Nutrition fads draw attention, but the real harm is in common, processed foods.

Food myths abound, but whether or not you try to cure a hangover with food from the greasy spoon or lose a few pounds with a maple syrup fast, you’re probably not doing a significant amount of damage to your body in the long term. There, is however, a whole lot that we don’t know about our standard diet that is causing a problem. Studies show most Americans know very little about what they’re eating, and in a society seduced by labels like “low fat,” “sugar free,” and “reduced sodium,” we are very trusting. How many of us really take the time to know what we’re eating? We’re not all chemists and nutritionists, but there are laymen’s terms when understanding food that we should focus on.

According to a report by U.S. News Health, 76 percent of 1,000 Americans polled, agreed with the statement: “Wine can be good for your heart.” Partly true, it turns out that only 30 percent of those polled actually knew what the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends as a daily limit for consumption. Think you know how many? It’s two glasses per day for men and one glass per day for women. Exceed that, saysthe AHA, and you’re at increased risk for a handful of serious health issues like heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

That same report found that we know very little about the sodium in our food choices. 46 percent of those polled said that table salt is the primary source of sodium in American diets, when in fact, processed foods like canned foods and condiments make up almost 75 percent of sodium consumption in the U.S.

This brings me back to a recent Michael Pollan lecture I attended. We’re stuck in a vicious cycle of focusing on all of the various “health” labels, and yet we have totally forgotten about what foods are really good for us. In our quest for finding quick fixes to our health problems, we have totally lost touch with epicurean reality.

Forget the organic, gluten-free vegetarian fusion dishes; when it comes to our national food culture, we have to get back to basics, and with that, an understanding of what we’re putting into our bodies.

Some common misunderstandings:

Fat free means calorie free

As a society, we’re way too focused on fats, and anything that screams “fat free” is probably compensating with ample amounts of sugar, an ingredient that as of late, is much discussed as a food toxin.

If you’re not eating meat, you’re not getting enough iron

You don’t need a portion meat a day or even a month to keep up your iron levels, and in fact, most Americans are getting too much iron. Green vegetables, beans and lentils will supply plenty of iron for your body, and are less absorbent when you’re already at your iron intake maximum.

Fats and oils are bad

We don’t need to be dousing our plates in olive oil and butter, but if you’re swapping natural fats for synthetic replacements in the hopes of canceling out the negative effects, you’ve gone a step too far. Our understanding of fat’s role in health and weight has evolved since the 90s fat phobia that gripped the country and left us collectively fatter and sicker. Monosaturated and polyunsaturated fats are vital, according to the Mayo Clinic. Even butter can be healthy in reasonable amounts. Opt for what’s minimally-processed over what’s “free,” and trust what Mother Nature provides.

While we each have to find the balance of nutrients that works for our own bodies, that should be built on a foundation of unprocessed, unbleached, unrefined whole foods. Heidi Swanson of 101 Cookbooks seems to have a good grip on that idea. Her Super Natural Cooking cookbook is a frequently skimmed-through publication in my own kitchen.

Over the last several decades we’ve made it acceptable to eat unhealthy food, to the extent that simply seeking out fresh produce from the farmers’ market makes one a foodie. When did it become snobby to choose broccoli over a microwaveable pasta dish with processed alfredo sauce?

We obsess over crash diets and cleanses, miracle nutrients and superfoods, and argue about the risks and benefits of them all. But it’s not fad diets that hurt us so much as the diet.

Editor’s note: Our Foodie Underground column will resume next week, including a special announcement. Stay tuned!

Images: stevendepolo

The post What We Don’t Know Can Hurt Us appeared first on EcoSalon.

Trashy magazines. You know the ones I’m talking about – the ones with the glossy photos of all the throw away fashion that a conscious fashion lover should certainly never invest in, and all the celebrity gossip that takes up way more brain space than you should ever give to such a vacuous topic. But they’re a guilty pleasure of mine, only purchased when traveling for business. There’s nothing like making the person sitting in the airplane seat next to you think you’re a celebrity, fashion obsessed twit.

So there I was, from Portland to Sacramento headed to the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival, an event focused on inspiring people to do better for our planet, flipping through the latest issue of In Style. Sigh. Things were going as expected. Flashy stilettos. Flip. Au naturel makeup tips. Flip. Silky blouses that need to be in your closet. Flip. Dessert night with your lady friends menu. Flip. Wait, what was on that menu? In my brainwashed magazine perusing, I had glanced over a colorful page that didn’t grab my attention until a few seconds later. I flipped back. “Sugar Rush!” the article was called, with a huge photo of snack mix made with – what is that? Cap’n Crunch?

The entire article was devoted to “desserts” made with breakfast cereals. Pardon me while I get sick. Inventive combinations are what foodies thrive for, but $5 boxed cereal crammed full of high fructose corn syrup? Is this the latest in food trends? We’ve already seen deep fried snickers bars and Krispy Kreme hamburgers, but I was hoping that with the rise in popularity of organics, antioxidants and super foods, we would be moving away from trashy, classless, so-bad-for-you-it’s-out-of-control and onto something just slightly better.

I wouldn’t have been offended if this was a fun, DIY article on silly but fun foods, but these “mouthwatering desserts” (if you can call Crunch Berry Snack Mix and Cocoa Pebble Crunch cake mouthwatering) were concocted by an acclaimed NYC pastry chef. In an era of skyrocketing obesity, heart disease and diabetes, I believe it’s the duty of the leaders of our food industry to be pointing us in the right direction.

No, not everyone needs to serve organic quinoa spring rolls with brewer’s yeast and pumpkin seeds sprinkled on top, but if the chefs and bakers that are at the top of their game in their country continue to promote foods that are rich in chemically processed ingredients, what kind of progress are we going to make?

Which is why it’s up to the rest of us.

The more we continue to promote sweet potato fries instead of Doritos, fried brussel sprouts instead of Ore-Ida tater tots and carrot beet cake instead of fried twinkies, the more food progress we’ll get to experience. Because, in case you needed a reminder, better food is better for us and our planet. And that doesn’t include Cap’n Crunch.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground. Each week, Anna will be taking a look at something new and different that’s taking place in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to culinary avant garde.

Image: Minette Layne

The post Foodie Underground: It’s Up to the Rest of Us appeared first on EcoSalon.

I live in a foodie-centric town. Portland is known for its coffee snobbery, its food cart fetish and its farmers’ market obsession; most of us pride ourselves on eating well. That doesn’t mean that every meal is a well-planned feast of locally grown, freshly picked ingredients, but everyone seems to have a favorite food hot spot or quirky dish that they’re more than excited to talk about. So there has been a bit of local outrage in response to a recently published “Non-foodies Food Guide,” that appeared in the local daily the Oregonian, in which the first lines were pretty spiteful:

I am not a foodie.

To me, food is what you eat, not what you pray to.

Call them gourmands, connoisseurs, picky eaters, or just plain old snobs. Foodies blog, write and chat about pet restaurants, trends and chefs. They leave little room on their plates or in their hearts for fast food, family dining and the untrendy. And they can be pretty mean to some places we love.

The article goes on to mention a laundry list of local chains, from the 24-hour pie place Sharis to good ole family joint The Ole Spaghetti Factory, all of which the author cites as examples of un-hip, foodie turnoffs. This raises the questions: what exactly is a foodie?

Let’s start with the definition. Urban dictionary defines it as:

A person that spends a keen amount of attention and energy on knowing the ingredients of food, the proper preparation of food, and finds great enjoyment in top-notch ingredients and exemplary preparation. A foodie is not necessarily a food snob, only enjoying delicacies and/or food items difficult to obtain and/or expensive foods; though, that is a variety of foodie.

For the sake of this argument, keep in mind that it’s just the obscure, edgy websites that define the term. The word is even listed in Merriam-Webster as a person having “an avid interest in the latest food fads.”

Despite the recent inclination to team the term “foodie” with “snob” there are a whole group of foodies out there that are simply concerned with where their food came from, how it was raised, and what’s being added to it to make the end product. In fact, if there’s one thing the underground food movement has taught us, it’s that local, sustainable, fresh fare is desirable, not just because it’s trendy but because it’s healthy and better for the environment.

Is being a foodie being a snob?

There’s an ongoing debate right now about food democracy. Los Angeles, one of the nation’s most abundant agricultural regions, is now taking a serious look at creating a regional food system that not only produces local, healthy food, but ensures that all residents get to take advantage of it.

The word “organic” has long been associated with higher prices, so much that the national media still questions whether it’s “worth the splurge.” As green blogger Mike Lieberman eloquently put it, “Organic Isn’t a Splurge, It’s My Healthcare.” In his well worded post he points out that questions like these highlight “how disconnected we have become from associating real food with health.” All you have to do is take a look at obesity rates from the CDC to understand the negative physical effect that this disconnect is having.

So is it snobbery or simply understanding what’s at stake when it comes to our health? Only consuming coffee from a particular cafe might seem like putting your nose in the air, but if you frequent the place because the owners are committed to selling fair trade coffee, the pastries are baked locally and they don’t give you plastic lids to your disposable cup unless you ask for one, then you’re probably there for a good reason.

Think about where your money goes

A common argument is “I don’t have the budget to eat that way.” Think being a foodie is reserved for the elite? Think again. In fact take a moment to reflect on all the luxury items that we have deemed necessary in our everyday lives. Flavor Magazine took on this exact question this summer and listed out the following:

Tobacco products, $100 designer jeans with holes already in the knees, KFC, soft drinks made with high fructose corn syrup, Disney vacations, large-screen TVs, jarred baby food? America spends more on veterinary care for pets than the entire continent of Africa spends on medical care for humans.

And yet we don’t have enough money to make sure that we’re putting food into our bodies that’s not only going to sustain us but is also going to protect us from future illness? At the end of the day, there’s simply no excuse for eating well, it’s just all about choices and values. Is the new big screen tv more important to you than a weekly delivery of CSA produce? Fine, but don’t call me a snob because I don’t feel the same way. To quote Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms (yes, the one of Omnivore’s Dilemma fame), “To suggest that advocating for such a change makes me an elitist is to disparage positive decision making and behavior. Indeed, if that’s elitism, I want it.”

What kind of society do we want to live in?

We’ve got a long way to go if we want to be sure that our country has good food available to the masses. Until consciously produced food doesn’t have to compete with subsidies and the quick and cheap petrochemical industry, food will continue to be unhealthier, externalizing the real costs in exchange for a lower price tag. We need personal and infrastructural change to ensure that we’re all eating well.

But in the meantime, we have to change how we think. Being committed to good food isn’t about status, it’s about health, both personal and environmental. If we stop promoting underground food movements, like urban gardens, bike powered compost pick up, and food carts that source all their food in a 100 mile radius, what kind of a world will we live in? One dominated by chain restaurants, high fructose corn syrup and obesity. Do you call that snobbery or sanity?

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground. Each week, Anna will be taking a look at something new and different that’s taking place in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to culinary avant garde.

Image: Anna Brones

The post Foodie Underground: What Exactly Is a Foodie? appeared first on EcoSalon.

I have a friend who refers to the Standard American Diet by the acronym SAD.

This is an apt description indeed. Think about it. We have more colorfully packaged choices on the shelves of our supermarkets, more new flavors of cereal, crackers, and chips than we know what to do with, more fortified, functional foods than ever. Yet, as a nation, we get sicker every year. Diet related diseases are epidemic, especially among young people. In fact, children today are the first generation expected to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. And it’s all related to our SAD. With all of our medical knowledge and wealth, how did this come to pass?

According to Marion Nestle, Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU and author of the classic book, Food Politics, the problem is that our heavily subsidized, highly efficient food industry produces too many calories – twice as many as we need. Because of this surplus, food companies must work hard to get us to EAT MORE. Hence the millions of dollars in advertising spent every year to get us to Supersize It.

Though Food Politics was published back in 2002, it’s just as relevant today. Besides advertising, the Food Industry influences our diets in many ways that most of us are not even aware of.

1. Food industry lobbyists influence USDA’s food guidelines.

Chapter 2 of Food Politics provides readers with an instructive history of the development of the USDA Food Pyramid and how food industry lobbyists influenced the final product. For example, meat and dairy producers did not like the implication inherent in the pyramid design that some foods were better than others. They preferred a design that presented each food group as visually equal. The food industry spent over a year fighting the design and wording. In the end, the pyramid won out, but the meat and dairy industries succeeded in getting many minor changes made. The biggest change was that, instead of recommending a straight number of servings (2-3), the wording was changed to “at least 2-3 servings” to encourage people to eat more.

2. Food industry sponsorships

The food industry regularly sponsors research studies, nutritional journals and conferences, and sometimes, entire university departments. How much does this corporate money influence the findings and recommendations of research? Surveys cited in Food Politics show that researchers often have financial or professional ties to the companies they are researching, which certainly creates the impression of bias. And when food companies use the findings of a study in its advertising, as a way to sell more product, the appearance of bias is even harder to ignore. Also, when a corporation has an exclusive partnership with a university research department, as is becoming more common, there is a very real concern that these partnerships will interfere with academic freedom.

3. Endorsements and labeling rackets

When professional societies develop partnerships with food companies in order to provide nutritional information to consumers or develop labeling schemes for certain foods, the net outcome is not always good for consumers. Food Politics offers many examples of this phenomenon, including one in which the American Heart Association charged food companies enormous fees to be a part of its Heart Check labeling program. The program resulted in the labeling of foods like pop-tarts as heart healthy. Such labeling schemes that isolate one aspect of a food product, such as cholesterol, while ignoring sugar content and other less healthy aspects of the food in question, only confuse consumers. The program was eventually discontinued and fees returned.

4. Revolving doors

When industry executives get jobs in government things tend to go the way industry wants them to. This happens in every sector (think banking!) and the food industry is not an exception. Two recent examples of revolving door appointees in the Obama administration include Dr. Islam Siddiqui, chief agricultural negotiator and former lobbyist and vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, a US trade association representing the major manufacturers, formulators and distributors of crop protection and pest control products. In September Catherine Woteki was named Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at the USDA. Previously she served as global director of scientific affairs for Mars, Inc., where she managed the company’s scientific policy and research on matters of health, nutrition, and food safety.

5. PR

Remember the Smart Choices labeling scheme, an industry-driven label designed to make consumers think that Froot Loops are healthy? An earlier example given in Food Politics is that of Nestle’s efforts to convince women in developing countries that formula is better for babies than breast milk. When its reputation in the US suffered as a result of these efforts, the company hired a well-known PR firm to help it out of the mess. The book includes a chart that outlines the company’s actions including issuing opinion papers on the subject, sponsoring conferences, and urging journalists to write favorable articles on the subject of formula feeding.

6. Lawsuits against critics

Remember Oprah vs. The National Cattleman’s Association? Have you heard of the veggie libel laws that exist in 13 states? The prospect of an expensive lawsuit can really have a chilling effect on anyone considering speaking out against a specific food or production practice.

7. Marketing to children and in schools

Not only do packaged and fast food companies spend millions to target children through advertising on television, in magazines, on the Internet, through movie product placements, and toy campaigns, they also have an incredible grip on the visual space inside schools. Food Politics outlines how companies use advertisements in hallways, on buses, and in teaching materials to reach children. And also how club and sports teams sponsorships, contests, school meal programs, and “pouring rights” contracts get company logos and products in front of children. If you don’t know what a pouring rights contract is, it’s a program in which a packaged good or soft drink company gives cash-strapped schools money for sports and other programs in exchange for an exclusive right to sell their products in the school.

I caught up with Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, over email and asked her a couple of questions about the current landscape of food politics.

Q: How have things changed for better or worse since you wrote Food Politics?

A: “The Food Movement!  When I wrote the first edition of Food Politics, all people talked about was personal responsibility. Now just about everyone understands that the food environment discourages healthful eating.”

Q: What do you think of the USDA and FDA under the Obama administration?

A: “The USDA has a complicated job. Historically it has favored industrial agriculture. That has not changed, but Vilsack has introduced new initiatives that favor organic and local producers. That’s a start. USDA’s work is governed by the Farm Bill and advocates for sustainable agriculture need to start working now to get that bill to do a better job.”

Q: What is the biggest hot button issue emerging today in food politics?

A: “It depends on what concerns you, I suppose. Mine is election campaign laws, the root of corruption in our political system.”

To keep up on developments in food politics, check in on Marion’s blog.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Ben McLeod

The post How the Food Industry Influences What We Eat appeared first on EcoSalon.

In a state which owns the role as largest agricultural exporter in the country, how its largest city deals with food policy is important, not only for the state, but the nation as a whole. Such is the case with Los Angeles, California, a place where local produce runs abound. The problem is, it’s not only support for local food production that’s integral for regional food policy, but it’s the distribution of it.

According to the 2005 LA County Health Survey, only 14.6 percent of adults eat over five servings of fruits and vegetables per day. Add that to a population over half (55.5 percent) of which is either obese or overweight, and it’s easy to posit the correlation between good food and improved health.

This week the Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force, established last year by the L.A. Board of Public Works, released a its report, “Good Food for All Agenda: Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles.” The report focuses not only environmental concerns related to the LA food system, but also the political and social side of things. With studies showing that there is a direct correlation between income and health, these are the issues that local, and national, leaders have to start taking a serious look at, and it’s good to see one of the nation’s most abundant agricultural regions starting to do so.

In the land of plenty, the report paints a grim picture of the reality for many LA residents:

A block from backyard vegetable gardens whose vitality could make you gasp, displays of cheap-calorie, high-profit, chemical-laden snacks, and vivid, sugary sodas all but crowd out the produce sections of neighborhood markets. Children eat prepackaged school lunches designed to ease the problems of distribution rather than nutrition. Billions of consumer dollars that could go towards sustainable, fairly priced locally grown food goes out of the region and out of the country. Improbably, even here, many thousands of Angeleno families go hungry each day.

Local food can’t just be a trend or a movement, it has to be practical, affordable and accessible, and when we’re talking about environmental, social and political issues, this is something that all cities across the country should be considering.

The report also calls for the city to establish a Good Food council, which would aid in connecting the dots between all the groups within the city that are doing work that’s related; focusing on local food means strengthening the community around it. University researchers can work with soup kitchens and activists can work with industry professionals.

You can read the full report here.

Image: djjewelz

The post Accessible and Affordable: LA Calls for a Better Local Food Policy appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Pacific Northwest has an obsession with local food; an obsession that started long before eating local became a trend. With ample orchards, farms, vineyards and a healthy coastline the region is known for its year-round bounty, and in an area that’s so rich in all kinds of food, working with the local community to put food on the table is not only a sustainable choice, but an economic one. A choice that ultimately builds community and makes the region stronger.

But with so many farmers, fishermen and foodies, how does one keep track of all the options? Food Hub might just be the answer.

Launched by Portland-based non-profit Ecotrust, Food Hub combines the functionalities of a social network with smart marketing strategies that put an emphasis on local, allowing food service professionals who want to buy local food to easily access growers and processors that have exactly what they’re looking for. In fact, Ecotrust’s vice-president of food and farms Deborah Kane went as far as to call it “the Facebook of local food, or the Match.com for food buyers and food sellers.”

Although focused on the professional side of the food industry – the website can only be accessed by regional food buyers and sellers – Food Hub will have a very direct effect on Northwest consumers, who will quickly reap the benefits. As of last month the site had over 600 members, and that included buyers for not only restaurants, but schools, hospitals and resorts.

Supported by various foundations and individuals, Ecotrust also worked closely with the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Washington State Department of Agriculture to develop Food Hub, proof that institutions can be visionaries when it comes to food policy.

While many of us foodies have made a conscious effort to buy local and support the food culture of the regions that we live in, large scale alimentary change has to be teamed with infrastructural shifts, and if it’s successful in the coming months, Food Hub could easily become that model.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground. Each week, Anna will be taking a look at something new and different that’s taking place in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to culinary avant garde.

Image: Anna Brones

The post Foodie Underground: Connecting Local Buyers and Sellers with Food Hub appeared first on EcoSalon.

Cities across the nation suffer from some of the same ills regarding poor quality food and inequitable distribution of healthy, fresh produce and other unprocessed foods. But New York City has a bold plan that could very well serve as a model for the rest of us.

Communities in every urban area include pockets or neighborhoods that have higher rates of diet related diseases than neighboring communities, little or no physical access to healthy, fresh foods, or lack of money to buy the fresh food that is available. Our broken food system contributes to our national health problems, but it’s also a huge contributor to climate change and other environmental problems. Additionally, employment in the food sector – whether you are a farmer, farmworker, or service industry worker – often means scraping by on less than a living wage and living without health care.

How do we fix our food system and reform it into something that actually serves us?

If we want to build a decentralized food distribution system that serves the people equally, the best way is to start at home with a clear vision and concrete policy recommendations. NYC’s model for a better food system, if adopted, could be replicated in other cities across the nation, creating jobs and providing better food for more people.

In February, Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer released “FoodNYC: A Blueprint for a Sustainable Food System,” calling it “the most comprehensive effort to date to unify and reform New York City’s policies regarding the production, distribution, consumption, and disposal of food.” (The report was produced as a result of the New York City Food and Climate Summit held in December (09) in partnership with the non-profit Just Food.)

Of all the ideas presented, the blueprint chose to outline 10 bold ideas for the future. Cities everywhere take notice!

1. Urban Agriculture: Urban agriculture can reduce rainwater runoff and pollution, reduce the heat-island effect in cities, and absorb and sequester carbon. New York’s blueprint calls on the city to create a citywide urban Ag program that will identify land that is available for urban agriculture, such as vacant lots owned by the city, foster community gardens by giving them park status, and ease regulations and provide incentives to pave the way for green rooftops and other innovative urban farming programs.

2. Regional Food Production: Small regional farmers struggle to survive and compete with cheap overseas produce and heavily subsidized produce from industrial farms. When this happens, farmland dwindles and the farming population shrinks while urban consumers remain hungry for local foods. One task of the plan is to assess the capacity of a regional foodshed, facilitate connections among upstate farms and downstate consumers, and develop a long-term strategy towards preserving current farmland.

3. Food Processing and Distribution: When local food has to be shipped off somewhere else to be processed, it’s not really local food anymore. Relocalizing processing can create jobs along with a greener, more equitable food system. The plan recommends increasing distribution capacity of fresh, regional foods by expanding the existing Hunts Point Wholesale Produce Market and building other smaller wholesale produce markets in different areas of the city. Another recommendation is to invest public funds in local food processing plants.

4. New Markets: It’s all about access. Neighborhoods that have access to healthy, fresh foods suffer lower incidences of diet related diseases. The plan recommends fostering the development of non-traditional food outlets such as farmers’ markets by investing in increasing their capacity, offering long-term leases for public markets, and taking other actions that lower the barriers to increasing the number and type of alternative (non-grocery store) food venues in every neighborhood.

5. Procurement of Regionally grown Foods: Municipalities have huge buying power and can really move the needle toward change. By investing public money in community-based food, governments are creating jobs and bettering the health of local citizens. The recommendations focus on requiring publicly-funded schools, hospitals, senior centers, homeless shelters, and jails to mandate the purchase of regionally produced food.

6. Education: Kids don’t necessarily learn how to eat well at home, any more than they might learn algebra there. The blueprint recommends fostering lifelong good eating habits through requiring food curriculum in schools, exposing children to farms and gardens, and instituting meatless Mondays in New York City schools.

7. Food Waste: Rotting food creates methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The plan recommends that the city lower food waste by decreasing the amount of food that goes uneaten through better procurement practices and by investing in municipal and individual composting programs.

8. Plastic Water Bottles: We live in a country with safe tap water, yet plastic bottles remain ubiquitous and have terrible environmental consequences. In New York, only 10% of plastic water bottles are recycled. The blueprint recommends banning sales of bottled water on city property and encouraging the use of water canteens.

9. Food Economy: Food fares well even during a recession. Focus the city’s economic development strategy on food businesses, creating good jobs and better food at the same time, through zoning, kitchen incubators and other programs. The plan also calls on New York State to protect the rights of farmworkers.

10. Government Oversight: Everybody eats and we already know that food has huge environmental and personal health impacts. Why not give food its due and treat it like transportation, education, and sanitation by creating a Department of Food and Markets to oversee and lead the reform of the city’s food system? That’s what the panel recommends.

When faced with gigantic problems like creating a food system that works for everyone, it’s helpful to break down the issues into smaller parts and offer concrete recommendations that build a new vision, like this blueprint does. You can read the entire report here and then get involved in a food policy council near you. They have been springing up everywhere. This handy map provides a list of all food policy councils in your state.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: wwarby

The post NYC’s Bold Blueprint for Building a Better, Greener Food System appeared first on EcoSalon.