How I Spent My Christmas Holiday: Watching Foodies Confront the Emerging National Food Safety Regimen
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 07:45PM
If you’re Jewish, Christmas tends to be a very quiet time. Without a Christmas tree, stockings over the fireplace, and presents to open, you tend to feel more apart from American culture than any other time of the year. On top of that, nearly everything you might do that day for entertainment, like shop, or go to a museum, or go out for brunch, is impossible, because nearly everything is shut tight. If you live in a big city, there are usually two options: go to a movie and out to eat at a Chinese restaurant, since Chinese restaurants, for some reason, stay open. If you live in a small city or town, and you’re not near a ski area, you just stay home.
I had a special opportunity this year to have a different kind of Christmas by attending a food conference. Yes, a conference, beginning on Christmas Eve and continuing until Dec. 27. It was, not surprisingly, a Jewish conference, a Jewish foodie conference, to be precise, run by Hazon, a Jewish environmental organization. I was invited to participate on a panel with other writers and bloggers assessing how the media’s treatment of food issues is changing. I wasn’t sure I wanted to attend, since I’ve been traveling a fair amount, but when I learned it was being held at a resort overlooking the Pacific in Monterey, CA, well, that sealed the deal.
So, anyway, I arrived last Thursday, and sure enough, it was as beautiful as advertised. Nor was I alone—there were more than 600 attendees. Asilomar is both a conference center and state park. It was built mostly in the early 1900s, and so has lots of interesting dark wood meeting places, as well as guest rooms with fireplaces and without televisions and telephones. It’s set amid sand dunes, and is a short walk down to the Pacific, with its huge roaring waves and rocky coast.
One of the first things I did after registering was read the conference schedule, and was surprised to find a two-page spread entitled, “Food At the 2009 Food Conference”. I was surprised because it was amazingly candid reading, capturing in microcosm the underlying issues of the food safety debate that’s been going on in Congress over the last few months, and will most likely conclude sometime in the next few weeks with new legislation that increasing numbers of people associated with local and sustainable food feel will be draconian. I decided the best way to present it here is simply to excerpt from it, since it is so well constructed; it makes for a longer-than-usual blog posting, but bear with me. It starts as follows:
“We would like the food we serve to reflect the highest values to which we aspire. So we would like to provide food that is delicious, consciously prepared, local, organic, healthy, ethical and kosher. We want to demonstrate—ideally—that these values can all be attained. If or when they can’t be, we want to explain why.
“Those of you who were at the first or second Hazon Food Conferences, in 2006 and 2007 (at an East Coast retreat center), got to experience the extraordinary food we were able to serve…In 2007 on Friday night we ate kosher meat from goats that were raised (at the retreat center) and that we schechted (slaughtered) that morning. It was an appropriately intense experience for those who were there, and entirely consonant with our desire to provide transparency and education in the food that we eat.
“Moving the Food Conference to Asilomar has been a blessing in many ways. We have traded the East Coast winter for the beautiful Pacific Ocean…Happily, we have been able to meet most of our standards, including the following:” It then lists and describes them—kosher, seasonal, organic, not processed. Now we get to the “but” phrase.
“But this year brought some specific challenges that we feel it is important to share. Asilomar is located within a California State Park, and the conference center is managed for the state by a private contractor. Between last year’s Food Conference and this year’s, the management contract changed hands, and in September a company called ARAMARK took over the management of Asilomar. In 2008 ARAMARK had sales of $13.5 billion and profits in excess of $1 billion. That a lot of food. And a company that size naturally has systems and procedures about how it sources the food that it serves.”
The piece then quotes from the Aramark web site about how, “We strive to offer clients and customers fresh whole foods that are raised, grown, harvested, and produced locally and in a sustainable manner whenever possible…” (I couldn’t find this actual segment online.)
The program guide continues: “That’s a pretty good policy. But in practice, we have had a series of problems in the period leading up to the Food Conference. The main ones are in relation to two other key values for us:
Conscious. We intended to source and serve local pasture-raised chickens from Green Oaks CreekFarm in Pescadero, about 80 miles north of Asilomar. Some of us had already visited the chickens that we would have served this Friday night, and were thus able to attest at first hand that they were well-tended chickens. They were to be schechted by…a young kosher slaughterer, under the supervision of (a rabbi) and plucked and kashered by conference participants…as we did last year. This year, ARAMARK’s regulations prevented us from doing that. Understanding that meat is an important part of many participants’ traditional Shabbat celebration, we decided instead to serve Empire kosher organic chickens on Friday night. Empire’s chickens are raised on small family farms and are fed vegetarian and organic diets. But they are killed in Mifflintown, PA, and obviously we know less about that than would have been the case at Green Oaks. The fish that we are serving is wild salmon from a sustainable fishery.
Local. ARAMARK requires that food suppliers meet particular documented safety standards—standards that smaller farms often don’t have the infrastructure to provide. As a result, although we are delighted to be able to serve foods from at least ten local organic farms, we were not able to accept produce from some of the farms that had offered to donate produce. The following donations that were offered to us were not acceptable according to ARAMARK’s food safety standards…” The program then lists nine suppliers that were prepared to donate 500 pounds of apples, 500 pounds of cabbage, 25 dozen eggs, 230 pounds of squash, and 325 pounds of trout, among other items.
“Last year our volunteers picked up donated food and delivered it directly to Asilomar. That way they were a living connection in the journey from farm to table. This year…that food will have to go via distributors…
“You could argue that these are small issues, and in some ways they are. And if these policies were not in place, and someone at our food conference got salmonella—for instance—ARAMARK as the operator would potentially expose themselves to liability by not having appropriate procedures in place…
“But Blue Greenberg, one of the leading orthodox Jewish feminists, once said, ‘where there’s a rabbinic will, there’s a halachic way.’ What she meant is that Jewish tradition is rooted in halacha, Jewish law, and people often think of it as unchangeable; but if and when the rabbis wanted to change the law, they very often found a way to do so.
“We think that’s a good analogy for the food sourcing procedures at Asilomar—and, by implication, in thousands of other ARAMARK facilities around the country…”
Ah, but it was not to be. As it turned out, ARAMARK did not bend. How was the food? Let’s just say that a good Jewish mother or grandmother would not have been happy about the unevenness of the meals. For example, ARAMARK ran out of main courses at the first dinner (an uninspired mix of tofu and green beans)—latecomers (I among them) wound up with an even less inspired plate of barley and canned mushrooms. Similarly, a breakfast of lox and bagels was missing the bagels—many attendees were clearly unhappy with the rice crackers that substituted…and the lox ran out after about 20 per cent of the guests had been served—the rest had to settle for smoked trout.
The chicken at the Friday evening Sabbath dinner was okay, but certainly not nearly as good as the local pastured chickens would have been. Interestingly, many of the chicken thighs and legs were undercooked, which is a great way to spread salmonella. And let’s just say the chocolate pudding dessert would have embarrassed moms of all religions—it was grainy and had attendees making some serious sour faces. Granted, making pudding without milk or cream is a challenge (no dairy products are allowed to be served with meat at kosher meals), but one can ask in response whether pudding was the best choice.
There were a few excellent meals. One lunch salad of wild salmon and greens was very well done, as was a breakfast of French toast stuffed with apples and blueberries.
But by and large, attendees were disappointed that a foodie conference’s food would be so ordinary and institutional. The last day’s lunch plate of a scoop of mashed potatoes next to a scoop of rice with lentils seemed to put an exclamation mark on the frustrations of trying to serve local produce when half your vendors are disqualified under arbitrary safety regs. As a rabbinical student put it to me: “It all had a very corporate feel to it.”
To Hazon’s credit, not only was it upfront in its program guide about the food mess, but it scheduled a special panel discussion that included organizers of the food component of the program to explain further what happened, and to answer questions. To ARAMARK’s credit, its manager at Asilomar showed up and took questions.
I inquired what the problems were with the disqualified donors, and it turns out the biggest issues were that they didn’t have HACCP plans and traceback procedures. These are among the big requirements of the new food safety laws pending in Congress (HR 2749, SB 510).
What happened at Asilomar is exactly what critics of the pending legislation have argued is going to happen nationally. Small food producers will have a very difficult time complying with the new law’s requirements. While those who were barred by ARAMARK have other options, once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration essentially takes over ARAMARK’s role, there will be no other options. You either comply, or go out of business.
What hasn’t been anticipated so widely yet is what happens after smaller producers are run out of business. I fear that what will happen is that our food options will diminish, and we’ll be forced into ever more of the institutional quality food that the ARAMARKs of the world would prefer we eat.
Reader Comments (69)
Wrong.
These rules will just further push some producers, the ones with passion, guts, and a true morality, further underground, and will actually create a increased market for alternative food production. Business will be trickier....but farmers are a resourceful group.
The right for people to procure their own food supply is unalienable, and the government will have a tough time giving justification for controlling, in total, what one can or can't eat. Once they start putting farmers in jail for making high quality food, they won't be able to hold back the tide they've created.
Again, the key he is for many groups and organizations to be pushing for the right of a citizen to contract directly with a farmer for their food, and give the people the option of 'opting' out of the special interest influenced governmental regulatory agencies. Farmshares is the way...just let those politicians try and tell people why they can't own and interest in a farm.
PS Thanks David for your correction.
I'd suggest that folks look up the origin, and history, of Christmas...and how the pagan feast was co-opted and bastardized, throughout the ages, by those who profess to be 'christian'.....
It will force many to produce their own foods and find ways to trade/barter/buy underground what they cannot produce themselves. Keep saving my seeds....
Christmas for the majority is a commercial tradition. Do children even know what it is supposed to be about? (other than Santa and gifts)
There are many variations of Christmas origins.
http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
Right on. Toast to Charon, beloved and feared ferryman who takes the toll, and brings us across. More toasts to our nature.
Back on topic - 2 milks, Mark? You have admitted many times here and elsewhere to mixing milk from your cows with milk destined for pasteurization with the caveat it was just colostrum/butter/kefir - you said you did this for many years and put it under your label (and ran it all through the same equipment - fluid milk or not), including during the time of the 2006 outbreak. Explain that, please, since you bring up 2 milks. Thanks.
UGH Human and chicken waste fed to Chinese raised fish sold in US markets!
Sylvia and Milk Farmer one could also say that Xmas is nothing more than a retail marketing gimmick that this year it seems began in July. History has been pasturized ! where are the preachers and teachers that are telling us about where we have been where we are and where we are being TAKEN? America needs to look behind the many curtains that hides the unpasturuized truth about everything!
I wouldn't want to go to jail for anyone. I am willing and able to find ways to obtain what I feel is needed for a healthy lifestyle.
Lykke has posted this on the last thread. I am wondering what s/he means by "all your fans". Is that all who agree with all of what Mark says? Or those who agree with some of what Mark says? Or those who just want to consume raw dairy? Would cp be considered a "fan/hero" of lykke?
Wonder how Lykke defines "hero". From Merrium Webstea-1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability (Sorry Mark- I don't see you in this roll) b : an illustrious warrior (Guess anyone could fit this under the right circumstances) c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities (Could Lykkee mean this one?) d : one that shows great courage ( Perhaps this one? It does take courage to stand up for what one believes in)
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work (Guess this depends on the writer) b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
(This could be Mark) 4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion (Devotion to Mark? I don't see that. Devotion to their own beliefs yes, not to Mark as a person)
Many thought Hitler, Stalin,Bush, Mugabe and many more were/are heros. lykke appears to follow the govt as "an enthusiastic devotee"," an ardent admirer or enthusiast". Blindly following, slinging barbs/petty name calling at any who disagree. There have been many questions directed at lykke that s/he never answered. Mark has answered the outsourcing questions, numerous times. Yet it is continually dug up, some do like to beat the long dead horse.
Mark, if lykke isn't able to understand your answers, I would suggest not playing the silly game on that subject and ignore him. Why feed his childish fire?
David G. Sorry your food wasn't as it should have been in CA. Thanks for the wealth of information here, it is appreciated more than you'll ever know. I can see why many fade away and no longer participate. Some repetitions become tiresome.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/getting-past-religion-in-the-raw-milk-war/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-microbiome-change
Thanks for the report, David. I am sorry to hear that the organizers of your food conference were unable to prepare proper food due to excessively burdensome regulations. If it is any comfort, just think about the industrial food our children must face in school cafeterias day after day. How about the food our elderly eat in nursing homes? No, perhaps that's not much comfort.
Your "two raw milks" question deserves a techinical scientifically correct answer.
The PMO and the State of CA all agree that milk that is intended for pastuerization if made into raw cheese ( a class 4 product ) and if aged 60 days is equivalent to being pastuerized. When raw cheese is aged 60 days it undergoes substantial physical, biologic and chemical changes that reduces pathogens by at least 5 logs.
As for raw butter ( also a class 4 product ) it has completely different water and moisture levels and different chemistry and this changes its pathogen supporting and carrying qualities. That is why the State of CA does not test raw butter for pathogens. Pathogens do not like a low mositure fat rich, low ph, near zero sugar content enviroment with high levels of VFA's ( volitile fatty acids ).
These class 4 manufacturing products are not raw milk!! Legally or chemically or by any other measure.
This is critical to undertstanding raw milk safety. Class 4 manufacturing products are butter and cheeses and they are not raw milk!!. Raw milk is whole and not missing any component and is a class 1 product. It is different chemically, in its ph, in its moisture and biologically.
Butter and cheese ( class 4 ) products are missing their whey proteins and their mosture and have undergone a major chemistry change. Butter is missing lactose sugars, whye proteins and is high in VFA's.
Lets all agree that the PMO ( the PMO is the FDA doctrine on pastuerized milk rules etc ) and chemistry is correct on this issue and lets all agree that "raw milk for pastuerization" should be compared to "raw mlk for people" for the sake of discussions and food safety comparisons. It is not good science to compare other raw products that are not comparable or chemically similiar to each other. The laws are very clear about this and the chemistry and food safety data backs this up.
This question is about...."are there two raw milks in America???" if so....can they be different when safety is considered. According to the FDA there is only one raw milk in America. It is extemely unsafe and it must be pastuerized.
This question is critical. If standards can create two raw milks in America and the data is separated between the two raw milks then we can all have a discussion about raw milk.
The FDA has intentionally commingled data and confused the line between these two raw milks so that the discussion can not be held. Confusion is a great art of war. It is very closely associated with deception.
My goal here is to identify confusion and deception and clarify the conversation so we can all create some concensus and make some progress intellectually.
In CA it is clear that their are two raw milks in America. One for people and one for the pastuerizer.
How many people agree with that statement.
How many people agree that it is not helpful and highly confusing that the FDA ignors the other raw milk in America and instead confuses the data and includes failures of pastuerizers into data that is then used to beat up raw milk that is intended for people.
It is clearly biased, scientifically in error and wrong. It does not permit a conversation with good data. It is a deceptive ploy.
Mark
I don't know how many farmers will risk going underground to provide people with healthy food. I only know that good food will become a lot more scarce and expensive. Maybe this means more people will have to become small farmers - that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
I finally got arround to adjusting our FAQ based on your advice.
http://www.organicpastures.com/faq.html
I basically discuss the fact that a strong immune system is "earned" and suggest that first time raw milk drinkers take "baby steps" or drink raw milk Kefir first prior to going "hog wild" and drinking full glasses of delicious raw milk.
Thanks for your feedback....and suggestions....keep them coming, it just makes the raw milk movement that much better and stronger.
Happy new year!!
Mark and the OPDC gang
Gives new meaning to "gut feel."
Corporations excel at dealing with paperwork and bureaucracy, its in their blood. Its really a great way to raise the barrier to entry for potential competitors and drive out the little guys. And requiring pointless bureaucratic paperwork of your suppliers is a great way to keep all the business in the greater corporate 'family' so to speak.
Which is a problem, because we have abundant evidence that regulations arn't a silver bullet for our food safety problems, if they even work at all. But what the regulations do do is drive out the healthy producers and entrench the corporate players that care more about money than safety and caused the problems in the first place.
Mark, Yes, I agree that there are two different milks (one for pastuerization and one for people) and sadly I think the co-mingling of data is intentional so as to muddy the issue that much further. We wouldn't want people realizing, on their own, that there might be a healthier option for milk consumption. Oh, I also got around to listening to your bit on the radio show talking about "#2." I liked what was said. My family is going to start making our own yogurt now. I have known about how healthy making your own yogurt is, but just needed a little kick to get started I guess. :)
Karen, thanks for the link to the article in Scientific American! Even though most of us here realize the good bacteria concept, I think it is nice to see it in a mainstream source for more of the common sheeple to read about. Hopefully they will start to question where to get these good bacteria from more than just yogurt or a suplement. I was sort of taken aback by the idea of yet another immunization for reintroducing good bacteria, but oh wait that could be patented and hence would fit into the commercial food regime. No, don't look towards regular foods that already have these bacteria in them, we need another drug/shot.
Happy new years to everyone! I am thankful for everyone that posts on here and very much enjoy the conversations that go on and the information that is shared...
Brandon
By David Gumpert
Great opening quote David I think another wise Rabbi also said " To take a life destroys a universe."
I however do take issue with your last statement concerning the raw dairy debate. "Religion is never a good subject for debate" Dont LOL yet but consuming raw dairy is now a core tenet of my religious belief and the following is what I base that statement on.
Abraham Isaac Jacob and their children where all greatly blessed with many sheep many goats and much cattle they did consumed raw dairy all of their lives. In the Tanakh aka OT it is stated by Isaiah [Yeshayahu] NKJV ch. 7: 14-15 and 21-22 For CURDS [raw dairy?] and honey [raw?] will everyone eat who is left in the land. To keep from boring most readers I won't cite anymore.
So is religion an outlaw subject that should not be mentioned and must we in this PC age toss out what Isaiah seems to imply? In "that day" will there be a USDA approved label on the CURDS?
Shall those of us that place some value on REAL UNPASTURIZED religion [what ever that may be] find ourselves marginalized and our free speech censored since "our subject is never good"? An ancient people were told to "choose life" our freedom to make that choise has been greatly erode away little by little and there is not much left.
For those of you that have LOL I take no offense and am glad I provided some humor for your day.
I got bloody diarrhea just from reading this article.
Read this from the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1&hp
Microbiologists have for years been pointing out the necessity of maintaining healthy commensal microflora. Recently they have been more and more outspoken about the dangers of altering microbial colonies, and ramping up their warnings about hypersanitization, vaccination, and antibiotic use, which is great (though overdue). But microbiologists are not on the front lines of medical care—that’s where medical doctors are—and they have, in my opinion, far too little influence on the daily practice of medicine. We can see clear evidence of that disconnect in the writings of Martin Blaser (referenced in the Scientific American article) who is both an MD and microbiologist. Blaser acknowledges that we don’t fully understand how microflora work to keep us healthy, that there are significant, specific dangers inherent in modifying normal human microflora, that the long-term consequences of microflora changes are unknown and could be disasterous, and that current medical/health practice is effecting significant microflora changes that could very well be permanent. With all that said, he then suggests that there is no reason to back off our current protocols, except for maybe “considering” the negative potentials more carefully. Well, that’s some serious cognitive dissonance!
This is one of those areas where the natural-health folks’ so-called “primitive” understand of health is actually far more useful than the “sophisticated” understanding held by our medical community.
If I were to make self satisfying, conclusionary and self profiting raw milk claims or statements on any blog or website that I control the FDA would jail me...remember that Commericial Speech is illegal.
Marler promotes his business by posting his intent, comments, editorials, his agenda and testimonials of his clients on a publication he controls as a method to sell his services.
I can not do the same. That sucks!!
What an interesting place America has become.
Mark