said have a nice day. Okay, stop right now. Fight your urge to write me to say the ability to haggle goes back to early homosapiens, I understand that. From a market farmers view point in order to grow and produce fruits and vegetables there is no haggling.
Capitalism and sustainable farming are two beliefs that are not mutually exclusive. As a person that grows fruits and, vegetables and raises animals in such a way that it benefits the environment, there is no bargaining for us. I don't try to cut corners in order to benefit the cash-flow of the enterprise. When it comes to being a humane farm there is no wiggle room. Growing organic fruits, vegetables and eggs is not a negotiable process.
We set prices based on national databases, local supermarket prices and what costs we have incurred. The sad truth is, as farmers we all face this behavior at the market, which brings me to education. The more we can educate consumers about the benefits of sustainable farming practices to them, their children, and their children’s children the more they understand why long term support of local sustainable agriculture is needed.
The cost to fix the environment from documented damage being done, using industrial farm practices, never gets added into the price of the product the Industrial Food Complex (IFC) sells to us. But think about it? Who steps in to say, wait a minute male bass are starting to exhibit female tendencies? Who does pay for the cleanup of the coastal waterways and our tributaries? I’m not saying that the IFC are the only polluters but they are at least part of the problem (think Endocrine Disruptors and atrazine).
The cost of environmental sustainability is in the price of the food organic farmers sell. We are not poisoning the soil and water table but just the opposite. We are benefiting nature by adding to the poly-culture that Mother Nature intended. If I can get a person on the farm and give them a tour they get to see the benefits that sustainable practices bring. It is that simple, they see what you are talking about, they get to look at the poly-culture all around them and understand how green manure and resting, replenishes soils and nutrients. They will also complain about the amount of bugs flying around their heads. But, they’ll see the birds, the bees and other wildlife and we’ll explain these are good things. That this is Mother Nature’s way of telling us what we are doing is benefiting the ecology.
At the radio station, I knew what the person was getting at, with the question, that people of means and education would be the ones wanting the safest, healthiest and freshest food at their disposal. Being educated, they would know about CAFO’s and the Industrial Food Complex’s profit driven decision making that puts the food supply and our natural environment in danger. So the more affluent and well educated would be more inclined to purchase from a local farmer regardless of cost.
It's not quite like that entirely. More people are becoming aware of what is at risk (and its them they find out) when food borne illness breaks out. I think because of the frequency of events more people are questioning safety which drives them to make safer choices. Have we had a recall from a local butcher or local fruit and vegetable farms?
We encourage people to taste the difference. The best way is the blind taste tests. With all things being equal, people will gravitate towards what tastes best to them. What tastes better, a store bought tomato or one from your garden or a local farm? You can’t taste vitamin content or micro nutrients or the fact that there are trace residues of carcinogenic chemicals. The only thing you know is what your palate tells you. One food is going to taste better than the other and that food happens to be the safest for you to eat and for us to grow and the earth to produce.
Buy Local: From a farmer that you visited, know and can trust
25 Mar Thu 2010
GRAS and Nano Technology
Food science is going nano; believe it or not we as consumers are now facing another menacing aspect of the adulteration of whole foods. The FDA has a classification known as GRAS or Generally Recognized As Safe. They have a list of chemicals and ingredients that are known to be safe and are classified as such. What nanotechnology is doing is taking and combing elements from the "Periodic Table" to make new substances that can prolong the life of fruits and vegetables or make ketchup come out easier or cake mix pour without lumping.
Because they are using elements deemed safe then the theory is the bi-product would be safe. So something like nano-titanium dioxide under GRAS would be considered safe. Andrew Schneider writing for AOL Science reported that "One of the few ingestion studies recently completed was a two-year-long examination of nano-titanium dioxide at UCLA, which showed that the compound caused DNA and chromosome damage after lab animals drank large quantities of the particles in their water."
Yet the IFC is trying to get or might already have this in our food supply. Why? Because, it allows the food to have a longer shelf life. Longer shelf life means a longer time in which to sell the product. Are we going to have another tobacco fight on our hands? Where after hundreds of thousands of deaths someone will finally find the memo that states how dangerous this stuff is and how it should not be used.
Nanocoating is being developed in Asia and is sprayed on foods to help them last longer. The only problem is that it has not been tested at all for possible side affects or adverse reactions to humans. As complicated as the human body is, shouldn't someone test what these things can do to our organs or cells or what the heck how about the double-helix? The British House of Lords conducted a study and found the technology is already in salad dressings, diet drinks, sauces, boxed cakes and so on. So it is already in foods in United Kingdom. Do you believe its not here now? I urge you to follow the link above and read Andrew Schneider's three part article to really get the full picture.
In the mean time BUY LOCAL- Support a local farm to support your health
05 Mar Fri 2010
Atrazine and other Endocrine Disruptors
There was a study recently linking Atrazine to the castration and feminization of frogs in test labs. Atrazine is used primarially in weed control applications by industrial farms and other large operations. The San Fransico Chronicle wrote about the affects that Atrizine is having on the environment. The study was conducted at UC Berkley and is being published in the "Proceddings of the National Academy of Sciences".
As you would expect the maker of the weed suprresant is fighting the study and pointing to every flaw they can find. Interestingly, the author of the study worked for the maker years before but was dismissed when his findings showed Atrazine to be a possible endocrine disruptor. Remember our feminized bass, they are a prime example of what an endocrine disruptor can do.
The endocrine system regulates hormones like testostorone and estrogen. Any wonder the frogs are becoming feminized and worse castrated by levels of Atrazine? I can't make this stuff up, yet we sit blindly by while trace amounts of chemicals are allowed in our food supply. Relying on scientific data that at best is funded from special interests.
Am I missing something, is it that we'll die off and be replaced by other spenders and that is why killing us to make a profit is okay. I know the Supreme Court rules for the Corporations not for the individuals. Look at their decisions over years. The majority of decisions are against the common man. Why would we expect the FDA to crack down on the use of endocrine disruptors. Things have to get out of control like Thalidimide, DDT, Bisphenol A (plastsic containers) and Phthalates(cosmetics), before we are protected from those that seek profit no matter the outcome.
If this is happening to the frogs then what is happening to the humans that have to work around the stuff and ingest trace amounts. Besides that what is the shelf life of this stuff? My bet is you just can't wash it away. If you could then it wouldn't be affective in the rain and you can't have that. It has to be able to withstand water in order to be affective in the field right?.
Twenty years ago we started growing organic because I didn't like all the chemicals being used. Relatively speaking it was benign back then compared to what todays consumers are facing. God help us all, because no one in charge seems to care enough to stop the chemical jugrnuat.
Buy Local- Save a frog, a bass and your own environment by doing so
19 Jan Tue 2010
What will you leave future generations?
Michael Pollan said it best in his book "The Omnivore’s Dilemma". He said that each and every day we make a choice on what to eat and that choice has a greater environmental impact then we think. For some there is no thought of where the food comes from just who is preparing it for consumption. Pollan was pointing out that the "Where the food came from" question is not present in the day to day normal cognitive process of deciding what to eat.
As a nation of eaters most of us don't realize that the food choices we make affect our environment. We have been so far removed from the making of our food that we have no idea what goes in it. Not only has this been perpetrated by the IFC but it was done specially to avoid the kind of scrutiny that the local farm movement is generating.
If we don’t see that beef processing companies import beef from other countries to make our hamburgers how can we make a value judgment at purchase time. I’ll bet you think that when you buy a hamburger, that it comes from a cow that at least lived in North America. That is not necessarily the case as has been recently pointed out in a lawsuit against a big meat packer.
No thought is given that the beef patty sitting on the bun before us has a relationship to the raised hormone levels in the water table and estrogen levels in male bass. But at its base that is what our choice to eat comes down to. Every day we decide to further the cause of local sustainable agriculture or benefit the Industrial Food Complex.
On one hand you have the small independent farmer that is trying to squeeze out a living by carefully tending the land and their animals for social, environmental, economic and human sustainability. On the other side is the vast IFC with ever increasing ways of chemically altering food, milk and juices for the sole purpose of producing these products in the least expensive way to gain the most profit. That in it of itself isn't bad, but it is the consistent failures resulting in illnesses, death and environmental degradation that make their practices deplorable.
That is how in the past most robber-barons made their huge fortunes. They took advantage of the less fortunate, less intelligent and in some cases just destroyed everything a person owned for their own personal gain. The cost to and negative impact on people and the environment does not matter. I mean the moniker says it all “robber-barons”. Food is one of the last great resources to be raped and pillaged so a few of our elite can make their personal fortunes greater.
You have a choice; you can make a difference globally by being just one person acting locally. It is happening now and has been happening slowly for at least the last twenty years. Those that are on the front lines see the progress. A couple of years ago, California registered the first increase in agriculture land in their State; stopping a decline that lasted decades. It is growing to such a point that the USDA is starting to take interest in the numbers.
The USDA recently sent out a mandatory census that looked at detail level data on growing and production and they are starting to offer incentives to help promote the local farm movement. Seven years ago I never heard of financial assistance for organic growers and or vegetable growers in general. It was usually just aimed at grains, water conservation, and nutrient management. These past two years I've seen two programs to help local vegetable farms.
Things are changing but you the individual is needed to participate. Barbara Kingsolver, in her book “Animal, Vegetable Miracle” wrote about the year she and her family spent eating seasonal, local foods. In it, not only did she highlight the adjustment to seasonality of foods but also to the plight of the local farm.
So the choice is ours to make. Do you want an open food source where you know where your food came from and can go to the source or do you want what is going on now? Recent news stories recounted the poisoning of a female who ate bad beef. Now that the court case has gone public the manufacturer had to divulge that the meat that made up this ground beef came from animal parts from two different countries, neither being America. If this isn’t an example of the IFC buying junk to put into the food supply to make a profit then I’m at a loss.
But it is us, you, me, and everyone that has a stake in this fight for healthy food. Never before have so many people been part of the same group that has the opportunity to be part of a grass roots effort. We All Eat. We can really make a change to affect our future and truly make a difference in the history of man. I am talking about the safety of food and the preservation of our ecology. We might like different things but we all eat. If you just chose local once a day over the IFC imagine the change we could all affect. I’m not saying that everything consumed should be local but if a lot of our choices are for local foods then the IFC’s will take notice and act accordingly. Of course we could have an outcome like free range chickens (see. Beware of Free Range) but I hold out hope for a better result.
It is just one choice made multiple times each day. As an individual you can choose whether to promote the IFC and all the damage being done to the environment (think feminized bass) or you can choose to support your local community, local families, local businesses and your local food producers. The money you spend at the farm gets spent in the community by the farmer. The money stays in a local bank; and is used to hire local labor be it skilled or general and used to purchase supplies from local businesses.
It is your choice, start slowly make a resolution to eat at least one local meal a day. We are not asking for you to be like Barbara Kingsolver, but to give serious thought about your children’s, grand-children’s and great-grandchildren’s health and the environment we will leave them.
Choose to make sure the future generations grow up in the least toxic setting possible. Become aware of how the IFC is poisoning us and the environment for their short term profit. If that doesn’t get you motivated to support your local sustainable farm we will all fail our future generations.
Buy Local-From a farmer you know and trust, not a chain selling the concept
.09 Sep Wed 2009
Beware of "Free Range"
Okay, maybe this is another rant against the industrial food complex, but I was brought up to stand up for what is right and not to sit back when someone was in trouble. My parents raised all of their kids to treat everyone equally regardless of skin color or religion. Besides, I like to think of it as educational more than just a rant.
We all know that our food supply has many flaws, often we get to read about the major events when they happen. What we don't get to read about unless you dig deep is the smaller stuff. Like how the IFC is able to sell chickens labeled as "free-range" even though the chicken has never been outside on grass, ever! I got to give them credit, it takes a certain kind of sleaze to take a regulation that is meant to be beneficial to the consumer and use it against them.
On their website the USDA defines free range or free roaming thusly: Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside.
Now to you and I that means the chicken should be outside on grass. The USDA has found that there are broiler houses that hold tens of thousands of chickens that are being labeled and sold as free range even though they have never been outside. Why? Because the houses have a door at one end and they can open them to the outside. It doesn't matter that the door opens up to a cement pad or to dirt or the best case, grass. Never mind the area outside wasn't large enough to hold all 10,000 birds; the producers will tell you they meet the USDA definition.
I've only been raising layers for the last three years. I am not a knowledge expert by any means. What I do know is that we get chicks at a day old, raise them indoors until they can handle the weather outside, usually 8-10 weeks. We move them to a moveable house that has no bottom and is surrounded by an electrified fence. The fence is to keep predators out not the chickens in. They can fly the coop, if you will, pretty easy. As they get older they hardly ever do. They get in a routine and it doesn't seem to change.
Most broilers are processed between 12 and 15 weeks of age. The sooner a broiler is processed the more tender the meat. 10,000 birds raised in a closed environment will remain in a closed environment when a single door is open. It's not like the door is a garage door either, the USDA found that some of these houses had one door leading to, you guessed it, a cement pad.
The USDA is changing the rule because the IFC took advantage of the current regulation by calling housed chickens free range. What we've read and commented on from the USDA helps to clearly define FREE RANGE. Until the new regulations are put into affect the monoliths that feed the IFC will continue to label and sell housed chickens as free range.
You're asking "now what? How do I know which company really has free range chickens or chickens just labeled as free range? It is easier than you think. Just buy local. Find a farmer that raises free range chickens in your area. Go to the farm, talk to them and see for yourself what their free range practices are. LocalHarvest has a great search tool to find them.
Your buying habits will need to change somewhat in that you won't be able to just go there and buy a chicken, you might, and it depends on the farm. In some cases you'll need to order the bird before hand and you might need to buy in quantity in order to have chicken whenever you want. The trade off is you get fresh, tasty, real free range chickens and eggs. If you don't believe me, buy a store bought chicken and a local free range chicken. Cook them the same and give your family and friends a blind taste test. Not only is it a fun activity you'll get to see for yourself through others taste buds.
BUY LOCAL - from a farmer, not from a chain hard selling the fact.
30 Aug Sun 2009
Bitter Sweet
We like more than 90 percent of small farmers across the nation have full time jobs. We've been working every weekend since March 21st, non-stop. We've had some good times, great successes and huge failures. We are physically and mentally tired and looking forward to the colder days and slower pace.
Yet there is melancholy to the coming days. Putting the green grass covers on the gardens, getting the chickens on next years production beds and covering the strawberries. We are exhausted yet we do these choirs with a heavy heart. We need and want the break but there is something sad to the fact that we won't be outside for long periods of time tending to growing vegetables, fruits, herbs and watching the chickens frolic.
We'll get into canning mode so we have vegetables over the winter. The irrigation will be pulled and plants mowed from this years production fields I'll do a shallow till and cover the fields with winter rye and hairy vetch. Once that is done the place has been put to bed for the winter.
We then turn our attention to making Italian and French breads, the Italian cooking classes and keeping the chickens comfortable if the weather gets to extreme. I do lament the passing of summer, as hard as the work is, the sun hot and atmosphere moist, I like eating fresh vegetables out of the garden. I eat more vegetables now knowing there the freshest, safest money can buy and they are from our hands and our efforts. I'll miss the weekly interactions with our customers and talking about how to prepare a vegetable or certain dish. Our customers have been supportive, rejuvenating, focused, motivating and most importantly there.
Keep eating fresh and local, David did beat Goliath and we will again this time. Eat local, find a farmer that is growing healthy food. Tell your friends, your family and your colleagues about him or her. The more we speak out the safer our food supply should become.
Don't be complacent, there are some people like my wife and I who do extraordinary things in order to bring safe fresh foods to our community and there are people in your community doing the same thing for you. We all know of parents that have a child or children that have food allergies? Let me ask, how many friends did you have growing up with food allergies? I didn't have any; except for me I hated Brussels sprouts. Proportionally more humans are suffering from food born illnesses now then ever before, despite taking into account the increase in surface population. Haven't enough people given their lives just because they wanted a simple meal with maybe spinach or a hamburger with lettuce, or peanut butter treat?
Please don't underestimate the fight that we are in. Food is our energy, our fuel and a life sustaining force. Don't let the big Agra-businesses jam GMO foods down our throats, they've been killing us for profit and will continue to do so unless we the consumer stand up and say "I'm mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more" (from the movie "Network"). Demand more with your dollars, choose with your wallet. Money and the lack there of will make them notice. Choose to live healthy. Choose to stop playing Russian roulette with your food choices. Pass the word on it is too important to leave to the media and our officials. Start with your family and work out from there.
Buy Local - from a farmer not a chain advertising "Local"
06 Jul Mon 2009
The industrial food complex
We were selling at a Farmers Market and an elderly farmer’s wife stopped by to look at our offerings. She looked at our "Organic" sign and said "Honey, we've been growing organic since before you were born," and if you know anything about the green revolution after World War 2 you can understand her statement. Before the invention of ammonium nitrate for bombs, farmers relied basically on organic means to grow their vegetables. We went from every community having a fresh food market to almost none. Before the establishment of the industrial food complex, grocery stores and refrigeration, communities relied on their local farmer to grow a market garden for their fruits and vegetables.
They ate what was in season in their region; consumers knew the farmers and their families and purchased what was available. They put fruits and vegetables "up" or "canned" so that they could eat them in the off season. Then technology started to advance growing and storage techniques and all other aspects of life. The marketing gurus during that time advanced the concept of convenience and free time. Prepared foods, can goods and frozen foods were the rage, Going to the local farm was phased out by stores that had everything in one place. What marketing was selling to everyone was convenience and free time. Slowly but surely Free Time and the profit motive was the death knell for the small family farmer.
As industrial farming took hold and these huge monolithic behemoths started turning out tons of one product the laws of mass production and economy of scales took over and the small farmer could not keep up. The farmers grew what was called a truck garden or market garden, because he or she would take the vegetables from the garden, put them in a truck and go to the market and sell what they had picked. What we lost with the growth of these monolithic farms was the individual family growing vegetables for their community and so too coincidently we lost taste and freshness of the fruits and vegetables. Tomatoes picked green and shipped miles away can't ripen on the vine while in travel, nor would they ever taste like one right off the vine.
What we gained from the loss of market gardens, freshness and taste is the game of Russian Roulette. Illnesses and sometimes death resulting from pathogens in our industrial food supply has become common place. Corporations have shown time and again, when faced with a decision to stop production and clean up after tests prove contamination, they have a laissez faire additude.
Yes, we have always had to take precautions with our food, but the sheer number of recalls makes one pause. Nothing beats local for freshness, taste and safety. The consumer has the ability to talk to the person or persons that grow the food, be it animal, vegetable or mineral. More and more people are supporting local farmers because they see value for their money. It is more expensive to grow organic; consequently, it is more expensive to purchase. There is value to going to a local farm or a farmers market and buying from them.
If you take out the carbon footprint, the freshness, the taste, the true cost of operation, if you take everything out of the equation but a base explanation you are left with human kind's last fuel source and the person that toils for it. It's a passion, a mission and a fundamental activity that sustains life. It’s not the profit motive but a social conscience that motivates us to provide food for others. Yes, we all need to make money to provide and small farms do need to make a profit. It's imperative in the sustainable model, but that doesn't mean that every decision we make is dictated by the profit motive or what effect it does to our stock price.
The profit motive, stock prices and yearly bonuses are the norm in big business. Tell me, do you really want to leave the growing of food to the faceless people behind the industrial food complex, knowing their main concern is if they can make a profit and raise the price of their stock? Isn't our health more important than money, and haven't our taste buds suffered enough with petroleum derivatives, synthetics and other man made food additives?
So make the right choice, find someone that is growing vegetables for your health, talk to them, visit the farm see how it is being run. Not everyone is growing for your health and we call them hucksters. Buy vegetables when they are in season and you're guaranteed local. Learn what vegetables are in season in your area. If someone is selling corn in Maryland in June, it wasn't grown here. So it is not local corn because it is not in season yet. Ours will be in July and we do not cater to the industrial food complex.
Buy Local!!