Is it worth a Dama?

Well, has anyone been to Dama yet? This is the new Ethiopian restaurant that opened up on Roeder Rd, just to the west of the parking lot to the County liquor store (on Colesville).

Since I am not a big fan of Ethiopian cuisine, I doubt I'll be dining at Dama any time soon, but wanted to throw it open to others to see what they think. Maybe I can be convinced to give it a try.

A Yelp reviewer says the wait staff doesn't have the best English, but if that doesn't bother you, the reviewer also said they staff is "very pretty, young." One other on-line review says the food was excellent.

I've also seen mention that Dama will/is serving a vegetarian steak. Now I am not sure exactly what this is, but it does give me pause especially with some things I've read recently about fake meat products. What I found was that many fake meat products contain industrial-food byproducts, chemically processed soy and grain powders, artificial flavorings, colorings, and other chemicals. In addition, many vitamins and minerals are leached away during their high-heat production.

Brendan Brazier, the author of a vegan nutrition guide advises people to drastically cut these products out of their diet, and if possible, drop them all together. It seems the better choice is to stick with products made primarily from whole-food ingredients rather than relying on products made from soy protein isolate, hydrolyzed vegetable protein and TVP.

Or if you choose not to eat meat, just go with veggies and legumes. I feel confident that places like Dama and others can supply you on that front. If it wasn't for the injera, maybe I'd be more open. I guess also it's that lack of texture for me. There doesn't seem to be much of a crunch in Ethiopian food, right? Or did I miss it?

Either way, I'd love to hear what folks have to say about Dama. And if someone did try the veggie steak, how was it?

Whole Foods chief: there is no "right" to health care

Sorry for the hiatus. I know I am way behind on local food news with the "Newcaro" story on SS Singular and then Thayer Ave giving us the Fractured Prune update. But I had to make my annual pilgrimage to Vacationland (AKA Maine) to stuff my face full of lobsters for a week - and boy, did I.

Talk about fresh, caught that morning, brokering a deal with a lobster wholesaler right on the dock, and then bringing them back to the rental house to steam and BBQ. And at least for the moment, this is as close as I can get to really know what I am eating (for something that had parents) and where it has come from. I see the lobster in front of me before it is sacrificed for the meal. And trying to be as humane as possible, I sever the nervous system of the lobster by putting a sharp knife through their head. Although writing that sentence does make it seem quite cruel, it appears - though others argue against it - that this is the most humane method. In addition, I cannot argue with the results - mouth watering delight!

But back to the topic at hand, if folks missed it, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods had an article in the Wall Street Journal last week on "improving" health care in the U.S. Mr. Mackey describes several free-market reforms that the government should take into consideration. Mackey wants "less governmental involvement and more individual empowerment." Yes. If we all act individually and not collectively, I'm sure we can leverage our insurance providers to establish less expensive and more comprehensive coverage for our families.

This is the same ethos Mackey has for unions - more individual empowerment. The last thing he wants is his employees coming together to collectively seek a bigger voice on the job. If you didn't know, this so-called progressive is rabidly anti-union. At the first whiff of employees talking union, the company jumps into action to squash any attempt by employees to exercise their democratic right to form a union.

But I digress, sorry. Of all Mackey's idea's, what bothers me the most is his assertion that the "right" to health care does not exist in the US. OK, true. But that doesn't mean we can't change things so that U.S. is not the only industrialized country without some form of universal health coverage. The suffragists fought to gain the franchise for women, right? Previously that "right" did not exist. And what about the Brown v. Board decision which overturned separate but equal? The court ruled this was a violation of the Equal Protection clause (14th amendment).

So now, forward-thinking people are working hard to ensure this new "right" is available to all Americans. Mackey should be on board with this given his philosophy on health. Earlier this month in London Mackey talked about his store's healthy eating initiative which will rid the WF shelves of unhealthy food and try to better educate customers.

This is good. If we're healthier we're less likely to fall ill. This should be the logic he uses for health care -- prevention. But Mackey's ideology trumps this. It appears he only wants the free-market to set the guidelines. We see how well that has worked for us with approximately 46 million (18%) Americans under 65 without health coverage. Why can't there be an affordable option (like a public option) for people to choose for their coverage? If people have this option, it is likely that more people will be pro-active about their health care and not simply reactive, so they don't have to visit the emergency room when an illness strikes.

This happens much too often today which is why the US is expected to spend $2.5 trillion (17.6% of GDP) on health care in 2009. Staggering. Worse, if nothing is done by 2018 this may reach $4.4 trillion.

This all leads me back to being very disappointed with Mackey and his proposed reforms. As business leaders go, he seems to be better than most - even with his stance on unions. I would have guessed given his holistic approach to food and health, he would have been supportive of a plan - whether run by the public or private sector - that allowed the largest number of Americans to receive health coverage. I know there are people calling for a WF boycott. While I am not one of them, it does make me second guess the amount of money I drop at WF on a weekly basis.

But should I shop at a store that pays its employees poorly and provides them no health insurance, and also stocks its shelves with mostly junk and overly processed foods rather than at WF? Safeway is at least a partial option since it's a union shop, but frankly I want more than that. I want sustainable meats and fish. I want fresh and local veggies and cheese. I want a good bulk section. Maybe I want too much.

Eating locally or altering what we buy?

If you missed it, there was an interesting article in the food section of the Washington Post last week called, Meat of the Problem. Now I have been back on the meat bandwagon a couple years now. I am not a complete carnivore, there are still many days during the week when I don't consume any meat. But I have to say, I have enjoyed allowing myself spare ribs, burgers, sausage, steak, etc. Not really doing chicken yet, but maybe soon given the information I just found.

I felt OK about the meat consumption since I try to be a very conscientious eater of animals - where did it come from, how was it raised, is the farm a sustainable operation? At least asking these questions make me (and perhaps unfortunately everyone who eats with me) really think about my food choices. I mean there is no way I will eat factory farmed broccoli, please!

But the Post article and the academic piece on which the article is based (Food Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States) bring to light important information that should be taken into account if you have an interest in lowering your carbon footprint at the dinner table.

The authors of the Food Miles, Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews, argue that changing our diet will go much further to lowering our carbon footprint when it comes to food as will just eating a local diet. This is unfortunate news for yours truly. I was feeling really good about buying my local pork, bison and beef, but now, I need to rethink these choices. I know I'm still OK when it comes to my 3 questions, but I guess I should be thinking about things a little more broadly.

Weber and Matthews argue that continuing to eat read meat - even if it was locally and humanely-raised - still contribute a lot of green house gas (GHG) emissions. Their analysis shows that for the average American household, “buying local” could achieve, at maximum, around a 4-5% reduction in GHG emissions. But if that household shifted less than 1 day per week’s consumption of red meat to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers (which we know is not realistic).

This is a very similar argument that Mark Bittman makes in Food Matters - available from our Montgomery County Public Library system (and they'll happily transfer it to the SS branch for you). Bittman talks about being a sane eater. By this he mean not going on some kind of fad diet, but by increasing the amount of plants we eat and decreasing our consumption of meat. Easy for him to say, he didn't go almost 20 years without eating beef, chicken or pork. I have to a lot of making up to do.

But now I need to think twice about it. I do want to do my part, and I know following this advice will make me healthier in the long run, help improve the planet, and save me money at the market too. It's unfortunate that one of the choices we're given to help lower our GHG emissions is fish. But because of the problems with sustainability with so many different varieties of fish (FYI, a couple good choices are Arctic Char and Mackerel), this option seems pretty limited. So I guess it's less meat, more veggies and maybe now some chicken.

KFC, here I come. Oops, can someone direct me to a local and humanly-raised chicken-frying outfit?