Category Archives: USDA

Antifreeze In Your Ice Cream?

by additives, ingredients, recipes, summer, USDA, , ,

Ah, those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer.  Hot, humid, sweltering temperatures just beg for you to stop and enjoy a cold frozen confection.  Ice cream, just the thing to cool you off.  Or not.

Why is antifreeze in ice cream?

 

If you are looking for a cool summer treat you may want to consider making your own frozen confections.  It turns out that there is a little-known ingredient called propylene glycol hiding out in your ice cream. 

Considered a "non-toxic" antifreeze (as opposed to ethylene glycol which is highly toxic) many manufacturers use it in a wide variety of foods, especially ice cream. While it prevents your car from freezing it also keeps your ice cream smooth and prevents ice crystals from forming.  Homemade ice cream turns fairly hard once frozen completely but this doesn't seem to happen with a lot of commercial ice creams.  Now you know why.

Looking for it on the label provides an even bigger shock.  Propylene glycol is not listed.  Why?  It turns out there is a little-known USDA regulation that covers incidental food additive labeling.  This labeling allows the manufacturers to not include this ingredient on the label.  My research so far seems to indicate that propylene glycol is covered under this regulation.

Health risks of propylene glycol

 

Unfortunately, it does not take into effect the "ick" factor (after all who really wants to eat anti-freeze, even if it is the "non-toxic" variety?).  Nor does it take into effect the fact that there are people who are highly sensitive to the substance.  While I don't know how much propylene glycol is in ice cream I'm assuming it's not a huge amount.  However, if you eat a lot of ice cream, or frosting, or other foods that contain it you could be getting a significant exposure.

Apparently, people who suffer from vulvodynia and interstitial cystitis can be particularly sensitive.  It's known to cause skin problems when it appears in lotions, asthma or other allergies in children exposed through airborne sources, and large doses administered orally have been been shown to have a depressive effect on the central nervous system in animals.  The challenge with the large dose testing is that because it's not labeled we do not know how much we may potentially be exposed to through ingestion or through osmotic skin absorption.

Avoiding propylene glycol

 

What can you do to avoid it?  That's not so easy since it's not labeled.*  Still want those creamy, cool summer treats?  Consider making your own.  Here are a few recipes that really hit the spot when the temperatures are climbing outside.

Vanilla Ice Cream

Recipe from Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon
Print Recipe Pin Recipe

Ingredients
  

  • 3 egg yolks
  • 1/2 cup maple syrup
  • 1 tablespoon vanilla extract
  • 1 tablespoon arrowroot
  • 3 cups heavy cream, (NT prefers raw, not ultra-pasteurized)

Instructions
 

  • Beat egg yolks and blend in remaining ingredients.
  • Pour into an ice cream maker and process according to instructions.
  • For ease of serving, transfer ice cream to a shallow container, cover and store in the freezer.

Notes

I've found that adding 1-2 cups of fresh fruit to this is delicious

Strawberry or Raspberry Water Ice

Recipe from Good Things by Jane Grigson
Print Recipe Pin Recipe

Ingredients
  

  • 1 lb. strawberries or raspberries
  • 1 cup sugar
  • 1-2 cups water
  • juice of 1 lemon
  • juice of 1 orange
  • 5 tablespoons orange liqueur, or kirsch
  • 2 egg whites (optional)

Instructions
 

  • Put the fruit through a blender
  • Make a syrup of the sugar and 1/2 cup water
  • When it is cool add the puree and strain
  • Flavor to taste with lemon juice
  • Dilute with the extra water if required
  • Pour into a container, stirring the frozen sides of the mixture into the more liquid middle part every so often. With shallow trays this needs to be done every half hour; deep boxes can be left longer
  • In 2-3 hours, the time depends on the depth of the mixture, you will have a thick mush of iced granules, called a granita
  • In 3-4 hours you will have a firm but not impenetrable block of water ice ready to be turned into sorbet
  • Beat the egg whites in a large bowl until they're stiff
  • Add spoonfuls of ice gradually, if properly done the mixture blow up to a mass of white foam
  • Refreeze in a larger container until the sorbet has the consistency of firm snow
  • Add the liqueur gradually at the end during the last stirring; with the sorbet add when ice and beaten egg white are mixed together

2-Ingredient Ice Cream

A fabulous easy-to-prepare recipe made in a vitamix or other high power blender
Print Recipe Pin Recipe

Ingredients
  

  • 1 can Native Forest organic coconut milk
  • 1 pound frozen fruit
  • 1/2 tsp. vanilla (optional)

Instructions
 

  • Add all ingredients in order into the blender
  • Blend until completely mixed (using tamper if necessary) -- approximately 1 minute

Side note: as an outcome of my research I did manage to find an online source for propylene glycol free flavoring.

*Some manufacturers, in an effort to meet consumers desire for more transparency are including propylene glycol on their label. This is, in my opinion, a good thing as it makes it easier to see that they're using it. However just because some manufacturers are disclosing it doesn't mean that many others use it but fail to disclose. In this case it's still best to make your own ice cream.

Repealing Country-of-origin Labeling Isn’t Cool

by FDA, food fraud, government, meat, USDA

The House just voted to repeal Country-of-Origin labeling (COOL) for beef, chicken, and pork.  The reason that this happened makes sense but the fact that it happened at all makes no sense.  But first, a little background.

COOL was first signed into law in 2002 as part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act as a voluntary labeling process.  Initially it was intended for the label on fresh beef, pork, and lamb products.  In 2003 it became mandatory to label COOL.  By 2008 the program was expanded and the current labeling requirement covers beef, veal, lamb, chicken, fish, shellfish, pork, goat, macadamia nuts, pecans, ginseng, peanuts, and perishable agricultural commodities.   For the purposes of this post I'm focusing on meat.

The intent of COOL was to clearly identify the chain of supply for fresh food.  If an item was destined for a processing plant where it would be significantly changed for example, turning fresh beef into a shepherd's pie, that process would remove the need for COOL.  The FDA's definition of processed is so broad that many foods were able to avoid using the label.

What does the label look like?  It's confusing.  There's no clear standards for a COO label.  It can be any size, font, color, location on the package.  There are standards about what it has to say but even there it can get a little confusing.  The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) which is part of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does publish a list of the standard terms acceptable for labeling which covers country names and their abbreviations as well as labeling options covering the chain of supply from birth to either slaughter or slaughter and import.  Prior to May 2013 even that was less than clear due to commingling.  This was the practice of allowing a single label for meat that has more than one country of origin as long as it was processed in the same slaughterhouse all on the same day.  Commingling is no longer allowed which should make for clearer labeling of where animals were born, raised, and slaughtered.

In theory the ability to know where your meat is coming from, where it was raised, is a good one.  In practice COOL does not work as advertised.  I believe part of this is due to the lack of consistency with labeling, a lack of clear understanding for the consumer, and too many loopholes.  I also believe that people really are paying more attention to where their food comes from, how it's raised, and where it is processed.  They want to know but are confused about the label due to inconsistent and unclear implementation.

The supply chain can sometimes become very convoluted.  As the Horsemeat Gate Scandal in the early part of 2013 highlighted, our food can travel a great distance before it lands on our dinner plate.  This unfortunate incident where horesemeat was fraudulently sold as beef only revealed the scale of travel for processing not for birth and rearing.  Obviously because it was processed it also would have been able to sidestep a COOL process had one been in place.

Horsemeat Gate also revealed a significant breakdown in the traceability of where our meat comes from.  The EU is currently investigating possible solutions to prevent this from happening again.  Something along the lines of COOL comes to mind, but only if it's properly implemented.  It's important to note that this was by no means a stand-alone incident, it was simply the biggest, most reported on episode.  There have also been incidents in China such as a 2013 investigation into the use of rat, mink, and fox meat being adulterated and sold as mutton.  And it doesn't seem to get better.  Just last year there was a recall in China of donkey meat contaminated with fox.  These incidents, by the way, give serious pause to the thought of eating any meat from China.  And yet the USDA has approved the import of American raised chickens to China for processing and then re-imported for sale. Currently the transportation costs for poultry are too expensive and it does not appear that any American producers are doing this.  Unfortunately, if they do, it may be hard to know because the chicken would come back in a processed form that would thereby allow it to avoid COOL.

So why is COOL on the chopping block?  In a single word, politics.  Canada and Mexico filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) claiming that COOL was discriminatory.  It is interesting to note that China is listed as one of the third parties in the complaint.  Canada contends that meatpackers offer lower prices for their products.  Not because they are lesser quality, but because the meat packers don't want to track and label the meat.  Canadian producers claim this has cost them nearly US$1 billion.  Unfortunately the WTO agreed with the plaintiffs.  This is the second time they've done so, the first time the US reworked COOL but apparently this was not perceived as being enough.  Now Canada and Mexico are threatening import taxes on certain products from the United States unless COOL is repealed.  Due to fears about trade the House has voted to dismantle COOL altogether.  The next step is to go before the Senate.

This is a huge mistake.  While the process of modification on any legislation is certainly challenging, the fact remains that this program was never thoroughly laid out or utilized to begin with.  Given the increasing issues with food contamination, adulteration, mis-labeling, and because of sourcing concerns it makes sense to keep COOL and more clearly identify the supply chain for our food.  Consumers want to know, and have the right to know, where their food comes from.

 

Pink Slime Clarified

by ingredients, questions, unhealthy, USDA
ground beef | photo: Rainer Zenz

One reader contacted me asking, “What cafeteria food is made with this pink slime stuff?  I've never heard about this and [my son] is now eating in the cafeteria at public school.  He took his lunch every day for four years but not this year.  I was just worried about the nutritional value of what he was eating but now, this is creepy.”

The quick answer to your question is any hamburger product is potentially made with pink slime.  The industry term is actually “lean finely textured beef.”  It is a meat-product made from scraps and trimmings, heated, de-fatted, and treated with ammonium hydroxide.

Current federal regulations say it does not need to be listed as an ingredient and reports suggest that it can be the basis for as much as 50-70 percent of “hamburger” meat.  Although many fast food restaurants are backing away from it in response to consumer disgust, the industry still wants to sell it because it is cheap and profitable.  The USDA has just approved it for school lunches.

News reports indicate that in response to growing outrage by consumers, schools will be allowed to opt out of receiving this product.  Not, however, until next Fall and not until after currently signed contracts have been fulfilled.  I assume there will be schools which will claim they didn't hear from enough families so they signed contracts and it will continue to be available in the school food for some time to come.

There is a petition being sent to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (started by Houston resident Bettina Elias Siegel who runs the blog The Lunch Tray) urging a ban of pink slime in schools.  Although I no longer have children in the public school system I am furious that my tax dollars are being spent to feed garbage to children and I have signed.

Current research shows that this product is also in grocery stores.  However, once again, because it is not required to be labeled you may not know.  As of today, March 20, 2012, the most recent list I have been able to find indicates the following:

Pink Slime NOT In Grocery Store:

Costco, Whole Foods, HEB, Ingles, and Publix

Pink Slime ALLOWED In Grocery Store:

Safeway, Stop&Shop, Kroger, Giant, Frys (I'm going to assume this includes Randalls since they are owned by Safeway)

Stores Not Responding About Pink Slime:

Walmart, Food Mart, Fred Meyer  (I'm going to assume this includes Sam's Club since they are owned by Walmart)

If your store is on the list for allowing or not responding the ONLY way to avoid purchasing this product is to purchase organic ground beef as it is, to the best of my knowledge, fillers are not allowed under the rules of organic production.

Pizza As A Vegetable

by lunch, unhealthy, USDA

My mind is reeling.  Last week Congress declared pizza a vegetable, again.  Having just returned home from the Wise Traditions conference of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF), where the focus was on whole, nourishing, traditional foods, to a this kind of absurdity is mind boggling.

I should not be surprised, this has been policy up until now but I confess I'm appalled to think that anyone in our government is stupid enough to believe that the tomato paste on a slice of pizza in any way counts as a serving of vegetables.  It's barely got any nutrition at all and comes wrapped in highly processed, chemically conditioned dough, covered with cheese that is no doubt loaded with rBST and antibiotics and possibly some preservative-laden pepperoni.  As the video above states, we, and our children, are having their taste buds conditioned to prefer unhealthy foods.

While this is nothing new, it is certainly getting a lot of press.  I hope it's also getting a lot of attention from a lot of parents.  This is not what you want to feed your kids to have them grow up strong and healthy.  I encourage everyone who cares about these issues to get involved:

raw milk rights

The Raw Milk Controversy: Health, Rights, And Industry Interest

by dairy, FDA, health, USDA, WAPF,
In case you missed it on the news, there was a raid of a store in California that was selling raw milk.  The owner and two suppliers were arrested and an unknown amount of raw milk was dumped. As I understand it this was a store that essentially functioned as a buying club. Consumers were required to be members before they could buy.  I will grant that the government claims the raid was in part because the store owner did not have the proper permits.  The owner apparently thought that because his operation was a private buying club not a public place of sale he did not need one. However leaving aside that permitting misunderstanding, this is not the first time that there have been raids against raw milk sellers; last May there was a raid in Pennsylvania and there have been many others.  For some reason it appears that raw milk and it's advocates have been targeted and are being dealt with by force.

The Benefits of Raw Milk and The Need for Legislation

I find this sort of thing disturbing for a number of reasons: 1.  According to the Weston A. Price Foundation's Real Milk Campaign there are lots of health benefits from drinking raw milk. If the government feels that raw milk is so much of a problem then create legislation for it.  But honestly Diet Coke is horrific to our health and there is no legislation there.  This over-reaching attack on one product seems excessive and misplaced; 2.  Those who want to drink raw milk should have access to it, they are aware of the risks and most of them are dealing with farmers that they trust to run a clean operation; those who don't want to drink raw milk don't have to.  I'm not sure how this is considered a problem, raw milk is always clearly labeled and is only sold to those who specifically search it out; 3.  The raids frequently go after raw milk producers or stores where they sell raw milk yet I am easily able to buy raw milk cheese and butter at my local big-chain grocery store.  In order to make these products the producer has to start with a raw milk product.  If the raw milk cheese producers can get approval to make and sell their product why not the base product?

Denial of Rights and The Influence of Industry on Legislation

I find all of this attention toward raw milk producers confusing in part because in other areas the governmental agencies in charge are clearly not doing their job.  In the recent ground turkey recall it has come to light that the USDA suspected a problem two weeks before it actually forced the recall.   The egg recall from last summer revealed that the owner had years of health and environmental violations.  And the peanut butter recall from two years ago showed that the company had serious health violations but was never shut down.  So major manufacturers appear to get a nod-and-a-wink while farmers and consumers are arrested and subjected to armed arrest? I feel that those who want to eat a certain way are being denied their rights.  Going back to point number one above, smoking kills yet we still sell cigarettes, alcoholism and drunk driving are a big problem yet we still sell alcohol.  I don't see raw milk as being harmful or costly to society yet it's being portrayed as this over-reaching evil product that kills.  I'm truly puzzled by this attitude.   Is it because cigarettes and alcohol and junk food generate big profits and those industries can afford to fund political legislators while small farmers and small groups of consumers can't?  And why does it seem that the efforts of those agencies which are supposed to be protecting our food supply are being unevenly thrown against a minority population that wants nothing more than what they consider to be a healthy, nutritious food?  I know many people have started to buy cow shares in order to preserve their right to have access to raw milk but even that appears to be under assault. I have come to believe that raw milk is the next dairy battle.  Although I remember drinking it when I was a kid I don't recall it being popular or easily accessible and I certainly don't remember news headlines about it.  Now that it is more available and more in demand it has suddenly become a problem? When organic milk became more publicized for it's lack of hormones, antibiotics and pesticides the dairy industry pushed back hard and tried to block labeling that stated milk was "rBGH free" because this would cut into their profits (note: rBHG is sometimes referred to as rBST).  They did win a legislative ruling that milk which was labeled rBGH free also had to carry a statement that there was no difference between milk with and without the hormone.  This was later shown to be not true with one study reporting rBGH milk had "Fat levels, particularly long chain saturated fatty acids incriminated in heart disease, are increased, while levels of a thyroid hormone enzyme are increased."  For many people the only way to ensure added-hormone free milk was to purchase organic which is legislated not to contain it. I will make a side note here - just because a cow is organically raised does not mean that it is not still in some sort of a feedlot operation. The organic label does not automatically ensure fat, happy, grass-fed cows regardless of the cute pictures (which is sad because milk from grass fed cows is better for you).  Organic simply means that cow is not fed GMO feed, not shot up with artificial hormones and not pumped up with antibiotics.  If you want grass-fed, free-ranging cows you need to either raise them yourself or get to know a farmer who raises their animals that way. Now that manufacturers have lost the organic dairy war and more organic dairy products are arriving on the shelf regularly, the big producers are getting into the business themselves.  I'm sure much of this is profit driven.  If people are willing to pay more for organic dairy and you can't legislate it away then you might as well join in.  But raw dairy is different.  It doesn't travel well unless it's been turned into something like cheese or butter.  That means a shift back to local smaller scale farming.  I guess that's somehow seen as a problem.  

Mom-advocate

by family, lunch, unhealthy, USDA
Social change happens slowly. Sometimes it's difficult because the organizational mountain that is entrenched does not want to be moved.  With the second season of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution well underway we are once again seeing the challenges that many parents face trying to get better choices for their children at school.  As this video from the last meeting for the National School Lunch Program shows, manufacturers and lobbyists are extremely prevalent (although not always very visible) in making school food decisions.  These standards are only revised once every five years; with this highly politicized structure, our children are the ones who suffer the consequences.
A friend of mine, P.W., shared her recent frustrations with her school district, the mixed messages kids are getting, and the challenges of helping adolescents to better understand nutrition and health so that they can make better choices.
In order to protect privacy names and identifying information have been removed. These letters were edited for clarity. 
P.W. wrote to her school district:
Our daughter saw “Super Size Me”  today in health class at school and it really made an impression on her. Talk about NOT practicing what you teach! Good nutrition is so highly tied to academic success and yet my daughter's options for a school lunch are absolutely dreadful. Our daughter has access to multiple fried foods with a Gatorade every day. Your lunch program conditions them to a high fat, high calorie junk food diet. The lack of nutrition causes them to crave more, as well as affecting their overall development. I do not understand why the schools are able to teach the 
horrors of a junk food diet and then NOT offer them a sensible lunch that will provide the nourishment they need. It grieves me to think that this may be the only decent meal some of these kids have each day and it is junk!


This is something that has bothered my husband and I since our children were in grade
school. To see this hypocrisy is more than I can take.


I am certain that you must know what a good nutritional diet really looks like. I can only assume that there are other factors that are causing the schools to fail our children this way. What do I need to do to help you fix this problem?
[In order to protect the words and privacy of the Health Teacher I am summarizing their responses]
The teacher wrote to my friend explaining that there has not been a fryer in the school kitchen for 10 years, that all hot food is either steamed or baked. The school does have a conveyor oven that gives a crisp texture without frying.


The school is not allowed to serve any product over 23 grams of fat and follow strict portion sizes.
The nutritional plan has changed to allow for higher fiber, lower sugar, lower fat foods.
Cucumber slices and green bell peppers are offered during the week, fresh fruit is available on each school line every day and beverage choices available daily are water, 100% fruit juice and low fat milk.
The teacher remarks that there is a challenge in providing healthy menu choices that the kids will want to eat within their budget.
P.W. was invited to research the nutritional information of the food online at the school's website. The Health Teacher also suggested that the child should be educated at home about portion sizes and healthier choices.
P.W. responded:
It is encouraging that our daughter is learning about better nutrition,
 recognizes the value of fresh produce and is making an effort to make better
 choices. I appreciate her having access to fresh fruits and vegetables 
at school. It is also somewhat comforting that you are limiting the amount 
of fat and using a cooking process that avoids frying. However when I researched 
the menus and nutritional information on the Parent Access site, the hot
meals are all basically junk food and do not have much variety.
I sympathize 
with your challenge of balancing a budget with high product and labor costs,
 but I believe that we should offer a better and more varied menu and it can
 be done without breaking the budget. My concern is that the junk food
 offered daily, even though it is a “healthier” variety of junk food, clearly
 needs to be a small percentage of our diet and yet it is the majority of 
what is offered. Although you are making an effort to serve lower
 fat/higher fiber items, they still have the appearance, taste and texture of
 high fat. I don't see that they have much access to a home-style hot meal 
that isn't highly processed or available on a daily basis.
From the menu, it
 doesn't appear that much is made from scratch, much less from local products 
and it largely looks to be heat and eat. Preservatives and chemicals are just
 as much an issue as the empty calories of fast food.  From what I hear,
 much of the fruit offered is not fresh either, which translates into a much 
lower nutritional product. I also don't understand why our kids are only 
offered 1% and skim milk, when whole milk would be a better choice for most. 
Adding a full fat live yogurt to the menu would be a great addition, as well 
as seasonal melons, berries, grapes, and citrus. 


The other issue I have is that my daughter is on 4th lunch. This means that by
 the time she gets to have lunch, the cafeteria is out of certain things, 
others are over cooked or burned, or the lines are so long that time 
prohibits her from even eating some days. This cannot be considered acceptable.


In this age group, peer pressure and the school 
experience trumps whatever is being taught at home. It is a huge challenge 
for us to feed our kids well at home when their taste buds become conditioned to a fast food diet when attending school. Years ago, I had the
 privilege of being in a school kitchen that prepared food and distributed it 
to all the area schools. This district must be large enough to be able to support 
such a venture and be able to better utilize seasonal and local products, as well as to create a fresh high quality meal for our kids and staff. You have an 
enormous responsibility to our kids and I respect your challenges and 
appreciate your response, but I can't say that it provides me the assurances
 I was looking for and hope that a new approach is being considered.


P.W. Wrote me privately and shared:




Another thing that really upsets me is that when I was in school, there was a wash basin for the kids to wash their hands when entering the cafeteria. None of the schools here have that and supposedly, the teachers are taking the kids by the bathroom to wash up before lunch, but I don’t believe it. They have staph and other contagious diseases running rampant all the time and good hygiene is essential. There should be a state law that requires hand washing before meals in schools.
My take on all of this:
I frequently find myself very frustrated by school districts serving fatty, sugary, nutritionally deficient foods and then claiming that it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children to eat better and make better choices.  Many families that I know do teach their children these things and do provide much better choices at home.  However in the school environment there are not too many children who are going to choose from the highly limited often not-really-that-healthy option over french fries and pizza.  I believe the school has ice cream and cookies and fast food options because those are the more profitable items.

I know several children who are vegetarians and have heard disturbing stories of the distasteful looking or even empty salad bars that the cafeteria staff refused to replace or refill leaving that child with no viable option.

Earlier in the year I had the opportunity to speak with my local Great Harvest Bread company.  They had received an opportunity to bring whole grain bread, preservative free sandwiches into the school system.  However after a short period of time their contract was reduced to four schools and cut back in the number of days that they were allowed to provide.  They believe part of the reason for this reduction was because the school wanted to bring in Chick-Fil-A more times per day as that was a more profitable option for the school district.  Great Harvest was not allowed to send notes home to parents letting them know that this healthier sandwich option was available.

I believe it is an unfortunate truism that most children, even those who have received more nutritional education at home, will opt for high fat, high sugar foods because they are enticing.  By having an overabundance of these products the school virtually guarantees that they can feed children the least nutritious, cheapest foods and make large profits.

In defense of the school system I do agree that they have a difficult job trying to feed as many children as they need to with the minimal federal dollars allowed.  However this should not be an excuse to allow Pizza Hut, McDonalds and Chick-Fil-A lines in a school cafeteria.

I believe another part of the problem is that school districts simply do not want parents to be involved in the decision making or to have input into the nutrition served at the cafeteria.  School lunches have become a profit center, if not for the school then at least for the food service corporations.  Moves such as this one in Chicago disallowing lunches to be brought from home make me highly suspicious of the intent.  I believe, unfortunately, that many schools are marketing to a captive audience and can therefore preach one thing and do another.

I applaud P.W. and many others like her all around the country who are rallying on behalf of the kids.  Change is happening all across the country.  From the Edible Schoolyard to the Renegade Lunch Lady, Two Angry Moms, Better School Food, Local Food Dude and more, we need to push for the children to have decent nutrition and take back our cafeterias.

Food And Money

by budget, garden, grocery, pantry, preserving, produce, shopping guides, USDA
The USDA is predicting an increase in all foods for 2011; depending on the item it is expected to range from 2% for things like sugars and cereals to as high as 5.5% for dairy products.  If you are interested you can see the chart here.  Part of the increase is due to the higher costs for corn and soybeans.  Remember, it's a cycle, what we eat needs to eat.  I actually anticipate that the costs for meat will be much higher than currently predicted due to more people deciding to purchase meat and dairy that is organic to avoid the GMO contamination of corn and soy.  These are two of the most heavily GMO crops but our government doesn't identify that so the only way to avoid it is to purchase organic.
There are a number of ways that you can save money on your food bill in the upcoming year:

Plant a vegetable garden.  Using your space for edible gardening can be attractive and save you food dollar costs.  During both World Wars Victory Gardens were planted in every yard and public park all across the United States.  It's a concept that I think many people are rediscovering.
 Even if you buy a tomato plant at the garden center and plant it in a pot you will still get far more produce than if you purchase your tomatoes at the grocery store.  And believe me, they'll taste better.  We've just re-arranged our side yard and brought in a load of organic dirt, working on creating a better vegetable garden.  We've also put in herbs and a few fruits in the yard.  
Here are a couple of books that I think are great for backyard vegetable gardening
Mel Bartholomew is the authority on getting the most out of the smallest space. If you have any gardening space available, even just one square foot, you'd be amazed at what you can grow.
Rosalind Creasy shows you how to incorporate beauty and function in your garden by making your landscape edible.


If you live in an apartment or don't have access to a plot of ground you can consider container gardening.  Even one  reasonable size container can grow a lot of tomatoes and basil or peas and mint or…read the book.


And there seems to be an increase in folks growing food on rooftops and terraces.


If you shop at warehouse stores frequently the prices are good but the quantities are huge.  Don't buy more than you need, after all 50 pounds of potatoes is a lot, especially in a family like ours with just three people in the house.  Just because the price per pound is low, if you wind up throwing out rotten potatoes (or anything else) you've just lost money.  If you really want the item consider saving money by asking family, friends and/or neighbors if they want to share these items with you.  This way you'll both save money and there will be less waste.
And speaking of waste…


According to Jonathan Bloom, author of American Wasteland, Americans, on average, throw away half of their food.  Half!  That's a mind-boggling concept.  Knowing, really knowing exactly what is in your pantry is a great start, learning how to be mindful of it is the next step.  Jonathan has a lot of great information on his blog to help you avoid food waste.  Don't want to read the book (although I highly recommend it)?  There's an app for that — yup, a company called UniByte has created an app to help you better manage your food purchases so you will waste less.
If you do wind up with food waste, and some of it is inevitable such as potato peelings, egg shells, coffee grounds, and the like, consider composting.  This is also environmentally friendly in that the food scraps become usable dirt instead of going to the landfill where they cannot be used to grow more food.  

A little off the beaten path but for those who have access, inclination, and a sharp eye there is always the idea of foraging.  According to my friend Merriweather it is important to remember a couple of key points:
1.  Know what you are foraging.  Many edibles have an inedible counterpart that looks almost the same.  He points out that these inedibles wind up in either the “kill your kid dead” or “keep you on the toilet sick” category so it's important to be very sure of your identifications.
2.  Forage responsibly using appropriate tools to cut and dig rather than ripping and shredding.  This allows the plants to continue to grow and is the best way to forage.
3.  Make sure you have permission. Here in Texas, and probably elsewhere, plant rustling is against the law.  Getting a huge fine for public trespassing or theft is not going to help your grocery bill any.
While Merriweather sadly does not yet have a published book there are some great foraging books out there:


     

     

     


And last, but certainly not least, another way to save money at the grocery store is to learn to make your own.  One of my favorites is making my own granola which definitely saves money over the store-bought versions.  You can make your own pudding, soups, muffins, snacks, spice mixes, beverages, pickles, jams and much much more.  Currently I am fermenting kimchi on my kitchen counter, starting another batch of kefir and have just finished making another batch of bean sprouts.  These require very little hands on time and save quite a few dollars while providing healthful foods for my family.  Making your own has a number of benefits:

1.  It will save you money
2.  You will avoid extra packaging and commercial waste
3.  You will avoid additives, preservatives and chemicals (which you don't need in your diet anyway)
4.  Often when you make your own you make smaller batches so you are less likely to waste it
So here's to a new year, a new grocery budget, and new possibilities for your health.