Bat Epidemic Could Lead to Higher Grocery Bills

With the vampire craze currently sweeping Hollywood, you'd think bats would be getting a little more attention these days. The flying creatures of the night are in trouble -- and it could cause food costs to go way up, reports Fast Company.

Bats hunt insects, and their eating habits are a major boon for both organic and traditional farmers. Reuters estimates that bats' total value to agriculture is $22.9 billion annually. The little brown bat, Montana's most common bat species, eats about 1,200 insects per hour and in one 2006 study, bats in South-Central Texas were shown to have an annual pest control value of over $740,000 (29% of the value of the area's cotton crop), according to Fast Company.

They also pollinate crops -- papayas, mangos, and figs all benefit from our furry flying friends. But a deadly fungal infection --something called white-nose syndrome -- has put the U.S. bat population in jeopardy. According to Reuters, more than one million bats have died since the syndrome was discovered in 2006. But researchers aren't sure that it's simply white-nose syndrome that's to blame, since European bats with the same syndrome don't usually die.

Conservation groups and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are on the case, but consumers should also be following the news closely. If we loose our bats, it's going to be a lot harder -- and more expensive -- to farm. And that means higher prices at the market.

Read more: http://www.slashfood.com/2011/04/05/bat-epidemic-could-lead-to-higher-grocery-bills/#ixzz1hfqJQHOv

Taco Bell, KFC lobby federal government to subsidize fast food through food stamps

According to a recent report in USA Today, Louisville, Ky. based Yum! Brands, which owns Taco Bell, KFC, Long John Silver restaurant, and Pizza Hut, is lobbying the federal government to permit SNAP enrollees to use food stamps at their restaurants. And they claim doing so will help prevent hunger.

But many in opposition are decrying the proposition as ridiculous, and a blatant misuse of public funds in support of junk foods rather than health foods.

"It's preposterous that a company like Yum! Brands would even be considered for inclusion in a program meant for supplemental nutrition," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

If the federal government ends up granting the fast food industry inclusion in the food stamps program, it will essentially be funneling taxpayer money into a system that promotes both abuse of the system and ill health. After all, fast food is laden with toxic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and contains little to no nutritional value.

And if participation in the food stamp program continues to rise -- which is expected, based on a continually plummeting economy -- the end result will essentially be a government-run system of food distribution in which most Americans have no choice but to eat the garbage peddled by their local fast food joints.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033559_food_stamps_Taco_Bell.html#ixzz1gKsCkvSR

Would You Wear Bacon Cologne?

Photo: Fargginay

No need to check the date -- it's not April Fool's Day anymore. Which means that Fargginay's new Bacon cologne is not a joke.

The fragrance, meant to be worn by either men or women, is a mix of essential oils and, well, bacon. The company offers two versions of the scent: Bacon Classic and Bacon Gold. (Classic veers more maple, while Gold contains a citrus note, according to the company's perky Q&A section.)

We can all agree the bacon is delicious, but a cologne? Really? The company insists the fragrance actually smells good. "These are sophisticated aromas," the website reads. "There is a top, middle and bottom note. Both Bacōn Classic and Bacōn Gold are comprised of essential oils, flowers, herbs and the essence of bacon. The bacon is the bottom note. Hidden in just the right place. It's there alright, and the real fun is in finding it."

According to a press release:

bacōn is a passion project mirrored after one of the 20th Century's greatest legends. The Legend of Fargginay began in 1920 when quite by accident John Fargginay, a Parisian butcher discovered the ability to dramatically elevate his customers' mood with a secret recipe blending herbs & essential oils with the essence of...bacon. As the story goes, film stars & heads of state would frequent his shop to procure the magical elixir. With a wink of the eye and the secret code, "fargginay," customers would be slipped a discreet pouch containing the formula said to trigger pleasant memories. After a massive fire on July 4, 1924, the business was lost and so was the formula...Until now.

bacōn's tagline: "scent by the gods." Our suggestion: "stench of a diner." And suddenly, we're hungry.

The eau de ew comes in both bacōn Classic and bacōn Gold, each only $36.

Take a look at the perfume's kitchy commercial below. We will, however, confess that we're impressed with the packaging.

Blind Tasters Can't Tell Cheap Wines From Expensive

Photo: weelibrarian, Flickr

People can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine, says psychologist Richard Wiseman after conducting a survey of 578 drinkers at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, reports The Guardian. The participants sampled a variety of red and white wines in a blind taste test with prices ranging from about $6 to $50. The results concluded that people could only tell the difference between cheap and expensive white wines 53% of the time, and 47% of the time for red wines. In other words, it's about the same percentage as if they merely guessed. The Claret was the hardest to pinpoint, with only 39% getting it right, despite the price tag differences of about $5 for one bottle and $23 for the other. The Journal of Wine Economics backs up Wiseman's findings. Its 2008 study, "Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better?" reported that:

Individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine. In a sample of more than 6,000 blind tastings, we find that the correlation between price and overall rating is small and negative, suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines slightly less.

Maybe it's time to add some swill wine to that expensive Bordeaux collection.

Many Imported Olive Oils Fail Quality Tests

That premium extra-virgin olive oil you shelled out a little extra for may not be quite as premium as you'd hoped, according to a second study released yesterday by the UC Davis Olive Center and the Australian Oils Research Laboratory.

According to the report, researchers found that five of the top-selling imported "extra virgin" olive oil brands in the U.S. were inconsistent, and that 73 percent of the samples tested failed sensory standards, which indicated they were of poor quality or had been adulterated with cheaper refined oils like canola, seed or nut oils.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the brands tested included Filippo Berio, Bertolli, Pompeian, Colavita and Star.

It's the second study released by the groups in the last year. The first was published last summer, but drew heavy criticism for small sample sizing, unknown storage conditions and testing methods. And already, the current report is coming under attack by the North American Olive Oil Association, which represents marketers, packagers and importers of olive oil.

"Consumers can continue to trust the quality of the imported olive oils they buy in supermarkets throughout the United States, contrary to what the authors of a report funded by a small contingent of domestic oil producers would like them to believe," the release says.
But Patricia Darragh, executive director of the California Olive Oil Council told Slashfood that the new study used two International Olive Council (IOC) recognized panels and extended the original study by using more samples of each brand. The first study analyzed 52 samples of 14 brands. The current study looked at 134 samples from eight producers.

"The results were similar," says Darragh. "What that means for consumers is they need to read the labels very carefully. There are a lot of good olive oils produced throughout the world, but consumers need to check the labels."

By definition, extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is the highest quality of olive oil. While it can vary in taste and color, to be labeled extra virgin, it must meet standards set by the IOC. The issue around olive oil purity has been heating up. In October, the USDA updated olive oil standards for the first time since 1948.

It has also been getting serious attention in California, which produces 99 percent of the olives grown in the U.S. Earlier this month, the California Senate Health Committee approved a bill introduced by Sen. Lois Wolk tightening the standards for what can be labeled "extra virgin" in California, and will impact what is brought into or sold in the state should it eventually be approved by the legislature and be signed by the governor.

Is Road Kill Safe?

Several news sources have recently pondered, is roadkill safe to eat?

The answer? Well, sort of.

On the pro-roadkill eating side:
If an animal was recently killed but otherwise healthy, the meat is actually much fresher than what you might find in a grocery store, explained Steve Rinella of the Travel Channel's "The Wild Within" on HuffPost Food recently (see his video of finding and preparing raccoon roadkill, after the jump). Daniel Klein of "The Perennial Palate" has a similar philosophy in this video, in which he prepares venison tartare from a deer collected from the side of the road that was "still steaming."

Even PETA basically agrees with both men. The animal-rights group advises, "If people must eat animal carcasses, roadkill is a superior option to the neatly shrink-wrapped plastic packages of meat in the supermarket."

Most recently, Food Safety News interviewed several roadkill-eating enthusiasts and gathered that there are a few good general rules of thumb to follow, such as the fact that eating roadkill in the winter may be safer since the animal is essentially refrigerated upon its death. Rinella adds that for raccoons, when the blood has not yet coagulated and the hair is not oily, those are both good signs that the animal was recently killed and therefore okay to eat.

Laws vary state by state, but in some states, eating roadkill is encouraged, usually via the game warden phoning interested individuals when a fresh carcass is found. In Alaska, roadkill meat is distributed to charities, after being sent to a volunteer butcher.

On the anti-roadkill eating side:
It can be hard to tell the health of an animal after it has died, so Slate advises to be wary of tularemia or "rabbit fever," a bacterial infection transmitted by inhalation, when taking rabbits from the roadside.

Additionally, animals raised for slaughter typically go through food safety checks that roadkill animals are obviously not subjected to.

So, how does one know if the recently killed deer on the side of the road will make a healthy venison stew? Well, one can never be sure, though based on the clip below, perhaps we should be

Kobe Beef

Kobe beef was originated in Japan; eating meat from four legged animals was prohibited in Japan for more than a thousand years prior to 1868. This ban was especially strict during the EdoPeriod (1603-1867). Buddhist influences were primarily responsible for this dietary restriction, but other cultural factors and the need to protect draught animals in times of famine may have reinforced the taboo. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the new leaders of Japan wanted, among other things, to reduce traditional social barriers and to encourage the adoption of beneficial Western habits. Despite the prohibition against the eating of meat in the late 1860’s, the consumption of meat remained extremely low for another century. Until very recent times meat usually meant pork in eastern Japan and beef in western Japan. Historically, and even today, the people of the Kinki Region (Kyoto, Kobe, and Osaka) have been the heaviest beef eaters. An exclusive grade of beef from cattle raised in Kobe, Japan is how the name came about. The cattle are massaged and fed a special diet that includes some amounts of beer. This specialized treatment results in beef that is extraordinarily tender and full-flavored. It also makes the beef very expensive, which is why it's rarely available in the United States. The massive increase in popularity of Kobe beef in the United States has led to the creation of "Kobe-style" beef, taken from domestically-raised Wagyu crossbred with Angus in order to meet the demand. Farms in America and Britain have attempted to replicate the Kobe cattle. U.S meat producers claim that any differences between their less expensive "Kobe-style" beef and true Kobe beef are not largely different. Kobe cattle are fed American and British grass. Which is different from the more expensive Japanese feed. After all beef imports into the USA from Japan were banned on September 10 2001, due to the discovery of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as Mad-Cow Disease (MCD), many retailers began to heavily market the U.S. raised beef as "Kobe-style". The ban on the import of Wagyu beef to the United States ended on December 12, 2005. Now that Kobe beef is so popular and is a known as a high quality of beef it’s in your and my best interest to try it!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagyu

www.1stflash.com/files/Kobe-Wagyu-Beef.htm

Gulf Seafood & The Anniversary of the BP Spill

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill, and caps a very tough year for Gulf fishermen. Many are still struggling to stay in business while being dogged by lingering consumer doubt over the safety of the very seafood they're harvesting.Images of dead dolphins and sea turtles that washed ashore earlier this month fueled concerns over just where the estimate 200 million gallons of crude oil and 1.8 million gallons of dispersants ended up. In the meantime, plenty of Gulf residents continue to harbor anger over the spill. At BP's annual meeting last week, protesters, including Gulf fishermen, rallied to be heard.Bryon Encalade, president of the Louisiana Oystermen Association, told The Guardian, "We've not been made whole: our fishing grounds have been depleted, our oysters are dead and we're not receiving the funds we need to support and sustain ourselves. We're seeing money going everywhere but at ground zero."And, one year later, long-term effects of the oil spill are still unclear.
"We have yet to understand the magnitude of the impact," renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle tells the Houston Chronicle, adding that it can take several decades to understand the impact of the catastrophe on wild populations.Just yesterday, NOAA announced that commercial and recreational fishing in all 1,041 miles of the Gulf immediately surrounding the Deepwater Horizon wellhead has been reopened. Despite the announcement, concerns over seafood safety continues to be on the mind of the public. NOAA and other federal and state agencies have been continuously testing seafood for contaminants in an effort to reassure consumers that all Gulf seafood sent to market is 100 percent safe, but conveying that message to the public hasn't been easy.New programs surrounding Gulf seafood are also being launched, including Alabama's "Serve the Gulf" campaign, released to coincide with the anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon blast. Their message is one echoed by other Gulf states -- that all seafood being pulled from the Gulf of Mexico is thoroughly tested for oil and dispersants and is safe for consumption. The program is also trying to convey the economic importance of local fisheries."When we choose to eat [Gulf seafood] at home, or in a restaurant, we are helping support a cultural way of life that goes back multiple generations and hundreds of years. And that support doesn't go to some faceless entity, rather it goes first to all of the fishermen, boat captains and seafood restaurants -- the hardworking people of the Gulf Coast who earn a decent day's wage from a good day's catch," says the group's website.The newly launched Gulf Wild program is also stepping into the role of seafood ambassador. The program pushes transparency and traceability of grouper, tilefish and red snapper. Every fish caught by Gulf fishermen in the program is tagged, and remains traceable even at the fillet level. This hook-and-line fishery has little by-catch or discards, and like other seafood being caught in the Gulf, is tested for safety."It's seafood with certainty," says David Krebs, president of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance and Wild Gulf spokesperson. "You can track every fish back to the very fisherman that caught it."But one year after the catastrophe began, the lingering question here remains: Will Americans outside the Gulf region embrace it?

Farmed vs. Wild Seafood

Fish farms can be a benefit to the population are a necessary need to feed a growing population. Billions of people depend on fish as one of the main sources of protein in their diet even as wild fish stocks in the ocean are becoming serious depleted. The only solution to the problem is to raise fish through aquaculture provides food, jobs, and money for those in desperate need. Without fish farms, people in developing nations will starve. Aquaculture first began contribute significantly to the world production in the 1970s, with it became clear that wild capture seafood harvests could no longer keep pace with the demand of fish. Many popular fish stocks had been overexploited even before the era, but the fishing industry compensated by repeatedly switching to previously “underutilized” species. By the 1980s, even diversifying the wild harvest could not increase the yield enough to feed the world’s booming population and growing appetite. Seafood accounts for about 15 percent of the protein in the average human diet, about16 kilograms per person per year. Residents of the United States, however, consume 7 or 8 kilograms per person, about half the global average. When they do eat seafood, few US consumers realize that more than half of what they eat comes from fish farms. By the global standards, U.S. aquaculture production is relatively modest, with a value of less than 1 billion per year of the worldwide total of $50 billion. Catfish, salmon, and oyster farms dominate the U.S. efforts. Aquaculture development is constrained by economics, especially competition from low-wage foreign producers and a lack of available and affordable coastal real estate. As a result, the U.S. imports more than half of the seafood it consumes. Aquaculture holds a great promise, especially in developing countries and historically non-productive coastal areas with few natural wild fish stocks. Negative environmental effects from poor planning, designs, and operating procedures have in some cases been problematic, but can be avoided through sensible regulation and monitoring. In the U.S., automation and other technologies will have to be harnessed to compensate for higher labor costs. But from a global protein perspective, aquaculture is necessary. The question is not whether to farm fish, but how and where. Other critics have environmental concerns. Tom Worthington and Paul Johnson, owners of the San Francisco—based Monterey Fish Company; acknowledge that aquaculture has increased the variety of fish they can sell year-round, but worry that this convenience masks a larger issue. Johnson says, "The constant supply that aquaculture provides blinds people to problems in the environment, such as the decline in wild fish populations." Worthington and Johnson also voice a fear, held by many that genetically manipulated hybrids might escape and breed with their wild counterparts, leading to a decline in true wild species. Salmon floods the market—430 million pounds are farmed annually worldwide. You might have paid as much as $14.99 a pound for salmon. Farmed specials at $2.99 a pound aren't unusual. The old adage about avoiding months with the letter are no longer applies to shellfish safety. Sturgeon and striped bass, disappearing in the wild, are enjoying a revival because of aquaculture. Controversy aside, aquaculture is having its day in the sun. Already, one of every five fish destined for dinners worldwide comes from farms, and everyone expects that share to increase in coming decades. Stocks of cod, halibut, and other prime fish are dwindling; in 1996, several species made the World Conservation Union’s Red List of species vulnerable to extinction. Canada’s once bountiful Grand Banks cod fishery has been closed completely since 1992. Indeed, 25 percent of the world’s wild fish stocks are now overexploited or have already crashed, according to the United Nation’s Food and agriculture Organization (FAO). “You and I are probably members of the last generation, who will sit down at dinner tables to things as exotic as grouper-or cod, even,’ says Jeffrey Graham, a fish biologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. In the future more and more of the fish we eat will come from fish farms. I think instead of having all these different kinds of wild fish, they will be replaced by those fish that are most easily farmable. Turning over the prairies to agriculture left one of North America’s great ecosystems in tatters, replaced by corn. Can we justify a similar trade-off in our coastal waters?