Text reads: You can tell if a fruit or vegetable is organic or non-organic by the PLU code. If the number begins with a 9 and is 5 digits, then it's organic. If the number begins with an 8 then it is GM. A label that with 4 digits was conventionally grown.
This picture displays a section of my science project that I did with my friend Petra. We did a project on GMOs. GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms, which means they were injected with a different animal’s or plant’s genes. All animals, humans, and plants have genes inside their cells. Their genes determine the animal, human or plant’s gender, their eye color (for animals and humans), their height, and so on. Genes are like a computer document that each human, plant, or animal has with information about itself.
What if I told you that when you eat tomatoes that are not organic, you are probably eating fish tomatoes? Eeew, right? Well that is exactly what could be in your tomatoes. The reason it could be a fish tomato is because someone took a tomato gene out of a tomato, and replaced it with a fish gene. Think of it as if genes were guts, and someone replaced your regular insides of a tomato with fish guts. When I first heard this, I was freaked out. I was even more freaked out when I heard that this GMO stuff is not labeled, and therefore, it can be in any food I eat! Then, I learned that there is one type of food that is GMO-free: organic food. Organic foods contain no chemicals, and no GMOs.
Recently, my friend and I found out that there is a way to tell if something is genetically modified, conventionally raised (grown with chemicals), or grown organically. The clue is the PLU codes. What are PLU codes? PLU codes are Price-Look-Up codes. When typed into a certain computer program, they give the price information for a product. Where do you find them? The price-look-up code is only on produce, which means apples, tomatoes, and other unpackaged fruits or vegetables. There are many GMOs that are produce, but most of them are packaged. If they are packaged, they do not need a price-look-up code. Have a look at the PLU codes, and buy organic!
By Morgan Carmen
Greetings What’s on Your Plate? Blog readers! I’m Kristy, the CSA intern at Aubin Pictures, and I’m going to be writing a series of posts investigating why organic food seems to be so much more expensive than conventional food.
By now we probably all know that organic food is better for our health, better for the environment, and better for the taste buds – yet it still makes us cringe to shell out the extra cash every time we go grocery shopping. It’s difficult to remember the benefits of organic food when you have to decide between two seemingly identical products and the organic option costs twice as much. Why does buying organic food have to feel like a splurge?
The answer is that the market price of organic food actually reflects the true cost of food.
In future posts, I will look into what the true cost of food means and how grocery store prices mislead us. I hope this can be an ongoing conversation and would love to hear any ideas you have on the subject!
More comin’ soon!
Kristy
Hi! I’m Bridget, and today I’m taking part in a one-day internship at WHAT’S ON YOUR PLATE? I’m actually in NYC for a week-long feminist intensive program, and have been very excited to come to WOYP? since I found out that I would be coming here as part of my week, because food justice and social justice are very much connected. Everyone should be able to find healthy, good foods! At a meeting earlier this week at Sista’s On the Rise I told some of the women there that I would be at WOYP? and they told me about the excitement in their community and around NYC to create community gardens so that healthy food that is accessible to everyone. They then told me about the urban rodent problem in the gardens and how much of the food is being compromised due to the rodents burrowing into the gardens and eating the crops. There are about 600 community gardens in NYC and rodents often thrive there because humans aren’t in the gardens often enough to scare them away, and the crops and seeds are easy for them to find and eat undercover. It seems that the rodents are ruining individual’s gardens as well. I could really relate to this problem because where I’m from, in a more rural area, we deal with other animals such as rabbits and deer eating the crops! So, the fact that animals are invading gardens is not just a New York problem, they just happen to be rats rather than bunnies! But, I’m really enjoying my visit to NYC and was saddened to hear about this problem that the farmers and communities are facing. Hopefully, more strategies and more groups such as Green Guerillas (a group that helps people cultivate community gardens,) will be developed to protect the gardens from rodents and to keep opportunities for healthy, fresh food available to everyone!
What do you think? Are rats our neighbors? Do they deserve to share some of our food?
courtesy of http://tastytufts.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ratatouille.jpg
This morning, on my way to the WOYP clubhouse, I saw some orange juice ads. That isn’t so unusual, of course, and neither is the fact that the orange juice was advertising itself as pure, non-concentrated, unsweetened, organic goodness, that’s what orange juice generally advertises itself as. What was interesting was that this was only the latest in an serious trend towards green, sustainable, and organic themes that I can only assume is sweeping the advertising world. Internet, I’m actually conflicted about this trend.
On one hand, it is fairly obvious that many large companies – producers of orange juice, food, and anything else that can be made sustainably – have no intention of changing their manufacturing or distribution practices to reflect anything resembling a social or environmental conscience, and the ads are disingenuous, manipulative, and exploitative of many a well-intentioned consumer. On the other hand, ads appealing to conscientious consumers could represent the growing influence of environmental and social concerns over consumer trends. Perhaps this is the start of an exciting progression, and in a few years it will be impossible to sell anything that doesn’t come with some kind of promise of sustainability. It sounds unlikely, but why not be optimistic?
Well, because lots of smart people like Heather Rogers aren’t being optimistic for some very good reasons. Heather Rogers, who has a new book out, in which she decries what she calls “armchair environmentalism.” She’s justifiably annoyed with “green” products and ideas that at best hardly do any good, and at worst actually hurt the environment. For instance, the infinitely annoying “carbon offset” credits where you can pay someone to plant enough trees to balance out all the carbon you left in the atmosphere when you rode an airline or drove your car. The trees in question won’t absorb enough carbon for a good hundred years, if they aren’t cut down before that. And personally, I’m pretty sure carbon offsets are a lot like knocking the planet in the head, and then getting it an icepack. It doesn’t change the original offense, it just sort of makes us feel better. Heather Rogers’ point, in the interview I read, is that many of these “green” initiatives, like hybrid cars and food labeling, just help us ignore the larger problems cause by the way we live. Hybrid cars help us drive more and worry less, organic labels on food help us buy more and think less about what we buy.
But let’s go back, for a minute, to my optimistic take on organic themes in advertising. I think we are in the middle of a crucial time, when the current enthusiasm for conscientious consumption can either become a shallow passing fad, or grow into a new framework for how we conduct ourselves as consumers. What companies are doing with these ads is recognizing that people want to buy “green” products, figuring out how to frame their existing products as “green,” and courting consumers with ads that present those products as “green.” What we, as consumers, must do, is seize this moment when companies are looking at sustainable values and movements, and looking for how we decide if products fit these values. If we tell them that we decide based on what their ads say, or based on whether or not their ads “seem trustworthy” (which usually means getting actors and models for the ads, and ceos for the companies, that look and act like the target market) or whether or not the product has an “Organic” label of some kind stamped on it, (another of Heather Rogers’ points: many of the organizations that certify products with those labels aren’t exactly legit, and anyway a lot of those labels were just put there by the manufacturer and don’t mean anything) if we judge products based on advertising, spokespeople that look honest, or dubious labeling, what looks like a movement now will be a passe trend before you can say “focus group.” HOWEVER, if we do our homework and judge the products we buy based on where they come from, how they’re made, and who makes them (and I mean actually look that information up and don’t buy anything unless you’re certain you know it’s whole story down to every detail) I have faith that companies will realize that consumer attitudes are changing, and that conscientious products are the only ones people want to buy.
Before I end this post, I want to mention, briefly, this bit of news: Santa Clara County, CA, supervisors have passed a law prohibiting restaurants from selling meals that contain toys for kids if those meals do not meet minimum nutrition requirements. This law sends an important message to food producers: “if you want to sell food with toys in order to lure kids, that’s fine, but we expect you to uphold a standard of nutrition for those kids, and we are going to actually test your food to make sure you do so.” Similar nutrition laws have already passed here in New York and elsewhere, but point that these laws make, and that we can all help make by carefully choosing what we buy (vote with your dollar, to appropriate a free market mantra), is that we will judge products not on their advertised qualities, but on the factual details of their origin.
It’s about time that our national policies take account of circumstances that we present to young people. It seems that we finally may have a couple of representatives working on the Farm Bill of 2012 that could improve lives for the next generation!
With both USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson speaking up about opportunities for rural youth and the financial hurdles of young farmers, respectively, we’re excited to hear what policies might come from a Farm bill that is more focused on improving future communities.
“The difficulties for rural America mean that young rural people have fewer opportunities. Without viable employment opportunities, secure healthcare, modern infrastructure, and the growth of new industries, young people are choosing to leave their rural homes in search of jobs and opportunities elsewhere.” – Tom Vilsack
“One of the issues that needs to be looked at or addressed is, are these direct payments being capitalized into land values and rents? And is that making it more difficult for young farmers to get started?” – Collin Peterson
With so much concern for the next generation, we hope that we’re asking the right questions about health, the environment, and community. If these quotes are any indication, we seem to be stepping in the right direction.
There are four upcoming scheduled meetings around the country:
Friday, April 30th Des Moines, Iowa Saturday, May 1st Nampa, Idaho Monday, May 3rd Fresno, California Tuesday, May 4th Cheyenne, Wyoming
We look forward to hearing more about what comes up in these hearings, and to finding out more about what we can do to advocate for policies that will impact our future generations.
The Eyjafjallajokull volcano and global warming link has been all over the Internet lately. People have been wondering whether if the volcano, that had wreaked so much havoc for airlines, will at least decrease carbon dioxide emissions.
As it so happens, the answer is yes, and no.
Technically, a strong enough volcano eruption could cool the earth, indirectly. Sulfur dioxide is released during large volcanic eruptions, and when combined with water vapor it produces little particles that settle into the Earth’s stratosphere. These particles reflect the light, so the sun’s radiation bounces back before ever hitting the earth, inadvertently cooling the climate. Some researchers say this may eventually be the case with Eyjafjallajokull, although it hasn’t quite been strong enough yet.
So how is it helping reduce carbon dioxide emissions? This volcano eruption is emitting 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By comparison, airplanes traveling in Europe usually emit 340,000 tons daily. The travelers that normally would have been using airplanes were now using other means of transportation, whether it be through car, train, or even boat. Its not like all of Europe has stopped moving because of airplanes. Any five days of flight cancellations saves over1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Its been a total of seven days since the plane flights have halted.
Granted, the volcano may have wreaked havoc for the unsuspecting air travelers and lost the airline industry millions of dollars. However, it did give us an insight on global warming, and perhaps these theories with volcanoes could be applicable in the future. Scientists are still researching to find out.
Just hours ago, the Center for New York City Affairs hosted “School Food Matters: Hunger, Obesity and the Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act,” a great panel discussion on the state of school food in New York City. Especially as this very week, Congress is holding the first hearings on the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act. This is a huge opportunity for school food reform, as the Child Nutrition Act dictates how schools approach the goal of feeding kids. The old act (from 2004) expired last fall, and the current hearings in congress will look at whether or not the school food system is working, and how we can make it better. There are petitions all over the internet, and sites that tell you how to contact your legislators, to let congress know how badly school lunch needs to be improved. This is a huge deal, Internet.
Anyway, the Center for New York City Affairs put together this great event just this morning, with a panel discussion featuring some big names in education and food from NYC and elsewhere. The topic of conversation was how to ask congress for what we want, and how to convince congress that a strong Child Nutrition Act is vital to the future of the country, and you can be sure WOYP was there taking notes on the whole thing.
The panel consisted of Kevin Concannon, the undersecretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services in the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Eric Goldstein, the chief executive officer for the New York City Department of Education, Office of Nutrition and Education (he was in What’s On Your Plate?); Jan Poppendieck, professor of sociology at Hunter College (City University of New York) and author of Free for All: Fixing School Food in America; Jonathan Stein, general counsel for Community Legal Services (CSL) of Philadelphia; Jim Weill, the president of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC); and Fred Mogul, the healthcare and medicine reporter for WNYC Public Radio, who acted as moderator.
The conference covered a huge range of issues, so our plan is to post in-depth about a few of them in the coming days. If anyone was actually at the conference, we’d love to hear your thoughts. Once we start posting our takes on the issues discussed this morning, we hope that people will respond with their own comments, and the blog can turn into a continuation of the discussion at the conference.
Okay, before you read any further, Internet, I want you to get a picture in your head of what school lunches looked like through the ages. Remember that the National School Lunch program started in 1946, but some schools served lunch much earlier. Okay, got the picture in your head? Check this out. It’s a girl eating a school lunch in 1936, during the worst of the depression, and it looks like she’s got some soup, an apple, a tall bottle of milk, and maybe a sandwich in that little package on her left. Unless my eyes deceive me, that’s a simple, healthy lunch made from fresh, inexpensive, (probably) locally sourced ingredients. Were you expecting some ghastly gruel-sludge? Perhaps a hamburger where the meat is dry and the bun is inexplicably soggy? That’s what I thought I’d see. How did we get where we are today? That little girl’s lunch from the depression seems like the simplest, most effective solution to feeding kids at school. What happened here?
Here at What’s On Your Plate?, we’re happy to field questions from folks interested in finding out more about issues raised in the film. Recently, Valerie from Miami, FL wrote to us:
I’m the Program Coordinator for an Environmental Center in Miami, FL. We’re having a “You Are What You Eat,” theme at our Center to teach families around the community about eating sustainably. I am creating an exhibit using a large globe that will show families where the ingredients from popular foods that they consume come from. Families will find where the ingredients from their pizza, for instance, come from and how far those foods travel to make it to Miami, FL. This information will translate into energy consumption and how many homes, schools, TVs (or whatever) could be powered if those ingredients were purchased locally. Problem is, I can’t find these statics anywhere! Can anyone point me in the right direction? I really think concrete numbers will drive this point home, and I’m hoping an organization such as yours has the answers. Please help! Thanks so much!
Nate and Mary got around to scouring the internet this afternoon to try and find some answers about how to go about measuring their carbon footprint in the food they eat. Here is what they found:
Mary says: I decided to profile Brighter Planet.com’s Footprint calculator. There’s a ton of information on their methodology page, and their calculator is really nice and makes a great stab at being comprehensive about your residence, travel and food. Since Valerie asks about food, I’ll just say that this section is made to create a profile for a person’s overall footprint. Instead of asking questions about the specific food you eat, (pizza) instead it asks you to average how much of what types of food (beef, poultry, vegetable, etc.) you eat in a diet profile. It creates calculations that are further outlined here. There’s a lot of concentration on American habits, but rating my consumption based on averaging a population made it hard to feel accurate. Am I eating more than an average amount of fish per day? Less than the average sugar/fats? Hard to know without breaking down an actual profile of the meals I eat regularly. There is another metric which gets closer to getting a more accurate foodprint: what is the percentage of food that you consume that is organic versus standard? Organics generally have a smaller footprint as they are produced without harmful pesticides, and other nasty-to-the-environment practices. There isn’t a metric within the calculator to measure how much locally produced food you consume, but there is an “action” that can help improve your overall score.
Benefits include that you can have multiple diet profiles and apply them to different times during the year. This means that you can potentially watch your footprint change over time. There is a place to checkout and pay money to offset your footprint, although we prefer making lifestyle changes to writing checks. You can also add actions to your footprint which in some cases, reduces the overall carbon profile. I even added making sustainable holiday ornaments and set my schedule to repeat once a year. I like this way to affect your resulting numbers by taking actions.
What I’d like to see is a calculator that asks me what I had for lunch today. I could then say “potato” and detail that I added butter or salt or vegetables. This would help me know about each component of the food I’m eating which helps in the overall examination. Which leads me to say: The calculator IS really good at being comprehensive about your life- I’ve never had a calculator ask me how much kerosene I use, or how many miles I fly on what kind of aircraft. I think overall, Brighter Planet makes great leaps towards making a great calculator, but lacks the right metrics to help find out how far our food is traveling/how much of a carbon footprint is on our plates. We need something more precise.
Nate says: Unfortunately, getting accurate information on where your food comes from can be a little tough. Most of the bigger companies are a little reluctant to share that kind of information with their customers. I remember calling one company and asking where my milk came from, and they said the cows were “local to my area.” I asked how they knew where I was calling from, and they put me on hold. It isn’t always that the company is trying to hide something from you, more like most companies aren’t used to the idea that people would want to know where their food comes from, so finding things out requires some patience. Strategies range from endless call-transfer loops, to indecipherable laboratory chemist/tax attorney jargon pdf’s, to simply claiming “proprietary information.” I’d suggest doing things the most straightforward and simple way: go to the grocery stores and restaurants and ask where they get their food, then follow the trail right back to the farm. You can do this on the phone, but actually showing up really shows people you’re serious. If you want generalized-type statistics about, say, where the average pizza ingredients come from, I’d actually try googling each ingredient and finding out where they tend to come from.
Wikipedia tells me that most of the world’s tomatoes come from China. Wikipedia isn’t exactly unimpeachable, but it’s a start. If you’re feeling very adventurous, try wading through the corporate websites of some of the major food distributors (I’ve been trying Cargill for the past 20 minutes: nothing so far), though they may not be forthcoming. The thing to remember is that information about where food comes from is most often highly politicized. The big point is that to find out how far your food travels, and how much energy it uses, you’ll need to do some pretty heavy research, and you may run up against some dead ends. But it is completely worth it to try and find out. The more we know about how our food connects us (and disconnects us) with the world, the better perspective we gain on the world around us.
After scratching around today, we’d like to open up to our readers. If there are any great ideas out there internet, we’d like to hear about them in the comments. Let’s brainstorm down in the feedback!
So you graduate from college and get psyched up about organic gardening and food justice. You try working on a farm and decide: yes this is for me. You enthusiastically declare to friends and family: I have found my calling, my purpose! I am going to toil in the dirt and grow beautiful, pure food!
You do some research about independent farming and . . . . WHOOA. The reality sinks in. You need serious $ to start a commercially viable farm, even a small one. Land, tools, seed, labor, insurance, and on and on.
On top of all that you have $60,000 in student loans for your lucrative Anthropology degree from an expensive University.
The economics of farming in this country are deeply skewed. Small farms go out of business every day and and it is increasingly difficult for small operations to compete with Agri Giants. As the population of farmers ages, and farms go out of business, we need a new generation of farmers to take their place.
There is a building movement to make farming a little more financially viable for young folks.
Ever heard of Public Service Loan Forgiveness or Income Based Repayment? They are two options offered by the federal government to encourage college grads to go into public service and non-profit work. Within Public Service Loan Forgiveness, remaining student loan debt is forgiven after ten years. And with Income Based Repayment, one is protected from paying more than 15% of their disposable income to repay student loans.
Farming and food activists are trying to make farming qualify as a public service in these programs. According to this article by Kimberley Hart, adding farming to the pool of public service employment could be the piece we need to make farming more do-able for a new generation.
From my own personal observations and talks with wanna-be farmers, it is not the physical labor, time commitment, or geographic isolation that deters them from trashing their laptops and picking up pitchforks. It is a real concern that you just can’t make a living as a small scale farmer.
If you want to see farming become more financially viable for a new generation of farmers, contact your representatives. You can use this handy letter to get you started.
