Category Archives: Eco Bites

Nourishing Hero: Paul Greenberg

Posted on by — 5 Comments ↓

This is the first in our Nourishing Heroes series, in which we feature the individuals and organizations who inspire us. These heroes exemplify our philosophy that food should nourish body, soul and planet. They’re dedicated to bringing all of us fare that’s healthy, safe, sustainable and delicious. Do you know a Nourishing Hero we should feature on NOURISH Evolution? Let us know who inspires you!

All book signings–especially those about food–should be at restaurants. I think so, after meeting author Paul Greenberg when he came to Ammo in Los Angeles to promote his new book Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food (The Penguin Press). It was an ideal setting for readers to meet him, have some books signed and dine on a special menu highlighting sustainably farmed seafood.

“There are a lot of people out there who are confused about fish, both wild and farmed,” Greenberg noted. “Fifty years ago, everything was wild. Now, about half of what we eat is farmed.”

He pointed to plunging numbers of Atlantic bluefin tuna and noted “Atlantic salmon are commercially extinct”–meaning the salmon still ply Atlantic waters, but not in large enough numbers to make them worth catching.

For Greenberg, an avid lifelong angler, it’s all about catching fish. But in 2000, while fishing in the waters off his native Connecticut, he discovered that the mackerel and codfish that were so plentiful in his youth had virtually vanished. He then set off on a sojourn, fishing from Maine to the Carolinas. Everywhere, the story was the same: Fish were smaller and fewer, and fishing seasons where shorter.  Greenberg also visited fish markets wherever he went, only to find that local, wild catch had given way to a nearly uniform selection of salmon, sea bass, cod and tuna–the four fish of his book’s title.

It’s no surprise that Greenberg, a frequent New York Times Magazine contributor and former W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Policy Fellow, wanted some answers. He embarked on a global odyssey to understand the story behind these fish. Along the way, he visited a native salmon fishery in Alaska and a sea bass farm in Greece. He went cod-fishing off New England and diving in Hawaii to observe an innovative tuna aquaculture operation. His book is filled with larger-than-life characters, both those who passionately advocate preserving wild fish and those who are just as committed to aquaculture.

Ultimately, Greenberg supports sustainably managed wild fisheries and environmentally sensitive fish farming. What’s needed, he contends, are global efforts to preserve wild fish (including reducing the world’s fishing fleets and protecting the bottom of the marine food chain). At the same time, responsible aquaculture must be developed to satisfy our growing appetite for seafood. That means choosing fish that don’t require lots of feed, don’t threaten the wild population and can thrive in aquaculture environments.

Our menu that night–oysters, mussels, clams, Arctic char and barramundi–was as a tasty example of what farmed fish could be, Greenberg observed. The bivalves filter their food from the water and “don’t require any feed whatsoever.”

Finfish like Arctic char and barramundi are “great for aquaculture because it mimics their wild setting,” Greenberg explained.

In the wild, Arctic char congregate in large numbers to spend their dormant winters in tundra lakes under a thick layer of ice. In their native Australia, barramundi gather in stagnant billabongs. Both types of fish are accustomed to high-density living, which makes them disease-resistant so they can thrive in ecologically sound recirculating tanks. As a bonus, they have relatively low feed requirements.

Interestingly, they’re also relatively new to many American diners. But as fish like these start turning up on restaurant menus and at supermarket seafood counters, we can begin to re-diversify our seafood palate beyond the big four.

In the meantime, Greenberg’s motto works for me: “Wild forever, farmed when necessary.”

Meet our other Nourishing Heroes:

Salmon Terroir

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I’ve been eating a lot of salmon lately. When the first catch from Copper River came in, I couldn’t resist jumping on the bandwagon. Then I discovered Taku River Sockeye at my local market. And Dave, my fish guy at the farmers market, has had a run of king salmon from Washington that’s so buttery rich I practically gobble it up before it hits the grill.

Up until a couple of years ago though, salmon was salmon was salmon to me; some better than others, of course, but it was hit or miss as to why. And then I visited Cordova, Alaska on the Copper River Delta and had an enlightening talk with local fisherman Bill Webber.

Bill said that Copper River salmon have a certain quality to them because of the heavy sediment in the river and I said, “you mean like terroir?” He gave me a funny look and I explained that the term meant a certain ephemeral quality imparted on a wine by the place the grapes were grown. Somewhere during my explanation Bill’s head began to bob in agreement and, voila, my salmon-wine analogy was born.

1) There are “varietals” of salmon. For those of you who are fishermen, forgive me. But I really had no idea there were different types of salmon all swimming around in one place. I thought, conveniently, that one type existed in Alaska, another in California, and yet another in the Atlantic. Yet lo and behold, I come to find there are five species—King (Chinook), Sockeye (Red), Coho (Silver), Keta (Chum) and Pink (there are also Steelhead, often referred to as Rainbow Trout, and Atlantic Salmon, which is no longer wild here in the U.S.). These are like the Cabernet Sauvignon and Syrahs and such of the salmon world, each one with its own inherent set of qualities common amongst the species.

2) Terroir exists in fish too. As I mentioned, Bill—and several other people from fishermen to cannery-men to chefs—talked about the unique quality of Copper River salmon, and that began to make a lot more sense to me when I flew over the river and saw it spreading like a spilt latte into the delta. The mineral-rich brew and high headwaters here gives the fish a succulent flavor and silken texture that not all salmon possess. However, as with grapes, this isn’t necessarily a “good” or “bad” scenario . . . it’s simply a unique taste and texture that reflects the place it’s from.

3) There are “appellations” in the fishing industry too. When Bill was explaining the various associations and labels to me, yet another parallel became clear: salmon displays terroir too. I began thinking of Alaska salmon as the equivalent of “California wine.” A bit tighter geographic area and I had the “Sonoma County” equivalent of the Prince Williams Sound area around Cordova. The particular appellation of Copper River would be akin to Alexander Valley or Dry Creek Valley here in Healdsburg. That was a revelation for me.

So while we’re at the peak of salmon season, try several different “varietals” (from either Washington or Alaska, since California and Oregon are under a voluntary hiatus to let stocks replenish) and see which ones you prefer. If you want to talk about what kind of wine to sip with your salmon … you’ll have to ask my husband.

Farm Fresh Fish: All About Aquaculture

Posted on by — 4 Comments ↓

If you’re confused about farmed fish, you are not alone. Aquaculture — fish farming — is hailed by some as the saving grace to our future fish supply and called an ecological disaster by others. What makes it so complex an issue is that, depending on what they’re referring to, both parties are right. What’s not in question is that aquaculture is here to stay; half of the seafood eaten by Americans today is farmed, and the number continues to rise. And, done right, it can be part of a sustainable seafood solution. Here are four basic guidelines to clarify which farmed fish are best to buy and why:

farming-fish-all-about-aquaculture

  • Best choice. Mussels, oysters and clams. Why? Not only do these mollusks filter the water they’re raised in so that it’s cleaner than it was before they arrived (they feed on tiny, floating plankton), they are also an impetus for communities to conform to strict clean water regulations wherever farms are located.
  • Good choice. Tilapia, barramundi, catfish, striped bass, arctic char, trout and shrimp. Why? These fish are good choices for aquaculture because they are omnivores—they eat both plants and animals—or, in the case of tilapia, herbivores. Many experts view new technology, called Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS), as the gold standard in aquaculture, providing both a pristine environment for the fish and a completely closed system to avoid polluting native species nearby.
  • Worst choice. Salmon. Why? Primarily because the species itself is carnivorous—it takes 8 pounds of wild fish to make 1 pound of salmon—which makes it a poor choice for farming. But also because most salmon is farmed off-shore in net-pens, which can pollute the waters around them and cause unnervingly high levels of toxins, disease and parasites in the fish. What’s more, these farmed fish occasionally escape, spreading disease to native populations and putting the gene pool of wild species at risk.
  • Know your sources. With the Country of Origin Labeling Act (COOL ) enacted in 2005, the US government gave consumers the right—and the ability—to know where our seafood comes from. And that’s a good thing, given that there are no international standards for the sustainability and safety of aquaculture operations. There are laws governing the environmental impact for fish farms in the United States, yet in other countries, like Thailand and China, aquaculture has had a devastating effect on coastal eco systems. New international standards are being developed, but right now, your best bet is to avoid imported farmed fish and shrimp altogether unless from credible suppliers you know are committed to sustainability.

No Room to Garden? Share a Yard

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

By Evangeline Heath

One of the big hurdles for an apartment gardener like me is finding a plot to plant in.

I was already growing vegetables in containers, but I longed for a real patch of earth to dig and roll around in. With a five-year waiting list for my community garden, though, some ingenuity was in order.

Then I heard about the concept of “yard-sharing” and immediately hoped this was the answer.

Yard-sharing arrangements connect those without land to neighbors with unused space. It’s a win-win situation. Property owners without the time, skill, or ability to work the land reap the benefits of partnering with local gardeners eager to get their hands dirty. It brings neighborhoods together and creates edible landscapes.

Gardeners and property owners find each other in many ways. You can post an ad on Craigslist, or your city might have a horticultural matchmaking service like the Garden Sharing Registry in Santa Monica, California. I tried the national social network Hyperlocavore, where I created a profile and found my neighborhood already had its own “pod” with several members.

I sent my profile to a few people in my neighborhood, but didn’t hear back. So I emailed my own circle of friends and pitched the idea of starting a garden for them. Artist Judith Brewer Curtis, mother to one of my closest friends, got in touch and said she’d love to have me give some TLC to her neglected back yard. Her house was just 10 minutes away. Bingo!

We arrived at our arrangement informally, but there are some important issues for yard-sharers to hash out:

  • What’s your gardening philosophy? Do you want to garden organically or conventionally? I’m a 100% organic gardener, and Judith honors that.
  • What do you want to grow? A gardener shouldn’t plant vegetables if the property owner expects flowers.
  • How will you handle the cost of supplies? Judith pays the water bill, while I purchase other supplies: soaker hose and attachments, potting soil, and compost bin. I buy most of the seeds and seedlings, though Judith makes the occasional nursery run.
  • When can the gardener use the yard? I have access whenever I want, though I always call or email first.
  • Can the gardener store equipment on the property? Judith has a full set of gardening tools I can use anytime.
  • How long are you committed to the project? Our arrangement is open-ended. But it’s a good idea to agree on the project’s duration if you’re yard-sharing with a stranger, at least in the beginning. If it’s successful you may decide to let it continue indefinitely.
  • How often will the gardener tend the yard? I go over a few times a week, and clean up before I leave. She makes sure everything is watered when I’m not there.

So far, it’s been a “patch made in heaven.” After a big rain made the soil soft, my husband and I double-dug a 100-square-foot plot and amended it with plenty of compost. We planted our summer crops in mid-April, and now we’re starting to harvest cucumbers, tomatoes, bell peppers, and melons.

We’ve both found so much satisfaction in transforming an unused piece of land into a green, productive food garden. I get a place to grow, experiment. and apply all my newly learned gardening knowledge. Judith loves taking care of the plants, but didn’t have to do the hard, physical work of setting up the garden.

Most importantly, we both share in the harvest!

Evangeline Heath is a freelance writer based in Santa Monica. She documents her adventures in yard-sharing and urban homesteading in her blog FarmApartment.

Beyond Beef Basics: Grass Fed, Grain Finished & More

Posted on by — 5 Comments ↓

When I see grass-fed beef in local markets, I imagine cattle grazing in a pasture. Those animals were living the good life, I figure, so I feel better about eating them.

As with many things, I discovered, the reality often is very different.

All cattle graze at some point. “Even in conventional feedlots, the diet is usually 15% roughage of some sort (ground hay, silage, straw, etc.),” says Jim Gerrish. As owner of American GrazingLands Services in May, Idaho, he advises producers on environmentally sustainable grazing operations.

Obviously, buying beef isn’t as simple as I thought. These are some questions to ask yourself.

beef-basics-logo

Is it grain fed?

Conventionally produced meat is fed grain, often in overcrowded feedlots, because it’s a cost-effective way to produce beef. Grain-fed cattle require less land than grass-fed animals, and they mature more quickly. The meat is well marbled with fat, which makes it tender, and many consumers like inexpensive, juicy meat.

I enjoy inexpensive, tender meat, too. But there are downsides to consider. The fatter animals become on grain, the more calories and saturated fat there are in the meat. Cattle also often get sick on a grain diet and must be treated with antibiotics. Widespread use of preventative antibiotics in livestock has contributed to antibiotic resistance in humans, and earlier this week the FDA called for limiting agricultural antibiotics to therapeutic use.

Is it grass fed?

Grass-fed beef is popular among conscientious omnivores since it’s the animals’ natural diet. It’s healthier for humans too. Grass fed beef is lower in calories and saturated fat than grain-fed meat yet higher in healthy fats like conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fatty acids (same goes for dairy products made with milk from grass-fed cows). Since grass-fed beef is leaner, you’ll want to avoid overcooking it; rare to medium-rare is the way to go. Marinating helps tenderize it, too, as I did with this Grass-Fed Beef Bulgogi.

The USDA’s voluntary Grass Fed Marketing Claim Standards specify that animals have a diet of forage, but that doesn’t guarantee they graze in a pasture. “It opens the door to animals raised in a feedlot, fed harvested forage, given antibiotics and growth hormones, and labeled ‘grass fed,’” says Patricia Whisnant, DVM, owner of Rain Crow Ranch in Doniphan, Missouri, and president of the American Grassfed Association (AGA).

In 2009, the AGA debuted the American Grassfed certification to guarantee animals are raised on forage, in pastures, with no antibiotics and under humane conditions. The program includes third-party audits by Animal Welfare Approved.

But grass-fed, pasture-raised beef is expensive to produce. It requires plenty of land to accommodate cattle’s grazing needs, and animals take longer to mature. That means it costs more on the plate. Beef tenderloin is about $14 per pound for the conventional, grain-fed stuff while grass-fed, pastured beef is at least twice that.

What role does organic play?

The USDA National Organic Program’s new Access-to-Pasture Rule sounds great because it specifies that all organic ruminant livestock must actively graze in a pasture during the grazing season in their location.

Does that mean organic beef is grass-fed, I wondered? Sort of. Turns out, the new rule is open to liberal interpretations. “Grain can equal up to 70% of the diet,” Whisnant notes.

“A farmer could keep the stock in the feedlot for two days and then turn them out [to pasture] for one day, and continue that sequence year-round,” Gerrish explains. “The product of this would have essentially the same body composition profile of an animal continuously [fed grain] in the feedlot.”

How is it finished?

This is a livestock term that refers to how animals are fattened 90 to 160 days before slaughter, whether on grass or grain.

Grass finishing was standard until the 1950s, when grain finishing became the cost-effective norm. However, calories and overall fat in the animals’ tissues rise during grain finishing whereas grass-finished beef is lean.

When it comes to buying beef, you have to decide which factors are most important to you, and what you’re willing to pay. If you want beef from cattle that has never nibbled grain, look for meat with the American Grassfed seal. If the health advantages of grass-fed are your main concern, a grass-finished product may satisfy.

My choice: Buy the pricier grass-fed beef but enjoy it in smaller portions and cook it with finesse.

Why Frozen Seafood is Sometimes Fresher than “Fresh”

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

The word “fresh” has cache to it. Think of a tomato fresh off the vine or fresh-squeezed lemonade. But when it comes to describing seafood, the word doesn’t always mean better quality, and sometimes frozen seafood is the better choice.

Technically, “fresh” seafood has never seen temperatures below minus 1 degree Celsius, whereas “frozen” seafood has. But does that fact alone make fresh better? Geoff Shester, Ph.D., California Program Director for Oceana, says not necessarily so. “The way I think about it is would you rather eat “fresh” seafood that’s been sitting on a boat for seven days unfrozen, or a product that has been frozen in such a way to retain the moisture, flavor and texture indistinguishable from fresh seafood?”

Frozen at Sea

Most people understand that storing a fish below freezing inhibits cellular degradation. But storage is only part of the equation. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the first step to keeping quality high is freezing … fast.

Fish are made largely of water. During the initial stage of freezing, a fish’s temperature drops to just below 0 degrees Celsius. But at that temperature, only a small amount of the water in the fish has actually crystallized into ice. While the rest of the conversion takes place, the temperature levels out between 0 and -1 degree Celsius during a period called “thermal arrest.”

This conversion of water to ice can take hours—or days—and the slower it occurs, the more quality drops. According to the FAO report, this has more to do with the biochemical denaturing of proteins than it does rupturing of cells from ice crystallization. Reducing temperature below -5 degrees Celsius as fast as possible, preferably within a couple of hours of catch, minimizes denaturation and preserves the integrity of the fish.

Consider the Big Picture

There’s something else to be said for frozen fish … they have a smaller carbon footprint (or fin print?) than fresh fish that have been flown in from afar. According to Bon Appetit Management Company, an advocate of fish frozen at sea, shipping fresh fish by air generates 10 times the greenhouse gas as transporting frozen seafood by container ship, and five times more than by truck.

Use Your Senses

So what does this all mean at the fish counter? That frozen seafood options—particularly items like shrimp and smaller fish filets—may actually be fresher than what’s labeled fresh. But without knowing what method was used to freeze the seafood, the best way to evaluate is to use your senses. Avoid anything—fresh or frozen—that:

  • Looks discolored or mushy
  • Feels mushy to the touch
  • Smells “fishy” or like ammonia
  • Tastes “off”

Personally, I take sustainability, quality and locale into consideration in choosing my fish—not whether it’s fresh or frozen. If I see a locally caught sustainable pick that looks delectable … fantastic, whether fresh or frozen. If I have a choice between “fresh” shrimp that are looking a bit peaked and frozen, sustainably raised ones, I’ll choose the frozen.

Fresh tomatoes are one thing, but don’t let “frozen” dissuade you from choosing high-quality seafood.

Are We Reaching The End of the Line For Seafood?

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

By Cheryl Sternman Rule

Pay attention, seafood lovers: According to The End of the Line, a searing documentary about the industrial fishing industry, if we don’t change current global fishing practices, our oceans will be depleted of edible fish by 2048.

You heard me. And I’m not talking about faraway oceans halfway around the world, but our collective oceans. All of the oceans.

So in honor of World Oceans Day on June 8, I urge you to plop yourself in a chair and watch The End of the Line, which vividly portrays some of the most beautiful marine life ever caught on film while delivering a potent message: We are all responsible for effecting change on this issue.

endoflineRupert Murray directed the film, which was adapted from British journalist Charles Clover’s book of the same name.  It’s narrated with controlled urgency by actor Ted Danson, who sits on the board of the conservation nonprofit Oceana and has long advocated for responsible fishing practices. The film is carefully rendered, and avoids scare tactics while underscoring the stark scientific realities about the sorry state of our seas.

Why should you care? Although you may enjoy salmon fillet, halibut steak, or shrimp skewers only occasionally, more than 1.2 billion people the world over consume fish as a staple of their diets.  If current trends continue, the world’s poorest people, who rely on fish for their food and livelihoods, are the most likely to suffer, at least at first. Widespread ecosystem ramifications will follow, such as jellyfish infestations and an overabundance of algae.

How did this happen? The issue of overfishing comes down to politics and economics. Governments grant fishing rights to multinational corporations who, in some cases, have abused their privileges by allowing fishermen to use destructive fishing methods, like bottom trawlers that scrape the ocean floor. At the same time, consumers in wealthy industrialized regions–the U.S., European Union, and Japan, among others–continue to demand top-flight, predatory species like tuna for their dinner plates, so catching these fish in enormous quantities can be incredibly lucrative. The film uses the bluefin as a jarring example of what can happen when a species is so prized for its culinary excellence: fleets will break international marine laws to deliver the fish to desirous diners, even though the bluefin is widely believed to be endangered. As long as there is a strong demand, the supply will be fished until it’s completely exhausted.

Ultimately, the film’s sobering message is tempered by a sense of hope and offers concrete action we can take to reverse current trends and stabilize fish stocks. Here are three things you can do:

  • Choose sustainable seafood (like our Super Seven Sustainable Seafood Picks).  Download a SeafoodWatch pocket guide or mobile phone app, and seek out fish certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.  Support responsible fishing practices, like those in Alaska.
  • Eat smaller fish. Add abundant and fast-growing lower-on-the-food-chain species like mackerel, herring, anchovies, and sardines to your seafood repertoire.
  • Ask questions. Demand to know where your fish was caught and using which methods. If you don’t like the answers, speak out.

Your first course of action, though, is the easiest: rent The End of the Line.

Super Seven Sustainable Seafood Picks-2010

Posted on by — 4 Comments ↓

It’s World Oceans Day, which spotlights the health of our waters. As a consumer, I know the best thing I can do is make sustainable seafood choices. That’s not always easy, because few foods are as confusing to buy these days as fish. If it’s wild-caught, is it being overfished? If it’s farmed, is it causing environmental problems? You could spend hours at the fish counter, reading labels and grilling the fishmonger, and still walk away bewildered. Many fish go by several names, which adds to the confusion.

sustainable-seafood-picks-2010To make those choices easier, Lia introduced NOURISH Evolution’s Super Sustainable Seafood Picks last year. Those choices still are smart, and we’ve updated the list this year with some new entries. Our criteria are simple: A fish must be raised or caught in an environmentally sound manner, safe to eat, widely available, and easy to identify. We cross-checked our selections with the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s SeafoodWatch, Blue Ocean Institute’s Seafood Guide, and the Environmental Defense Fund’s Seafood Selector.

Tilapia. The ancient Egyptians farmed tilapia and this freshwater fish is still an aquaculture superstar, especially when it’s cultivated in the U.S. in recirculating tanks with minimal risk of pollution or escaped fish. Little fish oil or fishmeal is required for feed, so tilapia is easy on resources, which makes it affordable too.

Farmed Clams, Mussels, Bay Scallops, and Oysters. These bivalve mollusks leave their environment even cleaner than when they arrive because they filter particulates from the water. Even better, farmed versions of these mollusks from anywhere in the world are considered environmentally sound.

Alaskan Pacific Cod. Moist, lean, tender, and mild–if you crave cod these days, make sure it’s from Alaska, which has the most sustainable supply. It’s also marketed as Alaska cod, true cod, gray cod, or simply as “cod” (like its less-sustainable cousin, Atlantic cod).

Sablefish. This omega-3 fatty acid-rich fish is new to home cooks, who relish its velvety, buttery texture. Sablefish is neither cod nor butterfish, though it resembles both and may be labeled black cod, Alaska cod (just like Pacific cod, so be sure to ask the fishmonger if it’s really sablefish) or butterfish. Sablefish from Alaska or British Columbia is the most sustainable choice; wild Alaksan salmon also works well in many recipes calling for sablefish.

Alaskan Wild Salmon. Alaska’s salmon is a model of fishery management, so it’s abundant and widely available (fresh when it’s in season in summer and frozen year-round). We also think wild salmon has superior flavor and texture to its farmed cousins. If you can’t find wild Alaskan salmon, try sablefish.

Herring/Sardines. Sardines are a type of herring, a small, fast-growing fish caught in purse seines with minimal bycatch and habitat damage. You’ll typically find them in cans or jars, often smoked or pickled, although fresh whole sardines are increasingly available, too and are delicious grilled or broiled.

Mahimahi. If you love grouper and red snapper–both turn up on “don’t eat” lists–order domestically caught (including Hawaii) mahi mahi instead. This is a fast-maturing fish that’s lean and firm-textured, yet moist and may be labeled dorado or dolphinfish (although it’s unrelated to dolphins).

The state of the oceans seems daunting right now, but simply making smart seafood choices like those above are a powerful way to help preserve them for years to come. What you eat really does matter.

Alison Ashton thumbnail

A longtime editor, writer, and recipe developer, Alison Ashton is a Cordon Bleu-trained chef and the Editorial Director for NOURISH Evolution. She has worked as a features editor for a national wire service and as senior food editor for a top food magazine. Her work has appeared in Cooking Light, Vegetarian Times, and Natural Health as well as on her blog, Eat Cheap, Eat Well, Eat Up.


Breaking the Plastic Addiction in the Kitchen

Posted on by — 5 Comments ↓

I’ve never been fond of plastic. It’s just got to not be good to have millions of plastic food storage containers piling up every day when they take thousands of years to break down. Take plastic bags alone; over a million are used worldwide every minute for an average of just 12 minutes.

plastic-bpa-free-storage-post

And while I feel a bit better about my stash of reusable GladWare containers after finding that they’re made of safer polypropylene plastic and are BPA-free (note that Tupperware’s reusable containers are made of polycarbonate, which does contain BPA), they’re still plastic and I’d just rather not use them.

But what’s a girl to do with leftovers? Picnic fare? Our daughter’s lunch?

In asking those questions I found a few answers. Here; my guide to breaking the plastic addiction.

Step 1: Do the Math

You’ll probably balk at the prices for reusable containers at first glance (I know I did). But you really need to think of these as an investment—the antithesis of disposable. For instance, I bought three of the sandwich bags down below for about $24 at the beginning of the school year. That’s roughly 200 days of bagged sandwiches and apple slices and crackers that saved 600 plastic baggies and they’ve probably got another two years in them. So let’s make it an even 1,800 plastic bags saved. Given that fold-top baggies are roughly $2.25 per 150 (for a total of $27 for 1,800 bags), the overall price comes out as a wash. You could make similar arguments for storage containers and water bottles, too.

Step 2: Make a Plan

Because of the high up-front cost, I’m a big believer of staging your break from plastics. Let’s say you’ve got a drawerful of GladWare containers; then sandwich bags and a water bottle might be a good place for you to start. If your plastic containers are on their last legs, consider buying a more eco-friendly set made of glass, ceramic or stainless steel. But be deliberate and make a plan.

Step 3: Make a Choice

There are two ways of going about this. You could dabble with a bunch of different options and then make the big investment with your favorite, or you could go whole-hog from the get-go; there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach. Dabbling lets you pick just what you like, but because they’re meant to have (very) long lives, you’ll be stuck with a drawer full of mismatched food storage containers. Going whole-hog will get you uniformity, but it might also get you a drawer full of containers that don’t quite meet your needs.

Whichever approach you choose, here are some of our favorites:

  • Wrap-n-Mat Sandwich Wraps – I love how this works as both a sandwich wrap and a placemat. We used this and the LunchSkins for Noe’s lunches all year.
  • LunchSkins Sandwich Bags – These reuseable bags are great for sandwiches, but I like them even more for apple slices, crackers, nuts, etc.
  • LunchBots – Stainless-steel container sets that work both for fridge and on-the-go.
  • KidsKonserve Nesting Trio – Another stainless-steel choice in a nice variety of sizes that nest to save space.
  • Bormioli Rocco Glass Storage Containers (set of three) – This set reminds me of some glass containers I bought from IKEA years ago and still love.

Do you have other recommendations? I’d love to know your favorites …

Time For a Gut Check on Organic?

Posted on by — 5 Comments ↓

Fifteen years ago, I got the kind of call from my doctor that began with, “I have some news.” The kind of call that resulted in a hastily scheduled visit with an oncologist and two surgeries less than two weeks later. The kind of call that saved my life, and at the same time changed it forever.

A year later, Christopher and I packed up everything we owned (almost) and drove down to Costa Rica. It was an incredibly intense time for me, of being angry at and grateful for and in awe of my body for the first time. Before, I’d taken it for granted. But now I had an intense, almost motherly, instinct to nurture it.

I became more aware of how much my body hurt when I didn’t get enough sleep. I could discern a calm confidence when I practiced yoga regularly. I noticed how fresh foods made me feel clean and balanced and energized. And I felt, in my gut, a strong conviction to switch over to organic food. Something just felt wrong about putting chemicals—even if I was told they were safe—into my body.

Why do I bring all this up? Because in the last two weeks a couple of reports have come out that make my decision look not just intuitively right, but scientifically sound too.

The first, a report on reducing environmental cancer risk released by the President’s Cancer Panel (which was appointed during the Bush Administration), found that “the risk of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” It goes on to give several recommendations for reducing exposure, including choosing organic food. The second, a study by researches from the University of Montreal and Harvard, found a link between ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and organophosphates (i.e., agricultural chemicals). Nothing definitive, but enough to make my ears perk up on the heels of the cancer risk study.

Gary Hirschman, former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm suggested yesterday at the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Cooking for Solutions that organic isn’t really the “new–”organic practices have worked for thousands and thousands of years–the chemicals used in agriculture are what are really unproven over the long haul. We are, in essence, in the midst of a 60-year experiment.

It seems to me that this is a good time for a gut check. Not an extended analysis or time spent poring over the latest studies—we’ll forever be inundated with contradictory data from varying sources—but a simple, 30-second reflection on what feels to you like the right thing to do.

What feels right to you?