Spirit Sandwich

Earlier this year, the USDA updated the process by which female and Hispanic farmers may file discrimination claims.  This was largely a response to a number of claims over the last decade filed by farmers claiming they had been denied farm loans due to their gender or ethnicity.  One significant such case is Love v. Vilsack, a class action lawsuit filed by a group of female farmers against the USDA.  The case was filed in 2000 and has yet to be finally resolved.  Another class action case, Pigford v. Glickman, claimed that the USDA discriminated against African-American farmers in a similar fashion.  In 2010, after some confusion regarding farm bill funds that could be made available as compensation for the farmers involved, the claimants were ultimately awarded $1.15 billion.  Similar claims have been filed by Native American farmers, as well.

The updated claims process increases the maximum compensation for female and Hispanic farmers from $50,000 to $250,000 and provides a streamlined litigation process.  This is a step in the right direction, but does not address the root of the problem.

In the United States, farming is predominantly the province of white men.  In the corporate, corporate organic, and small-scale organic food systems, white men run the show.  As a result, female and minority farmers are not often taken seriously.

Why does it matter who grows our food?  There are many reasons.  The most obvious is that, as with any profession, no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender or ethnicity.  It is simply unconstitutional.

But it goes deeper than that.  Food is one of the most basic necessities of life.  Knowing how to grow food gives a person or group considerable independence.  That is one reason that many people enjoy gardening – it is satisfying to know how to grow one’s own food and know that it is not absolutely necessary to rely upon the grocery store, or even the farmers’ market.

Giving power over this basic, life-giving necessity to one group is an act based – at least partially – in a desire for control and an attempt to maintain the status quo.  By making it difficult for women and minorities to do something as fundamentally important as growing and selling food, the USDA is making a powerful statement about where it feels the power in this country lies.

What’s more, granting control of farming primarily to white men leads to a groupthink mentality.  There is much that needs to be reformed in our food system.  We need to promote the effective methods of farming without chemicals and in concert with nature that are found on small, organic farms.  We need to support local farming and strengthen local food systems.  Perhaps, if the nation’s farming population were more diverse, we would enjoy a more productive conversation on how to accomplish these goals.  That is not to assume that all white men think alike.  But surely opening a dialog with individuals whose experiences are more varied would be more likely to produce new ideas.

Organizations like the National Black Farmers Association are working to address this problem.  The non-profit community organization works to educate the public about the discrimination experienced by minority farmers and to mobilize African-American farmers with the goal of increasing awareness about the issue.  Similarly, non-profits like People’s Grocery in Oakland, California are educating urban residents about discrimination against female and minority farmers.

With the work of non-profits like the National Black Farmers Association and People’s Grocery, as well as the efforts of the USDA to redress discrimination claims, it appears that progress is being made.  However, there is still much that needs to be done if attitudes toward female and minority farmers are going to truly change.

As American women are well aware, there has been a great deal controversy lately about birth control and the freedom of women to make decisions about their reproductive health.  Ina May Gaskin, founder of the Farm Midwifery Center in Tennessee and author of numerous books about how to achieve a safe home birth, argues that women’s choices are limited when they decide to deliver a child, as well.

In this interview with reporter Amy Goodman, Gaskin explains that, in the United States, nearly two-thirds of maternal deaths are not reported to the CDC.  According to the measurement used, Gaskin says, the U.S. ranks fortieth or fiftieth in maternal deaths.  She argues that this is the case because the American medical system views labor as a medical emergency where the goal, she says, is just to get the infant out of the woman.  Mainstream medicine, she says, fails to take into account the profundity of the experience or the emotional and psychological state of the woman.  As a result, doctors approach labor from a cold and distanced perspective that lacks the innate wisdom of someone like a midwife.  Without this wisdom, doctors may overlook signs that could give them insight into the woman’s condition.  This leads to mistakes like unnecessary caesarean sections and, in turn, maternal death, Gaskin suggests.

Gaskin makes a powerful argument.  Indeed, the practice of delivering a baby in a hospital equates the experience with illness and injury.  Doctors and nurses often approach labor as something dangerous.  Of course, medical complications can occur during delivery, but childbirth is a natural, routine part of life.  Unless there are complications, childbirth is nothing to be afraid of, though many women have been taught by our media and our medical system to fear it.

The medical industry often disregards intuitive wisdom and treats healthcare as something coldly scientific.  It is for this reason that many natural remedies and relatively minor treatments like changes in diet are often looked down upon by mainstream medicine.  Furthermore, many doctors have so little time with their patients that they are unable to discuss the patient’s insights, which often reveal an intuitive wisdom that may point to a more effective course of treatment.

To be sure, scientific knowledge and expertise are extremely important when it comes to practicing medicine.  But medical practitioners must understand that they are working with complex human beings, not androids.  Treating an illness should be seen as gaining a holistic understanding of that illness’s root causes, not just prescribing drugs or surgery to treat the symptoms.  Likewise, childbirth should not be seen as simply coaxing the infant out of the womb.  And it certainly should not be equated with a medical emergency.  It should be understood as a wonderful, life-affirming experience that should be celebrated, not feared.

Midwifery, on the other hand, views childbirth not as something frightening, but as a beautiful part of normal life.  Delivering a child at home may also put the woman at ease, as she is in a familiar setting.  Finally, taking childbirth out of a medical setting and returning it to the home demonstrates to other women who may be present that the experience is not an emergency.  In turn, those women may be less likely to fear their own childbirth experiences.

Furthermore, many women are now preparing for orgasmic births.  Because delivering a baby stimulates the vagina in a manner similar to sexual stimulation, some women experience orgasm at the moment of delivery – if they are not wracked with anxiety.  Brining a child into the world is a joyous experience, and it is appropriate that it would be accompanied by pleasure.  Certainly, orgasmic births are not always pain free, but pleasure is experienced at the moment when the infant emerges.  Of course, a woman cannot plan to have an orgasm during delivery.  But she can create an environment that will make it more likely.  This includes delivering in a  location that does not feel foreign or frightening and taking steps to create a feeling of calmness, rather than fear.

Childbirth is one of the most natural experiences in life.  But by equating it with medical emergencies and treating it as something to be endured rather than celebrated, and plowed through as quickly as possible, we cause women to be irrationally fearful of the it and to be emotionally detached from the experience as it happens.

The process of deciding where to deliver one’s child is highly personal.  Many women are comforted by the presence of medical professionals.  The question, therefore, should not be whether it is better to deliver at home or in a hospital.  Rather, we should be asking medical professionals what they can do to change their perspectives on childbirth and create more natural, comforting environments for women during labor.

In yet another in the recent series of attacks on women’s health, the New York Times has reported new research revealing the fact that women pay more than men for the same health insurance coverage – sometimes up to 31 percent more. Insurers argue that the disparity is justified because women aged 19 to 55 are likely to use more health services than men.  Women, they argue, are more likely to get regular checkups, take prescription medications, and contract certain illnesses.  But, as the Times article explains, that excuse does not exactly hold up under scrutiny.

It makes me wonder if insurers charge women more because women need prenatal care and birth control.  To be fair, I do not have the figures on this, but it seems a likely explanation, given the weakness of the excuse being put forth by insurers.

And insurers are not the only ones who treat womanhood as a liability.  It is a well-known fact that many employers are more likely to hire men, who will not need to take maternity leave, over equally qualified women.  Not only does this practice qualify as blatant discrimination, it also undermines the importance of fatherhood.  Many men would love the opportunity to take a period of paternity leave in order to bond with their newborn baby.  And, of course, women still earn less on average than men.

Furthermore, this campaign season has seen all manner of disrespectful attacks on women and their right to choose how to take care of their own health.  Republican Presidential candidates have used birth control and abortion as grist to the political mill.  States like Pennsylvania are considering requiring tansvaginal ultrasounds for any woman seeking an abortion.  Conservatives are declaring that religiously affiliated employers should be permitted to opt out of providing their employees with health care plans that would cover birth control.  Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for merely arguing that her birth control should be covered by her insurance.  And Rick Santorum is called pregnancy that results from rape a “gift.”  And that’s just since Christmas!

These attacks on women are the result of a cultural philosophy that fundamentally fails to view sexuality – especially women’s sexuality – in a healthy way.  By arguing against birth control, conservative candidates, employers, and insurers are essentially arguing that sex is wrong unless it is for the express purpose of producing offspring.  This, in my opinion, is an argument that could only be made by someone who is sexually repressed.  By attempting to deny women the right to make decisions about their own health, conservatives are seeking to impose an archaic morality upon women who are doing nothing more than appreciating their own sexuality.

And the practice of charging women more for health coverage is no different from employers viewing women as professional liabilities.  Both practices view motherhood not as the amazing, beautiful, life-giving phenomenon that it is, but as a financial burden.  Rather than acknowledge the power and, indeed, the necessity of motherhood, employers and insurers, who have eyes only for the bottom line, treat motherhood as an inconvenience.

To be sure, there are measures women can take to combat these attitudes.  In the workplace, for example, women sometimes discuss feeling more intimidated than men when negotiating salaries.  As women, promoting our own worth is something we have to own.  We have to have confidence in ourselves.  But we must also ask – why is it that women feel this intimidation?  There are culture stereotypes about women that still persist and that create unequal conditions in many areas of contemporary life.

I, for one, am tired of being viewed as a financial black hole simply because I am a woman.  I am tired of being told by conservatives that I am a slut for using birth control.  I am tired of being charged more and paid less than men.  It is time for American culture to finally jettison stereotypes about women and start respecting female sexuality.

There has been a lot of buzz this week about a new ad from Chipotle. The animated commercial follows the life of a farmer as he transitions his family farm into a corporate concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), realizes the error of his ways, and returns to his former, sustainable practices. I have to admit, my eyes were a little damp as I watched the ad. But then I remembered that the video I was watching was just that – and ad.  Chipotle’s food is not organic. And I can guarantee that it does not come from farms that are truly responsible in their treatment of the animals, the soil, or local ecosystems. Chipotle is fast food.

This ad is the latest in a series of marketing techniques that are evidence of two trends, one encouraging and one troubling. On one hand, the fact that mainstream companies like Chipotle realize that consumers care where their food comes from suggests that, as a culture, we are becoming more aware of the impact our food systems have on our health, the health of our environment, and the wellbeing of the animals involved. This is a positive and powerful development.

On the other hand, companies are turning a preference for healthy, ethically sourced food – which comes from a profound understanding of our connection with nature and the fact that a failure to acknowledge that connection can have catastrophic effects – into a marketing tool. Corporations are co-opting a movement that began as protest against those very corporations. Examples of this abound. Both Frito-Lay and ConAgra have been sued for labeling genetically modified (GM) food as natural. And they certainly aren’t the only companies employing this technique. Because there are no guidelines a product must meet before it is labeled “natural,” companies are free to use the term as they see fit.

What’s more, even foods that are organic are often not responsibly sourced. As Michael Pollan discusses in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, many organic farms mistreat the animals and the soil as much as conventional farms, with the only difference being the lack of chemicals involved in the farming process. Animals at many commercial organic farms are still packed into very small spaces and deprived of healthy conditions. And many large, organic produce farmers still engage in monoculture farming, which damages the soil and has negative effects on local ecosystems.

We must, therefore, not buy into the marketing techniques of these corporations. Instead, as consumers, we must stay true to the original impulse that these companies are trying to appropriate. Food labeling is one important way to do that. For example, labeling commercial or industrial organic foods differently from organic foods that come from farms where animal welfare and responsible ecological practices are taken into account, as well, would be helpful. Setting standards for the use of the word “natural” is necessary, as well.

There is a large movement to push for legislation that would require companies to label foods that are genetically modified or contain genetically modified ingredients. In Europe, such labels are already behind. Legislation has been introduced in the Vermont , Connecticut, and Washington state legislatures that would require similar labeling.

Many customers are unaware of the fairly large amounts of genetically modified foods that they eat on a regular basis. If the U.S. were to adopt GM labeling, it would give consumers the ability to choose for themselves whether they wish to consume GM foods. Labeling would also be a significant blow to companies like Monsanto that contaminate organic crops when winds blow their GM seeds into organic fields, where they cross-pollinate with the organic seeds.

The desire for organic food that is ethically and responsibly sourced is not a passing fad that we as consumers can allow large corporations to exploit for their own profit. It is a desire that comes from a much deeper place. It indicates an understanding that we must recognize the extent to which we both depend upon and affect our environment. It is a desire to break free from the undue influence that large corporations have on so many facets of our lives. In fact, out of  Occupy Wall Street has grown Occupy Our Food Supply, a movement that seeks to end corporate control of our food system and promote local, responsible farmers. Therefore, we must be wary of the marketing ploys of large food corporations and strive to stay true to the original intent of the organic and local food movements.

This is the recipe I use when I make guacamole.  It can be found on the Whole Foods website.  I am not sure if it is the same guacamole found in all Whole Foods stores, because I have purchased guacamole from a few locations and it often has tomatoes, which this recipe does not call for.  But even tomato free, this recipe is delicious and very easy.  When combining the ingredients, I mix them together with a fork first, then finish up with an immersion blender to make the it even creamier.

Ingredients

4 avocados, mashed
Juice of one lime
3 garlic cloves, freshly pressed
5 to 6 green onions, thinly sliced
1 cup cilantro, cleaned and chopped
1 to 2 seedless jalapeños, diced

Mix avocado with lime juice and then stir in garlic, onions, cilantro, and jalapeños. Try spooning it into a half of a papaya for breakfast. Or do the chips and quesadilla thing. It also makes a super bagel topper.

Nutrition Information

Per serving: 150 calories (120 from fat), 13g total fat, 2g saturated fat, 0mg cholesterol, 10mg sodium, 9g total carbohydrate (6g dietary fiber, 1g sugar), 2g protein

Last week, my friend Amie took me to Sol Food, and organic, Puerto Rican restaurant in San Rafael, CA.  Amie is incredibly knowledgeable about food and health and she had been telling me about this place for two months.

We met up at my house first.  I live about an hour and half from San Rafael.  What’s more, we had to drive in rain both directions, and we got caught in bridge traffic.  But let me tell you, it was so worth it.

The food is organic and much of it is gluten-free.  All fried dishes are fried in rice bran oil, which is free of trans fats and lacks the artery clogging effects of vegetable oils.

Amie and I decided to order several dishes and share.  The fried plantains are amazing.  Perfectly caramelized, warm and soft.  Just right for a rainy day.

The beef is served with sautéed onions and prepared to the peak of tenderness and flavor.  And the rotisserie chicken is juicy and accented nicely with rosemary.

Amie’s favorite is the fried shrimp.  Crunchy on the outside and soft inside.  And it doesn’t taste at all greasy, as fried seafood often does.  We also ordered a basket of plantain chips.  Crunchy and mild in flavor, they were excellent with the house dipping sauce.  I brought some home and finished them off with some guacamole I had made.

In addition to the excellent food, the restaurant really has the feel of something conceived and created out of love.  The owners wanted the restaurant to be a community gathering place, and they succeeded.  With brightly colored decor and servers who seem truly invested in creating a friendly environment, Sol Food leaves you with a full spirit and a full belly.

There has been a lot of buzz lately about the assertions of Robert Lustig, a researcher at UC San Francisco, and his team who claim that sugar should be treated and regulated as a toxin, the same way we regulate alcohol and tobacco.  Both Time and the New York Times Magazine have run lengthy articles about the topic.

Lustig explains that sugar does more to harm us than simply causing us to gain weight.  If consumed in very large amounts, it can lead to conditions like diabetes and hypertension.  What is more, large amounts of sugar are associated with a condition called metabolic syndrome, in which the cells in the body ignore the presence of insulin.  When we eat, particularly when we consume carbohydrates, the pancreas secretes insulin to control blood sugar.  But when the cells are insulin resistant, the pancreas responds to carbohydrates by secreting more and more insulin.  This can lead to pancreatic exhaustion and eventually diabetes.  What is worrisome about metabolic syndrome is that it is sometimes present in slender people, and therefore may go unnoticed until long-term damage is done.  There is also some research that suggests that too much sugar may even be linked to cancer, according to the Times article.

The science here is, for the most part, undeniable and rather frightening.  But Lustig’s alarmist reaction – suggesting that sugar, a food, should be viewed and regulated in the same light as toxic substances like tobacco – underscores a deeper dysfunction in the American relationship with food.

Of course we know that diets with less refined sugar are healthier for a number of reasons.  However, the most serious health impacts of sugar occur when we eat too much of it.  Eating a reasonable amount of sugar is not terribly likely to cause severe health problems.  However, our nation’s food chain has become industrialized to the point that, as consumers, we do not know where the food comes from.  With packaged foods, we usually don’t even know what many of the ingredients are.  And even with whole foods like meat, dairy, and produce, we often do not know where or under what conditions the products are farmed.  We have lost our collective food culture.

As a result, we are disconnected from the food we eat and we have few strong cultural traditions around food to fall back on.  This is why so many of us eat meals in our cars, a practice not engaged in to the same extent in other parts of the world.  As Americans, we are lost when it comes to knowing what is good for us to eat.  So we are susceptible to the claims of those who may not have the most balanced or objective opinion.  The Atkins craze, a diet whose validity was largely disproved, is an example of that.

Therefore, when a researcher claims that sugar is a toxin, the media and the public are immediately terrified.  However, if we were more connected to the food we eat, we would not be launched into the throes of irrational fear for two reasons.  First, if we were more connected to what we eat, we would by and large eat more healthfully because we would understand what our food is and where it comes from.  As a result, we would naturally be inclined to eat sugar only in moderation.  Next, a deeper understanding of the food we eat would allow for a culture around food, much like people enjoy in Italy or France.  We would have a collective, tried and true social intelligence that would  give us cues as to how much of a particular food is good to eat. We would be able to look to our parents and grandparents, see that they included sugar in their diets in moderation, and know to do the same thing.

In addition, a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the food we eat would cause most of us to largely avoid processed foods.  If we understood all of those long words on the ingredient labels of most packaged foods, we wouldn’t want to consume those products.  As a result, we would be steering clear of the large amounts of high fructose corn syrup ingested by most Americans, thereby avoiding the consumption the high levels of sugar that lead to the health conditions that Lustig describes.

Diet fads come and go.  One day eggs are too high in cholesterol, the next they are healthy and beneficial.  One day carbs are good, the next day they’re the devil.  We don’t need master lists of foods that are naughty and nice.  Rather, we need greater transparency in our food chain, which will allow for a greater connection to the food we eat and an intelligent food culture.  In turn, we will have a population that is more balanced in its food selection and correspondingly healthier.

I recently read this article in Elephant Journal in which a yoga instructor discusses her path toward learning to accept herself for real.  As an early developing, athletic girl, she always considered herself “fat.”  After years of battling this negative body image, she eventually stopped pushing herself to workout due to guilt, began eating what her body wanted, and lost weight.  Even then, though, the instructor felt she accepted herself only due to her new slimmer waistline.  Years later, she suddenly gained 20 pounds but, rather than attempt to lose it, she finally accepted that the new weight was where her body wanted to be, and decided to try to accept herself regardless of her weight.

This story resonated deeply with me.  As someone who has struggled with body image for the last decade, I’ve finally started to experience the liberation of valuing health over weight.  In the last year, I’ve started eating healthfully and I’ve stopped obsessively counting calories and depriving myself of critical nutrients.  And I’ve gained some weight.  I knew that would be the case, and I also know I’m happier and healthier now that I ever was when I was counting calories.  But even as recently as a few days ago, I considered going on a “quick” diet.  It would only be for a week or two, I told myself, then it would be back to my regular, healthy eating habits.  It is very tempting to go down that road, but I know where it leads.  Letting that critical, obsessive voice back in could be my ticket into relapse.  And even if that’s not the case, even if I actually did only diet for a week, that would be a decision made out of self-judgment and an inability to accept and value myself for who I am.  And as difficult as it is to resist temptation, I know I deserve better.

On a recent Tuesday night, I joined a couple of friends for a birthday dinner at Ensarro, a wonderful Ethiopian restaurant on Grand Street in Oakland, CA. It is an unassuming place that appears, from the outside, very much like every other restaurant in the area. The dimly lit main room is long and narrow with a comfortable decor, nothing fancy.

In contrast with the rather ordinary yet inviting atmosphere, it is the food that makes Ensarro something special. The dishes are unpretentious, prepared with fresh, quality ingredients and enticing seasonings. I ordered the acham yelesh shiro, a creamy, stew-like dish made of chickpeas, onions, garlic, and Ethiopian spices. It was mildly spicy and went perfectly with the injera, a spongy, Ethiopian flatbread with a mild sourdough flavor. Indeed, all dishes here are served family style atop a large slice of injera, which can even be ordered gluten-free.

Since the dishes were served family style, I also had the opportunity to sample the ye beg tibs, lamb served with a berbere sauce, and the ye doro tibs, pan-fried chicken with peppers, onions, and Ethiopian spices. All of the dishes were excellent.

Ensarro offers standard beers and wines, as well as tej, an Ethipoian honey wine, similar to mead. I tried the tej and it was quite delicious. It is very sweet, almost like a dessert wine. So if you don’t enjoy your booze sweet, it might not be for you. But I enjoyed it so much that I found a meadery in San Jose called Rabbit’s Foot and ordered a bottle. I have not yet tried it, but if it is anything like the tej at Ensarro, I will not be disappointed.