What is the realistic significance of the Oceanwise and Seachoice campaigns? This is a critique – make no mistake. But know, in advance, that I was volunteering for the David Suzuki Foundation [DSF] for these specific initiatives a week before I wrote this.
So, this is how it works. Please allow me to break it down.

Seachoice is the retail arm of the two campaigns, dealing with high volumes. This program touches your life through what you’d get at a grocery store, en mass. Oceanwise, which has more to do with restaurants and consumer-level interaction, is the lower-volume yet more glamorous of the two. It touches your life through your interactions with restaurants. Both are sustainable aquaculture endeavours leveraged by the Marine Stewardship Council [MSC], the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the The Vancouver Aquarium, and my friends at the DSF. Lots of players are in the game, obviously, but these are the biggest and most relevant to your understanding of this (if you’re not already in the know about sustainable seafood as it relates to you).

Now, Seachoice is its own thing. It’s behind the scenes – so to speak. We won’t get into it. Think of Seachoice as a program that’s held together by back room dealings that are done for your own good. Oceanwise is an interesting subject to dissect. The Oceanwise campaign, as it stands right now, has limited impact potential and questionable gains outside of awareness-based results.

You may know Oceanwise as a little logo that you see sometimes on menus. Most up-scale restaurants will feature the Oceanwise logo – they’ll pay $150 for it. That’s a big part of the campaign’s ability to sustain itself. When you see it on a menu, it means the seafood item highlighted by it came from a sustainable source. Now, this is good – and bad. Overall, I think it’s good.

Cynic critics of sustainable seafood endeavours, specifically at the restaurant level with Oceanwise, point out that these campaigns can be a way for consumers to simply feel better about their already-unsustainable levels of consumption. They then critique further, pointing out that the general public’s wonton appetite for seafood is not discouraged but encouraged by these campaigns – when strictly-governed conservation is what’s really necessary.

There are arguments that Oceanwise, specifically of these two campaigns of the same vein, negates its potential positives through what it must do to make small gains. Over the years, and especially these days, non-government organizations are the target of more and more critique. How easy is it to throw stones at an environmental organization that has to circulate printed material to promote its efforts (regardless of the type of paper), or, say, a sustainable seafood campaign that seems at first glance to be promoting seafood consumption?

There is another argument that points at the restaurants that are Oceanwise-compliant. Most of them are middle-to-upper class establishments that can afford to pay the premium not only to feature the Oceanwise logo on their menus but to pay for the product – coming normally at a premium. These restaurants are easy to discredit because they only represent a small portion of consumption – the upper-middle class and higher. In these communities though, there is a trust that the overall good cancels out the necessary evils along the way. That said – there is also an sense of urgency.

There is merit to these arguments, but I shouldn’t dwell on them because I don’t see them as very credible critiques.

Now, a sustainable source could mean a number of things. To round it down, I’d summarize a sustainable source as a seafood provider that doesn’t accept catch that is acquired in un-ecologically sound ways – such as: methods with minimal levels of “bycatch” (unintended-ly caught sea creatures that don’t survive the catching process and are and thrown overboard because of their market value), methods that are coordinated with spawning seasons as a prime concern, methods targeting stocks that are of a healthy size, methods that avoid bottom trawling or other primitive means that are destructive to marine habitats, and certain types of closed-system aquaculture farming examples. These are all things that you can Google yourself, if you find that you’re interested by this. This is important!

What we need is to just stop eating as much seafood as we do – meat too. When eating out, we do, really – regardless of what our cravings are, or how much we’ve had to drink (it may have happened to me once or twice) – we need to exercise more discipline when it comes to the seafood that we eat. The critics will always say what they want about all the budding sustainable initiatives today. Let them! Who else is going to look out for your best interests? Will your children be able to enjoy seafood? Who else is looking to preserve the marine ecosystems of the world?

You? At the end of the day – you can start with your choices. Your choice matters. Go ahead and ask about that pistachio crusted halibut fillet that you’re about to devour. What’s good for our ecosystems is good for us and our friends and families. What’s the harm in knowing more about what you’re putting into your body?

~ Hunter J. Moyes

I thought that I knew quite a bit, before doing a little talk at a UBC sustainability conference, run by students and involving people from the environmental community. At the time I was half-involved in Vancouver’s environmental community and full-time-involved in its restaurant scene (running Burgoo as a “Head Chef” up on West 10th) – so they wanted me to speak ecologically from the food angle with PowerPoint et al. I have some experience presenting, but not to an audience of University students. It was intimidating – straight up. At the time, I’d been reading a lot about the word seafood as it relates to the words sustainable aquaculture. After a few days of research, I realized that I didn’t really know much about seafood at all (except how to make it delicious).

A few days of research really was just one phone call, to a guy who’d rather not be mentioned by name. I started him down the road towards sustainability when I was a Chef and he was a mover of seafood. He was in charge of his company’s seafood sales accounts for the West coast of North America, and he worked for the first, second or third largest (can’t tell – sorry) seafood company in the world. He’s now the company’s lead sustainability man. He brought me an envelope the next day with more information than I could handle about the global seafood trade, and we talked of the subject of sustainable aquaculture, since he’s always claimed that his company plays by the book. It was the future of his business, too, after all.

The envelope was full of monthly reports worth thousands of dollars – among other things, that I’d love to list. The numbers included in these reports were mind-blowing. They included views on imports and exports by port, by country, by year, and by seafood type. Punctuating all of it were little bullet points detailing how all stocks were in decline.

Numbers barely meant anything to me – they were too big. In one report on annual salmon harvests, the recorded yield was reported as being in the ballpark of 103,392,486 pounds. A report on crab estimated that crab’s recorded yearly yield was 32,469,093 pounds. Shrimp? How much shrimp (of all sizes and distinctions) – comparably? A year-scope snapshot as of December of 2009 featured a number just over 1.2 billion pounds. Wrap your mind around that one for a second!

At the time, it was about a year before the Gulf of Mexico BP oil catastrophe, and there were many pages on the Gulf’s declining shrimp reserves. Also at the time, David Suzuki was speaking out against a potential Marine Stewardship Council green-light approval of BC Sockeye salmon after a startlingly-low spring spawn. The information was just too much. It actually got in the way of my presentation, and so I cut most of it out and barely included anything about seafood at all! I ended up mostly talking about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism (which I’d just started to become serious about at the time). It turned out that, despite “Chefdom” – I didn’t know much about ocean life at all (except how to make it delicious – really delicious).

There is much more to appreciating seafood than just taste though.

It goes without saying that I love seafood as a Chef and a food-o-phile (thought I force myself to refrain from eating it as much as I’d like to, and it’s the only protein I eat that isn’t vegetable-based). Many do – too many. It’s true to say that the world has a massive appetite for seafood. It’s just as true to say that this generation of consumption could wipe out all seafood stocks, , once and for all. I won’t candy coat that – won’t get into it either (today). That’s not what I’m writing about in this particular article series.

The subject of this series is the sustainable seafood movement. What are its current manifestations? What does it mean at a corporate level? What are the movement’s strengths, and what are its weaknesses? What of shark fin soup? What are Chefs doing? What can you do? And who are “the who’s who” of the sustainable aquaculture scene in Vancouver?

~ Hunter Moyes

As a child of the sixties, I can’t help but have this strange compulsion to want to “get back to the land” – that is, to run away from everything that annoys me about city life and embrace that elusive Shangri-la lying somewhere out beyond the suburbs. I know I am not alone in this feeling and it is wise not to dismiss such inclinations too cynically. However, most of my city-born friends who have made for the hills have not lasted very long out there, or, if they did, they ended up spending most of their time commuting back to the megatropolis for work and for play, while their dreams of the self-sufficient rural life degenerated into suburban acreage sprawl or anemic “hobby farms”.

The point is, we don’t have to move out to the sticks in order to grow our own food, connect with the earth and live a more self-sufficient and sustainable lifestyle. Indeed, some of the most creative, inspiring and transformative local food projects are happening in towns and cities throughout North America. Maybe even just down the block from where you live. A cornerstone of permaculture thinking is that “we begin where we are” – be it a rental house, an apartment, a condo or a sprawling home in the suburbs – there is no better place and time to start. As the bi-line on my friend’s email observes, “You don’t have to get back to the land – you’re already there!”

Permaculture can be practiced on many scales – from the smallest of urban yards or balconies, to community and public spaces, to farms and larger land holdings. Starting small has many advantages: we can develop considerable skill and expertise farming a small urban yard, without the huge commitment of time, money and energy it would take to be growing on 30 acres. Smaller spaces can also be incredibly productive per unit of area. The Jervais family of four in Pasadena California have consistently grown around 6000 lbs of food on their urban lot, one tenth of an acre in size, easily enough to meet their own produce needs for the year and to sell the surplus for income. Small urban spaces around the world are increasingly feeding the hoards of hungry city mouths and are reducing greenhouse gasses, water consumption, land erosion and loss of bio-diversity in the process.

There is no one “right way” to grow food and there are as many different approaches as there are gardeners. Each site is unique and the needs of each grower are as well. Here are a few general principles and strategies from the permaculture perspective that will be useful in determining an approach that will work well for you.

Observation. No matter where you live and how ambitious or modest your food growing goals may be, the first essential step is careful observation. Get to know your place in intimate detail: what are the sun and shade patterns, how does water move in the landscape, where are the warm and cool micro-climates, what are soil conditions like in different parts of the yard? Understanding these key energies on your site will enable you to make good design decisions that will increase your productivity and decrease the amount of work you eventually need to maintain the site.

Think outside the box. Many of us have been raised with the notion that growing food in our yards is limited to a rectangular plot of long straight rows of vegetables somewhere between the back fence and garage. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Edible species can be integrated throughout the landscape in a multitude of creative ways. Spiral herb gardens near a patio; elegantly shaped beds of perennial and annual vegetables mixed with edible flowers; and grapes or kiwis trellised over a deck or walkway are just a few examples.

Food can be functional. Edible species can also be used to achieve certain functional goals in the landscape. Berry producing shrubs like blueberry, goumi berry, sea buckthorn, currants and haskap can be combined together to make a very effective hedge. Fruit trees can be trained as an espalier to disguise an ugly wall or to create a “living fence” where a boundary is needed. Edible ground covers (i.e. red clover, mints, thymes, chamomile, wild strawberry, etc.) can provide an interesting and useful alternative to traditional lawns.

Go vertical. Particularly in urban environments where space is limited, growing “up” rather than out can create a full, lush landscape that is also highly productive. Using vining species such as pole beans, peas, squash, or cucumber is an easy way to take advantage of this principle. Edible species can be chosen to fill all vertical niches in the landscape from roots, to ground covers, to herbaceous perennials, to shrubs, to short and tall trees. Using containers, wall mounted units, vertical growing tubes, and self- watering pots made from old buckets are other great strategies for increasing yields, especially for apartment dwellers.

Use microclimates. The beauty of any small yard is that there are many unique micro-climates that offer distinct growing conditions. The south facing wall of the house, for example, may be the perfect place to locate a cold frame for an early spring crop of greens. A currant or gooseberry will love the partially shady, moist environment on the southeast corner of the house or garage near the downspout. Discover where your micro-climates are and use them to your advantage! Small greenhouses and cold-frames can greatly extend the growing season, allowing for year round harvest of most vegetables. Take it one step further and integrate fish production into your greenhouse in an “aqua-ponic” system in which the plants and fish support each other.

Cycle resources. Just as there is no such thing as waste in nature, our mini urban farms should cycle all organic matter, water and energy repeatedly through the garden system, building and improving soil and overall productivity over time. Composting systems are the obvious way of doing this, but we can also incorporate tremendous amounts of organic “waste” from the home, yard and the wider neighborhood by “sheet-mulching” our growing beds, and using “no-till vegetable growing” systems.

Think perennials. The foods we grow in our yards or balconies need not be limited to annual vegetables. Fruits, nuts, berries, perennial herbs and perennial vegetables give us a great yield for less work than maintaining vegetable gardens. Perennial greens such as sorrel, bloody dock, lovage and sweet cicely come up earlier in the spring than annual greens and have deeper root systems which withstand drought better than annuals do.

Rhubarb, asparagus, Jerusalem artichokes and sea kale are a few other no fail perennial vegetables that will produce in our yards year after year. If this idea appeals to you, you can create groupings or “guilds” of perennial plants from ground covers to tall trees that work to support each other in what we call “edible forest gardens.”

Get in touch with your animal nature! You can be more than an urban farmer – you can be an urban rancher too! Every home food system should include some animal life both for the food that our furry and feathered friends can provide us and for the critical role that they play in cycling nutrients and maintaining and promoting bio-diversity and balance in the system. Three or four chicken can produce all the eggs a small family needs and will consume tremendous amounts of kitchen waste and garden pests such as slugs, sow bugs and aphids, turning them into fantastic fertilizer. One bee hive can produce up to 100 pounds of honey per year. Rabbits, ducks, and mini goats and cows (yes, you heard that right!) can also be part of a micro urban farm.

The benefits of growing food right outside your door go beyond the obvious ones of health, economic savings and lower environmental impact; there is something about urban food gardening that can’t help but build community. Plant some raspberries along your lane and watch the kids show up. Rip up your front lawn and plant veggies, herbs and fruit trees and you will have conversations with your neighbours that you never dreamed of – guaranteed! When we begin to heal our fragmented food system, we are simultaneously healing the social systems that have likewise been torn asunder. We are resting away some measure of control from the global corporate empires that profit obscenely from our dependence. We are taking responsibility for ourselves and our communities and the essentials we need to live.

And that my friends, is a revolutionary act.

~ Ron Berezan

In 2007, the Vancouver-based Green Table Network began Canada’s first program to assist businesses in every segment of the restaurant and foodservice industry with reducing their environmental footprint. Since then, more than 100 operations have joined the Green Table Network to develop and implement tailored sustainability plans. As a result of that experience, GTN has redeveloped its core programs and services to make them more accessible and easier to manage.

At the heart of the Green Table Network solution is the online GTN 2.0 Guidebook. Covering 35 different categories — such as Buildings and Materials, Energy Efficiency, Waste Reduction — it’s an e-learning guide that also provides a checklist of recommended steps, a product and service supplier resource kit, and an online community for GTN members to share experiences.

Three levels of achievement are available by online subscription. However, to become an Approved Member, onsite verification performed by an authorized field agent is required. Approval also qualifies members for GTN’s customer recognition and marketing programs.

Green Table Network membership is open to restaurants, foodservice operators, and businesses that support them — equipment manufacturers, governments, public utilities, trade & professional culinary associations. Cost is determined by the scale of an organization’s operation and the desired level of achievement. Customized membership plans are available for multi-unit and concept groups, as well as for campus, corporate and other institutional operations.

Green Table Network
578 – 999 Canada Place
Vancouver, BC  V6C 3E1
Andre LaRiviere, Executive Director
Tel: 604.329.0864
info@greentable.net
greentable.net

~ RG

A recent Liquor Distribution Branch announcement told us all of the impending sale of the LDB’s Distribution Centres to the private sector. Of course this has caused much speculation about motives and about potential suitors. I’ve seen a lot of misinformation, and misunderstanding about what is happening and what it might mean. I’m not a journalist, I’m a business man, but my business is craft beer, so I feel like I know a thing or two.

First, let me be very clear that the Liberals aren’t talking about privatizing the LDB! This is simply about selling the two distribution warehouses that are in Vancouver, and Kamloops – these two facilities are huge and they are the point from which most alcohol moves around the province. Under the proposed budget, the LDB stores, and the oversight of liquor sales in BC would still remain under the control of the LDB.

I am proponent of privatization in the strictest sense, for just about everything. The main reason I feel this way is that a government’s role shouldn’t be to run businesses. It should be to govern. Secondarily, should the industry in question be in the benefit of society (and thus be allowed to exist at all) the free market is the best way to deliver fair value to the people in the most efficient way possible.

I do however have a sense of cautious optimism, perhaps even just straight up skepticism, towards this announcement. While you’d be right to think privatization would be a great thing, I feel that the benefits of a free market I’ve listed above are only realized when the industry is wholly privatized. This particular change is simply about taking components of a bureaucratic, highly-regulated, and far-from-private industry and outsourcing one of those parts to a private operator. This is not privatization of the industry, it’s just outsourcing and it could jeopardize the growth and possibly even the sustainability of the Craft Beer industry, because all other stakeholders are effected by this and they will have no choice but to work with these new partners.

Frankly, most BC wine and beer lovers don’t understand what these warehouses are. And the average consumer is completely uninformed.

These warehouses are a critical part of a distribution network that is actually relatively good for consumer choice, though far from perfect. It is good because under our current system (which I remind you, is NOT about to change), they allow agents like myself (we are the ones that actually import and market most of the cool shit you drink) to economically sell beer, wine or spirits hundreds of kilometers away from major urban centers, such as in small towns like Prince George. Because every licensed establishment, be it a bar or LRS store orders significant amounts of product through the LDB, agents can simply leverage these economies of scale and load our products onto consolidated pallets with other products through the LDB’s centralized warehouses in Kamloops and Vancouver – the warehouses in question. The existence of these facilities makes it feasible for an LRS in Vernon to order one case of Belgian Lambic, for example. I might make $5 dollars on such a transaction. I can’t speak for all agents, but if I had to drive that case out there from Vancouver myself it would not be cost effective.

If these warehouses get bought up by some larger firm, let’s call them XYZ Company, then XYZ company will expect to make a profit, as they should. But what leeway will XYZ have to determine how this profit is made? Will they be required to follow the LDB’s current rules, and operate the same way the warehouses do today?

Currently, I pay $0.10 a litre to have my beers sent anywhere in the Province. That’s a flat fee that every Agent pays. But if that changed significantly, it would seriously hurt consumer choice by negatively affecting the revenue models of importers and thus limiting what product can be sold in private stores. Further, what if XYZ company determined that they only want to deal with product that came packaged in a certain standardized formats such as 24 x 355ml cans, or 341ml bottles? Would they have the right to say “no” to agents that import beer in 6 x 750ml bottles? Would they have the right to charge agents minimum fees for delivery?

Hopefully I am clearly illustrating a point. It is this: This sale should not conclude until all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide feedback into how this company will be required to operate. They cannot be allowed to operate as a truly private firm because they are not part of a truly private system, and it is a system which has many stakeholders without other recourse. If I’m forced to work with these guys, they should be forced to recognize my concerns.

On a more optimistic note, we can use this feedback process to provide the LDB with ideas for new rules. For example, perhaps we could allow for ‘rush delivery’ options for licensee’s, or enhanced, realtime reporting for agents. Currently it takes 7-10 days for a spec product to be delivered. Sometimes that’s fine, but in other cases the products may be desired immediately, but there is no possibility to make that happen. And agents cannot see who has ordered product when it happens. So while I will know that I’ve sold something, I have to wait until month end to find out where it has gone.

I see many people commenting that privatization is great or that we should be all for this. As I said in my second paragraph, I love that idea. But the reality is that the rest of the system is so bureaucratic and inflexible that should these warehouses be allowed to squeeze the little guys, then we will have no other recourse. We need to act now, while we have a voice and before any damage is done.

If the whole industry was privatized then I could care less about who owned the biggest distribution warehouses. If it didn’t make sense for me to work with them I would deliver my own products as I saw fit, to whomever and where ever it made sense. I would sell my products to Whole Foods, and Organic grocers that want to support niche market products with a focus on sustainability, flavour and uniqueness (The LDB does not). I would leverage boutique shelf space in local delis and corner stores whose owners want to do something different than the big chains. But I cannot do those things, even with these proposed changes. That Utopia is far, far away, but it’s what we should really be striving for.

~ Adam Henderson

Last night, while scouring the Internets for an idea on what to do with a butchered chicken carcass after removing all the good meaty bits other than making stock, I stumbled upon this little bit of McDonald’s inspired awesomeness.

Perhaps, I come from the peasant school of dining, which means that every bit of an animal is sacred protein and should be eaten and not just the clean cuts you find neatly packed in plastic at the Stupidstore, so I find Mr. Oliver’s negative reaction to the kids willingness to eat his home-made chicken nuggets to be a bit strange. What’s the big deal? Replace the crappy filler and powdered binding agent with an egg, add some bread crumbs and pan fry instead of deep-fry. Some may cry foul, but I say it’s what’s for dinner. ~ PK

^ NDP Fisheries and Oceans Critic, Fin Donnelly, launches shark fin import ban petition at C Restaurant. (L to r, Claudia Li, Dr. Chris Harvey-Clark, Fin Donnelly, Rob Stewart, Cécile Yuen, Robert Clark)

Sharks are sublime creatures. For 400 million years they have survived on Earth, evolving to become the oceans’ supreme hunters and shaping the evolution of other marine species. However, surging demand for their fins for use in shark fin soup and traditional medicine is decimating global shark populations.

With up to 73 million sharks slaughtered annually, we may see the total collapse of worldwide shark species within the decade. This will significantly disrupt ocean ecosystems that a large number of people depend on for much of their protein. Already in the last 15 years shark numbers in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean have plummeted by 90%, and by 75% in the northwestern Atlantic.

Despite the potentially grave ecological consequences, it will be challenging to end shark finning. Not only is it a multi-billion dollar industry in which organized crime is involved, people’s view of sharks is very different from that of elephants, rhinoceros, and even tigers. Media sensationalism has created a deep-seated anxiety in humans that is wildly out of proportion to the actual threat posed by sharks.

^ Wedding Campaigner, Cécile Yuen, as Harry the Shark Truth mascot.

While shark protection doesn’t have the same public appeal as panda conservation, measures are starting to be taken. Shark finning at sea has already been banned in jurisdictions such as the Bahamas, Chile, Ecuador, Guam, Hawai’i, Honduras, and the US West Coast. However, without a broad international ban on the practice, backed by an effective enforcement mechanism, the shark’s future looks grim.

What can you do to help stop shark finning?

• Don’t eat shark fin soup; adopt a substitute.
• Sign the National Shark Fin Import Ban petition.
• Call or write your Member of Parliament to tell them to support Bill C-380, Fin Donnelly’s Ban on Shark Fin Importation Act.
• Host a screening of Sharkwater.

For more information on shark finning, visit:

• Shark Truth
• Sharkwater

~ RG

^ Ecological Services Initiative launches at Granville Island.

A significant flaw in our economic system is how natural capital is not assigned any direct monetary value. This means, for example, that while a wetland produces clean water and controls flooding, the only economic value is seen in converting it to agricultural or industrial use. However, the total value of benefits provided by ecosystems is actually considerable. In Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland, a study produced by the David Suzuki Foundation for the Pacific Parklands Foundation, the total value of all benefits provided by the area’s natural capital was estimated at $5.4 billion annually or $2,462 per person.

When natural processes are taken into account in the formal economy, decisions and outcomes can be quite different. A landmark agreement in New York City in 1997 saw 165 stream miles in the Catskill/Delaware watershed protected to improve the quality of the city’s drinking water. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was about to mandate the City build a water treatment plant at a cost of up to $8 billion, with $250 million in annual operating expenses. However, by investing $1.5 billion in watershed protection, including paying farmers to remove sensitive lands from production, they were able to keep drinking water at a sufficient quality to avoid the need for a filtration facility.

In contrast, the smaller neighbouring Croton watershed was given up for development. Consequently, the EPA and the New York State Department of Health decreed that the City must filter this water by May 2012. Originally estimated at $800 million, the cost of the Croton Water Treatment Plant has ballooned to $3.4 billion since construction began in 2004.

Thanks to a new research consortium of farmers, ranchers, academics and conservationists, incorporating the value of natural capital in land use decisions is now being tested in BC. The Ecological Services Initiative will provide producers with financial incentives to adopt management practices that maintain or enhance the production of natural services, such as clean air and water, while growing our food. Participants will be compensated according to the land area they set aside and the loss of agricultural productivity. This will be to a maximum of $2,000 for measures such as erecting livestock fencing around sensitive areas, increasing the buffer zone between waterways and crops, planting trees to shade salmon spawning streams, or replanting native plant species to sustain indigenous wildlife.

ESI is endorsed by the BC Agriculture Council and the BC Cattlemen’s Association. It is funded by the Agriculture Environment and Wildlife Fund, BC Ministry of Agriculture, Columbia Basin Trust, Ducks Unlimited Canada, East Kootenay Conservation Fund, Sustainable Prosperity, and the University of Alberta’s Institute for Land Use Innovation. Thirteen demonstration farms and ranches, spanning a variety of different commodities and regions, are being monitored for biological and economic results. The viability of the concept will then be evaluated to see if a broader program with longer term application can be developed as a part of provincial agricultural policy.

~ RG

Recently I was given a review copy of Simon Fairlie’s new book entitled Meat: A Benign Extravagance, published by Chelsea Green (2010), right around the same time I wrote what some might consider a rather controversial blog on the subject of meat here on Urban Diner. The issue of eating meat is a touchy one, especially here in Vancouver – a trend-setting city that has more than it’s share of anti-meat advocates, who inspired by films such as Forks Over Knives, have come to equate meat-eating with everything that’s bad in the world: from agricultural run-off and global warming, to cardiovascular disease and cancer.

And it is a media campaign they seem to be winning, as everywhere one looks the idea of eating meat and especially red meat is thoroughly denounced. The problem with these claims however is that when they are examined more closely, they begin to fall apart. For example: the much promulgated but nonetheless erroneous notion that saturated fat consumption is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Refuting each one of these arguments however, often with people that have a pre-existing bias or claim the moral high ground, can be a rather tiring enterprise. How refreshing it was then to receive Mr. Fairlie’s well-researched exegesis on the subject of meat.

As a farmer passionately invested in the concept and practice of permaculture, Simon Fairlie brings a kind of holism to the subject of his inquiry that can only be borne from experience. Fortified by hundreds of references he meticulously examines the issue of meat, not from a health or ethical perspective, but by looking at the issue of environmental impact and sustainability. And in the process Fairlie invariably encounters more than a few sacred cows. For example, most people familiar with the anti-meat argument have heard that it takes at least ten times more energy to produce meat than cereals. The conventional logic is that if we switched out animal protein for vegetable protein we could feed ten times more people. Simon Fairlie shows us however that the assumptions of this 10:1 ratio are highly simplistic. For one thing, most livestock are fed otherwise inedible food crops and forage on inedible wild grasses and plants. The 10:1 ratio also doesn’t take into account factors such as the difference in nutrient bioavailability between meat and cereals, nor the economic value of non-food animal products such as manure, leather, soap, pharmaceuticals, glue and fertilizer. Contrary to what we have been told in the media, Fairlie show us that the 10:1 ratio usually cited for the conversion of edible cereals to meat is actually more like 1.4:1 (p.32) – which is a big difference. This is only one example of the many facts that Fairlie uses to undermine the assumption that livestock and meat production necessarily promotes waste and inefficiency. In Meat, Fairlie weaves a compelling argument that livestock farming actually adds value to the land, and is an integral component of sustainable agriculture. Fairlie shows us that meat production in essence is a secondary function of holistic farming: a gift of land, and is at the very worst, a “benign extravagance”.

While Fairlie tackles the most inflated arguments against meat production, his strongest critique is reserved for industrial agriculture, which leverages the use of petroleum to produce a kind of meat that is by any measure non-sustainable. Thus when Fairlie talks about meat as a “benign extravagance” this is not the kind of meat he refers to. Perhaps because he is a former vegan, in his arguments we find a nuanced and sophisticated position: someone who has truly looked at both sides of the issue. As a herbalist clinician I too appreciate the importance of a balanced perspective, seeing the value of plenty of vegetation in the diet, but also the utility of meat and animal products: in the health of children, women, during pregnancy, in the aging, and in specific health conditions such as anemia, osteoporosis, immunodeficiency and diabetes. As I discuss in my book, Food As Medicine, meat and animal products have always been a part of the human diet, and in many ways is the one food that defines us as a species. What else allowed for the evolution of our large brains, much larger than our primate cousins, if not for the high-density nutrition of animal products? Like Fairlie, I appreciate where vegans are going with some of their arguments, but I also understand that there is no eating without some sacrifice. We are born from food and we return to food. In the end, all we have in the vegan argument is the idea that eating meat is inherently wrong, which is less of a scientific or rational conclusion than something more akin to religion. For too long eating meat has been synonymous with not caring about the environment, of not being a good citizen of the earth. For those who are made to feel guilty for eating meat, Simon Fairlie’s book is a welcome and insightful resource in a debate that often suffers from too much prejudice, confusion, and outright error.

~ Todd Caldecott

ToddCaldecott.com

On Wednesday, November 2nd at 9 am there will be a rally for Food Freedom outside the New Westminster Supreme Court (651 Carnarvon Street) in support of dairy farmer Michael Schmidt who has been on a hunger strike for the past 33 days fighting contempt of court charges imposed upon him for distributing raw milk to members of his farm’s cow sharing program. He has already lost over 40 lbs in his protest, demanding to meet with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to discuss the issues, who to this point has refused to speak with him.

Here is the current state of affairs:

• In January 2010, after many years of legal wrangling, Michael Schmidt finally got his day in court where he represented himself (having lost the ability to pay the mounting legal fees over the years). After a dramatic proceeding, he was acquitted on all charges by Justice Kowarsky.

• On September 28, 2011 Justice Tetley reversed the decision against the Province of Ontario and found Michael Schmidt guilty on 15 of the 19 charges.

• Michael Schmidt also faces another contempt of court charge here in BC for his role in aiding the former Home on the Range dairy farm cooperative in Chilliwack continue their cow-share operation, which carries a fine of up to $55,000. A court date is expected to be set and confirmed for early December 2011.

Why this is Important

The ability to choose what food we consume is a fundamental right.

Michael Schmidt has fought for decades to make safe raw milk available to informed consumers. He has offered many times to work co-operatively with government agencies to develop a raw milk certification program similar to those that exist in many European countries as well as many U.S. states.

But the Ontario government and its agencies, including the milk marketing board known as Dairy Farmers of Ontario, have rebuffed all attempts at co-operation. Instead, they have declared all-out war.

The government has unlimited resources—provided by you, the taxpayer — to continue prosecuting Michael through the courts. We don’t know yet how many levels of court they will drag him through before the case is finally resolved.

Hundreds of millions around the world have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years, yet today, it is illegal to sell it in Canada. However, raw milk is legal to sell in every other G8 country as they have a second set of dairy production standards of sufficiently high caliber to ensure the raw milk comes from healthy animals and is safe to consume.

Pasteurization was instituted in the 1900’s to combat various diseases caused by the unsanitary production of milk. How can the milk be safe to drink if the cows are sick, covered in manure, and fed anything but their natural diet of grass? Pasteurization is indeed necessary for unhealthy animals. But milk from healthy animals can be consumed in its natural state as it has been done for millenia.

Raw milk is legal in many places around the world. Canadians should have the same right to choose their food.

~ PK

(Full disclosure: the author is a member of the Chilliwack cooperative and a supporter of Food Freedom)

(Images by: Mette-Marie Hansen)

Our climate is changing. This might not be shocking news to you over your morning coffee, but as a coffee buyer, I get to meet farmers and producers who are facing the difficulties of a changing climate year round.

It is the small business’ job to rant about the big guys, but this week, I am praising Starbucks and an initiative they’re a part of – a business coalition that has been trying to push Congress and the Obama administration to act on climate change. The coalition, including companies like Starbucks and Gap, are launching a new campaign for awareness about climate changes next month, ahead of the release of a UN report addressing these issues.

This Friday, one of Starbucks directors of sustainability, Jim Hanna, is traveling to Washington to brief members of Congress on climate change threatening the world’s coffee supply. Coffee thrives only around the equatorial line, in a very specific range of temperatures. One of the most important changes in the climate is that it is getting warmer – warmer temperatures bringing heavier rainfalls, unpredictable seasons overall and extremes like hurricanes, mudslides and erosion. Just the increased average temperature and humidity is bringing problems like coffee rust, a fungus attacking the leaves of the coffee tree. As a plant getting it’s nutrition mainly through the leaves, this causes severe crop loss in many places – and for the small coffee farmer a loss in crop means severe poverty.

In addition, pests attacking coffee flowers or cherry is increasingly common, and too high temperatures and insufficient differences between seasons also commonly causes starflowers – sterile coffee flowers where pollination can not take place.

As carbon emissions are commonly linked to climate changes, we need to look at the long term perspective of lost crops – we already have coffee processing mills like Helsar in Costa Rica, who are zero emission certified. A good wake up call for all coffee drinkers to live a more eco-friendly life.

~ Mette-Marie Hansen

If you missed the premiere of “Prohibition”, the three-part, five-and-a-half-hour documentary film series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick that tells the story of the rise, rule, and fall of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the entire era it encompassed, there is a fantastic website click here that will allow you to watch it in short 10 minutes segments.

The story of Prohibition’s rise and fall is a compelling saga that goes far beyond the oft-told tales of gangsters, rum runners, flappers, and speakeasies, to reveal a complicated and divided nation in the throes of momentous transformation. The film raises vital questions that are as relevant today as they were 100 years ago – about means and ends, individual rights and responsibilities, and the proper role of government…

I suggest watching it while imbibing in your favourite alcoholic beverage; it really will taste better. ~ PK

Is Sechelt going to be the caviar capital of Canada? The Sunshine Coast’s Target Marine Hatcheries, the producers of Northern Divine caviar think so, and have invested over $5 million dollars over the last 11 years to prove it.

The idea to raise farmed sturgeon in Canada (also see Acadian Sturgeon and Caviar from NB) started in some ways as a reaction to the fall of the USSR in 1991 and their loss of control over the Black and Caspian Seas, home to wild Beluga sturgeon, the producers of the world’s finest caviar. With renewed competition for the precious roe from freshly independent republics of the former Soviet Union, the world’s most delicate and prized food, known to fetch up to $10,000 per kilo, was suddenly in turmoil.

Not surprisingly, all the caviar producing countries failed to properly manage the fishery and it went into serious decline, leading to an eventual ban in the US in 2005 followed by an international ban in 2006.

Over a decade ago, Target Marine, a closed containment aquaculture operation that made its business producing salmon smolts for fish farms, saw the opportunity and decided to explore the idea of farming sturgeon. Located on a 60 acre property just north of Sechelt next to Tillicum Bay Marina on the Salish Sea, general manager, Justin Henry, took some time out of his busy day to give Urban Diner an in-depth tour of the facility and their quest to produce the world’s first Fraser River sturgeon caviar.

^ General manager of Target Marine, Justin Henry

The original fish stock was received from Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo where sturgeon research has been on-going since the 1980’s. The recent opening of a $5.25-million International Centre for Sturgeon Studies on campus will ensure further and more in-depth studies, as still very little is known of the life cycle of this mysterious pre-historic fish (read more here).

The Fraser River sturgeon (a white sturgeon) is the largest freshwater fish in North America and can grow up to six meters in length, weigh of over 600 kilograms, and live for over 150 years.

According to the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society, the white sturgeon population of the lower Fraser River plummeted in the early 1900’s to near-extinction levels as a result of unchecked intensive commercial fisheries and the population has been slow to recover ever since.

Researchers at the university claim that sturgeon are more robust than salmon and deal better living within the closed containment system. The pens at Target Marine are high-tech fish tanks. The fresh creek water that flows-through these giant vats is constantly monitored, aerated and scrubbed of excess CO2 with the solid wastes being removed into a septic tank, eventually ending up as composted fish fertilizer.

When the fish reach a juvenile stage (around 7 kg) their sex is determined, either by ultrasound or by biopsy and they are then separated; the males are processed for meat while the females are further matured to produce eggs, which can be 11 or more years in the making. Extracting the eggs is a delicate operation and requires a sterile environment. First the ovaries are removed, and rubbed on a screen to release the eggs. They are then rinsed, drained and then pure dry salt is added to the mix. Left to rest for approximately 1 hour, they are then graded by size, texture and colour. Right now there are 2 grades (small and large) with plans to increase the grades when the harvest grows each coming year.

The caviar is sold in tins of 30 gram ($99), 50 gram ($155), 100 gram ($304), 250 gram ($744) 500 gram ($1459) and 1 kg ($2860), easily making it the most expensive food product in Canada.

Wondering what this unique culinary product looks like on a plate? The first sales of Northern Divine caviar, which is Oceanwise certified, fittingly went to ocean conservation pioneer Harry Kambolis’s C Restaurant.

Here’s a look at Chef Lee Humphries exclusive Northern Divine caviar menu featured at ‘C’ for $235 per person:

(Images courtesy of Hamid Attie)

^ Kumamoto Oyster and cucumber with Northern Divine Caviar

^ Scrambled Egg smoked hawkshaw salmon, Northern Divine Caviar, brioche

^ Pan Seared Sablefish with Pomme Fondant creamed leeks, caviar-lobster hollandaise

^ Northern Divine Caviar with Potato Blini traditional garnish

With positive reports from the restaurant describing it as a hit with visiting tourists during its first run on the menu this last summer, Sechelt may just have become the ‘Caviar Capital of Canada’.

~ PK

For more information and to purchase Northern Divine caviar, visit: northerndivine.com

EDITOR’S NOTE: Target Marine Hatcheries has applied to the District of Sechelt for rezoning amendment that would allow them to process sturgeon for caviar on the premises. The request has met with some controversy with local residents who have complained about the noise coming from the site and have concerns about the requested changes, citing the open-ended amendment that would allow the operation to increase the size and footprint on the existing site.

In an article in the local paper in January 2011, Target Marine’s Justin Henry responds to the concerns assuring locals that the company does not plan to increase its size and just wants to complete it’s whole operation intact.

“If there’s a way we can word our zoning to limit the size, then that’s what we’ll do. We’re happy to do that.”

“We are asking for the right to add the last half hour to 11 years of sturgeon culture and we are asking the community to support this initiative to leave no doubt in Sechelt council’s minds that this is what the community wants. Sechelt can become the caviar capital of Canada,” Henry said.

The application will be decided by referendum in the next municipal election taking place on November 19th of this year.

Most wine articles are confined to the back pages of the newspaper, or published in trade or tourist focused publications. They tend to focus on how great we are, where to go and what to do, rarely do articles get published on the business of wine. When Gordon Hamilton wrote an article on changing buying habits of consumers in the August 30th edition of the Vancouver Sun, I took notice. (read the article here)

I chuckled when I read that Cedar Creek has gone from three bottling’s of Merlot (Platinum, Estate and Entry level) to two bottlings, they combined the Estate and entry level into one bottling at around $20.00 and kept the Platinum at $40.

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen wineries take the eyes out of a great bottle of entry level wine, only to realize when the economy tanks they have to retrench and offer better value, meaning a better wine, at the $17-$20 range.

What disturbed me the most about the article was the one million dollar interest-free loan Andrew Peller received for purchasing state of the art bag-in-the-box technology for its Kelowna and Grimsby, Ont. Wineries, wow! Let’s face facts, British Columbia will never be a low cost producer of wines, climatic factors, geography and competition with land developers and recreational land developers will always keep land prices high, consequently the resulting wine prices are also high.

The wine business is a long term multi-generational endeavor, we must think where and what we want to be in 50-75 years and should we hang our hats on the latest bag-in-the-box technology or rather follow in the footsteps of the worlds most famous small wine region – Burgundy.

Instead of giving a multi million-dollar corporation an interest free loan I would rather see the BC wine industry undertake the following:

• Detailed soil analysis, what grows best where and make that available to the trade and public, making sure no retirement homes, hotels or swimming pools are built on them.

• Undertake a serious look towards creating and formalizing an appellation and sub-appellation system; if your winery is one region of the Okanagan your grapes come from another it has to say it on the label.

• Research trips for winemakers to France, Italy, Spain and benchmark themselves against the best the world has to offer. Who are the best Riesling producers? Take them to Alsace and visit Zind Humbrecht, Albert Mann, Domaine Weinbach and others, a trip to Burgundy to visit Nicolas Rossignoal and Anne Claude Lefalive.

• Seminars on Bio-Dynamic farming and winemaking with Philippe Armeinier, he is dying to come up for a visit. Offer a trip to Bordeaux to taste and visit with some of the world’s greatest estates for inspiration. Why can’t we be as good as they are? It will take time, but the seed and culture must be planted now.

• The direction must be set by visionary political leaders, I know this is hard to come by if not impossible these days, but we as consumers should demand nothing less. The wineries, to ensure their long term viability must demand it, so 100 years from now BC is mentioned within the pantheon of great wine producing regions not just an anecdotal foot note in the Oxford Companion for wines.

Also, here is the insidious consequence of continuing to foster bottled in BC wines. Three of the largest British Columbia wineries also have import companies; they have the larger sales teams and better distribution and listing opportunities. When a small independent wine importer finds a wine from a small quality producer more often than not the wine is relegated to a speculative listing, those in the industry all know that is essentially solitary confinement for wine, in which restaurants have to order by the case and delivery can take weeks from Annacis Island, whereas bottled in BC wines can be direct delivered to restaurants and wine shops winery.

Is the consumer getting the best bottle of wine possible for $13-$15 versus a domaine bottled of imported wine which has been carefully made by a family? Unlikely.

The problem is the imported wine is marked up 123% so these wines usually retail on our shelves for $18-$19 when the market is asking for $13-$15. Since imports have an impossible time at landing at that price the bottled in BC wines take up that sweet spot, who suffers? Ultimately, the consumer and the small business owner. The consumer for not getting the best value wine possible and the small business owner for not being able to penetrate the market.

~ John Clerides

“Is Your Coffee Fair Trade and Sustainable and Organic?”

I just got this question from a concerned consumer, and she was raising valid questions about well known certifications and buzz-words. The question is simple, and doesn’t require more than a yes-or-no, but as much as I love coffee, I love the opportunity to discuss and explore the perspectives. These days, coffee certified as Organic, Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance and many others, is everywhere. It has become mainstream, making its way from mass merchandisers to college dining halls, high-end restaurants and almost every place in between. British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but is buying a majority of the organic food products sold in the country.

Coffee thrives in a narrow belt around the equatorial line, meaning for the most part growing in less economically developed countries. Most coffee farmers in the specialty coffee niche are small holder farmers. Going through the process of becoming certified – Organic, Rainforest Alliance, Utz and many others – is expensive and out of reach for many of these farmers, not only because of the intensified labor required, but also because they actually have to buy the certificate.

For small holder farmers trying to achieve a substantial premium by producing high quality coffees, Fair Trade is out of the question because only cooperatives can be certified. Even if the premium recently went from $0.10 to $0.20 cents per pound above the commodity market prices, it is a very small premium compared to the premiums paid for specialty coffee, which can be well above $1 per pound. The commodity market for coffee has more than doubled since June 2010, but coffee is still the most affordable luxury, taken how labour intensive producing it is.

On the farm where the coffee is growing, organic practices are making a big difference for the people working with the product. It is better for the soil, for the people picking it and for the waste from coffee processing. Even though the certification has been criticized for not taking quality into the equation, some organic certified coffee farmers are performing state-of-the-art farming techniques, resulting in some of the best coffees in the market. The expenses are still there, though, and often farms produce with no chemical inputs, simply because they can’t afford any sort of treatment for soil or plants.

As much as it is clearly a wise choice to choose organic, there’s another piece missing in the equation – the relationship and distance between producer and consumer. And not necessarily distance measured in kilometers – also proximity in the chain of custody and the opportunity to gain in-depth knowledge about the product for those who wishes to seek these answers. Investigate what sustainable means, and how producers have attempted to do what they do in a best possible way. I would argue, that even if all kinds of certifications are good for some things, you really need to look into the overall picture – how, where and when was it produced? When you count stickers or distance in kilometers, you tweak the focus and end up loosing sight of what truly is the most exciting part of your consumer power and the art of eating and drinking.

~ Mette-Marie Hansen