Healthcare Professionals in Service of the Global Environment
About TeleosisAbout ESMESM NetworkResourcesJoin Us
Symbiosis: The Journal of ESM Environmental Health Brochures & Guides Ecological Wellness Updates Events Calendar Health in the News Home






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































SYMBIOSIS
The Journal of Ecologically Sustainable Medicine

Healthy Earth, Healthy Eating
Vol 3, No 2

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

We hope you enjoyed our first-time online production of Symbiosis: The Journal of Ecologically Sustainable Medicine in November. This month, we are continuing our winter theme, Healthy Earth, Healthy Eating: Why Human Wellness Depends on the Health of the Earth.

Last month we interviewed Dr. Susan Lord, who trains medical professionals in nutrition through the Center for Mind-Body Medicine, reviewed The Food Revolution, by John Robbins, learned from Ed Bauman about Eating For Health, the nutrition educational model from Bauman College, and presented Part 1 of Healthy Earth, Healthy Eating.

We continue this month with Part 2 of Healthy Earth, Healthy Eating, which looks at Earth health, genetically modified foods, and organic agriculture. Teleosis Director Joel Kreisberg interviews nutritionist and chef Jessica Prentice, who talks about sustainable meat production and about the community-based organization, Wise Food Ways; we also profile the National Association for Nutritional Professionals and offer tips on healthy eating.

This issue comes to you as the holiday season, with its traditions and customs, unfolds. May you and yours be blessed with the gifts of health and love.

Candice Chase
Editor of Symbiosis





HEALTHY EARTH, HEALTHY EATING:
PART 2

Only a Healthy Planet Can Support Healthy People

By Candice Chase, Ph.D.

            In Part 1 of this article we explored the complex topic of the ecology of food and health, including food in the context of ecologically whole living systems, the origins of human diets, and how our modern diets differ from traditional hominin diets (visit http://www.teleosis.org/symbiosis and see our archives).

            Now, in Part 2, we look at the relationship between the health of our water, soils, and forests, and the food we eat, how some of our favorite foods may be implicated in the process of global warming, some concerns about genetically modified foods, and the growing demand for organic foods. In alignment with previous knowledge about ecological systems, the food production systems found to be harmful to our health are also undermining the support systems of the planet on which our very lives depend.

Part 2

Water, Soil, and Forests

Nearly half the water consumed in this country
is used for livestock, mostly cattle.
—Audubon, December 1999

Life on Earth depends on water. Yet our supply of clean water is disappearing.

All the water-saving measures combined—installing low-flow showerheads and sink fixtures, turning off water when brushing teeth except to rinse the brush, washing the car less often and so on—will not save nearly as much as can be saved by adopting a primarily plant-based diet. While it takes from 23-49 gallons of water to produce one pound of lettuce, potatoes, wheat, carrots, and apples, it takes from 815-5,214 gallons to produce a pound of chicken, pork, and beef. Looked at another way, if you live in California, you could save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you would by not showering for six months!

Many aquifers in the U.S. and around the world are being depleted at unprecedented rates. It is only during the last half-century that the use of powerful diesel and electric pumps have begun to empty aquifers in a matter of decades. According to Ed Ayers (1999), Around the world, as more water is diverted to raising [cattle], pigs and chickens, instead of producing crops for direct consumption, millions of wells are going dry. India, China, North Africa and the United States are all running freshwater deficits, pumping more from their aquifers than rain can replenish.

The largest body of fresh water on Earth, an aquifer that stretches from South Dakota To Texas, provides nearly one-third of all the ground water used for irrigation in the U.S. Because it is a fossil aquifer, containing water from melted glaciers, it will not be replenished by rainfall. The water tables of this aquifer, called the Ogallala, are dropping dramatically and some wells are going dry. The alarming increase in draw from the Ogallala is directly related to the creation of factory farms and feedlot beef. Consider that more water is taken from this aquifer each year for beef production than is used to grow all the fruits and vegetables in the entire country! The fact that only 0.0001 percent of fresh water is readily accessible (Suzuki, 1997, p. 66.) suggests that this is a wildly inappropriate use of water.

The most effective single step we can take to ensure that our children’s children—and uncountable plants and animals—have access to life-giving clean water is to move in the direction of adopting a plant-based diet. The current level of consumption of meat such as beef, pork and chicken, and the production systems now used to meet this demand, can be not only harmful to our health, but also devastating to the environment on which our lives depend.

When animals are raised in limited numbers in open fields or pastures, their manure biodegrades and enriches the soil. But with the huge numbers of animals being raised for food today in feedlots or confinement buildings, there is no economically feasible way to return the waste to the land. U.S. agriculture now depends increasingly on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Without manure, and saturated with chemicals, soils are losing their texture and the ability to retain topsoil—the rich layer that is critical for food production. According to Ryan and Durning (1977), “The production of every quarter-pound hamburger in the United States causes the loss of five times the burger’s weight in topsoil” (p. 55). Furthermore, 70% of land in the American West is used for grazing livestock. Much of this land is publicly owned. Seventy percent of the land in western national forests and 90% of Bureau of Land Management land are grazed by livestock for private profit.

Much of the waste from livestock finds its way into our waters. Schmid (1997) cited a Time magazine article that noted

Mass production of meat has become a staggering source of pollution . . . livestock waste has been implicated in massive fish kills and outbreaks of such diseases as pfiesteria, which causes memory loss, confusion and acute skin burning in people exposed to contaminated water. In the United States, livestock now produces 130 times as much waste as people do . . . . in populous areas their waste is tainting drinking water. (p. 241)

When large amounts of animal manure pollute waterways, oxygen is severely depleted. Fish suffocate from prolonged oxygen depletion, or may starve when prey (smaller fish) suffocates. This process is ruining areas throughout the country; it has resulted in an area of 7,000 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico south of Louisiana that is virtually dead—it can no longer support most forms of aquatic life.

Forests are essential sources of oxygen; they moderate climate, prevent floods, and are critical in preventing soil erosion. Forests provide fuel and wood for our homes. They purify and recycle our water and are home to millions of animals and plants. Forests worldwide are being devastated by activities such as shifting populations, power projects, logging, and road building. But another significant factor contributing to the destruction of the world’s precious forests is beef cattle ranching. Rainforests contain 80% of the world’s species of land vegetation and account for much of the planet’s oxygen supply. Half of all species on Earth live in tropical rainforests. One-quarter of our medicines derive from raw materials found in rainforests. Yet every second, an area the size of a football field is destroyed forever (Agriculture 21, 1998). A major cause of this devastation can be traced to the eating habits of Americans and other Westerners: “The number one factor in elimination of Latin America’s tropical rainforests is cattle grazing . . . [We are seeing] the ‘hamburgerization’ of the forests” (Myers, 1987, pp. 127, 142). And in Central America, “two-thirds of these countries’ rainforests have been cleared, primarily to raise cattle whose stringy, cheap meat is exported to profit the U.S. food industry” (Rainforest Action Network, 2000).

Global Warming

The last time you ate a juicy steak or roast chicken, you likely didn’t think that you were contributing to global warming. But you may need to reconsider.

When we burn fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and forests, we raise the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC, 2001) projected a globally averaged surface temperature on Earth to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C between 1990 to 2100. This slight raise in temperature will lead to a significant loss of biodiversity and massive flooding of coastal areas, resulting in serious problems in food security.

Up until approximately 100 years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had remained relatively constant, at about 280 parts per million. We now have reached 360 parts per million (p. 265, Robbins, 2001). Certain agricultural practices make a significant contribution to increased carbon dioxide levels. The tremendous amount of nitrogen fertilizers in the United States is a serious problem, because ammonium nitrate, the most common form of nitrogen fertilizer, is in essence congealed natural gas.

Robbins (2001) notes that,

Since beef requires the burning of 54 fossil fuel calories for the production of a calorie of protein, and soybeans require only two, people deriving their protein from soybeans are, in effect, consuming only 4 percent as much energy—and producing only 4 percent as much carbon dioxide—as people deriving their protein from beef. (p. 266)

Corn and wheat require the burning of only three fossil fuel calories to produce a calorie of protein. Scientists as well as environmental activists acknowledge that the production of meat poses a serious problem relative to global warming: “results [of extensive research at the Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Reserve Laboratory at Miles City, Montana] reveal the high level of dependency of the U.S. beef cattle industry on fossil fuels” (Heitschmidt, 1996, pp. 1395-1405).

The methane produced in raising animals for meat is also a significant contributor to global warming. Second only to carbon dioxide, methane is the next most destabilizing gas to the planet’s climate. Several sources bear this out.

Methane is actually 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster . . . Concentrations of atmospheric methane are nearly triple what they were when they began rising a century ago, and the primary reason is beef production. (Robbins, 2001, p. 267)

The EPA indicates that the world’s livestock are responsible for 25% of the methane emissions that are based in human activity (Halweil, 1998). And in 1999, a report of the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that the two most damaging things Americans do to the climate are drive vehicles that get poor gas mileage and eat beef (San Francisco Chronicle, 1999).

Genetically Modified Foods

Tomatoes with flounder genes, salmon with human genes, broccoli with bacteria and rat genes—these creations are no longer confined to the pages of a science fiction novel. Rather, they are the increasingly common result of the genetic engineering being carried out in the biotechnology industry. What is truly frightening is that products such as these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be found in nearly every supermarket in the country. In 1999, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (genetically modified) varieties of soybean comprised more than half of the soybean crop in America. One-third of the U.S. corn crop contains genes from viruses and petunias (Robbins, 2001, p. 328).

In contrast to techniques plant breeders have used for centuries, genetic engineering typically takes genes from one species and inserts them into another in order to transfer a desired trait. In violating the species barriers in this way we have opened ourselves up to unknown and unforeseeable consequences, because biotech companies are producing and introducing GMOs into our food supply without any extended testing period.

Fortunately, the crossing of the species barrier in nature happens very rarely, but when it does it can be disastrous. The 1918 flu pandemic, which killed over 22 million people worldwide, is thought to have been caused by horizontal gene transfer. And Mad Cow disease resulted from a horizontal transfer of an infectious protein that kills sheep (Robbins, 2001, p. 330). Noted molecular biologist Richard Strohman comments that genetic engineering “often doesn’t work. And when you put a biological entity out into the environment, or into a human being, and you’re not completely certain—and you can never be certain in this business, in my opinion—your ability to do damage is very, very high” (as cited in Suzuki & Dressel, 1999, p. 106).

One problem is that a bit of DNA from one organism inserted into another organism often can include genetic parasites, such as viruses. These parasites are specific to certain species and are contained by genetic species barriers. But genetic engineering transgresses these natural barriers. This is particularly troubling because in recent years reports are increasing of new pathogens arising from the horizontal (across species barriers) gene transfer that is the basis of genetic engineering. During the past quarter century, a number of diseases—including Ebola, AIDS, hepatitis C, hanta-virus, and Lyme disease—have emerged that appear to result from horizontal gene transfer. Robbins notes the comments of Gerald Wald, M.D., Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Professor of Biology at Harvard University, who said that genetic engineering:

faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. . . . Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly . . . Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell . . . Going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, and novel epidemics. (p. 331)

More than 20% of the planet’s genetically modified acreage has been planted with crops engineered to produce pesticides in every cell of the plants throughout their entire life cycle (Lappe & Bailey, 1998, p. 23). A potato created by Monsanto, for example, kills any potato beetle that munches on it; this potato is itself required to be registered as a pesticide with the EPA. An even more disturbing example is that of a genetically engineered soil bacteria—Klebsiella planticula—which is used to break down wood chips, corn stalks, wastes from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to produce ethanol in the process. What initially seemed like a win-win proposition turned into a nightmare. During field-testing at Oregon State University, the engineered bacterium did exactly as promised, eliminating rotting organic waste and producing ethanol.

However, when some of the post-processed waste was added to actual living soil, something very unexpected happened. Seeds planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every single plant died (Hill, 1994). Researchers discovered that the genetically engineered Klebsiella was very competitive with native soil microorganisms, suppressing activities crucial to soil fertility. The bacteria killed much of the mycorrhysal fungi in the soil that helps make nutrients available to plant roots (Holmes, et al., 1998).

The worst part of the experiment, however, was yet to be realized. The genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil. Had this modified bacteria been released, the genetically engineered Klebsiella could have become established and been impossible to eradicate. According to geneticist David Suzuki, this bacteria “could have ended all plant life on this continent” (Suzuki & Dressel, 1999, p. 1210).

Unfortunately, it isn’t only plant products that contain GMOs. Ninety-five percent of the soy meal grown in the U.S., and almost that high a percentage of corn, are used as livestock feed. Thus, all non-organic meat, poultry, dairy or egg products marketed to the public contain genetically engineered substances (Lappe & Bailey, 1998, p. 147). And in some cases, without producers notifying consumers, the animals themselves are being genetically engineered to more easily accommodate the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of factory farming:

The USDA has, without telling the public, been allowing into slaughterhouses and into the food chain, animals that have been involved in experiments making them transgenic. These are animals that have foreign genes in every one of their cells . . . these are animals with human genes; these are animals that have a variety of viruses in them. They did this without consulting Congress. They did this without making it public. These animals have been in the food chain now since 1995. (as quoted in Suzuki and Dressel, 1999, p. 106)

Two-thirds of the foods sold in American supermarkets now include genetically modified substances (Goldberg, 2000). Today in the United States, the only sure way to avoid eating genetically engineered food is to eat only organically grown food.

Genetically Modified Foods

Even as GMOs are being developed, organic agriculture has been emerging as a major force in world food production:

By the turn of the millennium, more than 17 million acres worldwide were planted with organic foods. Though this was less than a fifth of the area planted with transgenics, the number of acres dedicated to organic farming was 10 times what it had been only 10 years previously. (Robbins, 2001, p. 366)

Organic farming has been one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture for over a decade (Economic Research Service, 2005). Rapidly growing consumer interest in organically grown foods has created many new markets for producers and the organic foods industry is undergoing a transformation. Organic foods are now sold in a wide variety of venues including farmers markets, natural product supermarkets, conventional supermarkets, and club stores. For the first time in 2000, more organic food was purchased in conventional supermarkets than in any other venue; organic foods are now sold in 73 percent of all conventional grocery stores. Growth in retail sales has equaled 20% or more annually since 1990.

According to the most recent USDA estimates, U.S. certified organic cropland doubled between 1992 and 1997 to 1.3 million acres. Fresh produce is the top-selling organic category, followed by nondairy beverages, breads and grains, packaged foods (frozen and dried prepared foods, baby food, soups and desserts) and dairy products (Dimitri & Greene, 2002). Certified organic cropland for grains, fruits, vegetables and other crops more than doubled from 1992 to 1997, and doubled again for many crops between 1997 and 2003.

Two organic livestock sectors—poultry and dairy—grew even faster. While adoption of organic farming systems showed strong gains between 1992 and 2003 and the adoption rate remains high, the overall adoption level is still low—only about 0.4 percent of all U.S. cropland and 0.1 percent of all U.S. pasture was certified organic in 2003. Obstacles to adoption by farmers include high managerial costs and risks of shifting to a new way of farming, limited awareness of organic farming systems, lack of marketing and infrastructure, and inability to capture marketing economies. Yet many producers are transitioning to organic farming practices in order to lower input costs, conserve nonrenewable resources, capture high-value markets, and boost farm income, especially as prices fall for staple commodities (Economic Research Service, 2005).

It’s good news that organic products have made their way into mainstream markets. Unfortunately, this has also meant that national standards for these products—and in fact the very definition of the term organic—have come under the intense pressures of the marketplace. There has been controversy over the use of artificial substances in certified-organic products since federal organic standards were put into effect in 2002. In November, however, the Organic Trade Association—which represents mainstream producers of organic products, including Dole, Kraft, and Horizon—lobbied the Senate to attach an amendment to the 2006 agriculture appropriations bill that would make it legal for certain synthetic substances to continue to be used in the preparation, processing, and packaging of organic products that receive the USDA seal. The proposed amendment would in effect negate a recent federal court ruling that determined synthetics should not be permitted in the processing of certified-organic products (Little, 2005).

What this means, according to the Organic Consumers Association, (2005), is that for the first time, the Secretary [of Agriculture] will have the power to expedite petitions for access to the list of substances that are commercially unavailable in organic form. The industry has requested that 517 more synthetic substances be approved. This could pave the way for hundreds of synthetic ingredients being allowed in products labeled “USDA Organic.”

The urgent message is that those committed to truly organic agriculture must remain constantly vigilant and active.

In addition to dramatically increasing consumer demand for organic foods, many countries are enacting laws to limit or eliminate genetic engineering of foods. Despite U.S. government opposition, the landmark Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, giving countries the right to refuse entry to genetically altered seeds, crops, animals, and microbes, was put into force in 2003 (IISD, 2003). This was an historic first agreement of nations in attempting to prevent environmental problems before they begin (Halweil, 2001).

Unfortunately for Americans, this country lagged in the growth of organic farming compared to most other countries; in 1999 only 0.2% of the nation’s crops were organic (Halweil, 2000, p. 120). Lack of government support is a major part of the problem; in the late 1990s, less than one-tenth of one percent of USDA research projects related in any way to organic agriculture. And it took a grassroots citizen protest to stop the Department of Agriculture from defining organic standards in a way that would have allowed genetically engineered foods, as well as foods that had been irradiated and grown with heavy metal-laden sewage sludge, to be classified as organic.

The advantages of organic agriculture include reduced soil erosion, greatly improved soil health, significantly less contribution to global warming, dramatically reduced water pollution, and better nutrition. A study in the Journal of Applied Nutrition indicated that the mineral content of organically grown apples, potatoes, pears, wheat, and sweet corn ranged from 60-390% higher than their conventionally grown counterparts (Smith, 1993). Many studies have found that yields from organic production are comparable to conventional systems, especially over the long term. A comprehensive study on the feasibility of organic agriculture conducted by the Center for the Study of Biological Systems at Washington University in St. Louis found that organic farms yielded, in dollars per acre, exactly the same returns as conventional farms. In terms of yield, the organic farms were down about 10%; however, since American agriculture grows much of its food for animals that are turned into meat products, even a small reduction in meat consumption would make up for this difference and allow us to enjoy the benefits of organic agricultural practices. Just a few of these benefits include better health for humans, reduced species extinction, cleaner air, fewer pesticides, and the elimination of dangerous genetic engineering.

It is clear from even this brief overview of some of the issues—and politics—involved in the ecology of food and health, the complexities and challenges are many. But the ever-growing numbers of people who understand the benefits of organic food and ancestral diets—those who have transformed the market for organic foods from a niche to one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture—are making the connections and demanding radical changes in how we think about food, agricultural practices, and our relationship with the life-sustaining Earth.

References

  • Ayers E. Will we still eat meat? Maybe not, if we wake up to what the mass production of animal flesh is doing to our health and the planet’s. Time. 1999, November 8.
  • Cordain L, Eaton S Boyd, Sebastian A, et al. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: Health implications for the 21st century. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005;81:341-354.
  • Dimitri C, Greene C. [ERS–Economic Research Service/United States Department of Agriculture.] The economics of food, farming, natural resources, and rural America: Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic foods market. [Agriculture Information Bulletin No. (AIB777), September 2002.] Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/ Accessed November 14, 2005.
  • ERS–Economic Research Service/United States Department of Agriculture. The economics of food, farming, natural resources, and rural America: Data on organic production, 1992-2003. Available at http://ers.usda.gov/Data/organic/ (page updated 11/16/05). Accessed November 12, 2005.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization, Agriculture Department, United Nations. Agriculture 21, Spotlight/1998: Livestock and environment—Shortsighted policies—and some programmes to “support” livestock owners—contribute to land degradation. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9809/spot4.htm Accessed November 20, 2005.
  • Goldberg C. 1,500 March in Boston to protest biotech food. New York Times. 2000, March 27:A-14.
  • Holmes M, Ingham ER, Doyle JD, Hendricks CS. Effects of Klebsiella Planticola on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology. 1999;11: 67-68.
  • Heitschmidt RK, Short RE, Gringsw, EE. Ecosystems, sustainability, and animal agriculture. Journal of Animal Science. 1966;74(6):1395-1405.
  • Hill H. OSU Study finds genetic altering of bacterium upsets natural order. Oregonian. August 8, 1994.
  • IISD: A Multimedia Resource for Environment and Development Policy Makers. Cartagena protocol on biosafety enters into force. Available http://www.iisd.ca/media/biodiversity_wildlife2003.htm Accessed November 25, 2005. (page updated on: 11/14/05)
  • IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. Climate change 2001: Working group I—the scientific basis; F.3 Projections of future changes in temperature. Available at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/031.htm Accessed November 25, 2005.
  • Lappe M, Bailey B. Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press; 1998.
  • Little AG. Brother, where artificial thou? Fight over synthetic ingredients splits organics community. Muckracker: The Dirt on Environmental Politics and Policy. Available at http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/09/29/organics/ Accessed November 17, 2005.
  • Myers N. The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future. New York: W.W. Norton; 1987.
  • Organic Consumers Association. Campaigning for food safety, organic agriculture, fair trade & sustainability: What are the implications of the Ag appropriations bill on organic labeling? 11/7/2005. Available at http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos/oca-1.cfm Accessed November 18, 2005.
  • Rainforest Action Network. Seven things you can do to save the rainforest. Author Factsheet; 2000. Available at www.ran.org/ran/info_center/factsheets/ Accessed November 2, 2005.
  • Robbins J. The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World. York Beach, ME: Conari Press; 2001.
  • Ryan J, Durning A. Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch; 1977.
  • San Francisco Chronicle. Group’s surprising beef with meat industry: study ranks production of beef, poultry and pork as second to automobiles in ecological cost. Author; 1999, April 27.
  • Schmid RF. Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press; 1997.
  • Smith BL. Organic foods vs. supermarket foods: element levels. Journal of Applied Nutrition. 1993;45(1):35-39.
  • Suzuki D. The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature. Vancouver: Greystone Books; 1997.
  • Suzuki D, Dressel H. From Naked Ape to Superspecies. Toronto: Stoddart; 1999.
  • Worldwatch Institute. Organic farming thrives. Vital Signs. 2000.




THE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE

MEDICINE NETWORK


Wise Food Ways

MEMBER PROFILE

An Interview with Jessica Prentice


In the latest manifestation of her passion for traditional cuisines and the power of food to bring people together, professional chef Jessica Prentice is completing the manuscript of Full Moon Feast: Food and the Hunger for Connection, which will be published by Chelsea Green in March 2006. In the book, Prentice uses the themes of history, seasonality, ecology, culture, and human longing to explore our food systems.

As a cook and educator, Prentice combines creativity and imagination with a deep respect for traditional cuisine. Her work provides a model for communities who want to feed themselves in ways that are satisfying and supportive of health, with food that is delicious, environmentally responsible, and grounded in the wise nourishing traditions of our ancestors. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area in California have regular opportunities to enjoy Prentice’s cooking during her Full Moon Feasts, meals that she prepares using local, sustainably-grown ingredients.

A graduate of the Natural Gourmet Cookery School in New York, Jessica Prentice is former Director of Education Programs at the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture and former chef of the Headlands Center for the Arts in Marin County, California. She is a Bay Area chapter leader for the Weston A. Price Foundation for Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts.

Teleosis Executive Director Joel Kreisberg talked with Jessica about sustainable farming practices, focusing especially on the topic of meat production and the growing market for meat produced from animals that have been raised using sustainable practices.



JK: Can you talk about how and when the market for sustainably raised meat developed?

JP: Meat was generally raised in a sustainable fashion until the advent of factory farming and feedlots—which grew out of the grain surpluses produced by industrial agriculture after World War II. Sustainably raised meats have been enjoying a renaissance in recent years as people have become aware of how much suffering factory farming has caused animals and ecosystems. Beginning about five years ago, the Weston A. Price Foundation accelerated this process by creating a great deal of interest in products from animals raised on pasture. Also, Jo Robinson, author of Why Grass Fed is Best, has done a great deal to build interest in pasture-based ranching. Ex-vegetarians have also contributed to the growth of the market. As a vegetarian, one becomes very conscious and conscientious about how animals are raised for food. Those who decide to eat meat again don’t want to eat unsustainable or factory-farmed meat; they have provided a lot of momentum on this issue. Another support, of course, is the sustainable agriculture movement. All these factors have combined to create a growing number of educated consumers.

JK: What is the protocol for becoming a sustainable ranch?

JP: Every ranch has to do it differently, depending on the environment and the people involved. An organization called Holistic Management (http://managingwholes.com/index.php; 800-654-3619) can help to provide structure. They train ranchers to become holistic practitioners, showing them how to raise animals for food in ecologically and financially sustainable ways. AcresUSA (www.acresusa.org) has also helped ranchers make this transition.

JK: Can you give an example of what sustainable ranching looks like?

JP: Joe Morris, a rancher in Santa Cruz, California, is a good example. When he takes you on a tour of his ranch, he talks about watershed protection and biodiversity, pointing out different grasses that will grow when the pasture is browsed appropriately and explaining why this biodiversity is important. Hearing him talk makes you realize that he really is committed to caring for the Earth through his management of the grasslands—and the meat he produces is almost a by-product of his holistic management vision. If you don’t graze animals at all, or you overgraze, you actually create conditions that allow one type of grass to take over, destroying biodiversity. It’s fascinating to realize that this person who is raising such high quality meat is really an ecologist—he sees his primary role as managing the grasslands and watersheds.

JK: Is it possible to meet the demand for food sources without using conventional slaughterhouses? I know that there can be health risks when procedures aren’t carefully followed. Also, however, more and more people are interested in how animals that are grown for food are treated while they are alive.

JP: There is a strong local demand for pastured meats and the supply is just barely keeping up. There is a general consciousness in this country that factory farming is bad, and more and more people are becoming interested in sustainability, particularly when it comes to animals. In her book Animals in Translation, Dr. Temple Grandin describes a five-point audit she developed to be used in meat production. She believes that if these simple steps are fulfilled in a slaughterhouse, it is a more humane process. McDonalds was one of the first to sign on to it because of consumer pressure. Slaughterhouses are still used, but at least there is a baseline of what is acceptable. Ultimately, however, I believe that the factory farm system is not sustainable and will at some point come crashing down.

JK: Do some ranchers slaughter animals right on the ranch?

JP: Ideally, most local ranchers would like to have the slaughter done on farm, but the government doesn’t allow this. So many ranchers will use family-owned or small-scale slaughterhouses, which tend to be located near feedlots.

If you want to sell meat by the pound, the law requires you to slaughter in a slaughterhouse. Of course, you can slaughter and eat your own animals on the farm; you just can’t sell the meat by the pound. So, some people have set up a system called “cow-share.” People buy portions of the cow so that together they actually own it; then they pay the rancher to slaughter and package it. This is a way of getting around the system and slaughtering on-farm. Ultimately, it is more humane, and you know exactly where the meat is coming from and how the animals have been treated.

JK: You offer cooking classes and “full moon feasts” where residents of the San Francisco Bay Area can hear about your philosophy and sample your cooking. Why do people come to you?

JP: Many people find me through the Weston A. Price Foundation, others through my work in sustainable agriculture. Some come from the movement and perspective of Slow Food, which opposes fast food culture. When people learn about “Nourishing Traditions”—the traditional food selection and preparation of our ancestors—they often want to learn how to integrate the ideas and practices into their lives. More and more people understand that vibrant, healthy food is necessary for human health and as “medicine.” And many people who come to my classes have had health problems.

In my classes, as people learn how to eat differently, they begin to think about how food reaches their table. For example, for the full moon feasts I usually bring a rancher to talk about his or her ranching practices. Whenever I cook a meal for an event, I ask that I be allowed to provide an introduction to the food. I tell people where the food comes from, and anything special about the ecological practices of the farmer. In this way, those eating the food get a better sense of the kinds of energy and activities that were involved in producing the vegetables and meats they are eating.

JK: So, you’ve integrated the growing and raising of sustainable food with cooking and preparation?

JP: I have a strong interest both in the culinary arts and sustainable agriculture issues and practices. I would have a hard time choosing between them because they are inseparable; both are extremely important to me. The reason that Weston Price resonates for me is because it addresses both ecological and health elements. I like to be involved on all levels: politically, ecologically, and from the perspective of what is healthy.

JK: How can we encourage others to become more knowledgeable about the importance of sustainable and organic agriculture and more actively involved in environmental issues?

JP: From an ecological perspective, let’s look at the fact that for many people around the globe, animal fats are a very important nutritional element in their diet. Because environmental toxins concentrate in animal fats, this throws into sharp relief the fact that we need to clean up our environment. Healthy fats require a clean environment, period. If we are going to eat meat—and the majority of people likely will continue to do so—how can we have the healthiest animal products available if we don’t pay attention to sustainability? Having dangerously high levels of toxins in the environment won’t support the production of meats that are healthy for humans to eat; unsustainable practices won’t help us ensure the health of our children. Fats reflect in a concentrated form whatever happens on the land—if the land and seas are healthy, the animals we harvest from them will be healthy, and their fats will nourish us. If the Earth is poisoned, those poisons will show up in the fats. This is disastrous for human health because it is a Catch-22: we can’t be healthy without the fats, but we can’t be healthy with the fats if they are toxic.

One risk factor for getting candidiasis is taking multiple courses of antibiotics—and many people do this. We realize now that we have overused antibiotics over the years. We didn’t understand that when you use antibiotics you have to rebuild the bowel by re-populating it with beneficial bacteria. Often this is why people crave sweets, because that is what the C. albicans—the specific yeast that’s involved in candidiasis—feed on!

It turns out that diet can be a factor in producing many, many symptoms of ill health, from aching joints, headaches, fatigue, menstrual problems, behavioral problems, depression, and more. Many alternative health care providers and some MDs are now screening for nutritional deficiencies, infections, and food allergies, but we still need more education.

JK: People who are concerned about the “right relationship” between humans and other animals say that the food industry is very anthropogenic, that is, strictly focused on human needs and desires. Do you have any comment on that?

JP: I think the system is too money-driven. Because of that, it is focused on only certain human needs and desires, and only in a short-term view. We’ve neglected the human need and desire to feel a connection to our food source, to live on a planet with thriving ecosystems, to care for animals and the welfare of other beings, to live in right relationship with all life on Earth. If we really cared about human needs and desires, we would care about those things too, but industrial agriculture doesn’t.

Our perspective is also often limited in having agriculture as a sole reference point for our food system. There is a great deal to be learned from looking at hunter-gatherer and pastoralist lifestyles as well. Humans were hunter-gatherers for most of their history—agriculture is still a new development.

JK:Are you suggesting that we go back to hunting and gathering and herding?

JP: That’s impossible, and agriculture has offered enormous gifts. But there is much we can learn from the lives of people who have related to the Earth in a different way, even from their mistakes. Even hunter/gatherers may do things that are unsustainable. We have evidence that early humans did things such as driving whole herds of bison over cliffs to kill them. Huge numbers of buffalo were wasted; it was unnecessary. We need to look at the big picture, and try our best to make choices that are wise—choices that sustain us as human beings as well as the planet and her other creatures. We have to try to find win-win solutions for all life on Earth. We really don’t have any choice but to try.

To learn more about Jessica Prentice, her approach to traditional diet, and the community-based organization, visit Wise Food Ways




Facts on Food


    * 58% of patients who adopt a low-sodium, low-fat, high fiber vegetarian diet are able to completely discontinue their high blood pressure medications.
    (McDougall J. The McDougall Program—12 Days to Dynamic Health. New York: Plume[Penguin];1990. pp. 222-223)

    * People who frequently eat green, orange, and yellow vegetables see a 20-60% reduction in lung cancer.
    (Colditz GA, Stamfer MJ, Willett WC. Diet and lung cancer: A review of the epidemiological evidence in humans. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1987;147:157-60)

    * Benefits of insulin resistant individuals switching to high-complex carbohydrates: reduced insulin levels 30%, reduced weight by 4%, reduced cholesterol and triglycerides by 20%.
    (McDougall, J. Americans are getting fatter—and dying from it. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1980;77:264)

    * Average amount of calcium lost in the urine of a woman after eating a hamburger: 28 milligrams.
    (Statement by Connie Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s Summit on the Dietary Guidelines 2000, Georgetown University Medical Center, September 1998)

    * Women with a diet high in fruits and vegetables appeared to reduce 6-year incidence of type 2 diabetes by 24%.
    (Liu S, Serdula M, Janket SJ, Cook NR, Sesso HD, Willett WC, Manson JE, Buring JE. A prospective study of fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of type 2 Diabetes in women. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(12):2993-2996)

    * Individuals with high intake levels of vitamin E had a 36% reduction in rate of cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
    (Morris MC, Evans D, Bienias JL, Tangney CC, Wilson RS. Vitamin E and cognitive decline in older persons. Archives of Neurology. 2002;59:1125-1132)

    * Women who consumed nuts more than once each week experienced a 40% reduction in IHD [ischemic heart disease] risk compared with those who ate nuts less frequently.
    (Sabaté J. Nut consumption, vegetarian diets, ischemic heart disease risk, and all-cause mortality: Evidence from epidemiologic studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999;70(3):500S-503S)



ESM Partner:

National Association of Nutrition Professionals

Fostering Appreciation of Nutritionists


The National Association of Nutrition Professionals (NANP), a nonprofit business league of nutrition professionals, is intent on opening doors for those with a reputable education in nutrition. It is especially focused on creating greater acceptance of holistic nutrition professionals in medical arenas, fostering appreciation of whole foods nutrition by health care providers, and gaining insurance reimbursement for nutrition counseling services.

Working directly with clients, and increasingly as part of a multidisciplinary health team, holistic nutrition professionals help people to improve their health by assessing and analyzing nutritional needs, developing nutritional plans, and educating, advising, and supporting their efforts. NANP professionals—recognized for their knowledge and expertise in the area of whole foods nutrition and the safe and effective use of dietary supplements—work in a variety of settings as independent consultants, marketing representatives, consumer and community educators, staff educators, authors, teachers, retail buyers, and store owners and managers.

One way NANP is promoting recognition of nutritionists is by working with approved schools/nutrition programs to complete a national board exam for 2006. This exam is based on the following tenets of NANP philosophy:


  • Biochemical individuality (everyone is unique and has unique nutritional needs)
  • Whole, naturally grown foods are the best source for optimal nutrition
  • There are no miracle nutrients that will cure all ills
  • Dietary supplementation may be health promoting when used in the appropriate form, dose and frequency, and is not a substitute for a good diet
  • Nutritional well being comes from the balance between a person’s health promoting diet and lifestyle habits and the nutritionally negating environmental and lifestyle influences.
Founded in 1985 as the Society of Certified Nutritionists, the organization represents and advocates for holistically trained nutrition professionals. The mission of NANP is to enhance the integrity of the holistic nutrition profession through self-governance, educational standards, a rigorous code of ethics, and professional registration of holistic nutritionists.


Who’s Who Among Nutritionists

    Holistically trained nutritionists (NANP members) use education as a primary tool and emphasize building health through the use of whole foods.

    Nutritional biochemists (CNS, PhD, MD) are primarily researchers and scientists.

    Medical nutrition practitioners (RD, MD) follow prescribed and established treatment protocols based on a diagnosis of disease.

    Clinical nutritionists (MD, DC, CCN) emphasize nutritional supplement protocols (applying nutrition to a medical model of treating disease).

To learn more about NANP’s resources, continuing education opportunities, its publication Nutrition Professional’s Quarterly, annual conference, and membership categories, visit www.nanp.org or call 800-342-8037.



The Teleosis Institute is an Educational not-for-profit Organization devoted to sustainable medical practices that do no harm to people or the environment. The Institute is a a certified member of the Bay Area Green Business Program.