The Blog Has Moved!

You may now find the Slow Food on Campus blog here.

Gourmet Goes Local

The respected and often tasteful Gourmet has put out a new restaurant guide, which you can find here. The focus this year is on the local, with the guide then broken down into sections (my personal favorite being "Meat Rules," but I'm from the Midwest).

Gourmet says that eating local has "caught on," which perhaps sounds far too much like fad-lingo (yes, I'm thinking whole-grain). Still, this does indeed gesture at our country's growing concern with what we eat, and an increase in the demand for a local product. Catching on is good; hanging on is better.

Luckily, we now have a short guide that showcases farm-to-table programs that are working--and working deliciously. Taste is, after all, a large part of Slow Food, and sometimes it is nice to be reminded.

Are You Involved in the Community Food Security Coalition?

Community Food Security Coalition is pleased to announce its two upcoming meetings:

12th annual Conference, scheduled for October 4-8, 2008 outside Philadelphia ( Cherry Hill, NJ)
- More details will be provided on this event as they become available.

Membership Meeting, November 11-12, 2007 Jekyll Island, Georgia.

-Held in a retreat setting along the beautiful Georgia coast, an hour from Jacksonville, FL, this event will be a different kind of meeting than CFSC has done in the past. Limited to 150 participants, it will be a more interactive and reflective meeting.

We want to engage you in thinking about and planning for the future of the community food security movement. We want your help in developing a common vision for our future direction.

We also want to engage you in thinking and planning for the future direction for CFSC, as a steward of the broader movement. How can our work promote, catalyze, and support an invigorated movement at all levels? CFSC is undertaking a strategic planning process, with a goal of making the organization more sustainable, inclusive, and responsive to members. This meeting is an integral part of that process.

We will be looking for your feedback at this meeting: to help us define our niche, to help shape the structures by which we gain membership input into our activities, and to shape our programs and committees. We encourage you to join existing member committees, or to create new working groups on the topics you feel are most important to the movement and your work.

The meeting is open to CFSC members. Non-members can join when they register. Registration starts on September 17th and closes on October 23rd.

See http://www.foodsecurity.org/2007MemberMeeting.html for more details.

Contact our office at 310-822-5410, or aleta@foodsecurity.org with any questions

CFSC

New Food Studies Program at Indiana University

The anthropology department at Indiana University proudly announces a
PhD in the anthropology of food, beginning the fall semester of 2007.
While food studies of all kinds are increasing in popularity at
universities around the world, and degrees in nutrition and food
marketing are available, IU offers the first program in the world
leading to a PhD in the social science of food.

Food connects a host of contemporary issues, ranging from obesity to
ecological dead zones to fair-trade coffee. Students will enjoy
opportunities to work on a wide range of food-related topics in a
department whose diverse menu already offers courses on a wide variety of topics including chocolate's history, other primates' diets, and the cause of famine.

Why Indiana? The anthropology department at IU has a unique combination
of food specialists with expertise in the sciences, humanities, and
social sciences. Students in the Food Studies Program will further have
the opportunity to study with scholars in other departments and programs
including history, nutrition, cultural studies and biology. This
diversity will allow students to specialize in human nutrition, the
evolution of the human diet, origins of food production, food in ancient
civilizations, and contemporary social and economic issues related to
health, culture, economics and globalization. The Food Studies Program
combines the sciences and humanities, contributing to the new health
sciences and human biology initiatives, and boosting the national
visibility of the university.

Indiana is home to a broad array of old and new immigrant communities,
which create a rich context for understanding the importance of food in
culture, and the growing globalization of the world food system.
Bloomington itself has been at the forefront of the farmer=92s market
revival, serving as a regional distribution center for organic groceries
and produce with a rich and sophisticated ethnic food culture. Building
on the rapid growth of culinary tourism into a major industry, faculty
and students in the Food Studies Program will team with local business
communities to increase Bloomington's prominence and visibility as a
food city and Indiana as a new center of cuisine. Bloomington has a
Slow Food chapter, a farmers' market, two microbreweries, several CSAs,
and "culinary tourism trails."

In this program, food fuels the connections between people, places,
cultures, and across the ages. The anthropology department has already
placed students in service-learning research and outreach with a local
food bank. Future projects may include work with local farmers, food
assistance programs for the poor and elderly, gardeners, and ethnic food
markets.

The IU Department of Anthropology is growing into one of the largest and
most important programs in the country. With 36 core faculty and
affiliates throughout other departments, the program boasts over 110
graduate students studying for advanced degrees in linguistic
anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeology, bioanthropology, human
evolutionary studies, and archaeology and social context. The Food
Studies Program accelerates this growth, responding to the interest in
food within the field of anthropology.

This new PhD builds on the successes of the gastronomy and food studies
MA programs at New York University and Boston University, offering a
more advanced degree based on substantial independent research projects.

IU anthropologists will continue to expand and develop their
relationship with the new Food Studies MA degree program at the
University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Due to the strong demand for this training, the department has already
received many inquiries. We will provide support for PhD graduates to
step into open job markets in academia and industry, where the
challenges of globalization and cultural diversity have prompted new
interest in anthropology as an integrative discipline.

www.indiana.edu/~anthro

Sustainable Agriculture Scholarship

Annie' s Homegrown believes that healthy soils and healthy farms are the foundation for healthy foods, which help make healthy people! Therefore, they are proud to support the next generation of farmers. Their philosophy is: Planet to Food. Food to People. People to Planet.

Since their products are made with ingredients sourced from sustainable farms run by farmers who understand the interconnectedness of all things, they have established a scholarship program to assist undergraduate and graduate students who are pursuing studies in Sustainable and Organic Agriculture.

Annie’s Homegrown will award $50,000 in scholarship funds to students studying sustainable and organic agriculture. Up for grabs this year are:

• Two (2) $10,000 Undergraduate Scholarships
• One (1) $10,000 Graduate Scholarship
• Four (4) $2,500 Undergraduate Scholarships
• Four (4) $2,500 Graduate Scholarships

Annie's Homegrown Sustainable Agriculture Scholarship Program is open to full time undergraduate and graduate students beginning or returning to an accredited 2 or 4 year technical or college program or graduate school in the U.S. Students must be focusing on classes in sustainable agriculture and have at least one more year before completing their degree.

For application materials and additional information, go to www.annies.com/programs/sustainable_agriculture_scholarship.htm

Annie's accepts applications postmarked between June 1st and September 30th, 2007. Final decisions will be made by January, 2008, and funds will be dispersed on or around February 15, 2008.

A Good Egg

Pastured eggs catching on

Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Hens by the dozen scamper down the grassy hill from their laying houses to greet Liz Cunninghame as she tootles up in the bright yellow-and-black Cub Cadet cart she calls "the Wasp."

It's early afternoon at Clark Summit Farm just north of Tomales, 160 acres of certified organic farmland in the coastal hills of West Marin. Cunninghame is making her daily egg run, and she's taking this city slicker along to see firsthand what's behind the current craze for pastured eggs.

Pastured eggs come from chickens that actually run around outside and eat snacks from the landscape along with their daily rations of grain.

Demand is growing so quickly that small farmers like Cunninghame and her husband, Dan Bagley, can't keep up. But the eggs are becoming easier to find as flocks expand, more farmers take up the challenge of raising pastured eggs, and more retail stores carry them.

This back-to-the-future trend away from mass-produced food has a payoff that comes the second you crack one of these eggs open. The yolk is high and deep orange; the white is clear and doesn't spread and thin out. Fried sunny-side up, the egg is silky, with a clean, rich taste. I haven't found evidence proving that the eggs are better for you, but the hens they come from definitely live more natural lives than the ones that stay cooped up under artificial "daylight," have their beaks trimmed and are starved to force production.

Buyers, beware: Most eggs sold as "free range" or "farm fresh" come from hens that never see the world outside a coop. Ask lots of questions when you're buying, even at farmers' markets. Even better, if you have time, take a day trip to a farm and buy your eggs there.

That's how I found myself heading up the hill at Clark Summit Farm.

We stopped to check on the days-old chicks that had arrived from a Washington hatchery just a few days earlier. Tiny, hungry fuzzballs, they mill around inside a closed shed that's kept at 95 degrees until they're big enough to go outside; by November, they'll be laying.

Back in the Wasp, we make another stop where hens are hanging out with the Blue Butt sow and her 12 piglets in the shade of tall eucalyptus trees. Everyone's either suckling or snoozing. After a peek in the broiler house (pastured chicken is another trend, and another story), we trundle up into the welcoming clucks of the main laying flock.

Bella, Cunninghame's big black dog, plunges into the milling crowd of some 1,000 big brown Rhode Island Reds, black-and-white striped Barred Rocks, black Sex Links and buff Araucanas. Bella doesn't bother them, but stands ready to scarf down any cracked or broken eggs.

Three wooden coops stand near the top of the hill. Hens run in and out of the open doors all day long, flapping up into straw-filled boxes along the sides of the coops to lay an egg. Roosters crow and chase them.

Tractors tow the coops to a new spot every other day. One of the challenges of raising pastured poultry is that the poop builds up incredibly fast and destroys anything under it. Moving the coops spreads it around; in a few months, it will cool down and help feed new grass.

Come nightfall, the chickens are rounded up shut into the coops to keep them safe from coyotes, foxes and other predators. First thing in the morning, they'll be let out again.

Once a day, Cunninghame makes the egg run. She raises a hinged sheet of plywood on the side of a coop, exposing a double row of boxes. Hens sit and fluff in most of them.

The clutch of eggs - usually six to 12, all from different hens - is a rainbow mix of light and darker brown, blue and a few whites. In summer, each hen lays about five eggs a week, taking turns in the boxes.

Cunninghame shows me how to reach under the chickens for the eggs. The first surprise is how teeny the birds actually are under all those feathers - they're like short girls with big hair. Who knew?

The second surprise is that the eggs are very warm. Duh, but I'd never thought about it. Quickly, we gather about 600 eggs in five large blue wire baskets. Only a couple of hens, indignant over my intrusion, take a peck at my hand.

But my bare toes, exposed in sandals, are attractive targets for the hens pecking at the ground around my feet. I'm reminded of my visit a few years back to a much larger egg farm in the next county, where that wouldn't have been a problem - the chickens there lived indoors, though not in cages, and their beaks were trimmed to keep them from pecking one another.

The baskets sit on the back of the Wasp for the trip back down to the shed where a helper, Ceci Barajos, washes and packs the eggs by hand.

Clark Summit sells 150 dozen eggs a week through Three Stone Hearth's community-supported kitchen in Berkeley. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, the public can buy the eggs from the kitchen near Berkeley's Aquatic Park (see "Where to buy pastured eggs").

Cunninghame sells the rest of her eggs to Dave Evans of Marin Sun Farms, who sells them, along with his own, at the Marin and San Francisco Ferry Plaza farmers' markets and through select retail stores.

The price is two to three times the cost of non-pastured eggs, but, says Cunninghame, "I could sell twice as many if we had 'em."

Pastured egg farmers Dave Evans in Point Reyes, and Alexis Koefoed of Soul Food Farm near Vacaville agreed.

"I thought there would be a market but I didn't think there would be this obsession for farm eggs," says Koefoed, who bought her first hens four years ago and will have a flock of 2,000 by fall. She sells the eggs at the farm, the Napa farmers' market and through the Berkeley-based Slow Food Bay Area Meat CSA.

Summer is the most bountiful time for pastured eggs, which are seasonal - hens lay according to the amount of daylight, and slow way down in winter.

At the big egg ranch I visited previously, lights kept the hens laying 24 hours a day all year long. Clark Summit uses no lights, and last winter production dropped to 30 eggs a day from 400 hens. "And they still eat," Cunninghame says.

This winter, things should be better because the baby chicks she just bought will bring her laying flock to 1,650.

Marin Sun Farms is starting 600 new chicks, too, and by winter will have 1,800 in movable pens.

"We should have a good supply," Evans says. "We'll see."

Found at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/01/FD5KRA8B72.DTL&hw=eggs&sn=001&sc=1000

Finding the Balance at Farmer's Markets

An Interesting Problem at the Farmer's Market...

By Mary Jane Smetanka, Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1317731.html

Has the Twin Cities finally reached the saturation point for farmers markets?
The problem isn't that there aren't customers. Bloomington, the latest city to jump on the market bandwagon, drew so many shoppers on its first Saturday earlier this month that many vendors sold out by 8:30 a.m., just 90 minutes after the market opened.

The issue is with vendors. Drawn by that first day's success, almost twice as many sellers -- about 20 -- came the second Saturday. But after the morning rush, it was the flower vendors, the jam guy and the bread seller who were doing gangbuster business. Many farmers who were selling potatoes and zucchini and cucumbers had a lot of produce left at the end of the morning.

"Last week was a good week; we sold out," said Chao Her of Brooklyn Park, whose table was full of potatoes and cucumbers late in the morning. "Today, it's different."

With about 45 farmers market sites operating each week in the Twin Cities area, there are many places to buy peppers, lettuce and tomatoes. But for new, unproven markets, it's difficult to draw specialty vendors who sell things such as meat and cheese that help lure shoppers back week after week.

While Bloomington had people selling candy, jams, coffee, flowers, smoothies and bread on its second market day, it didn't have anyone selling meat or dairy, or even sweet corn -- a crop that tends to come from larger growers who often skip new markets until they're proven successes.

"We have the names of several meat people, but we haven't had a lot of luck getting them," said Jim Urie, manager of Bloomington's Center for the Arts who is supervising development of the market, which has space for 23 vendors. "Some of them don't have refrigerator trucks, and the ones that do have a full schedule."

Hard-to-get dealers

Among the meat dealers Bloomington contacted were Jill and Jeff Marckel, who own Chase Brook Natural. They raise cattle, hogs, chickens and lambs in Milaca and Princeton and keep a dizzying schedule selling meat at 15 markets each week. Using two freezer trucks, they sometimes hit three markets a day.

Jill Marckel said that, this year, at least five more markets came calling.

"I had to say no," she said. "Between the two of us, we do darn well. But we're pretty close to capacity."

When Bob Leis of Bob's Bluebird Orchard in Webster was invited to join the Bloomington market, he came the first weekend to check it out and was impressed to see goods "flying off the shelf."

He was happy he came out to sell the next week. An hour before the market closed, he'd sold all of his 250 doughnuts and had just 11 of 120 jars of jam left. "I had a lot of people today say they were glad I was here," Leis said. He said he'll be back.

Sisters Chia and Youa Xiong had a near-empty table, too. Though they sold a few vegetables -- something their family has done for 16 years at local markets -- their niche is bouquets. By 10:30 a.m., they'd sold 150 bunches of lilies and other flowers. They called their dad, who delivered 50 more. Forty-five minutes later, those were gone too.

"This is one of our better markets," Chia said.

Though they have other lives -- Chia is in college, and Youa is married and has a full-time hospital job -- they like selling at markets so much that they help their father out on weekends. Chia tries to catch customers' eyes by making lily bouquets distinctive, and emphasizes their freshness. "They'll take our bouquets home and see how they last, and they'll come back," she said.

Finding the right balance

Setting up a market is an art and a science, said Jack Gerten, manager of the St. Paul Farmers Market. Shoppers want variety and an ample supply of goods as well as a fun atmosphere, but they don't want a circus. Markets have to find a balance for vendors, too, who need to sell enough to want to come back. That can be a challenge if you want what's sold to be Minnesota-grown, as the St. Paul and Bloomington markets do.

"There's only so much grown in Minnesota," Gerten said. "You're probably better off keeping the market small and having a larger volume of choice."

Eventually, he said, an aging cadre of growers may force a drop in the number of markets. But for now, he said, "I think there's room for quite a few markets."

Bloomington is still adjusting the mix in its market. Urie said he would like music every Saturday. And he hopes to attract a berry vendor.

Toting a bulging bag of produce, shopper Myrt Kime cast a practiced eye on the booths and pronounced it pretty good for a new market. She lives in Bloomington and had come straight from the Richfield Farmers Market to check out the competition in her hometown.

"The prices in Richfield were the same, but I think the quality is better there. At least it looks better." But she added, "I would come back here."

Help Small Scale Meat Producers

From foodandfarm.org:

Will Congress Vote to Support Small Scale Meat Processors?

Background:

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) agency provides approximately $43 million dollars annually to support the 28 state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) Programs currently operating. State Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs are an integral part of the nation's food safety system. FSIS provides up to 50% of the state's MPI operating funds, as well as training and other assistance. About 2,100 meat and poultry establishments are inspected under state MPI programs. All of these establishments are small or very small. State MPI programs are characterized as providing more personalized guidance to establishments in developing their food safety operations.

State MPI programs operate under a cooperative agreement with FSIS. Under the agreement, a state's program must enforce requirements "at least equal to" those imposed under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Establishments have the option to apply for federal or state inspection. However, product produced under state inspection is limited to intrastate commerce.

Here is the latest news:

NEW INTERSTATE BILL INTRODUCED. On June 27, Rep. Zach Space (OH) introduced H.R. 2876 which would allow interstate sales of state-inspected meat and poultry. H.R. 2876 takes a different approach than other bills to allow interstate meat sales. Specifically, the bill would require USDA to verify that state inspection programs are equal to the federal inspection program. If USDA determines that an individual state plant does not meet the “equal to” federal inspection requirements, then that state plant would not be eligible to ship meat and poultry in interstate commerce.

2007 FARM BILL EXPECTED TO INCLUDE INTERSTATE. The House Agriculture Committee is expected to include provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill legislation that would allow interstate meat sales. The Committee plans to consider the Farm Bill the week of July 17.

CONTINUE GRASSROOTS EFFORTS. Many lawmakers will be in their home states and districts during the congressional recess next week (July 2-8)---this is a great time to let them know the importance of interstate meat sales legislation.

Please take a few minutes to call, fax or write your House Representatives--especially if they serve on the House Agriculture Committee--they need to hear from us! Ask them to support and cosponsor interstate meat sales legislation---and to include it in the Farm Bill.

The list of House Agriculture Committee members is in the first article of this newsletter.

- - - P E T I T I O N - - -

Support Legislation For Local Economic Growth, Fair Markets, Small Business and Consumers

Support Interstate Meat Sales Legislation
H.R. 1760 (Kind); H.R. 2315 (Pomeroy) and H.R. 2876 (Space)

An outdated and unfair law from the 1960s prohibits the sale of state inspected meat products (beef, poultry, pork, lamb and goat) across state lines. There are 2,000 state-inspected meat processors–mostly small, family-owned businesses–who are prevented from competing in the national marketplace. Legislation has been introduced in the House—H.R. 1760 by Rep. Ron Kind (WI),H.R. 2315 by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (ND) and Roy Blunt (MO), and H.R. 2876 by Rep. Zach Space (OH). All of the bills would allow state-inspected meat and poultry to be sold nationwide.

We urge Congress to take action now because:

Meat and poultry products from 34 foreign countries can be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S.—but our domestic small businesses and processors cannot. Why are small businesses in the U.S. denied the same opportunities given to companies in foreign countries?

Our locally produced, state-inspected meats are some of the best specialty products in the country. It doesn’t make sense to say consumers in Iowa can enjoy these products while consumers across the state border in Missouri cannot eat and enjoy the same products.

No other state-inspected food commodities are prohibited from being shipped across state lines. Other state-inspected food products (milk, dairy, fruit, vegetables, fish) are freely marketed across the country. Why aren’t the same marketing options available for meat and poultry?

The restriction on interstate meat sales does not apply to products such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit and others. It doesn’t make sense to allow these products across state lines while beef, pork, lamb and goat cannot be shipped interstate. Where’s the logic in this?

Interstate meat sales legislation will provide economic fairness and open markets. Increased markets will not only benefit producers, processors and small businesses, but it also gives consumers more choices at the supermarket. It’s just common sense and it’s the right thing to do!

Harvest Awards

As you well know, one of the most daunting challenges confronting many communities is sustaining local agriculture. Glynwood Center, located in Cold Spring, NY, is seeking to help communities address change in ways that conserve local culture and natural resources while strengthening economic well-being.

Glynwood Center is calling for nominations for the 5^th Annual Harvest Awards which recognize innovative farmers, organizations, and businesses that are supporting sustainable regional food systems. If you know someone who is doing an exceptional job of creating sustainable regional food and agriculture systems, or whose work in this area has inspired others to take action in their communities, please consider making a nomination.

The Glynwood Harvest Farmer Award is awarded to a farmer who has developed a sustainable farming operation and built effective relationships within his or home community and other places where the food is eaten

The Glynwood Harvest Good Neighbor Award is awarded to an individual or organization that has helped sustain regional agriculture in new and effective ways.

The Glynwood Harvest Connecting Communities, Farmers, and Food Award is awarded to recognize outstanding work that unites farmers and other community residents in building a local food system.

Of particular interest are individuals/programs that focus on: the food, farm, and health connection; how sustainable agriculture furthers social justice; and key roles being played by younger leaders.

Harvest Award recipients will receive national recognition for their achievements. Award recipients will be honored at an Awards Ceremony in New York City in October 2007. They will be guests at Glynwood Center and treated to introductions to New York City and the Hudson Valley, including meals featuring regional food. Travel costs will be reimbursed. Winners and nominees will be featured in articles and publications designed to inspire individuals and organizations across the country to actively support their local and regional farmers and join this growing movement.

Go to www.glynwood.org/programs/harvest.htm for forms and for more information. The deadline is July 10, 2007.

Join Montana's FoodCorps!

Want to launch and expand farm to cafeteria programs across the state? Montana's FoodCorps, a team of five full-time AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, is now accepting applications for 2007-2008. FoodCorps team members increase social, economic, and environmental health by helping public institutions buy and serve food grown closer to home.

You will have the unique opportunity to work with farmers, ranchers, community organizers, students, food service directors, and nutritionists to increase the amount of locally and regionally grown food served in cafeterias and thereby boost Montana’s health and economy.
In addition to increasing the amount of locally and regionally grown food, you will also participate in community and campus outreach, such as teaching classes, developing educational materials, or working with community partners. In addition, a job priority will be to fundraise and build programmatic infrastructure that ensures sustainability of the program beyond the VISTA’s term of service.

In return, FoodCorps team members gain skills, leadership experience, and contacts in the community food movement, all while earning a living stipend and paying back student loans.

The term of service starts July 16, 2007 and ends July 16, 2008.

Applications accepted until all positions are filled.

www.growmontana.ncat.org/foodcorps.php

To learn more contact:
Crissie McMullan,
Grow Montana Coordinator
crissiemc@yahoo.com
406-721-1664

How long will "Organic" stay "Organic"?

From the Los Angeles Times

USDA may relax standards for organic foods

The agency is considering a list of 38 nonorganic spices, colorings and other ingredients that would be allowed in products it deems 'organic.'

By Scott J. Wilson
Times Staff Writer

June 9, 2007

With the "USDA organic" seal stamped on its label, Anheuser-Busch calls its Wild Hop Lager "the perfect organic experience."

"In today's world of artificial flavors, preservatives and factory farming, knowing what goes into what you eat and drink can just about drive you crazy," the Wild Hop website says. "That's why we have decided to go back to basics and do things the way they were meant to be ¡K naturally."

But many beer drinkers may not know that Anheuser-Busch has the organic blessing from federal regulators even though Wild Hop Lager uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides.

A deadline of midnight Friday to come up with a new list of nonorganic ingredients allowed in USDA-certified organic products passed without action from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, leaving uncertain whether some foods currently labeled "USDA organic" would continue to be produced.

The agency is considering a list of 38 nonorganic ingredients that will be permitted in organic foods. Because of the broad uses of these ingredients ¡X as colorings and flavorings, for example ¡X almost any type of manufactured organic food could be affected, including cereal, sausage, bread and beer.

Organic food advocates have fought to block approval of some or all of the proposed ingredients, saying consumers would be misled.

"This proposal is blatant catering to powerful industry players who want the benefits of labeling their products 'USDA organic' without doing the work to source organic materials," said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Assn. of Finland, Minn., a nonprofit group that boasts 850,000 members.

USDA spokeswoman Joan Shaffer declined to comment on the plan.

Food manufacturers said this week that they were hoping the agency would approve the rules by Friday to continue labeling their products as organic.

A federal judge had given the USDA until midnight Friday to name the nonorganic ingredients it would allow in organic foods, but the agency did not release its final list by the end of the day.

"They probably don't know what to do" Cummins said. "On the other hand, it's hard to believe they're going to make people change their labels, although that's what they should do."

Demand for organic food in the U.S. is booming as consumers seek products that are more healthful and friendlier to the environment. Sales have more than doubled in the last five years, reaching $16.9 billion last year, according to the Organic Trade Assn. in Greenfield, Mass., which represents small and large food producers.

But with big companies entering what was formerly a mom-and-pop industry, new questions have arisen about what exactly goes into organic food. For food to be called organic, it must be grown without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Animals must be raised without antibiotics and growth hormones and given some access to the outdoors.

Many nonorganic ingredients, including hops, are already being used in organic products, thanks to a USDA interpretation of the Organic Foods Protection Act of 1990. In 2005, a federal judge disagreed with how the USDA was applying the law and gave the agency two years to revise its rules.

Organic food supporters had hoped that the USDA would allow only a small number of substances, but were dismayed last month when the agency released the proposed list of 38 ingredients.

"Adding 38 new ingredients is not just a concession by the USDA, it is a major blow to the organic movement in the U.S. because it would erode consumer confidence in organic standards," said Carl Chamberlain, a research assistant with the Pesticide Education Project in Raleigh, N.C.

In addition to hops, the list includes 19 food colorings, two starches, casings for sausages and hot dogs, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin and a host of obscure ingredients (one, for instance, is a "bulking agent" and sweetener with the tongue-twisting name of fructooligosaccharides).

Under the agency's proposal, as much as 5% of a food product could be made with these ingredients and still get the "USDA organic" seal. Hops, though a major component of beer's flavor, are less than 5% of the final product because the beverage is mostly water.

Sales of organic beer, though still a small portion of total beer sales, have been growing even faster than overall organic food sales. They reached $19 million in 2005, a 40% increase over the previous year (2006 figures are not yet available).

Trying to get a share of the market for green products, Anheuser-Busch introduced two organic beers in September, and soon pitched them in fliers to wholesalers.

"Environmentally conscious consumers are looking for certified organic products, including beer, the fastest-growing organic beverage," the pitch said. "Capitalize on this growing market with Wild Hop Lager and Stone Mill Pale Ale."

But while the two beers use 100% organic barley malt, less than 10% of the hops they use is organic. Hops are conelike flowers that grow on vines and impart a bitter taste on beer to offset the sweetness of malts.

Anheuser-Busch said it simply couldn't find enough organic hops.

"There currently is only a small supply of organically grown hops available for purchase by brewers, and we purchased all we could for brewing these beers," said Doug Muhleman, vice president of brewing operations for Anheuser-Busch Inc.

But that argument doesn't wash with Russell Klisch, owner of Milwaukee's Lakefront Brewery, which has been producing beer with 100% organic hops since 1996.

"If we can do it, we think Anheuser-Busch, the world's largest beer producer with virtually unlimited resources, should be able to follow our example," he said.

Klisch said there were enough organic hops to satisfy 90% of the current organic beer demand in the U.S., but some brewers were put off by their higher price.

There are no organic hops commercially grown in the U.S.; most come from New Zealand, Britain and Germany. But Klisch has recently contracted with two Wisconsin farmers to grow some on their land. He doesn't understand why large brewers can't do the same.

"You're telling me that Anheuser-Busch can't find a little plot of ground somewhere to grow organic hops?" he said.

In addition to hops, two other items on the USDA list have attracted particular attention: casings for sausages and hot dogs, and fish oil.

Casings are the intestines of cows, pigs or sheep, which have been used for centuries to wrap meat into sausages and frankfurters.

Although the casings are a tiny portion of the overall sausage, organic purists object to eating anything from animals that are raised on conventional farms, where livestock may be housed in tight quarters and given antibiotics and growth hormones. Further, they note that the USDA's food safety division has identified cow intestines as a possible source of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

But the USDA has already banned part of the cow's small intestines for human consumption because of the risk of mad cow disease. Barbara Negron, president of the North American Natural Casing Assn. in New York, said casings were safe to eat.

"It's a very safe, clean and natural product," she said. "It's not an organic product. It's a natural product."

It's very difficult to maintain pure organic eating habits, Negron added, "unless you want to lock yourself up and only raise your own food."

Fish oil's presence on the USDA list has drawn objections because it could carry high levels of heavy metals and other contaminants, said Jim Riddle, a former member of the National Organic Standards Board. But fish oil producers said such contaminants could be screened out through proper processing.

The USDA rules come with what appears to be an important consumer protection: Manufacturers can use nonorganic ingredients only if organic versions are not "commercially available."

But food makers have found a way around this barrier, in part because the USDA doesn't enforce the rule directly. Instead, it depends on its certifying agents ¡X 96 licensed organizations in the U.S. and overseas ¡X to decide for themselves what it means for a product to be available in organic form.

Despite years of discussion, the USDA has yet to provide certifiers with standardized guidelines for enforcing this rule.

"There is no effective mechanism for identifying a lack of organic ingredients," complained executives of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, a nonprofit certifying agent, in a letter to the USDA. "It is a very challenging task to 'prove a negative' regarding the organic supply."

Large companies have a better chance of winning approval to use nonorganic ingredients because the amount they demand can exceed the small supply of organic equivalents, said Craig Minowa, environmental scientist for the Organic Consumers Assn.

From: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-organic9jun09,0,1336066.story?coll=la-home-center

Become a Cadre Member!

The Food Project’s Leadership Cadre provides training and networking opportunities for young people (age 18-25) who are promoting social and economic justice through food and agriculture. A cadre is a “group of trained leaders around which a movement can be formed.” The Cadre program allows young leaders to meet peers in different facets of the movement for just and sustainable food systems—from urban agriculture to fair trade to food sovereignty to farm policy and beyond. Cadre members also gain special access to leaders in the field, to in-depth learning opportunities, and to key gatherings such as the Kellogg Foundation’s Food and Society Conference.

Each Cadre member is expected to work on a self-identified project during the year. One of the emphases this year is on student projects that bring local, fair, and sustainable food to college campuses.

Applications are due on May 25th. You can learn more and download applications here.

You can also contact Anim Steel directly at asteel@thefoodproject.org or 617-835-8961.

Micheal Pollan Takes on the Farm Bill, and Wins.

The Way We Live Now:
You Are What You Grow

By MICHAEL POLLAN
Published: April 22, 2007

A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called “an epidemic” of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives. And the subsidies are only part of the problem. The farm bill helps determine what sort of food your children will have for lunch in school tomorrow. The school-lunch program began at a time when the public-health problem of America’s children was undernourishment, so feeding surplus agricultural commodities to kids seemed like a win-win strategy. Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.

To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.

And though we don’t ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don’t have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that’s not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.

Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren’t paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It’s doubtful this is an accident.

But there are signs this year will be different. The public-health community has come to recognize it can’t hope to address obesity and diabetes without addressing the farm bill. The environmental community recognizes that as long as we have a farm bill that promotes chemical and feedlot agriculture, clean water will remain a pipe dream. The development community has woken up to the fact that global poverty can’t be fought without confronting the ways the farm bill depresses world crop prices. They got a boost from a 2004 ruling by the World Trade Organization that U.S. cotton subsidies are illegal; most observers think that challenges to similar subsidies for corn, soy, wheat or rice would also prevail.

And then there are the eaters, people like you and me, increasingly concerned, if not restive, about the quality of the food on offer in America. A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is — it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer’s markets in the last few years — voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well — which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.

Doing so starts with the recognition that the “farm bill” is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food — to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn’t hurt the world’s farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.

The devil is in the details, no doubt. Simply eliminating support for farmers won’t solve these problems; overproduction has afflicted agriculture since long before modern subsidies. It will take some imaginative policy making to figure out how to encourage farmers to focus on taking care of the land rather than all-out production, on growing real food for eaters rather than industrial raw materials for food processors and on rebuilding local food economies, which the current farm bill hobbles. But the guiding principle behind an eater’s farm bill could not be more straightforward: it’s one that changes the rules of the game so as to promote the quality of our food (and farming) over and above its quantity.

Such changes are radical only by the standards of past farm bills, which have faithfully reflected the priorities of the agribusiness interests that wrote them. One of these years, the eaters of America are going to demand a place at the table, and we will have the political debate over food policy we need and deserve. This could prove to be that year: the year when the farm bill became a food bill, and the eaters at last had their say.

Michael Pollan, a contributing writer, is the Knight professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.”

What's for Dinner?

Food is universal. Everybody eats. But what, how, and with whom you eat varies depending on many factors. Recently, a photographer and a writer (Peter Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio) traveled the world, inviting themselves to dinner, and trying to answer the question: What does the world eat?

600 meals later, Menzel and D'Aluisio compiled photographs and stories documenting a weeks worth of food from 30 families in 24 countries into the book Hungry Planet. Hungry Planet is full of beautiful images and insightful commentary tracing culture, history, economics, politics and religion through food.

Portraits of each family surrounded by their food for one week begin each chapter. The pages that follow trace the food from field or market to table and break down food expenditures by type. While each chapter provides a fascinating glimpse into the families' daily lives, it is the comparison between families that is the most interesting. Below, compare the food eaten by a family living in a refugee camp in Chad to that of a typical American family:



Chad: The Aboubakars of Breidjing Camp

Grains & Other Starchy Foods: **
Sorghum ration, unmilled, 39.3 lb; corn-soy blend ration (called CSB), 4.6 lb.

Dairy:
Not available to them.

Meat, Fish & Eggs: $0.58**
Goat meat, dried and on bone, 9 oz; fish, dried, 7 oz. Note: Periodically, such as at the end of Ramadan, several families collectively purchase a live animal to slaughter and share. Some of its meat is eaten fresh in soup and the rest is dried.

Fruits, Vegetables & Nuts: $0.51**
Limes, small, 5; pulses ration, 4.6 lb, the seeds of legumes such as peas, beans, lentils, chickpeas, and fava beans. Red onions, 1 lb; garlic, 8 oz; okra, dried, 5 oz; red peppers, dried, 5 oz; tomatoes, dried, 5 oz.

Condiments: $0.13**
Sunflower oil ration, 2.1 qt; white sugar ration, 1.4 lb; dried pepper, 12 oz; salt ration, 7.4 oz; ginger, 4 oz.

Beverages:
Water, 77.7 gal, provided by Oxfam, and includes water for all purposes. Rations organized by the United Nations with the World Food Programme.

Food Expenditure for One Week: 685 CFA francs/$1.23
**Market value of food rations, if purchased locally: $24.37



USA: The Revises of North Carolina

Grains & Other Starchy Foods: $17.92
Red potatoes, 2.3 lb; Natures Own bread, sliced, 1 loaf; Trix cereal, 1.5 lb; Mueller fettuccini, 1 lb; Mueller spaghetti, 1 lb; Uncle Ben’s Original white rice, 1 lb; Flatout flatbread wraps, 14 oz; New York Original Texas garlic toast, 11.3 oz; Harris Teeter (store brand) Flaky Brown-n-Serve dinner rolls, 11 oz.

Dairy: $14.51
Harris Teeter milk, 1 gal; Kraft cheese, shredded, 8 oz; Kraft sharp Cheddar cheese, sliced, 8 oz; Kraft Swiss cheese, sliced, 8 oz; Kraft Cheese Singles, 6 oz; Kraft Parmesan cheese, grated, 3 oz; Harris Teeter butter, 2 oz.

Meat, Fish & Eggs: $54.92
Harris Teeter beef, pot roast, 2.5 lb; Harris Teeter pork chops, 1.9 lb; Harris Teeter chicken drumsticks, 1.7 lb; eggs, 12; Harris Teeter chicken wings, 1.5 lb; Armour Italian-style meat balls, 1 lb; Gwaltney bacon, Virginia-cured with brown sugar, 1 lb; Harris Teeter ground turkey, 1 lb; shrimp,‡ 1 lb; StarKist tuna, canned, 12 oz; honey-baked ham, sliced, 9 oz; smoked turkey, sliced, 7.8 oz.

Fruits, Vegetables & Nuts: $41.07
Dole yellow bananas, 2.9 lb; red seedless grapes, 2.4 lb; green seedless grapes, 2.2 lb; Birds Eye baby broccoli, frozen, 4 lb; yellow onions, 3 lb; Green Giant corn, canned, 1.9 lb; Green Giant green beans, canned, 1.8 lb; Bush’s vegetarian baked beans, canned, 1.8 lb; cucumbers, 1.4 lb; Harris Teeter tomatoes, vine-ripened, 1.2 lb; Del Monte whole leaf spinach, canned, 13.5 oz; garden salad, packaged, 10 oz; Italian salad mix, packaged, 8.8 oz; pickled mushrooms, 7.3 oz; Harris Teeter peanuts, 1 lb.

Condiments: $12.51
White sugar, 1.6 lb; Ruffles ranch dip, 11 oz; Crisco vegetable oil, 6 fl oz; Nestle Coffee-Mate, French vanilla, nonfat, 6 fl oz; Food Lion garlic salt, 5.3 oz; Hellmann’s mayonnaise, 4 oz; Newman’s Own salad dressing, 4 oz; Jiffy peanut butter,‡ 3 oz; black pepper, 2 oz; Harris Teeter Original yellow mustard, 2 oz; Heinz ketchup, 2 oz; salt, 2 oz; Colonial Kitchen meat tenderizer, 1 oz; Durkee celery seed, 1 oz; Encore garlic powder, 1 oz.

Snacks & Desserts: $21.27
Mott’s apple sauce, 1.5 lb; Munchies Classic mix, 15.5 oz; Kellogg’s yogurt-flavored pop tarts,‡ 14.7 oz; Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn, 9 oz; Harris Teeter sunflower seeds, 7.3 oz; Lays Classic potato chips, 5.5 oz; Lays Wavy potato chips, 5.5 oz; Del Monte fruit in cherry gel, 4.5 oz; Extra chewing gum, 3 pks; Snickers candy bar, 2.1 oz; M&M’s peanut candy, 1.7 oz.

Prepared Food: $24.27
Bertolli portobello alfredo sauce, 1 lb; Ragu spaghetti sauce, chunky mushroom and bell peppers, 1 lb; Maruchan shrimp flavored ramen, 15 oz; California sushi rolls, 14 oz; Campbell’s cream of celery soup, 10.8 oz; Hot Pockets, jalapeño, steak & cheese, 9 oz; shrimp sushi rolls, 7 oz.

Fast Food: $71.61
McDonald’s: 10-pc chicken McNuggets, large fries, large Coca-Cola, Filet-o-Fish meal; Taco Bell: 4 nachos Bell Grande, 2 soft tacos, taco supreme, taco pizza, taco, bean burrito, large lemonade; Burger King: double cheeseburger, onion rings, large Coca-Cola; KFC: 2-pc chicken with mashed potatoes, large Coca-Cola; Subway: 6-inch wheat veggie sub, 6-inch wheat seafood crab sub; Milano’s Pizzeria: large sausage pizza, large pepperoni pizza; I Love NY Pizza: 4 pizza slices.

Restaurants: $6.15
China Market: shrimp fried rice, 2 orders; large fruit punch.

Beverages: $77.75
Budweiser, 24 12-fl -oz cans; bottled water, 2 gal; Harris Teeter cranberry-apple juice cocktail, 4 2-qt bottles; diet Coca-Cola, 12 12-fl -oz cans; A&W cream soda, 2 2.1-qt bottles; 7UP, 6 16.9- fl -oz bottles; Harris Teeter cranberry-raspberry juice cocktail, 2 2-qt bottles; Harris Teeter ruby grapefruit juice cocktail, 2 2-qt bottles; Capri Sun, 10 6.8-fl -oz pkgs; soda,‡ 5 12-fl -oz cans, purchased daily by Brandon at school; Arbor Mist strawberry wine blenders, 1.1 qt; Gatorade,‡ 16 fl oz; Powerade,‡ 16 fl oz; Snapple, Go Bananas juice drink, 16 fl oz; Maxwell House instant coffee, 1.5 oz; Kool-Aid, black cherry, 0.5 oz; breakfast tea, 5 teabags; tap water for drinking and cooking. ‡ Not in Photo

Food Expenditure for One Week: $341.98

rBG...What?

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH to the rest of us) is a genetically engineered hormone injected in dairy cows in order to increase milk production. Produced by Monsanto and sold under the name Posilac, rBGH is said to up the amount of milk produced by 8-17%. Sounds good, right? Wrong. Numerous problems, from increased risk of cancer in humans to deplorable living conditions on factory dairy farms, are attributed to rBGH. Learn more about rBGH and its effects, the current legal battles over rBGH labeling, and where to find organic and rBGH free dairies here.

Now that you're informed, what can you do? Get rBGH off your campus.

First, Ask. Find out if the dairy on your campus is rBGH free. If your supplier doesn't advertise their products as rBGH free, chances are the hormone is being used. Producers are not required to label products containing this harmful hormone.

Second, Act. Make your voice heard. Organize a group of students to meet with Dining Service staff and Administration. Get fact sheets for students and staff, as well as a state by state list of rBGH producers, AND a student activist kit from Food and Water Watch.

Third, Agitate. Don't take no for an answer. Inform students, faculty, and staff about the use of rBGH products on your campus and encourage them to speak up as well.

Fourth, Appreciate. Sit back, relax, enjoy your rBGH free milkshake and think about all the cows you've helped make happier.

Slow Food in Schools Not Just for Kids Anymore.

Slow Food USA has expanded their Slow Food in Schools program to college and university campuses. The new initiative, Slow Food on Campus, provides a meaningful way for college students to connect to the ever-growing Slow Food network. Made up of Campus Convivia (chapters), the Slow Food on Campus program fosters a deeper connection between students and their food by providing space and support for food and food justice related events and projects. For more information, contact Slow Food in Schools coordinator, Cecily Upton, at cecily@slowfoodusa.org or sfoc@slowfoodusa.org.