100 Miles

Last night, sick with a cold and unable to sleep, I decided to take advantage of having tv and went flipping through the channels. There's not a whole lot to watch at 3am. I ended up catching the concluding episode of The 100 Mile Diet Challenge on The Food Network. I'd briefly caught part of an episode some time ago, but nothing more.

First off, I just want to make it clear that I think there are a lot of excellent reasons for shopping local for food. These reasons run the gamut from supporting the local economy, to the improved flavour of fresh ingredients, to being more aware of where our food comes from. I think that, in general, people are too far removed from their food, and have no clue as to what's involved in keeping our grocery stores stocked. If buying local helps people become more aware and connected with their food, I think that's a great thing.

This, however, is not the point of The 100 Mile Diet. It is, according to the show and the authors of the book, actually about reducing our "carbon footprint." I'll have to assume that when they say "carbon," they actually mean "carbon dioxide." At which point, the 100 mile diet would be a failure. It's already been demonstrated that, for most things, shopping local actually has a higher "carbon footprint," than buying mass shipped, or even imported, foods in large grocery stores. Dozens of small producers bringing their products to scattered farmer's markets, or consumers having to drive far afield to find these local products, emits more CO2 than the more efficient grocery chain model. If reducing CO2 emissions were truly the goal, you'd be better off going to these big franchises than driving around to various markets, roadside stands or directly to the producers themselves. This was actually demonstrated in the show, as the participants found themselves spending a great deal of time driving around to find local produce. It was rather amusing to see how the authors brushed this off as being an example of how bad the current system is.

Leaving off the CO2 footprint entirely, there were a few other interesting things that had me shaking my head about the show. One was the location. The idea was for an entire town to take part in the 100 mile diet challenge, to varying degrees. The show itself followed the 6 households that signed on to go 100% local for 100 days. Others signed on for 80% or 50%.

The town this was in?

Mission, BC.

In the summer.

For those who don't know why that's a head shaker for me, it's a bit like setting a family up in a major grocery store and telling them they can only eat what they find in the building. The region Mission is located in is a cornucopia of food production, not only for the richness and variety of foods produced in the area, but the long growing season and mild climate, as well. A real challenge would be to do this in, say, Thompson, Manitoba.

The one episode I'd seen part of before must've been very early in the series, as it showed the families having their first 100% breakfast, after having removed from their households all non-local foods the day before. I was surprised by how little these people knew what to do with their food. Unable to buy whatever they wanted, most of them had no idea what to do with what they had, unable to "make do." A strange concept to me, since making do is pretty much the only way I know how to cook. By the end of the challenge, however, they all seemed to have overcome this lack of knowledge and did quite well. A valuable lesson, I believe.

Another thing that had my eyebrows twitching is the obvious wealth among this group of people. Of the 6 households, only one didn't appear to be rich, and they were farmers already producing a lot of their own food. Obviously, family finances weren't discussed in the show, but in looking at their homes, the equipment they had to work with, and the land they had available to start growing their own food, these were all things out of reach of a lot of people. I certainly couldn't see how someone on a retirement income, or even an average income family, could have all this. There certainly wasn't anyone on a limited income living in a tiny apartment and no balcony. Just as an example, with one couple the husband said that his wife did all the bill paying, grocery shopping, etc., and he had no idea about the household finances. Fair enough; it obviously worked for this family.

It's probably a good thing he *didn't* know it, either. His wife was meticulous about keeping receipts for food purchases during the challenge, even if it meant writing the number on a scrap of paper if no receipt was given. For their first month on the challenge, their food budget doubled to over $1200!!! Granted, as she got the hang of things, that number dropped to their usual budget by the last month. First off, the fact that they could double their food budget without him even noticing tells me they had a fair amount of financial leeway. Second, they could actually spend over $600 a month on food for their family (I believe they had 2 young children). My grocery budget for our family of four is about $800 a month. Note I say "grocery" budget, not "food" budget. My grocery budget is for whatever I buy at the grocery store, including laundry supplies, household cleaners, personal hygiene, pet supplies and even some of my husband's prescriptions. Not all, since he's had a few that would take up about half of my budget all on their own, never mind adding them all together. So when it comes down to it, my food bills probably range from about $300-$400 a month for the four of us - and this is actually the highest it's been in quite a few years. In the past, I've had to work things out with much less. I manage it because I know how to do a lot of things from scratch, and how to make do with what I can afford.

So this was another area where I found the challenge to be unrealistic for a lot of people. Buying local is, quite frequently, more expensive. Unless one is able to grow/raise a lot of the foods themselves (which quite a few of the challengers did attempt), going local is financially out of reach for many people.

It was particularly interesting to hear what the participants had to say about the challenge at the end of it. Of the 6 couples, one found it to be quite a negative experience, and they couldn't wait for it to be over. They found the whole thing was a lot of bother, took up too much time, and wasn't worth it. Time was a factor mentioned by most of the participants. Finding, prepping and preparing the foods took up inordinate amounts of time. As someone who grew up helping produce most of the food for our family of 7, this was no surprise to me. There is a lot of time and effort required, even if you're not actually growing/raising the food yourself. For one family with an autistic child, it actually interfered with the mother's ability to follow the special program they had for their son.

The reactions to this family that had a negative experience was part of what made it so interesting. The authors had me chuckling with their holier-than-thou, they just didn't try hard enough attitude. The other families, however, seemed to resent this couple quite a bit. You see, they travelled a great deal, which means they "cheated." They actually got caught on video drinking coffee. This was a sore point among the group to the point that a new "rule" was established by the authors, and this couple had to perform a penance to make up for their cheating ways. Eventually, it was reveled that pretty much everyone else cheated at some point, too. They just didn't get caught.

A few other details stood out with me. There was a lot of talk about how much "healthier" they were eating by eating locally, and how much better they felt. The implication, of course, is that food outside 100 miles is less healthy somehow. There were some hints, however, that each of these families actually had quite poor dietary habits to begin with. Despite the implications, eating locally produced food isn't going to be that much healthier than the same food shipped in. All fresh food begins to loose nutrients as soon as it's harvested, whether you buy it at a roadside stand or from a store. From my experiences on an organic food service, where locally grown fruits and vegetables were delivered to my door weekly, they are more susceptible to bugs and fungus.

At the end of the challenge, when the families got their bins of non-local foods back, and they could start buying whatever they wanted again, things were particularly revealing. Pretty much every adult on the program started off with coffee. The sheer bliss on their faces as they took their first sips was amazing. There was also chocolate, pop, foods with sugar in them, and even tequila. One guy was in heaven over a glass of orange juice. Even though all the families said they'd learned a great deal and would continue to buy local more often, most were only too happy to return to their "forbidden" foods. The authors seems rather disappointed about that.

For all the benefits that come with buying local, clearly, restricting people's diets this severely made them simply want those foods/drinks even more.

As much as I like the idea of buying locally, and especially growing and raising our own food, I completely disagree with the authors that following a 100 mile diet would be of benefit to the world. The main reason for this is that it's inherently selfish. Such a limitation is the ultimate in protectionism. Until recent years, humans have never willingly limited themselves so severely. Instead, we have always been eager to import foods, drinks and spices. Such trade didn't just make importers wealthy. It gave producers new markets beyond their local sphere.

If we really want to make a difference in impoverished nations, giving money to large charities isn't going to do it. Most of the money doesn't make it to those who need it. Donating food doesn't work, either. The donations often end up propping up warlords, or get sold in the local markets. Neither will provide people with a permanent hand up, rather than temporary hand outs. That means buying their goods. Exporting their produce to other countries allows producers in some of the poorest nations to make a living; to make a life for themselves and their families. Increasing their personal wealth leads to improved conditions for the entire community, which in turn leads to improved environmental conditions.

If you want fresh ingredients, buy from a local producers. If you want to reduce your "carbon footprint," buy at a big box grocery store. If you want to help your local sphere, buy local produce. If you want to help someone on the other side of the world, buy imported goods.

I think there's room for both.

Sometimes, I worry...

... about the people Pres. Obama has surrounded himself with. Like his "science czar," John Holdren. He co-wrote a book, Ecoscience: Population, resources, environment, way back in 1977. His co-authors? None other than the Malthusians, Paul and Anne Ehrlich. So it's no surprise that he advocated for stuff like this.

• compulsory abortions should be legal
• single mothers should have their babies taken away from them by the government, or they could be forced to have abortions
  
• mass sterilization of humans through drugs in the water supply is OK, as long as it doesn't harm livestock
• The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or
implanting mandatory long-term birth control

• The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
• Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
• A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
• We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
• Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
• As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

Granted, he wrote this a long time ago, but he has never renounced any of it since then.

Vist here for more details.

Curious

Going through my morning news, I noticed something curious at Google News headlines. I'm looking at the health tab, and this is what I'm seeing.

Top of the list (newest) is about Calgary hospital workers and H1N1. There are 8 related articles. It's only been posted 18 minutes ago, so it's not going to have a lot yet.

Obesity/H1N1: top one posted 5 hours ago, where 10 cases apparently is enough to make a connection between obesity and H1N1 severity, 2,757 related stories.

Next, we have stories on the isotope shortage, top one posted 3 hours ago, 413 related stories.

"Health workers told to shut up," from yesterday, 59 related articles.

"2730 breast cancer patients to be retested," from 2 days ago, 40 related articles.

"Workers' flu not linked to pandemic..." three days ago, 193 related articles.

Bpa found in glass baby food jars, from yesterday, 91 related articles...

On it does, down the list, with the numbers getting ever smaller.

So how is it that a bullsh*t article about obesity and H1N1 warrents over 2,700 stories, but all the others, including the ones also connected to H1N1, at most warrent a few hundred?

Curious, indeed!

This is what an apology looks like

PM Harper made a mistake. When he found out, this is what his response was.

“During that press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff for some things he had allegedly said about Canada and the G8,” Mr. Harper said this afternoon at a wrap-up news conference of the Group of Eight major industrial nations.

“This was not a quotation of Mr. Ignatieff. I regret the error and I apologize to Mr. Ignatieff for the error.”

Actually, there are two apologies...

Mr. Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, said it was he who told Mr. Harper about the quote, which he said had been forwarded to him in the early morning hours Thursday.

Mr. Soudas didn't know who the quote was attributed to, only that was an academic.

“I also advised the Prime Minister, that, had he said that, it would be unacceptable,” he said.

“Firstly I have to apologize to the Prime Minister for misinforming him and ill-advising him to attribute a quote to Mr. Ignatieff that is not Mr. Ignatieff's,” he said.

“Secondly, and more importantly, I have to apologize to Mr. Ignatieff.”

Mr. Soudas said he will accept whatever consequences come to him. He did not say whether he has offered his resignation.

What do we have here?

1) erroneous action is identified
2) error made is pointed out
3) person targeted by the error is identified
4) admission to and responsibility for error is taken
5) unequivocal apology to the target is made.

What don't we have?

1) no blaming of the error on the person who gave the information
2) no sideways blaming of the victim
3) no "I'm sorry people were offended by my comments" psuedo-apology


We also have an example of sleaze.

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that the matter showed Harper's true character.

“I think all Canadians have to recognize that we have the smallest man on the world stage that it's possible to imagine, and that's Stephen Harper,” Mr. Rae told CTV News Channel.

“He never misses an opportunity to stoop. Not to conquer, just to throw mud.”

Let's see... PM Harper and Mr. Soudas made a mistake. They acknowledged their mistake, took responsibility for it and unequivocally apologized for the mistake.

Bob Rae uses this as another opportunity to make an over-the-top sling at the PM.

Yes, Mr. Rae. It does show true character.

So does your response to it.

Nothing better to do? updated

Man, some people are really reaching for something to b*tch about.

Did Harper pocket the wafer?

A video posted on YouTube shows Harper taking the host, but does not show him swallowing it afterward. Soudas said he consumed the wafer seconds after taking it.

Harper is a Protestant and would not normally be given Roman Catholic communion, though it was unclear whether it could be appropriate on special occasions.

Henneberry said that if Harper accepted the host but did not consume it “it’s worse than a faux pas, it’s a scandal from the Catholic point of view.”

I notice the article didn't include a link to the video. They usually do. I wonder why not, this time?

Still, ya gotta wonder how a story like this is up there with China threatening to kill rioters, or Chalk River closing down.

Having grown up Catholic, it was made very clear to me that you could only go for communion after having had First Communion - that ceremonial even where little girls dressed like brides and boys in shirts and ties (I don't know if they still do it that way) and are given their first communion after having taking special classes and proving their knowledge of the importance and background of this sacred ritual. My mother in particular let me know that one had to be forgiven of sins as well. Whether that had anything to do with Church doctrine, I have no idea, but going to confession at least once a year was vital, and I came away believing that if I hadn't gone to confession, I wasn't worthy of communion. Years later, having stopped going to church regularly, I attended mass as part of a special event. When it came time for communion, I and my family stayed in our seats. My mother was surprised and asked me about it later. I told her why and she let it drop.

Personally, I no longer feel welcome in the Catholic church. I got married by a Justice of the Peace, which means the RC church does not recognise my marriage. I no longer attend mass. The only reason the kids got baptised was because it was important to the grandparents and getting it done got my mother off my back about it.

Having said that, I still respect the rituals. These things are important to a lot of people, and I can respect that.

I don't know how appropriate it was for a Protestant to take communion in a Catholic mass - I don't know enough about Protestants to say, but I do know that it is acceptable among the big 5 Christian faith groups to partake in each other's rituals and recognize each other's ceremonies, such as marriage. I can't even remember what the big 5 are, except RC and Anglican. So it may have been entirely acceptable for the PM to partake in communion.

That people jump to the conclusion that, in not seeing the PM eat the wafer in the short video clip meant that he pocketed it is just plain silly. I remember any number of people who would eat their wafer half way back to their seats. Some even waited until they reached their seats and ate it while kneeling in prayer. That fact that the PM eating it wasn't visible in the video (which I have yet to find and see) doesn't mean a thing.

As for "pocketing" the wafer, it's no where near the faux pas it's made out to be. It certainly isn't a scandal. My mother regularly "pockets" wafers. She gets an extra from the priest to take home to my father, who is no longer physically able to attend mass. Sometimes, she gets one for her sister, who is also unable to attend mass anymore. Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. Obviously the PM wouldn't be doing this, but it still wouldn't be that big of a deal. If anything, it would have been ignorance, not disrespect.

But hey, it's PM Harper. Can't let a good slag go by, even if it's nothing but supposition.

update: So I finally saw the video at http://www.thestar.com/videozone/662717 This is what I see - someone who had no idea what to do with the wafer. Since the wafer was in his hand before the view of the PM was blocked by the priest, then no longer in his hand after, he ate it then. He just needed to see the other guy eat his wafer to know what to do with it.

Personally, I'm more curious as to why he went for communion while holding a piece of paper in his hand. He clearly has no familiarity with RC rituals.

Happy 4th...

Wishing my friends and visitors from the US a Happy Independance Day. I hope you have a great time celebrating. :-)

Happy Canada Day!!

Just taking a moment in between outings to wish my fellow Canadians a Happy Canada Day.

I hope you're having as wonderful a day as we are! :-D