Liz On Food

Beef Pad Thai

If you're considering ways to reduce meat consumption, either for health or environmental reasons, but still have an occasional hankering for beef, try this Thai stir fry dish. Using a food processor for vegetable shredding, this recipes creates a quick and tasty one-dish meal with ample but not excess protein. One key to successful stir fry is quick cooking in very hot oil, so you need to use an oil that has a high smoking point (just like it sounds, the temperature at which the oil starts to smoke). If you're interested, Cooking for Engineers blog provides a comprehensive chart listing the smoking points of various cooking oils and fats. In this dish, I used shredded broccoli stems instead of bean sprouts. You can save the florets for another use. Broccoli is a common ingredient and keeps well, so I don't have to worry about bean sprouts going bad before I use them.

Yield: 4 servings

Preparation Time: 25 minutes

4 carrots
Stems from 3-4 broccoli bunches
1 garlic clove, minced
1/2 small onion, diced
3/4 lb lean steak (your choice of cut)
2 T safflower oil or other cooking oil with high smoking point
1 t Thai chili paste
1 T fish sauce
1 T rice vinegar
1/2 t sesame oil
2 T low-sodium soy sauce
7-9 ounces Thai rice noodles, dry
2 quarts hot water

Shred carrots and broccoli stems in food processor.

Slice steak into 2"x 1/2" strips. Mix chili paste, fish sauce, vinegar, sesame oil and soy sauce in a small bowl. Place rice noodles and hot water in a large bowl or pan. Let noodles soak while stir frying other ingredients.

Heat oil in wok or saute pan, then add garlic; cook until golden. Add onion; cook about 2 minutes. Add beef; cook about 2 minutes, stirring frequently.

Push beef to sides of pan; add carrots and broccoli, cook about 2 minutes. Add noodles, then stir in sauce mixture. Let cook 2-3 more minutes. Serve immediately.

Per-serving Nutritional Profile:
    Calories, 400
    Fat, 11 g
        Saturated Fat, 2 g
    Cholesterol, 30 mg
    Carbs, 57 g
        Dietary Fiber, 2 g
    Protein, 19 g
    Sodium, 700  mg
    Vitamin A, 210% Daily Value
    Vitamin C, 10% Daily Value
    Calcium, 6% Daily Value
    Iron, 15% Daily Value

E coli in organic, natural and conventional cattle

Sipping a brown ale, I stared at my pink burger while dining at a Boulder. Yes, the burger that was supposed to be cooked to medium doneness. I was surprised that the waiter asked how I wanted my burger cooked. I had hoped by now that rare and medium-rare burgers were off limits in dining establishments. I gingerly picked around the rare parts, considering whether I should ask for a new burger, cooked crispy charred. But we were running late for my stepson's high school play. No time for trepidation, be brave, I told myself. Nonetheless, sitting in downtown Boulder, the bastion of organic and natural foods, I couldn't help but think of a recent study about E. coli and matters fecal in cows of every persuasion: organic, natural and conventional.

In a study published in the August 2009 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, researchers at Kansas State University demonstrated the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in the feces of organically and naturally raised beef cattle to be similar to that of conventionally produced cattle in prior studies.

These findings suggest that when compared to conventionally raised beef cattle, organic and natural production systems don't affect antibiotic susceptibility of E. coli O157:H7. Although organic and natural beef are popular for their suggested health benefits, little is actually known about possible differences in food-borne pathogens associated with organic and natural versus conventional production methods.

Considering the ongoing reports of E. coli-contaminated ground beef, I am mindful food safety risks exist with ground beef, whether organic, natural or conventional. Cooking all types of ground beef thoroughly should be de rigueur. As I write this 12 hours after dinner, I'm still feeling fine. (However, illness from pathogenic E. coli typically sets in three days after ingestion.) But I'm not sure the restaurant will see me again any time soon.

Update November 12, 2009: Earlier this week the FDA released the 2009 Food Code, "a model code and reference document that provides a scientifically sound technical and legal basis for regulating the retail and food service segment of the food industry." At least one revision to the code is related to the subject at hand:

Serving hamburgers and other ground meats in an undercooked form upon a consumer’s request is no longer an option for items offered on a children’s menu.

(Source FDA press release November, 9, 20009, FDA Issues 2009 Food Code.)

The code applies to conventionally, organically or naturally produced ground meats. Yesterday evening, at another restaurant in Boulder I was, once again, asked by waitstaff how I wanted my burger cooked. Maybe I need to start ordering from the children's menu.

Vegetable Garden Costs

In April, I posted that I would be tracking costs associated with my vegetable garden to see how my plot expenses measure up to costs cited in Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Cheapskate columnist Neal Templin's article on the economics of backyard gardening. Now that it's late September when early snows loom perennially in theforecast, I'm circling back to check my 2009 gardening costs.

Templin writes, "The nonprofit National Gardening Association just produced a study -- sponsored by ScottsMiracle-Gro Co. -- that found the average family with a vegetable garden spends just $70 a year on it and grows an estimated $600 worth of vegetables." This is the basis for my comparison against the average. However, the WSJ article did not take into account the serious difference in climate between New York and Colorado; irrigation costs were ignored. But they're top of mind for me in this sun-baked region of the country. So, I was also interested in understanding how changes to my irrigation and mulching system might impact our home water usage and bills.

This year's garden investments included irrigation tubing, garden stakes, pressure regulator, cucumber trellis, plastic mulch and organic compost at a cost of $163.42. Seeds and plants total $77.95. The total is $241.37. OK, so much for beating the average, but maybe I'm a little more ambitious than the usual backyard vegetable gardener.

We moved to this home a year ago March and made do the first season with sprinkling the vegetable garden, but after some ghastly summer water bills, I decided a serious improvement was in store for the garden watering system. So this spring, my son and I installed soaker hoses and placed them on a timer. We also made a few changes to our gardening techniques, such as adding plastic mulch, planting compactly and hand tilling instead of machine tilling, all of which tend to reduce water consumption.

Now for a less-than-scientific analysis of our water usage during this growing season, compared to that of 2008: What complicates my analysis is a difference in the weather pattern from last year to this season. This year, we experienced an extraordinary amount of cool moist weather early in the growing season, so much so, that my tomatoes, pablano peppers and eggplants are still peaking. In fact, according to National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration data, Boulder rainfall April - Aug 2008 was 9.98 inches, while the figure for the same period in 2009 was 13.41 inches, 34.4% higher and close to our annual average of just above 15 inches. Also, keep in mind that our yard totals a third of an acre most of which has yet to be xeriscaped, and thus needs to be irrigated. The vegetable garden represents a small portion of our land, so much of the water expense during the summer months certainly goes toward lawn watering. Nonetheless, checking out the water numbers for eight billing cycles between April - October 2008 and the same period in 2009 is insightful, given my gardening improvements. Here's how the numbers shake out:

Costs

April - Sept 2008: $818.70

April - Sept 2009: $677.60

Actual difference: $149.63

Percent reduction in water bill same time period 2008 to 2009: 18.3%

Water Usage in Gallons (Aye, staggering but at least we're going in the right direction!)

April - Sept 2008: 164,000

April - Sept 2009: 132,000

Actual difference: 32,000

Percent reduction in water usage same time period 2008 to 2009: 19.5%

Staring at these water consumption figures measuring in the 100 thousands makes me want to jump right to xeriscaping the entire yard, but that investment would take a few years to recoup in terms of the potential savings with water bills. For now, I'll settle with our water reduction techniques in the vegetable garden and dream of a future rock-scaped garden with sedum, butterfly bushes, yucca, prickly pear, yarrow, basket-of-gold, snow-in-summer, bell flowers...The hills are alive...with the sound of...

Oh sorry, back to the vegetable garden and cost savings related to changes in water usage. While I can't attribute all of the water reduction to garden revisions (no doubt Mother Nature lent a hand this year), I more than made up for the cost of the soaker hose system (stakes, hoses and pressure gauge), which was about $100. I still have a ways to go to make it to the National Gardening Association's $70 per year average for families with gardens. That number couldn't possibly include water costs. Could it?

U.S. Hunger During the Recession

One in 8 Americans struggles with hunger, and the recession continues to take its toll. The US Department of Agriculture reports that more than 35 million Americans received food stamps in June 2009, up 22 percent from June 2008. That's a new record for food stamp participation and the trend tends to track with unemployment rates.

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a leading anti-hunger advocacy group states:

Very simply, hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food. When we talk about hunger in America, we refer to the ability of people to obtain sufficient food for their household. Some people may find themselves skipping meals or cutting back on the quality or quantity of food they purchase at the stores.

The housing crisis appears to have a significant impact on food intake for those losing homes due to foreclosure. A recent study of 250 Philadelphia homeowners facing foreclosure, almost 60 percent reported skipping meals because they couldn't afford food. Among the group, over half indicated being depressed, 37 percent had major depression and nearly half said they couldn't afford prescription drugs.

U.S. groups disproportionately affected by hunger include children, especially in homes with single parents, African Americans and Hispanics. FRAC reports the ten states with the highest food insecurity rates are Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, according to USDA 2007 data.

September is Hunger Action Month, and Feeding America has developed an online calculator to show how giving up a little could translate into meals for hungry people in the United States. So far the graph shows that the top three things site responders would be willing to give up are lunch out, dessert and gossip magazines. I'd dump gossip magazines in a heart beat over giving up dessert!

Our family recently made a donation to Share Our Strength during an anti-hunger Twitter-fest. If you're considering making a donation to address hunger in America, consider contributing to your local food bank. Or check out these prominent anti-hunger and anti-poverty groups:

Share Our Strength

Feeding America (Formerly America's Second Harvest)

Catholic Charities USA

Interfaith Alliance

Food Research and Action Center

Children's Defense Fund

Trees Down on the Farm

Some very surprising research about agricultural land and tree cover came out of the 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry being held in Nairobi, Kenya, this week.

"Although agriculture, particularly in the developing world, is often associated with massive deforestation, scientists from the World Agroforestry Centre demonstrated today, in a study using detailed satellite imagery, that almost half of all farmed landscapes worldwide include significant tree cover."

More information can be found here: World Agroforestry Centre.

Early Civilizations' Ag Methods May Have Altered Global Climate

Massive burning of forests for agriculture thousands of years ago may have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide enough to alter global climate and usher in a warming trend that continues today, according to a new study that appeared online August 17, 2009, in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews.

Researchers at the University of Virginia and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County found that today's 6 billion people use about 90 percent less land per person for growing food than was used by far smaller populations early in the development of civilization. Those early societies likely relied on slash-and-burn techniques to clear large tracts of land for relatively small levels of food production.

"They used more land for farming because they had little incentive to maximize yield from less land, and because there was plenty of forest to burn," said William Ruddiman, the lead author and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. "They may have inadvertently altered the climate."

Ruddiman said that early populations likely used a land-clearing method that involved burning forests, then planting crop seed among the dead stumps in the enriched soil. They would use a large plot until the yield began to decline, and then would burn off another area of forest for planting.

This form of rotation farming was continued as their populations grew. Humans engaged in early agriculture possibly cleared five or more times more land than they actually farmed at any given time. Only as populations grew much larger, and less land was available for farming or for laying fallow, did societies adopt more intensive farming techniques and slowly gain more food yield from less land.

Ruddiman noted that with the highly efficient and intensive farming of today, growing populations are using less land per capita for agriculture. Forests are returning in many parts of the world, including the northeastern United States, Europe, Canada, Russia and even parts of China.

However, the positive environmental effects of this reforestation, are being canceled out by the large-scale burning of fossil fuels, present since the advent of the Industrial Revolution about 150 years ago. Humans continue to add excessive levels of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, contributing to a global warming trend, Ruddiman said.

Five years ago, Ruddiman made headlines with a hypothesis that humans began altering global climate thousands of years ago, not just since the Industrial Revolution. That theory has since been criticized by some climate scientists who believe that early populations were too small to create enough carbon dioxide to alter climate.

According to projections from some models of past land use, large-scale land clearing and resulting carbon emissions have only occurred during the industrial era, as a result of huge increases in population. But Ruddiman, and his co-author Erle Ellis, an ecologist at UMBC who specializes in land-use change, say these models are not accounting for the possibly large effects on climate likely caused by early farming methods.

"Many climate models assume that land use in the past was similar to land use today; and that the great population explosion of the past 150 years has increased land use proportionally," Ellis said. "We are proposing that much smaller earlier populations used much more land per person, and may have more greatly affected climate than current models reflect."

Ruddiman and Ellis based their finding on several studies by anthropologists, archaeologists and paleoecologists indicating that early civilizations used a great amount of land to grow relatively small amounts of food. The researchers compared what they found with the way most land-use models are designed, and found a disconnect between modeling and field-based studies.

Only as populations grew larger over thousands of years and needed more food, did humans improve farming technologies enough to begin using less land for more yield, according to Ruddiman. He stated, "We suggest in this paper that climate modelers might consider how land use has changed over time, and how this may have affected the climate."

Source: University of Virginia August 17, 2009, press release.

How Organic are Foods Labeled Organic?

Inquiring legislative minds in Washington, DC, want to know just how organic those organically-labeled foods really are. The Washington Post reports on July 10, 2009:

A House agriculture appropriations bill that passed yesterday includes $500,000 for the inspector general to investigate the U.S. Agriculture Department's National Organic Program to determine whether federal standards are being properly observed before farmers and food producers are allowed to use the USDA-certified label on food products.

Adequate funding for monitoring of organic production and processing practices is key to ensuring that consumers get what they pay for when purchasing certified organic products, particularly because organic products often come with a price premium. I don't know how far a $.5 million will go to investigate the monitoring of farms and processing plants domestically and internationally, but it's a good sign that the House requesting at least some funding.

Stay tuned, the Senate version of the the bill does not yet include the same budget item.

American Dietetic Association advocates for health-care reform and natural resource conservation

On July 9, 2009, ADA president and registered dietitian Jessie M. PavIinac issued the following statement:

In these amazing times, with real reform of the nation's health-care system a clear possibility, opportunities are endless for registered dietitians in keeping the public we serve healthy.

One of American Dietetic Association's key tenets is that every American has a fundamental right to the best quality of health care available, and that this right includes access to healthy food from a sustainable food supply. ADA takes this stance seriously and it forms the basis of much of our policy work. ADA has been continuously active in the health reform debates in Congress and throughout our country, delivering the message that nutrition is the foundation of health and the cornerstone of prevention.

ADA is focusing new attention on nutrition by addressing topics at the cutting edge of the field, including nutrigenomics, obesity prevention, and issues of food systems and sustainability. ADA believes strongly it can achieve the vision of a healthier nation by ensuring its registered dietitians are well trained and actively working in these areas.

In addition, ADA's position paper, Food and Nutrition Professionals Can Implement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and Support Ecological Sustainability, strongly encourages environmentally responsible practices that conserve natural resources, minimize the quantity of waste generated, and support the ecological sustainability of the food system-the process of food production, transformation, distribution, access and consumption.

While the American Dietetic Association welcomes the involvement of other health associations in this area, it is not a new arena for ADA. As Congress debated and designed current food and agricultural policies, ADA endorsed changes which would benefit Americans and people worldwide. ADA has supported new approaches in the development, production and marketing of food that better satisfies and sustains human health, addresses hunger and malnutrition, and seeks to improve food safety, environmental quality, and resource conservation and protection.

In addition, the American Dietetic Association is a champion for food, nutrition and agricultural research. As a nation, we need to invest now in federal research so that we have knowledge and solutions to keep people and our planet healthy. ADA advocates for U.S. food and agricultural policies to ensure a sustainable food supply that is safe, nutritious, affordable and better suited for the health of Americans and the planet.

The nation's natural resource base should remain viable for use and capable of meeting peoples' food and water needs far into the future. To make tangible progress, ADA supports stronger, more effective food assistance programs, additional food and agricultural research, reforms in food safety and inspection, investment in public nutrition information and education, and the removal of farm program barriers to better diets.

The American Dietetic Association is the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. ADA is committed to improving the nation's health and advancing the profession of dietetics through research, education and advocacy. Visit the American Dietetic Association at www.eatright.org.