So in last week's blog I wrote about attempts in Israel to adhere to religious laws about agriculture which sort of contradict the nation's need to feed itself.  I propsed that societies need to promote new food-based orthodoxies (like updated versions of "Kosher") in order to face over-population and evironmental challenges.  It was the feel-good blog of the century.

But no fewer than two people (and, come to think of it, no MORE than two people) wrote to me and propsed that, "Ian, isn't ORGANIC the new Kosher?"  Hmm.  Now that's pretty interesting- maybe my assumption that the world needs new orthodoxies is already moot- perhaps the orgnaic revolution is a reaction to just his kind of worry.

It's a really bad time for food policy- the past few years have seen a roll-back of government intervention when it comes to food.  For instance, 10 years ago the US had almost 3,000 federal food inspectors.  Now we have 198.  That means that anything coming off a boat in china is likely scantly scrutinized, and when a South Carolinan pork supply is tainted with Ghiardia, we only find out AFTER thousand of people have lost 25 pounds courtesy of dissentary.

Maybe Organic is a way of reacting to that caveat emptor approach, and maybe it's not such a bad way- perhaps mass-diarhea will finally make people pay attention to the ingredients on a "Hot-Pocket".  I mean, the flashy packaging should be MORE than enough to educate consumers as to the repulsive ingredients within, but somehow those things still sell like hot-cakes.

Posted by iankusc at 01:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Greetings Snackers,

My lovely and talented sister forwarded me a fascinating New York Times article the other week about Israel and it's attempt to adhere to an age-old Jewish tradition of leaving land fallow every 7 years.  To make a long, complicated story short, the Torah dictates that every 7 years (or shmita, sabbatical year), Jews should let their lands go fallow and, presumably, spend the year eating canned peaches.

Typical of holy texts, the Torah parcels out few details.  It implies that the land spends the year feeding live-stock and the poor.  But could it also be a manner of forced crop-rotation?  Seeing as the Jews came out of a thinly soiled land, they certainly had some incentive to avoid over-farming.  Whether it's an economic, social, or environmental tool, back in the day the law surely impacted all three.

But back in the day, there weren't 7 million citizens to feed.  Imagine if such a law were in place today in, say, California.  Granted, the soil would probably LOVE the break, but imagine the sudden lack of, say, almonds (California grows 60% of the world's almonds).  There would be "bring back the almonds" riots from Bangor to San Diego, and needless to say, Peeled Snacks would be TOAST.

According to the NYT article, Israel's found a strange, legalistic way around the problem (wherein Jewish farmers sell their land to Arabs for a year), but the haven't found a way to give the land the break it surely needs.  Therein lies the problem- in the era of looking at a future filled with environmental blight, do we have the means and discipline to take drastic steps to protect our natural assets?

I believe in part that's what ancient orthodox practices like this shmita were implemented in part to curb excessive environmental abuse.  I consider the ancient Jews to have been very practical people- if eating pigs kills people, stop eating pig.  If working too hard makes people less productive, invent the weekend (or sabbath).  This break of lands seems similarly very forward-thinking.

But we still need to feed people, and insure that people, say, 400 years from now get fed as well.  Can we adobt sensible practices like the shmita that don't mean people starve for a year, but DO preserve the land?  That's one of the (many) challenges facing us as we look to dealing with a changing environment, and religion can certainly help make solutions to such problems stick. 

Old orthodoxies can, surely, get in the way of progress (like, if you ask me, the current "solution" to the shmita problem in Israel is a total cop-out), but I dare not take that topic on- this is, after all, a SNACK blog, not a THEOLOGY blog.  Though a theology blog WOULD be fun to write....

Nah.  Just the snacks, man.  Just the snacks.

Regards, Peeled Skinny 

Posted by iankusc at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night, while excitedly wandering through Manhattan's Flat-iron district, I happened to notice looming above the street and enormous,  brightly lit banner announcing "360 Vodka, the world's first evironmentally concious Vodka".  While the banner itself made no particularly environmental boasts, a little bit of web-surfing and researching yields this conclusion:

The Green Revolution has GONE TOO FAR!!!

Okay, I occasionally enjoy a good nip of vodka, and I really don't want to give the impression (certainly not in THIS day and age) that I'm anti-green.  I trust that a lot of work needs to be done to make our civilization more sustainable, and that it's work worth doing.  Furthermore, I think green products, if produced concientiously, can really make a difference in how people live and consume.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way, I can totally rag on this disaster of an idea.  First of all, the very notion of a sustainable alcoholic beverage deserves some seriously belittling laughter.  If we look at the overall impact of alcohol upon our society, there's no way that "sustainable" and "alcohol" can be in the same sentence, let alone the same product.  I no tee-totaller, but I do know gas when I smell it.

The website for 360 boasts that it's saving the world through three important "P"s- it's Philosophy, it's Product, and it's Packaging.  It's philosophy, it says, is "for eco-awareness and corporate responsibility", though that's all vague enough to say little more than, "you know, you should really focus on the 2nd and 3rd Ps- they're really our strong suit".

It's Product, the website assures us, is made through a "highly energy efficient process".  Within this "P" we're told that the product is produced at a facility that has greatly improved it's eco-footprint "measurably" over the past 5 years.  Okay, so how bad was this facility 5 years ago?  And I can measure the degree to which I'm saving the planet since I stopped letting the bathroom sink run while brushing my teeth 25 years ago.  It ain't much, but it's measurable.  These aren't necessarily false boasts, just half baked ones.

The boast "nothing goes to waste" leaves me wondering if this stuff will make me go blind, but the most dubious claim about the product comes in a little picture below the "Ps" declaring "100% recycled content"....

Okay, does that mean that they stole all of the content of their website from other websites similarly exploiting the recent green trend, or does that mean that they've filtered their vodka out of the tablecloths of Russian wedding parties?  Or worse yet, the wedding guests' livers?  Either way, may I offer up that some things are best NOT recycled.

The last "P", and surely the most defensible, is their packaging, which they claim is 85% recycled.  Glass, naturally, is a very sustainable product, and though it takes a lot of heat to make it, it requires raw materials that are either being put to use in glassware, construction, or kiddies' sand boxes.  I commend 360 Vodka for taking the innovative approach packaging alcohol sustainably by using glass.  i wonder why nobody every thought of that before....

But all of this is hooey- if 360 is really interested in creating sustainability, then why was it brightly illuminating a billboard on a dead street in midtown manhattan?  What are they doing to deal with the epidemic of alcoholism in the world?  And are they pricing their product in such a way that even the poor share-croppers of Equador can afford to get drunk on their planet saving booze? [editors note regarding Equadoran share-croppers: irony intended]

Look, I'm all for saving the planet, but labeling everything "planet saving" just won't do it.  What it will do, right now, is sell product, because there are enough Manhattanites out there who WANT to save the world, but would prefer to just go get "faced".

360 Vodka may be a great product, and it may be doing its small part to push things along, and truly, I wish them well.  But the "green marketing generation" is just out of control.  Real solutions take a lot more work than just exploiting trends.  No pardon me while I go concoct a real "world-saving" solution. 

(That's my way of saying that, okay, I don't have any easy answers either, but booze, no matter how "eco-friendly" will never save the world.  It'll just make this mess easier to swallow)

A poem:

It ain't easy being green

first of all, you gotta be seen-

your word's gotta get out,

so you gotta SHOUT

"I'm good for you, good for us all!"

you gotta have balls, gotta have gall-

let everybody know-

your green way's the only way to go

and if they take a different path,

bad things'll happen- you do the math.

there's never been anything more eco

than you, it's not like you're speaking greek-o,

that'll do.

everyone will think it's true

it ain't easy being green.

sometimes, you gotta be mean. 

Posted by iankusc at 01:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Greetings Snackers,

Just got back from Baltimore's Natural Products Expo East where we showed with our favorite new distributor, Avenue Gourmet.  We met all sorts of groovy, smart manufacturers, and we managed (with the help of Avenue's delightful sales team) to move quite a lot of product.  Though we only sampled for a sixth of the show, we return with lots of new business and grand new opportunities opened.  But the show didn't treat all other so kindly.

Attendence at the show could be best described as "unintimidating".  About 9 out of 10 exhibitors asked said that they expected more attendees, and some used words considerably less accomodating than "unintimidating".  Not once while walking the show did I find it difficult to walk down an aisle.  Trade show traffic usually makes for frustrating moments where a huge glut of grousing show-goers forces you to sit at some random organic chocolatier's booth for 20 minutes at a time, gobbling up all their truffles in frustration.

While the attendence was low, there was no shortage of exhibitors, and next year's increased demand for booths has forced the show's organizers to move it from Baltimore to Boston where there's more space (and pricier hotel rooms).  Every scrap of booth space in the Convention Center was used up, and several exhbitors used to spreading out had to cram in to tiny spaces.  It felt like Manhattan in there.

In spite of all those products filling the Baltimore Convention Center's modest space, few earth-shakingly novel ideas were on display.  The inevitable "now Organic" stuff was there- Organic Frozen Pizza, Organic Ho-Hos, etc.  And plenty of exhibitors were offering up frightening infusions (pomegranite infused potato chips?  YUCK!!).  Some dog food and baby food innovations saved the day, but when it came to snacks?  Nada....

There were, as usual, some truly TERRIBLE ideas.  I don't mean to pick fights, and the people at this booth were really nice, but I want to present to you what happens when good people get bad ideas in the food industry: take cranberries, add some anti-oxidants, and ride a silly trend and you get:

Fruitaceuticals!

Okay, when I get sick and need drugs to feel better, I go to doctor and get a prescription for a pharmaceutical.  When I feel hungry, I eat Fruit.  When an evil scientist pours gamma radiation into an innocent apple, turning it into a rampaging, man-eating, monstrous behemoth of a freak of nature, I'm watching the terrible 1970s horror movie called "The Fruitraceutical from Beyond!"

The product's simple enough- infuse a cranberry with pomegranate juice and add some vitamins.  But the name is terrible, and the hubris behind it just sickes me- why is it that so many of these "natural" companies think that nature's doing such a piss-poor job that they insist on bettering it with needles and gamma radiation?

They taste like the very successful "Craisins", and I wish them luck with their srumptious little abominations, but jeez, guys, PLEASE come up with an appetizing names for your sick offenses of nature!

Happy Snacking,

Ian K, Peeled Snack Blogger guy 

Posted by iankusc at 01:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)