Eating Liberally

Last December, the White House simply refused to open an e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency because it contained the unwelcome conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and therefore need to be regulated. The EPA finding was a response "to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment," the New York Times reported last Wednesday.

Faced with the proverbial inconvenient truth, the White House not only refused to open the e-mail, they ordered Jason Burnett, the EPA official who sent the document, to "recall it," according to the Washington Post.

Burnett, who has, not coincidentally, since resigned, told the Post:

"In early December, I sent an e-mail with the formal finding that action must be taken to address the risk of climate change...The White House made it clear they did not want to address the ramifications of that finding and have decided to leave the challenge to the next administration. Some [at the White House] thought that EPA had mistakenly concluded that climate change endangers the public. It was no mistake."

I'd accuse the administration of foot-dragging, but that implies some kind of forward movement, however glacial (now, there's a word that's headed for extinction, thanks to climate change.) The dinosaurs who've been dictating our energy policy in this country are as encased in asphalt as the fossils at the La Brea Tarpits, and just as unlikely to budge.

Jon Stewart highlighted this new low point from the Petro-Pusher-In-Chief on the Daily Show last Wednesday with a segment called "Be Patient - This Gets Amazing":

Admit it. You’ve always wanted to say, "Yeah, I’m a card-carrying liberal. You got a problem with that?" Lucky for you, Living Liberally has a way for you to do just that.

Our newest project, The Liberal Card, proves you’re a liberal and helps you save liberally, too. For just $25, you’ll get a personalized card that proudly proclaims your liberal status. And while we’re sure that being able to wave around your Liberal Card is enough to make you buy one, there’s more. A whole lot more.

The Liberal Card also gets you discounts to places that allow you to shop, dine and drink with a clear conscience. From a free beer at Rudy’s the original home of Drinking Liberally to phone service from CREDO, we’re hooking you up big time.

Plus, by supporting our partner businesses, you’re helping support the larger liberal community, too.

So check out www.theliberalcard.org to order your card, and find places where you can use The Liberal Card liberally.

KAT: NYC's real food fanatics are gearing up for a gala event this Sunday down at Lower Manhattan's legendary Seaport. Guest blogger Leslie Hatfield from the Eat Well Guide's Green Fork blog tells why:

“Old New York…was once New Amsterdam…”

Back then, a widely diverse population of city dwellers bought their food at the market, not at the Quizno’s.

If you are in New York on Sunday, come join thousands of other foodies, farmers and activists at the New Amsterdam Market. This is the third New Amsterdam gathering so far–the last event got hit by a snow storm but 5,000 people still showed up, so this weekend’s market is expected to be major. We’re excited about the implications of a market in the Seaport area, as is Robert LaValva, the Director of the New Amsterdam Market Association:

“The participants we have gathered for New Amsterdam Market on June 29th represent a shift in thinking. With its four century legacy as a market district, the Seaport and its empty public market halls offer New Yorkers an unprecedented opportunity to anchor the food system now emerging from this change.”

And the lineup of vendors looks amazing. I’m especially intrigued by Wild Foods (cattail hearts?!), and I hear there will even be sustainably-produced popsicles. Don’t forget your re-usable bags–you’re going to want to bring some food home.

Read more

Most folks are assuming that the catastrophic floods in Iowa are a natural disaster, caused simply by too much rainfall. But, leaving aside the question of whether climate change is partly to blame for all that rain, a growing number of environmental experts suspects that the flooding may have been caused in part by agricultural practices that have severely impaired the landscape’s ability to absorb excess rainwater.

As the Washington Post reported last Thursday, “Most of the wetlands are gone. Flood plains have been filled and developed,” and added that “Between 2007 and 2008, farmers took 106,000 acres of Iowa land out of the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to keep farmland uncultivated…That land, if left untouched, probably would have been covered with perennial grasses with deep roots that help absorb water.”

So now that we’re looking at some four million acres of washed out crops, the New York Times reports that Senator Charles Grassley (R, Iowa) is calling on the USDA “to release tens of thousands of farmers from contracts under which they had promised to set aside huge tracts as natural habitat,” so that they can plant more corn.

This sounds like a really bad idea if the loss of water-absorbing habitat is what made the floods so severe in the first place. But what do I know? I’m not an Iowa farmer. Happily, though, I know someone who is—Denise O’Brien, the organic farmer who ran for Secretary of Agriculture in Iowa in 2006 and nearly won, with 49% of the vote. So I asked Denise for her thoughts on what role industrial agriculture might have played in this disaster.

As luck would have it, Denise just had a letter to the editor published in Sunday’s Des Moines Register addressing this very subject, so she forwarded it to me and I’m reprinting it here, in the hopes that more people will consider the possibility that these floods were as much an act of man as an act of God:

You know how those amps in the 1984 mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap had a dial that went all the way to eleven? Twenty-four years later, we've become a nation of Nigel Tufnels, twiddling with the earth's thermostat and pushing it past its natural limits. This time, it's not so funny.

We're so busy worrying about $4-a-gallon gas--or the prospect of $140-a-barrel oil--that we've lost sight of a much more fundamental number: the amount of carbon dioxide, aka CO2, that's building up in our atmosphere. Right now, we're at about 385 parts per million, or ppm.

If we keep letting the C02 build up, we're heading for a Titanic catastrophe--except that there won't be any 'iceberg, right ahead!' There won't be any icebergs left at all.

Yeah, yeah, you've heard it all before, all this clucking from the Chicken Little/Cassandra contingent. Except that you haven't. There's something new. Our foremost experts on global warming, faced with mounting evidence that our climate is changing much faster than anticipated, have recently concluded that the European Union's goal of capping our CO2 levels at 550 ppm is insufficient, assuming we want to preserve life as we know it.

James Hansen, NASA's chief climatologist, put it in his stark but scholarly way:

Hansen's been trying to get us to pay attention to this stuff for decades, along with a few other folks I can think of. Neil Young's been warning us for THIRTY EIGHT YEARS, going back to "After The Goldrush," when he sang, "look at Mother Nature on the run in the nineteen seventies." Now, he's amended it to "look at Mother Nature on the run in the 21st century."

And Marvin Gaye, were he only alive, could do a remake of his 1971 hit, "Mercy Mercy Me (the Ecology)" without changing a word:

How much, indeed? In 1989, Bill McKibben wrote The End of Nature, the first book about global warming for us non-wonks. McKibben warned us that we were changing the planet irrevocably and would have to make some fundamental changes in the way we live if we want life as we know it to continue.

OK, so here we are, a couple decades later, and I am pleading with you all, will you for once please just LISTEN to this guy? He wants to have a word with you. Or rather, a number. The number is 350. As in, 350 parts per million. That is the number that James Hansen and his climate change colleagues have established as the CO2 level we need to aim for if we hope to avoid six irreversible tipping points, including a massive rise in sea levels and huge changes in rainfall patterns (hello, Cedar Rapids.)

So McKibben's launching a new campaign, 350.org, with the help of a wonderful, wordless video from the folks at Free Range Studios, who gave us The Story of Stuff and The Meatrix. 350.org: Because The World Needs To Know is a universal call to arms--or to legs, actually, as in, go ride a bike! Can we pedal our way to a CO2 level of 350 ppm? I don't know, but one thing's for sure: James Hansen's checked the coordinates, and this is one destination we can't get to by car.

(With a click of her mouse, EatingLiberally’s kat corners Dr. Marion Nestle, NYU professor of nutrition and author of Food Politics and What to Eat:)

Kat: Japan recently passed a law requiring companies and local governments to measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. Those who exceed the government's limits--33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women-will be given three months to lose weight, and if that doesn't do the trick, "those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months," according to the Times, which adds that "the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets."

Obviously, this would never fly in the U.S., but do you think it's a good idea?

Dr. Nestle: I'm stunned by the proposal and hardly know where to begin. Talk about a cross-cultural experience! In Japan, we have one of the healthiest and long living populations in the world on the verge of putting on weight and developing heart disease and diabetes just like our society. But unlike ours, the Japanese government is taking the situation head on. The plan is so not American in this level of social engineering. We don't do things quite like this.

One striking similarity is the focus on personal responsibility. Where is the social responsibility? Not a word about that. What is the Japanese government planning to offer in the way of advice to eat less, control portion sizes, and move more? And does it plan to address changes in the food environment needed to promote healthier choices by individuals? Has the government thought about encouraging food companies to offer smaller portions, make healthier foods the default, promote traditional Japanese diets instead of fast food, and take other such actions?

Evidently, the Japanese government is serious about keeping its citizens healthy, and that's great. But is it serious enough to tackle the environmental as well as the personal determinants of overweight? Or, alas, is this another government that views weight gain strictly as a matter of individual responsibility without asking food companies, employers, and legislators to take some responsibility too. If so, maybe the Japanese are more like us than we think. I, for one, will be watching what happens there with great interest.

My dad’s a true conservative, which is to say that he actually conserves—i.e., uses things sparingly. This leaves him utterly at odds with our rampant consumer culture, but strangely in sync with his lefty-blogger-daughter, despite our obvious political differences.

My dad’s always been ahead of his time in some ways; he was a computer geek, complete with pocket protector, way before it was cool. He’s an early adopter--he owned one of the first personal computers, the long-since obsolete Osborne—but you could call him a late discarder, too. I think he only just got rid of his dot-matrix printer about a year ago.

He hates to throw things out, or buy things he doesn’t really need, and he can’t stand wasting anything, whether it’s water, or electricity. When we were officially in a drought in California (as the Central valley is again, now), he dutifully saved our bathwater and used it to water the yard or flush the toilet. My parents’ car of choice was a used Toyota, and they planned their trips carefully to save gas, even when it was cheap. At Christmas, we exchanged simple, inexpensive gifts; material things have never held any allure for my dad, with the possible exception of a faster Mac.

All of which makes him kind of a crackpot by current conservative standards. Our whole economy’s based on getting us to run out and buy stuff whether we need it or not—not to mention whether we can afford it, or how much it’s screwing up the environment. From the perspective of low-flush-toilet-hating harpy Ann Coulter, it’s downright un-American to tell folks to conserve:

Where does she get her monstrous vision of our relationship to the earth—the King Kong edition of the bible? This, from the woman who calls liberals “godless.”

Thankfully, there’s a growing number of folks on the right who reject the views of Coulter and her fellow climate-change-naysaying wingnut, Rush Limbaugh. Whether it’s eco-evangelicals worried about global warming, or NRA members alarmed by the loss of wildlife habitat, some conservatives are finally daring to buck the party line and embrace the notion of treading more lightly on the planet.

All over the country, today, fathers will be receiving gifts of one sort or another, whether it’s another useless tie or an electric shaver or a copy of Tim Russert’s Big Russ And Me: Father And Son—Lessons of Life, which has leapt to the top of the bestseller list since Russert died so unexpectedly last Friday.

I didn’t buy anything for my dad, because he honestly doesn’t want anything, except maybe a little appreciation. So here it is, Dad—thanks for teaching me that, contrary to the current conservative orthodoxy, there is virtue in thrift, and we don’t need a lot of stuff to make us happy. Hey, Dad, are you sure you’re not a closet liberal?

(With a click of her mouse, EatingLiberally’s kat corners Dr. Marion Nestle, NYU professor of nutrition and author of Food Politics and What to Eat:)

Kat: We've known for ages that the FDA is so grossly underfunded that it can't even begin to assure the safety of our food supply. Now, all of a sudden, in the wake of the tomato salmonella scare, the Bush administration's asked Congress to allocate an additional $275 million to the FDA in next year's budget. What gives? Why now? Are salmonella-tainted tomatoes more of a hot potato than E. coli-contaminated spinach?

Dr. Nestle: No, tomatoes are not a worse political problem than spinach. What's happening is that we are at the end of an administration, not the middle. In the last year, several major reports have exposed the way Congress has weakened the FDA by giving it tons more to do with no money to do it with. As incident after incident has occurred--spinach, green onions, pet food, peanut butter, and now tomatoes--the FDA's situation has become increasingly embarrassing. But $275 million? A pittance.

What's really needed is a major overhaul of the entire food safety system, from the bottom up. We need a food safety system that goes from farm to table, and preferably under a single food safety agency that unites and rationalizes the functions of the FDA and USDA. Until we have that, expect these incidents at regular intervals. Next administration, anyone?

Eating Liberally Food For Thought
by Kerry Trueman

If Lou Dobbs could wave a magic wand and make all those pesky undocumented workers disappear, he'd do it in a heartbeat. And while that might be a triumph for law and order, it would also be kind of a hollow victory--pretty soon our empty stomachs would begin rumbling, and we'd be grumbling:

Who's going to pick our produce?

Who's going to pluck our poultry?

Who's going to chop up and stir-fry our chicken and broccoli?

Who's going to deliver it to our door?

Millions of illegal immigrants make enormous sacrifices-leaving behind loved ones and paying smugglers a fortune--to come to the U.S. and work long hours for low pay doing lousy jobs. You probably don't give that a whole lot of thought when you dial the Chinese restaurant down the block to order your won ton soup and lo mein.

Filmmakers Sean Baker and Shih-Ching Tsou are out to change that with Take Out, a day-in-the-life saga about one of those guys you grab your bag of food from and hand a dollar to before you shut the door and forget his face. The film opened last Friday at the Quad Cinema in New York City, where Take Out takes place, and illuminates the lives of an ignored but integral segment of our population.

Take Out stars Charles Jang as Ming Ding, an illegal Chinese deliveryman who pedals his way through a drizzly day made more dismal still by ruthless loan sharks. Ming's morning starts with a bruising wake-up call from his debtors, who barge in to the cramped apartment he shares with umpteen other immigrants and demand that he come up with $800 in interest on the massive debt he owes his smugglers by the end of the day.

Ming borrows much of the money from friends but has to double his usual take in tips to make the difference. His scramble to cram as many deliveries as he can into his day takes him-and us-from the hallways of housing projects to opulent lobbies and every class of New York City dwelling in between. His customers run the gamut, too, from kind to curt to cruel, or just surly and obnoxious. Not content to provide a sampler of New York stereotypes, Take Out gives us flashes of humanity behind those front doors--and inhumanity, too.

The repetitiveness of Ming's day, the seemingly endless series of hallways and elevators and apartment doors and customers thrusting dollars, makes for a movie that's monotonous in a mesmerizing kind of way. The filmmakers opted for a neo-realist approach that made a virtue out of their bare bones ($3,000) budget, forcing them to film the movie in a real Chinese restaurant while it remained open for business. The end result blurs the line between documentary and drama, but yields a sharply drawn portrait of a life most of us couldn't imagine and would prefer not to think about.

The film is perfectly cast and its cinema verité approach makes its message all the more compelling. While the Broken Borders brigade is fixated on erecting barriers, Take Out asks us to step outside of our individual fortresses, just for an hour and a half, and see the view from the other side of our front doors. It's a powerful ploy; as Nathan Lee wrote in his review of Take Out in last Friday's New York Times, "I'll tip more, I promise!"

I was served woodchuck stew for dinner last Thursday at an upstate farm and thought it was quite a novelty, but apparently it’s just the latest thing; today’s New York Times offers a recipe for woodchuck au vin along with tales of woe from gardeners weary of sharing their prized homegrown produce with gate-crashing critters.

The woodchuck I ate had romped and chomped his way through a farmer’s fields like a shoplifter at an open-air salad bar, poaching the gorgeous organic greens already bought and paid for by the farm’s CSA members. So the woodchuck had to go. And since he had to be sacrificed so that others might eat, they figured it was the honorable thing to do to eat him.

One gardener profiled in the Times piece—who requested anonymity out of fear that slaughtering and sautéing up woodchucks may still be just a little outré— overcame his initial squeamishness and ultimately killed 19 woodchucks, altogether:

Matt and I have taken less lethal--but potentially illegal--steps to deal with the woodchucks in our garden, so I’d best not give the details. One more humane method of handling hungry invaders is to simply plant extra, or, as another gardener tells the Times:

This is all well and good, unless, like us, you’ve only got a fifth of an acre and most of it is a steep, shady slope. There’s no extra space to “plant extra”. We share the berries with the birds, and the squirrels steal most of our hazelnuts, so I am sympathetic to farmers and gardeners who feel driven to drastic measures.

And this conflict between two-legged and four-legged eaters is only going to heat up; as today’s Wall Street Journal notes, higher food costs are inspiring more and more folks to rip out their lawns and plant veggies instead. The growing recognition that maintaining a lawn is a catastrophic waste of resources is contributing to the boom in vegetable seed and seedling sales, too, while flower sales are falling.

But edible landscaping also feeds the hunger to spend our leisure time doing something more gratifying than, say, shopping or plopping down in front of the tv at the end of the day—or mowing the lawn on the weekend.

Artist Fritz Haeg has been challenging the tyranny of turf and helping front yard farmers homestead for several years with his Edible Estates installations. The most recent Edible Estate was recently installed in Baltimore, where the Eat Well Guide’s Leslie Hatfield was among the eager green thumbs pitching in to help a neighbor get growing.

Leslie was also present for the woodchuck stew last Thursday, along with the rest of the Eat Well gang and our fellow blogger and Greenhorns filmmaker Severine Von Tscharner Fleming, with whom we went off on a field trip to visit some of those new American farmers that we’re always championing. Severine’s posted her eloquent take on the decline and renewal of the American landscape over at her blog, The Irresistible Fleet of Bicycles.

It does look as though the tide of lawn lemmings is at long last turning. But this mass conversion of grass to veggies may bring an influx of other rodents to our backyard buffets. Will we let them nosh, or will we quash and sauce them?