Posts from — July 2009

In this entry, I started off on the similarities between a trend in the food industry toward smaller, alternative food & farm businesses and changes in the music industry that resulted in part from the growth of the internet.

I made a brief analogy between the effect of the internet on the music industry and the effect of new information and a shifting culture on the food industry and these comments drew the comparison out further.

I like this comparison. In both cases, there are some seriously established players (“new oligopoly” perhaps?): the major labels and and the major food corporations — who currently control a large part of the market and have a stake in seeing that things as they are don’t change. And in both cases, as a result of a new technology and new information and a changing ethos, consumers demand a new way of doing things.

In the case of the music industry, the game changed when internet technology made it possible to upload and download files. When industry decided to ignore this game-changing innovation and stick to business-as-usual, pirates moved in to fill the gap; eventually some legitimate businesses followed (Apple & iTunes). There were lawsuits, there was upheaval. I’m not sure if the major labels actually lost marketshare, though overall rate-of-growth in the industry supposedly slowed. But in general, it seems to me that consumers and small artists ended up much better off since we now we have all sorts of new and legitimate ways to find out about new music (LastFM, Pandora, cheap iTunes singles available for download) and they now have more avenues to get noticed.

In the food industry, there aren’t really “pirates” yet, since generally food isn’t considered intellectual property** but certainly the big players (and there really are only a few, just like worry that profits will be dispersed as modes of distribution become more varied and specialized, as consumers become more informed and their preferences change and the advantage of scale becomes less important.

In the case of music, large scale players might be frightened by the idea that the internet allows people to find out about an artist online rather than only in a record store. As Janis Ian argues in this article in 2002, music downloads may hurt huge artists and labels, but help almost everyone else, consumers who wouldn’t be exposed to so many new artists and new and small artists, for whom exposure is everything.

In the case of food, large scale players might lose part of their advantage when individuals or policies calculate the true costs of food production (social, environmental) and impose penalties for negative externalities, when sustainable farming and food processing and distribution becomes more efficient with time**, and when society pays attention to other elements of value (taste, nutrition, uniqueness or variety, etc) and not just cost.

So what are some things we could learn?

1. Big companies who are making a lot of money don’t want that to change.
2. Change that may hurt large companies may benefit individual consumers and smaller players, not necessarily financially (lower costs, increased profits), but also in other measures of value — more access to a broader range of music, better access to healthier food that’s better for the planet.
3. Consumer knowledge and behavior can force a change to totally new types of business models.
4. Anything else?

* Monsanto’s patents on certain seeds are a notable exception!
** Some would argue that efficiency isn’t important in the world of organic farming, but I think that’s a romantic and backwards notion. Yes, efficiency isn’t everything, and a quest to produce more, more cheaply can’t completely sacrifice taste, nutritional quality, and the social good, but few would argue with the benefit of finding new appropriate technologies to help make healthy food affordable and accessible to more people.

I just read Rob Smart’s article on Huffington Post defining his newly minted term “Pro Food.” While “Pro Food” seems a little corny (“Pro” conjures up images of greasy, bulging Mickey Rourke), I like the idea of a more inclusive food movement that embraces the entrepreneurial aspect of changing our food system. After all, if we are to build an entirely new way of growing, processing (yes, some processing is necessary — I, for one, won’t ask Americans to grind their own flour), distributing, marketing, cooking, eating, and talking about food, we’re going to need businesses to power that system.

And a decentralized system seems to mean lots and lots and lots of businesses. So as a young farmer-in-training with aspirations to start and run her own business, I really liked the direction Rob Smart was going. I also love his coverage of cool sustainable food ventures. And on first read, I liked the analogy which “Pro Food” to the Internet back in the day.

“In some very interesting ways, Pro Food draws parallels with the early years of the Internet, when it was still isolated from the mainstream in government and university labs. People, especially entrepreneurs, were starting to eye the Internet as something that could revolutionize communications and collaboration, that could democratize things long centralized. At first, they had no idea what was going to stick, but began applying time, energy and money in search of winning formulas.”

I still agree with the idea that both movements have the power to “democratize things long centralized” and that in both cases, entrepreneurs need to “apply time, energy and money in search of winning formulas.” But after thinking about it, I wonder if there aren’t also significant differences (I haven’t yet thought all the way through their significance, but here are some preliminary ideas):

– The current food movement is often envisioned (both correctly and incorrectly) as a “return to the old ways,” before the intense industrialization of food that resulted both from the development of synthetic fertilizers, and improved food preservation techniques of the 40s and 50s. The internet, on the other hand was something totally new, and therefore, perhaps, more open and ripe for innovation.

– A Pro food movement would be a move away from a way of doing things in which people are invested (consumers like cheap meat, Conagra likes profits)… whereas it doesn’t seem like there were really any norms associated with the internet and what could or couldn’t be done. (Maybe the comparison isn’t to the internet itself, but the reaction of the music industry to the internet?)

Thoughts?

…and thy progressive foodiness!

I was already pretty impressed when my adopted city’s Board of Supervisors voted in favor of mandatory composting last month. And now, an executive order by Mayor Newsom is making a big statement in favor of small, local, sustainable farming.

“[Newsom is] ordering all departments to survey the land under their control in order to create an inventory of land that can support community gardens. All city-purchased food for city meetings, schools, jails or homeless shelters must be grown locally with sustainable farming practices. Food vendors with city permits must also meet these requirements.” — from Tilde Herrera at Greenbiz.com

Wowsers! What a coup for food advocacy organizations and local Bay Area producers, and how tremendously apt for the region that gave rise to the term “locavore.”

I wonder how they are going to define “local” for these purposes, and what percentage of the food will have to adhere to this definition? This kind of policy is really only feasible in a place like SF, where fresh food is available year-round. But what about harder-to-procure stuff like grains and spices?

I assume this decision is also going to create more demand for services like this cool online startup to help city departments and food vendors to handle procurement more efficiently than juggling daily phone calls with dozens of small providers.

Jaime and I got back from an awesome awesome fourth of July weekend down in the OC. There was football on the beach and family pool time and cherry brown butter bars and fresh peaches and fireworks with the cousins and lots of huge beef ribs. All in all, an awesome time.

Upon returning to our fridge after a full day of work, I found the tofu had gone “off.” It was pink and green and blue and smelled a lot like the fermented bean curd that my Cambodian friends used to make various dipping sauces… but not enough like that smell to convince me that it was edible. So that went in the garbage. But thankfully, the bravas sauce I prepared on Thursday night before our trip didn’t succumb to a similar fate, so I was able to throw some patatas in the oven to brown while Jaime whipped up some Asian-style pink salmon cabbage cakes. Not the same as the popiah and Hainanese chicken rice feast we had this weekend, but really not too bad.

Patatas Bravas, or “brave potatoes,” are a traditional Spanish tapa — golden fried garlicky potatoes either topped with, or dipped into, a spicy, garlicky aoili. Tapas are Spain’s snacks or appetizers, often taken with a drink in the afternoon, or late in the evening.

This version, which I made with new potatoes, is roasted in olive oil instead of fried, but the Bravas sauce is the same tangy, hot delicious mix you can find in many bars and restaurants in Madrid.

Roasted Patatas Bravas
Reposted from the Synergy Farm Recipe Blog

1 lb potatoes
3 tbsp olive oil
3 garlic cloves, minced finely
paprika and salt, to coat

Bravas Sauce:
1/2 medium onion
4 Synergy garlic cloves (6 if you use regular garlic, which is smaller)
2 tbsp olive oil
1/2 cup diced tomatoes
1/2 cup mustard aioli
1 tsp paprika (pimentón dulce)
1 tsp cumin
1/2 tsp cayenne pepper

Heat your oven to 400 degrees. Chop potatoes into 1/2” cubes. Toss in a bowl with olive oil, garlic, paprika and salt until evenly coated, then transfer to a baking sheet. Cook for about 1 hour or until brown and crispy, but not burnt. Take the pan out of the oven and stir every 20 minutes or so to prevent sticking and make sure potatoes brown evenly.

In the meantime, prepare the bravas sauce. In a blender, mix together all the sauce ingredients until well-incorporated.

Serve potatoes hot, with sauce on the side for dipping or with 2-3 tbsp mixed in.

This recipe was inspired by the gorgeous Chinese cabbage I picked up from Joel and Margaret of Thousand Flower Farm last Saturday at the Farmers’ Market. Joel wasn’t sure how versatile this veggie could be, so I promised to make something and come back with a report on the results.

This gorgeous, slightly peppery, big-leafed cabbage is often used in soups and added to light broths in Chinese cooking, but it is also wonderful in stir fries, braised, like in this recipe, and chopped up raw for salad. The dark green leaves are soft and have a slight horseradish flavor, while the white stems are crunchy, tender, and super-sweet.

This recipe originally called for bacon, and that’s how I made it the first time around, but all the tasters agreed that the marinated pork was more flavorful, had better texture, and was probably a little healthier to boot. You could also use thinly-sliced pork loin for an even lighter version of the dish.

Ginger Braised Pork with Chinese Cabbage

Adapted from The Bacon Cookbook by James Villas

1 pound pork butt partially frozen and sliced as thinly as possible
1 tbsp fresh ginger
1 lb Thousand Flower Farm Chinese cabbage leaves
4 medium sized carrots, peeled
1 1/2 cups chicken broth and 1 tbsp soy sauce
1 1/2 tbsp cornstarch mixed with 1 tbsp water
1/2 tsp white pepper

Marinade:
1 garlic clove, minced
1 teaspoon grated fresh ginger
2 tablespoon soy sauce
1 tablespoon rice wine vinegar

Marinate your sliced pork for at least 30 minutes and up to overnight in the refrigerator. The longer you marinate, the more tender and flavorful the dish will be.

Separate and wash your cabbage leaves. If you have an extra large cabbage (like Joel and Margaret’s!) use the larger leaves on the outside. Chop large leaves in half horizontally to fit the pot you’ll be using, separating the dark green tops from the white bottoms.

Chop your carrots into 2” portions, then slice the 2” portions thinly.

To make sure your layers end up even, divide the cabbage leaves and carrot strips into 4 parts and divide the pork, bacon, and chopped ginger into 3 parts. Try to use the white stems on the lower levels, rather than in the top layers as they will cook better closer to the source of heat and to the liquid. Arrange cabbage leaves and carrots on the bottom of a large (3 qt) pot; cover with a portion of the meats and chopped ginger. Continue layering. On the last layer, put the carrot strips under the cabbage instead of on top; and if possible, save the prettiest, biggest leaves for the top — this just makes for a prettier presentation.

Add your chicken broth and soy sauce, bring to a low boil, reduce the heat to medium so that the chicken broth is only simmering. Cover the pot and cook until the top layer of cabbage is cooked, about 30 minutes.

At this point, remove the pan from heat and carefully lift the mass from the pot using two spatulas (you may want to employ some help, though it is possible with just one person!), leaving the juices behind. Return the pot with juice to low heat. Add the cornstarch mixture and pepper and stir gently for 2-3 minutes, until the sauce thickens. Pour the sauce over the mound of cabbage. Cut the layers into slices (like lasagna) and serve with generous amounts of sauce over hot jasmine rice.

Separating the ingredients into portions helps to make sure the layers are even

Layering in the pot — notice the top half of the cabbage leaf fills the entire pot!

Braised cabbage, ready for eating!

It’s 5am. I just brought Lucy to the bakery and it’s time to start work. It’s chilly outside, but not cold and I’m going to clear the rest of the spinach from around the pea trellises, and then flat some flats, and prick out some broccoli and take care of the sheep and then maybe have a little time to bake bread and make a trip to town.

Early mornings are the bomb.