Supporting food safety

There are days when I wonder if anything is safe to eat.  (Like yesterday when the prepackaged garden salad I got from the school cafeteria looked as if it hadn’t even been washed.  The lettuce had weird dusty black ick all over it.  And it wasn’t dirt.  And it didn’t stick like mold.  I don’t know what it was, but it was disgusting.  And dirty.  And don’t mock me; you wouldn’t have eaten it either.) 

On an increasingly common basis I think about ways I can become more closely connected to the source of my food.  I want to KNOW the conditions in which it was grown; how it was altered chemically, genetically, or environmentally; and frankly whether it’s safe for me to eat.  In many ways, it’s a hard balance.  Living in a very urban space on a below-the-poverty-line income, I have limited options.  (BUT, I do have options, AND I have the cultural capital to know about those options and how to access them, so really I’m not in the same bad situation as many, many others.)  But, in the process of feeling safe about the source of my food, I have rarely felt that the government had my best interests (aka – my health and well-being) at heart. 

Slow Food USA has created a video and a petition they hope will help change that.  They're asking Congress to better regulate the food industry and thus help ensure the health of all Americans.  So we're talking about making corporations accountable for actions (or the lack of actions) that produce/protect a healthy food supply; demanding that the USDA and FDA communicate better with one another; and supporting legislation that simplifies food safety regulation.

Sounds good to me.  Here's the video:


And, if you're interested, you can look at and/or sign the petition.

Food Inc. - "You'll never look at dinner the same way again!"

So, in the last month or so I've been bombarded with info about the film Food, Inc. Whether I'm just hooked in to all the right info feeds or what, I don't know, but I'm pretty jazzed about seeing this film, which is now showing across the country. (To find out if/when it's playing near you, check the listings here.)

The film is described (on IMDB) as "An unflattering look inside America's corporate controlled food industry." And it seems to address the food industry from a number of angles: animal conditions, worker conditions, food safety/quality, human health consequences, legislation and national food policy, and the general workings of agribusiness. A broad scope, surely, but integrally connected.

I was first introduced to the film by a message on the packaging foil that seals my yogurt tub. I'd never seen Stonyfield (or any other yogurt company) advertise for a film, and while I was a bit suspicious, I also trust Stonyfield to make conscious choices about their packaging. (Maybe I'm delusional, but at least I'm hopeful.) With a little investigation I realized that Stonyfield Farm President and CE-Yo (you know, YO as in yogurt) Gary Hirshberg is featured in the film; thus the connection and cross-promotion. But, Stonyfield's website features some great stuff about the film, including the trailer and an exclusive (and really good) interview with the film's director Robert Kenner, in which he talks about the film's intention to promote informed consumer choices. He says,

"[The film is about the] freedom to know both what's in the food, what we're eating, where it's coming from, and what we're allowed to say about this food. I realized this is a film about our rights to know as Americans."

Then, I heard a story on NPR's Morning Edition by Steve Inskeep, in which he talked with Kenner and food advocate and author Michael Pollan (who is also featured in the film) about the film. (Web-info and a link to the audio is available here.) Inskeep takes them to task to explain in detail each phrase from an single line early in the film which says, "Our food is coming from enormous assembly lines where the animals and the workers are being abused and the food has become much more dangerous in ways that are being deliberately hidden from us."

And, talk of the film is making its way around the blogosphere (for example, this) and numerous news sites, including reviews on Variety and indieWIRE and interviews Kenner did with The Washington Post and The New York Times.

And the film's website itself is a wealth of good information. These folks have built bridges -- laying out the issues point for point, creating rich resource lists for information-seekers, offering suggestions for getting involved, particularly in the area of children's nutrition, and building alliances with important advocacy organizations. They even have their own blog called Hungry for Change which looks to be regularly updated and pretty informative.

But not everyone is happy about the film's release. Monsanto is so pissed they've go their own anti-Food Inc. webpage up and running, which I find hugely interesting because most of the time big agribusiness just ignores films and books that have the potential to discredit them. Perhaps we're getting near some point of critical mass and they're nervous... (Kenner talks about the film's efforts to work with Monsanto in The Washington Post article.) (Also, I'm not a fan of Monsanto, so I won't talk about them anymore, but Deborah Koons Garcia did a nice job making them look like asses in her 2004 film The Future of Food, another great documentary worth checking out.)

All that said, I'll stop talking about the film and hopefully see it soon. If you see it before me, let me know what you think! Here's the trailer:


(photo caption & credits: Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin is an organic farmer and an agribusiness critic featured in Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures)

UPDATE:
I watched Food, Inc. last weekend at my local indy film theater and earlier this week a friend emailed asking what I thought of it and whether it was worth seeing. An edited version of my reply is below. (It may be of value to note that my friend is a farmer living and working on a very new, organic, family-owned farm in New England, so he knows way more about food than I do and has spent considerable time really thinking about the importance of food and our food industry.)

The film was decent. I didn't learn much that I didn't know before. Very little, actually. But I think the film would be a decent introduction for folks new to thinking about the role of corporations in U.S. food culture and food industry. The film hit on a number of issues – food labeling, foodborne illness, health consequences of our current food choices, factory farming, corporate influence on family farms, animal rights, worker rights, environmental impact, law and governmental policy, and so on. And I think the filmmakers made an effort to give voice to a number of viewpoints, though they didn't pretend to be entirely ‘objective’ in their response and analysis. (And why should they?) Interestingly, they made a point NOT to villainize big business, using interviews with Greg Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farms, and Wal-Mart buyers (meaning product purchasers, not public consumers) to talk about the power of public opinion and consumer demand. Long and short, I think the film has the potential to rattle mainstream folks who haven't thought about where their food comes from.

Plus, the film spends a good chunk of time talking to Joel Salatin, a mighty spunky farmer for Polyface Farm in Virginia. The farm seems to deal mostly in meats – beef, pork, poultry – but in all the ways you wish meats came to market – organic, local, free range birds, grass fed cattle, and so forth. Joel serves as a powerful voice in the film, but I wonder if the audience 'got' it, because most of his talking was done while he was doing farm work, including slaughtering chickens and preparing them for market (as compared to most of the other interviewees, who have the backdrop of their kitchen or office). With the typical consumer/film-goer so removed from the origin of our food, folks watching the film with me seemed unsettled and/or shocked to see animals slaughtered. (There were numerous audible gasps and lots of uncomfortable squirming in the theater.) While I’m glad folks had this response, I’m also really afraid that they won't think about why they felt that way, but will rather push it to the corners of their mind, ignore it, or – worse – consider Joel and farmers like him 'heartless' – which is about as far from the truth as you can get, but that is a mental jump I can understand when folks have never seen an animal slaughtered before. Mind you, the film also shows animals in factory slaughterhouses, but not at the moment of death and often as animal parts rather than whole creatures, which makes it easier, I think, for folks to distance themselves. I wished there was a bit more explanation in the film about what was going on in both of these situations, such that film-goers would have guidance to better understand what they were seeing. (For example, for folks who’ve never seen or read anything on slaughtering poultry or beef, they wouldn’t recognize or understand what the most humane, painless way to go and why. They just see slitting throats and freak.)

I also went back to reread Monsanto’s retaliatory website after watching the film. Comparing their views and those in the film is one of those "nobody's lying, still the stories don't line up" situations (Ani lyrics). The film, I think, sought to question the ethics of Monsanto and their influence – on food policy, with GMOs, with patenting, on farmers, and so on. Monsanto doesn't address these ethical concerns, instead highlighting that they are obeying the law (which they helped frame and influence) and justifying litigation between themselves and farmers featured in the film as an effort to ensure that that others are following the law as well. Personally, I’m not convinced. This is a situation where I think it’s of importance to question laws that put the well-being of corporations ahead of the well-being of people, which is what I believe these laws do. For example, I believe in the importance of seed saving (Dr. Vandana Shiva is a great resource about this issue in India if you’re interested in reading more), and knowing the workings of Mother Nature and how seed spreads from field to field, I think Monsanto's patent infringement politics are shady. Monsanto's website also went out of its way to say that the film demonizes farmers, which I think is utterly untrue. I thought the film demonstrated how many farmers are trapped in an unworkable system under the thumb of corporations like Monsanto.

But that's just my two-cents. All in all, I was glad I saw it. It’s one more piece of media to add to the repertoire. But also nothing ground shattering. As to whether or not you should go watch it, that's your decision. In the meantime, that’s enough rambling from me for one day...

-7/3/09

Green Festival 2009

Chicago's 2009 Green Festival was this weekend. This is the third year a Green Festival has been held in Chicago and the third year I've gone. I dig 'em (as you can see from my post about it last year). Organized as a collaborative project between Green America and Global Exchange,

Green Festival [is] a walk through a sustainable community. It begins with finding solutions to help make our lives healthier—socially, economically and environmentally. Individuals along with business and community leaders come together to discuss critical issues that impact us at home and abroad. Organizations and businesses showcase programs and products that restore the planet and all that inhabit it. Neighbor-to-neighbor connections are formed, and skills are shared to empower people to create positive change in the world.

I wanted to share a couple of my highlights from this year's festival with you. (And this is in addition to my joy at being able to eat a delicious organic, vegan lunch from Soul Vegetarian, a restaurant on 75th to which I was introduced a few years back in celebration of a friend's birthday. They make soul food like you wouldn't believe. Yummy!)

First, I had the privilege of hearing damali ayo speak. She's probably best known for her website/art piece Rent-A-Negro.com and the related book How to Rent a Negro. She's a multi-talented woman who uses art, comedy, and a "stand up/smack down" style (her words) to fight racism. Her talk was titled "Are you ready to fix racism? (Or are you too busy pretending it doesn't exist?)" and was based on her "I Can Fix It!" guide to improving race relations in the U.S. (Download the guidebook in PDF from the website to get the full presentation.) She's a bad-ass chick on the path to recruit any and everyone to the rebellion. I'm in.

Second, I went to a talk by Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a organization

Seeking economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development our goal is to empower farmers - partnered with consumers - in support of ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food.

They are doing amazing work on a number of fronts, but I was especially impressed with their efforts to make sure products marked as certified organic live up to the label. Their Organic Dairy Brand Ratings Scorecard is based on a

national survey of organic products in the dairy case [and serves to] showcase ethical family farm producers and expose factory farm producers and brands that threaten to take over organic dairying. With this Web-based rating tool, you can see which brands and dairy products found in your region are produced using the best organic farming practices and ethics. Based on a year’s research into the organic dairy business, the scorecard rates 68 different organic dairy brands and private-label products.

The benefit of such an effort is to inform consumers of organic providers who fail to honor the faith put in them by consumers. (For example, Aurora Farms, the brand that produces 'O' Organics for Safeway and Dominick's has been charged by the USDA with willful violation of 14 tenants of organic certification, which essentially means that products we purchase labeled "organic" might not be.) The Report helped me to see how some of the "organic" brands I've purchased in the recent past (including Horizons (Dean's), 'O' Organics (Safeway), Wild Harvest (Albertson's), and Trader Joe's) are not maintaining the organic standards I expect, while other available brands (including Organic Valley (CROPP), Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods Market - 365 Organics) do much, much better. Good to know. And, apparently, the Institute is launching a brand new scorecard on Monday rating soy products -- everything from edamame and tempeh to tofu and soy milk. Exciting stuff. I'll add a link as soon as the new report goes up.

Third, I went to a panel discussion that was supposed to feature Alice Waters, founder of The Edible Schoolyard, but, sadly, she was ill and unable to attend. However, I was able to hear a number of folks speak about the importance of edible education policy and practice. Filmmaker Chris Taylor screened portions of his film Food Fight: A Story of Culinary Revolt which features Alice, as well as Michael Pollan (who I'm hearing speak tomorrow at the Chicago Public Library!), Wolfgang Puck, and the amazing, amazing, amazing Will Allen and Erika Allen of Growing Power, an AMAZING organization committed to urban agriculture, environmental stewardship, and edible education grounded primarily in Milwaukee and Chicago. The whole point is how food practices are foundations for social activism! Here's the trailer (and for more clips, visit the film's YouTube channel):


On the whole, the Festival was a pleasure, as always. Each year I walk away having learned new things and with a renewed energy to continue diligently down a path of sustainability and justice -- both social and environmental. If you can't get to an upcoming Green Festival, you can always check out Green Festival TV and radio (make sure to check the archives too) for recorded talks, presentations, and podcasts.

UPDATE: The Organic Soy Report and Scorecard is posted over at Cornucopia Institute for your perusal. Also, very sadly, I wasn't able to hear Michael Pollan tonight because the venue sold out. It was a first come, first serve gig, and while I got there early, the poor woman trying to manage the masses said some folks started lining up at noon (for a 6pm talk). What's with those folks? And why didn't they save me a seat?! Maybe next time... Eat happy, y'all. - 5/18/09

Meatless Monday!

I was just reading about the Meatless Monday Campaign, a non-profit organization working in association with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and with the support of 28 other public health schools and all sorts of knowledgeable folk (including Michael Pollan).

Meatless Monday is a national public health campaign to help prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer -- four of the leading causes of death in America. A simple way to prevent these diseases is to eat a diet lower in saturated fat, found mainly in meat and high-fat dairy products. If Americans cut out meat and high-fat dairy just one day a week, they would meet the government's dietary guidelines.

Our goal -- consistent with recommendations made by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, the US Dept. of Agriculture, and the American Heart Association -- is to help Americans reduce consumption of saturated fat 15% by 2010. That works out to eliminating saturated fat one day a week.

The intent of Meatless Monday is not to turn folks vegetarian (though that's not necessarily a bad choice either), but to support Americans' efforts to live and eat healthier. The website offers all sorts of health research, vegetarian recipes (as suggestions for yummy, no-meat meals), info on CSAs and organic foods, and a weekly digest of news snippets about health and food issues.

Here's their newest offering, a video called "Meatless Monday - Inspiring a Movement":

Two thumbs down for PETA

While I am a (more than) happy supporter of vegetarianism and veganism, I can't get behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Hasn't happened yet. Can't see it happening anytime in the future. I agree with their stance that animal rights are vital issues in our contemporary society, especially when so many of our "interactions" with animals and animal products are mediated through factory farms, animal product processing centers, product testing on animals, and the clothing trade. Seeking changes that protect animals from cruelty, inhumane conditions, and abuse are issues affecting not only the animals themselves but also our human population. While I do not have a problem with people naturally eating meat because of my personal beliefs about our evolutionary position on the food chain and our natural design to be omnivores, I think we as a culture have worked really hard to pull ourselves out of the natural way of things. There is little that is natural about the production of much of our food, especially meat and meat products. As such, I fully support the many reasons people choose to become vegetarian or vegan -- be it concern for their own health due to the unnatural conditions that intercede in the production of our food (including the use of antibiotics, chemicals, synthetics, etc.); disdain for the cruelty inflicted upon animals in their journey to our grocery stores, food establishments, and stomachs; a deep respect for animals as living creatures worthy of living those lives to their full and natural ends; a contempt for the conditions endured by human laborers as they power the food industry at all levels (including fields, slaughterhouses, and the service industry); an economic unwillingness to financially support any of the harmful practices in our food industries; a simple dislike for meat or animal products; or any number of other valid and worthy reasons.

But, when it comes to PETA, the organization's utter and repeated failure to recognize the intersections of social justice issues prevents me from having any willingness to support their work. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, their continual focus on animal rights, to the extent of perpetuating and reinforcing other social problems, serves (they think) to advance their cause while actually harming the equally vital efforts of other social movements. Allow me to give a number of examples to help clarify my frustration:

I.
Most recently PETA wrote a letter to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

asking to buy space at each of the nine southwest border sectors [of the U.S./Mexico border fence] for our new ad. Those considering entry will then read this message: "If the border patrol doesn't get you, the chicken and burgers will. Go vegan" (or, in Spanish, "Si no te agarra la migra, te atraparan el pollo y las hamburguesas. Sé vegano").

Linsday Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns, said:

We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. [that] they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables.

PETA spokeswoman Ashley Byrne added:

America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave; it's becoming the land of the sick and the home of the obese.

In his Houston Chronicle article, reporter James Pinkerton described the proposed ad (see the picture), saying:

PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."

While the government is expected to reject PETA's offer because it would limit visibility through the fence (a whole other topic I'm not touching today), the fact that PETA would be so ignorant of the larger social issues at play baffles me. Do they really believe that their "target audience" (which is who exactly? folks scaling the wall?) are going to be interested in their message? Or that it would deter them from crossing? I would think folks crossing the border have other things on their mind. Plus, does PETA think Mexican and other immigrant populations never eat meat or cook with meat products (uh, lard, anyone?!), or that they have the resources to eat healthily all the time, or even that healthy eating is not possible within U.S. borders? No offense, but I tend to believe that people desire to move across borders for a reason, and I think those reasons probably outweigh the food warning on a billboard. While I appreciate PETA's apparent concern for immigrant's diet and health, I am confused by their choice of actions. Rather than addressing the exploitation and dehumanization of immigrants and people of color working in the food processing industry, or addressing economic conditions that encourage people to leave their home nations to begin with (where apparently they have a better diet), instead PETA wants to put up an advertisement. I'm honestly lost. They are volunteering to participate in racist and economically oppressive action to further their cause.

II.
PETA has a history of using women's bodies as sexual symbols to grab folks' attention and sell their message. In their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" and "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur" print campaigns, as well as a number of public protests, they've featured attractive women -- nude or nearly nude -- selling their message. Setting aside the sexist reality that they feature only conventionally attractive women and no men in their ads or public displays, when called out on the misogynistic nature of their ads and public protests, their response seemed to echo a "we'll do whatever works" ideology.

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said

While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn. ... Forgive us our bikinis and our shock tactics, but our message that all beings — both human and nonhuman — deserve compassion and respect is one that we must work hard to make heard.

So, if understand correctly, what they're saying is that sex sells. Well, no shit, but that doesn't mean you should use it. Disrespecting woman to promote animal rights does not seem like a progressive, forward-moving approach to me.

(And on an equally depressing side note, did you hear about the world's first vegan strip club? Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club in Portland. According to Fox News coverage (of course, and caution: totally raunchy website for video link), the club's motto is "Vixens not veal, sizzle not steak. We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate." Sick. As Ann at Feministing says so well, "[They're] using the 'ideal' female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.")

III.
On July 31 of this year, Tim McLean, a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Winnipeg, was brutally stabbed and beheaded by a fellow bus passenger, a stranger. Apparently the assailant, Vince Weiguang Li, began eating part of McLean's body. And PETA's response was an attempt to run a newspaper ad with the following text:

"Manitoba... An innocent young victim's throat is cut... His struggles and cries are ignored... The man with the knife shows no emotion... The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of... His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!" ... "If this ad leaves a bad taste in your mouth, please give a thought to what sensitive animals think and feel when they come to the end of their frightening journey and see, hear, and smell the slaughterhouse. Try switching to a healthy vegetarian diet and save lives every day, including your own."

I don't know about you, but as much as I support a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, using such a tragedy to get people to eat more veggies doesn't sit well with me. I understand what PETA wants to say and the passion with which they're trying to say it, but I think they went about it in a pretty insensitive, disrespectful way. (That's an understatement.)

And PETA's comment on the situation:

While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is…

Now, to the best of my knowledge, the ad was rejected by the local paper, but even the thought that trying to run it was a good strategy just doesn't work for me.


All that said, where do we stand? In efforts to support animal rights PETA uses racism, sexism, and the exploitation of tragedy to further their cause. Ignoring the trade-off they are willing to make to further their intentions does not, and will not, convince me to support their version of "social justice."


UPDATE: These people never stop. 2 quick hits:
1. PETA recently submitted a commercial they hoped to air during the Superbowl. It got rejected by NBC for "depict[ing] a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The commercial is part of PETA's "Veggie Love" campaign. When will they learn that there are better ways and means to promote vegetarianism than using sex(ism) and women's bodies? They really, really suck at understanding the whole intersectional exploitation thing. (To read more, Melissa over at Shakesville has laid out the argument quite clearly.)

2. PETA is using KKK imagery to protest the American Kennel Club, meaning that PETA protesters are dressing up like the KKK in both video campaigns and live protests (standing on the street outside Madison Square Gardens handing leaflets to passersby -- the ones who stop to strangers dressed like the KKK). I am not shitting you. I am trying to understand how dressing up like the most notoriously racist terrorist group in American history is okay and I just can't figure it out. As Cara over at Feministe suggested:

This is not progressive. Do you hear me? This is not progressive. And the progressive movement needs to cut off this organization entirely and let reasonable, smart animal rights organizations that fight just as hard without sacrificing the dignity of humans take over. Now.

-2/10/09

the end of an era: say farwell to tortilla chips...

Okay, so I'm supposed to be finishing my last final of the quarter. (Thank God, but I'm not done yet, so cross your fingers.) But, I need a momentary pause to go on a tirade.

It's a little after midnight and I just opened a brand new bag of my favorite, locally manufactured tortilla chips. Yummy, yummy, right? Well, I am an obsessive nutrition facts label reader. (It's sick, I know.) But, my favorite thing about these chips, besides their oh-so-yummy taste, is that they are made with only three simple ingredients: corn, lime, and corn oil. Woohoo for simplicity! So, tonight I'm munching away and habitually start to read (uh... reread) the label and to my surprise, there is a new ingredient I've never seen before: "tHBQ as an oil additive." What on earth?!?! So, I hop on the internet and do a little research, only for my dismay, disdain, and general sadness to grow in sickly measures.

tBHQ, or tertiary butylhydroquinone, is a petroleum-based food additive being used to replace partially hydrogenated this, that, and the others which are known for their contribution to high trans fat numbers (also yucky). The glorious thing about tBHQ is that numerous studies have linked it to bladder and kidney cancers and it’s been used to predictably induce tumors in test animals. And, just as an added bonus, it's a member of the same family as BHA and BHT, both of which have been banned in England, because they have been proven to be carcinogenic. I am totally lucking out here. And the FDA lets them put this shit in my food!

Plus:

According to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, "tBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food... which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of tBHQ can cause 'nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse.' Ingesting five grams of tBHQ can kill."

(from An Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan)

So, my delightful tortilla chips, once prized so highly for their natural ingredients, could now contribute to my getting cancer and/or tumors. So excited about that.

And thus, I must now bid farewell to my favorite tortilla chips (seriously the best I've had in my whole life), write a nasty letter to the company (El Ranchero Food Products/2547 S. Kedzie Ave./Chicago, IL 60623), and seek simpler times, when a girl could count on corn, lime, and corn oil to be all she needed. I am so disappointed...

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam...

"Spam for you. Spam for me. We'll all live together in Spam harmony." But not in Hawaii...

Apparently Burger King has just added spam to their Hawaiian menu, which is pissing off the folks at McDonald's who've been offering Spam on their breakfast menu since 2002. But the folks in Hawaii eat more Spam than any other state in the Union, so I'm guessing there will be plenty of Spam eaters to satisfy product growth. I mean, these people like it enough that they've got their own flavor: Hawaii. It's not available in general release, so if you want some, you better pack your swimsuit and head to the islands. (However, a Golden Honey Grail version is avaliable in honor of Monty Python's Spamalot. AND, you can play the game online. I know you've always wanted to catapult cows at those Stinky French pigdogs, and now you can!)

But for those of you in the continental U.S. and not likely to make it to Hawaii anytime soon, you can always visit the Spam Museum in Austin (Minnesota, not Texas). Admission is free, and if you're looking for some special treatment, visit the Spam Spa. (They say it doesn't exist, but they provide pictures, so it must be true. Right?!)

With so many great things happening in the word of gelatinous pink meat products, the only thing a girl can say is, "Ahh... Spam culture!"