VICTORY!!!! (garden)

So, as of now, this might not be news to everyone, but I wanted to take a brief moment to acknowledge Michelle Obama's breaking ground on the White House Victory Garden, or the White House vegetable garden last Friday, March 20. It was a pretty exciting moment for the Food Movement as we were not only getting a victory garden on the White House lawn, or as close as we're going to get, but it seems we finally have an administration that is in support of reforming our food system. From Tom Vilsack proposing cuts in corn susidies as well breaking ground last month on the the people's garden to the appointment of Kathleen Merrigan, a long supporter of reform of our food system, as the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, it seems, a food revolution is indeed in the air, as the New York Times apply said last weekend.

In the New York Times article Michael Pollan is quoted as saying that the food movement might not be ready to go "prime time". While I do agree, that it seems that in only a few short months, a movement that was once seen, by both itself and the nation, as an underground constituency is taking the hot seat. I would like to remind Pollan, however, that books such as his very own Omnivore's Dilema have educated Americans about what is wrong with our food system, and with rising energy costs and health problems nationally, I believe our nation is in fact ready to reform. To me, it seems that it not just the food activists that are powering this movement, but rather the government and the people themselves.

Also, the layout of White House vegetable garden is pretty amazing; I was sort of drooling over just the picture.

What Foraging, Permaculture, and Dumpster Diving have in common

So I realize: I've been very, very bad blogger. I'm sorry. But, I have a good reason.
My job has changed (as in my 9-5 one), as many of you know, and I'm now working on a social networking site for professional chefs and other individuals in the cooking industry, which is called Chef's Blade. I'll write more on it later, but the transition has been a twee bit of worky work, and well, it's exciting, but it's made me a bad food blogger.

But, anyways, back to the task at hand: Foraging.

Forage SF has been organizing the Wild Kitchen, which, so far, has been a mini series of foraged meals; the first one they had was Valentine's Day and the last one they had was this past Saturday. Both were amazing amazing and delicious. Foraged food, boiled down to the essentials, is food that has been gathered from naturally-occurring places instead of, say, farms.

Forage SF is a foraged food co-operative, whose goal is to collect foraged foods both from the urban environment – for example, from fruit trees in backyards and sidewalks – but also from the surrounding Bay Area and distribute it to its members. The foraged food movement has grown out of a desire to challenge our dependence on industrial agriculture and to begin using the foods naturally available to us again. For me, what is most interesting about foraged foods is the dialogue it creates with our agricultural system, not to mention the questions it raises concerning what classifies as “foraged”.

During the first dinner I attended, Forage SF gathered the food from a variety of sources. Some of the greens – such as miner’s lettuce, mustard greens, and wild nettles – were growing naturally in the Presidio while other ingredients, like the acorns used in the acorn ice cream, were foraged by local foragers, such as FeralKevin. All of these ingredients were noticeably fresher and more flavorful than anything from the Ferry Terminal farmer’s markets. Sad. But maybe I should just "shop" at the park at the end of my block?

Personally, the most exciting aspect of these ingredients is that they grow naturally and without the interference of human cultivation. In addition, foraged foods grow sustainably in that they are part of the natural ecosystem already in place; foraging and consuming wild foods is thus part of the ecosystem itself as long as the consumption is not greater than the wild food supply.Herein, however, lies the catch: It is not possible to feed the world’s population on foraged food. Enter: Agriculture.

Currently, most of our food comes from monocultures, in which farms produce one type of crop over large areas of farmland. While agriculture’s use of monoculture has enabled us to feed our ballooning population, it has also led us to eat only a few food types. In addition, monoculture has caused massive crop failures, such as the Irish Potato famine, due to a crop becoming susceptible to a specific pathogen during a growing season. Permaculture, in comparison, seeks to design man-made systems after nature ecological systems. Polyculture, for example, grows multiple crops on the same agricultural space, mimicking plant ecosystems. While foraging wild foods will never be able to feed our large population, it does remind us of the importance of respecting the rules of the natural ecosystem.

Back to the first foraged dinner: The main course of last weekend’s meal was elk, wild boar, and venison. What I find interesting about foraged meat, besides being totally tasty, is the dialogue around foraged meat. For some foragers, foraged meat must be found already dead, while for others, foraged meat is wild game that has been killed by the forager in its natural habitat, the sum total of hunted animals never offsetting the natural balance of the ecosystem. Thankfully, the meat at this dinner was not found dead, as I’m not sure my almost-always stomach of steel could handle the extra “gaminess” (read: bacteria) that could be found in the prior type of foraged meat.

I want to take a bit of a tangent at this point to talk about freeganism, a new food movement that has arisen in New York out of a desire to “forage” for free food within the urban environment. Freegans “reclaim waste” left by the “capitalist society” from dumpsters outside supermarkets and restaurants (also known as Dumpster Diving), as well as forage for wild foods like mushrooms in city parks. The movement is centered in New York City but, with the recession, it has become more and more popular in other urban areas. To me, eating food out of a Dumpster is strange. It’s not something I would ever do; I like to know where my food comes from and diving into a Dumpster for almost expired milk and eggs doesn’t exactly fulfill my desire to know if the chicken and cows producing my food are treated well. Still, freeganism has a core value I do understand: We, as a population, are wasteful and we don’t always take advantage of the foods that are readily and freely available to us.

For me, the foraged food movement, coupled with permaculture and freeganism, teaches a lot of lessons. As I said at the beginning of this article, the world’s population could not be fed entirely on foraged foods. This does not mean, however, that the population shouldn’t be fed partially on these foods. As our food system has become increasingly complex, it appears we have forgotten that we can grow edible plants in our backyards, our fire escapes, and flower boxes and that food sources such as wild mushrooms, greens, nettles, and other edible wild plants grow naturally in our parks and are there for the free taking.

Foraging, permaculture, and feeganism produce very different food but all challenge us to consume the foods that are available to us and not to waste the foods we have. In addition, wild foods as well as foods grown in polyculture are certainly tastier than our average food source.

I find it hard to fathom, however, that freegan food has anything on wild boar.

PS. Was this post worth the wait?

PETA Brands Fish, Sea Kittens

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has attempted to rebrand fish as sea kittens, because kittens are cute and one would never want to eat a kitten (unless you are George Bush). As we overfish our fish and our fish farms become less and less sanitary places, a movement to eat sustainably fished poisson has begun, PETA leading with its sea kitten campaign. But, hold up PETA, kittens don't like water.

Still, PETA's goal to educate fish consumers about the harm their consumption is doing to our underwater friends is well placed. Mark Bittman, in a recent NY Times article, spoke out against how we consume fish. Bittman, always an avid eater of fish and of all things really--considering his NY Times food column and cooking videos--has noticed, as has every person who reads the labels on their fish, that our fish is becoming increasingly raised on farms. As Americans and the world began to increasingly eat fish (global consumption has doubled since 1973, 90 percent of this growth being from developing countries), we also began to over fish the wild populations and had to find a solution to meat the fish consumption demand, which meant farming fish.

This movement to aquaculture, sometimes called the blue revolution, while it superficially stops us from fishing wild fish has us feeding fish with edible food that could be used to feed people; very often, farmed fish are fed smaller foraged, wild fish. What is particularly frustrating about this is that most fish don't convert a high percentage of the food they consume into edible flesh: it takes three kilograms of forage fish to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon, while it take 20 kilograms of forage fish to produce one kilogram of farmed tuna.

There is, however, some "good" aquaculture. China, which accounts for around 70 percent of the world's aquaulture, focuses on herbivorous fish, who consume water plants; this practice, which is often small scale, is not only sustainable but environmentally sound. Industrial aquaculture, on the other hand, is very different. Most fish farms use fish meal, which is made from wild-caught smaller fish, to feed the larger fish; one third of the wold's wild caught fish is reduced to fish meal in addition to a quarter of the wild-caught fish being thrown back, dead, as "bycatch." Considering the inefficiencies of farm raised fish in converting feed mass into human-consumable food mass, using wild-caught fish to raise farmed fish is terribly inefficient. In addition, farm raised fish pollute waters via their fecal waste and degrade the land near to wear they are farmed.


Still, the point is not to stop eating fish all together--sorry PETA, I like it too much and I get grumpy without it. We need to change the fish we eat and the ways we raise fish. Long term, through preservation practices, we can help wild fish populations grow to their original sizes. This means new laws reducing bycatch and regulations on how much fishermen can catch in a certain fishery, a limit which would be a scientifically determined percentage of the harvest. For consumers, this means consuming smaller, more bottom-of-the-food-chain fish, like sardines and anchovies, more frequently, while only consuming more top of the food chain fish, like wild-caught cod and salmon, once a month. Thinking of this another way, we'll be eating tastier wild caught fish while also preserving our ability to eat this fish.

Sorry PETA, your efforts to convince me to stop eating fish by dubbing them sea-kittens has failed, but your heart was in the right place. I'll make sure to only eat wild-caught fish and up my consumption of sardines and anchovies.

Avedano's Meat Market; Local People, Local Food

I first read about Avedano's Meat Market in Meatpaper, issue one, I was not only excited about the local people, local food moto, but also, the feminist in me was incredibly proud that three women were hacking apart cows and bringing us Kobe beef steaks. For about a year, I had had the intention of visiting their meet shop in Bernal Heights and I finally did visit the small shop on Cortland Ave last week. At first, I saw many of the staples of local and humanly raised meets, such as Rosie's Chicken, as well as wild Alaskan salmon (the only type of salmon you want to eat), but then, looking closer in the smaller coolers, I was happy to find chicken and pig feet as well as some animal insides not consumed by the average Safeway shopper.

Also, and probably most importantly, the staff was friendly and knowledgeable. They engaged us in conversation about their store, about the meats they had, and enjoyed making jokes about the over sized, plush t-bone steak pillows/toys they had for sale as well. It was fun and tasty; you should visit.

CALL TO ACTION: Under Secretaries of Agriculture

Last month, Tom Vilsack was chosen by Obama to be the next Secretary of Agriculture. In my response to Vilsack's appointment, I met the decision with slightly mixed feelings. Since then, Food Democracy Now! has launched a new online petition proposing 12 possible individuals to fill the 6 Under Secretaries of Agriculture. It is often said that the Under Secretaries of Ag have a larger impact on the day to day operations of the USDA than the Secretary of Agriculture does; in this manner, these positions are very important. Food Democracy Now! presently has over 60,000 signers of its online petition and is looking to have a total 100,000 in the next ten days. As we look to the Obama administration to make changes in our country, it is important that we stress the importance of reforming our nation's food systems; I thus heartily encourage each and every one of you to sign this petition.

Art. Food. Give.

Add to the list of most sought after inauguration events, Alice Waters will be "cooking" a dinner for 80 people on January 19th; the tickets are $500. We all know, however, that Alice doesn't actually cook herself (way to do your research NYT); she just tastes and tells her cooks if it tastes good. In addition, other renowned chefs, who do actually cook themselves, have also agreed to participate in the event and will be cooking dinners for 20-30 people in homes around DC on the same night. In addition, several arts related guests will be in attendance, including Maya Lin.

The event is called Art. Food. Give. and proceeds will benefit D.C. Central Kitchen and Martha's Table, which both operate soup kitchens and help to run FarmFresh Markets, which gave 17,000 pounds of food to emergency food providers during its first year. In addition, in keeping with Water's rhetoric for locally produced foods, the ingredients for the dinners will come from local and sustainable farms. In addition, Alice Waters' organization of this event is significant considering her role in trying to persuade President-elect Barack Obama and Mrs. Obama to plant a victory garden on the White House front lawn. Her role in "cooking" this inaugural dinner indicates her possible role in shaping food and agricultural policy in years to come. Let's hope at least.

Tom Vilsack to be Secretary of Agriculture

Over the last few weeks, there has been much buzz over and speculation about who President-elect Barack Obama would choose as the next Secretary of Agriculture; yesterday, Obama choose Tom Vilsack, a two-term governor of Iowa. To be blunt, I'm not pleased, but my opposition is a bit more nuanced than total rejection.

Leading up to Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture, an online letter had been circulating that encouraged the Obama administration to choose an Agricultural Secretary committed to reform, or, appropriately dubbed, change. Leaders in sustainable agriculture, such as Michael Pollan and Alice Waters, stepped forward to speak about their ideas on the role for the next Secretary of Agriculture. Pollan specifically suggested the position's title be changed to Secretary of Food to reflect the changes in our food system since the position was first created, when the majority of Americans were farmers, in comparison to now, when our system is based upon enterprise farms using machinery for farm labor. It is no longer our agricultural system we need to protect but rather the food these enterprises create for Americans to consume. All this advocacy and excitement created an air of hope for change.

Tom Vilsack is not the choice for change. He is from Iowa, a state focused on corn; he is part of the very system that is the problem in our food chain. Corn is a problem for a lot of reasons. Both Obama and Vilsack are supporters of using ethanol as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; while using ethanol does reduce our use of foreign oil, it also raises the cost of corn (most ethanol in the US is made from corn), which in turn raises the cost of food as so much of our food includes corn and corn bi-products. Corn-based ethanol is also not a sustainable energy source in comparison with other bio-fuels such as sugar cane ethanol. In addition, corn farmers currently receive large subsidies to raise corn, which has led our agriculture system to become a mono culture and the majority of our food to be processed corn bi-products, due to the surplus corn produced. Nutritionally, this means Americans are not eating a diversity of foods, which leads Americans to not consume the diversity of nutrients their bodies require. This diet based on corn bi-products also means Americans are eating unhealthy corn bi-products such as hi fructose corn syrup; most of Americans health problems can be traced back to their unhealthy, corn-based diet. And again, I will say corn is a problem for many reasons.

Being from Iowa and a supporter of ethanol, it is quite probable that Tom Vilsack will be more of the same. Obama's choice of Vilsack is also considered a thank you to Iowa for the state's support of Obama in the election. To be fair, however, as Michael Pollan commented in this morning's interview of NPR Morning Edition, Vilsack has suggested caps on corn farmers subsidies and supports more food production on a local level. In addition, it is important to acknowledge Obama's choice for Secretary of Energy, Seven Chu, who is considered an early leader in alternative energy and, importantly, is opposed to ethanol as an alternative fuel. It is thus possible that Valsack's support of corn-based ethanol will be trumped by the Nobel prize winning Chu's opposition. I believe Pollan's statement of being "cautiously hopeful" is a good one.

And yes, the picture above is indeed of Tom Vilsack, our future Agricultural Secretary.

More on the Aviary System for Raising Chickens

Two weeks ago, on Tuesday November 4, Proposition 2 passed in the state of California, making one of the first state wide steps towards positive reform of our food system. I thought I would take this opportunity to explain more in depth the aviary system for raising chickens I had mentioned in November 3rd's post.

As I stated in my last posting, the basic premise of the aviary system is a multi-level chicken coup in which the same amount of space on a farm is converted into more area for chickens via the addition of floors; think of it as an apartment building for chickens. The aviary system, however, is a little more complicated. One of the main problems with the way chickens are presently raised now is waste disposal. In an aviary coup, there are specific aisles designated for litter. These areas are cleaned via a manure belt, which eliminates the problem of sickness due to feces (god, that would stink...bad joke; couldn't resist.) In addition, aviary coups are equipped with soft nesting areas that reduce the cracking of eggs.

The big advantage of aviary systems is the amount of space they provide per bird. In a paper published in Poultry Science in 1998, the effects on bone characteristics of raising chickens in cages or in aviary chicken coups is compared and the results show that chickens raised in an aviary system have stronger bones. In the aviary system, chickens have the ability to flap their wings, walk, and perch as well as other dynamic and static activities, which all increase bone strength and thus the chickens' health. In addition, there is some correlation between bone strength and calcium depletion in egg shells. Because much of the opposition to Prop 2 focused around hens laying eggs, it is interesting to realize that the aviary system would likely reduce the amount of egg breakage both by the soft nesting areas as well as by increasing the strength of the egg shells themselves. Of course, installing an aviary system will require an initial capital investment and it has been shown that there will be a brief pause in egg laying due to the stress of moving the chickens from one place to another. All in all, however, the aviary system will improve the lives of our chickens and improve the quality of the chickens and eggs that we eat. A feel good proposition, yes?

Prop 2: A Little Pre-Election Day Advice...

As we head into election day tomorrow, I thought I should write about Proposition 2, a bill designed to stop cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, specifically regulating the conditions under and spaces in which farm animals are raised in California. One of the significant things to keep in mind with this California bill is that California comparatively produces less pork and beef than it does chickens, so much of the debate for this bill is around the treatment of chickens. When I first heard about this proposition, I immediately jumped to the opinion that I was going to vote yes on Prop 2, but read a few opinions that have made me think a little more about this decision.

In the most recent Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA) news bulletin, the feature article addresses Prop 2, specifically asking the Saturday farmer's market's egg producers their thoughts on the proposition, and the farmer's were surprisingly divided. Steve Mahrt of Pataluma Farms is against Prop 2 as he believes it is a well-intentioned bill but bad for business. Pataluma Farms produces both cage-free and caged chickens and is a small farming operation in the North Bay. What made me think twice about Mahrt's comment about this proposition being bad for business is that he is not part of a large, industrial farm, but rather a small, family operated one that serves the local community. Mahrt continued that Prop 2 would likely raise the cost of producing eggs by more than the 1 or 2 cents Yes! on Prop 2 suggests, and feels that long term this would mean that eggs would be shipped into California from other US states as well as Mexico. For me, this idea is a problem as shipping eggs that could be produced locally over long distances is not sustainable and would also negate the good of this bill if eggs were just produced elsewhere where the laws are different.

CUESA's feature article also presented the opinion of another farmer who is in favor of Prop 2 and who brought up a lot of good points to Mahrt's opinions. Nigel Walker of Eatwell Farms is an outspoken advocate of Prop2, believing it is a "modest measure" that will require caged chickens to go from having a space of 2/3 a sheet of letter sized paper to two sheets of letter sized paper. When listening Walker's opinion, it is important to realize that his farm will not be directly affected as Eatwell Farms raises 3,000 free range laying hens that roost in mobile coops that are moved every 2-3 weeks. In this manner, his chickens have space indoors as well as the freedom to go outside their coops to forage for food. Walker, however, does mention some creative solutions to Mahrt's concerns, saying that European egg producers, after a similar bill was passed in Europe, switched to an aviary system, where multiple levels of habitat are available, but the overall density of the house is the same. In this manner, chickens would have more room, but the farmer would still be able to produce the same amount of eggs per square foot of land.

In addition, it is important to realize that California is often considered to establish the beginnings of many, more progressive, national movements. It is thus conceivable that with a Prop 2 California victory, this law will ripple through the rest of the country. This would thus mean that it would likely not be cheaper to produce California's eggs out of state, but likely to continue producing them in state, in more humane conditions long term. In this manner, Mahrt's concerns about Prop 2 are both, for the most part, solved.

If you were wondering, I am voting yes on Prop 2, and I do strongly encourage you to do the same. With this blog posting, I simply wanted to present both sides of this bill. While Steve Mahrt's concerns with Prop 2 are valid and important to consider, I believe the long term goal as well as affects of the bill are significant and incredibly beneficial to our food system. Proposition 2 is a step in the right direction to reform the policy around the production of our food.

South Park: My favorite lunch spot and its garden truck

As many of you know, I spend most of my lunches in South Park. It's a wonderful spot, not only for it being a green enclave in cement covered SOMA but for the subtle characters that populate the parks benches every day. In any event, there is pickup truck parked at almost all times on the north side of South Park, right in front of South Park Cafe, whose back section is always filled with plants: flowering, leafy, and fruiting (tomatoes!). I'm not really sure why this truck is there and filled with greenery; the plants don't appear for sale and there is no marking indicating how pedestrians should treat this garden in this public space. I am going to guess, however, that the placement of these potted plants could be using the possibly unused space of the back of a pickup to produce food as well as reducing the trucks CO2 emissions. How sweet. Is this possibly some green art installation/victory garden of sorts? Or is it simply intended to add a view to South Park's already pretty park setting?

I tried to do some research on the internet and found nothing on the truck, but did find a cool historical photograph of my favorite park. In any event, does anyone know the true role of this mini truck garden? Thanks.

On what Slow Food actually means...

Leading up to Slow Food Nation I was often asked what "Slow Food" actually means. Each time, I found myself answering the question a bit differently depending on to whom I was talking; at first, I thought this was probably due to my not having a clear sense of the movement, but I think now that my various answers were pretty close to the movement's reality. Slow Food has a lot of meanings and origins, which is okay and pretty appropriate, as all these meanings lead to the same resolution of "better" food. The various definitions of what "better" means are why the movement has so many meanings.

Slow Food's motto is good, clean, and fair food. More specifically this mean, that the food we eat should taste good; the this food should be produced in a clean way that does not harm the environment, animal welfare, nor our health; and that food producers should receive fair compensation for their work. In a talk that I attended during the Slow Food Nation weekend, aptly called "Slow Food Nation",Wendell Berry, Vandana Shiva, Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, Eric Schlosser, and Carlo Petrini discussed what Slow Food meant, each speaker bringing a unique perspective on the matter.

Of the speakers, I thought Vadana Shiva brought the most thoughtful perspective to what slow food meant. She spoke most about the Slow Food movement in the context of the greater world food economy, about places were people do not receive the proper nutrition because of the way food systems are set up. Her most important conclusion was to not encourage developing countries to emulate the US food system but to continue to educate citizens on how to produce their own food so as not to become dependant upon other countries for food and to also continue to produce food locally. In addition, as I stated in an earlier blog post, she made the astute statement that the biggest obstacle to the slow food movement is fashion.

In addition, the statement that the slow food movement is a leaderless movement was made, which I also find very true and very interesting. Slow food is, for obvious reasons, a local movement. Much of what slow food strives for is that food be produced locally, which makes it as clean as possibly, often as good as possible (I mean, has anyone had a Haas avocado from South America taste as good as the ones grown here?), and also easiest to determine if the workers have been treated fairly. It's interesting, however, to consider how a movement without a clear leader has gained such an impressive following via grassroots organization.

Overall, I think that much of how an individual perceives slow food is dependant on where an individual lives. In the Bay Area, for example we mostly focus on good as much of our food is clean and fair (ie local with fairly paid labor). Also, there is a lot of culture developed around food here; from restaurants to farmer's markets to food magazines to underground eating clubs, a lot of time has been spent developing a culture around meals. Since moving to San Francisco, I can't remember having even stepped into a fast food chain restaurant for even a bathroom while I have also developed a digestive reaction to any fried food. In the Bay Area we thus have the luxury to reinstate the culture of eating meals communally as well as redefining what this culture is; in this manner, when I talk to someone from the Bay Area about what Slow Food is, I might focus on the cultural redevelopment of eating that is occurring with the slow food movement, but if I'm talking to a friend from Philadelphia who love cheese steaks I might talk about slow food being the opposite of fast food, and give a general overview of how in a "slow" meal you are more connected with the entire production of your food from seed to plate, thus standing in contrast to a fast food meal where you only really participate in the ordering of a grey meat patty. gross.

The Victory Garden in Civic Center Plaza

I want to devote this post to the Victory Garden in Civic Center Plaza, which I find to be the greatest contribution Slow Food Nation had to San Francisco as a whole. Victory gardens, also known as war gardens or food gardens for defense, first came about during World Wars I and II as a response to the pressure on the food system brought on by the war efforts. These gardens produced food (vegetables, fruits, herbs, and livestock) and were planted at private residents as well as in public spaces-- Eleanor Roosevelt raised sheep on the White House front lawn in 1943. These victory gardens produced up to 40% of the food consumed nationally and helped to lower the cost of produce, thus allowing funds that would have been spent on food to advance the war effort in other areas.

The victory garden planted in front of the San Francisco Civic Center was funded by the City of San Francisco and redefines the "victory"

used in the gardens of WWI and WWII;

this garden, as well as other present victory gardens, was developed to increase urban sustainability. In the context of our food systems being stretched across longer and longer distances, the San Francisco Civic Center Victory Garden encourages SF residents to look increasingly local for their food supply. The resulting garden in Civic Center plaza was also aesthetically pleasing and biologically diverse. The circular beds included many local plants, included some rumored poison oak, as well as plants that have become staples of our California diet. In addition, a compost display could be found at the back, encouraging visitors to continue to reuse their food.

The San Francisco victory garden is also part of a larger movement of victory gardens that are encouraging citizens to look locally for their food. Additionally, there is a petition circulating to encourage the next president of the United States to plant a victory garden on the White House Lawn, hearkening back to Eleanor Roosevelt's time. Coupled with this movement, there is a growing network of people campaigning for the creation of edible landscapes, be it on the White House lawn or in your very own backyard.

In any event, the Victory Garden on City Hall's lawn was by far the most visible and accessible part of Slow Food Nation. San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom was also affected by having the front lawn of his office become an edible landscape and is now working on developing San Francisco's first food policy, to be released in the next several months. While trying to feed the entire city, including public schoolchildren, homeless people, jail inmates, and hospital patients with an all organic, locally grown diet via public funds seems a bit financially unrealistic, the thought to start working towards creating the infrastructure to produce our food locally is a great one.

Also, watch Roger Dorion's "Eat the View" video, his campaign to the next United States President to make the White House lawn a victory garden:

On the Eve of Slow Food Nation!

Well, sort of the eve, for me at least...

The first day of Slow Food Nation was officially today, but I am attending my first event tomorrow. Much hoopla in the city and my own personal excitement has led up to this event, giving me heightened expectations and some mixed feelings. Visitors have to pay for most events and many are rather pricey with a lot of them having already sold out. While their selling out and the proceedings going to the international Slow Food nonprofit is exciting, it does seem a little exclusive to have so many of the events at seemingly cost prohibitive prices. I know I have written about how it is good that a bourgeois culture is adopting many of the slow food concepts into their lifestyles, but I do think having the celebration of the slow food movement being costly to the individual is a bit contradictory, or has the potential to be at least.

I don't want to say too much, however, before I attend my events. My first stop tomorrow will be volunteering at CUESA (not exactly SFN sanctioned, but in the same vain), and then to the victory garden, followed by the Slow Food talk at 4 pm. On Sunday, I'm going to be going to the Sunday night taste pavilion with a possible jaunt at the Slow Food Rocks concert, but we'll see. Next week, I will have plenty to write about I am sure!

It's as if the NYT was reading my mind...

In today's NYTimes, April Dembosky writes about P.S.1's Public Farm 1, which I wrote about my posting yesterday. The article, entitled Fun on the Farm Down Home in Long Island City, discusses in more depth P.S.1's weekly Warm Up event and the interactions that occurs between the visitors and the urban farm during these happenings. A few things I learned while reading the article that I wish I had known while I was visiting is that you can actually pick the plants and lay on the grass filled cylinders. When I went on a quiet Friday afternoon with my friend Danish, we were frequently the only people walking around the structure. I think with more people filling up the space, visitors begin to naturally experiment. With only a few people in the space, one is conscious of being outside an art institution and our trained sense to not touch "art" prevails. If only I had known, I could have actually eaten those strawberries! Thanks NYT for the follow up...

P.F.1

On a recent trip to New York, I visited my ever favorite art space, P.S.1, excited to see this summer's courtyard installation. This year, the architecture project chosen for the MoMA/P.S.1 Young Architects Program was WORK Architecture's P.F.1. P.F.1, standing for Public Farm 1, is an urban farm space constructed of large cardboard tubes that form a v-shaped plat form that dips in the middle around a central pool. The top surface of the structure acts as a working farm, producing produce and plants that are used in P.S.1's cafe as well as sold at an "absurdly local" farmer's market right in front of of P.S.1's entrance. The structure as also built totally of recycled materials, is powered 100% by solar power, and utilizes rain water for irrigation, bringing together sustainable agriculture with sustainable construction.

In addition, P.F.1 includes a small chicken coop as well as some fun interactive features. I particularly like the chicken coop; it smelled clean and had lots of space per chicken, obviously standing in stark contrast to any industrial farming chicken coop--these were happy chickens! There were also recordings of farm noises, such as cows mooing and sheep baaing, which were probably intended for little kids judging by how low they were to the grown, but were pretty darn enjoyable to play with during a Friday afternoon.

What I really liked about this project is how it makes principles of sustainable agriculture not only accessible in an urban environment, but visually engaging. In addition, I like that during the Saturdays of the summer season, New York's hipsters will be gathering in the quirky urban/agricultural space during Warm Up, making sustainable agriculture just a little bit cooler. So, if you're in New York at some point before September 15th, I would suggest visiting this rather nifty Urban Farm! Maybe you'll catch little kids swimming in the pool like I did...which I thought was a little strange, even if it was hot...

Grow your own edible landscape

Daniela, who sent me the initial NY Times article that spurned the "Farming at your Back Doorstep" posting, sent me the link to the New York Times' By Design blog that I also thought was worth sharing. This blog entry, in comparison with the article posted earlier, introduces the idea of urban agriculture not as a bourgeois fad but rather as a piece of a larger movement towards locally produced food. Allison Arieff, the blog writer, hired Trevor Paque of My Farm to build a garden in her San Francisco backyard, replacing her "water dependent grass patch" with an edible landscape. Arieef also responds to those who see this as a "lazy locovore" trend by pointing towards the "collaboration, community, and connections to food, neighbors, and land" that has been created by this movement that is "slowly loosing it's elitist associations".

Arieff then goes onto to describe a few other related projects both locally, in her home town of San Francisco, and nationally. The two projects she talks about that I really got excited about are the San Francisco Victory Garden at Civic Center and P.F.1, this summer's PS1/MOMA Young Architect Program winner. The San Francisco Victory Garden is sponsored by Slow Food Nation, a nonprofit organization that is part of the slow food movement, which will be producing a three day celebration of American food over Labor Day weekend. Both are really interesting projects, which I will talk about in later postings. What I like about Arieff's posting is that she places urban agriculture in the context of a greater movement and shows the increasing urban consciousness about where our food comes from.

Farming at your back doorstep...

On Monday, my friend Daniela (of Citytropic fame) emailed me an NY Times article (A Locally Grown Diet with Fuss but no Muss) and asked me what I thought, commenting that it was possibly a little bougie. The article discusses a new phenomena where urban professionals are hiring gardeners to cultivate organic, edible gardens in their backyards. On some levels, especially with way the NY Times presents the concept, having someone farm vegetables in your backyard and placing a weekly box of these "locally grown" produce on your back doorstep, so that you can proudly call yourself a "locavore," is a bit privileged; I would argue, however, the the concept has its heart in the right place.

For one, having someone garden for you is not a new concept, especially for us less green-thumbed. The idea of having someone plant a mini farm in your backyard, on the other hand, seems a little removed from the romantic idea of the local farm where the farmer still gets his or her hands dirty in protest of the newest farming equipment. Still, if we are okay with gardeners help us grow flowering plants, I think having a gardener helping us grow produce in our backyard is a better use of the space and is certainly an affective way to free oneself from eating Chilean avocados while in San Francisco during avocado season.

Boccalone's $9 Sandwich, so worth every penny...

I had heard from a few friends about Boccalone's $9 sandwich, and how amazing it was. I had even come close to buying it a few times, but hesitated twice, not wanting to fork over the cash. On the third time, however, I obliged my desire to spend too much money on a gourmet sandwich. And boy, was it worth it. The sandwich consists of peach slices, delicious Boccolone prosciutto, salt, pepper, olive oil, and fresh mint leaves on top of some very fresh, tasty bread. The prosciutto was especially smooth and deliciously salty, which brought out the sweet acidity of the peaches. The final taste of the sandwich was the sweet mint, which added a great complexity to each bight in which mint made its way. I had this sandwich for dinner, and while it was probably one of the best sandwiches I've ever had, I was a little hungry at the end and probably would say was best as a hearty lunch sandwich.

Boccalone just opened a new stall in the Ferry Terminal Market, replacing Capay Bay I believe, and has a mission of combining sustainable raised, heritage-breed pork with the freshest of ingredients to make the tastiest of meat products. In 2005, Boccalone started producing salumi, fresh sausages, and cooked products such as pate out of an Oakland facility that was once home to Moniz, a Portuguese sausage factory originally founded in 1900. In any case, their new store in the Ferry Terminal sells a host of delicious products, so you should visit, if not for the prosciutto and peach sandwich, at least to see what Lardo, cured pig fat, looks like.

Community-Supported Agriculture in the NYT

My friend Peter sent me an article in the New York Times published today about community sponsored (or supported) agriculture (CSA). The concept of CSA originated in Japan and Switzerland in the 1960s and was brought to the United States in the 1980s. The basic premise is that consumers buy shares in a local farm with other local consumers; each person then gets a portion of the farm's crops for the seasons they buy shares. In this manner, local people share the financial responsibility of their local farms and agree to support their local farms, the farms becoming, in some ways, the community's farm. The CSA movement has been gaining a lot of moment in recent years, mostly in areas with a lot of farms, such as New York, the Great Lakes regions, and, more recently, California.

I looked up some of the places where one can find such farms and found that a lot of the farms local to San Francisco had merged with spud!, North America's largest natural foods delivery service. While the idea behind spud! is a good one, using economics of scale to market but purchasing locally, it sort of takes the community/getting your hands dirty feel out of CSA farming. I found another website, however, that I thought was really useful, Local Harvest, which has a database searchable by zip and state that allows you to found local CSA farms. For SF, I found 11 CSA farms; sort of cool, yes? I think so...

I think Mark Bittman has a crush on Michael Pollen...