Fwd: [Food-news] Michael Pollan on America's Eating Disorder

[Guest guest]

> *www.foodnews.ca*

>

> *Editor's Note: Michael Pollan, author of /The

> Botony of Desire/, has a

> new book out -- /The Omnivore's Dilemma. /In a

> recent interview with

> /Alternet/ he discusses some of the themes of this

> book including

> various approaches to organic and how they differ

> from one another and

> convention food production. Does a free range

> chicken sold at Whole

> Foods experience the same quality of life as one

> from a local ecological

> farm? Are there ways that we can grow food and even

> raise meat that are

> good for the earth? How is it that Americans consume

> a ton of corn each

> year and, aside from questions of health, why is it

> risky to be so

> reliant on one crop?

>

> For more about Michael Pollan and his publications,

> visit:

> http://www.michaelpollan.com/*

>

> http://www.alternet.org/story/35084/

>

>

> America's Eating Disorder

>

>

> By Blair Golson, Truthdig

> Posted on April 19, 2006, Printed on April

> 25, 2006

> http://www.alternet.org/story/35084/

>

> It became obvious to journalist Michael Pollan in

> the summer of 2002

> that America had a national eating disorder. That

> July, /The New York

> Times Magazine/ published an article titled " What if

> It's All Been a Big

> Fat Lie? " which reported that a growing number of

> respected nutritional

> researchers were beginning to conclude that perhaps

> Dr. Robert Atkins

> had been right all along: Carbohydrates, not fats,

> were the cause of

> America's obesity problem.

>

> Almost overnight, in Pollan's estimation, bakeries

> went out of business,

> dinner rolls in New York restaurants went the way of

> the pterodactyl,

> and pasta became regarded as a toxin.

>

> " These foods were wonderful staples of human life

> for thousands of

> years, " Pollan told Truthdig, " and suddenly we've

> decided that they're

> evil. Any culture that could change its diet on a

> dime like that is

> suffering from an eating disorder, as far as I can

> see. "

>

> Pollan was well placed to make such an observation.

> The previous year,

> he had published a critically acclaimed,

> best-selling book called /The

> Botany of Desire

> <http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/B00005N5LA>/,

> an

> examination of humans' relationships to plants, and

> how plants shape

> human societies as much as we shape them. His

> writings on the natural

> world and food stretch back to the late 1980s. Early

> in his career, he

> was an editor at /Harper's/ magazine, and since 1995

> he has been a

> contributing editor at /The New York Times

> Magazine/. Over the years he

> won a gaggle of writing awards and fellowships from

> environmental, food

> and journalistic organizations, in addition to

> publishing two other

> books, on gardening and architecture.

>

> So when Atkins-mania achieved terminal velocity in

> the summer of 2002,

> Pollan started to wonder whether it wasn't time to

> ask some fundamental

> questions about a country so apparently susceptible

> to the whims of a

> fad diet. Pulling together the threads of stories he

> had written in the

> past decade on topics ranging from the ethics of

> vegetarianism to the

> dangers of over-reliance on corn, Pollan set off on

> a journey to answer

> a deceptively sophisticated question: " What should

> we have for dinner? "

>

> The search for an answer found expression in

> Pollan's just-published

> book /The Omnivore's Dilemma/

> <http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/1594200823>.

> The title refers to

> the quandary faced by animals like humans (and rats

> and cockroaches)

> that, in order to stay alive, must choose from the

> bewildering array of

> edible and non-edible substances. We /can/ eat a

> lot, but what /should/

> we eat?

>

> The subtitle of his book is " A Natural History of

> Four Meals, " which is

> Pollan's way of describing his exploration of four

> types of food that

> eventually terminate in some kind of human meal:

> food that he himself

> grew and hunted; organic or " alternative " food

> (found at farmer's

> markets); industrial-organic foods (much of the

> stock at Whole Foods);

> and industrial, or processed, food (the snack or

> cereal aisles at

> Safeway). Through this series of " food detective

> stories, " the author

> found things to cheer and things to fear about the

> ethical, biological

> and ecological ramifications of the American way of

> eating.

>

> Truthdig managing editor Blair Golson recently spoke

> with Pollan from

> his home in Northern California, where he is the

> Knight Professor of

> Journalism at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of

> Journalism. He discussed

> how the omnivore's dilemma had returned in the

> unlikeliest of places;

> the truth about so-called " free range " chickens; and

> how in the world

> food manufacturers can get away with labels that

> read: " This product may

> contain one or more of the following.... "

>

> *Blair Golson:* The omnivore's dilemma is typically

> associated with

> animals in the wild that have to choose between food

> that will either

> nurture or kill them. What's the relevance of the

> term to modern human

> society?

>

> *Michael Pollan:* Out in nature, if you're a

> creature looking for

> something to eat, you might see some attractive

> looking red berries and

> think to yourself, " I wonder if I can eat those

> without getting sick?

> And what about those mushrooms? " Well, the same

> thing is happening in

> the supermarket. There are many tasty things, some

> of which can kill

> you. Trans fats, for example, or all the sugar we're

> eating.

>

> So we're back where we were once upon a time, trying

> to navigate a

> treacherous food landscape -- full of attractive

> things, but some of

> which are liable to shorten our lives.

>

> *BG:* Is that what prompted you to write the book?

>

> *MP:* It was a gathering sense that Americans --

> myself included -- had

> gotten deeply confused and worried about what they

> were eating and

> unsure where to turn. To read the newspaper over the

> last couple of

> years is to read one story after another that makes

> you wonder if the

> way you've been eating all these years is such a

> good idea -- for

> yourself or the planet or the animals.

>

> Just reading the coverage of mad cow disease was an

> incredible

> educational experience. For example, we read that

> you've got to stop

> feeding cows to cows. It's like, " What? We've been

> feeding cows to

> cows? " And we've got to tighten up those rules about

> feeding chicken

> litter to cows. " We've been feeding chicken crap to

> cows? "

>

> If you read those stories, it made me realize that

> the system by which

> we're producing our food is not one I feel very good

> about participating

> in. So I began looking into the food chain and

> alternatives to the main

> industrial food chain -- doing what I think of as a

> series of food

> detective stories, and much of what I learned in

> these detective stories

> was astonishing to me, and forced me to re-approach

> the way I shop for

> food and go about eating it.

>

> *BG:* Like facing up to the realities of shopping at

> Whole Foods?

>

> *MP:* Yeah, I use the term " supermarket pastoral "

> for the experience of

> shopping in a place like that. Whole Foods, they're

> brilliant

> storytellers. You walk into that store, and it just

> looks like a

> beautiful garden, and there are pictures of organic

> farmers up on the

> walls, and little labels that describe how the cow

> lived that became

> your milk or your beef, and the cage-free vegetarian

> hens who got to

> free range.

>

> They're creating in your minds an image of a farm

> very much like the

> ones in the books you read as children -- with a

> diversity of happy

> animals wandering around the farmyard. It's very

> cleverly designed, but

> unfortunately like a lot of pastoral forms of art,

> it's based on

> illusions. Not entirely, but if you go to the farm

> depicted on those

> labels, you find that in fact, things look a little

> bit different.

> Organic milk might be coming from a dry organic

> feedlot where 500 cows

> are milling around and never get to eat a blade of

> grass. I have a

> feeling that's not what the consumer thinks they're

> getting.

>

> *BG:* Does the same thing go for free-range chickens

> and eggs?

>

> *MP:* It's very interesting. Free-range chickens --

> I did go visit a

> large organic chicken producer here in California,

> and if you look at

> their label, there's a farmstead with a little silo

> and a farm house and

> a farmyard and chickens running around, but if you

> go to the farm, the

> chickens are grown in these huge barracks as long as

> a football field.

> They're indoors, there are 20,000 of them in a

> house, and running along

> this barrack is what looks like a little front lawn

> -- mowed, maybe 15

> or 20 feet deep.

>

> There's a little door at either side of the barrack

> where,

> theoretically, chickens could step outside and take

> the air. But they

> don't. One reason is that the doors are closed until

> the chickens are

> about five weeks old. The farmers -- if you can use

> that word, the

> managers -- are concerned that the chickens might

> catch their death of

> cold or pick up a germ, so they don't open the doors

> until the chickens

> are five weeks old.

>

> They smother them at seven weeks; so it's not

> exactly a lifestyle. It's

> more like a two-week vacation option. And the

> chickens don't avail

> themselves of this option because they've never been

> outside before.

> They're /terrified/ of going outside. First of all,

> it's not big enough

> for the whole flock. Second of all, the food and

> water is inside;

> they're not used to it; they weren't brought up this

> way.

>

> They're like the cat in the Manhattan apartment;

> when you open the door

> they just stand there in terror wondering about the

> other dimension of

> reality outside that door. Free range is a conceit.

> It's to make us feel

> better about these chickens. It's not doing anything

> for the chickens,

> as far as I can tell.

>

> Yes, that organic chicken is still a better product,

> I think. It's

> getting better feed, it's got a few more inches of

> legroom than a

> conventional chicken, but it's not all it's cracked

> up to be.

>

> *BG:* And hence your efforts to find places that

> /were/ all they were

> cracked up to be...

>

> *MP:* I went looking for a better model of farming

> -- a truly biological

> or ecological farm. They are out there. There are

> people doing amazing,

> visionary work. And the one I chose to focus on is a

> farm called

> Polyface <http://www.polyfacefarms.com/>. And it's

> run by a man named

> Joel Salatin and his son, Daniel. They grow six

> different animals on 100

> acres of open land and another 400 of forest. And

> they do it in this

> very intricate rotation, so that on one day, the

> cows are on a pasture.

>

> Then they wait a couple of days and the chickens

> come in. They eat all

> of the grubs out of the manure, which takes care of

> the farm's problem

> with flies and disease, and they spread that manure

> in the process of

> doing that, and they fertilize it with their own

> manure to keep the

> pastures very healthy.

>

> Then the chickens move out and another animal moves

> in. This rotation

> going through the farm several times every season,

> and the result is a

> great deal of high-quality food, but also, most

> astoundingly of all, an

> improvement in the environment of this farm. There

> is more top soil,

> more grass, more fertility than there would be if

> nothing were being

> done here.

>

> That is a very significant achievement, because it

> belies this basic

> American idea that our relationship with nature is a

> zero sum game -- by

> which we all assume that for us to get what we want

> from nature, nature

> is diminished. This farm is saying, " No, that is not

> necessarily true.

> There is a way to get your food from the earth in

> such a way that it

> leaves the earth improved. "

>

> To me, that's an incredibly heartening message; it

> says we're not this

> pest species in nature, that we really have a

> contribution to make.

>

> *BG:* Is there any evidence to suggest that that

> model is spreading?

>

> *MP:* It's not about to take over American

> agriculture, but there's a

> very strong movement to put animals back on grass,

> get them off of feed

> lots, and sell grass-finished meat. Grass-fed beef

> is growing very

> quickly, and I find it a very hopeful development.

>

> *BG:* But didn't you write that places like Polyface

> can't ever hope to

> make money supplying the biggies like Wal-Mart or

> Whole Foods because

> those places only buy from mega farms?

>

> *MP:* You have to get out of the supermarket,

> basically. The supermarket

> is not going to support this world in the long run,

> I don't think. But

> the supermarket is not the only place to buy your

> food. There are very

> many good alternatives -- the farmers' market being

> the most obvious.

> But also CSAs -- which stands for

> community-supported agriculture --

> where you essentially join a farm and every week you

> get a box of

> produce. People are buying really good grass-fed

> meat over the Internet.

>

> *BG:* If you're someone living in a major

> metropolitan city, and you

> wanted to eat in the healthiest way, patronizing the

> most ecologically

> friendly food purveyors -- setting aside cost for

> the moment -- how

> would you shop?

>

> *MP:* I am that person. I've joined a CSA, so I get

> a box of produce

> every week. I also go to the farmers' market. I have

> found some

> producers of things like beef that I buy in quantity

> and keep in my

> freezer. But I also find grass-finished beef -- I'm

> kind of lucky here

> in Northern California -- I can find it in local

> markets. So I do a

> little bit of many different things. And it's a

> little easier to do here

> in California than in others places. Our farmers'

> markets are open 12

> months a year, and that isn't true everywhere.

>

> But I also get on the Internet and find interesting

> food. There are

> terrific websites. There's the Eat Well Guide

> <http://www.eatwellguide.org/>, where you put in

> your ZIP code and it

> tells you about local farms doing interesting

> things. The other thing to

> do is to visit local farms and establish a personal

> connection, if you

> have the time and the inclination. I find that

> incredibly interesting. I

> like knowing farmers who are growing my food.

>

> But all of us are going to take this to different

> degrees. I don't think

> it's all or nothing. I still go to the Safeway. I

> still stop at Whole

> Foods every now and then. And many people don't have

> the time or

> inclination to put any more work into it, and so

> maybe Whole Foods is

> fine, and maybe they've got a lot of money, because

> Whole Foods is

> really expensive. And that helps. The kind of

> farming that Whole Foods

> supports is better than conventional farming.

>

> All I'm suggesting is that you can take it to the

> next step if you want.

> And the next step is incredibly rewarding, because

> the quality of the

> food is so high, and the kind of stewardship going

> on is very impressive.

>

> But like I said, it's not all or nothing. We have

> three food votes every

> day -- that's more votes than we have in most other

> aspects of our

> lives. And if you used one of them in a way that

> supported a change --

> an alternative food chain, that's a big

> accomplishment. That's enough to

> create these alternatives and make them more

> accessible and probably

> cheaper as well, as more people use them. You can go

> whole hog or just

> dip your toes in, but either way, I think it's a

> very important food

> vote you have.

>

> *BG:* Sure, we have votes; but as a society, we seem

> to vote most often

> for fad diets. Why are Americans in particular so

> susceptible to those

> kinds of appeals?

>

> *MP:* I think it is because we're not anchored by a

> single, stable food

> culture, that we're really vulnerable to messages

> from marketers,

> messages from scientists, and we're willing to throw

> it all out every

> few years.

>

> *BG:* What do you mean a " stable food culture " ? Do

> you mean the

> immigrant, melting-pot aspect of America?

>

> *MP:* Yeah. Since we didn't have one national kind

> of cuisine, and one

> sort of eating rules, the result has been a diluted

> food culture that is

> much more vulnerable to marketing. If we had a

> stable food culture that

> had a consistent set of answers about, " This is what

> you eat, and this

> is how you eat it, " I think we'd be much less

> vulnerable to a news

> article saying, " Fat is good, carb is bad. "

>

> *BG:* But surely there's more to the erosion of a

> healthy food culture

> than our immigrant roots?

>

> *MP:* The food marketers deserve a lot of the blame

> for this. When you

> sell a product like Go-Gurt, or a nonfood like this

> new stuff called

> " Gu " -- which is a pure nutrients in a gel that

> athletes are supposed to

> use, but that kids are taking in their lunch boxes

> -- you're destroying

> something.

>

> You're destroying the idea of people eating

> together. If you're selling

> products designed to go in the cup holder, you are,

> not intentionally,

> but effectively destroying the idea of people

> sitting at a table across

> from one another and eating. We don't eat together

> as families nearly as

> much as we once did. Twenty percent of meals are now

> eaten in the car.

> Food marketers are barraging us with messages about

> what we should eat.

>

> New food products are redefining the eating

> experience. Your

> great-grandmother wouldn't recognize a Pop Tart or a

> tube of Go-Gurt, or

> know what to do with it. So we've changed the way we

> eat more in the

> last 50 years than probably in the thousand years

> before that -- at

> every level: in the farm, but also in the market. So

> all this has

> contributed to this confusion about what we should

> eat. Of course,

> because before you figure out what you /should/ eat,

> you need to figure

> out what you /are/ eating.

>

> *BG:* Which, it turns out, is a ton of corn.

> Literally. You write that

> each of us is responsible for eating approximately a

> ton of corn per

> year. How could that be?

>

> *MP:* Most of it is hidden from view, because most

> of that corn is

> passed through animals first. We eat corn in the

> form of chickens and

> pork and beef and eggs and milk. Almost all the rest

> of it is highly

> processed. It's in chicken McNuggets. Not just in

> the chicken, but in 13

> out of the 38 ingredients there -- the additives,

> the various corn

> starches, the various oils, the oil it's fried in.

> It's kind of a hidden

> food chain. And it's not just corn. There's a lot of

> soybean in our

> food, too.

>

> But the way our food system works, is we take these

> very simple

> commodity crops -- that the government heavily

> subsidizes, by the way --

> and we break them down into their constituent

> molecules, and then we

> reassemble them in the form of proteins,

> carbohydrates and fats in

> highly processed foods: snack foods, chicken

> nuggets, Coca-Cola. We eat

> something like 56 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup

> sweetener every year.

>

> When you're drinking that soda, you're really

> drinking quite a bit of

> corn. So we should worship the corn plant, because

> that's what's

> supporting us right now. We don't, because we don't

> realize we're eating

> it. The Mayans, who called themselves the corn

> people, had a healthier

> sense of their indebtedness to this one plant.

>

> *BG:* What are the ramifications of relying so

> heavily upon one crop?

>

> *MP:* The last people to rely so heavily upon one

> crop were the Irish in

> the 19th century who ate potatoes and nothing else.

> This wasn't very

> good for their health, and when the potato crop

> failed in 1845, a

> million of them died. In general, it's a really bad

> idea to put all your

> eggs in one basket.

>

> Nature doesn't work that way, and we are leaving

> ourselves open to risk

> from the devastation of the corn crop from some new

> microbe or

> terrorism. As a health matter, we're omnivores. We

> do need those 50 or

> so different chemical nutrients, and you're not

> going to get them from

> processed corn. Processed corn is the building block

> of the fast food diet.

>

> And that diet, we're learning, is leaving us

> mal-nourished, even as it

> makes us fat. There are kids showing up in clinics

> in Oakland with

> rickets -- very well-fed, over-fed kids who are

> suffering from nutrient

> deficiencies. That's from eating too much processed

> corn.

>

> *BG:* Do you think we need new rules applied to food

> labeling? Either

> from the government, or maybe from the industry

> itself? Are labels the

> answer?

>

> *MP:* I think labels are important. They are a

> substitute for people

> actually being able to meet farmers and go to farms.

> But I think there

> are a lot of other changes at the federal level that

> would help. Our

> food system is not a creation of the free market.

> It's a combination of

> a set of rules combined with the market. And those

> rules are dictating

> the fact that, for example, cheap corn and soybeans

> are the predominant

> ingredients in our food supply.

>

> Because we subsidize those calories, we end up with

> a supermarket in

> which the least healthy calories are the cheapest.

> And the most healthy

> calories are the most expensive. That, in the

> simplest terms, is the

> root of the obesity epidemic for the poor -- because

> the obesity

> epidemic is really a class-based problem. It's not

> an epidemic, really.

> The biggest prediction of obesity is income.

>

> *BG:* You write about resistant starch, a new starch

> from corn that is

> virtually indigestible, which means it goes through

> the digestive track

> without breaking down and turning into glucose. Does

> this mean it

> doesn't add any calories to our waistline?

>

> *MP:* That's right. This has been the holy grail of

> food science for a

> while: to allow people to eat endlessly without

> getting full or fat.

>

> *BG:* So how do you feel about this new substance at

> first blush?

>

> *MP:* I think it's a crazy idea. In the same way

> Olestra was a crazy

> idea. Olestra was an oil that passes through your

> system, but people

> rejected it because of other things it did to your

> system. Did you ever

> read the warning label on Olestra? It warns of anal

> leakage. I find this

> very unappetizing. This is going to be a very novel

> food; and we don't

> know what it's doing to us.

>

> The food we have, the food we have had, is perfectly

> fine. I get an

> enormous amount of pleasure in eating the carbs that

> are already out

> there. I don't think we need this. I think this

> serves the food

> marketers more than us. I suppose for obese people

> looking to lose

> weight, it'll be useful to them. But sell it with a

> prescription.

>

> *BG:* We gotta ask: Why do ingredients labels say,

> " This product may

> contain one or more of the following... " How can the

> manufacturers be

> unclear about something like that?

>

> *MP:* They're not unclear. What they're doing is

> keeping their options

> open. So that on a given day, they can use any fat

> -- they could switch

> from soy to cottonseed to corn oil, depending on

> today's market

> conditions. That symbolizes a food that is highly

> processed. The reason

> you process food is so that you're not highly

> dependent on any one raw

> ingredient, and you want to be as far removed from

> dependence on the

> corn market or soy market as possible. You engineer

> your foods so you

> could substitute any one ingredient for another.

>

> *BG:* After all you've seen about the way that

> animals are grown and

> slaughtered, what moral calculus do you use to

> continue eating meat?

>

> *MP:* I'm a limited carnivore. I only eat meat that

> is grown in a way

> that I feel morally comfortable with. And that's not

> a lot of meat. But

> I've found a few producers whose practices strike me

> as defensible. I

> also think that there are always trade-offs when we

> eat. Even vegans

> inflict collateral damage on the environment. Many

> animals die in row

> crop agriculture -- not just in animal agriculture,

> and we have to

> remember that.

>

> Animals are going to die so that we many live. And

> then you have to

> think about which animals, and how. And I think

> animals coming off of a

> humane farm where they get to live as their

> evolution dictates -- cows

> on grass, for example -- is better for them and for

> us than if they

> never lived at all. Domestic animals only exist to

> the extent that we

> eat them. There would be no pigs, no chickens, no

> cows as we know them,

> if people weren't eating them. I don't see

> domestication as something

> we've imposed on other species. I see it as a

> co-evolutionary

> arrangement, where the animal gets something out of

> it as well.

>

> You can't domesticate a species just because you

> want to. There are many

> species who have refused to be domesticated. The

> ones who have are the

> ones who gain something from the relationship. And I

> think that's true

> even of the animals we are eating. Many animals

> depend on their

> predators for the health of their species.

>

> I also think you can make a very strong ecological

> argument for eating

> meat. As I described earlier, the sustainably-raised

> meat is

> ecologically a very positive thing for the

> environment, for the

> grasslands. There are many grasslands that are

> diminished for not having

> ruminants on them. And ruminants need predators to

> be healthy, and we

> are those predators in cases of certain ruminants.

>

> And without animals on farms, you'd need artificial

> fertilizer, because

> you wouldn't have manure to compost. So I think

> truly sustainable

> agriculture depends on animals in relation to

> plants. And if we took the

> animals out, I'm not sure we'd like the result. I

> don't think the vegan

> utopia, from an ecological standpoint, is very

> sustainable.

>

> I also think that if you didn't have meat

> agriculture, there are many

> places in this country and this world that would not

> be able to feed

> themselves. I'm talking about hilly places, places

> where grass grows,

> but where you can't grow crops. You condemn people

> in those places to

> eat off of a very long food chain. I'm thinking of

> New England: without

> meat protein, you'd have to eat off the Midwest.

>

> *BG:* Finally, what did you mean in writing that

> we're not only /what/

> we eat, but /how/ we eat, too?

>

> *MP:* At the end of the industrial food chain, you

> need an industrial

> eater. What you eat, and how you eat are equally

> important issues. There

> is a lot of talk and interesting comparisons drawn

> between us and the

> French on the subject of food. We're kind of

> mystified that they can eat

> such seemingly toxic substances -- triple crème

> cheeses and foie gras,

> and they're actually healthier than we are.

>

> They live a little bit longer, they have less

> obesity, less heart

> disease. What gives? Well, according to the people

> who study this: It's

> not what they eat, it's how they eat it. They eat

> smaller portions; they

> do not snack as a rule; they do not eat alone. When

> you eat alone, you

> tend to eat more. When you're eating with someone

> there's a conversation

> going on, there's a sense of propriety; you don't

> pig out when you're

> eating at a table with other people.

>

> So the French show you can eat just about whatever

> you want, as long as

> you do it in moderation. That strikes me as a

> liberating message. But

> it's not the way we do things here. We have a food

> system here that is

> all about quantity, rather than quality. So how you

> eat is very, very

> important, and to solve the obesity and the diabetes

> issue in this

> country, we're going to have change the way we eat,

> as well as what we eat.

>

> /Blair Golson is the managing editor of Truthdig

> <http://truthdig.com>. /

>

>

> View this story online at:

> http://www.alternet.org/story/35084/

>

> --

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> WHO WE ARE: This e-mail service shares information

> to help more people

> discuss crucial policy issues affecting global food

> security.

> The service is managed by Amber McNair of the

> University of Toronto

> in partnership with the Centre for Urban Health

> Initiatives (CUHI) and

> Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Policy Council, in

> partnership with

> the Community Food Security Coalition, World Hunger

> Year, and

> International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture.

>

> Please help by sending information or names and

> e-mail addresses of

> co-workers who'd like to receive this service, to

> foodnews. To or , please

> visit http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/food-news.

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> > _____________

> food-news mailing list

> food-news

> http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/food-news

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________

food-news mailing list

food-news

http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/food-news