The organic-food business is booming: About 70 percent of Americans buy organic food occasionally, and nearly one quarter buy it every week, according to the Hartman Group, a market research firm. For most of us, the reason is simple: We want natural food that's better for us and for the environment, says Samuel Fromartz, author of Organic, Inc. But buying organic can cost you as much as 50 percent more so read on to know when it's worth it.

Though organic food can be produced with certain synthetic ingredients, it must adhere to specific standards regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Crops are generally grown without synthetic pesticides, artificial fertilizers, irradiation (a form of radiation used to kill bacteria), or biotechnology. Animals on organic farms eat organically grown feed, aren't confined 100 percent of the time (as they sometimes are on conventional farms), and are raised without antibiotics or synthetic growth hormones.

Organic foods may have higher nutritional value than conventional food, according to some research. The reason: In the absence of pesticides and fertilizers, plants boost their production of the phytochemicals (vitamins and antioxidants) that strengthen their resistance to bugs and weeds. Some studies have linked pesticides in our food to everything from headaches to cancer to birth defects but many experts maintain that the levels in conventional food are safe for most healthy adults. Even low-level pesticide exposure, however, can be significantly more toxic for fetuses and children (due to their less-developed immune systems) and for pregnant women (it puts added strain on their already taxed organs), according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences.

Pesticide contamination isn't as much of a concern in meats and dairy products (animals may consume some pesticides, depending on their diet), but many scientists are concerned about the antibiotics being given to most farm animals: Many are the same antibiotics humans rely on, and overuse of these drugs has already enabled bacteria to develop resistance to them, rendering them less effective in fighting infection, says Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D., chief scientist at the Organic Center, a nonprofit research organization.

Organic farming reduces pollutants in groundwater and creates richer soil that aids plant growth while reducing erosion, according to the Organic Trade Association. It also decreases pesticides that can end up in your drinking glass; in some cities, pesticides in tap water have been measured at unsafe levels for weeks at a time, according to an analysis performed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). (To find out about the safety of your tap water, visit the EWG website.) Plus, organic farming used 50 percent less energy than conventional farming methods in one 15-year study.

If you can afford it, buy local and organic, recommends Fromartz. Farmers' markets carry reasonably priced locally grown organic and conventional food; to find one in your area, go to localharvest.org. If you can't always afford organic, do spend the extra money when it comes to what the EWG calls the "dirty dozen": peaches, strawberries, nectarines, apples, spinach, celery, pears, sweet bell peppers, cherries, potatoes, lettuce, and imported grapes. These fragile fruits and vegetables often require more pesticides to fight off bugs compared to hardier produce, such as asparagus and broccoli. Download a list of produce ranked by pesticide contamination at foodnews.org, an EWG website.

When shopping for organic foods, always look for the USDA seal on any kind of packaged food. For meat and dairy, this seal ensures you're getting antibiotic- and hormone-free products. When buying meat or produce that isn't packaged, look for a sign stating that it's organic, or ask the store clerk.

Anyone who loves organic food is going to say the taste is better than fruits or veggies that have been treated with pesticides but is it true? According to a 2014 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, the higher antioxidant levels in organic produce might actually enhance its organoleptic qualities a.k.a. its aroma, taste, and even the sensation in your mouth as you're eating it. Pretty cool, huh?

Excerpt from:

Facts About Organic Foods - Pros and Cons of Organic Produce

Organic farmers and food producers grow and produce food without using synthetic chemicals such as pesticides and artificial fertilisers. They do not use genetically modified (GM) components or expose food to irradiation.

Animal welfare and environmental sustainability are important issues for organic farmers. The term organic can also cover animal products. For example, eggs certified as organic are free range, rather than from caged (battery) hens.

Types of organic produce available in Australia include fruit and vegetables, dried legumes, grains, meat and meat products, dairy foods, eggs, honey and some processed foods.

Organic farming is also concerned with protecting the environment and working in harmony with existing ecosystems, including conserving water, soil and energy, and using renewable resources and natural farming cycles. Traditional farming methods are often used, such as rotating crops to prevent depleting the soil of nutrients.

Certain naturally occurring pesticides, including pyrethrins, light oils, copper and sulphur, and biological substances such as Bacillus thuringiensis, are permitted for use in organic farming.

Consumer demand for organic food is growing at a rate of 2030 per cent per year, with retail sales increasing 670 per cent between 1990 and 200102. It is estimated that more than six out of every ten Australian households now buy organic foods on occasion.

Before 2009, a standard (guidelines and rules) did not exist for domestic and imported organic foods. This led to a misrepresentation of the word organic in the Australian domestic food market.

Two key standards now govern the production, processing and labelling of organic food in Australia. These are:

While it is mandatory for exported organic produce to be certified and meet the National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce, the Australian standard (for domestic and imported foods) is not mandated, and certification is voluntary. Its purpose is to assist the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC the national consumer regulatory authority) to ensure that claims made about organic and biodynamic products are not false or misleading.

Organic-certified produce means the food was grown, harvested, stored and transported without the use of synthetic chemicals, irradiation or fumigants.

Visit link:

Organic food - Better Health Channel

Share

Share

Share

Email

Organic has gained a lot of popularity in the last few decades. Today, in the US it a huge business with consumers spending over 39.1 billion on organic produce (2014). The popularity of organic food is not slowing down as people are spending more across the world because they think organic food is more safe, healthy, and delicious. Also, it is better for the environment and animals.

Organic foods are those which have been grown without artificial chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones. In simple words, to label organic, a food must be free from of artificial food additives which include flavouring, colouring, preservatives, and artificial sweeteners. There are many facts about organic food which you are not aware of. Let me give you few examples, most of the organic food today comes from Mexico and China, so if you are eating organic good to help our Earth you must know from where your food comes from. Almost, all organic foods travel a thousand miles before they reach your grocery store. There are many processed foods which are labelled as Organic like oatmeal and cookies. They contain approximately 5% non-organic ingredients and are still able to qualify for USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Organic label.

As per the researchers at Stanford, it has been found out that bacteria content is same whether the food has been organically grown and conventionally grown. However, conventionally raised and grown animal products have 33 per cent more antibiotic-resistant microbes. One of the most important facts about organic food, it must be washed thoroughly because it has many kinds of bacteria and dirt attached to it which can make you sick. Also, The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and NOP (National Organic Program) do not inspect different companies or foods for certification. They both dont have any authority in other countries either. However, France has strict guidelines for organic foods. China also certifies only 30 per cent of its organic products. However, conventionally raised and grown animal products have 33 per cent more antibiotic-resistant microbes. One of the most important facts about organic food, it must be washed thoroughly because it has many kinds of bacteria and dirt attached to it which can make you sick. Also, The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and NOP (National Organic Program) do not inspect different companies or foods for certification. They both dont have any authority in other countries either. However, France has strict guidelines for organic foods. China also certifies only 30 per cent of its organic products.

Organic yield is always lower because they are grown without using pesticides. Therefore, organic produce is 50 per cent more expensive than conventional produce. So, let me tell you a few important facts about organic food that you must know,

1. If you are not able to afford Organic produce, dont worry. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has made a list of the Clean Fifteen which are the fifteen conventionally grown produce items with the least amount of pesticide residue.

2. Organic chickens and their eggs are egg free. They are not being given any antibiotics or vaccines. Also, their diet includes insects and organic feed. It is far better than the stuff most factory farm animals are offering.

3. Organic isnt just related to eating crops. Cotton is one of the huge crops that are grown in 17 states of the United States. They are mostly used for clothing and by wearing organic clothes wont let off pesticides but it will help in supporting sustainable growth practices and keeps pesticides out of the groundwater.

Related: Top 10 Sugar Producing Countries in the World

4. For any farm to be certified as organic it will not use any prohibited pesticides, GMO seeds or products, or you can say sewage sludge can be used on the land to grow organic crops for 3 years. Obviously, organic farming is far healthier for soil in long term.

5. Wines that are labelled or grown organically contain no added sulphites. So, if youre someone who gets headaches from red wine or is sensitive to sulphates, try organic wine. The United States usually import wines from France, Italy, Argentina & New Zealand, and these countries are very strict for regulating the production of both wine and organic food.

6. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) can never be used to produce production or organic meat. If you are purchasing meat, both seeds and the feed that animals get should be non-GMO.

7. Round-Up, one of the most common pesticides used and made by Monsanto, Glyphosphate is one of the main ingredients has seen a large increase in use in the past decade. It has stronger links to cancer. Two more ingredients in Roundup are becoming issues as well namely diazinon is being further researches for being possibly carcinogenic, and Malathion, which the World Health Organization found to cause prostate cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One of the most important facts about the organic food you must know. These chemicals specifically are never used in organic farming.

8. How will you know if the produce is organic? You must look at the PLU (price look-up) code on the product or sticker. If the first number is a 9, its organic. If its an 8, its genetically engineered (GMO).

9. Most organic meat is grass-fed meaning that generally cows can graze and roam about doing cow things, and eating grass. Its their natural diet, results in happier livestock, better meat for us.

10. Try to buy vegetables from local farmers, they are not USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) but more than happy to talk to you about how they grow their produce and what, if any, pesticides they use. Its always better to know where your food comes from is vital to know whats in it.

11. Packages that contain the trademark of the USDA Organic seal that may contain 100% organic ingredients.

12. Organic farmers include insect traps, careful crop selection that includes disease-resistant varieties and beneficial microorganisms, however, farmers spray pesticides that can leave residue on the farm itself.

13. All Organic producing nations like the European Union, the U.S., Canada, Japan etc have a special certification program based on the government norms.

14. There are several studies that show that pesticide in childrens urine was significantly lower if they are consuming organic diets.

15. Organic milk is one of the fastest growing sectors in the beverage market.

These are theinteresting facts about Organic Food that you might want to know. Do post your comments.

Read the original:

15 Interesting Facts About Organic Food That You Might ...

Youve made the smart and healthy choice to add more plants to your diet, but now you might be wondering if you should start choosing organic fruits and vegetables instead of conventional produce. Just the prospect of eating organic food can add another layer of confusion when it comes to choosing your food a plant-based diet. Is it better to only eat organic, even if that means eating less plants overall? Or should you opt for conventional and push the worry of chemicals and pesticides to the back of your mind? Rather than feeling perplexed in the produce section, here are the facts about organic versus conventional, so you can make the right decision for you.

A: The term organic is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), so food has to meet certain criteria before baring the organic seal. Produce can be labeled organic if its grown on soil that hasnt been contaminated with any prohibited substances (most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) for at least three years before the harvest. It seems simple enough, right? Well, its not all black and white.

The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances defines synthetic and natural substances that can and cannot be used in organic crop production. You may be surprised to find out that there are a limited number of non-organic substances that may be used to grow organic products in particular situations. And, organic farmers utilize pesticides made from natural materials to grow their crops. That means organic crops are not free from all pesticides, just the synthetic ones.

In other words, the term organic is confusing, and all of the mixed messages can cause analysis paralysis when standing in the produce aisle. As a matter of fact, a recent study in Nutrition Today found that uncertainty about organic produce messaging can cause people to buy fewer fruits and vegetables overall.

The Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 are two lists that perpetuate the skepticism over the organic versus conventional debate. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit organization that analyzes a combination of the USDAs test data with their own tests to determine the types of fruits and vegetables containing the largest amount of pesticides. The 12 with the most pesticides make up the Dirty Dozen, while the ones with the least pesticides are considered to be the Clean 15.

These lists make for sensationalized headlines, but its not as bad as it sounds. Carl Winter, Ph.D., toxicologist at the University of California, Davis, told the Alliance for Food and Farming (a nonprofit organization made up of both organic and conventional farmers) that the EWG's methodology for testing the produce is arbitrary. "To accurately assess consumer risks from pesticides, one needs to consider the amount of residue on the foods...the amount of food consumed [and] the toxicity of the pesticides. The methodology used by EWG ignores all three," says Winter. Plus, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests washing your produce under running tap water, which usually removes or eliminates any existing residues on both organic and conventional produce.

A paper in the Journal of Toxicology studied the EWG's Dirty Dozen list and found that exposure to the most commonly detected pesticides creates very little health risks. The authors add that eating organic produce in place of conventional doesn't reduce these tiny risks. In other words, the Dirty Dozen list creates more stress than is necessary, and you shouldnt let it dissuade you from buying produce.

A: Lets be honest, organic produce is expensive. If you can afford to buy it and its important to you, go ahead and add it to your shopping list. But if organic is outside of your budget, eating conventional plant-based food is better than not eating any at all. Unfortunately, only one in 10 Americans eat the recommended amount of fruits and veggies each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and negative messages about products don't help. To get your daily doses of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and fiber, its better to eat conventional fruits and vegetables than none at all.

Bottom line: Eat more plants, no matter which type you choose.

Visit link:

Ask The Expert: When Should You Buy Buy Organic Food Versus Conventional? - The Beet

The internet can be a confusing place. A five-minute Google search for nutrition advice is perhaps the best illustration of this fact. Allow me to demonstrate with a classic example. Do GMO crops cause cancer?

Most GMOs are designed to be sprayed with Monsantos Roundup herbicide Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is classified as a class 2A carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ...

Or this:

Science has been studying cancer for a long time, and it has come to a few conclusions. One of which is that there are precious few ways to prevent cancer, and avoiding GMOs is not one of them.

The first statement was written by an anti-biotechnology activist with a history of fabricating fears about genetic engineering, the second by a biochemist with 30 years of research experience. Nonetheless, the average consumer or athlete may not know whom to believe at first glance. Faced with this contradictory but seemingly authoritative commentary, what do you do if you really want to know if GMOs boost your cancer risk?

The solution is simple, if not always easy to apply: turn to the experts and think critically about everything you read. To make that task a bit easier in practice, nutrition scientist David Lightsey has produced a helpful handbook to guide curious consumers through the morass dietary nonsense they'll inevitably encounter online: The Myths About Nutrition Science (TMNS).

A food and nutrition science advisor to QuackWatch, Lightsey has spent 31 years separating evidence-based information from plain old nonsense. His book, at just over 200 pages, will arm readers with a basic understanding of many perennially important nutritional issueseverything from obesity and supplements to GMO crops and pesticidesand a useful immunization against the junk science peddled online, what Lightsey calls the quagmire of misinformation which is so pervasive in this area.

This book would have been enormously helpful to me as a budding science journalist a decade ago, but anybody looking for sound nutrition information will get something out of TMNS.

The useless media and health news

Arguably the best part of TMNS is its takedown of mainstream health reporting. Citing the now classic 2005 study by physician John Ioannidis, Lightsey begins by pointing out that the bulk of medical research published today is simply incorrect. Eager to publish flashy results in top-tier science journals and desperate for grants (the lifeblood of any working scientist), many academics have resorted to cutting corners to get the results they know will attract attention, and thus more research funding.

If bona fide experts get so much wrong, Lightsey asks, can a journalist with little or no science background accurately assess what he or she is reporting on? The answer is usually no, unfortunately. Reporters don't have to be crippled by scientific illiteracy; a dedicated journalist can correct their knowledge deficit by doing some homework before writing a story. The real problem is, few of them do.

Instead, reporters more or less copy their stories from press releases universities distribute to promote research conducted by their faculty. Lightsey cites a 2015 study, for instance, which found that just over 85% of 312 medical news stories were derived from a press release or some other secondary source.

This is sloppy reporting, pure and simple. But science by press release has more lasting consequences: it exaggerates a study's results and fails to contextualize them among the much larger body of research on the topic in question. This is one of the primary reasons ACSH has caught just about every mainstream media network irresponsibly reporting, for example, that 95% of baby food is contaminated with heavy metals.

Misinformation is everywhere

This is a recurring theme throughout Lightsey's book. Whether it's a mainstream reporter, a supplement salesman at the gym or a celebrity athlete, nobody's entitled to our trust when it comes to nutrition. That's not because these sources of information are inherently unreliable, although they often do peddle nonsense. The real reason is that informed consumers should make decisions that comport with the available evidence, and not based on the conclusions of a single study or the recommendations of Tom Bradyno matter how many Super Bowls he's won.

Returning to our opening point above, Lightsey pithily sums things up:

Nutrition 'science' has become so contradictory that one must learn to take every new 'study' which declares to enlighten us about some purported nutritional health threat or benefit with a large grain of salt.

See the rest here:

Confused About Obesity, Supplements and Organic Food? Here's A Handbook For Busting Nutrition Myths - American Council on Science and Health

Getty Images

As a busy parent, time isnt always on your side. Making baby food from scratch can be stressful and time consuming, especially when it comes to appeasing picky eaters. Luckily, there are these organic baby foods brands that you can feel good about feeding your child.

Since the National Organic Program of the USDA has developed strict rules and regulations that govern USDA certified organic foods, those carrying the USDA organic seal cannot contain GMOs or any artificial preservatives, colors, or flavors. And certain studies show that organic fruits and vegetables have significantly more antioxidant polyphenols than conventionally grown produce. Encouraging an abundance of fruits and vegetables at all ages is key, but organically grown produce can provide some additional benefits without the GMOs or preservatives.

And speaking of ages, baby food stages arent standardized but there are general guidelines that many brands utilize. Keep in mind that every baby develops differently, and some babies are ready for stage 2 before they are 7 months old, while others may not be ready until they are 10 months old. Talk to your pediatrician to help guide you throughout the process, and remember that its important for babies to advance through the stages on their own time. Stage 1 foods generally consist of a single ingredient purees and are ideal for babies ages 4-6 months. Stage 2 foods are for babies ages 6-9 months and start to incorporate more than one ingredient. Stage 3 foods are for babies 9-12 months, and they feature a lot of different textures and new flavors. Stage 4 foods are for babies at least one year of age and typically indicate that table food can be introduced.

To make sure you're giving your child the very best, we put several brands to the test through a panel of babies, moms, and our editors to see which organic baby food products make the cut.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Happy Baby Organics Pouches & Jars

$18.85

Mom Shazi Visram founded Happy Family Organics to provide a wide variety of healthy organic baby food options to parents. They offer 100% USDA organicclearly crafted pouches and jars, as well as hearty meal pouches for Stage 2, andorganic oats cereal.Our little ones loved the pears, zucchini, and peas pouch, and the apples, guavas, and beets pouches were also a hit.As your child continues to grow, they can enjoy even more Happy Family Organics products, including teethers, puffs, crackers, veggie straws, and meal bowls.

Little Journey Pouches

Your favorite supermarket ALDI is at it again with their line of Little Journey baby pouches and snacks. Their pouches are all 100% USDA organic and boast delicious and nutritious combinations for your baby. As your child continues to grow, they can enjoy Little Journey munchers, yogurt bites, and puffs. Moms loved the price point on these Little Journey Packets and that they have no artificial colors or flavors, which are some of the many reasons why ALDI-exclusive Little Journey baby and toddler essentials have earned the Good Housekeeping Seal. Some of the pouches are even made with whole milk yogurt. Pro tip from one of our moms: Her 8-month-old doesn't normally like any fruit baby food, but she mixed the apple blueberry Little Journey packet in her babys cereal to sneak some fruit in and it was a hit.

Beech-Nut Organic Pouches & Jars

$35.00

Beech Nut has been making baby food since 1931, and their engineers patented the vacuum-sealed jar that is now the safety standard for the industry. They put sustainability top of mind and are the worlds first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)- certified baby food production company. Their organic line includes jars for stages 1 and 2, organic oatmeal cereal, and pouches for stages 2 and 4. Moms loved the jar of stage 1organic prunes to help with their babys constipation. They also offer some unique blends like the Just Apple, Raspberry and Avocado jar and the Banana Cinnamon Granola jar, both made withonly natural ingredients and no added sugars.

Plum Organics Pouches

Plum Organics offers all USDA Organic pouches, puffs, and teethers. They have items for all stages, and their stage 3 pouches help to develop a baby's palate for table food by incorporating blends of organic turkey, chicken, and beef. One of our moms gives her 10-month-old the Plum Organics Just Prunes pouch every morning and it keeps him regular. Another one of our tots loved the Mighty 4 blend that combines fruits, vegetables, grains, and greek yogurt. Plum also really pays it forward and donates their Super Smoothie pouches to children in need. Plus, their website has a page of different recipes on how to use their products for adults too!

Little Spoon

This subscription-based baby food service brings a unique twist to the traditional baby food we see on the market. Their organic baby blends feature nutritious ingredient combinations not found in the others foods we reviewed, including chia seeds, buckwheat, pumpkin seed, and hemp seeds. Plus, they offer a line of small packs called boosters that act as nutritional supplements to mix into your babys food. You can select from four different types of boosters that are carefully sourced with vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and organic produce.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Gerber Organic Pouches & Freshful Start

Many of us grew up on Gerber baby food, and its nice to see their organic line starting to expand. Not only do they have a complete line of organic cereals and baby food pouches and jars, but their selections for toddlers have now expanded into organic beverages made with coconut water, popped crisps, and fruit and veggie bars. One of our favorite products was the organic Grain and Grow Morning Bowl, which features ancient grains and 15% daily value of iron for infants. Freshful Start by Gerber is an innovative line of USDA organic fresh baby food, everything from organic homestyle purees to organic veggie entree bowls. They are refrigerated and can be warmed up in the microwave or stovetop. Moms loved that Gerber Organics is so readily available and easy to find, and the Gerber organic oatmeal cereal was a favorite.

Sprout Organic Baby Food Pouches

This company offers more than 50 different organic products for babies and children. The stage 2 selections are quite robust and include pouches, plant power puffs, and teething crackers. What sets Sprout apart is theirplant powered products which contain vegetable-based protein from organic beans and legumes. The toddler line features hearty purees, crispy snacks and chews, waffles, and even smoothies that come in the convenient pouch.

Earth's Best Organic Pouches & Jars

$16.68

Earths Best boasts all USDA organic products for all stages. They have three different types of infant cereals, including oatmeal, rice, or multi-grain. They have a variety of stage 2 pouches and jars, and their stage 3 pouches include a homestyle meal line with organic protein such as turkey or chicken. Our moms like Earth's Best Veggie Puree poucheswhich contain solely veggies and no fruit.

Once Upon a Farm Organic Cold-Pressed Pouches

$11.47

This line of baby food pouches and cups was co-founded by Jennifer Garner. Every ingredient is certified USDA organic and sustainably grown. Once Upon A Farm sets themselves apart from the other brands we reviewed due to the cold-pressed process that the blends utilize to lock in the nutrients, taste, and texture of the farm-fresh ingredients. They have a very fresh taste and need to be refrigerated.

Peter Rabbit Organics Pouches

$15.99

Peter Rabbit Organics offers all USDA Organic options that are not diluted with water and are free from ascorbic acid. Their selection is small but mighty, offering fruit and veggie pouches as well as super oats and seeds packs. The packaging is BPA-free and all selections are gluten-free as well.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Read more:

Best Organic Baby Food Brands of 2020 - What Are the Best Baby Foods? - GoodHousekeeping.com

Key takeaways:

Fashion can look to the food industry for inspiration and influence in becoming more transparent and sustainable.

Providing resources and support to suppliers and changing the marketing around sustainable options are two lessons fashion can learn from food.

Even the food industrys missed opportunities like lifting up those most negatively impacted in the supply chain offer insight.

When Vanessa Barboni Hallik set out to create her apparel brand Another Tomorrow, she looked to the food industry for inspiration. She wanted to build traceability into her business model, and the food sector had a strong track record for traceable supply chains.

Look at the farm-to-table food movement. It has incredible potential from a business standpoint but also for customers, she says. Its a way to satisfy that craving for the connection that was lost when supply chains spread all over the world.

The food industry can be a valuable influence for fashion, which needs to become more sustainable. Fashion, like food, is a global industry that touches virtually every person on the planet; it sources many raw materials from farms and forests; both industries create tremendous amounts of waste; and the casual purchases that consumers make on a routine basis affect whether and how brands prioritise sustainable values or not.

Fashion, through increased transparency and sustainability, can significantly enhance today's retail experience, says Caroline Brown, managing director at Closed Loop Partners, an investment firm that specialises in the circular economy, and former Donna Karan chief executive. It's not far from what we have seen in organic food today that has already made the steps to regularly share process, ingredients and origin, even down to the specific farm. The end result for both industries is a richer, more interesting and valuable retail experience.

The environmental impacts of agriculture have helped to fuel the growing demand for more sustainable food systems. Farms are the starting point for cotton, wool and other materials in fashion as well, involving practices that are destructive for soil, water supplies, wildlife habitats and ecosystems in general.

Changing farming practices is no small task. It can be costly and labour-intensive, and there are few resources to help guide farmers through the transition away from standard industry practices that depend on heavy use of chemicals such as pesticides. To become certified organic, farms must also go through a three-year transition process during which they must abide by organic rules, but arent yet eligible for the organic certification or higher margins that can generate.

In 2016, Kashi worked with the certification company Quality Assurance International to launch a programme that would pay farmers a premium during that three-year period to help them weather the jump. Starting with two farms and using their products in one type of cereal, the Certified Transitional programme has since worked with 15 farms with six transitional crops going into eight different retail products. Kashi says farmers have received over $1 million in premiums through the programme.

Fashion can take note of Kashis willingness to evaluate the needs of its suppliers, come up with new strategies for meeting them and communicate the process with the transitional label. Jess Daniels, communications director for Fibershed, a California group that promotes regional fibre systems, says the storytelling around the relationship can be replicated by other companies. That's the type of producer-brand relationship we really want to encourage especially in fashion, where brands seem very concerned about relying on labels to communicate with customers.

Support from fashion companies can take the shape of a price premium, long-term buying commitments, zero-interest loans or other types of services, says Elizabeth Whitlow, executive director of the Regenerative Organic Alliance. Patagonia established partnerships with cotton cooperatives in India that boosted not only the economic capacity for farmers to make the transition to regenerative agriculture (considered a step above organic in terms of environmental impacts), but the know-how, by providing things like black lights that function as traps for insects in the absence of pesticides, says Whitlow. She adds this type of support and partnership is vital if the switch to more sustainable agriculture is going to be scaled.

Its a vulnerable time for farmers. If fashion wants to effect change, understanding that ground-level need for investment and support during that transition is the key to the kingdom, she says.

In the food industry, the higher any one brand sets the bar, the more customers start to expect from all brands. Independent consultant Michael Sadowski credits Whole Foods Market with bringing the concept of organic and healthy foods to the mainstream, done in part through effective and compelling storytelling and by promoting supply chain transparency. Industry insiders say theres room for fashion to do something similar by helping consumers connect with a products origins and find sustainable and ethical goods in one convenient place an idea that some online shopping platforms are trying to cultivate for fashion.

If consumers arent demanding transparency from fashion brands en masse yet, it could be partially a result of lack of options, rather than a lack of interest. Apparel can learn from food on the traceability side, says Sadowski.

Another Tomorrow equips its product labels with QR codes that provide details on the provenance and lifecycle of each garment; Hallik says consumers have been eating it up. Ive been really surprised by the overwhelming emotional response. People are reconnecting with where their clothes come from, she says. It also helps to shed light on the mostly anonymous labour that goes into making the worlds clothes. It allows people who have never been seen before by the customer to be seen.

To scale the technologies and efforts necessary to enable those types of solutions, brands can also form collaboratives to pool funding. Thats something food has done and apparel has started to do, through initiatives like Fashion for Good, but could benefit from pursuing further.

Another Tomorrow equips its product labels with QR codes that provide details on the provenance and lifecycle of each garment.

Another Tomorrow

Deborah Drew, associate at the World Resources Institutes Business Center who explores alternative business models that can reduce natural resource use, sees parallels between reducing fashion consumption and efforts to reduce beef consumption. For instance, consumers may be encouraged to replace 30 per cent of the beef in a dish with mushrooms, rather than asked to give up the meat entirely. Similarly, people can look at their closets and evaluate ways to fill it with more durable goods or items that are rented, rather than owned, she says. Can you look at your wardrobe and piece it together in more sustainable ways?

Research on consumer behavior has also shown that labeling a menu item as vegetarian causes many consumers to reject it off the bat. But when the dish is given a detailed description with ingredients and flavours without the potentially off-putting label, people order it. The language around how to make that choice is really valuable, she says. Her team is beginning to study if and how language influences apparel choices in a similar way, ultimately to prevent association of organic or sustainable garments with a specific aesthetic, or those with recycled fibres from being perceived as lower in quality.

There are areas where the food sector has fallen short, and fashion can learn from these as well. In a 2017 report, the nonprofit network Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems Funders argued that the food movement waited too long to bring in voices of people experiencing the most direct negative impacts from the industry. The report also pointed out the opportunities that targeted funding can provide, such as to increase consumer education and advocacy for policies that would standardise and accelerate changes in industry practices.

Another Tomorrow's main wool farm.

Lauren Bamford and Alessandro Furchino/Another Tomorrow

Foundations can play a valuable role by working with nonprofits operating in the sustainable textiles sector to find ways to bring the voices of those most affected by pollution, toxics, and labour issues in the textile industry to the table in the early stages of programme design and movement-building, the report said. U.S. foundations are well-positioned to draw on key lessons from the sustainable food movement and accelerate the development of a coordinated movement that harnesses consumer demand for clean, ethical and sustainably produced textiles.

Helen Crowley, who heads sustainable sourcing at Kering but is currently on sabbatical, also points to the trend of consolidation in ownership of food brands as something for fashion to consider carefully. Parent companies implementing more sustainable practices across their entire portfolios can have a positive influence, says Crowley, but it can also generate a halo effect that can mislead consumers.

Jamie Katz, senior quality standards advisor for Whole Foods Market, says consumers are sophisticated enough to understand that change is gradual and brands could benefit from letting them into the process more. Consumers are hungry to see vulnerability in corporations, she says and for them to be transparent about what they do and dont know about their supply chains and impacts.

Americans dont make their own clothes, let alone their own textiles, and theyre extraordinarily disconnected from the process, says Katz. Fashion has to lead from that space people dont know what they want because theyve never thought of it before.

The food and fashion industries both have long ways to go before either can claim sustainability, but food has made impressive gains in the last decade and continues to charge ahead. With similar dedication, fashion can follow suit.

The transformation in food provided more options and a better outcome for companies and consumers alike. A transformation of fashion will accomplish the same, says Closed Loops Brown.

To receive the Vogue Business Sustainability Edit, sign up here.

Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.

More from this author:

Fashion has a waste problem. These companies want to fix it

Amid climate crisis, fashion rethinks the runway show

How to mend sustainable fashions multi-billion dollar funding gap

Read more:

What the food industry can teach fashion about sustainability - Vogue Business

By selling nuts, Regenature hopes a communitys economy can bloom and its environmental health can be regenerated. Baru nuts, considered a Brazilian superfood, are good for the body and good for the environment according to Regenature, the Brazilian company hoping to popularize the food in the United States. Baru nuts are the seed of the baru tree, or Baruzeiro, and are indigenous to the Cerrado region of central Brazil, south of the Amazon.

According to Fabricio Riberio, Regenatures Chief Commercial Officer, baru nuts have been harvested in the Cerrado for generations. In recent years however, climate change is threatening the Baruzeiro. Regenature aims to support the environment and the economy of the Cerrado by expanding the baru nuts popularity.

Planting native flora like the Baruzeiro contributes to the preservation of the biodiversity, generates income for local farmers and communities, avoids rural exodus, and protects and perpetuates their secular traditions, Riberio tells Food Tank. The biomass of the Cerrado, a region with an area equivalent to England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined, is expected to disappear within 20 years, according to Riberio.

The practices used by Regenatures farming partners are also supporting local and Indigenous people. With support from the Nova Era Institute, Regenatures farming partners share a regenerative approach called Their method seeks to mimic the natural progression of ecosystems, only at an accelerated, financially viable pace.

By pairing the Baruzeiro with other indigenous companion plants and fauna, the farming communities enjoy increased yields, resilience to climate instability, and higher health for farming and local communities, according to Riberio. There must be a global switch that addresses better farming practices that regenerate abused soils, offers an important solution for climate change, and sequesters carbon in the soil, says Riberio.

Supporting the local economy is also essential to Regenatures mission. The company intends to not fix the price it pays its farmers for baru nuts. We believe in paying a fair price and improving the lives there [in the Cerrado], Riberio tells Food Tank. If the value of baru nuts increases up with newfound popularity, Regenature will ensure that farmers pay increases up as well.

Regenature hopes to capitalize on acontinuously expanding market for organic foods in the U.S. Not only are Regenatures baru nuts organic, but they are also a rich source of protein, fiber, antioxidants, and a plethora of micronutrients. They can also be processed into bars and butter.

Americans are always one step ahead when we talk about nutrition and healthy food habits, therefore we are confident that baru will soon become popular, Riberio tells Food Tank. Regenature and its partners planted more than 100,000 in 2019 to preempt a rise in demand and contribute to regenerating the Cerrado.

The company plans to expand imports of baru nut across the United States, as well as other native ingredients. New products will include Babassu oil, a product similar to coconut oil, and the Ora-pro-nobis, a versatile but uncommon ingredient in Minas Gerais. Riberio is confident in Regenatures ability to scale up sustainability, in part, because of the lifecycle of Baruzeiro. It takes 4 to 5 years for trees to fruit, giving the company more time to monitor demand and set prices according to the market.

At this moment we are working on an Alliance for the Cerrado together with the most prestigious and committed institutes in the countryby 2020 we will be able to cover a more vast area of the Cerrado, bringing the socio-biodiversity back to where it belongs. That is what moves us, Riberio tells Food Tank.

Photo courtesy of Regenature

Read this article:

Supporting the Cerrado with Baru Nuts - Food Tank

Few restaurants have enjoyed as much acclaim and influence, or been as widely caricatured, as the Copenhagen fine-dining institution Noma. In its 16 years of existence, it has been at the top of the Worlds 50 Best Restaurants list four times. There are three Noma books, two feature-length films and a Noma documentary series. There are Noma dissertations and dozens of Nomaheads dedicated diners who follow the restaurant all over the world, from Yucatan to Tokyo to Sydney and back again. In the early 2010s, there were so many articles about hunting for wild produce with Nomas charismatic head chef that one writer declared it The Era of the I Foraged With Ren Redzepi Piece. There is even a 240-page travelogue, written by an Esquire editor who followed Redzepi across the world for four years.

But all the attention that has been lavished on Nomas hyperlocal, micro-seasonal food butterflies moulded from blackcurrant leather; 100-year-old mahogany clams served in their shell has obscured the much more ambitious aims that the restaurants creators, alumni and allies have been trying to achieve. Noma as a traditional haute cuisine restaurant, with its elegant cookbooks and high-concept food, is being overtaken by a grander project. The people behind the restaurant are trying to expand New Nordic, a culinary movement they began in Scandinavia 15 years ago, to the rest of the globe. In doing so, they want to transform every link in the long chain of how food is produced and consumed, from the dirt up to your dinner table.

The New Nordic movement is bound by a set of 10 principles that stress sustainability, locality and respect for the natural world. Those ideals may sound familiar, but the scale of what its adherents are accomplishing makes New Nordic potentially far more transformative than any previous food movement. It is reaching beyond farms and fine-dining restaurants, and into halls of power, supermarket aisles, canteens and classrooms.

Pretty much anywhere in Denmark, you can walk into a supermarket and find ready meals made with traceable organic produce by co-operative kitchens in Copenhagen that bear the name of Claus Meyer, Nomas co-founder. Meyer has also created a food training programme in Denmarks prisons to reduce recidivism, and he is partnering with Ikea which feeds 660 million people a year, making it one of the 10 largest food-service operations in the world to veganise its menu.

Further afield, in Bolivia, Meyer has opened restaurants and cooking schools to revive the nations hospitality industry. In the US, Dan Giusti, a former head chef at Noma, now feeds more than 4,000 school children a day with nourishing meals, while in Albania, Fejsal Demiraj, one of Nomas current sous chefs, runs a foundation that researches and catalogues the nations village recipes to give the country a documented culinary history for the first time.

Followers of the New Nordic approach are also working to change food policy and production practices around the world. Building on the success of Noma and the New Nordic manifesto, Nordic governments have set up an institute to promote their regions food policies to other nations. In addition, Redzepi has set up a non-profit organisation called Mad it means food in Danish that led a campaign in partnership with the UN in the summer of 2019 against the environmental damage of food production.

There are also plans for a Mad Academy, with funding from the Danish government, which aims to become a Bauhaus of food, as its executive director, Melina Shannon-DiPietro puts it a place where all the different steps in food production are taught, and where efforts are geared towards answering the most urgent questions of the day: How do we make food sustainable? How do we make food available to all? How do we protect food cultures against globalisation?

Its as if Fergus Henderson took his nose-to-tail philosophy into Whitehall, got funding from the National Lottery and ended up getting people across the British isles to butcher their own meat, instead of just feeding offal to well-heeled Londoners. What the New Nordic movement is trying to export is not a single cuisine, but an all-encompassing philosophy of food.

Chefs were once courtiers; then, in the 19th century, they became artisans. For a time following the deprivations of the second world war, they were relics vestiges of lost luxury in a time of hardship and scarcity. As the age of reality television and fast money dawned in the 80s, so too did the bonafide celebrity chef: a hard-living, tortured genius who justified their wealth and fame with a relentless dedication to perfection. Then, around the turn of the millennium, came an era of techno-utopianism and the transformation of the chef into a wizard of molecular gastronomy, with its frozen foams and fluid gels and trompe loeil flourishes.

The New Nordic movement heralded another shift in the world of fine dining. In our current era of climate emergency and brutal inequality, celebrity chefs have transformed again, from ruthless kitchen dictators such as Gordon Ramsay and Marco Pierre White, or mad scientists such as Ferran Adri, into crusaders for a better world. Where once the dream was to cook for presidents, now the aim is to work with them. Massimo Bottura, the ebullient owner of the three-Michelin-star Osteria Francescana in Modena, was celebrated in the 2019 Time 100 for his work feeding the homeless. Jos Andrs, the Spanish chef once credited with bringing tapas to the US, now has an accolade far exceeding a Michelin star: a nomination for the Nobel peace prize, for his disaster relief efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. The pursuit of Michelin stars and coffee-table cookbooks has been superseded by pursuing a role in public life.

Of course, there have been powerful voices challenging the mainstream food industry before. At the height of the first-wave of the environmental movement, in the 70s, Alice Waters groundbreaking restaurant Chez Panisse, in Berkeley, California, shone a light on the relationship between food producers and cooks, encouraging diners to reject commercialism and supermarkets, and return to the farmers and ranchers who produce their food in a more sustainable way even if it means paying more for that produce.

Even Jamie Oliver, whose TV persona has been a figure of ridicule to many for the past two decades, invested much of his time in social enterprises, most famously challenging the British government on the quality of school dinners during the heady high-point of the Blair hegemony, and founding the not-for-profit restaurant chain Fifteen, which trained, and was staffed by, apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But the New Nordic movement has done more than any single chef to make doing more than just cooking the new normal. Redzepi could have opened up a Noma Dubai, and a Noma in the Vegas Bellagio. Thats what the old French masters, such as Alain Ducasse, Pierre Gagnaire and Jol Robuchon, did when they reached the peak of the profession: snatch up Michelin stars all over the globe for their luxurious outposts in far-flung, glitzy hotels. Instead, Redzepi is devoting his time to Mad and to a revamped Noma often referred to as Noma 2.0 just a couple of kilometres from the site of the now-shuttered original.

Still, the movement and the restaurant at its forefront has its critics, who argue that it can be sanctimonious, or narrow, or inattentive to the simple notion that food should be a pleasurable experience. George Reynolds, writing for Eater, took Noma to task for its self-imposed Nordic exceptionalism, writing that its borderline isolationist culinary philosophy doesnt feel quite right for the present age; more than ever, closing yourself off to other influences is not just unnecessarily limiting but politically unpalatable.

The fact is, though, that the rise of New Nordic means there is no longer a bright line between the chef and the activist, the test kitchen and the laboratory. Joe Warwick, the creative director of the World Restaurant Awards, believes that the people leading the New Nordic movements restaurants, canteens, labs, thinktanks, policy institutes and cooking schools, have exerted influence on their industry on a scale that only a few chefs and restaurants in history ever achieve.

Two decades ago, Denmark might have seemed a rather unconducive place for a revolution in haute cuisine, let alone in food altogether. Being generous, you could have said that it was a country of open-faced sandwiches, hot dogs and overproof alcohol. But you might also have associated it with the cheapest processed pork in the EU, known for being made in a grim factory from a candy-pink slurry of something that once was a pig. Back then, all you could get in the centre of Copenhagen was bad French food or bad Italian food, the food writer Andrea Petrini told me. There was no Danish food culture.

One of the New Nordic movements first feats was to help to transform Scandinavia from a land of herring cured in lye to the gastronomic centre of the world. In 2000, Claus Meyer, then a TV chef and one of Denmarks most recognisable faces, had been appointed by the Social Democratic government to overhaul the countrys poor culinary reputation. He led a committee to create a special quality label for the best Danish food producers to apply for, in the manner of Frances Label Rouge system, which certifies the quality of foods such as Bresse chicken and Bayonne ham. But at the next election, in 2001, the Social Democrats fell, the initiative was scrapped and Meyer was dismissed. I realised when the committee was demolished that working towards a better food culture was not wanted in parliament anymore, Meyer told me. I found that so crazy.

So Meyer bankrolled a proof-of-concept restaurant in Copenhagen that would champion Nordic produce. In 2003, Meyer opened Noma the name is a portmanteau of nordisk mad (Nordic food) with Redzepi, then a rising star with no experience as head chef, at the helm. Around the same time, Meyer corralled 13 of the Nordic regions best chefs into an 18-hour workshop to carve out what a world-leading food culture would look like. Meyer and the chefs agonised over the precise wording, order and emphasis of what would become the Manifesto for the New Nordic Kitchen, published in 2004 a 10-point mission statement that sought to express the purity, freshness, simplicity and ethics we wish to associate to our region.

Noma, which had spent its first year tweaking French classics with Nordic herbs, moved with religious fervour towards locavorism, making everything as wild and Scandinavian as possible. We put the forest, or the shore, or the snow on a plate in front of you, Redzepis dishes often seemed to say. The hope was that Scandinavias restaurants would realise the potential of the region and set about regenerating a Nordic food culture.

What took New Nordic from a local concern to a global movement, however, was Nomas astonishing success. When Noma dethroned the Spanish restaurant El Bulli, a temple of molecular gastronomy, at the top of the 50 Best list in 2010, it represented a transition between two self-defined eras of haute cuisine from the laboratory to the forest cabin, so to speak. El Bulli would close for good a year later, with its head chef, Ferran Adri, recognising the end of his restaurants journey.

El Bulli had always sought to push the limits of what a restaurant could be, bringing in scientific rigour and dedicated lab spaces to make its food more daring. Redzepi had been a student of Adris at the height of El Bullis fame. Nomas innovation was borrowing Adris approach and applying it to answer the questions posed by the New Nordic manifesto: how to radically enlarge the scope of what we think of as food, while making it more ethical and accessible.

Noma began attracting talents from outside the food world: anthropologists, molecular chemists and agricultural scientists who would work in its Nordic Food Lab. This lab space which was, for many years, a rigged-up houseboat moored outside of the restaurant developed new local products, such as miso made with Danish yellow peas, or salt from shoreline seaweeds for the restaurant to use, while doing original research into the culinary biodiversity of Scandinavia.

Lars Williams, who was drafted to Noma from Heston Blumenthals test kitchen in 2009, moved to the houseboat in 2010 to run the Nordic Food Lab for two years. Wed be as scientific as chefs could be, Williams said. Wed try the same idea 30 different times, with 30 different incremental variations, and record it all to assure wed been rigorous. Much like the restaurant, the lab operated with solely Nordic produce, but did its best to stretch that definition: Things from the Faroe Islands were fair game, things from Northern Norway were fair game we didnt just operate around a kilometres radius around Copenhagen.

A lot of what the lab worked with land wheat flour, ggeblomme (egg yolk) potatoes and other native varietals had never been tested and examined to such depth before. Through the labs research, crops that had all but ceased to be cultivated were finding new uses, and a reason to be grown again.

At the peak of Nomas powers, when it felt as if every other food article was about the majesty of New Nordic, Redzepi began to look beyond the restaurant kitchen. In 2011, he launched what would become a series of annual ideas conferences, the Mad Symposiums, where invited speakers everyone from the head of the European Environmental Agency to Japans most celebrated soba noodle maker would address an audience of superchefs, interns, farmers, journalists and industry figures on a patch of Copenhagen dockland.

These gatherings, which straddled the line between networking events, university lectures and evangelical tent rallies, helped build the movement that is spreading across the globe today. Figures of all stripes and skills would swap business cards, applaud each others speeches, plan events and collaborations together, united in the belief that everyone had the destiny of the food world in their hands.

In 2012, Redzepi launched the Mad non-profit, to unite a global cooking community with a social conscience. Aside from its larger symposiums, Mad has run pop-up salons in London, New York and Sydney, inviting local chefs and journalists to talk about topics as expansive as abandoning ego, indigenous food culture and questioning the very value of life itself. They have partnered with Yale to teach students about leadership, have published essay collections on how food cultures overlap all over the world, and launched a foraging app, VILD MAD (wild food), to help users find whats edible in their local park.

Around the same time that Redzepi founded Mad, Meyer, who sold his majority stake in Noma in 2013, began testing New Nordic principles far beyond Scandinavia. After mapping the countries of the world on metrics such as economic development, crime rates and biodiversity, Meyer decided to open a restaurant called Gustu in Bolivias capital, La Paz, with another talented young Danish chef, Kamilla Seidler, at the helm. Seidler and her team used Bolivias fauna and flora to create the restaurants idiosyncratic cuisine llama tartare, alligator escabeche and a lot of quinoa and brought the restaurant on to the foodie radar. But more importantly, she completed the restaurants primary objective: training the restaurants Bolivian staff so she could leave Gustu in their hands.

To do this, Gustu opened two Manqa cooking schools, named after the indigenous Aymaran word for food one based in the capital, La Paz, and one in Bolivias second city, El Alto. Manqa offered general culinary qualifications that enabled all students to work in the hospitality industry; exceptional students, such as Gustus current head chef, Marsia Taha, would be placed on a fast-track scheme to move into the world of fine dining. There are now nine Manqa schools in Bolivia and two in Colombia, more than 1,000 alumni, three canteens for La Paz locals to eat a freshly cooked three-course meal for just over 1.50, a tour company, a catering service and a fleet of delivery drivers to order a takeaway from.

Alongside this, there is now a manifesto for a new Bolivian cuisine, drawn up by Meyer, Manqa alumni and local figures within the Bolivian food scene; there is a Gustu bar selling Bolivias national spirit, singani, and a whole host of restaurants across Bolivia, helmed by ex-Gustu staff, continuing to reimagine Bolivian food and make use of farmers and suppliers providing indigenous produce. In 2014, President Evo Morales had the restaurant cater his third-term inauguration. The following year, the restaurant was asked to devise a recipe for special quinoa communion wafers presented to Pope Francis when he visited the country.

Seidler, after Gustu, returned to Copenhagen to carry through her vision of what she calls social gastronomy with her latest restaurant, Lola, which operates as both a fine dining restaurant, and a job inclusion programme that trains socially excluded individuals in cooking and hospitality skills.

Others, such as Nomas New Jersey-born former head chef Dan Giusti, have turned their efforts toward improving the food of public institutions. In 2016, Giusti opened Brigaid, a chef-led startup that brings chefs into public schools to train cafeteria staff, ensuring that pupils eat made-from-scratch food every day beef tacos and chicken teriyaki instead of vending machine snacks or, worse still, nothing. Brigaid has now expanded into three states, feeding thousands of school children every day across 12 public schools. Its a world away from the 40 covers a night he served at Noma.

The volume of social initiatives pushed by Noma affiliates is staggering. Another former head chef, Matt Orlando, runs a scheme that teaches Copenhagen schoolchildren how to grow their own food in small urban spaces. Over the road from him in the docklands of Refshaleen is Empirical Spirits, a distillery run by Noma alumni that has organised agronomy workshops in the Oaxacan mountain village of Huitepec in Mexico to help the community continue growing its most valuable crop, the Pasilla Mixe chilli.

Roberto Flore, former head of the Nordic Food Lab, now runs a lab at the Technical University of Denmark that offers space to experiment and develop schemes addressing matters such as hunger, food waste and accessible technology for food production. One scheme, called ServedOnSalt, has developed a battery that uses solar energy, salt and water to create a cheap and clean-powered cooking stove for use in refugee camps; another has been focused on improving the safety and storability of milk products across rural Ethiopia.

Scandinavia now leads the world in food policy, too. In 2018, Dr Afton Halloran, one of the worlds foremost experts on sustainable food systems, published a collection of innovative food policies from around the Nordic region, the Solutions Menu. It outlined the benefits of 24 innovative food policies, aggregated from successful initiatives around the Nordic region including universal free school meals, organic food in hospitals and schemes to help farms move towards zero food waste. Halloran and her co-authors cited Noma and the New Nordic movement as their chief inspiration.

When the Manifesto for the New Nordic Kitchen was first published, in 2004, the reaction in the world of fine dining was sceptical, if not outright suspicious. The manifestos points were criticised for being too vague, too piecemeal, too male all the signatories were men and too focused on encouraging cooperation rather than challenging the regions industrial food producers through legislation and policy.

At the time, Camilla Plum, a Danish food writer and TV personality, was quoted in Denmarks newspaper of record, Berlingske, lambasting the manifestos toothlessness. The manifesto reminds me a little of Queen Margarets annual New Years speech, Plum said. There are lots of good-natured thoughts and the usual nice greetings to Greenland. They are beautiful sentiments, but they have no real meaning.

Today, though, it seems indisputable that the manifesto more than succeeded in its aims. Scandinavia now stands alongside Spain, France and Italy as one of Europes major gastro destinations, with Michelin stars being found as far north as Trondheim in Norway, 200 miles south of the arctic circle. Thousands of jobs in hospitality have been created and, with them, catering colleges full of new students. There are new food producers and artisans, and more diners engaged with the food of the region in which they live.

That said, the desire to shake up Scandinavias culinary reputation seems a little bit provincial now. The movement has long since mutated into a much larger phenomenon. The aim was once for the Nordic kitchen to be seen as natural and sustainable; now, anything with bare wood, organic produce and a compost bin can be thought of as Nordic.

Beyond that, the movement has established a Nordic way of doing things that can be adapted anywhere in the world, to breathe new life into cuisines that are distinctly Bolivian, or Mexican or Albanian. And these are just the first initiatives that Noma and the New Nordic principles have sparked. Weve already seen people who have come from Noma step out into the industry and work towards change, says Dan Giusti. But theres people in that kitchen right now, and more people who will come through there in future, who we havent heard yet. In 20 or 30 years, theres no telling how big the change could be.

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, and sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Read more from the original source:

What Noma did next: how the 'New Nordic' is reshaping the food world - The Guardian

Aare trying out the latest diet trends, or at least striving to fuel ourselves with healthy choices. (The Boston Medical Center estimates about 45 million Americans go on a diet each year). So, it makes sense that we want to feed our pets the best food out there. We spoke to several veterinarians to get the pros and cons of the latest nutrition fads for our four-legged friends. You might be surprised to see what they recommend and what foods you should avoid. Remember, before you introduce any new foods or switch up your pet's diet, consult your veterinarian first. All animals require different nutrients, so keep that in mind as well.

cmannphoto/Getty Images

Grain-free foods are considered by some to be healthier for pets. One theory is that undomesticated dogs and cats didn't eat grains, so grain-free food might be more easily digested and less likely to cause allergies or stomach issues. On the other hand, experts say that dogs have evolved to develop the ability to digest starches. So many vets are advising against a grain-free diet. "Grains aren't necessarily good or bad, per se. They can provide nutrients and are a good source of energy," says John P. Loftus, Ph.D., D.V.M., assistant professor of small animal internal medicine at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine in Ithaca, New York.

Move over chicken and beef because pet food companies are introducing protein sources such as crickets and buffalo. With an eye toward sustainability, even plant-based proteins such as chickpeas and lentils are being used. One thing to know: Pet foods with novel animal proteins often contain a higher percentage of added plant protein, says Ken Tudor, D.V.M., holistic veterinarian and owner of The Well Dog Place in Claremont, California. That might mean less of the nutrients found in animal protein (including taurine) that a dog or cat needs.

Pet foods with novel animal proteins often contain a higher percentage of added plant protein.

Ken Tudor

Even though studies haven't confirmed whether organic foods are better for pets, there's no downside as long as the food has the right nutritional makeup. The words "certified organic" on the label indicate that at least 95% of the ingredients are organic; "made with organic ingredients" means at least 70% are.

What about added ingredients, such as probiotics and omega-3 fatty acids? They up the price but also increase beneficial vitamins, minerals, and nutrients, says Carol Osborne, D.V.M., a veterinarian in Chagrin Falls, Ohio.

Although fresh pet foods (available via delivery services and in the refrigerated section of pet stores) might seem like a splurge, given the prices, they can benefit pets. "Fresh pet foods usually have high-quality meat and are good sources of vitamins and minerals," Osborne says. Because fresh foods are perishable, you'll need to keep these items in the fridge or freezer. For any foods you choose, check labels for an endorsement from the AAFCO, a nonprofit regulating pet food quality.

Read the original post:

The Lowdown on the Latest Pet Food Trends, According to Vets - Yahoo Lifestyle