Food trends of late have highlighted the importance of eating a bit more like our grandparents, at least when our goal is eating healthy. 

Even Michael Pollan is on the record as saying, “Don’t eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.” But it turns out, millennials don’t actually eat healthy the way their grandparents do, at least not if their grandparents are baby boomers.

A new survey from the International Food Information Council Foundation compared perceptions of healthfulness along generational lines and showed some blatant differences between the way baby boomers and millennials approach healthy eating.

First off, boomers and millennials aren’t even looking for the same things when they define a food as “healthy.” Whereas boomers are keeping an eye out for foods that help manage weight, cardiovascular health, and digestive health, millennials seek out superfoods with specific benefits, such as foods that improve mental health, augment muscle health, and boost immunity.

Millennials and boomers also look to different professionals for advice when their goal is eating healthy. Boomers are far more likely to rely on registered dietitians, nutritionists, and healthcare professionals than millennials, who seek out fitness professionals, farmers, and bloggers for much of their healthy eating advice.

But perhaps the biggest difference the survey found was the specific strategies that each individual group used for assessing whether their diets were healthy or not — boomers appear to take on a quantitative definition, reducing portion sizes or eliminating carbs, sugars, and sodium to eat healthier. Millennials, on the other hand, define healthy eating less by what they don’t eat and more by what they do.

The term “superfood” only emerged around fifteen years ago, according to the Wall Street Journal, and millennials make many of their dietary choices by seeking out these nutrient-rich foods, rather than cutting out specific food groups. Millennials are also far more tapped into not only what a food is, but how it is produced: a 2012 article in Forbes highlighted artisanal, small batch, and specialty products as keys to a millennial heart — and stomach.

Organic is yet another label that millennials love, according to another recent survey, this time from the Organic Trade Association, Food Business News reports. This survey showed that an overwhelming 52 percent of organic shoppers are millennials with children, as opposed to a mere 14 percent of boomers who shop with the organic label in mind.

But according to Laura Batcha, CEO and executive director of the Washington-based Organic Trade Association, this choice actually has everything to do with millennials’ Gen X parents.

“Many (millennials) were raised on organic products,” she says. “It’s not a new idea they’re embracing; it’s just something that’s incorporated into their way of thinking.”

Add the familiarity of the organic label to the desire to shop healthfully, ecologically, and sustainably that seems to pervade the millennial sensibility, and it’s no surprise that millennials are eating differently than their grandparents. And what’s more, as millennials begin to acquire the power of purchase that baby boomers are slowly giving up, this distinction is going to continue to change the way the rest of us shop and eat, too.

Related on EcoSalon
Eating Like a Peasant: A Healthy Lifestyle You Can Afford
Healthy Foods and Eating Well, It’s All About Simplicity: Foodie Underground
11 Reasons to Completely Change Your Diet (and How to Eat Healthy): Foodie Underground

Couple shopping at market image via Shutterstock

The post Turns Out, When We’re Eating Healthy We Don’t Actually Eat Like Our Grandparents appeared first on EcoSalon.

When it comes to the Paleo diet, let’s agree to leave the cavemen out of it.

Desperate for a sustainable solution to my weight and health frustrations, I tried the Paleo diet for the firs time last fall. After 30 days, I had lost 10 pounds, my skin cleared up, and I had more energy than ever. I was hooked. I started buying Paleo cookbooks, engaging with the online Paleo community, and clicking on just about any headline that mentioned the Paleo diet. After four months, I was 25 pounds lighter and loving it.

Following the Paleo diet has reignited my love of whole foods–organic fruits and vegetables, grass-fed, pastured meats, raw nuts and seeds, and occasionally some spectacular dark chocolate. I’ve also learned so much about how the foods that dominate our food system, namely highly processed grains, dairy, and sweeteners, affect us in a negative way. And I cook all the freaking time now! You’ve got to when processed foods are out of the question. I love serving friends delicious food, and not admitting it’s Paleo until AFTER they’ve told me how much they enjoyed it.

But I also learned something else. I don’t like self-identifying as a Paleo eater. Why? Because people always get hung up on the name, and I find myself repeatedly explaining that the “Paleo” part shouldn’t be taken literally.

See, the Paleo diet has been around since the 1970s, popularized by gastroenterologist Walter L. Voegtlin and later Dr. Loren Cordain. I also learned that while early proponents suggested that Paleo eating is best because it “mimics the diets of our caveman ancestors” the nutritionists, fitness experts, and foodies that currently endorse it almost never push this aspect. And with good reason.

Suggesting that we can, with any decree of certainty, re-create the diets of our Paleolithic ancestors is ridiculous. And it’s the main reason why so many people feel comfortable saying the Paleo diet is stupid. Even though scientists say it’s nutritionally sound. That’s why, when talking about my own experience with Paleo, I leave the cavemen out of it.

My decision was recently validated by a widely-shared article written by Michael Pollan. The article listed all the things that, in Pollan’s opinion, are wrong with the Paleo diet. And just to be clear, Pollan and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. Because the Paleo diet is right for me doesn’t necessarily make it right for you. But the core argument was that cavemen most likely ate what they could find. Sometimes it was meat. Lots of the time it wasn’t. To me, the headline (and feisty comments) further proves that clinging to the “caveman” meme is hurting the basic message of the Paleo diet: eat real food. What Paleos really mean is “don’t eat something that wouldn’t have been recognized as food 200 years ago.” Which is almost identical to Pollan’s own ideology about food.

So let’s stop quibbling about what the cavemen ate. The Paleo diet includes lots of things that a caveman couldn’t possibly have had access to. But that’s not the point. The point is to eat real, whole foods, and eliminate the processed crap that’s only been considered food for the past 50 years. No matter what your anthropological perspective, that’s something we can all agree on.

Related on Ecosalon

Is The Paleo Diet Really The Solution For A Better Body?

The Gluten-Free Flour Guide

Eating Healthy: 7 Meat and Poultry Food Labels To Look For

Image: Imamon

The post Why I Love The Paleo Diet But Loathe The Name appeared first on EcoSalon.

What’s a movie without a message? We round up some of our favorite eco themed movies available online today.

Warmer weather means big movie theater blockbusters are definitely coming at you (in 3D).  They’re fun of course, and sometimes even quite inspiring (not just because Robert Downey Jr. is slightly hot in his glowing chest Iron Man costume). But inevitably, we can only suspend disbelief for so long before the reality of our fast-paced world reminds us that there’s much to be done to make it all it can be.

And just like films of fiction and fantasy can entertain and inspire us, so too can those that use the creative medium to show us truth and help us to create change. These eco-focused films are some of the best of the best that can be viewed around the web without having to rent a DVD or have one shipped to you. Most are available on Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime unless otherwise noted.

1. Botany of Desire: Join journalist Michael Pollan as he explores how certain plants have evolved with us over time and how this relationship has changed. It gives perspective on  just how amazing nature really is. It inspires more respect for the plant world and our place in it.

2. The Cove: It won an Oscar nomination and captured the hearts of millions with its tale of unthinkable dolphin slaughters in Japan. The thrilling direction will have you at the edge of your seat wanting to leap right into the ocean to help save these majestic creatures.

3. Cave of Forgotten Dreams: What’s so eco about Werner Herzog’s film of ancient cave paintings in France? Perspective. Who were we 30,000 years ago is as important as who we can be in another 30,000 years. We often overlook our connection with nature and art in our day-to-day lives and the story of the world’s oldest known cave paintings can help you to remember.

4. DIVE!: This award-winning short documentary details a dumpster diver’s journey into our global food waste crisis. It’s compelling and disheartening. You will never look at your food consumption habits the same again.

5. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soapbox: If you love Dr. Bronner’s soap, you’ve probably already read the bottle a few times, getting a glimpse of Dr. Bronner himself. But learn more about the man and the company in this fascinating documentary that highlights just how much of a positive impact a little soap company can have on the planet.

6. Earthlings: In our quest to be eco-friendly, we often overlook our animal friends and the impact our industrialization of them has on the globe. And even more than that, the psychological impact of widespread enslavement, torture and killing of these innocent creatures greatly effects how we approach many of our global crises. This film will inspire compassion and connection to Mother Nature and all her creatures like nothing you’ve ever seen before. View here.

7. Ethos: What is ethical consumerism? Just ask Woody Harrelson who hosts this exploration into what our purchasing power means for the planet and each other. Another world is possible and we can build it just by chosing where we spend our dollars.

8. Food Fight: Think our battle against corporate food manufacturers is a lost cause? Think again. Food Fight highlights the food revolution underway, including beloved chef, author and activist, Alice Water’s influence on the healthy and good food discussion.

9. Gasland: This Oscar-nominated documentary exposes the unbelievable impact hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has on the planet and the health of the surrounding communities. What’s happening to our water supplies and the people who have no choice but to drink from them will motivate you to look into protecting your family, your community our planet’s future from the potentially irreversible effects of fracking.

10. Vanishing of the Bees: Colony Collapse Disorder is creating unprecedented bee die-offs and unusual behavior. What’s causing it—or why—is still unknown. But what we do know is how important bees are for our food supply (and the rest of nature). Think they’re just pesky insects? Watch this film and think again.

11. Waste Land: This film documents the incredible amount of waste being generated (in Brazil) and one artist’s goal of turning it into art. It’s equal parts astonishing and inspiring. How else can we turn our bad habits into things of beauty?

Did we miss any? Let us know in the comments!

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: xJason.Rogersx

The post The 11 Most Inspiring Eco Movies Available Online appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnWhy we have to get past thinking about the Big O.

“I now feel completely vindicated for NOT buying organic foods.”

Well, great.

The internet was abuzz with the recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that found little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional grown food, and I found myself getting severely agitated by comments like the above posted in social media circles. Granted, I spend a lot of time thinking about food, but simple statements like the aforementioned prove to me that we are entirely removed from the food process and what we are eating. We are oversimplifying a complex issue.

We love it when studies prove to us that our decisions are right. Want to justify a habit? You can probably find a study that does just that. Coffee is good for you, no bad for you, no good for you.

In an information based society, there is no surprise that we’re drawn in by headlines. But if we are going to base our eating values on a headline and the first paragraph of an article, we should question the importance we are putting on our well-being and that of the planet.

Here’s the issue with a meta-study: it only focuses on one element. When it comes to organic food, this specific study, as with many others, doesn’t paint a full picture.

“This study disputes how significant the differences in antioxidant and nutrient levels are between organic and conventional food. But that’s not central to the discussion of why organic is important, which has a lot more to do with how the soil is managed and the exposure to pesticides, not just in the eater’s diet but to the farmworker,” said author Michael Pollan in an interview with KQED.

We have to take a step back and take a look at the bigger picture. The study did find that conventional produce has a 30% higher chance of pesticide contamination compared to organic foods, and as the Guardian pointed out, “it should be noted that there are currently no long-term studies of the health outcomes for people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food.”

Beyond that, as Pollan emphasizes, there is an environmental cost to everything that we put in our bodies. Food cannot be reduced to single elements. It’s not just about antioxidants or carbohydrates or omega 3s. Food is a process, a compilation of nutrition, environment and experience.

“Organic” has certainly become a buzz word. Slap the big O on anything and you’re sure to attract a certain demographic. In a controversial op-ed, The New York Times writer Roger Cohen called the organic ideology “an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.”

He is partly right.

There is a challenge to feeding the planet, and it’s not going to be solved by $4 organic asparagus from Whole Foods; that’s about the same as the average amount as a food stamp recipient is allotted per day. However, if we are talking about building sustainable food systems that solve hunger, we have to think about the whole approach. And if we’re in the socio-economic group that has the money and time to think about what we’re eating, we have no excuse not to be doing so.

In the modern age, if you are able to comfortably put food on the table, it is inexcusable to not think about what you are eating. This issue isn’t about organic vs. conventional, it is about building a food system that is focused on good food. A food system that puts a value on local small-scale businesses and not just agribusiness. A food system that normalizes appreciating good food instead of making it pretentious.

“Is it organic?” is only one of many questions that we should all be asking when we’re standing with a grocery basket in our hands. “Where does it come from?” “What pesticides were used?” “How are the people that produce it treated?” “What synthetic chemicals are part of this meal?” The list goes on.

There is not one simple solution to eating better. If you think that filling your basket with foods just because they have a specific label on them means you’re doing the right thing, think again. Take a holistic approach – one that thinks about food in a new way. How it affects you. How it affects your community. How it affects the planet.

If we are going to move the food system forward, in a progressive and sustainable manner, we have to be asking the hard questions, and that takes more than just reading a headline.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s weekly column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground, discovering what’s new and different in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to the culinary avant garde.

The post Foodie Underground: Should We Care About Organic? appeared first on EcoSalon.

 What’s the true price of your wardrobe?

With all the fashion books out there to choose from, it’s hard to see a front runner you should spend your time with. Enter Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion by Elizabeth Cline. While Cline has been equated to “the Michael Pollan of fashion,” we put her on the platform of pioneer.

From fashion victim to educated consumer, Cline takes us on a retail journey the likes of which we’ll never walk the same again. We caught up with her recently to see what she had to say about the state of the fashion industry. Here’s what she had to say.

Is there any original fashion out there anymore?
Totally. I think we’re looking for originality in the wrong places though. Fashion trends happen now on a global level, and change
constantly, and ironically we look to clothes bought off the rack at a chain store to make us feel unique. Think about women in the 40s and 50s. Even though they were all wearing a similar style, many of those dresses were one-of-a-kind and reworked from season to season. I think even today customization is the key to making your wardrobe your own. This could mean having shirts altered that you buy off the rack, refashioning pieces in your closet from previous seasons so they feel fresh, lobbing off sleeves, taking up hems, adding or removing embellishments, and dyeing shoes and garments new colors. I bought a gorgeous sleeveless blouse recently from an independent designer. And the first thing I did was take it to a tailor and have the buttons repositioned, so I could wear it open at the top. Now that top feels like it’s mine and a reflection of my style.

There was a part in Overdressed where you mention the American apparel industry might “benefit from copying” with consumer demand and appetite so voracious. What are the implications of a statement like that?

The industry benefits hugely, because trends are essentially copies of a specific style and trends sell clothes. So the industry profits from copies. That said, I think the pace of fashion has become maddening to a growing number of consumers, partially because of rampant copying. Trends are changing too fast, paradigms of style are being recycled too quickly. The whole game of fashion feels arbitrary and pointless now, and on a personal level, it’s frustrating.

Have we become a mentally ill society that we need so much clothing to fill a void or is it just a really unhealthy addiction? Maybe these are the same…

I think the industry has trained us to shop this way. As the fashion industry became more corporate and consolidated, in order to increase their profits, they slowly erased the detail and craftsmanship of clothes and made the materials shoddier as well. They were erasing our collective knowledge of what clothing could be. Now it’s just a label, a price point, and a trend. To our credit, it took consumers several decades to be convinced that they no longer wanted to own beautifully made clothing and to make them forget that $20 does not in any way buy a well-crafted garment.

Do you think thrift shopping is on the rise because people are looking for cheap or are more people understanding the need to reuse?

I think it’s more so because people crave uniqueness in their wardrobes. We live in a world where it’s quite common to see someone else in the exact same top or print that we’re wearing. It is human to feel repulsed by that. I think vintage better satisfies our need for self-expression and to not feel like our individuality is for sale.

You talk about vintage becoming a “rich person’s sport.” Talk about that.

Sure. Basically, the quality of new, store bought mass market clothing is going down. The materials being used are getting thinner and lower grade, the trim like buttons and zippers are lower quality, the sewing is less refined, there are fewer details. All of the things that we love about vintage clothing are basically missing from store-bought clothes today. Because we’re not making a lot of “good” clothing right now, and the good clothing that does exist is insanely overpriced, the vintage market is becoming more overheated and over-picked, which pushes the price of vintage up.

H&M is kicking off a new chain in Europe but at a slightly higher price point. How do you think this will effect the fast fashion shopper?

I’m more concerned with how it’s going to affect independent designers, who are already struggling to produce clothes ethically and in smaller batches and to sell them at a price consumers are willing to pay. H&M distorts consumers price expectations. They’re able to sell clothes priced below their competitors because they’re a huge corporation with thousands of stores. They order their clothes in high, unsustainable volumes, etc. So, I think that whatever price point H&M sells their higher-priced clothes at is in danger of becoming the price consumers think designer/higher-end clothes should be sold for. It becomes the “fair price” in consumer’s minds, which is quite frightening.

The post Author Interview: Elizabeth Cline of Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion appeared first on EcoSalon.

Animal-style, but with how much respect for the animals?

For many foodies, a trip to California isn’t complete without a stop at In-N-Out Burger, the cult fast food chain that counts Anthony Bourdain, Gordon Ramsay, Thomas Keller, and Julia Child among its fans. In-N-Out prides itself on providing fast food that isn’t just delicious, but also fresh and locally-sourced.

A A look at In-N-Out’s sourcing practices finds that the majority of its beef comes from Harris Ranch Beef Company, California’s largest industrial cattle farm. We’re guessing those cows aren’t grass fed, but what else does this fact imply about In-N-Out’s ethical standards?

Founded in 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder, In-N-Out was California’s first drive-thru hamburger stand to collect orders through a two-way speaker box, which Harry himself engineered. Over the years, In-N-Out has resisted the temptation to franchise or go public, in order to maintain its high quality standards. Snyder’s mission from the start has been to “give customers the freshest, highest quality foods you can buy and provide them with friendly service in a sparkling clean environment.” By all appearances, this mission continues to be the focus of In-N-Out’s operations today.

The Good

For a fast food chain with more than 275 locations, In-N-Out has done an impressive job at maintaining its commitment to freshness. Its menu is simple – hamburgers, cheeseburgers, french fries, and shakes – though many in-the-know order off its not-so-secret menu, which includes the famous “Animal-Style” option, with a mustard-cooked beef patty, pickle, grilled onions, and In-N-Out’s “special spread,” said to include ingredients similar to Thousand Island Dressing.

In-N-Out’s ingredients aren’t pre-packaged or frozen – in fact, their restaurants don’t even have microwaves, heat lamps, or freezers. Hamburger patties are produced in two facilities, one in Baldwin Park, California, and one in Dallas, Texas, using “whole chucks from premium cattle selected especially for In-N-Out Burger.”

The emphasis on quality doesn’t stop at the beef. Buns are baked using old-fashioned, slow-rising sponge dough, and the lettuce is “hand-leafed” (as opposed to mechanically-leafed?). In-N-Out’s famous fries are made from real potatoes that are delivered from the farm, individually cut in store, and cooked in cholesterol-free vegetable oil. And those milkshakes? Made from real ice cream, of course.

Not only can customers taste the difference but renowned chefs as well. Anthony Bourdain professes a “soft spot” for In-N-Out’s classic hamburger, and Gordon Ramsay once admitted to sneaking into an In-N-Out, finishing a double cheeseburger, leaving the restaurant, then immediately driving back for seconds. Thomas Keller has long been a devotee, and even Julia Child famously carried a list of In-N-Out locations in her pocketbook.

The Bad

Among other things, In-N-Out prides itself on the quality of its meat:

We pay a premium to purchase fresh, high-quality beef chucks. We individually inspect every single chuck we receive to make sure that it meets our standards. Then our highly skilled, in-house butchers remove the bones. We grind the meat ourselves and make it into patties ourselves. These steps enable us to completely control the patty-making process and be absolutely certain of the quality and freshness of every patty we make. We’ve always made our hamburger patties this way.

This may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the majority of beef used in In-N-Out burgers comes from factory farms. One of In-N-Out’s major beef suppliers is Harris Ranch Beef Company, an 800-acre property with more than 100,000 cattle located in Coalinga, California. As California’s largest beef producer, Harris Ranch has drawn extensive scrutiny from food activists for its factory farming methods. In fact, it was the stench of dying cattle coming from Harris Ranch that inspired author and food activist Michael Pollan to write “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” his seminal book on the industrialization of food.

That much-publicized fact may be why David E. Wood, the chairman of Harris Ranch, reacted so adamantly when California Polytechnic University, his alma mater, invited Pollan to give a lecture on sustainable agriculture in 2009. In a letter released to the Washington Post, Wood said that he found it “unacceptable that the university would provide Michael Pollan an unchallenged forum to promote his stand against conventional agricultural practices” and threatened to withdraw a promised $500,000 donation if the lecture went on as scheduled. Faced with that threat, the university agreed to change the format of the presentation to a panel discussion including other food experts. Soon after, Pollan said that while he is open to debate, “what’s happening at Cal Poly has a very different flavor. They want to close this conversation down. Harris Ranch does not understand academic freedom.”

In addition to opposing Pollan’s campus lecture, Wood also expressed concern about Cal Poly’s “politically expedient but unsupportable focus” on sustainable agriculture.

Let me be clear. I fully appreciate the importance of developing niche markets; however, I feel strongly that in exposing students to these alternative markets the university should take utmost care NOT to detrimentally impact conventionally produced agricultural products which represent fully 90% of all foods consumed in the United States. I am fearful that in its zeal to promote and teach these ‘alternative’ production practices, the university is giving credence to those within the environmental movement who believe that only practices described BY THEM as ‘sustainable’ should be employed in agriculture.

The Questionable

In-N-Out’s reputation for quality and freshness is deserved in many respects. However, the company’s sourcing relationship with Harris Ranch calls into question the nature of its ethical standards. The published letter from David E. Wood to Cal Poly is rare public evidence of the influence exerted by the factory farm industry on the food debate in America. In the letter, Wood doesn’t just attempt to silence his critics, but he also advises the university against teaching its students “alternative” production methods like sustainable agriculture, using his financial support of the university as leverage.

While I’m happy to support a homegrown business like In-N-Out Burger with my hard-earned dollar, I have absolutely no interest in supporting a vendor like Harris Ranch, with its inhumane cattle raising methods and heavy-handed attempts to clamp down on sustainable agriculture education. While I have been known to happily indulge in the odd In-N-Out cheeseburger (extra sauce, hold the onions) something about this new knowledge leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Behind the Label: Pret a Manger

77 Random Things to be Grateful for

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Images: Aaron Friedman, Steven Damron, Marshall Astor

The post Behind The Label: Where In-N-Out’s Beef Really Comes From appeared first on EcoSalon.

Whole Foods has undoubtedly changed the organic and natural foods industry, but is it for the better?

For some, Whole Foods is a god-send – a convenient, well-stocked supermarket filled with a trustworthy, if somewhat overpriced, mix of natural and organic foods. For others, Whole Foods is a symbol of capitalism’s ills, a cornerstone of the “Industrialized Organic” complex that is contributing to the death of the small farmer.

Most people I know lie somewhere in the middle: they can’t deny the appeal of a one-stop-shop for their healthy yuppie lifestyles, but they’re skeptical of how conscience-friendly a company can be once it’s grown into a publicly traded corporation. In this week’s Behind the Label, we take a look at the good and the bad of Whole Foods, with a particular focus on its in-house 365 Everyday Value^® brand.

If you’re a natural foodie on a budget, you’re probably familiar with 365 Everyday Value, which encompasses a range of products from butter to body wash to balsamic vinegar. 365 products tend to be basic in nature and cheaper than their shelf-mates. But how trust-worthy are they?

The Good

Whole Foods had a humble start as a small natural foods store in Austin, Texas, started by 25-year-old college drop-out (and current CEO) John Mackey, his then-girlfriend Rene Lawson, and a staff of 19. Today, Whole Foods is a publicly-traded company with more than 310 stores in the U.S. and United Kingdom and plans for aggressive expansion in secondary markets over the next decade.

In addition to stocking a wide variety of organic, natural, and locally-sourced foods, Whole Foods also offers a number of generic products under its 365 Everyday Value^® brand, which claims to “fill your pantry without emptying your pocketbook.” All 365 products are either certified organic or enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, which verifies that genetically modified organisms are not present in the product. As mentioned in the recent Behind the Label on Kashi, verification from the Non-GMO Project can be difficult given the preponderance of genetically engineered crops in America, so Whole Foods’ commitment to this issue is worth noting.

Whole Foods has also been a heavy proponent of GMO labeling, a popular topic in the natural foods community.

Our goal at Whole Foods Market is to provide informed consumer choice with regard to genetically engineered ingredients (also known as GMOs or Genetically Modified Organisms). Clearly labeled products enable shoppers who want to avoid foods made with GMOs to do so.

In addition to its stance on GMO transparency, Whole Foods’ quality standards have been recognized as being among the top in the industry, and the company maintains a list of “unacceptable ingredients,” which it says will never appear on its shelves.

This dedication to quality doesn’t stop at food. In 2008, Whole Foods launched the Premium Body Care standard, its very own verification system for natural beauty products. The system focuses on a number of categories, including preservatives, surfactants, and fragrance, and has labeled more than 400 ingredients “unacceptable,” including parabens, polypropylene and polyethylene glycols, sodium lauryl, and laureth sulfates. And in the household cleaning aisle, there’s the Whole Foods Market Eco-Scale rating system, which marks products on a scale from orange (high standards) to green (super duper high standards).

The Bad

The 365 Everyday Value^® brand’s reputation hasn’t always been so squeaky clean. In 2008, a television report from WJLA in Washington, DC, questioned if consumers can trust Whole Foods 365 organic products if the label says that they are made in China.

What do you know about organic foods? It’s pesticide free and more expensive… but it’s worth it… right? Not necessarily. Would you believe “organically grown” in China? How organic can that be?

In a detailed rebuttal to WJLA, Whole Foods’ Organic Certification Coordinator Joe Dickson said that organic products from China can absolutely be certified organic. In the rebuttal, Dickson points out that USDA organic certification measures food integrity regardless of where in the world crops are grown.

Whole Foods Market is a pioneer in promoting and selling natural and organic foods and we have done more in our history as a company to promote and build organics than any other retailer … This is not “selling an image;” this is actually making sure that every one of our 275 stores is operating in compliance with the National Organic Standards and upholding organic integrity in everything they do.

Whole Foods’ assurances have done little to appease foods activists like the Organic Consumers Association, which picketed a Chicago Whole Foods in 2011 for selling genetically modified brands like Tofutti, Kashi, and Boca Burgers. The OCA continues to publish articles attacking Whole Foods practices, including a controversial piece insinuating that Whole Foods was “in bed with” factory farm bad boy Monsanto. That article led to rumors that Monsanto was buying out Whole Foods, which Whole Foods vehemently denied as “crazy talk.”

The Questionable

Whole Foods has taken major strides toward offering organic and GMO-free products at reasonable prices, particularly with its 365 Everyday Value^® line. But naturally, the company’s growth and success have earned it many critics, including author and food activist Michael Pollan, who associated Whole Foods with what he calls the “Industrialized Organic” in his popular book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey responded to Pollan’s claims in an open letter:

I am not sure if merely because of our size and success Whole Foods Market deserves the pejorative label “Big Organic” or “Industrial Organic,” or even to be linked to those categories. I would argue instead that organic agriculture owes much of its growth and success over the past 20 years to Whole Foods Market’s successful growth and commitment to organic. As an organization we continually challenge ourselves to be responsible and ethical tenants of the planet. Through our stores, large and small organic farmers, both local and international, can offer their products to an increasingly educated population that is more interested in organics every day.

Pollan, who professes much respect for Mackey and Whole Foods, responded:

After visiting a great many large organic farms to research my book, many of them your suppliers, it seems to me undeniable that organic agriculture has industrialized over the past few years, and that Whole Foods has played a part in that process–for good and for ill … And as I tried to make clear in my account of the organic industry, much is gained when organic gets big … But surely we can recognize all these important gains without turning a blind eye to the costs: the sacrifice of small farmers and of some of the founding principles of organic farming (its commitment to polyculture, for example; to “whole” rather than highly processed foods; to social and economic sustainability, etc.)

It all seems to trace back to the big corporation/small business dilemma: do you buy your organic kale and locally-harvested honey at the strip mall supermarket, or do you support your local farmers and neighborhood natural foods store? If price wasn’t an inhibitor, I’m sure most conscious consumers would go with the second option.

But even on Whole Foods’ shelves that conundrum exists. Buy the locally-sourced salad dressing for $13.99, or the generic 365 version for $3.99? The up-and-coming fair trade brand body lotion for $15, or the 365 cream for $5?

While I appreciate the lower-priced options, I can’t help but notice a disconnect. If Whole Foods wants to truly support local farmers and small businesses, the company should stop undercutting their offerings with its lower-priced, mass-produced, 365-branded items.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: The Kashi Controversy

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Image: Robert Banh

The post Behind the Label: Whole Foods’ 365 Everyday Value appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnNew to Foodie Underground? Here are 5 of our favorite articles to get you started.

If you’re new to EcoSalon, you might not be completely familiar with the weekly Foodie Underground column. Yes, it’s about food, but it’s about all those things that are helping to shape the underground food movement, and take it from unconventional to mainstream. It’s not about fancy restaurants – although we do have respect for those that are pushing the envelope, truly serving local and committed to sustainable practices or expensive delicacies. Foodie Underground is a place to explore “democratized foodie-ism.” What’s happening at hole-in-the-wall joints and food carts across the country and how we can take advantage of it. Most importantly, how these evolutions and trends are shaping our food policy in general.

Ultimately, we all need to eat, and food lovers exist in all circles. You don’t need a big budget to eat well, just an eye to seek out what’s good, both for you and the environment. Our hope with Foodie Underground is that you’re inspired to push your own food boundaries just a little more; forage for mushrooms instead of buying them, host a locally sourced supper club or plant a neighborhood garden that your entire community can enjoy.

You may not think you love food, but we promise that Foodie Underground will at least give you some food for thought.

Here are some of our favorite reads to get you started.

“Appreciating Simple Food” – It’s easy to get caught up in ingredients and recipes, as we try to ensure that we’re eating well. But sometimes, we forget the most important thing of all: keep it simple and appreciate food for food’s sake. “So forget complex recipes, forget the latest gluten-free baked goods, just take some time to eat good, simple food with friends, maybe even throw in a bottle of wine for good measure, and give honor to the sustenance that your body needs.”

“Foodie Feminism” – Women are pushing boundaries in the food world. Female restaurateurs, farmers and bartenders are proving that we play a significant role in the food movement. “We as women have a lot of power, and when it comes to food, we have the potential to think smartly and creatively rather than be boxed in by conventional expectations.”

“The Replacements” – Cupcakes are a subject of serious contention for EcoSalon staff, but no matter what your take on the baked good, we can all agree that the trend has some competition. Macaroons, pies delivered by bicycle and a handful of other sweet treats are giving cupcakes a run for their money.

“Cycled Coffee” – Foodies have an affinity for caffeine, and not only are they conscious about where it comes from, but they also are concerned with how they get it. Enter the cycled coffee crowd: people making a business of combining coffee and bikes. Love this idea as much as we do? Check out our San Francisco Food by Bike Foodspotting Guide.

“It’s Not What We Eat, It’s How We Eat It” –  “Before we had food science, we had food culture,” Michael Pollan said at a lecture in Portland earlier this year. We’ve become so obsessed with individual properties – omega 3’s, antioxidants, etc., that we’ve lost track of the bigger picture. So how do we change it? Start thinking about how you eat just as often as you think about what you eat.

Happy reading!

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s weekly column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground, discovering what’s new and different in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to the culinary avant garde.

Image: Anna Brones

The post Foodie Underground: 5 Articles You May Have Missed appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnMichael Pollan discusses our unhealthy obsession with singling out foods for their individual properties instead of taking a more holistic approach.

What relation do we have to the food we eat?

As a society, we talk a lot about what we put in our bodies – Is it processed? Is it organic? Where did it come from? – but we talk far less about food and food habits as an integral part of culture. Often, we eat because we need to; because we need sustenance. When we view food as a commodity instead of a cultural good, we head down an unhealthy path.

This weekend Michael Pollan, known for his best selling books like In Defense of Food, came to town for a lecture. Over the past few years he has become one of the figureheads of the food movement, and I certainly wasn’t going to miss out on seeing him speak in person.

I grew up in a Pollan-esque household. Although my mother never put a name to her culinary policy, looking back it very much aligned with Pollan’s branded recommendation: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” And yet even with a whole grain, leafy green background, Pollan has changed how I think about food.

For months after I read The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I was acutely aware of what I put in my basket at the grocery store. Where had that asparagus been shipped from? Did I really need mangoes that had traversed a continent? Even worse, I took it out on my parents. Home one weekend, I raised my eyebrows and said to my father, “Do you know how much corn is in this salami that you’re eating?” I started referring to high fructose corn syrup as an acronym. I was verging on obnoxious, but that book got me thinking.

Pollan doesn’t take himself too seriously, poking fun at not only his audience (“Are you all sure you’re in the right place? This is the lecture on food, after all…”), but at himself and the food industry. To kick off the keynote speech of University of Portland’s Food for Thought conference, Pollan laid out two grocery bags from a store run he had made earlier to Fred Meyer. It was an assortment of mostly processed, packaged foods, boasting a plethora of goodness in the form of antioxidants, low fat and Omega-3’s. Yet the items were things like fruit pizzas by Eggo and chocolate Cheerios.

He reminded the packed auditorium that while we Portlanders may be blessed with farmers markets and organic produce that comes from our rich and agriculturally diverse Willamette Valley, most of our population is stocking their shelves with these products.

But Pollan’s message wasn’t to point out our obsession with bad food. It was to point out our obsession with attempting to make bad food sound healthy. Our path has ventured far away from a holistic approach to one based on looking at food as simply a collection of nutrients and vitamins. We’re seduced by packaging instead of sticking to foods that we know are inherently good for us – the foods that don’t need a branded, flashy box boasting the amount of vitamins and minerals are contained within.

“Before we had food science, we had food culture,” Pollan said. In the time that we’ve managed to identify phytonutrients and beneficial elements like Omega-3’s, we’ve gone from taking a holistic approach to food and singled out the parts we think are going to do us well, something Pollan refers to as “nutritionism.”

Maybe it’s because of time constraints, maybe it’s because we want an easy fix, but somewhere along the line of veering away from the multi-course dinner with friends and instead choosing a smoothie with antioxidant boosters in the car, we became very unhealthy. The truth is that it’s not just what we eat, it’s how we eat it. Or how we don’t eat it.

In focusing on the individual components of food products, we have forgotten to take a look at the bigger picture. The French Paradox, for example, is really no paradox at all, it’s simply a culture with a food tradition. Mealtimes are honored and you’ll never find a Frenchman snacking on a low-fat, sugar-free granola bar between meals.

Which is why it’s inspiring to see local movements focused just as much on serving up organic, fresh meals as they are about building community; putting effort into the tradition and relationships that happen around the food. The annual Big Lunch in England is an example of just that, a grassroots project is aimed at getting the whole of the UK sitting down and having lunch with their neighbor.

If we’re going to talk about the food movement, we have to think about the bigger picture. We’re in the midst of a health crisis, with chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes and heart disease skyrocketing. Opting for the green tea-infused ginger ale instead of Coca Cola isn’t helping. It’s time to start thinking about our relationship to food and stop being concerned with individual food properties.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. With other people. In a way that respects and honors the food in front of you.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s weekly column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground, finding what’s new and different in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to the culinary avant garde.

Images: Anna Brones, Elizabeth/Table4Five

The post Foodie Underground: It’s Not What We Eat, It’s How We Eat It appeared first on EcoSalon.

When potato farmers won’t eat the very potatoes they are farming and instead have a small backyard garden to grow a separate stash for their own personal consumption, something is clearly not right. This came to light when I read Michael Pollan’s section on potatoes in The Botany of Desire. The description of the farmer’s potato plants as “doused with so much pesticide that their leaves wear a dull white chemical bloom and the soil they’re rooted in is a lifeless gray powder,” is what really got me.

Like anyone with a concern for personal health and that of our environment, I strive to buy organic. However, this can add up to an eye-popping, hefty bill at the grocery store register. The question is, what food is most important to buy organic?

It seems the American’s love of the French fry, the perfect French fry, no less, created what’s become a disastrous need for the perfect potato. The resulting bumper-to-bumper monoculture crops of russet potatoes have in turn resulted in the intense overuse of pesticides.

What does this mean for the consumer? Most likely, any non-organic potato you buy has been repeatedly sprayed with harmful, poisonous chemicals. Still in the mood for those mashed potatoes? Reach for the stack of organic!

Image: adactio

The post Looking to Buy Organic But on a Budget? Don’t Skimp When It Comes to Potatoes appeared first on EcoSalon.