|
Written by Serena Weaver
|
|
Monday, 30 March 2009 |
 Here’s a new but not-surprising concept to wrap your head around: in vitro meat production. In other words: meat that is created in a test tube. “The basic technique behind in vitro meats is relatively straightforward. Stem cells are suspended on plastic or silicon sheets and bathed in a nutrient-rich soup; as they grow, the material is stretched to mimic the flexing that gives in vitro meat its texture. The result is creamy in color with a texture that falls somewhere between Jell-O and SPAM.”
That last sentence alone is enough to make me think, “No, thank you” but in its entirety, the idea irks me. I’ll give credit to the origin of the experiment; in vitro meat production started to be played around with when it was thought of as a solution to what people could eat while on extended-duration trips to space. I kind of wonder what happened to the freeze-dried food that astronauts used to eat without a problem, but that’s beyond the point. A second supposed pro to the argument for this sterile meat creation is that individuals who do not eat meat for ethical reasons can now do so; since the food was never “born,” it never has to be “killed” either. Sorry, but as someone who chooses not to eat industrially raised animals, this positive aspect of the venture still does not sound even remotely appealing. Third, those who are in favor of the production rave about how you can change the molecular make-up of the meat with in vitro technologies. With this technique, you could make fatty, red meat have the nutritional majesty of lean, white fish. My immediate quip to this comment is that the scientist who thought of it ought to read Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, wherein the author explains how food is food, not a collection of nutrients. And those were just the positives. The negatives include the high cost of the process, (which would obviously be transposed onto the purchaser,) the probably eerie taste that the finished substance would have, and the fact that there is still much work to be done before any such product could actually show itself to the shelves of supermarkets.
My conclusion: eat meat, or do not eat meat. In vitro “meat,” regardless of its pros and cons, is a figment of modern imagination and the subsequent science that forces it to stick around. Plus, how much more “unlocal” can you get? Unless each town has its own test tube, I don’t see how this venture is even remotely in tune with the values of promoting community, sustainability, and vitality.
-Serena
|
|
|
Written by Serena Weaver
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2009 |
|
 I had heard of heirloom tomatoes but heirloom beans? Come again?
From what I hear now, heirloom beans are not only an up-and-coming niche for food fanatics but they are also readily available for all. Knowing that these specialty legumes are in demand, many growers presently provide them at farmer’s markets. One site highlighted San Francisco’s Rancho Gordo, one of today’s top growers in this field. With over thirty different varietals to its name, Rancho Gordo has practically taken first place. Then again, upon further research, heirloom beans were around over ten years ago too, making room for more of their producers to take center stage. An article from January of 1998 read, “For about twenty years I have been an avid collector and grower of many beans …which I have collected throughout the mountains of North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Currently I have at least thirty excellent beans, all collected from the Appalachian area…” The author’s site is even set-up to allow you, the new connoisseur, to “select a bean” and learn more about it. Are you now as excited as I am for the new growing—and buying—season to start?!
-Serena
|
|
|
Written by Serena Weaver
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2009 |
|
 It’s a good thing people are taught that appearances aren’t always as they seem. You would think that with the increase in the price of food, your local farmers would be making a greater profit. The correlation makes sense and most reports are showing that in fact, growers have been seeing greater sums of late. However, this increase doesn’t translate into profit for the majority of middle-range family farms. Studies show that they “…actually saw lower incomes from farming operations in 2007 than they did in 2003, with high costs and reduced government support outpacing the rise in income from higher crop prices. The only reason their household incomes were higher was an unprecedented rise in off-farm income. According to USDA data, only the largest farms were able to gain from high crop prices. Now, with crop prices falling faster than the prices for inputs, many farmers are in crisis.”
Also thankfully, a great many Americans know that they can do anything they put their minds to. The Boston Globe released an article around the same time as the study above, giving several suggestions for how the U.S.D.A. can turn this crisis into a more commendable situation. A few of the specifics? The Department of Agriculture could use the stimulus package to provide small- to mid-size farmers with the money they need to stay in business. It could reinstate fairness as an operating force by revaluating the practices, prices, and credit ratings that such growers receive. Let’s keep our minds open and our eyes aware and with hope, the people that we can credit with feeding us will continue to be able to do so, and for a profit as well.
-Serena
|
|
|
Written by Karen Beauford
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2009 |
  Say what you will about celebrities but this one got something right. Lindsey is sporting a Onna Ehrlich Handbag that is not only super trendy but also made in the USA. The California-based company is sold online as well as in some of southern California's most upscale stores like Kitson and Fred Segal. Onna Erlich is steadily becoming a must-have for many Hollywoods girls of the moment. The line features bright colors and subtle understated embellishments that are just right for your favorite everyday bag. I am hoping to add the Amber clutch to my spring wardrobe. Check them out!
--Raven
|
|
|
Written by Serena Weaver
|
|
Saturday, 28 March 2009 |
|
“U.S. lawmakers will need to choose between supporting rich farmers or feeding more hungry children amid a slumping economy and a surging deficit,” Vilsack said just a few weeks ago. Wow. Those descriptions aren’t meant to sway individuals into siding with the kids, are they? The Secretary of Agriculture’s case in point is that with limited funding, farmers who are already making sales of over $500,000 per year don’t need the additional assistance of America. Rather, it is the 36 million young people who go hungry in this country every year who do. By allocating a proposed total of $17 billion to nutrition programs for children, Vilsack hopes to steer spending in a more positive direction than it had been going in the past.
On the other hand, supporters of the “rich farmers” assure skeptics that many growers who gross $500,000 are family farmers, not heavy-pocketed industrial producers. And, chances are, these small farmers of sustainably raised foods would be more of an asset to nutrition programs than the money that would go directly to the latter. All of a sudden, the line doesn’t seem quite as clear cut as Vilsack made it out to be. 
-Serena
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 46 - 54 of 1257 |
