theSheetNews.com

Photo credit: Minaret Photography, Brandon Russell

Maya Weinhart, Executive Director of the Mammoth Lakes Foundation, is thrilled to report a successful Mammoth Food & Wine Experience this past weekend. The second annual fundraising event benefiting the Mammoth Lakes Foundation and Mammoth Schools NOW Foundation saw each aspect of the two-day event’s festivities sold out. “We are still tallying the figures, but we are ahead of last year’s numbers,” stated Weinhart. There were more than 400 people at the Saturday evening Grand Tasting Event in the beautifully decorated tent on the MLF’s grounds across from Cerro Coso College. Guests enjoyed exceptional food prepared by five culinary teams, 120+ wines poured by over 30 wineries, while they listened to music provided by Chamber Music Unbound; participated in an energetic live auction by Tom Cage and Doug Filipponi of Ancient Peaks Winery, and danced to the entertaining Blue Brothers Tribute.

This year there were again five teams preparing the tasty treats for the Great Outdoor Cooking Competition, but the plan was adjusted a bit from last year to make an even greater impact in the area of education. This year there was one team of professional chefs—the “Dream Team” made up of chefs who all got their start at Wolfgang Puck’s Eureka Restaurant. The other four teams consisted of culinary student teams from Le Cordon Bleu Sacramento, Le Cordon Bleu San Francisco (whose student, Simonette Layog-Do, made all the tasty gourmet cookies that were on the dessert plates at the Grand Tasting tables); Le Cordon Bleu Los Angeles (whose team came in second); and Bakersfield College Culinary Program Students, led by Chef Suzanne Davis, who repeated as the People’s Choice Champions with their dish of Shrimp with Mint and Cilantro Pesto.

“This was the biggest event that  MLF has ever put on and will certainly grow again next year, commented Weinhart. “We had well over 400 people in the grand tasting and cooking competition and turned away another 50-100 people. The attendees were blown away by the quality of food, wine, seminars and entertainment. We hosted 13-educational seminars and all were sold out. We had a student-chef symposium with about 40 people in attendance and I think it was a real eye opener for the students as to where their careers can go in the future.”

“We extend a huge thank you to all the wineries who poured at the event,” added Weinhart. We had more wineries and more activities this year and the participating wineries stepped up. In addition to the Grand Tasting event many poured at multiple activities; there were five different Friday evening events including the Wine Walk in the Village and the seminars over the two days.”

Congratulations to the grand prize raffle winners, Albert and Lilley Miller, who won a trip to Napa with two nights at the Westin Verasa donated by the Westin Hotel Group, and complimentary wine tastings and tours at: T-Vine Cellars; Outpost Estate Wines; MA(i)SONRY Napa Valley; Regusci’s Historic 1870s Winery; Gundlach Bundschu Winery, and St. Supery Estate Vineyards & Winery, all coordinated by Chef Richard Haake of Napa who also presented a seminar.

Volunteers, Mammoth Lakes Foundation Scholarship students, guests, supporters, and staff all helped to make the Mammoth Food & Wine Experience a success. It is through the efforts of friends like these, staff, and supporters, that the Mammoth Lakes Foundation and Mammoth NOW Education Foundation are able to continue to support education and the arts.

“We also take this public opportunity to again thank all the sponsors that participated in making the second year of this major a success,” stated Weinhart. “It is through the support of these members of the community, far and wide, that it is possible for us to see a maximum return on this event, still in its infancy. Our sponsors help us continue to grow and expand, engage the larger Mammoth community and provide benefits to arts and education throughout the year.”

All proceeds from the Mammoth Food & Wine Experience support education and the arts through a partnership between the Mammoth Lakes Foundation and the Mammoth Schools NOW Education Foundation; for more information visit www.mammothlakesfoundation.org.

More than one third of low-income county residents are “food insecure”

During the holiday season, when celebratory dining is an accepted part of annual festivities, it’s easy to forget that the less fortunate among us have to cobble together dinner from whatever monetary sources are available.

A recent statewide survey found that more than one third of all low-income adults in Nevada County are “food insecure,” a situation county government officials are working to improve through a variety of new outreach programs.

According to data from the California Health Interview Survey, 6,000 low-income adults in Nevada County are estimated to be food insecure. This means that within the county, 36 percent of all adults with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (less than $36,000 a year for family of three in 2009) struggle to afford adequate, nutritious food.

Why is Nevada County’s statistic relevant? Analysts say it points to a disturbing upward trend in reliance on food stamp support.

“These findings provide evidence of what many suspected has been happening since the economic collapse began – households throughout the state are struggling to afford enough food,” said Ken Hecht, executive director of California Food Policy Advocates.

The good news: CalFresh, formerly known as the state’s Food Stamp Program, has been providing some relief for households in need. But, according to social services data, the number of individuals participating in the program on a county to county basis has skyrocketed by as much as 178 percent since 2005.

The CalFresh Program, formerly known as Food Stamps and federally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), issues monthly electronic benefits that can be used to buy most foods at many markets and food stores. In Mammoth Lakes, Vons is a participating store.

Mono County has seen at least a doubling of individuals on the program during roughly that same period.

A look back at the County’s figures over a 10-year span show that in September 2001, total federal and state valuations for the program in California amounted to $134 million of which Mono County only used $15,077. Mono County at that time had 94 households and 195 individuals in the program.

As of September 2011, federal and state valuations for California multiplied to $579 million. Los Angeles County is by far the biggest recipient, with nearly $161.5 million of that amount.

“Just to give an example of the growth in the CalFresh program, when I arrived in Mono County in March 2006, there were 243 individuals or 116 households receiving Food Stamps. In September 2011 we had 557 individuals or 338 households receiving CalFresh,” Mary Stanley, Mono County Social Services Program Manager reported.

And this year, Mono County saw its share of the total California valuation jump dramatically to $81,921.

Even with all that funding, California ranks among the worst states for participation in federal nutrition assistance, according to a California Food Policy Advocates report.

In an attempt to improve participation, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that removed most if not all barriers to CalFresh for eligible Californians. That move spurred many counties to become more aggressive in applying for state (funds) to develop programs to target low-income residents who haven’t enrolled, for whatever reason. Experts still say there are barriers to be overcome, including a historic one that many would-be applicants — including those who have lost a home or jobs, but are educated, two-parent families, with college degrees — don’t understand the requirements and assume they’re not eligible. Another barrier is the so-called “stigma of public assistance,” which can cast a shadow over families having to interface with public assistance programs for the first time.

Budget experts suggest that the increases in the funding and participation trend lines are due in part to the nationally recessed economy that began around 2006, and took hold in 2008-2009, and the upsurge in California’s general population that ballooned in the 1990s, but has since slowed considerably between 2000-2010.

The CalFresh Program’s stated goal is to “help improve the health and well-being of qualified households and individuals by providing them a means to meet their nutritional needs.” It’s recent “Making America Stronger” campaign commemorates the 30th anniversary of the reforms achieved by the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and how issuance of food stamps “dramatically reduced the extent of severe hunger in our country.”For more information on CalFresh, visit www.calfresh.ca.gov. -The Union Nevada County, California County News

By Ari LeVaux

The Obama administration struck a blow to freedom in food and agriculture late January, when the USDA (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) deregulated genetically modified (GM) alfalfa seed. The agency’s decision threatens to deprive farmers of the right to produce GM-free milk and meat, and deny consumers the right to purchase it. It also threatens the relevance of the USDA’s organic program.

And then a week later, on Feb. 4, the USDA did it again, this time by partially deregulating GM sugar beet seed.

Both announcements were great news for Monsanto, which owns both types of GM seeds — and USDA chief Tom Vilsack as well, apparently. Vilsack’s trips on Monsanto corporate jets while governor of Iowa are well documented, and his “Governor of the Year” award from the Biotechnology Industry Association was surely well deserved. Indeed, both of Vilsack’s recent deregulations were big victories for the biotech industry as a whole. And the sugar beet move is especially chilling to those harboring fears of a GM planet. The USDA’s deregulation of sugar beet seed defied an order from a San Francisco District Court demanding an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be produced before USDA deregulated the seed.

USDA deregulated it anyway. And even if the agency is ultimately penalized for this intransigence, the seed will have been planted, which is a significant gain of ground for GM agriculture-lovers.

Nearly all the beet seed produced in the country, seed for conventional and organic alike, sugar and table beets both, is grown in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. The reason? Simple: It’s the nation’s best spot to grow beets (and chard, too, which cross-pollinates with beets). If GM sugar beets are planted in the Willamette Valley, non-GM beet (and chard) plants will most likely be exposed to GM sugar beet pollen, and growers may be forced out or overtaken, voluntarily or otherwise, by genetically modified sugar beet DNA.

In the case of alfalfa, even the corporate-rights activist group also known as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that deregulated GM alfalfa presented unacceptable risks to the environment, consumers, and business. Last summer the court ruled that USDA must complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before deregulating GM alfalfa seed.

In response to this ruling, USDA dutifully held a public comment period and drafted an EIS, which contained plenty of reasons to be wary of GM alfalfa. The agency then proceeded to ignore these warnings and grant full deregulation anyway.

In choosing this path, USDA decided against the more conservative option of partial deregulation, which would have provided mechanisms for keeping track of what happens to the genes that Monsanto will be releasing into the environment.

Such oversight, at a minimum, would be a really good idea, since GM alfalfa is to organic dairy what the Trojan Horse was to Troy. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees, which have a five-mile range. When non-GM alfalfa is pollinated with pollen from GM alfalfa plants, seeds containing the lab-modified DNA sequences are produced. Alfalfa is a perennial that can generate 15,000 seeds a year and live for decades, even centuries. Once GM pollen is out of the bag, putting it back in would be like repacking Pandora’s box.

It’s a matter of when, not if, GM alfalfa DNA starts showing up in the feed of organic dairy cows. A Feb. 7 AP report said, “Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable, agriculture experts said, despite Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s recent assurances the federal government would take steps to prevent such a problem.”

When the genes escape, organic regulators will find themselves in a tricky spot: Either revoke organic certification from the “offender” — who’s actually a victim of GM contamination — or broaden organic standards to allow GM in. The latter would be a dream come true for the biotech seed industry. Thus, GM alfalfa may represent a foot in the door of the coveted organic market, which is the food industry’s fastest-growing segment.

It appears that USDA’s goal was getting both alfalfa and sugar beet seed planted as soon as possible. Perhaps the urgency, from Monsanto’s perspective, is that Vilsack only has two more years of guaranteed influence. After the 2012 election, who knows? Since beets take two years to flower, Vilsack’s golden window closes this spring. Planting now gives the beets enough time to contaminate the Willamette Valley with their pollen before the possible arrival of a new USDA chief.

Tom Philpott, food editor at Grist.org, points out that we can find a bit of comfort in the fact that, unlike the deregulation of alfalfa, the deregulation of sugar beet seed is partial, meaning USDA is supposed to monitor where the GM beets are planted and make sure the genes don’t spread.

But the genes will spread, no matter how carefully USDA and Monsanto try to prevent it. The genes will spread because that’s what genes do.

Those who oppose the planting of GM alfalfa and sugar beet seeds have two significant milestones to consider in their planning. The first is preventing the seeds from being planted. If that fails, the next and final chance will be to make sure the plants are destroyed before they flower. After that, once the pollen gets released, game over.

The court system offers the best legal opportunity to achieve one of these defensive stops, and that possibility is real. The Center for Food Safety may be an underdog against Monsanto and USDA on the GM sugar beet and alfalfa fronts, but the nonprofit is, as they say in Vegas, a live dog, and has pulled upsets before, including against the Vilsack USDA. The CFS is active in both GM alfalfa and sugar beet litigation, and contributing to its legal fund probably provides the most bang for your buck.Whatever your means, if you’re concerned about genetically modified DNA in your food, it’s time to get to work.

Syndicated food columnist Ari LeVaux can be contacted via email at flash@flashinthepan.net.

Is what they call our food what it really is?

By Ari Levaux

Whole Foods describes its non-organic chicken, produced in Pennsylvania by Bell & Evans, as “barn roaming.” This pretty term invokes images of frolicking chickens, but all we really know for sure is they’re stuck inside some kind of structure.

According to a Bell & Evans representative, that company doesn’t use “barn roaming” to describe its chickens, so I asked Whole Foods what the phrase means. A representative told me, “There is currently no clear regulatory definition of the term ‘barn roaming.’ We expect our suppliers who use this claim on their products to use a reasonable definition and we expect the claim to be truthful.”

Unfortunately, opportunistic ambiguity is typical with poultry and eggs labeling, where the number of loosely defined marketing terms dwarfs the number of legal terms. Terms like “happy chickens,” “ethical eggs,” “pasture raised,” “naturally nested,” “free roaming,” and my personal favorite, “wild hens,” mean whatever the producer or vendor wants them to mean.

It’s tempting to assume “barn roaming” means something like “cage-free,” meaning the chickens are stuck in a barn, but not locked in cages within the barn. This would be something worth bragging about if some commercial meat birds, somewhere, were in fact raised in cages. Laying hens are often caged, but meat birds aren’t, even in worst cases of confinement farming. They are, however, often crammed together in a structure, which could be construed as “barn roaming.” If so, KFC and Perdue could use “barn roaming” to describe their chickens as well. In fact, Perdue does label its meat “cage-free.” This is like calling it “chicken meat, from chickens.”

A similar bit of marketing wordplay is the all-too common claim that chickens or eggs are produced “with no added hormones*.” The asterisk, mandated by USDA in such claims, calls out a footnote explaining that no hormones are USDA-approved for chickens. Meaning, the hormone-free claim is pure smoke and mirrors.

Leslie Kline owns Good Egg Farm in western Montana. Her eggs, packaged in reused cartons with her label affixed, show an American flag’s worth of red, white, and blue hues thanks to the diverse breeds she raises. Her chickens have access to a rotating series of green pastures full of plants and bugs, and spend their days scratching and pecking.

Despite her birds’ constant access to pasture, Kline doesn’t use “pastured” to describe their eggs, “because when they step out their door in the morning they are on bare dirt, and have to make the effort, which not all of them do, to find the pasture.”

Unlike Kline, most commercial producers use any good-sounding label they can possibly justify – an easy task given the plethora of ill-defined poultry and egg labels. But there are a few terms with specific, legal meanings:

Organic means the animals are fed organic grain free of animal products, have access to a rooster (or vice versa, if you’ve ever witnessed chicken sex), and have unspecified access to unspecified outdoor conditions. Beak trimming, in which the point of the beak is cut off so the chickens won’t peck each other, is allowed. If done properly, beak trimming won’t prevent chickens from hunting in the dirt, but if the chickens are given enough personal space there wouldn’t even be a pecking problem.

Natural is a USDA term meaning no extra ingredients or colorants are added, indicating nothing about the bird’s life.

Chemical-Free is a term prohibited by USDA in this context.

Free-range legally applies only to meat birds, meaning they have unspecified access to unspecified outdoor conditions. In the context of eggs, “free-range” has no legal meaning.

100% vegetarian doesn’t mean the chickens are vegetarian, only that their feed has no animal products. Chickens will eat insects, worms, and any other form of meat they can.  And if they’re allowed outside, they will.

United Egg Producer Certified could be called “Certified Caged.” Each chicken is guaranteed 67 square inches of cage space (an 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper has 93.5 square inches).

Humanely Raised, a National Chicken Council label for meat birds, presumes that anything short of waterboarding is humane. The chickens can be crowded into dim warehouses with less than a square foot per bird.

Certified Humane, American Humane Association Certified, and Animal Welfare Approved are all third-party certifiers with no links to industry. They do an earnest job of protecting the well-being of commercial chickens. Flock density is considered in square feet per bird, rather than birds per square foot.

If you want meat or eggs from bug and plant-eating chickens that lived some semblance of a natural life, you probably won’t find them at Whole Foods or almost any other supermarket. Try the farmers market, your local hippie co-op, or seek out family farmers in your area.