Nutrition article in NY Times

[nancy156]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/h...52072000&en=9c4ede381e157f7d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

I hope you find this article as interesting as I did. I've been reading everything I could get my hands on about this subject. I ordered Marion Nestle's book from the library. Singer's book is not available yet. Peter singer is the author of Animal Liberation and many others on this subject and Marion Nestle is well known for her work in nutrition as well as her written work.

Now....for the willpower to actually follow what I believe....

Nancy

 

[alsrnbsn]

Very interesting!

I am becoming more aware of organic vs. 'regular' foods. I am also becoming interested in raw foods.

Thanks for the post!

 

[delfin]

I saw that article in the Times, too. I agree with Singer that we're now in an age where food choices ARE ethical choices, particularly when we choose our eggs and meat (google Wegmans vs. Adam C. Durand for an interesting egg example!). Our family didn't eat beef or pork because of the inhumane nature of raising and slaughtering... now we're eating only beef and pork from producers who are dedicated to more humane (and organic) methods. It costs more, but I believe it will help more "ethical" producers hop on board.

 

[Beavs]

Commendable (I too purchase from a local farmer) but before we might pass judgement remember that those without extra money do not have the luxury of such choices. Ramen noodles, Kraft Mac & Cheese, and hot dogs may be the meal they can afford. This is where we need to work to achieve change in a much larger level.

 

[kathryn]

>beef and pork from producers who are dedicated to more humane
(and organic) methods.

Organic doesn't necessarily mean much more humane. For example, whether one buys organic or non-organic milk, there is still the issue of what happens to the calves produced in order to get the mother cow to lactate. Milk, whether conventional or organic, is very much tied to veal production.

Organic, when applied to animals, just deals with what they are fed (organic grains) and the fact that antibiotics and synthetic growth hormones,etc, are not given to them. It doesn't dictate how they are treated beyond that. Just like "free range" means barely anything ('cage-free' chicken may still mean that there are huge numbers of chickens housed together, who are still debeaked because otherwise they would peck each other, and 'access to the outside' may mean a small door that is opened for a few hours a day, with access to a miniscule fenced-in area that most of the chickens would never have access to).

Case in point: here's an article dealing with "organic" milk production: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/organic_milk

 

[delfin]

Yeah, I know that organic doesn't necessarily mean humane... but it's not a bad thing, either, to know that the food you're eating hasn't been pumped full of chemicals and drugs. As far as the humane goes, check out the Humane Farming Association (HFA) for some really good information.. and ways to enact legislation, too.