2008年1月28日 星期一

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler


Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

Gary Kazanjian for The New York Times

HERE’S THE BEEF This feed lot in in California can accommodate up to 100,000 head of cattle.

Published: January 27, 2008

A SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.

Skip to next paragraph
Gary Kazanjian for The New York Times

Beef cattle raised for the Harris Ranch Beef Company, Coalinga, Calif.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in livestock production.”

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough.

Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources .

What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management, for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research Institute, says, “There should be investment in livestock breeding and management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level of meat.”

Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel.

Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.

Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.”

But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of the chicken.

Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure “lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.)

These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”

Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings?

Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies), though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts, including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough to affect demand in the United States.

“I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices, but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.”

If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.

Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees “a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet.”

It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact. “The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or less perfectly aligned,” he said.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.”

In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality.

If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.

Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan.

Mark Bittman, who writes the Minimalist column in the Dining In and Dining Out sections, is the author of “How to Cook Everything Vegetarian,” which was published last year. He is not a vegetarian.

2008年1月25日 星期五

Zagat Survey :Tim and Nina's excellent culinary adventure

Zagat Survey was established by Tim and Nina Zagat in 1979 as a way to collect and correlate the ratings of restaurants by diners. For their first guide, covering New York City, the Zagats surveyed their friends. As of 2005, the Zagat Survey included 70 cities, with reviews based on the input of 250,000 individuals reporting over the years. In addition to restaurants, Zagat guides rate hotels, nightlife and shopping, music, movies, theater and golf. The guides are sold in book form, as software for personal digital assistants and mobile phones, and by paid subscription on the Web. Car manufacturer Honda included Zagat information in the GPS-based navigation systems in some of their models available in the United States, including the Acura MDX and Honda Accord.

在紐約,哪本書最暢銷?不是聖經,而是另本美食「聖經」:「查加餐廳指南」(Zagat NYC Restaurant Survey)。

提姆‧查加(Tim Zagat)和他太太妮娜(Nina Zagat)微笑中帶著驕傲,對幾十名各國記者說,他們出版的查加指南,過去一年在紐約賣了六十五萬本,過去十年紐約最暢銷的書「查加指南年年第一」。


提姆說,他與妮娜都是紐約客,常在紐約吃美食,純粹因著嗜好,想評鑑餐廳好壞,而在一九七九年創立「查加調查」(Zagat Survey),但不同於其他美食評鑑,查加強調「食客民主」,他們是請常上餐廳的成百上千名食客(現在多達數萬食客),一起來評比,統計每人意見後,依食物、裝潢、服務三項打分數,每項最高三十分,而不是由某一、二名美食專家說了算。





查加最大競爭者是米其林,提姆自認就全球銷售量而言,查加「遠高於米其林」,僅在法國落居其後;更要緊的是評鑑內容,提姆認為,「米其林指南」未提供餐廳 食物、裝潢、服務等評比,僅是籠統的一星、二星、三星;查加則在三評鑑項目每項內再列一分至三十分,使消費者得到最完整的評鑑,「高下立判」。

查加仍有美中不足之處。譬如對中國菜就顯然功夫不夠。在2007年紐約餐廳評鑑中,最頂級餐廳共選出廿五家,法國餐廳占九家,日本餐廳占六家,唯獨沒有中 餐廳。固然,全北美最好中餐在溫哥華、洛杉磯、多倫多等地,紐約還排不上前三名;但中餐在紐約畢竟仍有一席之地,連前廿五名都擠不上,遠遜於日本料理,有 些說不過去,查加的「多數民主票決」,還是令華人不大服氣。

ザガット・サーベイ(Zagat Survey)は、1979年にアメリカ合衆国で創刊されたレストラン・ガイド。

ニューヨークに住むティム・ザガット(Tim Zagat)、ニーナ・ザガット(Nina Zagat)夫婦によって創刊された。現在では、米国を中心に世界の70都市のガイドが発行されている。日本では、1996年に横川潤により「ザガット ニューヨーク」が初めて日本語に翻訳された。その後、CHINTAIによって1999年に日本版の発行が開始され、現在は東京版と関西版が出版されている。


Weekend Beat: Tim and Nina's excellent culinary adventure



The Zagats--Tim and Nina--have a little test they like to spring on guests to their table: a salver piled with fruits--among them a mango, a persimmon, strawberries, peach, pear and a Japanese tangerine.

"Now consider carefully," Tim says, "and tell us which is the best."

If you've ever had recourse to the Zagat Survey--the "burgundy bible" among restaurant guides--then the answer is easy.

"That's right," Tim says. "There is no one best--they all are. It's the variety and chance to choose that's important."

Lounging over espresso after a long lunch, the Zagats take in the view from their top floor suite at the newly built Peninsula Tokyo hotel. It's their eighth visit to Tokyo and the skyline ought to look more or less the same--save for a handful of new towers. Yet on the ground--culinarily speaking--Tokyo is new terrain.

The Zagats are here to pitch the 2008 Tokyo edition of their survey. The first Tokyo edition was published in 1999. But now Tokyo is in a buzz--or in shock--from the recent arrival of a competitor--a certain French restaurant guide that the couple throughout the course of this interview refers to only as "them."

"Them," of course, is the Tokyo edition of the Michelin Guide. The first 120,000 copies of the Japanese edition appeared last November and sold out almost immediately. Filled with glossy photos and superlatives, the guide anointed Tokyo as the world's capital of fine dining. It awarded a record 191 stars to 150 restaurants here, compared to 65 stars given out in Paris and 39 issued to eateries in New York.

Trained lawyers, the Zagats are reluctant to comment on the publication until Tim finally lets the cat out of the bag.

"I have just one question,'' he says. "How can their reviewers ever show their faces in Paris again?"

"Now enough about them," Nina cuts in. "And let's talk about us."

Tim is 67 and Nina 65, and both are New Yorkers--but not the abrasive type. There's a newlywed air about them, although they've been together for 42 years.

They met and married at Yale Law School, where Nina "had more fun studying with him than dating other men," and where Tim fell in love when he "discovered that she knew how to cook."

Nina worked at a powerhouse Wall Street law firm for 24 years and learned her kitchen moves at Le Cordon Bleu in Paris. Tim once chaired New York's marketing and tourism promotion arm. When he was stabbed a few years ago on the way to a play, he kept the incident out of the papers--to avoid bad PR for the city. He once wanted to be a politician, but judged himself "too thin-skinned for it."

Their name rhymes with "hat" and their dining and leisure Zagat Survey to 88 cities, corporate tie-ups and subscription Web sites could be worth $200 million--according to stories published last week about their desire to sell. It used to be a hobby, and they don't actually write the surveys themselves.

"The idea behind the survey is the same as the one behind democracy,'' explains Tim, the talkative one. He compares the surveys to a vote-counting machine. "It's the same as letting a country be run by the people who like to participate in it."

The story goes back a 1979 dinner party. The couple came up with the idea of listing and rating New York restaurants they liked and asked their friends to do the same--who asked their friends to do likewise. The Zagats stapled the results together for everyone to share, and it became a Wall Street hit. It grew, and when it started costing them money, they tried selling the idea to a publisher. No one bit. They decided to do it themselves, and started raking in $500,000 a month within three years.

Today, there are 300,000 participants in the survey, Tim says, so that it really is a populist manifesto. Yet the survey respondents are overwhelmingly white-collar omnivores who eat an average of 60 percent of their meals outside the home. In Tokyo alone, he says, diners have identified 54 types of international cuisine and 24 Japanese varieties. The top scorer for food in the Tokyo guide is a yakiniku grilled beef restaurant called Jumbo.

"There is another guide reporting on a paradigm of the ideal restaurant,'' Tim says, lapsing back to "them." "But we believe diners can make that decision themselves.

"The idea that one or two anonymous people--or however many they are--can come and tell the people who live here what the best restaurants out of 100,000 is frankly ..."

He catches himself.

Paris will always be special to the pair, Nina says, because it was there they first sampled fresh foods, such as white asparagus in season. That was back in the late 1960s, when they managed to stretch a six-month work stint into two years.

"Like a lot of kids I knew, I had the sort of mother who thought no food was safe unless it was frozen first," Tim says. "I remember that she took pride in serving the 1950 ham with the 1957 turkey. And dining out wasn't much better. Italian food was red sauce and Chinese food was chop suey and probably came out of a can. And raw fish? That was some kind of fraternity prank."

The revolution, they say, came when immigration laws were loosened and air travel finally became viable. With new people came new techniques; animals fats gave way to lighter vegetable oils, and new world of flavors opened up. Today, it's a phenomenon the old guard still needs to get its head around.

"You'll die if you eat fancy all the time; it's just too rich,'' Tim says. "Maybe we were the lucky ones. Our side of the Atlantic didn't like our food enough."(IHT/Asahi: January 26,2008)

2008年1月24日 星期四


教育人行道 15On Educating, No. 15

2008/1/24 (創刊:2008/01/05) 主編:鍾漢清


日本人用 "共同體"翻譯 community
是遠比設社群更有深見的 建設中美金融利益共同體並非神話

Every good cook knows another good cook. 我喜歡"每位廚藝好手都知道另外的同道"之說法..... The Art of Cooking and Serving

cook/dance/talk, etc. up a storm

「加拿大重量級小說家兼詩人瑪格麗特.愛特伍(Margaret Atwood)於11月1日,在美國紐約的邦諾(Barnes & Noble)連鎖書店舉行盛大的新書發表會,上百位讀者湧進,現場座無虛席。愛特伍很優雅地驅前上台且極其輕聲細語地向大家問好,接著她向讀者們介紹新書《道德錯亂》(Moral Disorder)的封面設計,上為兩個女子的照片並列對照,一位是女僕,另一位是廚師,兩位的面容極為相似,好似雙胞胎,但仔細一看又好像是同一個人。

這兩張照片是取自莎拉.菲爾德.史賓林特(Sarah Field Splint)的作品《烹飪與服侍的藝術》(The Art of Cooking and Serving,1930)一書,愛特伍也以此為新書中的篇名之一(篇名與故事的情節、年代都是相關連的)。」文◎劉易昀


不管是烹飪、縫紉、打掃、服侍 等等,都是「學徒教育」的根本。這些是真本事和修養,對於誰都很重要。






August 24, 2005





英國兒童、學校和家庭部(The Department for Children, Schools and Families)的統計顯示,英格蘭有85% 的中學開設有某種形式的烹飪課。




兒童、學校、家庭部大臣埃德•鮑爾斯(Ed Balls)說,對付肥胖症,增進國民健康,刻不容緩。






英國校長協會(National Association of Head Teachers) 的克拉麗莎•威廉斯(Clarissa Williams)說,學校的烹飪課從師資到資源長期缺乏,對學校能否得到所有需要的資源表示懷疑。



烹飪課從選修改為必修,兒童食品運動(Children's Food Campaign)的努力呼籲起了相當的作用;它是由50 多個健康機構、教師工會、兒童慈善團體聯合發起的。

2008年1月22日 星期二

High Mercury Levels in Tuna Sushi

High Mercury Levels Are Found in Tuna Sushi

Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

Tuna sushi is a popular item in New York but may be risky.

Published: January 23, 2008

Recent laboratory tests found so much mercury in tuna sushi from 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants that at most of them, a regular diet of six pieces a week would exceed the levels considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Sushi from 5 of the 20 places had mercury levels so high that the Food and Drug Administration could take legal action to remove the fish from the market. The sushi was bought by The New York Times in October.

“No one should eat a meal of tuna with mercury levels like those found in the restaurant samples more than about once every three weeks," said Dr. Michael Gochfeld, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, N.J.

Dr. Gochfeld analyzed the sushi for The Times with Dr. Joanna Burger, professor of life sciences at Rutgers University. He is a former chairman of the New Jersey Mercury Task Force and also treats patients with mercury poisoning.

The owner of a restaurant whose tuna sushi had particularly high mercury concentrations said he was shocked by the findings. “I’m startled by this,” said the owner, Drew Nieporent, a managing partner of Nobu Next Door. “Anything that might endanger any customer of ours, we’d be inclined to take off the menu immediately and get to the bottom of it.”

Although the samples were gathered in New York City, experts believe similar results would be observed elsewhere.

“Mercury levels in bluefin are likely to be very high regardless of location,” said Tim Fitzgerald, a marine scientist for Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that works to protect the environment and improve human health.

Most of the restaurants in the survey said the tuna The Times had sampled was bluefin.

In 2004 the Food and Drug Administration joined with the Environmental Protection Agency to warn women who might become pregnant and children to limit their consumption of certain varieties of canned tuna because the mercury it contained might damage the developing nervous system. Fresh tuna was not included in the advisory. Most of the tuna sushi in the Times samples contained far more mercury than is typically found in canned tuna.

Over the past several years, studies have suggested that mercury may also cause health problems for adults, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and neurological symptoms.

Dr. P. Michael Bolger, a toxicologist who is head of the chemical hazard assessment team at the Food and Drug Administration, did not comment on the findings in the Times sample but said the agency was reviewing its seafood mercury warnings. Because it has been four years since the advisory was issued, Dr. Bolger said, “we have had a study under way to take a fresh look at it.”

No government agency regularly tests seafood for mercury.

Tuna samples from the Manhattan restaurants Nobu Next Door, Sushi Seki, Sushi of Gari and Blue Ribbon Sushi and the food store Gourmet Garage all had mercury above one part per million, the “action level” at which the F.D.A. can take food off the market. (The F.D.A. has rarely, if ever, taken any tuna off the market.) The highest mercury concentration, 1.4 parts per million, was found in tuna from Blue Ribbon Sushi. The lowest, 0.10, was bought at Fairway.

When told of the newspaper’s findings, Andy Arons, an owner of Gourmet Garage, said: “We’ll look for lower-level-mercury fish. Maybe we won’t sell tuna sushi for a while, until we get to the bottom of this.” Mr. Arons said his stores stocked yellowfin, albacore and bluefin tuna, depending on the available quality and the price.

At Blue Ribbon Sushi, Eric Bromberg, an owner, said he was aware that bluefin tuna had higher mercury concentrations. For that reason, Mr. Bromberg said, the restaurant typically told parents with small children not to let them eat “more than one or two pieces.”

Koji Oneda, a spokesman for Sushi Seki, said the restaurant would talk to its fish supplier about the issue. A manager at Sushi of Gari, Tomi Tomono, said it warned pregnant women and regular customers who “love to eat tuna” about mercury levels. Mr. Tomono also said the restaurant would put warning labels on the menu “very soon.”

Scientists who performed the analysis for The Times ran the tests several times to be sure there was no mistake in the levels of methylmercury, the form of mercury found in fish tied to health problems.

The work was done at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, in Piscataway, a partnership between Rutgers and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Six pieces of sushi from most of the restaurants and stores would contain more than 49 micrograms of mercury. That is the amount the Environmental Protection Agency deems acceptable for weekly consumption over a period of several months by an adult of average weight, which the agency defines as 154 pounds. People weighing less are advised to consume even less mercury. The weight of the fish in the tuna pieces sampled by The Times were 0.18 ounces to 1.26 ounces.

In general, tuna sushi from food stores was much lower in mercury. These findings reinforce results in other studies showing that more expensive tuna usually contains more mercury because it is more likely to come from a larger species, which accumulates mercury from the fish it eats. Mercury enters the environment as an industrial pollutant.

In the Times survey, 10 of the 13 restaurants said at least one of the two tuna samples bought was bluefin. (It is hard for anyone but experts to tell whether a piece of tuna sushi is bluefin by looking at it.)

By contrast, other species, like yellowfin and albacore, generally have much less mercury. Several of the stores in the Times sample said the tuna in their sushi was yellowfin.

“It is very likely bluefin will be included in next year’s testing,” Dr. Bolger of the F.D.A. said. “A couple of months ago F.D.A. became aware of bluefin tuna as a species Americans are eating.”

A number of studies have found high blood mercury levels in people eating a diet rich in seafood. According to a 2007 survey by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the average level of mercury in New Yorkers’ blood is three times higher than the national average. The report found especially high levels among Asian New Yorkers, especially foreign-born Chinese, and people with high incomes. The report noted that Asians tend to eat more seafood, and it speculated that wealthier people favored fish, like swordfish and bluefin tuna, that happen to have higher mercury levels.

The city has warned women who are pregnant or breast-feeding and children not to eat fresh tuna, Chilean sea bass, swordfish, shark, grouper and other kinds of fish it describes as “too high in mercury.” (Cooking fish has no effect on the mercury level.)

Dr. Kate Mahaffey, a senior research scientist in the office of science coordination and policy at the E.P.A. who studies mercury in fish, said she was not surprised by reports of high concentrations.

“We have seen exposures occurring now in the United States that have produced blood mercury a lot higher than anything we would have expected to see,” Dr. Mahaffey said. “And this appears to be related to consumption of larger amounts of fish that are higher in mercury than we had anticipated.”

Many experts believe the government’s warnings on mercury in seafood do not go far enough.

“The current advice from the F.D.A. is insufficient,” said Dr. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health and chairman of the department of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark. “In order to maintain reasonably low mercury exposure, you have to eat fish low in the food chain, the smaller fish, and they are not saying that.”

Some environmental groups have sounded the alarm. Environmental Defense, the advocacy group, says no one, no matter his or her age, should eat bluefin tuna. Dr. Gochfeld said: “I like to think of tuna sushi as an occasional treat. A steady diet is certainly problematic. There are a lot of other sushi choices.”

2008年1月8日 星期二





《茶況》 日本型食生活を推進 茶商工業組合連合顧問が目標


 全国茶商工業協同組合連合会顧問の谷本陽蔵さん(78)は、茶業振興に向け、今年の目標に、ごはんを主体とした日本型食生活の推進を掲げた。ごは ん中心の日本型食生活は、お茶を味わうこととのつながりが深いほか、国の課題になっている食料自給率の向上や健康、長寿にも影響するとみているためだ。



 谷本さんは「ごはんを主体とした食事にお茶はつきもので、お茶の需要拡大に役立つはずだ。ごはんを主体とした食生活は、自給率や健康維持を含めて良いことが多い」と話す。 (松本利幸)

 袋井・森 産地問屋は新年のあいさつ回りをこなしている。

 掛川・小笠 茶商は年始のあいさつ回りを兼ねて情報収集に力を入れている。

 島田・金谷 産地問屋はあいさつ回りと補充注文に追われている。

 川根 産地問屋は消費地と情報交換を進めながら補充注文に対応している。

 牧之原 茶農家は敷きわらなどをして茶園管理に努めている。

 藤枝 産地問屋は茶専門店からの補充注文に応じている。

Suntory 的某些新產品

利用此機會了解日本大公司Suntory 的某些新產品

サントリー、500mlペット飲料「信州戸隠うずら家監修 健康そば」を発売
サントリー(株)は、「信州戸隠うずら家監修 健康そば」を1月22日(火)から全国で新発 売します。 昨今、健康志向の高まりとともに、そばそのものの味わ いに ...


[SOH-buh] A Japanese noodle made from buckwheat and wheat flour, which gives it a dark brownish-gray color. Chasoba is a variation of the noodle made with green tea. See also asian noodles.

該網站的胡麻麥茶 也很有意思