Food for Thought Wednesdays

Welcome to Food for Thought Wednesdays!

I've decided to start a weekly post about food news and events, where I will be discussing the latest food trends, the week's most interesting (to me) food articles, and recent developments in the sustainable food movement, among other things.  I'll also throw in my two cents regarding these issues, and I look forward to hearing from you, dear reader, on some of them as well.

This week I've noticed a particular anxiety regarding nutrition in several of the articles I've read.  While there always seems to be an underlying tone of desperation when talking about sustainability and the implications of the current state of our food system, I have always felt that these discussions are rarely solution-oriented.

A combination of articles that I found this week are beginning to change my mind.

First, this piece from the Seattle Times.  Ed Murrieta writes about his transition from being a restaurant critic for the Tacoma News Tribune with an expense account to living off of food stamps.  His sole income, for food or otherwise, is $200 a month.  Because of his culinary background and his experience working in restaurants, Mr. Murrieta is a smart shopper and a conscious cook.  He is able to prepare nutritious meals for himself with the food he buys at the grocery store and at the farmers market.  He stays away from soda and processed goods; he spends his $200 wisely.

Mr. Murrieta addresses an issue that is constantly brought up in discussions about sustainability; namely, the price one has to pay for "sustainable" goods.  Can a family living off of food stamps afford the local, grass-fed, organic ground beef sold at $14.99/pound?  Though Mr. Murrieta doesn't directly answer this question, he does give us a glimpse at his grocery list.  He mentions buying local produce and oysters at the farmers market in the summer.  He also mentions canned "Pork with Juices."

I don't think "Pork with Juices" would be considered environmentally sustainable by anyone's standards.  But Mr. Murrieta accepts the can from the food bank and puts it to good use, because he needs to feed himself.  The important thing is that he is still able to, and he does, buy local, fresh produce from the farmers market.  With this produce, supplemented by staples from the grocery store (organic or otherwise), Mr. Murrieta is able to cook nutritious meals for himself at a reasonable price.

Now I don't want to overlook the fact that Mr. Murrieta is at an advantage because of his background, but to me, his story savors of hope, hope that perhaps our food system can move towards sustainability, and hope that individuals and families can begin to improve how and what they eat.

The first step, it seems, is to move away from highly processed foods and to learn to cook.  Which is exactly what this article from the Chicago Tribune suggests.  With our current food system at the center of the debate when it comes to issues such as obesity in America, how can we begin to change our attitudes and habits to curb the health risks facing American families?  In the Chicago Tribune article, Janet Helm sites a doctor, an analyst, a dietitian, and two health professionals who all come to the same conclusion: get in the kitchen and start cooking.  Dr. David Eisenberg believes that teaching his patients to cook is "one of the best strategies to battle obesity and chronic medical conditions in this country."

And the problem isn't that people don't know what they should and shouldn't be eating.  The problem is that they don't know how to do it.  Sure, we all know that fruits and veggies are good, and too much sugar is bad, but how does one put together a meal that tastes good and that satisfies?

Perhaps the answer is home economics class in high school, as the article suggests.  Perhaps it's simply learning about why, for example, grass-fed beef is better for your health than grain-fed beef.  Jennifer Sygo at the National Post explains in her article that, not only does the cow benefit from eating grass, you just might benefit from eating grass-fed beef, too.

Better yet, perhaps the answer comes down to plain old trial and error.  Yes, you, and I, and most of my friends and family know that grass-fed beef is what we should be buying.  But according to this article from the Wall Street Journal, grass-fed beef makes up only 3% of the beef we eat here in America.  Yet author Peter King comes to the conclusion that, along with being healthier, grass-fed beef actually tastes better.  How can you argue with that?

Just make sure you do your research.  And to that end, here's a slideshow from the Huffington Post that tells you just exactly what those labels on your meat mean.

One last thing: I just wanted to follow up on the Greenpoint Food Market, which I mentioned a couple of weeks ago.  Unfortunately, the operation has been shut down by the Health Department, as the Brooklyn Paper reports.  Hopefully the folks who run it will be able to get the proper permits to get it up and running again soon.

Happy Wednesday!