The president of the Wisconsin Technology Council felt a need to weigh in on the issue of organic foods in Sunday’s Journal Sentinel, taking a shot at hippie gardeners and even your local co-op at the same time.

Tom Still was responding to the news last week of a study by researchers out of Stanford University on the nutritional benefits of organic foods. The study, a meta-analysis of several hundred previous studies, concluded that, as of now, there was little evidence that organic foods differed from conventional foods nutritionally.

Still wrote: “Judging from the reaction from the organic foodies coast-to-coast, you might think the Stanford researchers just shot their hippie gardener.”

First, ouch, maybe I’m overly sensitive, but I find myself unable to see much humor in jokes about shootings these days  – or in belittling the organic food industry, a $60+ billion global industry in 2010, as the domain of hippie gardeners.  

And, while I’m not sure myself just what an “organic foodie” is, I admit I was one of the people responding to the news of the study. The blog I wrote last week, entitled “Plenty of Reasons to Stick with Organic,” outlined my response to the study. In short, I think there are a number of valid concerns – about the environment, about pesticide residue, about farmworker health and more – to keep organic food on the table.

Still’s column is mostly one long defense of the food technology industry, not surprising given his job. I’m not sure if he felt that the discussion over this study threatened food technology or if he just found this a good hook to get in some publicity, but I don’t know anyone that wouldn’t acknowledge the very important benefits food technology has provided. We have the technology to keep our food supply far safer than ever.  We have developed farming strategies that aid yields and even increase the nutritional profile of certain foods we grow and/or raise. Golden rice, for example, is a strain of rice genetically engineered to contain beta carotene, making it potentially a valuable resource in fighting vitamin A deficiency around the world.

That’s great. All for it. But that doesn’t mean I still don’t value local and organic foods. Here’s one reason which has nothing to do with food safety: some food technologies, such as genetically engineered foods, have a high price tag, both economically and culturally. Considerable research goes into the development of GMO crops, and the companies creating them seek to capitalize on them, often by implementing strict patent controls and prohibiting traditional practices such as seed saving. The establishment of vast stretches of monocrops also leads indirectly to a loss of biodiversity, which unintentionally leaves our food supply less secure and vulnerable to pests and climate events. And consumers in poll after poll express wariness about GMO foods. As the Stanford study noted, we lack adequate long-term studies to address those concerns.

Beyond that, I’m left wondering why Still felt the need to add that “there’s no guarantee that ‘local’ or ‘organic’ is 100% safe.”

No, there isn’t. But if we’re talking food safety, the repercussions of a bad batch of locally grown spinach is probably going to be much smaller, public healthwise and financially, than a batch of bad spinach coming out of a large food processing operation.

I’d rather expand the notion of food safety to address food security, which I think is best served by establishing a rich, diverse and interconnected food network, locally and globally.  Food technology can certainly play a hugely important role there, in helping peoples across the globe develop solid and deep infrastructures to grow, harvest and enjoy healthy foods wherever they live.

If the reaction to the Stanford study taught us any one thing, it is that people purchase organic foods for numerous reasons. Those reasons may be related to beliefs in the health benefits of the foods, or about environmental concerns, or about concerns about local and global economies. Heck, there may even be a few hippie gardeners pushing shovels into the soil with their Birkenstocks.

But $60 billion says there’s more to it than that.

Give up organic?

I’m sure some people will think about that today, after hearing about a new study that found little evidence that organic food is any better for you than conventional food. Apple for apple and zucchini for zucchini, organic is often more expensive, after all.  No doubt, some folk will opt for cheaper conventional, but I’m betting the booming growth in the organic industry will continue.

I’ll explain why in a moment, but first let me review this latest study making the news today. It’s actually a meta-analysis, a study which examined previous studies rather than asking anything new or generating any new data.

Researchers at Stanford University conducted the most thorough review yet of a couple hundred earlier studies regarding organic foods. They examined 17 human studies and 223 studies of the nutrient and contaminant levels in organic versus conventional foods, asking the key question: does organic food offer a health benefit?

What they found, said the researchers, was very little evidence that eating organic food was any healthier; that, for example, there was no definitive proof an organic strawberry contains any more nutrients than a conventionally grown one. Organically raised beef? Again, no definitive proof it offers a nutritional advantage.

Sure, conventionally grown fruits and veggies more frequently contain pesticide residue, but the authors note, the amounts are considered safe by federal regulators. So, why buy organic?

Here are just a few reason, for starters:

1) Those pesky pesticides. While federal regulators say the amounts found on conventionally grown produce are safe, we simply haven’t any done any studies on the long term effects of consuming them. Sure the chemical dust found on that pint of conventional blueberries might fall well under danger levels, but what about eating 30 year’s worth? We really don’t know. But if you want to steer clear and minimize your exposure to the chemicals in the meantime, organic is the way to go.

2) Organics are GMO free. Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are more and more common in our food supply, though we are in the dark completely about how such GMOs might behave in our bodies and about the long-term impact of GMOs on the environment and on our health.  As has been noted recently, even processed foods labeled “natural” may contain GMOs. If you want to avoid GMOs when you shop for food, your very best choice is to eat organic foods. Organic laws prohibit GMO content.

3) The health of farm workers. The trace amounts of pesticide residue left on produce is quite minor compared to the exposure farm workers can receive, year after year.

4) The health of the soil and nearby environment. Organic agriculture has obvious benefits to the ecosystem and promotes biodiversity. It also means there is no dangerous chemical run off to pollute waterways.

5) Some organics do seem more nutritious. Organic milk, for example, has been found to contain more omega-3 fatty acids than conventional milk (perhaps due to the diet of organically-raised dairy cattle). A long-term study, now in its tenth year, also found that organically grown tomatoes had much higher levels of some antioxidants than conventionally-grown ones. Since so few long-term studies have been completed yet, we just don’t know conclusively what damages can be done by a lifelong exposure to those chemicals – nor do we know what long-term gains can be found in the nutritional profile of food grown organically, in living, healthy soil, over decades of farming.

Thing is, this issue is incredibly complex. It is nearly impossible to look at human beings and place the cause of a disease, illness or even good health on any one thing. We eat such a variety of foods and we’re exposed to such a huge stew of environmental contaminants that it’s beyond our current technology to find a single culprit. It’s likely, too, that illnesses and other health problems are a result of a combination of factors. Which is why reducing exposure to chemicals known to be bad for our health seems like a good idea to me.

I also like the premise of organic agriculture, of rotating crops and nurturing a living soil. Organic agriculture’s resurgence (after all, at one point, all agriculture was organic) began in the last century first and foremost as an environmental movement, to protect the Earth.

Many more studies will be done, no doubt. It is such a complex issue. Here are a few links to stories about this study:

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious but That Isn't the Point

Stanford Research Confirms Health Benefits Driving Consumers to Organic

NPR: Why Organic May Not be Healthier for You 

Thinking Outside the Processed Foods Box - Health & Safety Advantages of Organic Food

Do the foods you eat contain GMOs?

GMOs are genetically modified organisms, plants and animals that have undergone alterations to their original genetic material at the cellular level.

First experimented with in the mid-1970s, genetic engineering has rapidly grown in sophistication and frequency. Early experiments revolved around methods to make plants less susceptible to frost, but researchers soon moved onto transgenic engineering, in which genetic material from different species are combined into one organism.

Some genetic engineering is targeted at increasing the nutritional content of foods. So-called golden rice, for example, has been genetically altered to contain large amounts of beta carotene, in hopes of fighting Vitamin A deficiency among peoples who depend upon rice as a mainstay of their diets.

More often, GMO crops are engineered to increase yields, foster faster growth or make plants that are more tolerant to the pesticides used in conventional farming.

And chances are, we eat them. Genetically modified foods first received approval for cultivation in the mid-1990s and today, the US is the largest producer of GMO crops in the world. GMO crops raised in the US include soybean, corn, canola, squash, papaya, alfalfa and sugarbeets, and the switch to those GMO versions has often been rapid. In 2010, more than 90% of the corn, soybean and sugarbeet crops were GMO versions.

But GMO foods have plenty of critics. Opponents worry about damage to the environment, the impact on local ecosystems from the growing of GMO plants, economic issues due to intellectual property laws and about potential health issues associated with the consumption of GMO foods.

Many opponents, citing the range of issues listed above, have called for mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs, so consumers could make informed decisions about whether or not to purchase GMO foods. Outpost has long supported mandatory labeling of GMOs and is a sustaining member of the Truth in Labeling Coalition.

The Non-GMO Project

The Non-GMO Project Verified Seal was developed by a group of retailers to step into the vacuum created by the absence of mandatory labeling laws in the US. Products submitted for approval undergo a series of tests designed to identify the presence of any GMOs. It’s important to note that the test cannot guarantee that a product is free of GMOs. To begin with, the testing threshold is 0.9%, meaning even samples from foods approved to carry the Non-GMO seal may contain nearly one percent GMO content. Further, as acknowledged by the testing company itself, GMO-free claims are not legally or scientifically defensible. That’s because of limitations in the testing process and the possibility of contamination. For example, a food tested by the group may test below the 0.9% threshold, but there is no way to guarantee that other samples of that same product test similarly.

So what does the Non-GMO seal mean? Its backers hope that you’ll see participation by food producers as evidence of that company’s commitment to avoiding the use of GMOs. It is the only organization offering independent testing of GMOs in the US and Canada and its website suggests that buying products bearing the seal is the best way to support non-GMO food choices.

Consumers can also chose organic foods whenever possible. In the US, foods which are USDA certified as organic cannot contain GMOs. Again, however, given the preponderance of GMO crops and the chance of contamination, there is no 100% guarantee that a food is GMO-free.

Kashi’s Cereals and the Cornucopia Institute

Enter Kashi, a natural foods cereal and snack producer now owned by Kellogg’s. Last October, the company was blasted in a report published by the Cornucopia Institute, an organization devoted to building support for sustainable and organic agriculture. The Institute’s “Cereal Crimes” study examined the contents of a variety of breakfast cereals labeled “natural.” The report concluded that many products labeled natural actually contained ingredients that were grown conventionally, with pesticides, and also likely contained GMOs.

The study illustrates that the term “natural” is not a USDA regulated term  and can thus mean whatever the producer says it means. Kashi was one of several companies given the lowest score by Cornucopia, which noted that only four of the company’s 24 cereal products were certified organic.

Since the study was released, Kashi company officials have committed to participating in the Non-GMO Project and to increasing the company’s share of organic and Non-GMO Project Verified foods. You can read what the company has to say here. Currently, seven of the company’s cereals bear the Non-GMO seal and two more have been submitted for testing. The company has also pledged that all Kashi Go-Lean cereals will be Non-GMO certified by the end of 2014 and that in 2015, all new offerings will contain at least 70% organic ingredients and be Non-GMO Product Verified.

Ironically, the company’s size may be hampering efforts to convert more of its cereals to Non-GMO offerings. Since almost all of the conventionally grown soybeans in the US now contain DNA material sourced from bacteria, Kashi will likely have to find adequate sources of organic soybeans. Developing a supplier stream that can furnish enough organic ingredients won’t happen overnight.

Outpost sells Kashi cereals, alongside other brands that scored much higher in the Cornucopia study. While we do not support the use of GMOs because of concerns about their impact on the environment and potential health risks, we realize that there is no way to ensure that foods are completely GMO free and that it’s better to assume that conventional foods, even ones labeled as natural, may contain GMOs. Our policy on issues such as these is to inform customers so that they may make informed decisions.

What can you do?

Buy organic. Your shopping dollars will help to support growers and producers committed to avoiding GMOs. In addition, your food choices when you shop at Outpost ultimately help determine which products are carried and which are dropped. You can also lend your voice to the call for mandatory labeling here. 

When it was revealed a few weeks ago that the federal school lunch system allowed the pink slime mixture in the ground beef it purchased for school lunches, parents around the country expressed outrage. When other news reports suggested that a number of fast food companies also used the pink slime mixture, similar outrage forced a number of the major chains to announce they had discontinued use of the product. 

So, a victory for consumers?

Turns out that's a tough call to make.

Turns out there are a lot of issues wrapped up in this one. 

We have such a complicated relationship with the foods we eat, particularly those which derive from formerly sentient beings. 

And it's no doubt an evolving relationship, for us in the west and for humans in general, I think. We have  a population on this planet which continues to grow and continues to outpace our ability to feed it. How do we deal with that? 

I think and I hope that as a species, we evolve in our attitudes towards food. There simply isn't enough land nor enough fresh water on the planet to give everyone in the world a hamburger.

We can say the main issue here is transparency, which it is, for American (and western) consumers in general. But we usually struggle with this issue of transparency bit by bit. Today it is country of origin; tomorrow it is the use of pesticides; the day after that, GMOs; the following day pink slime. Each new outrage or report generates some traction and we focus and petition on that day's hot topic. If all goes well, step by step, we move towards a greater transparency, each time becoming more aware of the complicated issues which surround food production (how it's grown, where it's grown, how it's processed, how the grower was paid, etc).

That stands in start contrast to the recent past. Beautiful convenient food after beautiful convenient food just appeared on the shelf at the grocery store, as if by magic. Often, the foods were produced with ingredients (plant, animal or mineral) whose origin, cultivation and processing were heavily subsidized by the government, masking their true cost. 

But we're losing our innocence. Just as a child one day makes the realization that the pig on the farm will one day be bacon on his or her plate, we are becoming more conscious of the back story of our foods - and some of that story is ugly, unappetizing, even downright unethical and inhumane.

So let's take a look back at the pink slime. The pink slime is the creation of an elaborate process to use scraps - formerly a waste product - and obtain useful protein. The company which developed the process prefers (obviously) to call it finely textured beef. During processing, the lean bits are separated from the fattier bits, to produce a very lean beef mixture, which is then exposed to a puff of ammonia gas. The company maintains that this treatment effectively kills any pathogens and makes the mix safe for human consumption. The USDA clearly agrees. Ground beef which contains the mix is a less expensive alternative to pricier lean grinds. It's worth noting that many conventional food items undergo a similar ammonia gassing to kill germs. 

Is pink slime bad? That's a complicated question. Discover Magazine points out the USDA has, since the story first broke, decided to allow schools to opt out of the pink slime beef and purchase unprocessed ground beef instead, but that the unprocessed patties have a higher fat content. So, one issue has been exchanged for another.

Another argument goes to the notion of waste. The process of creating the lean beef mix helps us use more of the animal and thus reduces waste, which seems an admirable goal.  

That pretty much brings us back to transparency - coupled with education. Once revulsion over the very idea of 'pink slime" passes, some people might decide that it's not all that bad - that a cheap, lean hamburger patty which creates less waste is just fine. Once we're smart enough to make that decision, wouldn't it be nice if the label on the package of ground beef told you whether or not it contained the filler mixture? So you could make a choice?

We’ll continue to push for transparency in the industry. Outpost belongs to several industry trade groups which advocate labeling for everything from GMOs to fair trade practices and more.

Meanwhile, our ground beef is ground fresh in the stores - with no additives. And any pre-packaged ground beef patties we sell from time to time are also free of additives. Unfortunately, the absence of that cheap mixture, coupled with the more labor intensive farming conditions practiced by our suppliers, means that the ground beef may cost more than the bargain patties you can find elsewhere.

You get what you pay for. Ultimately, it would be nice to know just what you’re paying for, no matter where you buy that hamburger or grapefruit or tomato. It would be nice to know just what costs – environmental, social or economic – are bound up in the food you purchase and consume.

It’s complicated. But we’re getting there.

Some helpful links:

A good overview by Discover Magazine.

A report on a response ad run by the producer of the lean beef filler can be read here.

In the new report, called Cereal Crimes, the Institute argues that “natural” labels deceive consumers and undermine the effectiveness and worth of the “organic” label. (You can download a copy of the report here.)

The term organic is strictly defined by federal laws and overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The study highlights several issues:

1)   The term ‘natural” has no regulatory legal definition. Without laws defining what the term might mean, companies shape it for their own purposes. At Outpost, of course, the term “natural foods” is actually part of our name, and you can find our definition of the phrase on our web site and in our product policies. To us, natural means “foods that do not contain artificial colors, flavors, harmful preservatives or sweeteners. Our naturally raised meats and poultry come from animals that have access to the outdoors, are treated humanely, and were not given artificial growth hormones. “

2)   Without legally binding terminology, consumers can and do get confused about the meaning of the word natural.

3)   Natural and organic are not interchangeable, but in the report, Cornucopia points to several manufacturers that have changed the labeling (and content) of their products from “organic” to “natural.”

4)   The amount of GMOs in conventional foods would likely surprise most people.

5)   Many of the ingredients used in natural cereals have been shown to contain detectable concentrations of organophosphate pesticides in data collected by the USDA in the past. The report did not test the actual “natural” cereals, but points to that USDA data to suggest that the “natural” cereals could therefore contain those pesticides.

The names of some of the cereals tested will be familiar to shoppers at Outpost. Barbara’s Bakery, Peace Cereal and Annie’s were among the companies called out by the institute for moving from organic to natural ingredients.

In what was probably a response to a decreased demand and to rising prices (or perhaps due to some research that told them customers would still buy their product even if it was no longer organic, I don’t know), some companies have in the past several years moved away from organic ingredients, replacing them with ingredients that hail from a wide spectrum of sources. Cornucopia charges that those companies are attempting to deceive their customers by moving to the more vague “natural” ingredients. My guess is that none of the companies named by Cornucopia really wanted to publicize the change. “Our product now slightly less desirable than before!” doesn’t really fly as a sales pitch.

So, a cereal that once was organic no longer is. Now it is “natural,” a term that has some nice feel-good sort of baggage but in truth can mean whatever the company wants it to mean. The terminology isn’t limited to cereals, of course. You can find “natural” meats, beverages, crackers, cookies, chips and many more in the supermarket.

Cornucopia clearly would like for us to stop selling the natural cereals (and probably those other “natural” products, too). Maybe you do, too.

But the dollars spent by our shoppers and owners tell us otherwise. They tell us that we should be offering choices. We sell some of the “natural” cereals. They do fall somewhere on the spectrum closer to the idea of healthy foods. They don’t contain artificial ingredients or colorings, for example, and are often lower in sugar than the conventional varieties, so in that way are more “natural” and probably healthier than conventional breakfast cereals.

We sell them, right next to the organic cereals.

Maybe we should tell you more about some of those organic cereals.

Nature’s Path is the single largest vendor in the cereal category at Outpost. They are numerous reasons we are proud to carry its products. Nature’s Path cereals contain certified organic ingredients, and the company is family owned and managed, is an active participant in the Non-GMO project and even has a plant right up the road in Sussex. It’s a local employer!

Another company we’re happy to work with is Country Choice. We sell its hot cereals and cookies. Country Choice also uses certified organic ingredients, also participates in the Non-GMO project and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, making it a regional vendor.

We sell their products because organic foods are very important to our vision of a healthy community. We carry numerous organic products and we strictly follow regulations about the handling and sale of organic products. Our Co-op Community Fund has for years donated money to help Wisconsin farmers get organic certification. The issue has long been dear to our owners.

But our owners are 16,000 strong, and are, as you can imagine, a diverse group. Organic food is just one of numerous interests our owners hold. In recent years, local food and commerce has become a critical issue to many of our owners and shoppers. We now endeavor to seek out and work with hundreds of small local and regional suppliers, even when the foods they grow may not always be organic.

The local apple harvest, for example, is a highlight of the year in our stores, with delicious variety after delicious variety tumbling into our stores from Barthel’s Fruit Farm in Mequon. Barthel’s uses IPM – Integrated Pest Management – to control pests with as few chemicals as they can get away with. Our owners and other shoppers support Barthel’s with their purchases.

It’s a complicated world out there for the consumers hoping to do the best they can with the food dollars they spend. We all want good, nutritious food and a vibrant, healthy, diverse and economically sustainable local community.

We remain committed to providing you with the educational resources you need to make the best decisions for your own and your family’s health.

We also happen to think that you, the consumer, should know what is in the food you buy and eat. That is why Outpost is a sustaining member of the Truth in Labeling Coalition. The coalition is a non-profit organization whose mission is to make it mandatory for manufacturers to disclose GE and GMO foodstuffs on labels. You can help by signing the coalition’s petition here. 

The fish, with the brand name AquAdvantage, was developed by a Massachusetts company. The process splices genetic material from another variety of salmon and an eel into the cells of an Atlantic salmon. The new genetic material helps to govern and regulate the salmon's growth - and setting the new fish off on continuous rapid growth.

Proponents of the new fish and of the technology behind it point to declining wild fish stocks and the planet's burgeoning human population - and appetite. These new GMO species of fish drastically shorten the time it takes for fish to get to market size, which means, say supporters, more food for our hungry world.

But opponents of GMO foods are skeptical. They argue that potential health dangers of consuming GMO fish have not been adequately studied. And some opponents are worried that the fish, intended for land-locked fish farms and altered to prevent reproduction, may escape and mix with wild fish populations, causing unintended consequences. Talking Points Memo has a good review of the issue here.

What do you think? Is it worth the risk?

Small town grocers face numerous challenges, from centralized distribution systems to lifestyle changes to truly frightening competition from massive retail chains luring shoppers away from Main Streets and siphoning food dollars.

The USA Today articles reports on the decline of independent grocers in two Midwestern states, Kansas and Michigan, but the story is likely quite similar across the country. But what residents of the small towns are finding is that the loss of a grocery store has a profound and often domino effect. The owner of a neighboring hardware store tells USA Today that his business has dropped by half since the town’s grocer shut its doors.

The loss of the town grocery store affects nearby businesses, but the impact on some segments of the population is even more devastating. Eldery customers and others without easy transportation to the more distant stores - the large retail chains often build far from the center of any one town in an attempt to be within driving reach of several small communities -  suffer from the loss of a local store, as their access to the full product line offered by a grocer diminishes. Convenience stores and gas stations might offer some food items, but often lack fresh items.

It’s easy to rationalize a trip to the large retailer, with the seeming convenience of a full range of items for sale and discount prices of a sort that independent grocers may be unable to match. But these small town examples also serve as a startling wake up call for the widespread and long term consequences of failing to shop locally – empty main streets and diminished ease of access to healthy foods. Just look at the USDA’s Food Desert Locator to see the large expanses of our nation that qualify as food desrts.

The USA Today article does carry an encouraging report near the end of the story about Walsh, Colorado. After the town’s lone grocery closed, the town’s residents banded together and reopened it as a cooperative, and report that the store is now thriving.

We’re partial to the co-op route. It offers one of the best ways to counter the loss of control over the foods we eat and it empowers a community by deepening the roots of the local economy.

Co-ops and buying local – the path to good health.

Drought is a constant threat for farmers, so the market for a corn crop that can better tolerate drought is potentially huge, but the USDA itself reports that the GE corn doesn't perform any better than conventional corn varieties already on the market.

The USDA has also concluded that the GE corn poses little risk, something opponents of GMO and GE food crops argue hasn't been adequately proven. The Center for Food Safety claims the USDA's proposal fails to comply with federal environmental laws, making approval illegal. That organization has created an action page where people can send post their comments, which will be sent to the USDA. The agency is accepting public comment on the plan until July 11.

Weigh in on the USDA's proposal to approve GE corn here. Given that even the USDA says conventional corn varieties do just as well as the GE corn in tolerating drought conditions - and that many people continue to voice concerns about the potential for environmental disruption by cross contamination, this seems a no-brainer to us. No GE corn!

The council voted 8 - 5 to pass the measure, which comes with a number of restrictions and includes a one-year sunset clause, meaning the ordinance would have be voted on and passed again next year. Read a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report here.

Residents will be allowed to house up to four hens in their yards, provided they applied for and recieved a $35 permit and got OKs from all adjacent neighbors. 

The dance, a take on the old fable about stone soup, draws together a host of different contributors - dancers, musicians, urban fish growers and farmers - into a symbiotic relationship that will produce we are sure will produce breathtaking art, much like the mundane ingredients of the soup in the fable produce a sublime meal.

The performances will include a tour of Sweet Water Organics, the urban farming and aquaculture operation which has transformed a former factory building into a source of food. Sweet Water's products  from fresh perch and tilapia to vegetables - are available at a variety of locations around Milwaukee, from food stores to restaurants.

For tickets and more information about the event, visit the website for Dance Works.

For a wine to be certified kosher, certain rules need to be followed in its production: once grapes are harvested, the winemaking process must be performed by Sabbath observant Jews. In order for wine to be certified Kosher for Passover, even stricter rules are in effect, prescribing certain yeasts and forbidding certain common preservatives.

But the strictest set of requirements are reserved for mevushal wines. Only mevushal wine can be handled by non-observant Jews or even people who are not Jewish without losing kosher designation. That means a non-Jew can open and pour the wine, for example. Do that with plain old kosher wine and it's no longer considered kosher.

Mevushal wine undergoes an additional step in the winemaking process. It has to be boiled, an act that, unfortunately for wine enthusiasts, does nothing to help the wine's taste.

Enter technology. Today, some winemakers employ a flash pasteurization process, in which the wine is heated super quickly to boiling and then just as quickly cooled, within seconds. It's a mevushal wine that is hard to tell apart from non-mevushal varieties.

Our mevushal wine find is Teal Lake Cabernet Merlot from Australia - the land of kangaroos, emus and great big reds. This wine is pretty dry, spicy and peppery - it might make you think of the shiraz wines Australians are famous for.

Around the world, governments are urging and often mandating that a larger percentage of the fuel supply be comprised of biofuels. In the United States, where government policies help subsidize biofuels created from corn, almost 40 percent of the corn crop is now destined for fuel use. While many other factors, such as weather patterns and fuel prices, can impact crop prices, that rise in demand undoubtedly played a role in the whopping 73 percent jump in the price of corn in the last half of the year.

Other countries, and other traditional food crops, face similar and even greater pressure form the biofuel boom. The New York Times reports that China has turned to the cassava root as a biofuel source, gobbling up 98 percent of Thailand's cassava root crop last year and contributing to a doubling of the root's price.

It's a real quandary. Biofuel has been positioned as an environmentally-more-friendly alternative to traditional fossil fuels, but at what point do concerns about its impact on food prices force a rethinking of the biofuel movement?

The Times article suggests that such a reckoning is already happening. China's appetite for cassava root took off after that government outlawed the use of grain in biofuels. That edict was a response to food shortages and price increases that threatened the country's food supply.

Theories attempting to explain the disappearance the bees abound, many pointing to pesticide exposure, infectious diseases, viruses and stress. Bee colonies are huge business, maintained and transported around the country for pollination. Its estimated that some $15 billion worth of agricultural production is dependent upon the work of bees.

A new documentary, Queen of the Sun, explores the issue of Colony Collapse Disorder, has its Milwaukee area premier next week.

The Times Cinema is located at 5906 W. Vliet Street. Showtimes are Monday, March 28, through Thursday, March 31 at 6:30 p.m.

This is a bee movie worth seeing.

The Rally for the Right to Know is being organized by the Millions Against Monsanto campaign, a project of the Organic Consumers Association. That campaign is aimed at recruiting one million people for a day of action on Oct. 16, the United Nation's World Food Day. The group seeks the right to know - and choose - what is in the foods we eat. Current US law does not require the labeling of foods that contain GMO or that has been genetically engineered (GE).

Which has got us wondering about a couple of things.

First, where’s the radiation? It’s not here. Any radiation that has been so far released has occurred in Japan and the danger from that radiation is limited to the immediate vicinity of the plant. The Japanese government has ordered an evacuation zone around the damaged plant, but there is little evidence yet that a danger exists any further away from the facility. Over here, on the other side of the world? Experts just don’t foresee us being at risk at all from radiation exposure. Plenty of reasons behind their thinking, but we’re not diving into that here. We’re talking potassium iodide, remember.

And also kelp, because it turns out people in some parts of our country are making their way to natural foods grocery stores and stocking up on kelp. Kelp is a seaweed and a good natural source of many minerals and vitamins – and iodine. So, will eating kelp or buying kelp supplements, ward off radiation poisoning?

Again, no health officials we can find are saying there is any reason to worry about radiation exposure here in Wisconsin from a broken nuclear power plant in Japan. No reason at all. But back to kelp. It is a good thing to have in a balanced diet. And it is believed to help your thyroid function normally. You like kelp? Continue eating it. We sell kelp supplements, too. But taking them to ward off non-existent radiation poisoning is over the top and impractical.

Why? The amounts needed. According to experts (the same experts who say there is NO need for prophylactic measures here in America), an adult would need a 130mg (milligrams) dose of potassium iodide to provide a 24-hour block; a child would need 65mg for that same time period. The kelp tablets Outpost carries contain 225mcg (micrograms) of Potassium iodide, much less than needed. In fact, an adult would have to consume more than 550 kelp tablets to get the amount of potassium iodide needed to block the thyroid from absorbing harmful radioactive iodine. 

We do carry other supplements that offer more potassium iodide, but even they top at 2.5mg per tablet – again nowhere near enough – IF there were even a legitimate need.

So what is it about iodine and the thyroid that figure into all of this?  Well, the thyroid gland is a very sensitive hormone-making machine. It needs iodine to power that hormone production. It’s a greedy little organ that will gobble up any iodine it encounters. Inhale or absorb radioactive iodine, and the thyroid will readily utilize it.

Which can lead to a greatly increased risk of thyroid cancer down the road, though the degree of risk is dependent upon many factors, not the least of which is the amount of radiation one has been exposed to.

Basically, an potassium iodide supplement works by flooding the thyroid with good iodine, leaving no need for that greedy little grub to seek out and store any of the radioactive stuff. One dose of potassium iodide can protect the thyroid gland for one day. That protection lasts 24 hours and is limited to the thyroid – it won’t protect you from other dangers inherent in radiation exposure.

Finally, keep in mind that the thyroid is a very sensitive organ. In a balanced system, the body generally gets enough from a normal diet. Over-consumption of potassium iodide can cause severe health risks – up to and including death.

So, to recap: there is a valid reason to pop a potassium iodide tablet WHEN exposure to radiation is imminent – it can help shield your thyroid for 24 hours. But there are only a handful of sources of the proper dosage and they are rightfully bound for Japan, where there may actually be a need.

Speaking of need, the Cooperative Development Fund is accepting online donations to help with earthquake and tsunami relief in Japan. Look for the bright yellow box in the upper right corner of the organization’s website. And send as many healing thoughts as you possibly can to the people there.

That money will only partially pay for the ambitious multi-million dollar program. Growing Power's Will Allen has said he will seek $5 million in foundation support and additional monies form other partners.

Under the program, which has also received support from the city's African American Male Unemployment Task Force, up to 50 jobs would be created during the first year of the program, with additional positions being added over the following two years. The agricultural jobs would help in the construction of 150 hoop style greenhouses on vacant or blighted lots throughout the city.

For a thorough report on the program's goals, head over to Milwaukee Magazine's Milwaukee NewsBuzz site.

Photo of Growing Power's Will Allen by Liz Setterfield.

Their collection offers up something for just about everyone, with entrees, sides, desserts and yes, drinks. No green beer, though, these recipes often call for a hearty helping of Guinness. Gingerbread with Stout? A Guinness Milk Shake? Beef Braised in Guinness? Guinness Milk Chocolate Ice Cream?

There are beer-free recipes as well. A nice Corned Beef and Cabbage, Boxty, Easy Irish Brown Bread and even Boston Baked Beans (a nod to the Boston Irish, we guess).

Take a look before you head out for groceries. And here's our buy-local tip for St. pat's: Lakefront Brewery's Snake Chaser Irish Style Stout.  Smooth and full of roasted malt goodness.

Sláinte!

The plan, to build hoop houses and transform blighted or vacant land in the the city into farmland, would ultimately provide 150 jobs in Milwaukee's central city - where the unemployment level among adult black males currently hovers around 27%.

The proposal was submitted by a task force created by the Common Council last year to tackle the high unemployment rate in the central city but this plan offers a significant added benefit - increased access to healthy, locally grown food. You can read more about this proposal here.

A half million dollars is a lot in this economy - and Will Allen tells a Journal Sentinel reporter that his organization will probably have to raise an additional three times that amount to fund the project, but providing jobs and meaningful training whilst also tackling the problem of food deserts in inner city neighborhoods make this a pretty appealing idea.

For more than two decades now, people have added zinc to their cold-fighting arsenal, spraying it in their nostrils or throats, popping tablets or sucking on lozenges. The first scientific study purporting to show a cold-fighting role for zinc was published in 1984, though subsequent studies cast doubt on the mineral’s efficacy.

But now, after taking a look at all of the studies involving zinc that have been conducted over the ensuing years, researchers say there is solid evidence that zinc works. Zinc, taken as a lozenge, tablet or syrup at the first sign of cold symptoms, can shorten the cold by a day or more and significantly reduce symptoms. Some research hinted that regular zinc use could even help ward off colds.

This is great news – a wonderful step in the long march to eradicating the common cold. While we haven’t found the magic antidote yet, it’s encouraging to anyone feeling their first sniffles or scratchy throat to think that there really is something they can do.

Take zinc. Yay!

Unfortunately, the researchers also found much confusion about taking that zinc and offered no recommendations about dosage or even the best way to get that zinc, whether in tablet, lozenge, or syrup form (in the summer of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration warned that a popular homeopathic nasal spray containing zinc could damage or destroy the sense of smell in users and urged consumers to stop using that product).

Want to read more about the review? The New York Times article is here.

The findings are sure to get people taking another look at some troubling trends already spotted around the world. Male sperm counts are in decline and male fertility rates are dropping in many countries. Earlier research has suggested a link between some of these chemicals, labeled endocrine disruptors (for their impact on our hormone systems), and various sexual defects and reproductive health issues.

News reports on the study highlight that 16 of the 30 pesticides found to have an effect on male hormones were not previously known to be problematic, meaning we were unaware of any danger. But what may be even more troubling is that 14 of the pesticides were already known to have some effect on male hormones – and are still allowed in agricultural use.

The truth is we simply don’t know enough about the potential effects of many of these chemicals and the path to knowledge is long and expensive. The EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, designed to force the testing of pesticides and other chemicals found in drinking water and the food supply to determine the presence of hormone altering agents, has been slow to start, expensive and criticized by both the pesticide industry and environmentalists.

So, where to turn, until we learn more? The safest route would seem to be choosing organic when possible. But not all produce is equal – some conventional fruits and vegetables are dirtier than others. The Environmental Working Group has a handy guide noting the Dirty Dozen, the twelve fruits and vegetables that commonly carry the most pesticide residue. You can find that guide here.