Skip to content

Fritters of another color.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

From the first time I made zucchini fritters last summer I knew I would be hooked on endless variations. Zuc season is now here and the fritters fry again.

With already a couple batches made, I wanted to change things up. Not just with the veggies involved, which I did, but with the overall texture. The last time we ended with with sort of savory pancakes, with a thick batter

They were tasty but they just didn’t take us the way a fritter can. The were doughy, when they should be mostly veggies, almost juicy, fried up crispy.

To make this latest batch I decided to take out the flour and add much more pink. Specifically I had about seven small beets that were lovely looking a few weeks previous when gotten at the farmer’s market. But as always with beets, I just never got around to using them. My neighbor and I were talking about this love of the beet flavor but the lack of inclination to actually get the kitchen stained magenta and do something with them. Now that I had let them get a bit deflated I thought fritters might be the motivating medium.

I came across this nice blog and she had a very similar issue and solution. Her recipe also solved the heavy batter problem, only using about 1 tablespoon of flour for every cup of veggie hash and 1 egg for every two cups. I also used this recipe which had similar proportions. Knowing that I will have different amounts of veggies every time this was a good ratio to have in mind.

I actually ended up with about three cups beets and three cups zuc and used just a touch more flour because I was impatient with the drying out process.

With zucs from the garden and the market beets this made for a cheap and delicious four servings. I saved half the batter for another dinner.

The resulting batter was hardly batter at all, but I would say something closer to hashbrowns. Yum.

They are so meaty and bright they almost look like hamburger

 

Served up with the evening’s other project of basil pesto

One other change for me in this process was using olive oil to fry. I have been educated by friends on the ways in which my high-heat canola oil might not be consistent with my overall value and health standards for food. I tried to defend it with the issue of olive oil’s low smoking point. But in the interest of adapting to new information I tried to see if I could fry with enough heat that wouldn’t make the olive oil smoke. I heated the pan, then added the oil and worked quickly. For the first time I didn’t let the pan get too hot and all the fritters fried up well.

It’s difficult to get the middle of the fritter fully ‘done’- they certainly don’t get crispy through and through. I’m not sure they need to. With the less doughy batter I had better results as I sometimes felt like I was eating raw batter- but this time I just got a crispy crust and a juicy middle, which I can live with.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

sea captain sourdough waffle barbeque

Monday, June 9, 2008

 

We happened to be graced with an extraordinary waffle iron. So extraordinary that there is no room for it in our kitchen- which would, like the waffles made this morning, do well out to sea, being just about boat sized. The means that the waffle iron lives outside, and waffles are made on the porch- thus the title of barbeque is only fitting.

 

 

The recipe for these particular waffles came from this breadtopia comment exchange

 

It’s a special approach because of the amount of sourdough starter called for. But I appreciate that it doesn’t require night-before preparation and the more I cook with sourdough the more starter builds up, so this is a good way to use up any active starter not needed for another recipe.

For this and our more common buttermilk batter we always add cinnamon.

 

Here is the story behind the recipe, which seem worth sharing, see ours below it all:

January 31, 2008

Jon @ 12:33 am

I’ve been using this receipt for almost 30 yrs.

2 (or more) cups of starter

1 Tbs. sugar
1 egg
1/2 tsp salt.
2 Tbs. veg. oil

mix well, set aside.

From this batter, spoon out what you need for the waffle into a mixing bowl.

In a shot glass, mix 1/8 - 1/4 teaspoon baking soda and a small amount of water, stir to dissolve the soda. Then gently fold this into the mix. It will start to become light and airy. Pour onto waffle iron (or griddle for pancakes). These will be very light.

Repeat the shot glass/soda mix for each waffle.

The soda controls the lightness. If very sour, use a tad more soda. If you use too much soda the waffles will taste somewhat bitter.

It’s great with pure maple syrup.

breadtopia @ 6:51 am

Thanks a lot, Jon. This looks great. I added a mention of this above so people can find it easily enough. After you mix up the initial ingredients and set aside, does it matter how long you set it aside for?

Jon @ 2:24 pm

Unlike other recipes where you mix milk & flour, this recipe uses 100% starter for the base of the batter. There is no need for it to be set aside to rest after mixing in the egg/sugar/salt/oil. The baking soda causes the leavening.

I was trying to emphasize that you have 2 bowls, a bowl of batter and a bowl that you put a small amount of batter into and then fold the soda into it before pouring it onto the hot iron or griddle.

If you add the baking soda to the entire batter all at once then the entire batch will rise and become airy as it is folded in. Then as you bake waffles, a rather time consuming task, the batter will deflate, settle, and become flat before you finish using it. So you only want to fold soda into what you are going to immediately cook. Thus the main batter is kept free (set aside) of baking soda so it doesn’t go flat over the time it takes to cook each waffle.

This is especially useful if you are baking for many people over an extended period of time. In my previous life as a Sea Captain (I recently retired) I would cook pancakes for the crew on Sundays if we were at sea (I like to say my sourdough is world-famous since it’s been all over the pacific rim). Breakfast lasts 1 hour so crew would come trickling into the galley over that period of time as some got ready for work and others got off work. That is how I found out that using the soda on only the amount of batter I was immediately cooking would keep the pancakes light. Since most folks are used to heavy flour pancakes they were pleasantly surprised at the lightness. They resemble crepe’s. I never cooked waffles on the ship because it took too long. I use the same receipt for waffles & pancakes. I do the waffles at home. The sourdough is from potato water that I first started in 1975 (and kept alive since) after a trip to Alaska where I discovered sourdough pancakes in a Ketchikan diner.

Jon

I intend to keep my starter alive and well as long as this captain did.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (3)

popped, baked, skillet toasted

Friday, May 9, 2008

I don’t want corn fed to the cows I eat or get milk from. I also don’t want corn as fuel. I don’t want corn sweetened food or drink. I would also prefer less corn in the Farm Bill. But these limits still leave many positive, healthy, and delicious options for our powerful giant mutant grain.

I seriously love to snack. Snacks that crunch are the most satisfying- and though I should, I don’t really opt for crunchy snacks straight from the ground. Thus the snack is usually what tempts me into the middle of the store where (as M. Pollan observed) the food is less food like and always lives in boxes and bags. Two counts against The Snack from my tally of what I feel I should buy and eat. Enter popcorn, popped on the stove! No clunky appliance that only does one thing (boo), nor “popcorn lung“, nor any magnetron radiation (what?!)

Heavy tallish pot with a lid, Canola Oil to pop, sprinkled with tamari, nutritional yeast, and salt. Done! Yum!

When I first started popping corn on the stove I measured the oil, put in a few kernels to test when the oil was hot then poured in a measured amount of corn. Now I just put it all in a once without measuring. I just leave it until it’s done, sometimes a shake or two if I’m feeling ansy.

Pretty much all foods are better homemade than from a package. There are some foods however whose packaged versions are almost unrecognizable to the home-cooked version. This is true for the tortilla. In this case, the corn tortilla.

Using just masa harina (versus fresh masa) and water makes a very forgiving dough that can be pressed and cooked in a few minutes.

I haven’t yet acquired a tortilla press, and honestly wouldn’t have room for one, so I just used parchment paper and a small cast iron skillet. This makes a thicker tortilla, but I enjoy their toothy-ness and it’s honestly easier to pile on toppings.

The only thing to keep in mind with the dough is to keep it covered with a damp cloth while working since you don’t want it drying out.

 

I grew up eating a lot of corn bread.* My mom has always made a hearty version in a ceramic baking pan. In my simple kitchen I use the cast iron skillet for as many things as possible, which works well for this, since corn bread seems to love a hot skillet in which to bake.

 

Corn bread is still something I am trying to get right. I’ve made corn bread a number of times and with butter and honey (or also molasses and peanut butter as some enjoy) it’s great, but on it’s own it is pretty dry. I used Alice Waters’ recipe for this one and added flax meal. Next I will try using sourdough starter and see if that improves things. I don’t think I want it cakier, but I know it would be better with more moisture.

*(Post Mother’s Day update: apparently we ate a lot of cornbread because we ate a lot of beans. My parents are vegetarians and my mother did her homework on how to feed a family without meat. This is done most successfully by understanding the concept of amino acids and the combination of low-quality or less complete proteins to create high quality, full, or complete proteins. Eating corn with beans was one way to do this. See this page, from Dimensions of Food, for the lowdown and note that two of the references for this page are the books my mom used to create her complete proteins meals, Diet for a Small Planet and Laurel’s Kitchen)

 

 

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Reforms to the factory farm model- lower prices and higher costs

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Recently an outstanding report was released that addresses the societal costs of our current system of producing animals for food. It was put together over two and a half years by the Pew Charitable Trust’s Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. The confined operation model of the corporate meat industry is credited for the low price of animal protein in this country. At a time when food prices are at an all time high, and stagnant wages are stretched to cover the increasing cost of living, it may not seem realistic to call into question the production methods that make food so cheap.

However, taking a step back from the low prices reveals the true costs of the current food animal production processes. More and more we are becoming aware of the external costs of the things we consume. We are becoming more critical about what we are really paying for- what did the company have to do to save me money on this product and am I in fact going to pay the difference somewhere else?

According to the Commission’s report, Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) saves money by disregarding public health, environmental realities, animal welfare, and the economic well-being and quality of life of the communities in which they operate. While consumers benefit at the check-out line from these cost-cutting measures, we make up for the savings dealing with the problems these measures cause. Not to mention the distortion of price created by subsidies.

This Washington Post article (which links to the Commission’s full report) identifies…that the “economies of scale” used to justify factory farming practices are largely an illusion, perpetuated by a failure to account for associated costs.

While the Commission limits its recommendations to those that are realistically achievable through the current system it is clear that the ultimate goal is to transition to a completely different system, based not on the guidelines of industry but of ecology.

It should be clear by now that arguments to maintain the status quo of the food animal production system in the interest of keeping down prices are untenable. It is clear that as prices go down, larger societal costs go up. As The Post states, the viability of the present system is suspect and the Commission’s report can make a clear case that, indeed, organic, local food systems would not only relieve problems in the three areas addressed by the report, but also have a positive impact on national and international food insecurity and rising costs. Because instead of relatively poor and sick people paying corporations low prices for industrially produced food we would have moderate income, healthy people buying food from their healthy, economically stable farmer neighbors.

This is the concept of food sovereignty, and it is gaining support and momentum, particularly because of its grassroots, low-income focus (rather than say the slow food movement which is more focused on foodies and people who are already familiar with and can afford or choose to buy into the local and organic systems)Food First, an established food think tank here in Oakland, provides a useful follow-up to the Commission’s statement in a explanation of their work in building local agri-foods systems:

Dismantling the industrial agri-foods complex at the local food system level must be accompanied by the construction of alternatives that suit the needs of small-scale producers and low-income consumers, worldwide. Farmers Forging Food Sovereignty focuses on farmer alternatives to corporate control over production and consumption. (more here)

Numerous examples of the viability of local food systems exist from the thriving farmer’s markets to this very local neighborhood micro-market in East New York. How food animal production would look on this scale is another question- it’s much more desirable to grow tomatoes on an empty city lot than process animals for meat. (Upddate: Meat CSA’s!) But a scaling down of the present system is clearly necessary and total-cost effective.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

Granola-what’s so hippie about it anyway?

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Making my own granola feels like I’ve really stepped into serious hippie stereotype. But we have to have something to eat our delicious raw milk with, and after buying it there isn’t much left for expensive packaged cereal. Even bulk granola is for the hippie elite, and too much sugar for us.

So I went for other more affordable parts of the bulk section putting together dream cereal.

I used this recipe as a guide, but my ingredients are different, as it should be. I thought it might turn out too sticky or oily or clumpy- but it was just right- one more thing I normally buy packaged that I will now make myself.

First mixed the grains, nuts, seeds only:

This includes 3c oats, chopped almonds, pumpkin seeds, flax seeds, sunflower seeds. These are mixed with 1/4 c of canola oil and a 1/2 c of honey. (The tip is to do the oil first, sloshing it around in the cup, coating the sides, before pouring into the mixture- then measure out the honey in the same cup and it all slides out easily, no sticking at all- genius.)

Then toasted brown and very fragrant (too fragrant to resist!)

this one shows the toasty-ness better:

Then mix in the fruit. This is a good process- some recipes cook the fruit, but it’s already dried and additional heat just makes it tougher, so I hear. I used raisins (cheap) and dried apples (a homemade gift- thanks Martha and David!)

Continue to mix gently as it cools so it doesn’t clump.

 

 

Enjoyed with some raw milk and fine reading material!

 

 

Mark Bittman with the NYT minimalist blog, which I do love, has a cute granola video- with a similar hippie identity dilemma- check it out, but note, he doesn’t use the genius oil then honey trick!

 

 

 

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (2)

Milk is only as ‘green’ as the grass it comes from

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Therefore milk coming from cows not raised on pasture, having grass (on or off pasture) as the sole (or at least primary) source of feed should not be considered ‘green’- or organic.

Cows were not meant to eat anything but grass- the fact that they are forced to eat grain in confinement is disturbing but is unfortunately only one assault of many on short lives of factory farm animals. So I keep this post and my disturbance to this issue limited to the fact that there are certified organic cows eating grain in confinement. Since if you’re already choosing to pay more for organic because you are, like me, appalled that ‘there are no federal animal welfare laws regulating the treatment of the billions of animals raised for food while on the farm’ (read more) and should at least be getting the processes you’re paying for.’Grass-fed’ and ‘pasture raised’ are not easily identified qualities of dairy products. It is getting somewhat easier with beef since the benefits of leaner red meat have been acknowledged and there are grass-fed options in some super markets. But these phrases have no certification process associated with there hasn’t been the kind of demand for labeling, like with the growth hormone. But I believe the time for the ‘pasture raised, 100% grass fed’ label has come.

So, who would get this lable? All organic milk? As most would correctly assume, no. Before being able to buy Organic Pastures‘ raw milk I bought a glass bottled, non-homogenized milk that was almost as delicious. Before access to these I bought Organic Valley. I always wondered about them. Especially after reading Omnivore’s Dilemma and realizing the truth to Pollan’s observation that organic food comes with a story- a narrative about the food’s creation- that isn’t always honest.

So what is the story behind these organic milks? Some are organic in name only and squeeze through loopholes to receive their certification and rely on only a few truths, no growth hormones or antibiotics or pesticides, with which to spin their happy cow tales.

The Cornucopia Institute created a comprehensive report card that helps organic milk buyers choose brands that are true to the organic certification and live up to the creation stories on their cartons. I also highly recommend reading the full report to understand how the brands like Horizon have developed the oxymoronic organic factory farm, and thus undermine the integrity of the certification:

‘At least four sections in the organic regulations, if considered together, make it quite clear that organic dairy cattle are intended to be pasture based.’

Also, on the report card, be sure to click on the brand’s name link to learn more about the score.

Organic Valley scores well and their website has good information on the benefits of pasturing. They also created this great billboard:

But besides the fact that a cow’s purpose is to eat grass, so it should do this even when we make its purpose to be produce milk, and that confined feeding has overwhelming waste streams to the surrounding environment, there is a direct personal health reason to choose a brand of organic milk that raises its cows on grass- better milk for your body:

‘Grass fed dairy products contain an increased amount of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid). Nearly six times as much. CLA is a naturally occurring “good” fatty acid produced in cows and found in their milk. According to Positive Health studies have also shown CLA to promote muscle growth and fat burning in the body. This means CLA, found in increased quantity in milk from grass fed cows, may help you lose unwanted fat and build a leaner body. Consider this: since cows manufacture CLA from grass in their stomachs, commercially-raised cows that only eat soybeans or corn meal produce little, if any, CLA.’

(more here)

This report found that

“grass-fed beef and milk contain higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, the so-called beneficial fats. Grass-fed milk tends to be higher in an omega-3 fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) that scientists have demonstrated reduces the risk of heart disease. Both grass-fed milk and ground beef are also higher in CLA, a fatty acid shown in animal studies to protect against cancer…”Raising cattle on pasture is essential to maintaining higher levels of good fats,” said Clancy. ‘Even partially replacing grass with grain can reduce the levels of beneficial fatty acids in meat and milk.’”

The natural healthfulness of organic, grass-fed milk (even without being raw) are, I think, unknown to the general public- because all the “Got Milk?” campaign could tout is calcium and protein- because that campaign comes from the IDFA, primaryily concerned with conventional dairying, which does not produce the beneficial fats of milk from grass.

This lack of information allows Horizon milk to market a product that wouldn’t need to exist if they followed the true spirit of the organic regulation and produced milk that is pasture based. They have made a line of milk with added DHA, omega 3, failing to mention in their information page on the benefits of Omega 3 that if they fed their all their cows less grain and more green, they could leave get their milk supplement-free from truly happy cows.

Horizon is certainly better than choosing conventional, but when choosing organic- grass is always greener.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

traveling with your sanitized gut

Monday, April 28, 2008

Keeping track of the raw milk controversy has peaked my interest more in the sort of puritan relationship we have with the bacteria in the world and in our bodies (if we can call them that, with 90% of our cells being of other microorganisms). Advances in antibiotics have saved lives and expanded life expectancy, but they seem to have also made us so sensitive to our environment and the battles that play out in our gut and our immune system.

This is particularly clear when we travel. We are not well-suited to deal with the microorganisms we come in contact with when we travel to places that may not serve the kind of sanitized food we are used to. The list of thing experts advise to avoid leaves travelers with little option to try the local eats, particularly homemade.

Advice on what not to eat abroad (most things apparently) as well as an antibiotic response to stomach upset while traveling is discussed in this NYT article.

Then it mentions this: “Part of the blame, ironically, rests on our sanitary eating habits at home, which leaves American stomachs ill-equipped to withstand the types of bacteria that those in the developing world grow immune to.”

I was ready for the author to chide the developed world for leaving their guts so fragile misunderstood, creating many problems for digestion at home and without natural defense abroad. But sadly, this follows and we don’t return to the sad state of our badly supported flora and fuana:

“Some experts say that travelers can level the playing field by taking an antibiotic called Xifaxan.”

What?

And then they throw out this as if totally harmless: ““It’s not like we had anything that worked before,” Dr. DuPont said. If diarrhea-causing bugs eventually prove resistant to Xifaxan, he adds, doctors can just ‘throw it out.’”

Oh. It’s fine we’ll just get rid of good bacteria in your belly and when we’ve weeded out the weak ones of the bad guys, leaving the most powerful to breed, we’ll just come up with some other horribly un-pronounceable micro-life nuker.

The reliance on antibiotics ignores that we rely completely on our flora and fauna to live, see this story from my esteemed colleague.

This Washington Post article addresses the possibility of benefits to stocking up on the good little guys rather than trying to start tabla rasa in a new place. It’s very cautious and doesn’t discuss the broader public health benefits of resisting the anti option.

I would be very interested to know whether or not people living in parts of the world where Americans get sick have upset stomachs themselves when they travel to places with different food processing standards (including other developing areas). Do they not get sick when they come here, and if not is it because we have cleaner food or because they have more going on in their guts?

You can find me in the mouth and gut of healthy people.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

Sunny Day Dutch Oven Bread

Friday, April 18, 2008

My experience with so called “no-knead bread”, the article I got the recipe from, and your subsequent experience baking this bread is like an endless mirrors in mirrors of people wanting to make perfect “artisan bread” and then, yes, doing it in their own kitchen. It’s like some kind of carnival promise really coming true.

The author of this article (thanks to Sarah for sending) started off in the same dreamy situation I was when reading it- how to make the kind of bread I really like to eat, crusty out/chewy and bubbly in, in my own kitchen- is it even possible. Is artisan bread, just that- for experts with powerful ovens?

The answer lies in this “no-knead bread”- which I am deciding to call Perfect Dutch Oven Bread and here’s why. “No-knead” carries the same tone as “lite” or “no cook lasagna”. Like either too convenient to really work and be as good as the long version or it includes something gross and processed.

This no-knead title isn’t misleading, you don’t knead it…but is that really the inconvenient part of bread making? I think it’s the time involved with the rises- and no knead bread takes that to another level. 18 hr proofing followed by a 15 min rest and another 2 hrs of proofing. Luckily “proofing” just means sitting there, so it really is easy in that there aren’t a lot of steps but you have to plan it out so that when you have time to make your dough you also have time 12-18 hrs later to actually be making bread for 2 hrs. Again, not doing much but involved in the task. What’s special about this recipe isn’t that you don’t knead the dough, but that you cook it in its own tiny super-hot oven- the dutch oven you had all along!

But no, it isn’t a convenient recipe. The pay off is that the bread out of the dutch oven is fabulous and the results exceed the amount of actual work done. Not in a “your friends will never believe you made it from a box” or “your husbands family will never know you made them instant coffee” kind of way- but close. My grandparents got the first loaf and I got the full “where did you buy this…what?! you made it!?!” reaction. Which was totally gratifying.

So the Mother Earth News article was the inspiration and motivation, but I also had been wanting to make sourdough with my starter i got recently (thanks to Martha!). So I looked to combine both exciting bread endeavors. And I found the answer and great tutorial here:

http://www.breadtopia.com/sourdough-no-knead-method/

I can’t really say more, because I watched the video, did just what he told me- happy that he approaches the whole production with some flexibility- and I got this:

With sourdough the whole process is even less convenient. Getting the starter active a day before you make the dough, then you make the dough and let it sit for another day- then three days from when you started you have perfect bread. That’s just how it is. The first batch I made had bigger holes. I proofed this one for 18+ hrs and the other for only 12, but I think that dough was wetter. It’s a little different every time depending on the mood of my starter and I’m happy with the variation.

I would like this breadtopia guy to give some tips on storage since the crust looses it’s perfect crunch and it didn’t come in a bag…so what should I keep it in?

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (3)

Spend less money on quality food- buy less food

Monday, April 14, 2008

Is this too obvious? Apparently not since the smart way to shop for food is to get more for you money. I compare unit prices too and want the best deal. I’ve just decided to incorporate external costs into this calculation. The quick run through is;how was it made, how did the production of this thing impact the land, and the people and/or animals involved, am I paying for packaging or food, am I paying for the preparation of the stuff or the food (like am I better off making my own).

The answers to these questions usually lead me to either more whole or bulk foods, which tend to be cheaper (especially with the farmer’s markets) or to something that is more expensive than any of the other choices. This usually happens with dairy products, the best example being the price I pay for milk.

We have chosen to buy only raw milk, which is unpasteurized, from grass-fed cows. The grass-fed milk has Omega three fats and the raw is good for our guts. (see post below)We could decide that because of our budget we could buy twice as much regular organic milk for the price of the raw, and maybe four times as much of the conventional type. But first we prefer to vote with our (few) dollars- I simply can’t support the industry that produces the mass amounts of conventional milk- bad for the land, cows, and me- I don’t really need that much milk that isn’t contributing anything beneficial to me except some protein and added vitamin d (all available elsewhere). We simply buy a half gallon per week. I will also opt for less or none of something else to be able to buy this delicious milk.

This works out for a lot of the products which I choose to pay more for. I can still fit them into my budget by simply buying less. When deciding to put some ground grass-fed beef in some spaghetti sauce I can ask the butcher counter for 1/4 lbs. A whopping buck and a half and plenty of organic meaty sauce for two (Spaghetti sauce is one of the first things I decided I would never buy from a jar)

With nice cheeses I do the same. I ask the cheese counter to cut the cheese down to the price I’m willing to pay- and savor what I get.

This doesn’t mean I just buy smaller amounts more often as we only go to the store once a week. We also only buy one or two non-meal items a week (snacks etc)

If there is hesitation to buy less, and opt for the cheaper less sustainable products, think how much food goes to waste. Is all the food bought actually prepared and eaten? If not, you should buy less regardless of what you buy.

Also, there isn’t much debate on the fact that we eat too much in general. There are more than just personal cost savings in reducing the amount of food we consume.

Cutting down on food waste by using what all you buy and buying less to begin with will save the amount spent on the better food.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

raw and risk

Monday, April 14, 2008

At the grocery store yesterday I was asked for my attention to a political issue. Not outside from the people with clipboards, but from my milk. That is because we buy real, raw, grass fed milk. And the stuff is the subject of much controversy.

I am lucky enough to have access to Organic Pastures milk, which is unpasteurized. The benefits of raw milk for the drinker, because of the helpful microorganisms, and for the cow and the earth, because of the cleanliness producing raw milk necessitates, are well documented and much information can be found on the OP links page, news page, and their FAQ. The owner of Organic Pastures is passionate about his products and the right to choose real, raw milk. Thus, my milk got political, donning a yellow flyer asking for support in the upcoming California State Senate hearing; Fresh Farm Milk-Assuring Safety and Consumer Choice. A joint hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Select Committee on Food-Borne Illness.

This call to action was well timed- just after reading a great article in latest Harper’s “The Revolution Will not be Pasteurized” by Nathanael Johnson who visited McAfee’s farm. Johnson discusses some of the looming policy changes threatening the production and sale of raw milk by limiting the coliform bacteria in bottled raw milk to the same levels required of pasteurized milk- a requirement that could not be met and allow the milk to remain raw.

Johnson’s article tells the shocking stories of the legal and forceful police action taken against raw milk producers. What is fascinating and frustrating about the cases of raw milk producers is how they are singled out as health risks in an industry where unhealthy animals, land, and consumers are the norm.

What is scary about milk is not the bacteria inside it but the conditions of the cows producing it and the fact that the diet fed to conventional (and organic) grain fed cows has created the harmful bacteria this legislation is trying to prevent.
Johnson’s article get high praises from me for reminding readers that we humans are in fact 90% bacteria. Yet even with this knowledge the general public and the medical and food industries has a relationship with the biotic world that is misguided and militaristic.

Why would the production and sale of raw milk pose such a threat the milk industry as a whole? There can easily be different policies for different types of products. They can easily identify good bacteria from bad (organic pastures tests for pathogens.) It boggles the mind to know that without the efforts of the few farmers like McAfee raw milk, with proven health benefits, would be banned nationwide and yet products which have only negative health impacts, none beneficial whatsoever-like tobacco- can freely cross state lines and the thousands of products made with harmful chemicals are circulated on the shelves.

What are the industries pushing this type of legislation really afraid of? Will our government ever significantly support products and production processes that don’t seem to be slowly killing us?

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (3)