Taste summer with every little bite and savor the slow, sweet life.

Nothing says summer like strawberry shortcake. Sure, there’s sand, sunscreen and bikinis. But nothing encapsulates the sweetness, coolness and delightful deliciousness of the season like a bite of this American classic.

On a recent lunchtime picnic in midtown Manhattan, our EcoSalon editor-in-chief gathered with a few friends to simply celebrate and savor the sweet life together. As we lingered over this vegan and gluten-free shortcake—naturally taking many a food porn photo op—time seemed to stand still. We truly tasted the essence of slow food. Three hours later, we seemed to float from our seats, back to our businesses and filled with the joys of good friends and good food. They are, after all, the perfect pairing.

An adventurer’s note:
Making this seasonal treat vegan is like diving into a science lab—but local, fresh and organic. Lucky for you, I’ve conducted all the in-kitchen experiments, so all you need to do is follow along. The most fun and challenging part, you may find, is to create a vegan version of heavy whipping cream. I started with a coconut-based creamer, and then blended in prepared (dissolved, cooled and gelatinized) agar-agar—a red algae based thickening agent. Not only does it give just the right texture, thickness and creaminess to the mix, it’s also reported to provide a healthy dose of minerals and fiber, all the while suppressing the appetite. With those benefits to boot, it’s the perfect complement to a beach time sweet treat.

The Original – Strawberry Shortcake
from Martha Stewart

Ingredients

• 1 ¾ pounds (6 cups) strawberries—rinsed, hulled and quartered
• 1 ¼ cups + 2 tablespoons sugar
• 3 cups all purpose flour
• 4 teaspoons baking powder
• 3/4 teaspoon salt
• 12 tablespoons cold (1 ½ sticks) unsalted butter, cut into small pieces
• 2 cups heavy cream
• 2 large eggs
• ½ teaspoon vanilla extract

The Vegan & Gluten-Free Version – Strawberry Shortcake
Makes approximately 6-8 shortcakes

Ingredients

• 1 ¾ pounds (6 cups) strawberries—rinsed, hulled and quartered (For the fullest flavor, I recommend using local and fresh strawberries.)
• 1 ¼ cups + 2 tablespoons sugar
• 3 cups gluten free flour blend:
• (1 cup sorghum flour)
• (1 cup white rice flour)
• (1/2 cup garbanzo bean flour)
• (1/2 cup potato starch flour, minus 2 tablespoons)
• (2 tablespoons almond flour)
• 4 teaspoons baking powder
• 3/4 teaspoon salt
• 12 tablespoons cold (1 ½ sticks) unsalted vegan butter, cut into small pieces (I used Earth Balance coconut butter)
• 2 cups coconut cream (I used So Delicious coconut creamer, blended with approximately 3 tablespoons of dissolved agar-agar to thicken)
• 2 egg substitutes (I blended 2 tablespoon ground flax seeds with 6 tablespoons warm water)
• ½ teaspoon vanilla extract

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 375°F
2. In a medium bowl, toss the prepared strawberries with ¾ cup sugar. (I suggest starting with ½ cup and tasting to see if more sweetness is needed.) Let sit to bring out the juices.
3. In a food processor, pulse together your gluten free flour blend. Add the baking powder, ½ cup sugar and the salt, and pulse until combined. Add the cold butter, and pulse until the mixture resembles course meal with some pea size bits of butter remaining (pulse approximately 10-12 times).
4. In a medium bowl, whisk together ½ cream (before the agar agar has been added to thicken) and the egg substitute. Pour over the flour mixture, and pulse until some large clumps begin to form (pulse approximately 20-30 times).
5. Using a half-cup measuring cup, gently pack dough into the cup, invert and tap out on to a lightly buttered or parchment lined baking sheet. Repeat to form 6-8 biscuits.
6. Bake until golden brown, about 20 minutes. Transfer to a rack to cool for at least 15 minutes.
7. Beat the remaining 1 ½ cups cream, with the prepared agar-agar mixture, 2 tablespoons sugar and vanilla until smooth and creamy (Note, this will not form peaks like a traditional heavy whipping cream, however, I assure you the taste and texture will not leave you craving cream.)
8. Slice the biscuits horizontally with a serrated knife. Spoon the strawberries and their liquid over the bottom of each biscuit just before serving. Spoon your whipped cream over the strawberries, and top with the other biscuit half.

Enjoy the sweet moments of summer!

Author Jennifer Barckley making her Strawberry Shortcakes for friends in Bryant Park, New York City

Image: Amy DuFault

The post Vegan This: Strawberry Shortcake appeared first on EcoSalon.

Shopping ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ isn’t really so patriotic…or is it?

When you look at clothing labels while out shopping, you likely see more Made in Sri Lanka, Made in India, Made in China, and Made in Guatemala than Made in the U.S.A. labels. It seems just about every country in the world produces clothing except America. How can this be? Americans like to buy clothing more than any other nation in the world, so wouldn’t it be suiting that we like to make it, as well?

Unfortunately, American factories have been closing down at a steady rate, with 90% of our garment factories’ production being outsourced since 1955. Skilled and unskilled labor jobs are disappearing at startling rates. And since the 2008 market crash, American fashion companies have been downsizing the staff even in their corporate offices.

“If we’re going to be competitive with the global market, we need to focus on innovation and coming up with new ways of developing and producing product while maintaining and passing down the traditional skills of sewing within this country,” says Erica Wolf, of Save the Garment Center.

While most American fashion companies still hold their design and operations offices here, much of our customer dollars go to the countries that make the clothes; paying their taxes, developing their nations, building their economies. We expect our politicians to solve America’s rising deficit, meanwhile when we go out shopping, we spend our money supporting just about every country but our own. There seems to be a disconnect here. Aren’t there still values and standards that we as Americans believe are worth saving? If you can’t find what you want with a “Made in the USA” label in it, is it wrong to buy it if it is made elsewhere?

There are those who would forgo such non-American purchases; they tend to be the patriotic individuals who post American pride all over everything they own. They proudly sport American-manufactured clothes and equate shopping with the survival and promotion of their values; keeping jobs in America, putting food on the table for their families, looking out for their neighbors, pride, and better-quality clothing.

For over a century, progressive Americans have worked to protect U.S. workers’ rights. Our nation set up some of the first and most effective labor unions, some of the strictest labor rights protection laws and environmental protection standards enacted in the world. These standards have improved over time, and help to prevent more tragedies from happening like the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911. Americans fought for their rights, the government responded with appropriate laws, and all the while we never would have suspected our continual raising of the bar would over time lower the amount of jobs available to American workers.

Today, we have some of the most stringent factory standards on the planet. While the job of sewing operator is still no walk in the park, at least American technicians don’t have to work long hours without breaks or overtime pay. Modern day U.S. workers now at the end of the day get to go home to see their families, something that is unfathomable to the workers in the labor camps of China.

David Riley of americansworking.com has a theory that large companies have figured out how to operate business as usual regardless of the U.S. protection laws we enact: If they can’t do it here, they will do it somewhere else.

“We have outsourced all of our pollution and human suffering. America has made so many laws protecting the environment, the people, and our company trademarks here, that we can’t do business competitively in our own market. We are making American workers and our factories compete with those in countries who have none of the laws or standards that we must uphold,” says Riley. “We would never allow a factory in China to operate here. But we allow them to sell in our market, so in a sense we are allowing them to operate here anyway. We would never be able to compete.”

But amidst our fiercely competitive and, at times, cannibalistic business culture, our values continue to play a powerful role in the world of good. In 2006, American businesses and individuals were reported to have given more than 4.5 times what all of Europe, Australia, and Japan combined in private donations to charities and philanthropic causes that gave aid to developing nations. Granted, our donations are tax-deductible, but if we can afford to help others, why can’t we spring to support our own – at least with our shopping habits?

The majority of American fashion businesses default to China for production, claiming the cost of labor here is generally much more expensive than what American consumers are willing to pay for.

But according to Erica Wolf, of Save the Garment Center, this is not entirely true.

“With prices shifting, and China becoming more expensive it would benefit a big retailer to have their production department, at the very least, examine the prices at domestic factories. On certain garments the pricing is now comparable if not less domestically. And of course this additional business to local factories would help support American jobs,” she says.

Instead, businesses have learned to take advantage of the world market by outsourcing production to countries with cheap, exploitable labor to cut costs while keeping the prices of their goods low. The truth of the matter is that if a brand can’t dictate to us what we want through advertising, then they are forced to listen to what the consumers demand, and if we look for, request, and buy clothes that are Made in America, more companies will make clothes here.

However, for the average American consumer, fashion is frivolous, and has little to do with values or morals. It is less about the quality or where it is made and much more about the brand name on the label.

Riley says, “So much money goes into and comes from the marketing of high fashion brands; the image of high fashion is where they invest. The money spent there has to come out of something else, and I think that something is the cost of labor and product quality. They’re replacing the dollars for production and spending it on branding and marketing instead.”

With most American consumers so heavily influenced by the intoxicating spell of fashion advertising, most of our consumer drive comes from what we see in the media, rather than from the desire to choose items that represent our traditions or values.

Of course, there is one little company that challenged the standard formula and decided to go completely against the grain. In its 22 years of business, American Apparel has been surprisingly successful at building an American-produced fashion business using a vertical integration model that allows them to do nearly everything from design, to advertising, to production all, more or less, under one roof. Here is a brand that has taken great strides to give “American made” a new image.

If you can get past their ads, the company is all-American; proudly promoting their sweatshop-free, Union Made, U.S.A. produced, vertically integrated business, their charitable donations to natural disaster victims, and their political support of civil rights.

American Apparel isn’t the only contender willing to take on the global market while maintaining American production. There seems to be a new revival on the “Made in the U.S.A.”  fashion front. As Wolf notes, “There are designers doing production in the United States. For example, Nanette Lepore does 80% of her production in America.”

And quite recently, the American menswear company Brooks Brothers has made great efforts to bring it back home, complete with a luxe denim collaboration with American classic, Levi Strauss, and a heavily publicized marketing campaign to help equate “Made in America” with the luxury and quality that their brand stands for.

The Olsen Twins’ incredibly successful line, The Row, is yet another high fashion line that is primarily produced in the country. These brands have the marketing muscle and savvy and the will to bring the fashion-minded consumers once again back to getting behind American-made clothes, providing high end fashion that Americans can be proud of.

Image: Chevroletpedia, nycgo.com, America in the World, China Digital Times, Chicagomag.com, fashiongearlive.com

The post Made in the U.S.A. Isn’t Cause for Patriotism (Or Is It?) appeared first on EcoSalon.

“Real Americans Buy American.” Growing up in the Motor City in the 1970s, that ubiquitous message, proudly displayed on the rear bumpers of so many Mustangs, Caddies and Pontiacs led this young man to wonder what the problem was. If the red, white and blue declarative were true, why would the Detroit Free Press be running what seemed to be a serialized front-page obituary for our town and our industry? Why would that big black number in The News’ headline have so many zeros after it? (How many people were laid off yesterday?) As near as I could tell, there were plenty of Americans around, and if they did what those bumper stickers told me they do, why was Detroit blight central rather than the boomtown my parents grew up in?

Eventually I learned the truth: Real Americans don’t buy American. Real Americans buy what they want.

This bitter truth periodically hits Detroit hard, and each time one has to wonder if the American auto industry’s hubris has led to its final death knell. I watched firsthand the slow motion response of the Big Three to real world energy and design challenges and the resulting economic devastation of the mid- and late-70s, and again in the late-80s and early-90s (when my parents lost their home and the family’s electrical supply business). Today, watching from my safe haven of California, I read stories of urban dystopia and (literally) scorched earth, the only hope being an unusually creative, industrious and determined population.

But once again, and like always it seems, there’s a blip in the flatline. Could there be life?

As Detroit’s North American International Auto Show enters its 23rd year as an international event, the city’s hometown industry isn’t looking so bad. Last year, reports Business Insider , saw Ford get back its number-two U.S. automaker slot after having lost that position to decelerating Toyota, while the top three fastest-growing brands were from General Motors. “Even Chrysler — a company once left for dead — gained U.S. market share and closed the gap with Honda, despite having a dearth of new models versus its well-stocked Japanese competitors.” (Tangentially, Business Insider, probably a good idea to can the “Pearl Harbor in reverse” rhetoric. It’s a bad week for kill-the-enemy hyperbole.)

Here’s more good news from the Wall Street Journal: Ford announced that it’s going to hire 7,000 workers and is expected to report that 2010 was one of the most profitable years in its 100-plus-year history. Meanwhile, GM says it had a strong end to the year, finishing with more than $20 billion in liquidity and that it expects to hire more U.S. workers if annual sales meet their expected forecasts. As for offerings, reports the Journal, the “40 new vehicles that will be unveiled represent an increase from 27 new models that debuted at the 2010 edition of the show… Chrysler will show off 13 models in addition to the 300 that have been completely redesigned or significantly overhauled. GM will show the Sonic and a compact Buick. Ford will feature a compact minivan based on the European C-Max model, as well as a battery-powered version of its Focus.”

Could the Big Three be getting it? Are they finally giving Americans what they want? Consider that this better-than-okay news is emerging from a horrifying industry free fall that began in 2008 and featured the bankruptcy reorganizations of GM and Chrysler in 2009. “Last year’s show had a funereal feel—spartan displays, sparse attendance, few of the lights, loud music and theatrical unveilings that had become the show’s trademark,” reports the WSJ. So keep in mind from where this upbeat news is coming from. When there’s nowhere to go but up, you won’t be penalized for thinking that any movement is good movement.

It also remains to be seen if this upswing is the result of a slow but sure economic surge that has buyers beginning to make those big purchases they put off for so long. Whether or not new offerings and reconfigured corporate structures will have the impact everyone hopes for won’t be determined in the immediate future. But one thing’s for certain; the old adage is true: “when the nation catches a cold, Detroit gets pneumonia.” The thing is, for the infirm, pneumonia can be fatal. And for Detroit, that adage isn’t funny anymore.

Image: country_boy_shane

The post Making It In Motown: Give the People What They Want appeared first on EcoSalon.

Urban sprawl, pollution, over-consumption, deforestation…like it or not, U.S. taxpayers are still paying for all of these things to occur in America and beyond. Despite recent investments in green jobs and technology, an array of government subsidies pay big dirty industries like oil, coal and factory farms to destroy the environment in every way possible while greener, healthier industries like solar power and vegetable farms get a pittance.

10. Highways

When gas prices rose dramatically in 2008, Americans began flocking to mass transit in droves, resulting in declining revenues for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Naturally, the Bush Administration’s response was to take money from already underfunded mass transit and use it to pay for highways that are already, as Slate put it, “paved with gold”. Billions of dollars are pumped into the highway system every year, which encourages the polluting car culture and leads to further sprawl, while mass transit continues to fall by the wayside.

9. SUVs

In case you aren’t already taking optimal advantage of the polluting power of our nation’s sprawling web of highways, the government would like to make your impact even greater by setting you up in a nice gas-guzzling subsidized SUV. A portion of the tax code revised in 2003 gives business owners a huge deduction for up to 30% of a large vehicle’s cost, which can add up to $25,000 in the case of a Hummer – far more than the credit given to individual purchasers of energy-efficient vehicles. Attempts to axe this provision in 2007 failed.

You only get the credit if it seats more than 9 passengers or weighs more than 14,000 pounds, but they don’t really care whether your business actually requires such a vehicle. So, by all means, get the Escalade.

8. Paper Mills

Paper mills cut down trees while sucking up massive amounts of fossil fuels and get big money from the government to do it – all through a loophole in a law that was supposed to benefit renewable energy. A law enacted in 2005 contains a section that gives businesses an incentive to mix alternative energy sources with fossil fuels. To qualify for the tax credit, paper companies started adding diesel fuel to “black liquor”, a pulp-making byproduct that they were already using to generate electricity on its own.

But time might be running out for this egregious misuse of taxpayer money: the unemployment extension bill approved by the Senate and on its way to the House would eliminate this loophole and use the funds for health care. (Editor’s note: We’ve contacted both the editor and writer of this story at BusinessWeek to confirm that this loophole will still be closed in the bill just passed by the Senate, and will update if more information becomes available. In the meantime, there’s this resource which seems to confirm the loophole is in fact being closed.)

7. Commercial Fishing

About half of the $713 million in subsidies given to the U.S. fishing industry directly contributes to overfishing, according to a new study by the Environmental Working Group. The subsidies – which equal about a fifth of the value of the catch itself – lower overhead costs and promote increased fishing capacity, meaning more fish are caught than can be naturally replaced.

Overfishing is a huge environmental problem – up to 25% of the world’s fishery stocks are overexploited or depleted, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.  But that’s not the only result of the subsidies; because roughly half of the money goes toward fuel costs, other consequences include wasteful fuel consumption as well as air and water pollution.

6. Nuclear Power

The nuclear industry’s decade-long, $600 million lobbying effort finally paid off as President Obama agreed to grant loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.  Obama has been promising since the early days of his campaign that he would find a way to “safely harness nuclear power”, but the $55 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are going forward despite continued reservations about uranium mining and the storage of radioactive waste.

5. Factory Farming

American factory farms are literally filthy cesspools of their own making, and who else is cleaning up all that shit but American taxpayers? Giant factory farms make up just 2% of the livestock farms in the U.S. yet raise 40% of all animals in the U.S., and they do it using practices that are not only harmful to workers and the animals themselves, but to the environment.

The government heavily subsidizes factory farms so they can provide über-cheap meat and dairy, raising as many animals as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of care. And why should they care about finding better ways to manage manure when the government hands them $125 million annually to “deal” with the consequences, and then doesn’t bother to check up on them?

Despite the backwards funding given to clean them up, gaping lagoons of livestock waste packed with pollutants continue to be one of the biggest environmental problems in America, fouling our water and causing those depressing dead zones in our oceans.

4.  Corn Ethanol

In the quest to beat back fossil fuels, cleaner fuels that we can grow seemed like a good idea – until we realized that some, like corn, make a huge dent in the world’s food supply. But that isn’t stopping the U.S. government from giving billions in subsidies to the corn industry in general, and corn ethanol in particular.

Corn-based ethanol gobbled up 76% of federal government renewable energy subsidies in 2007, leaving little for more environmentally sound renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Worse yet, it’s a huge drain on water resources, gulping down up to 2,138 liters of water per liter of ethanol.

This isn’t just an unwise investment – it’s also destroying the rainforest. As American farmers have abandoned soy for subsidized corn, soy prices have risen worldwide – and led to an increase in Amazon deforestation. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer of soy next to the U.S., and growing demand has meant more clear-cutting for soy plantations.

3. Processed Foods

Ethanol isn’t the only product that comes to us courtesy of U.S. corn subsidies. There’s also plenty of craptastic processed “food” products packed with multiple subsidized ingredients: wheat, sugar, soy and of course, corn. Gee, could the obesity epidemic have anything to do with the fact that our government makes junk food cheap, and encourages its consumption through the food stamp program?

It’s a sad state of affairs when a Twinkie costs less, calorically speaking, than a carrot. Meanwhile, farmers who produce fruits and vegetables (aside from corn), don’t get a dime in government subsidies. While the government is considering junk food taxes, a change to the Farm Bill might be more efficient.

2. Coal

You would think that the coal industry’s long-held dominance of the American energy market would have eliminated the need for subsidies. After all, the industry spent $47 million last year on PR alone. But the fact is, coal companies are milking the government for all it’s worth while continuing to pump greenhouse gases and carcinogens into the air and turn the Appalachian Mountains into post-apocalyptic hellholes.

Coal subsidies have survived this long because of the industry’s staggering influence on lawmakers, and because constituents in coal states often fear the economic repercussions of a scaled-back coal industry more than they fear the harm to their health and homes. And on top of the federal coal subsidies lumped in under “˜fossil fuels’, the industry gets untold breaks on a state and local level in places like Kentucky, where the coal industry netted $115 million in subsidies in 2006.

1. Oil

Climate change: brought to you by the U.S. government! According to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuels received over $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while traditional sources of renewable energy were given just $12.2 billion.

But the oil industry won’t even admit that the direct spending and tax breaks they get are subsidies – they prefer to call them “incentives”, and claim that attempts to roll back some of those subsidies are actually “new taxes”.

As Grist notes, the ELI report is actually pretty conservative – it didn’t include things like military spending to defend oil in the Middle East or infrastructure spending. But the fossil fuel industry’s free ride is almost over: President Obama’s new federal budget proposal wipes out these breaks and increases funding for clean energy research (and, unfortunately, nuclear power).

Photo credits: The following photos are from Flickr and licensed for commercial use under Creative Commons: “Freeway” by Payton Chung; “SUV” by The Car Spy; “Paper mill in Washington State” by Jan Tik; “Fish face” by Andy Welsh; “Nuclear reactor” by Intamin10; “Factory farm protest sign” by johnnyalive; “Corn” by normanack;  “Coal” by Duncan Harris; “Oil rig” by kenhodge13.

The post The 10 Least Green Government Subsidies appeared first on EcoSalon.

It may have been published a couple of years ago, but Americans are now catching up to the message of Steve and Annette Economides and are eagerly plunking down their pennies for the hot home economics crash course.

The authors of America’s Cheapest Family have done remarkably well feeding their family of seven on just $350 per month, paying off their first house in nine years and purchasing a second, larger home, buying cars with cash, taking nice vacations, and yes, even socking away money in savings.

They’ve done so well, they are hitting the television news circuit including Inside Edition and receiving praised on numerous green websites to teach a fairly clueless nation the ABC’s of creating a comfortable, debt-free life. Forget the Joneses! It’s time to keep up with the Economides.

The couple, who live in Scottsdale, Arizona (a money-driven, rapidly built-up, energy-sucking environ), launched their popular bimonthly newsletter, The Home Economiser, in 2003 and have appeared in Good Housekeeping as well as on National Public Radio and Good Morning America.

Perhaps their message has been somewhat lost until the proverbial s–t hit the fan, sending many of us seeking advice from the successfully frugal among us, the ones who arrogantly yet wisely uttered I told you so as we maxed out our credit cards.

According to publishers marketing this new debtors’ bible:

“You don’t need to be a CPA or a math wizard to learn their revolutionary system, which will teach you:

– hundreds of ways to save money on everyday household expenses, including groceries, clothing, and health care
– how to save in advance for major purchases such as homes, cars, and vacations
– how to stop living paycheck to paycheck
– how to eliminate debt . . . forever!”

Oooh, that sounds good, real good to the masses choosing between lesser evils of selling their homes, getting night jobs that will take them away from their kids, and selling what they can from cars to gold and furniture – anything to stay afloat.

While the Economides’ disciplined road to penny pinching offers a way to avoid those evils, Nature Moms points out some of the methods may not sit well with the green among us, namely buying processed foods in bulk while forgoing more costly fresh fruits and veggies for the last two weeks of the month.

” I think families that eat lots of fresh, raw, whole foods would have a lot of adapting to do but the basic plan is a good one,” says the author of the site. “I would probably feel more comfortable doing bi-monthly shopping expeditions with weekly trips to farmers’ markets for fruits and veggies.”

One of the best chapters deals with clothes shopping and how buying stylish second-hand finds can help you stay within your budget and then some. And in terms of housing costs, they advise paying off your mortgage in less than 10 years.

For some of us the lessons have come a bit late, but not too late to try a new tack.

Images: Pink Sherbet, Amazon, Inside Edition

The post Cash Strapped Readers Spare a Dime for America’s Cheapest Family appeared first on EcoSalon.