Friday, December 15, 2006

E. coli redivivus: Deja vu all over again in the city

Spinach anyone? Or perhaps you would prefer California scallions and green onions, or iceberg lettuce? As of today (12/14/2006), the FDA (citing CDC data) is reporting a total of 71 cases of E. coli infection in five states, with 53 hospitalizations in the latest outbreak. This time, rather than the fresh iceberg lettuce sold in bags at the grocery store, the agency for dissemination appears to have been the prepared entres of the fast food chain Taco Bell.


While not as large or devastating (yet, in terms of death) as the September outbreak in Spinach, this lettuce mess is another reminder that industrialized, centralized food production and distribution is a tragedy waiting to happen...yet again. (See Eric Schlosser's NYTimes editorial, "Has Politics Contaminated the Food Supply?" though his argument for an increase, and yet more centralization, in the bureaucratic regulation, inspection and oversight of our food--instead of a real solution, like returning to highly diversified, local food production--is short sighted.)


For Tumbledown's analysis of the causes and cures for this public health menace, see the previous five entries under "food safety."


Finally, Tumbledown has a bone to pick with the NYTimes guest blogger Steven Johnson (The Link Between Cities and Terror). Tumbledown tried to respond to Johnson's entry, but instead of being edited down, Tumbledown was edited out. So, here's the essence of the response: The solution to the problem posed by Johnson is the same as the solution to the increased industrialization and centralization of food production and distribution. Move (back) to the farm! ...but that's a solution Johnson has already dismissed as impractical or impossible. Too bad it is the only real solution proposed by any reader to Johnson's appeal for conversation.


In an earlier blog, Steven Johnson twice claimed that city dwellers subsidize the existence of farmers. ("[I]t is an undeniable fact that the big cities are footing the bill for the residents of so-called 'real America.' Blue states consistently pay more in taxes than they receive in federal assistance; the opposite is true for the red states." And "[i]t’s another thing for city dwellers to be lectured about urban depravity and the 'heartland' way of life, when cities are partially subsidizing that way of life." Real America, November 20, 2006)


Even if Johnson's numbers are accurate, the statistic lies. (The truth always depends on what you count and what you value.) For example, it does not "cost" much to drive a car, until you start to factor the cost of carbon emissions. (What will be the cost of keeping New York dry--or, more timely, post-Katrina New Orleans--when the waters start to rise from global warming?) Johnson forgets that in a debate about what is "real," food always wins. As Gene Logsdon says, "there's a difference between money growth and biological growth." (Living at Nature's Pace, "Traditional Farming," p. 86.) Crops do not grow at the same (exponential) rate as money. Or, to say it yet another way, real things do not grow at the pace of virtual reality. Real food for city people is subsidized because we do not "count" the costs of rural decline due to the industrialization of food production, or the real cost that "inputs" like fuel and chemical fertilizer extract from our environment. City food today is subsidized to a tune far greater than the difference between tax receipts and the government dole to states. It is subsidized, not by tax receipts from the city, but by borrowing from our future. People who live in cities cannot produce their own food--and they cannot live without it. So, what's the "real" value of stable rural towns and villages?


Let Tumbledown know when you city folk get hungry. Perhaps we country folk will be able to spare a green bean or two. ...just don't all come to dinner at once, please.


Tumbledown Farm

Friday, December 1, 2006

Chocolate Christmas Caramels

Tumbledown just had to have some chocolate caramel with his egg nog this evening, so away he went to try a hundred-year-old chocolate caramel recipe from the 1919 Farm Journal book How to Do Things. OK, so Tumbledown's candy-making skills were a little rusty, but how can you go wrong with a bar of Ghirardelli chocolate (grated),


Ghirardelli chocolate, ready to grate


a pint (2 cups) of sugar, a pint (2 cups) of honey and molasses, a tablespoon of vanilla extract, and a half cup of heavy cream?


Chocolate Caramels ready to heat


Well, for starters, you will need a 4 quart sauce pan. (Tumbledown had only a 3 quart pan.) A candy thermometer is a must if you do not want to check the mixture constantly by dropping it in water until you reach the "soft ball" stage, and you'll need the big baking pans (buttered) to spread the stuff a quarter inch thick.


Chocolate Caramels, ready to boil


(Tumbledown's caramel is at least 1/2 inch, which means it cools far too slowly.)


Chocolate Caramels, ready to set


Still, that rich, dark, chocolate taste sets off a glass of egg nog...just right!


mmmmm.


Tumbledown Farm