“Only the power of enlightened business can save the world … until commerce is harnessed for the benefit of the planet, the planet doesn’t stand a chance.”
—Gary Hirshberg, president and CEO, Stonyfield Farm
Enjoy two sustainable snacks a day (100 to 175 calories each)
Any foods on any Lean and Green Prescription list
Any food from “Your Guide to Sustainable Snacking” on page 40 Limit or avoid: Any foods or “food products” not on either of these lists
It’s been hard not to notice that the modern idea of “supermarket” has undergone a radical transformation in the past 20 years. What was once a place to purchase staple ingredients for from-scratch cooking increasingly resembles a cross between a convenience store and a NASA food lab—filled with partially prepared items that require minimal prep time, highly processed products in seemingly outer-space-ready shrink-wrap, pre-portioned foods in individual serving sizes, and “grab-and-go” meals neatly stockpiled in disposable containers. These “foods” have become the new normal.
With 30,000 to 40,000 products lining the shelves in an average supermarket, and roughly 20,000 new products each year vying to break into that space, the choices can be staggering.
To make them appear healthier and gain a market advantage (and often charge more), many new products are now fortified with different combinations of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and exotic ingredients. Even products your grandmother probably would have deemed “junk food” are being spun as an indulgence you’ve earned, a break from your day, or some other euphemism designed to assuage your guilt and convince you that this food fits into your life.
Somewhere.
The American ideal has always defined “progress” as more choices, more options. More is better. But when it comes to food, might there be a tipping point? Have we reached it?
I believe this “food clutter” has sprawled to the point where it’s overwhelming us in every way. So many choices are paralyzing rather than empowering. They’re clogging our kitchen cabinets, our minivans, our arteries, and now we see they’re clogging the atmosphere with carbon. Our kids, seeing stacks of snack foods and cookies in the pantry, revolt against “dinner” and beg and plead for something else, knowing that if they just hold out long enough, an exhausted parent will “give in,” throw up the flag, and finally open up those pretzels, that cereal, or whatever else will end the drama.
From what I see around me with family and friends, and from what I hear from clients behind my closed office door, more and more of us are feeling overwhelmed and exhausted by all of this choice and abundance. It’s hurting our quality of life, and it’s deeply hurting our relationship to food. This isn’t eating, it’s madness.
Oceans of packaging that required vast amounts of gasoline and other fossil fuels to make it as “easy” for the consumer as possible. Piles of plastic wrappers, microwave bowls, single servings of chocolate cake, breakfast bars to go, and zappable “cheese”—all designed to make a 3-minute eating experience possible. Suddenly, realigning a diet to be healthy and greener seems like it should be astoundingly simple, easy, and straightforward.
So while industrial food has invaded practically every food group and meal of the day, let’s make it simple again. The goal of this book, in fact, is to put easy, clean, and delicious food back onto your plate. So let’s consider snacks again for a moment.
Believe it or not, snacks are key to just about any successful weight loss plan. As I’ve said, the right snack can stave off hunger, keep your energy stable throughout the day, and help shave pounds from your waistline by keeping you out of the “hunger danger zone.”
But, like most things, there is a dark side to snacks as well. Load up on too much of the wrong kind of snack, and you’ll find yourself packing on the pounds, zapped of energy, and wondering why you feel like crap. You see, it all depends on what you’re noshing.
I usually recommend that my clients eat two snacks a day, but do what works best for you (occasionally I have clients who aren’t snackers; they do just fine by focusing only on the three meals). Personally, I need to snack, as do many of my clients. If that sounds like you too, then read on.
There are two easy tips for leveraging snacking to your advantage: Stick to real food, and keep it to roughly what fits in the palm of your hand.
See what it comes back to? The right foods in the right amounts. Snacking can be a valuable strategy to getting lean if you use it this way. Thinking of snacks as a place where junk food “fits” into your diet is a quick way to end up with a case of carbon and belly bloat.
First, review the section titled “Cool Hot Spot #2: Start Snacking Sustainably” on page 34. That will give you the basics, as well as a complete sustainable snacking list. In addition, here are a few pointers.
Does eating five or six “mini meals” help you lose weight faster than eating regular meals? No, says a new study, one of the first to actually take a hard scientific look at this hot diet trend. A 2008 study by the University of New-castle of 179 obese Australians found there was no benefit to changing how often you eat—while the total number of calories was the same over the course of the day, one group ate three regular meals and the other ate six “mini meals”—the results showed no differences in weight, waist circumference, body fat, or blood sugar levels.
Their conclusion? It’s not when you eat that matters as much as what you eat, and how much.
Question for you: Have you ever watched any other animal in nature try to procure its food? If not, it might be a worthwhile exercise to bring into sharp focus just how out of whack our current food environment is with our natural biology. I recently went fishing in Wyoming with my dad; we watched as a hawk expended a tremendous amount of energy hovering, flapping, diving and missing, then diving again. This went on for a good 20 minutes. Even my 3-year-old commented on how much work it was. Then finally, pow, a fish in its talons. Up in the tree, then back to the river again to repeat the whole process.
Now contrast that with modern living at its best—sliding into your car, going to the drive-thru, and resting comfortably in your car while someone on the other end hands you an 1,100-calorie meal or a 500-calorie “snack.” Hmm.
If any of these sound like you, take steps to modify your behavior or environment. If you’re eating for reasons other than hunger, it is critical that you address the underlying issue or find an outlet other than food if you are to be successful. That’s an entire other book in itself.
One thing is clear: Our natural biology makes it extremely difficult to handle a high-calorie eating option with the flick of the wrist or the zap of a microwave button day after day. Of course we’re going to gain weight if we have easy access to calorie-dense foods all the time. This, in essence, is the fundamental challenge of all this fast food and “food product” that lines our shelves and our lives these days.
And “diet foods,” in my opinion, don’t seem all that much better, creating as much carbon and confusion as the regular products (although companies will rarely ever actually use the “d” word). I have counseled many well-intentioned clients who were practically living on portion-controlled frozen dinners, diet sodas, calorie-controlled snack packs, and sugar-free desserts. They certainly were trying to do the right thing, but the only thing I really saw being lightened with all of these “solutions” was people’s wallets. Again, ask yourself: If all of these foods worked, Americans would be thinner, right?
Most of what is sitting in the center aisles of the supermarket these days is what I call industrial food. While there are certainly exceptions, here are the reasons why it’s problematic for these foods to comprise much of your diet.
Nearly all food passes through some sort of processing before it comes to you, even the most elemental foods such as eggs, lettuce, or nuts. Then there are foods that are lightly processed, say frozen broccoli spears, raisins, a bag of dried beans, a can of stewed tomatoes, or a jar of all-natural peanut butter.
While the exact line of crossover between light and heavier processing is certainly subjective, when I say “industrial food,” I am referring to foods that:
I’m about to say something extremely unpopular in the food business. Take less. Starting now. You can do it. As the authors of the best-selling Skinny Bitch quipped, “You cannot keep shoveling the same crap into your mouth and expect to lose weight.” To which I would add: “And you can’t keep taking as much from the system and wasting as much and successfully trim your carbon footprint.”
Cutting back on the wrong kind of snacks, cutting back on overly convenient high-calorie food products, and adding the right amounts of fresh, whole foods are part of the answer for both.
The amount of industrialized food that you choose to eat is one of the biggest determinants of your dietary lifestyle. Here’s why realigning the amount of processed foods you eat can reap such significant, immediate carbon savings. As I’ve mentioned before, our food production system consumes about 19 percent of the total amount of energy used in the United States. Nearly a third of that amount is used for processing and packaging.3 Then there is waste; after all, you basically tear open these foods and then throw away the packaging immediately. Ironically, according to the EPA, about one-third of all your trash is packaging, too.
Even more interesting, a landmark 2002 study estimated that up to a third of the total energy in your food footprint is related to snacks, sweets, and drinks, items with little nutritional value.4 In fact, when I asked Gidon Eshel, one of the researchers, to first quantify the carbon impact of eating meat in relation to the impact of the cars we drive, he emphasized that “trimming industrial food” was the second most powerful way to cut your carbon food footprint after eating fewer animal foods. A growing call from health professionals and “food ecologists” seems to agree.
“Foods that lie to our senses are one of the most challenging features of the Western diet,” noted Michael Pollan in his book In Defense of Food. Hmmm. Just as all roads lead to Rome, all low-carbon roads seem to lead away from a reliance on processed foods.
I am definitely not suggesting that we simply remove industrial food from American life as a cure-all to our health or environmental ills. Certainly, some industrial food plays a valuable role in our society. In their best forms, they offer convenience to time-strapped Americans, provide valuable shortcuts in the kitchen that help mom or dad get a healthy dinner on the table quickly, and are an essential buffer against possible natural disasters or agricultural failures (think Hurricane Katrina, flooding in Iowa, or a Florida frost that wipes out an entire crop of citrus). And big industry has the clout to make sweeping changes in how Americans eat for the better. For instance, they have helped bring different lettuces (such as mesclun mix, mâche, and arugula) into the mainstream. Big box retailers have also helped create a larger market for organic food, bringing it to a price point that’s more within reach of all Americans as opposed to just hippies and yuppies.
But industrial food is slowly taking over our supermarkets and our diets, and has crept into every corner of our lives, from the cereal bars we gobble each morning as we run out the door to the chips we nibble in front of the TV at night. We are eating less food and more “food products.” The pendulum has shifted to where the benefit and value that industrial food has to offer is now eclipsed by its sheer volume in our lives, its unhealthy impact on our weight and health, and (as we are now realizing) the significant contributions that this type of food is making in a very real way to global warming.
Industrial food usually has a higher carbon footprint because:
Of course, even if you shop regularly at a natural foods store, you’re bound to notice hundreds of new food products there, too. Many come from “big organic” companies, but looking at the issues of industrial food, it’s logical to wonder if food from those “big organic” companies is any better for the planet. Interestingly enough, if you dig around the Internet, you’ll quickly discover that most brands in the “organic/natural/healthy” category are actually children of a much larger parent company. If you consider that General Mills owns the Cascadian Farms and Muir Glen Organics lines; Hain Celestial is the company behind Earth’s Best Organic Baby Food, Arrowhead Mills, and Walnut Acres; and Kellogg owns Kashi and Morningstar Farms, you begin to realize how intertwined big business is with the organic/healthy market.
So is it any greener to buy from “big organic” companies than to support something smaller and local? Aren’t the business realities of bringing large amounts of food consistently to a national market going to require a heavy carbon load, despite lofty-sounding brand names? Is it greenwashing? Indeed, this is one of the thorniest issues in the debate around the proliferation of large-scale organic or natural food companies.
Not necessarily. Buying from a big box retailer is still a gray area when it comes to being green, and it may make it more difficult to get lean. Here’s a breakdown.
| ISSUE | IS BULK/BIG BOX BETTER? |
WHY |
| Cost | Yes, if . . . (see next column) |
|
| Lean benefit | No |
|
Green benefit |
Bulk bins: Yes |
|
| Green benefit |
Big box retailers: Probably not |
|
| To Make Sure Buying in Bulk Doesn’t Just Mean You Eat More |
|
In my opinion, big organic or “clean packaged” foods are still both a great choice for your pantry, and here’s why. As Stonyfield Farm president and CEO Gary Hirshberg said, “Business is the only force powerful enough to save the world for my grandchildren.”8 He’s right, for even very small improvements in the carbon footprint of large global companies (who make up sizeable portions of total grocery sales) are going to have a much vaster impact on global emissions than the “carbon neutral” efforts of small, mom-and-pop organic labels.
What’s the definition of “green”? Right now, it’s a virtual free-for-all. “Green labeling” regulations are still loose and undefined, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) still just taking comments on the issue. This makes it harder for you to know who’s “greenwashing” their products and who is genuinely doing better by the Earth.
In the meantime, some companies are acting independently to define, measure, and report sustainability. However, while many of these companies may measure the same “what,” they vary in how they measure “how,” which makes direct comparisons difficult. So read the fine print carefully.
To be fair, some companies are also wary to invest when “green technology” is changing so fast. They are still not sure how much the consumer is willing to pay for “greener” food, and the return to the company seems a distinct shade of gray.
So here’s my advice on how to minimize your exposure to “greenwashing”:
If American consumers leverage the power of the purse, history shows that food companies will respond (Exhibit A: low fat or low carb). When you switch to cleaner packaged foods (which is where all of these healthier companies fall), your purchases send a powerful message to companies about what sort of business models you will support, and what kind of “food world” you want to live in.
It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a better solution. But as I said, it’s not a cure-all. Just as with every other aspect of the global warming crisis, we can’t simply shop our way out of it by switching to greener choices. While it is tempting to think that you can nourish your body and your social conscience at the same time as a consumer, remember that commercial food, even organic, is still one of the most resource-heavy areas of your diet (those organic chicken nuggets or potato chips, for instance). Part of the underlying problem with our plate (and cup) is simply how big it is. Take less. It’s critical that you realign your equation here to be more in balance with calorie needs, which for most of us will automatically help realign the amount of resources we use.
For any remaining items in your pantry that we haven’t already tackled in another chapter, use this guide to decide whether to keep or toss (meaning, donate to a food pantry or charity).
While the “lean” piece is wrapped up once you’ve eaten your food, the “green” issues linger to the trash can and well beyond. How to be sure you continue to reduce your carbon footprint? “The best thing consumers can do is to know their local recycling and composting infrastructure,” advised Chad Smith, a sustainability and packaging expert for Earthbound Farms Organics, when I called him to ask for his thoughts. “That will help you make the right decisions, because you’ll know which materials to look for when you’re purchasing.”
Packaging made with post-consumer (recycled) paper may have some carbon savings, but bioplastics—corn-based plastics that promise to be compostable— seem to be more uncertain. Smith, whose company has looked extensively at whether or not to adopt these bioplastics as “greener answers,” says there are currently some drawbacks. “There’s a lot of interest right now in corn-based plastics, but a lot of these don’t necessarily biodegrade unless they have the exact conditions (which means you better be tending that home compost carefully); and because they are only compostable under certain conditions; at the end of the day they’re not necessarily a win for the Earth.”
If you live in a city with curbside composting (such as San Francisco, but not my town of Park City), where “green waste” is collected along with regular recyclables such as plastics and paper, then there’s a chance those compostable plastics may actually end up being converted to the soil. However, if you just toss it into your recycling bin (as I did prior to my interview with Chad, thinking I was doing the right thing), these bioplastics can end up polluting the recyclable plastic stream, or else go to the landfill. Oops. So know before you buy.
Right now the burden of the end product has been borne by you, the consumer: You have to recycle it; your town has to figure out how to handle all of the waste; and your taxes reflect the decisions of your elected officials. The idea of “extended producer responsibility” is taking hold in Europe and has already created significant changes in the packaging scene. In the future, “producer responsibility” in the United States may well be extending to the taking back, recovery, and final disposal of the product. This policy, if implemented in the United States (it’s been in place in much of the UK since the 1990s), would shift the end-of-life costs of collecting, sorting, and managing post-consumer packaging that are typically borne by localities to the producers of packaged goods.
1. B. Burton-Freeman et al., “Plasma Cholecystokinin Is Associated with Subjective Measures of Satiety in Women,” Amer J Clin Nutr (2002) 76:659–67.
2. C. Marmonier et al., “Snacks Consumed in a Non-Hungry State Have Poor Satiating Efficiency: Influence of Snack Composition on Substrate Utilization and Hunger,” Amer J Clin Nutr (2002) 76:518–28.
3. Gidon Eshel and Pamela A. Martin, “Diet, Energy, and Global Warming,” Earth Interactions (2006) 10:1–17.
4. A. Carlsson-Kanyama et al., “Food and Life Cycle Energy Inputs; Consequences of Diet and Ways to Increase Efficiency,” Ecological Economics (2003) 44:293–307.
5. Brian Wansink, “Environmental Factors That Increase the Food Intake and Consumption Volume of Unknowing Consumers,” Annual Review of Nutrition (July 2004) 24:455–79; J.A. Ello-Martin et al., “Increasing the Portion Size of a Unit Food Increases Energy Intake,” Appetite (2002) 39:74.
6. V.E. Pudel and M. Oetting, “Eating in the Laboratory: Behavioral Aspects of the Positive Energy Balance,” Int J Obesity (1977) 1:369–86.
7. B. Wansink and K. Junyong, “Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets: Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste,” J Nutr Ed Beh (2005) 37(5):242–45.
8. Gary Hirshberg, “Seven Cows and a Dream,” Newsweek, February 25, 2008, E6.