Earthworms and its excreta (vermicast) promises to usher in the ‘Second Green Revolution’ by completely replacing the destructive agrochemicals which did more harm than good to both the farmers and their farmland. Earthworms restore & improve soil fertility and significantly boost crop productivity. Earthworms excreta (vermicast) is a nutritive ‘organic fertilizer’ rich in humus, NKP, micronutrients, beneficial soil microbes—‘nitrogenfixing & phosphate solubilizing bacteria’ & ‘actinomycets’ and growth hormones ‘auxins’, ‘gibberlins’ & ‘cytokinins’.
Both earthworms and its vermicast & body liquid (vermiwash) are scientifically proving as both ‘growth promoters & protectors’ for crop plants. In our experiments with corn & wheat crops, tomato and eggplants it displayed excellent growth performances in terms of height of plants, color & texture of leaves, appearance of flowers & fruits, seed ears etc. as compared to chemical fertilizers and the conventional compost. There is also less incidences of ‘pest & disease attack’ and ‘reduced demand of water’ for irrigation in plants grown on vermicompost. Presence of live earthworms in soil also makes significant difference in flower and fruit formation in vegetable crops. Composts work as a ‘slowrelease fertilizer’ whereas chemical fertilizers release their nutrients rather quickly in soil and soon get depleted.
Significant amount of ‘chemical nitrogen’ is lost from soil due to oxidation in sunlight. However, with application of vermicompost the ‘organic nitrogen’ tends to be released much faster from the excreted ‘humus’ by worms and those mineralised by them and the net overall efficiency of nitrogen (N) is considerably greater than that of chemical fertilizers. Availability of phosphorus (P) is sometimes much greater. Our study shows that earthworms and vermicompost can promote growth from 50 to 100% over conventional compost & 30 to 40% over chemical fertilizers besides protecting the soil and the agro ecosystem while producing ‘nutritive and tasty food’ at a much economical cost (at least 50 75% less) as compared to the costly chemical fertilizers.
Let’s be clear about a couple of things. First of all, these fast-food changes are business decisions, not public health ones. Second, the food still isn’t healthy.
It all does sound encouraging. Burger King is taking soft drinks off of the Kids Menu. McDonald’s, which has already added apples to Happy Meals, is not only switching to chicken raised without antibiotics, but is apparently planning on adding kale to the menu!
These are the latest in various changes fast food restaurants are making to improve the nutritional content of their foods–and they are absolutely welcome, given that 33 percent of children and 41 percent of teens eat fast food each day, according to Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.
But let’s be clear about a couple of things.
First of all, these changes are business decisions, not public health ones. This is about marketing: Of course each chain wants to be able to say that their food is healthier than everyone else’s.
Second, the food isn’t healthy. It’s cool that they are making changes to kids’ meals, but the reality is that most kids don’t eat them–only 44 percent of kids under 6 and 31 percent of older kids get kids’ meals at fast food restaurants. Even if they did buy them, less than 3 percent of kids’ meals meet nutritional standards for children.
And while adding kale or apples to the menus is great, it doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of items on fast food menus aren’t healthy. They are highly processed and full of fat, sodium and sugar. Not to mention a whole lot of calories.
Now, I get the appeal of fast food. It is, well, fast–and for busy families, fast is good. It’s also cheap. And kids like it. I don’t think it dooms your child to obesity and poor health to zip through the drive-through lane occasionally.
But when occasionally becomes regularly, it really is bad for them–and you.
Here are some ideas for avoiding the dangers of fast food:
-Do some meal planning ahead of time. On weekends, put together a lasagna or a casserole. You can even cook it the night before and then heat up portions (I’ve done this a lot–it works fine). -Use a slow-cooker. Throw stuff in before you leave for work, and serve it when you get home. -Frozen french fries can actually taste nearly as good as the fast food kind–and be kid pleasers–and you can combine them with healthier foods for a better meal than you’d get at the drive-through. -When you do go to a fast-food restaurant, make healthier choices: smaller size portions (check out the snack menu), salads with low-fat dressing, and water (not soda or shakes!) to drink.
I look forward to seeing where this who’s-the-healthiest competition will lead.
2015 Dietary Guidelines; will it crumble under infrastructure pressure?
– – – –
curator: Some may find many of the ‘15 guidelines a bit comical (of course eggs and less sugar are good for you), others are concerned that these latest recommendations perpetuate the falsehood that all food is treated/created equal and sourcing matters less than food group or category (i.e grass-fed meat). When I say some people, and others – I of course am included in those buckets… But, these are steps in the right direction and positive discussions to begin change that will eventually be defined by consumer awareness.
6 Highlights of the 2015 guidelines:
1. You can eat eggs. And shrimp. – fast curator fact – the closer you are to the origin of life (i.e. eggs, sprouted grains, proteins) the healthier the outcome for higher trophic levels. For years, we’ve been told to be mindful of—and limit—how much cholesterol we get from our food. That meant items like eggs and shrimp felt taboo. The logic went like this: dietary cholesterol would raise blood cholesterol. Turns out there isn’t enough science to support that line of thinking.
2. Steer clear of too much sugar. This might not be news to you. And, in fact, we’ve written about the harms of eating too much added sugar here andhere. So it’s just awesome that our national diet advice is following suit and warning all Americans to limit their added sugar intake.
3. Cut out refined carbs. Also known as white carbs. This too might not be groundbreaking to you. The health benefits of whole grains are well documented. So let’s give the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) a pat on the back for identifying refined grains as “detrimental” to our health.
4. One diet doesn’t fit all. This is my favorite takeaway. To lower your risk of heart disease and of becoming overweight or obese, the draft guidelines don’t point us to one narrow diet or a combination of single nutrients. Instead they encourage a general healthy diet pattern. How you achieve this diet is up to you!
5. Consider the environmental impact of foods. Critics have attacked the DGAC’s move on this one, saying they are nutrition experts, not environmental experts. And while that criticism is fair, you cannot separate the topics of what to eat for your health and what to eat for the health of the planet. They need to be considered in conjunction. It’s refreshing to see the advisory committee take this on and encourage Americans to eat more plant-based foods as well as provide guidance on seafood choices, among other suggestions.
6. Pump up the produce! That’s right, we still need to eat more fruits and vegetables. And the draft Dietary Guidelines are really hitting that message hard. But here’s the good news: adding more produce to your diet makes it pretty likely that you’ll be getting key nutrients—like vitamins A and C, folate, magnesium, fiber and potassium—that the guidelines say most Americans fall short on.
more… What should we eat to be healthy? That’s an important question, because, according to the recently releasedScientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, what we eat has a lot to do with how healthy we are. It’s as simple as that.
But on a national level, it becomes more challenging, especially when considering what the report refers to as the “two fundamental realities” that need to be kept in mind.
The first is that about half of all American adults —
117 million individuals — have one or more preventable, chronic diseases, and that about two-thirds of U.S. adults — nearly 155 million individuals — are overweight or obese.
No question about it, those are daunting numbers. The report points out that these unhealthy conditions have been “highly prevalent” for more than 20 years. Also, according to the report, eating unhealthy foods and consuming too many calories, coupled with too little physical activity, directly contributes to these preventable health problems.
The second “fundamental reality” is people can improve their health —
By making changes in their lives, among them eating healthier foods and getting more physical exercise.
In other words, for the most part, we, the consumers, are in the driver’s seat, and the dietary guidelines are there to serve as a road map. It’s all about helping to prevent a culinary crash that could ruin our health — or kill us.
And, yes, food safety is part of this, especially when considering the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which, like the report, takes a preventive approach to safeguarding people’s health.
As for the role consumers play in food safety, a section of the report states that individual behaviors, along with sound government policies and responsible private-sector practices, are needed to reduce foodborne illnesses.
A quick background
The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee was jointly established by the secretaries of the US. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The committee was asked to examine the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, to see if there is new scientific evidence that can be used in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines.
The primary focus of these ongoing reports is to develop food-based recommendations for Americans 2 years old and older. Instead of being mere “dust collectors” to be put on a shelf and forgotten, the reports are used to help develop federal nutrition policy and a variety of programs, among them education, outreach, and food-assistance programs throughout the nation, including food stamps.
What we already know, or at least believe
For the most part, the evidence the committee examined reveals what many people already know, or at least believe to be true: A healthy diet is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, poultry, legumes and nuts; lower in red and processed meat; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains (such as those used in cookies, snack crackers, cakes, and most breads).
But the report also shows “moderate to strong evidence” that higher intake of red and processed meats was identified as detrimental compared to lower intake, as is the case for higher consumption of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, as well as refined grains. That’s where some of the nation’s favorite foods — burgers, pizza, tacos, sandwiches, mixed dishes, desserts and sugar-sweetened beverages, all of which are mentioned in the report — come into the picture.
The report suggests that the composition of many of these food items could be improved in ways to increase consumption of vegetables, whole grains and other under-consumed food groups as well as to lower intake of sodium, saturated fat, added sugar, and refined grains. The report also noted that no matter where people are buying their food — whether in supermarkets, convenience stores, schools, or at the workplace — overall, the needs of a healthy diet for the U.S. population do not meet recommendations for vegetables, fruit, dairy or whole grains and exceed recommended amounts of sodium, saturated fat, refined grains, solid fats and added sugars.
Reading between the lines: The typical American diet is fraught with health risks.
Trident Gum Ingredients – Artificial Colors, Artificial Flavorings, GMOs, Carcinogenic Sugars, Toxic Preservatives (Note: This gum has Xylitol + 3 other sugars including Aspartame)
I used to be addicted to gum. I would totally freak out if I didn’t have some in my purse or pantry after eating.
But that’s before I figured out the ingredients in chewing gum were slowly sabotaging my health. One of the reasons people chew gum is for weight loss. Chewing gum keeps your mouth occupied so you don’t reach for food, right? The main ingredient in all these gums is artificial sweeteners and consuming them will not work as long term strategy for weight loss. Artificial Sweeteners are proven to stimulate your appetite, increase carbohydrate cravings, and promote fat storage and weight gain.
Think about it – when someone consumes something that is sweet, but it has little to no calories – their brain receives a signal to want more calories because their body is not actually getting any energy (i.e. enough calories) to get satisfied. So that person keeps looking for gratification elsewhere and ends up craving more.
Furthermore, there are more dangerous side effects from artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame, which is considered one the most dangerous substances allowed in our food supply. Over 10,000 complaints have been filed with the FDA on this substance since 1980 and has actually never been proven to be safe before it was approved for use in our food supply. Aspartame is linked to diabetes, auto-immune disorders, depression (which can cause you to eat more – once again), birth defects, and several forms of cancer.
What upsets me the most is that Trident is now advertising its gum is made with Xylitol – but it still has Aspartame in it! Trident’s marketing is the best…It will fool even the smartest of people.
Another ingredient I should point out specifically that all of these gums have is BHT. It is used as an embalming fluid and in jet fuel. BHT is a banned substance in several countries and is linked to cancer in animal studies. What’s wrong with this picture?
And what’s up with the warning at the bottom of some of the ingredient lists for “Contains: Phenylalanine”? Does the average person even know what this means? Phenylalanine is added to the ingredient Aspartame and could seriously be dangerous if you have certain health conditions. Consuming this substance (if you have a condition that makes you sensitive to this additive) can cause mental retardation, brain seizures, sleep disorders and anxiety. All this from chewing a piece of gum. SCARY.
Chewing gum messes with your bodies ability to produce digestive enzymes, a critical substance that helps you get all the nutrition from food you need into your bloodstream.
Every time you chew a piece of gum, you send signals to your brain that you are chewing actual food. Your digestive organs – the stomach and pancreas get ready to digest food by creating digestive enzymes your brain thinks you need. Now imagine doing this all time and every day by chewing gum that isn’t real food, you’re tricking your pancreas and stomach to produce digestive enzymes when they don’t really need to use them. Over time the digestive organs become overtaxed and stop producing the amount of enzymes they once did.
This is certainly bad enough, but as you age, you lose 1/3 of your bodies ability to produce digestive enzymes too. This is why taking a digestive enzyme supplement in your older years may improve your overall health. (That’s another topic for another time…)
curator: Despite all of the concerns with gum, and there are many ranging from ingredient sourcing to disruption good order in the body & mind, sometimes you just need gum, and good bubble-gum at that! As an ex-ball player growing up in a generation of chewers never thinking twice about consuming Bazooka, Double Bubble or Big League Chew (my goodness) breaking my fixation from gum has been a challenge. When you need the fix – to chew-up – try these: Glee Gum & TreeHugger Gum Balls
In January, an investigative article revealed shockingly inhumane practices allegedly taking place at the US Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska. Today, the USDA announced that operations there will be examined and overhauled.
New York Times reporter Michael Moss’s deep coverage of a controversial USDA-run animal research center in Nebraska. The article, published in January, lifted the veil on a host of troubling experiments being performed on livestock there. And today, USDA secretary Tom Vilsack announced that no initiatives can begin at the center until procedures there are completely overhauled.
“No new research projects will begin at the US government’s key livestock study center until animal welfare is improved through stronger oversight and better training of standards,” Reuters reports.
Vilsack’s announcement coincides with the release today of a draft of a report on plant conditions conducted by an independent review panel. Investigations began in January shortly after Moss’s piece was published.
Moss’s article, entitled “US Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit,” was a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-assisted examination of the operations of the top-secret animal research facility, which occupies 55 square miles in Nebraska. Moss’s reporting, assisted by Times writer Sarah Cohen, found that the lab, founded 50 years ago to develop livestock that “produce more offspring, yield more meat, and cost less to raise,” has experimented on animals at the expense of their safety and welfare.
Among the most startling of his findings had to do with livestock reproduction: pigs, in the facility, are being bred to give birth to up to 14 piglets, as opposed to the normal litter size of eight; but these frail, crowded piglets are often crushed to death by their mothers. Cows, Moss wrote, have been “retooled” to have twins and triplets instead of one calf at a time, and the weak, deformed young that are born die at such high rates that “even meat producers have been repulsed.” And in an effort to develop “easy care” sheep that can survive with minimal human intervention, ewes are giving birth, unassisted, on open fields where newborns face predation, harsh weather conditions, and starvation.
The Times’ reporting “shows that the center’s drive to make livestock bigger, leaner, more prolific, and more profitable can be punishing, creating harmful complications that require more intensive experiments to solve,” Moss wrote.
The article’s publication in January unleashed a firestorm of media coverage, and the USDA quickly announced that it would look into lab conditions.
Meanwhile, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed extreme concern over the article’s findings. During a February 13 budget hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, they urged USDA inspector general Phyllis Fong to seriously assess the newspaper’s troubling statements.
“Your assistance in auditing the claims included in the article and reviewing the current conditions, practices, and policies would be very helpful to us,” subcommittee chairman Robert Alderholt, a Republican from Alabama, said.
“Many of the concerns that were raised in that story about the spending of taxpayer dollars and humane treatment basically border on the bizarre,” Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine, said. “They’re completely counter to what the consumer is looking for today. The market is growing in humanely raised, and different levels of treatment for animals, so why taxpayer dollars are being spent on something that’s clearly inappropriate practice raises a lot of questions,” she said.
Subcommittee member Sam Farr, a Democrat from California, pointed out that while it was pricey, his state’s university research facilities had recently overhauled their procedures to be more humane. “I know California has required all the research institutions in the state universities to change all their caging and animal husbandry practices to bring in state-of-the-art humane practices,” he said. “It’s very expensive, but they did it, and I think that’s probably something that we in Congress ought to look at.”
The independent panel that has been reviewing the research center’s operations found “no instances of animal abuse, misuse, or mistreatment,” according to Reuters. But the panel did note a lack of oversight at the facility.
“The center’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee provided the review panel no evidence that it met regularly to discuss issues or concerns over animal care,” Reuters reports, “and no evidence of a formal review or approval process for research projects proposed by the oversight committee members themselves.”
Of the controversial practices detailed in Moss’s article, the panel reported, only the pasture-lambing project continued, and those animals were in healthy condition, it said. Secretary Vilsack’s decision to suspend research at the research center is a monumental policy change, but one that doesn’t go far enough for the animal activists at PETA, whose petition to shut down the facility has garnered over 52,670 signatures.
“The US Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) has been using taxpayer dollars for the most extraordinarily crude, cruel, and indefensible experiments in support of a dying meat industry,” PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk told MUNCHIES in an email. “The death rates shocked even ranchers, and the practices at MARC read like a novel about a mad scientist. It’s time for these experiments to be stopped for good and not just put on hold until public outrage dies down.”
Just label it! Seriously, the consumer should be empowered to mediate!
– – – –
Can genetically modified crops grow in harmony with their non-GMO counterparts?
The debate between the pro-biotech and non-GMO camps increasingly looks more like scorched earth than common ground. Biotech seed makers like Monsanto Co. and Syngenta AG, along with farmer groups, argue that genetically modified crops are critical to feed a growing global population. Organic food companies and consumer groups charge that GMO crops promote a chemical-heavy approach to farming that’s harsh on land and animals and could contribute to human-health problems.
Anti-GMO, Biotech Factions Clash at Food Summit – is it for our benefit?
The increasingly polarized debate prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to convene Thursday a two-day summit on “agricultural coexistence” that seeks to mend some farmland fence-posts.
“The one thing I am really tired of is division,” said Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, at the event at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. “This is about finding a path forward.”
But finding that path appeared difficult, with some speakers on both sides of the issue offering few signs of compromise.
“Organic is the future of American agriculture,” said Errol Schweizer, executive global grocery coordinator for Whole Foods Market Inc. Organic crops are grown without GMO seeds.
“We’re not going to feed the world with organic foods,” said Dan Glickman, executive director of the Aspen Institute, a public policy think tank in Washington, and a former U.S. secretary of agriculture.
One thing both factions agree on: The discord costs money. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent advocating for and against state ballot initiatives and legislation requiring labels for foods made with GMOs.
Meanwhile, organic farmers spend thousands of dollars creating buffer zones in their fields to guard against the spread of neighbors’ GMO crop pollen and related pesticides, and setting up systems to ensure harvested grain doesn’t mix with GMO varieties, said Laura Batcha, chief executive of the Organic Trade Association, speaking at the event.
Biotech-crop advocates worry the debate over labeling and continued questions over the crops’ safety is slowing scientific advancements and new products that could help farmers raise hardier crops and produce more food, Mr. Glickman said. The Food and Drug Administration and many U.S. health and science groups say food made with the ingredients is safe.
Some farmers at the event said they took the intensified scrutiny of biotech crops personally.
“For retailers to talk about one production system over another as being the gold standard disparages the production system I use, and I don’t think that’s conducive to having a conversation about coexistence,” said Ron Moore, who grows soybeans, corn and alfalfa near Roseville, Ill., and serves as secretary of the American Soybean Association.
Farmers of all sorts need to acknowledge that “a significant percentage of our community wants to know whether or not they’re eating GMOs,” said Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain Co., a Cerro Gordo, Ill., company that specializes in marketing non-biotech crops.
Mr. Clarkson suggested labeling all foods that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients under a federal standard, though others in the non-GMO camp continued to argue for a federal rule requiring labels for food containing GMOs.
Some non-GMO farmers and food makers already feel they bear a greater economic burden than their biotech-using counterparts, however. Some farmers adjust their planting to help ensure non-GMO crop fields remain free of biotech plants, Ms. Batcha said, and Whole Foods’ Mr. Schweizer said his company had struggled to find enough crops to make organic products for its shelves.
“I actually am importing heirloom corn from Mexico,” Mr. Schweizer said. “It’s a huge issue.”
One place USDA officials sought common ground Thursday: the lunch menu. Attendees could choose from GMO-derived selections – grilled chicken breast, corn salsa and roasted sugar beets – as well as an organic menu including free-range chicken, wild rice pilaf and salad. The competing menu choices were served at separate tables.
When Leah Cook and her family moved to the St. John Valley 15 years ago and took up organic gardening and raising animals on their Grand Isle farm, she said more than one resident dismissed them as “hippy farmers.”
Years later, Leah and her sister Marada Cook have taken all they learned on that family farm, applied 21st century technology and business practices and created Northern Girl to sell local produce to niche markets around New England and along the Atlantic seaboard.
Northern Girl started in October 2011 with four employees, a small facility and a test kitchen in the old NCO club on the former Loring Air Force Base.
“The Limestone facility was really R&D (research and development) for us. That is where we learned production and supply and figured out what we are good at,” Chris Hallweaver, Northern Girl plant manager, said. “What we are really good at is beets.”
Based in Van Buren, the business is processing, freezing and shipping beets in addition to carrots, potatoes and a “root medley vegetable” in 24-ounce bags.
Beets and potato wedges are going to Whole Foods markets for use in their prepared food delis around New England and the Atlantic region.
Northern Girl: from ‘hippie farmers’ to regional food supplier
A number of corporate and school cafeterias in Maine are receiving the beets, potatoes, carrot sticks and root-vegetable medleys.
A 24-ounce bag of Northern Girl produce is retailing for around $5, according to Hallweaver.
Last week Leah Cook, vice president of Northern Girl, said she and her sister, the company president, had been planning for years to set up a processing operation in the Van Buren area.
Last summer, they finally made the move to a brand new building they are leasing from the town built specifically with Northern Girl in mind with funding from United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development.
Then, a $230,000 loan from the Maine Community Foundation and Fair Food Fund allowed the Cook sisters to equip their plant with up-to-date processing equipment.
“By helping scale production, the loan to Northern Girl has a ripple effect that will spur job creation in rural Maine, provide additional revenue for farmers and increase consumer access to local, sustainably produced food,” Meredith Jones, Maine Community Foundation president and CEO, said.
The business has 20 full- and part-time employees who spend most of their time in the facility’s spotless and cavernous processing room peeling, slicing, par-boiling, freezing and packaging produce supplied by local farmers.
Agriculture contributed $37 billion to New York’s economy in 2012, up 22% from 2007, a report released Tuesday found.
The state has put a renewed focus on its farms as New York has become the nation’s leader in yogurt production and as its wines received greater praise and attention.
Indeed, New York ranks in the top 10 in the nation for milk and other dairy production, as well as wine, apples and maple syrup, the report from Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli found.
“New York’s economy is still fueled by agricultural activity and the production of food,” DiNapoli said in a statement. “Farms in New York are 98% family-owned, yet compete on a national level, diversifying our economy and keeping our local communities strong.”
Milk is the state’s largest commodity, with $2.4 billion in sales, followed by grains, peas and beans at $856 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2012 census, the most recent available, DiNapoli’s report notes.
As a result, New York leads the nation in yogurt production because of the booming Greek yogurt sector. The state also ranks first in cottage cheese and sour cream production, the report said.
Because of its vineyards in the Finger Lakes, Hudson Valley and Long Island, the state ranked second in wine production in 2013. It also was second in maple syrup production, behind only Vermont, DiNapoli said.
The Finger Lakes region had 113 wineries, the most of any region in New York and was recently named the Wine Enthusiast’s top wine destination of 2015, DiNapoli’s report notes. In addition, the region ranked first for milk, grains and dry beans.
New York’s apple industry has been ranked the second highest every year since 1996 and the third highest in grape production every year since 1987, a report from Gov. Andrew Cuomo last month said.
Cuomo has boosted the state’s farming industry by loosening regulations and focusing on yogurt production, as well as new cideries and breweries.
“Comptroller Tom DiNapoli’s report calls attention to the significant economic impact agriculture has in New York state,” said Dean Norton, president of the New York Farm Bureau, in a statement. “This in-depth look highlights the dedication of farmers, the diversity of products and the unmistakable conclusion that agriculture is a cornerstone of our rural economy both upstate and on Long Island.”
In 2012, New York had about 56,000 farm operators with an additional 61,000 people hired as farm laborers. As of 2012, New York was home to more than 35,500 farms, including 842 that are certified as organic, the report said.
The average size of farms in New York is relatively small at 202 acres, up from 197 acres in 2007. The national average was 434 acres.
In the Hudson Valley, the region had 52 wineries and ranked first in the state for the number of horses, ponies and donkeys.
There was a small decline in farms between 2005 and 2012, and there were warning signs ahead: The average farmer’s age is 55 years old and more than half of farmers had sales less than $10,000, DiNapoli said.
“It makes economic sense for the state to retain and promote our farms to feed our residents and preserve our land,” DiNapoli said.
By past US Congressman (D-KS) & Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman
The world wastes an astonishing amount of food. About one third of all the food that is produced is wasted, which amounts to about $1 trillion worth of food loss each year. A shocking 7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food that is thrown away, and the water that goes into producing food that is eventually wasted could fill Switzerland’s Lake Geneva two times over. More nutritious foods are wasted more often: Fruits, vegetables, and fish are wasted in much greater quantities than grain because they are more difficult to transport and require refrigeration. This makes it all that much harder to make nutritious foods available. Given food waste’s economic costs and the fact that nearly a billion people around the globe don’t have enough to eat, it’s time reducing food waste become a major priority.
The U.S. and Europe are responsible for about 60 percent of the world’s food loss.
People in these countries prefer fruits and vegetables that are cosmetically appealing, which means that produce that is imperfect-looking yet still perfectly nutritious is discarded. Suppliers, restaurants, and consumers also purchase more than what they eat and often incorrectly store food that needs refrigeration, meaning that as much as half of what people buy at the grocery store or restaurants can end up in the trash can. It’s a true embarrassment of riches – we waste food because we can.
In poorer countries, food is wasted not because people buy too much but because infrastructure is too poor. In many cases, farmers do not have containers to store the food they harvest, and most people do not have refrigerators to keep fish, milk, or produce chilled. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 40 percent of all fruits and vegetables spoil before they even reach the market. With that level of waste, it’s no surprise that one in every four Africans is chronically malnourished.
As a congressman and as Secretary of Agriculture I focused on ways to encourage gleaning and food recovery efforts, but tackling this problem anew can produce big gains for nutrition, the environment, and economics. In countries like the U.S. and Europe, a lot of food waste can be prevented by providing more accurate information on when food will spoil. Right now, expiration dates on food are inconsistent and often exaggerated. We can also make a big dent in food waste by investing in how produce, fish, meats, and dairy products are collected and stored, and incentivizing consumers to be more aware of the importance of only purchasing what they will eat.Grocery stores in France and the UK are also selling “ugly” fruits and vegetables, or those with cosmetic imperfections, which is fostering a new market for produce that would have otherwise been wasted.
Developing countries need places to store their food and refrigeration equipment in which to transport and sell it. Even expanding basic processing capabilities, a cause nonprofit groups like Partners in Food Solutions are spearheading, will go a long way toward lengthening the shelf life of foods. Many companies that are starting to source foods in Africa and Asia, such as Coca-Cola and Unilever, are making these important investments.
Reducing food waste will pay off. A new report by the UK Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) projects that reducing food waste by 20 to 50 percent per year by 2030 could save $120 billion to $300 billion annually and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 200 million to 1 billion tons, which is more than the annual emissions of Germany. Perhaps more importantly, it will make it much more likely that we will be able to produce enough nutritious food for everyone on the planet. That fact in and of itself should give us a reason to clean our plates.
The long list of semifinalists for the Beard awards is out today. And I do mean long. Many of the names included will clearly never win the national award or nomination. In some ways, that makes this list more meaningful. It lets those who shine on a local stage know they are recognized by the people in their communities who inform the judges, and by the regional judges themselves. The nominees will be announced March 24, with the awards ceremony taking place May 4.
It’s no surprise to see Joanne Chang make the list of possibles for outstanding baker, with local judges who are fervent fans. (I confess I admire Chang’s savory side more.) Clear Flour of Brookline is also on the list, and I think it is both a stronger candidate and unlikely to get a nomination. The folks from Hungry Ghost in Northampton are on here, too. They are always on here. Also: Standard Baking Co. in Portland. Maybe the one to beat is Jim Lahey of New York’s Sullivan Street Bakery. You probably know him as the “no-knead bread guy.”
I don’t think Boston’s bakeries shine on a national stage. I do think our bars are stellar and can compete. The Hawthorne is the only one to make the list. I think it deserves a nomination. Portland Hunt + Alpine Club is here, too.
Outstanding chef is an intimidating category. Ana Sortun of Oleana is the only semifinalist from New England. She’s up against the likes of Sean Brock, Andrew Carmellini, Traci Des Jardins, Suzanne Goin, Gabrielle Hamilton, Donald Link, Andy Ricker, Michael Solomonov, Marc Vetri… I can’t even go on. Those are just some of the big names. They all deserve it. I’m glad I don’t have to choose.
Outstanding pastry chef is another category where we can’t really compete. Maura Kilpatrick, also of Oleana, represents as a semifinalist. I wish we – Boston, everyone – valued pastry chefs more, so that we might know as many on this list by name as we do savory chefs.
Fore Street in Portland is the lone New England representative for outstanding restaurant. Nothing in Boston, nothing in Cambridge. To be eligible, restaurants must have been in operation for at least a decade. In 10 years, the Boston area ought to have more representatives on this list.
Garrett Harker is up for outstanding restaurateur, as is Michael Leviton. L’Espalier is our perpetual entrant in the realm of outstanding service. There are probably other restaurants we could recognize here, and other things for which L’Espalier might be recognized. Strip-T’s is a fun surprise addition for the service category.
Troquet, again, is our entrant for outstanding wine program. We have a lot of interesting wine programs in town; Bergamot comes to mind. For outstanding wine, spirits, or beer professional, Jim Koch of Boston Beer Co. and Rob Tod of Allagash Brewing Co. make appearances.
For rising star chef of the year: Max Hull and Irene Li of Mei Mei, and Cara Stadler of Tao Yuan (Brunswick, Maine) represent. Great to see them here. It’s amusing historically, and indicative going forward, to see Asian ingredients and flavors dominant. Heat and brightness on Boston’s horizon, I do declare. The rising star nominees have to be 30 or under. I never know who is 30 or under. Most of the people who deserve to be nominated are probably flying under the radar. The food media – mea culpa – need to do a better job focusing on sous chefs and others bringing the talent and shaping the food.
Up for Best Chef: Northeast:
Karen Akunowicz, Myers + Chang, Boston Tyler Anderson, Millwright’s, Simsbury, Conn. Alex Crabb, Asta, Boston Eric Gabrynowicz, Restaurant North, Armonk, N.Y. Wesley Genovart, SoLo Farm & Table, South Londonderry, Vt. Brian Hill, Francine Bistro, Camden, Maine Matt Louis, Moxy, Portsmouth, N.H. Barry Maiden, Hungry Mother, Cambridge Tim Maslow, Ribelle, Brookline Masa Miyake, Miyake, Portland, Maine Ravin Nakjaroen, Long Grain, Camden, Maine Michael Pagliarini, Giulia, Cambridge Cassie Piuma, Sarma, Somerville Guy Reuge, Mirabelle, Stony Brook, N.Y. Art Rogers, Lento, Rochester, N.Y. Champe Speidel, Persimmon, Bristol, R.I. Bill Taibe, Le Farm, Westport, Conn. Andrew Taylor and Mike Wiley, Eventide Oyster Co., Portland, Maine Joel Viehland, Community Table, Washington, Conn. Eric Warnstedt, Hen of the Wood, Waterbury, Vt.
Interesting to see Scelfo not on this list after his best new restaurant recognition. I’m thrilled to see Akunowicz here. Myers + Chang just keeps getting better. And Crabb’s Asta is one of my favorite places for truly inventive courses that are as delicious as they are interesting. Piuma’s Sarma is totally fantastic and hit the ground running. It might be Maiden’s year, though, and he deserves it. They all do.
Seriously, what a great list. Among other things, Nakjaroen makes the most addictive hot sauce I’ve had in recent memory. I wouldn’t rule out the folks from Eventide in Portland. I wouldn’t rule out anyone.
