Mr. Bittman is not a vegetarian

[Guest guest]

I like this paragraph:

 

 

To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of

" In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible

food-like substances " and sticking to real

ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom.

(Americans each consume an average of nearly two

pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty

of evidence that both a person's health — as well

as the environment's — will improve with a simple

shift in eating habits away from animal products

and highly processed foods to plant products and

what might be called " real food. "

 

 

 

 

March 22, 2009

Eating Food That's Better for You, Organic or Not

By MARK BITTMAN

In the six-and-one-half years since the federal

government began certifying food as " organic, "

Americans have taken to the idea with

considerable enthusiasm. Sales have at least

doubled, and three-quarters of the nation's

grocery stores now carry at least some organic

food. A Harris poll in October 2007 found that

about 30 percent of Americans buy organic food at

least on occasion, and most think it is safer,

better for the environment and healthier.

" People believe it must be better for you if it's

organic, " says Phil Howard, an assistant

professor of community, food and agriculture at

Michigan State University.

So I discovered on a recent book tour around the United States and Canada.

No matter how carefully I avoided using the word

" organic " when I spoke to groups of food

enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in

the audience would inevitably ask, " What if I

can't afford to buy organic food? " It seems to

have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with

eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically.

But eating " organic " offers no guarantee of any

of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat

so badly — we get 7 percent of our calories from

soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the

top food group by caloric intake is " sweets " ; and

one-third of nation's adults are now obese — that

the organic question is a secondary one. It's not

unimportant, but it's not the primary issue in

the way Americans eat.

To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of

" In Defense of Food, " means avoiding " edible

food-like substances " and sticking to real

ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom.

(Americans each consume an average of nearly two

pounds a day of animal products.) There's plenty

of evidence that both a person's health — as well

as the environment's — will improve with a simple

shift in eating habits away from animal products

and highly processed foods to plant products and

what might be called " real food. " (With all due

respect to people in the " food movement, " the

food need not be " slow, " either.)

>From these changes, Americans would reduce the

>amount of land, water and chemicals used to

>produce the food we eat, as well as the

>incidence of lifestyle diseases linked to

>unhealthy diets, and greenhouse gases from

>industrial meat production. All without

>legislation.

And the food would not necessarily have to be

organic, which, under the United States

Department of Agriculture's definition, means it

is generally free of synthetic substances;

contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not

been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge;

was raised without the use of most conventional

pesticides; and contains no genetically modified

ingredients.

Those requirements, which must be met in order

for food to be labeled " U.S.D.A. Organic, " are

fine, of course. But they still fall short of the

lofty dreams of early organic farmers and

consumers who gave the word " organic " its allure

— of returning natural nutrients and substance to

the soil in the same proportion used by the

growing process (there is no requirement that

this be done); of raising animals humanely in

accordance with nature (animals must be given

access to the outdoors, but for how long and

under what conditions is not spelled out); and of

producing the most nutritious food possible (the

evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more

nutritious) in the most ecologically conscious

way.

The government's organic program, says Joan

Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture

Department, " is a marketing program that sets

standards for what can be certified as organic.

Neither the enabling legislation nor the

regulations address food safety or nutrition. "

People don't understand that, nor do they realize

" organic " doesn't mean " local. " " It doesn't

matter if it's from the farm down the road or

from Chile, " Ms. Shaffer said. " As long as it

meets the standards it's organic. "

Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from

Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and

sold in the United States — no matter the size of

the carbon footprint left behind by getting from

there to here.

Today, most farmers who practice truly

sustainable farming, or what you might call

" organic in spirit, " operate on small scale, some

so small they can't afford the requirements to be

certified organic by the government. Others say

that certification isn't meaningful enough to

bother. These farmers argue that, " When you buy

organic you don't just buy a product, you buy a

way of life that is committed to not exploiting

the planet, " says Ed Maltby, executive director

of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance.

But the organic food business is now big

business, and getting bigger. Professor Howard

estimates that major corporations now are

responsible for at least 25 percent of all

organic manufacturing and marketing (40 percent

if you count only processed organic foods). Much

of the nation's organic food is as much a part of

industrial food production as midwinter grapes,

and becoming more so. In 2006, sales of organic

foods and beverages totaled about $16.7 billion,

according to the most recent figures from Organic

Trade Association.

Still, those sales amounted to slightly less than

3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. For

all the hoo-ha, organic food is not making much

of an impact on the way Americans eat, though, as

Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia

Institute, puts it: " There are generic benefits

from doing organics. It protects the land from

the ravages of conventional agriculture, " and

safeguards farm workers from being exposed to

pesticides.

But the questions remain over how we eat in

general. It may feel better to eat an organic

Oreo than a conventional Oreo, but, says Marion

Nestle, a professor at New York University's

department of nutrition, food studies and public

health, " Organic junk food is still junk food. "

Last week, Michelle Obama began digging up a

patch of the South Lawn of the White House to

plant an organic vegetable garden to provide food

for the first family and, more important, to

educate children about healthy, locally grown

fruits and vegetables at a time when obesity and

diabetes have become national concerns.

But Mrs. Obama also emphasized that there were

many changes Americans can make if they don't

have the time or space for an organic garden.

" You can begin in your own cupboard, " she said,

" by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a

meal a little more often, trying to incorporate

more fruits and vegetables. "

Popularizing such choices may not be as

marketable as creating a logo that says

" organic. " But when Americans have had their fill

of " value-added " and overprocessed food, perhaps

they can begin producing and consuming more food

that treats animals and the land as if they

mattered. Some of that food will be organic, and

hooray for that. Meanwhile, they should remember

that the word itself is not synonymous with

" safe, " " healthy, " " fair " or even necessarily

" good. "

 

Mark Bittman writes the Minimalist column for the

Dining section of The Times and is the author,

most recently, of " Food Matters: A Guide to

Conscious Eating. "