90 replies to this topic

[ScoopKW]

One of the things that irks me is that we are 80-90% there with the laws and regulations we already have.

Companies are required to list what is in the package. Except for "trade secrets." So everything that might shock consumers is now a trade secret. Get rid of that loophole, and consumers might find out how much petroleum and wood pulp is in their packaged food.

Current USDA wholesomeness inspections are a joke. They should be surprise inspections and given more often. Inspector's reports should be made public as quickly as possible -- much like Nevada's Health Department's restaurant inspection reports. Pictures should be taken and made available to the public. We're paying for all of this, after all. I want to see the information that I paid for.

There is currently nothing in place for seafood inspections. That should change.

That would make all the food we eat more "honest." Not just the food offered at higher end restaurants. But I think the fact that people are starting to care is a step in the right direction.

[annabelle]

If current inspections are "a joke", how is having more inspectors going to fix that problem?

Food is much safer than it was at the turn of the last century, when adulterated milk and spoiled beef were the norm in cities in the US.

[annabelle]

Scoop, you have mentioned the petroleum and wood pulp as food additives three times now. Obviously this is a concern. What are they being used in and what is the reason for doing so?

Thanks.

[ScoopKW]

Scoop, you have mentioned the petroleum and wood pulp as food additives three times now. Obviously this is a concern. What are they being used in and what is the reason for doing so?

Thanks.

Google is your friend.

They are used in damned near everything, and they're used because they're cheaper, or because marketers think petroleum based dyes will help a product sell better. (EDIT -- And many preservatives are petroleum based.)

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11012915/1/12-food-companies-that-serve-you-wood.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4151130-500803.html

http://chemistry.about.com/od/foodcookingchemistry/a/bha-bht-preservatives.htm



EDIT -- Also, when did I say "hire more inspectors?" I said inspections should be a surprise, should be more often, and results should be disseminated to the public as soon as possible. They can do things the same way it's done here with restaurants. The places that are known to conform to hygienic standards can expect one or two visits per year. Repeat offenders get visited often, until they clean up their act. The fines and fees pay for the program. And it seems to work well.

Edited by ScoopKW, 01 March 2012 - 10:15 PM.

[Andreas]

In Austria the inspections themselves are surprise inspections (except when there where some things found at the last inspection. If the problem is not too severe then the business owner has some time to fix the issue). If the issues found are too severe, the business will be closed until the issue is resolved and the premises again inspected.

The thing you mentioned that I would also like very much is that those inspections would be made public. I don't need a webpage where I can look at detailed reports, I would prefer e.g. a label at the door where you see when the last inspection was done. The business owners should get this label only when everything was according to the regulations. I know this is only an idea if we are talking about e.g. a butcher that sells directly (yes we still have those small shops...but there are less of them every year).

Would you really look up a slaughterhouse after seeing the mark on the label? If something is wrong...close them down, then we don't have to look up if the meat is "ok" or not. There might also be another issue: how many people are qualified to assess a restaurant/slaughterhouse on the pictures? In the restaurant it might be easier, but even there stuff might look awful that is indeed clean and ok.

And you also have to say that current inspections still seem to get some stuff right if you look at the numbers... (not saying that they can't get any better though)

[annabelle]

I meant "more inspections", not "more inspectors, Scoop. It was a typo, sorry.

Thanks for the links.

[Panaderia Canadiense]

For my 2 cents (and holy is this ever a polemic topic), food in and of itself can't be honest or dishonest. It simply is. Marketing honesty in connection with our meals is simply that - marketing. Until we reach that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy point of being able to actually converse with our food before we eat it, that is. (Meet the meat, anyone?)

On the other hand, knowing where your food came from is something that ultimately comes down to education. I have friends up in Canada who think that milk comes from a supermarket, but down here where it's more common to buy your milk directly from a farmer, everybody knows it comes from a cow. It's our own responsibility as consumers to know about the origins of our food and to educate ourselves as best as we can in order to make informed decisions. Of course those are always going to be biased, but that's part of being human, isn't it?

[annabelle]

It's our own responsibility as consumers to know about the origins of our food and to educate ourselves as best as we can in order to make informed decisions.

I think so, too. I have been told in the past that it "is hopelessly naive" to hold that opinion, but I still do.

[tikidoc]

It's our own responsibility as consumers to know about the origins of our food and to educate ourselves as best as we can in order to make informed decisions.

I think so, too. I have been told in the past that it "is hopelessly naive" to hold that opinion, but I still do.

I'm not sure why that would be hopelessly naive. Granted, the fact that I live in the country and that there are lots of farmer's markets and a big local food movement in our area helps. I also don't think that it is possible to know the origins of everything we eat, but certainly a good percentage of it. To start with, almost all the beef we eat is from a cow that we raised, and we have most of a heritage breed locally grown hog in our freezer, and I have had enough discussions with the farmer to have a good idea what it was eating too. I think if one lived in a large city, it would be much more difficult, and would take a lot more work.

[mkayahara]

It's our own responsibility as consumers to know about the origins of our food and to educate ourselves as best as we can in order to make informed decisions.

I think so, too. I have been told in the past that it "is hopelessly naive" to hold that opinion, but I still do.

I'm not sure why that would be hopelessly naive. Granted, the fact that I live in the country and that there are lots of farmer's markets and a big local food movement in our area helps. I also don't think that it is possible to know the origins of everything we eat, but certainly a good percentage of it. To start with, almost all the beef we eat is from a cow that we raised, and we have most of a heritage breed locally grown hog in our freezer, and I have had enough discussions with the farmer to have a good idea what it was eating too. I think if one lived in a large city, it would be much more difficult, and would take a lot more work.

Sure, if you're raising the cow yourself and live in the country where you're surrounded by farms (that aren't monocultures of corn and soy), then it's relatively easy. It's less easy when you live in a big city, but it can still be done, because you're surrounded by lots of other people who share your interest in doing it. But the hardest situation is when you live in a small city that's not in an agricultural region, especially if that city is poor. It's easy to overestimate how far the distribution chains for local, organic food have penetrated when you live in the middle of them.

[gfweb]

If you shop in supermarkets I think that truly knowing the origins of food is impossible. The intentional mislabeling of fish is an obvious example, but how do you know where the loose potatoes in the bin came from? Even if the produce guy gives you an answer, how do you know its true?

I also think that it isn't a task that individuals can be expected to take responsibility for, (unless they are truly driven). Its a nice idea, and I like the philosophy and aesthetics of it, but I know that I can't do it.

[annabelle]

The "hopelessly naive" remark was made to me by a professor friend of mine who is of the opinion that people are too stupid to look out for themselves and thus need ever greater government intervention in their lives. But that is waa-ay off topic, so I'l leave it there.

Topic? It is a luxury today to have even a hobby farm. We've moved far and away from an agrarian society and most people wouldn't have the first idea of where to start with animal husbandry. (That would include me.)

[Panaderia Canadiense]

It's our own responsibility as consumers to know about the origins of our food and to educate ourselves as best as we can in order to make informed decisions.

I think so, too. I have been told in the past that it "is hopelessly naive" to hold that opinion, but I still do.

I'm not sure why that would be hopelessly naive. Granted, the fact that I live in the country and that there are lots of farmer's markets and a big local food movement in our area helps. I also don't think that it is possible to know the origins of everything we eat, but certainly a good percentage of it. To start with, almost all the beef we eat is from a cow that we raised, and we have most of a heritage breed locally grown hog in our freezer, and I have had enough discussions with the farmer to have a good idea what it was eating too. I think if one lived in a large city, it would be much more difficult, and would take a lot more work.

I'd also have a hard time thinking that keeping oneself informed is naive. Seems to me it's the direct opposite.

Granted, I live in a country where there's no such thing as a city far removed from agriculture - even Quito, a city of 3 million, still has farmland in it.

[ScoopKW]

If you shop in supermarkets I think that truly knowing the origins of food is impossible. The intentional mislabeling of fish is an obvious example, but how do you know where the loose potatoes in the bin came from? Even if the produce guy gives you an answer, how do you know its true?

I also think that it isn't a task that individuals can be expected to take responsibility for, (unless they are truly driven). Its a nice idea, and I like the philosophy and aesthetics of it, but I know that I can't do it.

My problem is that most of the individuals I know seem to think that if it's sold in a grocery store, it must certainly be wholesome to eat. They get the fact that unhealthy stuff is sold in the market. But they can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that bacteria laden meat and chemical additives are standard operating procedure these days. They seem to think that the FDA and the USDA has their backs, when in fact those agencies are now little more than cheerleaders for agricorp. The attitude seems to be, "They wouldn't sell it if it wasn't any good."

They don't realize when they buy ground beef, the meat in the package could have come from as many as a few hundred different animals in several states. I have a feeling if they saw how a CAFO or slaughterhouse works, they'd go off meat entirely.

We have all (well, almost all) of the laws and regulations we need to make our food chain considerably safer. But they aren't being enforced. Or they're being enforced in such a way that benefits the producer and not the consumer.

We're fast approaching the point where we need warnings like what's found on packs of cigarettes. "Warning, this product contains petroleum distillates," "Warning, this product is likely infected with salmonella," "Warning, this product is mainly indigestible wood pulp." I may not have a good answer about what constitutes "honest" food. But I have a pretty good idea what makes food "dishonest."

[mkayahara]

I'd also have a hard time thinking that keeping oneself informed is naive. Seems to me it's the direct opposite.

I think you misunderstand (or else I'm misunderstanding you). The way I read it, the naïveté lies in believing that everyone has the time, energy and desire necessary to become fully informed about this subject. Obviously, those of us who are in this forum are here because we have a specific interest in food, but a lot of people don't. For example, how many of the people in this thread can tell me the origins of all the wood in their home, both structurally and in their furniture, and whether or not it was harvested legally and sustainably? Isn't it also our responsibility as consumers to know that information?

[tikidoc]

I'd also have a hard time thinking that keeping oneself informed is naive. Seems to me it's the direct opposite.

I think you misunderstand (or else I'm misunderstanding you). The way I read it, the naïveté lies in believing that everyone has the time, energy and desire necessary to become fully informed about this subject. Obviously, those of us who are in this forum are here because we have a specific interest in food, but a lot of people don't. For example, how many of the people in this thread can tell me the origins of all the wood in their home, both structurally and in their furniture, and whether or not it was harvested legally and sustainably? Isn't it also our responsibility as consumers to know that information?

Yes, but there is also a big difference between furniture and food. My motivations for buying local and sustainable food are twofold, both environmental/ethical and health. I don't put furniture into my body and that of my kids. That said, we are planning a kitchen redo in the near future, and the wood we use will be an ecologically sound choice, likely Lyptus (a branded form of eucalyptus). And yes, I think most everyone should at least make some effort to keep the environment in mind when they make purchases, and to at least know what is in their foods.

[annabelle]

Everything is in season somewhere. I like being able to buy things like bananas and grapes, asparagus and artichokes, oranges and avocados that are not grown locally because our climate doesn't support them. What we do grow here is mainly silage used for feeding out livestock not one's family.

Last year it was blistering hot and my garden was spoiled even though I watered and babied it until it turned up its toes. I had to buy everything at the market or eat nothing fresh at all. Except beef. We have the largest stockyards in the country in OKC.

I'll take "dishonest" produce from California over frozen or canned stuff any day. As Shalmanese pointed out, food miles are a bogus argument.

[Panaderia Canadiense]

I'd also have a hard time thinking that keeping oneself informed is naive. Seems to me it's the direct opposite.

I think you misunderstand (or else I'm misunderstanding you). The way I read it, the naïveté lies in believing that everyone has the time, energy and desire necessary to become fully informed about this subject. Obviously, those of us who are in this forum are here because we have a specific interest in food, but a lot of people don't. For example, how many of the people in this thread can tell me the origins of all the wood in their home, both structurally and in their furniture, and whether or not it was harvested legally and sustainably? Isn't it also our responsibility as consumers to know that information?

See, and I read the original quote as "you're naive if you choose to take the time to become informed," so you can see where I was playing spot the oxymoron. As far as your interpretaion, it's my opinion that becoming informed about such things is a personal choice, and it's not naive to believe that people have that choice, regardless of whether they exercise it.... Kind of like voting in North America. I personally happen to believe that it is our responsibility as consumers to know about the origins of all of the products we choose to purchase. It doesn't take that much more time out of even a busy life to stay informed (at least, not for me).

I actually can tell you the origins of the wood in my house. My hard furnishings are recycled pine from international shipping crates; my soft furnishings have structures of new-growth black laurel from upper forest plantations, my floors are bamboo from plantations near Mindo, and the vigas that support the roof are chontaduro, a quick-growing hardwood palm, from plantations in Pastaza. I've also got sundry balsawood items from lowland plantations. It is all legally harvested (including the pine, which was legally cut in Canada and then recycled), apart from the pine it's all local, and it's all sustainable.

[jrshaul]

Ms. Campbell:

I live in a 215 square foot apartment. The majority of my personal posessions - even excluding the car - were purchased secondhand, usually broken, and then reassembled with sticky tape and hammers. I cook for a huge crowd of hungry, hungry hippies twice a month.

Sometimes, I end up serving bolognese with quinoa. The bolognese is made from the wrong ingredients and, while fundamentally authentic, the ingredient list resembles the original in the manner of a cheap iPhone knock-off. The quinoa came in a little cardboard box. I'd hesitate to call it "dishonest food". It certainly tastes good.

Besides, I can pull off a trick you likely can't: I know the origin and means of production of almost everything I own, mostly because I have at some point repaired it. Do you know where the subcontractors that assembled parts for your computer - say, Kingston or Foxconn or Asus - are actually based? And, if you can't, should you then refrain from owning a computer?

The "hopelessly naive" remark was made to me by a professor friend of mine who is of the opinion that people are too stupid to look out for themselves and thus need ever greater government intervention in their lives. But that is waa-ay off topic, so I'l leave it there.

He's right, but for the wrong reason. 90% of environmentalism is a moot effort, simply because the participants don't have the required engineering background to understand the problems in the present system. There's nothing "eco-friendly" about buying locally-sourced tomatoes and then keeping them in a chest freezer for six months.

Edited by jrshaul, 03 March 2012 - 03:27 AM.

[Panaderia Canadiense]

Besides, I can pull off a trick you likely can't: I know the origin and means of production of almost everything I own, mostly because I have at some point repaired it. Do you know where the subcontractors that assembled parts for your computer - say, Kingston or Foxconn or Asus - are actually based? And, if you can't, should you then refrain from owning a computer?

Ah, but I can pull off the same trick. I built my computer, from the motherboard on up; I know that the parts I used came from three factories in Taiwan. And, like you, I know the origin and means of production of just about everything else, having either built it myself or fixed it at one time or another. This includes most of the tech in my kitchen - I've even rewound the motor on my Kitchenaid. (The exception to this rule, of course, is my reference library - I'll have to go on faith that it's on sustainable paper, but at any rate even if it is I've screwed my carbon footprint by dragging it halfway around the world with me. It's about 3 metric tonnes of books all told but I would never leave it behind. I'd jettison technology first. I have, however, periodically rebound some of the books myself.) There is no way that I would have been confident to move to a completely new continent without the ability to fix my own stuff if/when it broke!

And you've missed my point. What I said was, and I quote:

it's my opinion that becoming informed about such things is a personal choice, and it's not naive to believe that people have that choice, regardless of whether they exercise it....

Everything that follows about how I exercise that choice is just that - my choice. I hold only myself to my standards, but I do choose to believe that if others have similar will, they too can be informed about what they buy. I wasn't arguing at all against not owning things with muddy provenance. Certain things, like, say, most computers, or even as something as simple as a telephone, will normally be coming from places far away and possibly ones that use unfair working practices. This fact, however, has to be balanced against the use value of the things to us.

And we've seriously derailed. The original question here all goes back to food, and for me at least (living as I do in a food-sovereign country with strict labeling laws for import products) it's very much easier to find out where that came from and how it was produced.

I buy 99% of what I eat directly from the smallholder farmers who grew it, and I've had in-depth discussions of farming technique with most of them (largely because it interests me directly and is applicable to my own garden.) Thus I can say with confidence that the carrots in my fridge (which, incidentally is parts made in Colombia and assembled in Cuenca, Ecuador, and repaired a couple of times by my own hands using parts made here) came from a farm about 10 km away, were grown with no pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer save what the volcano saw fit to let fall, and letting the chickens out into the field to eat the bugs, and were brought in to the market in a collective truck with the produce of 20 other small farms. I can say similar things about my potatoes, and I can say that the tomatoes in my salad (well, actually, the entire salad) came from my own garden, so I know exactly how they were produced.

Coming back around to the original question: how much of this has to do with honesty in food? NADA. Food is neither honest nor dishonest - that particular distinction is a purely human one, and a crappy marketing gimmick at that. This whole discussion has to do with personal choices about food and purchasing, and how we feel about said choices. The friends I brought up earlier, who think milk comes from the supermarket, are blissfully happy in their ignorance. The others, down here, who know it comes from cows, are also happy in their knowledge. Who am I to say who's right? I can only say that I prefer to know that my milk came from a cow, and that the cow was well-treated. End of story.

[tikidoc]

Elizabeth...

(Applause)

Jess

[ScoopKW]

Food is neither honest nor dishonest - that particular distinction is a purely human one, and a crappy marketing gimmick at that. This whole discussion has to do with personal choices about food and purchasing, and how we feel about said choices. The friends I brought up earlier, who think milk comes from the supermarket, are blissfully happy in their ignorance. The others, down here, who know it comes from cows, are also happy in their knowledge. Who am I to say who's right? I can only say that I prefer to know that my milk came from a cow, and that the cow was well-treated. End of story.

If the ignorant people are getting a wholesome product, then I agree with you that it doesn't matter. You are lucky in that you live in a part of the world that still sells honest food. (I don't like the term "honest" either.) But what do you call orange juice that's sat in a tank for a year, and then had artificial orange flavoring added back? "Dishonest" certainly fits as far as I'm concerned. And that's what most US consumers are drinking, when they think that this juice isn't far removed (distance or time) from the tree.

If there wasn't a massive, pervasive and nearly invisible effort on the part of the food producers to bait and switch the consumer; If the government agencies charged with protecting the consumer were doing their jobs; If the media reported this to the extent necessary to make a difference (instead of bending over for those orange juice advertising dollars); then this would be a exercise in semantics. But that isn't the case. And while "honest" food may be trite, "dishonest" food is a real problem.

Edited by ScoopKW, 03 March 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[annabelle]

If all the world were apple pie
And all the sea were ink
And all the trees
Were bread and cheese
What should we have to drink?

"Iffing" one's self to death is an exercise in futility.

I went back and reread your links and it is not demonstrated that the additions of cellulose and food colorings are health concerns, other than to the reporter who states without citation that food additives cause ADD/ADHD. In other words in her opinion.

Back in the 70s when high fiber diets became en vogue, it was common knowledge that many commercial breads contained cellulose as a fiber booster. Information about everything is out there if one is willing to look for it. One need only read the labels on any packaged food products to find out what the product contains in its list of ingredients, required by the FDA. It is sheer laziness on the part of the consumer to buy juices, for example, that are clearly label "made from concentrate" and then claim to be duped.

People are not sickening and dying from supermarket food unless it is improperly stored or prepared. Surrendering to having the USDA drop off care packages at a distribution center for us "citizens" is not a choice I'm willing to have made for me in the name of "honest" food or consumer protection.

[ScoopKW]

It is sheer laziness on the part of the consumer to buy juices, for example, that are clearly label "made from concentrate" and then claim to be duped.

I'm not talking about orange juice from concentrate. I'm talking about "Freshly Squeezed" -- which then goes to tanks and sits for a year, thus losing all it's flavor. Then orange flavor is added back in and the juice is still sold as "squeezed from fresh oranges." THAT'S the kind of food dishonesty I'm talking about.

http://yalepress.typepad.com/squeezed/2009/07/behind-the-label-orange-juice.html#more



All I ask is for clear, honest labels on food. Then the market will decide what products stay and what products go. What is the advantage of deceptive labeling and marketing? How does anyone benefit besides shareholders?

This is not an either/or choice. We're not stuck between choosing either unwholesome food or a nanny state.

[tikidoc]

People are not sickening and dying from supermarket food unless it is improperly stored or prepared. Surrendering to having the USDA drop off care packages at a distribution center for us "citizens" is not a choice I'm willing to have made for me in the name of "honest" food or consumer protection.

Not so sure on the "people are not sickening and dying" part, although not in the sense that you mean. Obesity and obesity related diseases such as type II diabetes are becoming more and more prevalent. The American diet, loaded with highly processed grains and sugars, is a major reason for this.

[gfweb]

Not so sure on the "people are not sickening and dying" part, although not in the sense that you mean. Obesity and obesity related diseases such as type II diabetes are becoming more and more prevalent. The American diet, loaded with highly processed grains and sugars, is a major reason for this.

That is a big statement, blaming obesity on processed foods and not over-consumption. Got a reference for that?

Exhibit #1 for the defense- Prince Fielder is a vegan.

Yes its easier to absorb certain processed grains, but sucrose isn't processed before a load is dumped into Pepsi and McDs doesn't do anything to its potatoes but fry them and supersize them. Over-eating esp of carbs, perhaps encouraged by the foolish food pyramid,is the big cause of obesity and the secondary diabetes.

[tikidoc]

Oh, I agree, overeating is the main cause. But it may not be as simple as number of calories, what those calories are made up of may be a big part of the picture. The bottom line is that we have an overabundance of cheap, poor quality, over-processed foods, and they make up a large part of the average American's diet. And we eat too much of this crap, absolutely. Much of the reason that this crappy food is so cheap is the huge amount of government subsidies that encourage it's production. Our entire food system is a mess in this country, and it is too easy and cheap to eat junk.

Edited by tikidoc, 03 March 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[annabelle]

What is this "American Diet" I am always seeing referenced on this blog? I've lived all over the country and people eat different things in different places and, yes we all love french fries but we don't eat them with mayonaisse like they do in Belgium.

I agree that the food pyramid is a sham as is the BMI that has been embraced as a standard of fitness. Muscle weighs more than fat, so it would follow that athletes are going to be classed as "overweight" using a BMI easily found on a doctor's chart. Thankfully, most people don't have to do hard physical labor day in and day out in order to earn their meager wage, unless they are professional atheletes or construction workers, but that in turn leads to our being heavier because we don't work as hard as our grandparents had to. And thank God for that.

[azurite]

The # of USDA inspectors and inspections of slaughterhouses, etc., in the US has decreased (I believe, but am not sure, that the decrease started during the Clinton administration) because the industry could "regulate itself."

See also http://www.pbs.org/w.../meat/politics/ for a short history of the influence of the meat packing industry, etc., on US legislation since the 1990's re: meat and agency actions.

Then think about the recent notable failure of the FDA to ban the prophylactic use of various antibiotics in animals raised for meat. https://www.commondr...e/2011/12/29-10 after all that, I'm not as sure as you that the food supply is that "safe."

For me food "honesty" = what "artisan" has come to mean (nothing) = "homecooked" when applied to restaurant food or prepared foods sold in a supermarket. Maybe it means something other than a new advertising term to some of the chefs using the term, otherwise, I agree w/tikidoc (sp?)--doesn't apply to food.

[tikidoc]

Agreed, Azurite. The concept that large scale agribusiness is capable of regulating itself is laughable. As a physician, I can tell you that antibiotic resistance is a huge issue, and the way that it is dosed in livestock (continuous small doses in feed) is perfect for creating resistant organisms. These organisms evolve because there are always mutations in populations. A small number of them will be resistant to a certain antibiotic, whether they are exposed or not, but the low level of antibiotics present provides evolutionary pressure - the ones that are susceptible die out and the ones that are resistant survive and reproduce, introducing the genes for resistance into the population.

I have never understood the legality of this. For a patient to get an antibiotic, I have to write them a prescription. Yet I walk into my local feed store for chicken feed, and not only can I buy feed with antibiotics already in it, I don't have much of a choice. The feed with antibiotics costs $13/50#. The only feed without antibiotics is the organic feed, at $36/50#. Most people who buy chicken feed at the local feed store are not large scale growers who raise chickens in conditions that require antibiotics for success (extremely high population density), they are people like us who have a small flock of birds kept at a low population density. With the exception of those raising the mutant Cornish cross meat birds, they don't really need the medication.

I specifically note Cornish crosses because they are a bizarre exception. These are what you get in the supermarket. We raised them once, never again. They are bred to put on weight rapidly, especially in the breast. They are disgusting beasts that literally refuse to forage. As they grew, they planted themselves near the food bowl and rarely got up. They eat, sleep and crap within about a square foot, even if given the opportunity to move. So free ranging them is meaningless - if forced to forage for a living, they will probably starve. We also ended up having life get in the way and slaughtered them at a later age than ideal. The mortality rate in these birds is staggering, and in several of them, I found bizarre looking growths in their digestive tracts when I cleaned them. Never, ever again, they were just stinky, nasty birds.

But I digress. As you can see, I believe that there is a lot wrong with the system of food production in the US, and I am doing what I can to decrease the amount that my family relies on this system. My kids still like an occasional trip to a fast food place but they are very few and far between (mostly when I am on call and my husband takes them).

For a little comic relief, check out http://thatisnotartisan.blogspot.com/. Azurite mentioned the overuse of the word artisan (should it not be "artisanal"?) in marketing these days, and this blog pokes fun at examples. The author has not posted a new one in a while, I hope she starts again.

And I still think "honest" is a stupid word to describe food.