Mega-Store Oasis Emerges in a Food Desert

From my apartment in Washington D.C., I can walk less than 5 minutes in any direction and end up at a grocery store. On a daily basis, the question for me is: which grocery store would I like to go to today—the closest? The cheapest? The one with the best selection and variety? Or the one in which I can eat samples as I shop? (That’s the one I end up at, most often) I have this choice to make each time I run out of milk. And across the same city, there are people who don’t have a grocery store to go to, let alone a choice.

“Food Deserts” is a buzzword that essentially means an area where a large number of people lack access to a grocery store. The idea of having access to a grocery store is the idea that one has options for food, and beyond that, healthy options: fresh and whole foods — no, not the store, but actual whole foods such as produce, grains, etc. Access to a Mickey-D’s or a gas station quick-mart, doesn’t cut it when it comes to eating healthy foods every day.

I was recently sent a link to a USDA site through an article on the DCist.com, where one can see the food desert areas mapped out in any region in the country. It shocked me to see the shot of the entire country and the large areas that are considered food deserts. Then to zoom in to see food deserts in the neighborhoods that I know so well. Though it is a small percentage of the population, it covers a larger area than I expected. This also is attributed to the fact that food deserts often fall in areas with fewer people living.

The DCist writes about food deserts in the city mostly due to a rise in awareness over the latest controversy of potential Wal-Mart’s popping up in the areas lacking with access supermarkets. The superstore not only offers cheap options for just about everything, including food products, but it also offers jobs. Food deserts, have limited options for healthy food, and this limitation is damaging to the area’s residents. In some ways, offering a store like Wal-Mart is seen as a “silver bullet” option to help alleviate the results of a food desert.

Bringing in a store like Wal-Mart eliminates the choice for people, but at the same time in areas where the choices are limited, it offers at least an option. I personally grew up in an anti-Wal-Mart environment (small town, pro-local business, and yes, a bit elitist). In fact, I can probably count on one (okay, maybe two) hand the times I have actually entered a Wal-Mart in my life — let alone actually bought something there. Not only do I have an aversion to their poor working conditions and worker rights, but I also disagree with the outcome when Wal-Mart becomes the only options for shopping with competing businesses wiped out.

I don’t think that Wal-Mart is the only answer to solving a problem of a food desert, in fact far from it. Though it offers affordable food, without competition, I think that it can create different and damaging controversy in the future for the shoppers who rely solely on the Super store for everything. The controversy raises is the issue of food deserts and brings awareness to the situation. With this, further actions can be under taken to solve it — affordable farmers markets, options for SNAP food benefits use at grocery stores that otherwise would be too pricey, or an additional grocery store (not a mega-store) in the area to drive up competition and drive down prices. Adding one store that whips out the need for all other stores is not the answer to eliminating a food desert. This current controversy over Wal-Mart, however, should begin a discussion of why it is entering the arena, looking at the issue of food deserts and other options the city or neighborhood have to contemplate.

The One, Necessary, Blog Post About Julia

Julia Child always kind of bothered me. I know this is sinful to say. Though I wanted to love the legend, it was the voice. I do fully appreciate the excited and honor she brought back to the kitchen. And we all know how hard a Julia Child meal can be, and as she makes it look so easy, we think that we can do it too. I thought so too.

On a recent trip back to my parents home, I decided I wanted duck, not only that, I wanted to try a Julia Child duck recipe from her book that my sister had bought as a Christmas gift. So, as a I decided that one recipe wouldn’t be enough, I made it a Julia Child day—my Mom and I made hollandaise sauce to go on our salmon eggs Benedict for Brunch, for the evening meal, we made Duck a l’Orange and even a chocolate mousse for desert.

I think the hollandaise sauce may have been the easiest. (Admittedly, we did kind of cheat by using the blender, but Julia said we could!) The duck was more of challenge — although I let my Dad take the lead on that one —and the chocolate mousse was the most challenging. We had to beat the mixture first on it’s own, then over simmering water, and then over cold water. Really, Julia? Besides the fact we had to get an extension cord out so the beaters would reach the stove-top, we made quite the disaster after getting simmering water (and cold water) all over ourselves, and that’s not to mention the eggs we were beating. I couldn’t help thinking, that my Mom’s chocolate mouse recipe was so much easier and actually better. (It could also be because it does not call for a stick and half of butter.)

It was not that I didn’t enjoy spending the day cooking at home, because I certainly did, but I think it was the frustration of cooking something that was, in my mind, unnecessarily complicated, and in the end not worth the complications. The duck was good, though I have had better duck. The mouse was actually too rich for my taste, as was the hollandaise sauce from the morning. Perhaps my palette is simply not accustomed to the French cuisine, though I recall enjoying it immensely when I have had it. Or perhaps I am not used to eating that much butter on a daily basis. Or maybe, I just am not a great French chef yet. (I have a feeling it is the latter.)

I will say, after attempting a Julia Child recipe; I do appreciate her even more now, despite the voice. (Perhaps it was because I couldn’t hear her voice while reading the book?) It is a joy to read her book aloud while cooking, because if you are the slightest bit crazy as I am, you will begin conversations with her, i.e. “Julia, why are you telling me to add another stick of butter?”

Overall, I think the best thing about cooking with Julia Child, is that you are pushed out of your comfort zone with attempting to cook something extraordinary. Now, in my little experience, this will probably fail and you will get something decent. But the point is that Julia was pushed out of comfort zone, and she did fail at first, though she eventually achieved the extraordinary though the sharing of her success through chance, risk and even failure. And that, annoying voice and all, is why Julia Child continues to gain admiration from generations.

The Sweeter Side of Lent

I should probably start by letting you know that I was raised Protestant. Lent is a season of reflection, but for the most part this is done at Church every Sunday; therefore, it was never a part of my Easter tradition to give something up or do something extra for the season of Lent. As a child, I was particularly happy to not keep Lent; as all my friends gave up chocolate, swearing, or what have you, I casually cussed and indulged without a thought otherwise. However this year I decided that I wanted to give something up for the 40 days of Lent.

I didn’t shoot for the moon. I knew giving up “sex, drugs, and rock roll” were all off the table, so I decided to go for sweets. I had originally thought I would just give up chocolate, as it really is the only sweet I love, but I decided to do it up and give up desserts. I gave myself one small tiny loophole: I didn’t give up sugar completely, so things like breakfast food did not qualify as sweets and were therefore fair game (not donuts and danishes, but breads or muffins were OK). Also cocktails, mixed drinks, and diet soda were considered strictly as beverages rather than sweets, in my mind. (Despite the fact I knew each Margarita I drank was probably loaded with more sugar than some cookies.)

I wanted to mix up the norm, give up the habit of the after dinner treats, and not give in to every craving or spur of the moment instinct to mindlessly eat a piece of candy while sitting at my desk. It was about putting the focus on one thing, even if to avoid it, so I would think about it. I wanted to practice that conscious eating that I always go on about.

Wolfing down a quick snack on-the-go is one thing when we are all in a hurry. (Although I do try not to do that.) But taking the candy from bowl, unnecessarily and then not even taking the time to enjoy it, is a habit that I want to break. Not the habit of eating junk — mind you, I think junk food can certainly have a time and place, i.e. comfort food — but rather the habit of senseless snacking on junk.

Now that I am on Day Two of post-Lent glee and my body is protesting the sudden intake of sugar. While heightened sugar consumption is a health issue, it is also a mental issue of treating food as something different then what it actually is: nourishment and energy. I didn’t give up sweets because I think there is anything bad about them, though moderation is still a good thing to practice, rather I think sweets are something to be appreciated, enjoyed and limited.

A New Light for Modern Day Hunters and Gatherers

I heard a story on NPR one recent morning about foraging. It jolted me out of my slumber once I heard the words “edible plants in Washington D.C.” Apparently, this guy, Sam Thayer, is the modern day – urban, no less – hunter-and-gatherer. Though he hails from Portland, Oregon, he can even find a meal, quite literally, on the streets of D.C. As I set out for my morning run, passing all of the (finally!) Spring foliage, I thought about it: “So, how many of these plants are actually edible?” More importantly, what if they all were edible?

As Spring approaches, I have wondered about the green we see around the city. Do we pass by a tree everyday that would actually make a great addition to my sandwich for lunch? Or is it just a pretty tree? But, then I began to wonder, if they are not edible, why couldn’t they be? The urban environment is not known for their food production, but rather their food imports. Urban gardens are beginning to pop up around the city, neighborhood gardens, school gardens, and even rooftop gardens are a more common occurrence. However, I began to think, what kind of opportunity do we find to discover some kind of “organically” grown food in this city? DC is a rather green city compared to others, so what if it was actually an edible city, too?

Apparently, I was somewhat correct in my musings. There is organically grown produce in the District. We are just not aware of it and perhaps it’s not exactly what we were all expecting. No, we do not have fruit trees on the corner of Penn Ave, and no, root vegetables do not grow on the National Mall. (Wouldn’t that be crazy though!) But, according to this story on NPR, Mr. Thayer has managed to find leafy greens in our very own city. And though the station’s website provides a nice recipe idea for a wild-greens frittata, the idea of finding food growing on the city streets does seem a little strange to we yuppies.

But why not? What if cities were planned around producing our own food? Rather than a couple of trees here or there, plant a few trees that produce edible fruits and vegetables; rather than bushes lining the sidewalks, line hedges of edible plants. I am sure that there is some sort of law to prohibit this in D.C., obstruction of the peace, or the concern that homeless people would have the option of finding food growing on the streets rather than digging through trashcans. However, it’s something to consider. If the purpose of a tree is to create a nice atmosphere, isn’t a tree that provides atmosphere and nutrition even more valuable?

The Non-Essential Form of Nutrient

Recently, I am reminded of the importance of nutrients. It’s not enough to count calories people, but now we have to ensure we are getting the right nutrients as well. Yes, those vitamins and minerals dutifully listed on the back of each package. I worry because I think that like calorie counting, people can get carried away with counting and striving for the perfect percentage of nutrients without the calories.

Focusing on more numbers and equations when it comes to food, rather than focus on the food the natural energy and nutrients it offers, is some what bothersome to me. Not it mention that it opens the market up, as essential nutrients are sold in supplemental form because everyone is convinced they must meet their 100% for the day. Ensuring that the essential nutrients are consumed one way or the other, often in supplemental form, seems to lead the idea that those pills, teas, or otherwise can replace food.

I went through a nutrient supplement phase in college as food tends to be more available in large quantities of greasy snacks, so took make up for the lack of healthy food, supplements had to be taken. But once I left school property I was able to shop on my own, spend more time thinking about choosing food, and led to more time preparing food, and finally more time eating the food; rather than every night make the quick decision at the dinning hall for a side of tater tots for that pizza. So I stopped worrying about if I had met the quota for the day, and I just bought more foods that I knew already had the needed nutrients. Vitamin supplement I think can be very helpful in some cases, but taken out of hand in others when one falls into that, more often than not, phase of self-diagnosing oneself with supplements.

So these days, when I read in the paper on the way to work that Mothers lack the essential nutrients, and see the ads telling us to “just take a multivitamin,” I try to keep in mine that I food is often the best way to consume the essential nutrients. I think that often ensure that we meet our daily quota we need, it can be done on a more general scale rather than worry about meeting percentage for the day. These days how can you not get the right nutrients, it’s all over the packaging, not to mention enhanced in certain foods.

It is important to understand which foods have what nutrients and base your diet around that information; to know what foods carry the essential nutrients and to eat that balanced meal in order to consume a substantial amount. I tend to believe that if one pays attention to what your body needs (not to be confused with what your mind thinks it wants), it will give them a better picture of what they should eat rather than a calculated formula. There are foods that are okay to eat a few extra bites, and there are those that you maybe should keep at bay. However, I feel that a lot of knowing which foods to eat is intuitive and without getting bogged down with the details of more numbers. Eating a balanced meal in terms of those old food groups we learned about in school, but even a more basic rule of thumb is to eat different foods, different colors, and different origins.

The (Un)Appetizing Side of Meat

I have continued to question the American reaction to meat. As perhaps, avid reader, you may recall, I am not a vegetarian, nor am I averse to trying the slightly strange dish of animal parts on the table. Even with all this said, I am still curious as to why, in the American culture, we generally find it appalling to associate meat with the living animal. It is a status symbol, to be sure, but we prefer that is hidden away. We prefer to say, “I’ll take the Filet Mignon,” rather than “Just bring me a hunk-o-cow-meat.”

Recently, I received a text from a friend who was traveling in the Middle East this past week, asking me if I was “ready for a food idea?” He messaged me a photo he had taken at a market of a hanging animal carcass. (Being on the small screen of my phone, I still am unsure which animal it actually was, but my first guess would be lamb.) It was not the first time I had seen this, in picture or in person. In fact while I was traveling abroad, it was a very common occurrence.

Out at dinner the other night, my friend and I were exploring the Pizza menu, a little perplexed at some of the ingredients; we questioned the waiter, “What is Lomo?” He answered a bit vaguely, “Uh, it’s a cut of pork … I’m not sure exactly where from on the animal.” With that description we both slightly cringed and immediately agreed on the three-cheese pizza option.

My first thought about our waiter was that he wasn’t very good. I mean if you want to sell something, then sell it! (I’m thinking something like: “Well, it’s similar to bacon,” is a good start!) My second thought was why we were both so turned off by his description of the pork, he didn’t say anything inherently unpleasant about it, but rather simply attempted to describe it for exactly what it was – a part of an animal, and for some reason we found that rather unappetizing.

I got to thinking about the animal carcass text message on my phone, which also airs on the side of unappetizing. It does not bother me to think about or even see meat in, how shall we say this, it’s animal form; however, it does not strike that appetizing note for me either.

Perhaps because we are so accustomed to our food coming in packaging that screams, “Eat me, buy me,” that when it is not presented in that obvious manner, we immediately assume that it is not any good. I am left to question whether the culprit is in fact the marketing of the product. Marketing tactics have taught us that meat comes in clean, bright packing rather than a living animal. Furthermore we have become so reliant on the market to direct us in the way we need to go, that when it is not an obvious direction, we are thrown off and left to question the legitimacy of the product itself. But, we can’t give all the credit to the market; perhaps the market is simply feeding off the consumer preference. So, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Greener Rules and Regulations

My roommate told me the other day, “You are a selective recycler.” My gut reaction was to be immediately offended by this comment. What do you mean I am selective! I have always considered myself to be such a friend to the environment. (I mean, come on, my favorite color is even green!) “Well, you choose to recycle when it is convenient, and you don’t always completely grasp what can and cannot be recycled.” Okay, I suppose she had a point.

I tend to assume that everything can be recycled, so, I throw it all in there. I place blame on my upbringing for this one. First of all, where I grew up, we didn’t have trash pick-up, rather we had to take the truck full of trash to the dump every week. This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill trash dump, it was a transfer station, so it was much more environmentally friendly where nearly anything could be recycled. In our pick-up truckload, we usually had one trashcan and the rest could be separated out and recycled. Consequently, I grew up with the mentality that anything could be recycled.

Furthermore, when I moved away to go to university I learned that while the school had recycle bins on campus, everything was actually combined and then re-separated. (Apparently, university students cannot be trusted to sort their own waste.) Sure enough, if you are treated like you’re an incompetent child, we all start to fall into that assumption. I stopped worrying about which bin my empty bottles fell, because hey, someone else would take care of it anyway.

That leads us to present day. I find myself falling back into the old habit of either trying to recycle everything or dumping it all in one place, with the assumption that it is sorted again. I am, of course, sadly mistaken, and my roommate is correct.

As I toss my milk caps into the recycling bin, I knew the next step for me was to fill in my knowledge gaps and actually learn about recycling laws in DC. After all, I know that I can’t be the only one who can’t recite the rules of recycling on command. After a quick Google search, I quickly learned that all commercial buildings (including residential apartments) are in fact required to recycle, and are subject to fines up to $1000 if they are note compliant. On the District’s government website all facts are listed out in a nice PDF document, with all required recycled items are clearly listed: all paper products, aluminum, steel, tin, brown, green and clear glass. But, get this, plastic food containers and bottles are recommended recycled product, but are still optional. This last point seems odd to me, as I feel that plastic bottles are some of the more common recycled products after paper products. It is also noted that all containers must be cleaned without waste: food, paint, or chemicals, etc before recycling. Yes, it specifically notes that pizza boxes are not recyclable due to the food residue.

Now that I have my facts straight, the next step here is to follow those guidelines. And, if I choose not to, well that’s where the fines come in—so perhaps the city will start enforcing those, and if people don’t start (looking at myself here!) following the rules, at least the city could make some cash off of our laziness and ignorance.

If you live in the DC area, check it out for yourself: http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/Services+on+Your+Block/Recycling.