Farmageddon: Government vs. Consumer Freedom

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny.”  - Thomas Jefferson


Family farms are under attack.  People trying to make a good, honest living off the land are the target of federal and state agricultural law enforcement agents.  What crime have they committed?  The crackdown is focused on farmers who sell and/or transport a lethal substance across state lines.  Sounds like a pretty serious offense. 


Should you be concerned for your safety?  Is homeland security in jeopardy?  No, not by a long shot.  No one is trafficking drugs or plotting an anthrax attack (although the bacteria is soil-bourne and can infect livestock).  The farmers being investigated are arguably the most peaceful and dedicated tree-hugging Americans you will ever meet.  So, what have they done to break the law?  


They dare sell unpasteurized milk, aka. "raw milk," which is an illegal act in several states.*  Since 1924, the U.S. Public Health Service (a branch of the FDA) has regulated the production, processing, packaging and sale of Grade "A" milk and milk products.  "Processing" requirements include pasteurization as a means to destroy pathogens.  Modern methods used to heat milk also extend the shelf-life which allows for mass production and distribution of milk.  Raw milk advocates insist that pasteurization is not necessary when animals are raised humanely and the milk is handled properly.  


Pasteurization laws address problems associated with industrialized dairy production that pools milk from many farms, where animals are often given antibiotics & hormones to artificially boost production and maximize profits.  Thanks to the unsafe & unsavory acts committed by industrialized food producers,  sterilization of commercial milk is necessary to safeguard consumers.  Public health officials make the assumption that all milk is inherently contaminated so farmers who wish to sell their milk without performing the "kill step" are burdened by legalities, harassment and arrest.  


The fear mongering has escalated to the point that an independent filmmaker (Kristin Canty) was motivated to produce a feature length documentary about the government's excessive enforcement actions.  The above quote by Jefferson is flashed on the screen at the beginning of Canty's Farmageddon.   We all know what a sorry state most bodies are in as a result of the poor food choices in this country.  While Americans may have the freedom to decide what products they spend their money on, the food supply is under the control of FDA, USDA and multinational corporations.  The film shows you some of the ways these entities have made it difficult, and expensive, to obtain fresh, wholesome & unprocessed foods.  


When you stand idly by while small farmers are run out of business, you are essentially allowing the government to decide what foods you may eat.  When you don't question the authority of the CDC and avoid raw milk because you believe them when they claim that it is risky to drink, you give up your freedom as a consumer.  When you choose foods based solely on convenience & price, you fall into the trap set by government farm subsidies.  When you believe that the USDA has the capacity to offer scientifically sound & accurate dietary guidelines, you let politics undermine the nation's health.  God bless Michelle Obama for her healthy eating campaign.  Motivating and educating folks about nutrition and exercise is a great cause.  However, to really revitalize Americans' bodies and souls, initiatives must liberate farms from government oppression.  


*Only 10 states allow retail sales (ie. off farm) of raw milk.  Consumers may purchase raw milk on certified farms in 15 states.  Raw milk drinkers in 4 states have created "herd shares" to obtain the banned substance by getting around retail restrictions.   No where is it legal to sell unpasteurized milk across state lines.
For more information, go to the Campaign for Real Milk website.  

Should you believe the Chocolate as "Health Food" Hype?

You've read the headlines:

• Chocolate Lovers May Be Lowering Their Risk of Heart Disease (International Business Times, August 29, 2011)
• Heart Disease, Diabetes and Stroke: More Chocolate Less Risk? (ABC News, August 29, 2011)
• Scientists announce amazing findings: chocolate offers huge protection from heart disease and stroke (Natural News, August 30, 2011)
• High Chocolate Consumption May Reduce Heart Disease Risk By One Third (Medical News Today, August 30, 2011)

These recent news stories touting the health-promoting potential of chocolate were instigated by a research study published in the British Medical Journal.  The original story had a less memorable title: Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis.  While the authors found that the highest levels of chocolate consumption were associated with a 37% reduction in cardiovascular disease compared to the lowest levels; they concluded that "corroboration is now required from further studies, especially experimental studies to test causation rather than just association." 


One of the most confounding factors of this research (and most investigations into the links between diet and health) was the method by which data was collected.  Six of the seven studies included in the analysis relied on food intake questionnaires, which are at the mercy of participant recall and subjective estimations.  The most thorough statistical methods and the most robust formulas cannot compensate for a data set inherently flawed by human error.  So what the research really tells us is that people who report eating the most chocolate have the least signs and symptoms of cardiovascular disease.


In the full text of the BMJ article, the authors admit: 


Chocolate intake is likely to be underestimated by consumers, and may be underestimated to a larger extent by those with a higher body mass index. As people with a higher body mass index are also more likely to have a cardiovascular disease outcome, then the underestimation of their chocolate intake may induce an artificial inverse association between chocolate and risk of cardiovascular disease.


Other factors that might hamper the quality of recording chocolate consumption also need consideration. These include the potential effect of recall bias and the challenges of recording snacks (which might include chocolate) as these are generally under-reported compared with meals.


In other words, fat people underestimate how much they eat (which may explain why they are fat).   Since excess weight predisposes a person to heart problems and excess weight is generally a result of inflated portion sizes, then someone with a BMI above the normal, healthy range is likely to eat more chocolate because he/she eats more in general than someone who weighs less.  When a skinny person, like myself, reports eating "a piece" of chocolate, she is probably referring to a single square imprinted in a chocolate bar.  An overweight consumer is more likely to consider an entire chocolate bar to be a  single "piece."  What many fat people don't understand is that you can't deny eating a candy bar just because no one saw you raid the hidden stash in your underwear drawer (the scale doesn't lie).


The authors of the BMJ article also noted the "heterogeneity in reporting and measuring chocolate consumption."  Four of the five food intake questionnaires used did not probe portion size at all.  They simply asked about frequency of chocolate consumption in multiple choice format.
  
Study A: (a) Never, (b) Once a month, (c) Once a week or more
Study B: (a) Less than once a week, (b) Once a week or more
Study C: (a) Never, (b) Less than once a month to less than once a week, (c) Once a week, (d) more than once a week
Study D: (a) None, (b) 1-3/month, (c) 1-4/week, (d) >5/week


Due to the variation, only the lowest and highest categories could be used to associate chocolate consumption with heart disease.  In my opinion, complex statistics and scholarly considerations are useless given the vague multiple choice answers.  You might as well ask a bunch of people on the street if they eat "a lot" or "a little" chocolate. 


And to add insult to injury, subjects reported consumption of chocolate in a wide variety of forms: chocolate bars, chocolate drinks, chocolate desserts, nutritional supplements, biscuits, etc.  Researchers did not distinguish between a slice of chocolate layer cake and a Snickers or a dark chocolate bar and handful of Hersey's kisses.  This fact alone discredits the results of the analysis for me.  You might as well interpret the data as suggesting that people who prefer chocolate over vanilla things have less heart disease.  And the BMJ article does include the "Necessary Cautions":


Beyond the caution needed in interpretation of data from observational studies, one must also consider other aspects associated with chocolate consumption. For instance, the high energy density of commercially available chocolate (about 2100 kJ (500 kcal)/100 g) means excessive consumption will probably induce weight gain, a risk factor for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and cardiometabolic disorders in general. Hence the high sugar and fat content of commercially available chocolate should be considered, and initiatives to reduce it might permit an improved exposure to the beneficial effect of chocolate. However, the articles included in our analysis did not provide the information needed to evaluate any potential differences between different types of chocolate in the associations with cardiometabolic disorders.


I love chocolate as much as the next guy and do crave it sometimes.  But I'm not going to eat it daily in an attempt to increase my longevity.  Listen to that annoying, common sense voice in your head. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...  

  

El Bulli: Cooking in Progress

I just saw the film about its namesake, the revolutionary Spanish restaurant known for avante-guard cuisine achieved by the whimsical use of molecular gastronomy techniques.  Head chef, Ferran Adria, has become a celebrity to a budding community of food geeks and academics.  He and his team invented the process called "spherification," which they employ to turn any number of edible substances into perfect little pearls using sodium alginate (derived from algae) and calcium chloride.  One could argue that this single achievement is molecular gastronomy's defining technique.

Adria's announcement in 2010 that he was closing El Bulli, has created buzz about the chef's motivations as well as intensified interest in molecular gastronomy.  The documentary film about the establishment the NY Times has dubbed "The Most Influential Restaurant in the World" gives viewers a REAL behind-the-scenes look into Adria's world: his R&D kitchen (which bears a striking resemblance to a chemistry lab) and El Bulli.  There is no narration or commentary, just high definition footage.  The only drama or humor in the film is what the audience perceives based on natural dialogue and actions of the characters going about their everyday business.

The movie's subtitle, "Cooking in Progress," is an apropos description of the story line.  From shopping at the market to taking pictures and cataloguing each potential menu item, you witness dishes being made from conception to final execution at El Bulli.  The progression takes months of painstaking experimentation and detailed record keeping until the final moment when Adria gives his nod of approval.

In addition to outstanding feats of culinary mastery, El Bulli is also known for its meticulous service - to the tune of 30+ courses presented to every guest.  Feeding a full house of 50 diners equates to the plating of more than 1500 individual dishes per night.  The ambitious venture requires over 40 cooks and a crew of  efficient wait staff.  As if producing such an extensive menu of courses, each involving extreme care & dexterity, weren't enough; Adria expects his lackeys to make continual improvements throughout the meal.

An interesting revelation in the film is the hands-off authority that Adria wields.  He has obviously worked with his proteges long enough to develop a high degree of trust such that he delegates all of the food preparation to them.  It is their responsibility to figure out how to create the next best dish - a dish the world has never seen before.  However, Adria remains the ultimate arbiter of quality and innovation.  He will and does tell his staff: "Don't give me anything that isn't good."  Watching the documentary with English subtitles makes Adria's criticisms even more humorous and delightful to watch.

While I am intrigued by the likes of Adria, Jose Andres (a fellow Spaniard who trained at El Bulli before opening restaurants in the U.S.) and Wiley Defresne (known for his use of transglutaminase, aka. "meat glue"), I am not a die-hard molecular groupie.  I personally side with some of Adria's critics who denounce his approach to cooking as "unhealthy."  I know of no studies that definitively demonstrate that the chemicals commonly used by molecular gastronomists pose a risk to diners; but I feel that many of the techniques are "unwholesome."  My aversion to processed foods extends to all things containing transglutaminase (a binder) and other chemicals you wouldn't find in grandma's kitchen.  Blame it on my classical culinary training or food snobbery.  I just prefer to eat as close to nature as possible.  And if I want a bowl of pasta; I expect the noodles to be made of wheat and not some funky fish protein (sorry, Wiley).  Call me a Luddite for believing that chefs should be able to blow your senses away without the use of a chemistry kit.

Watching a dinner service unfold at El Bulli got me thinking about dining out and satisfaction.  To foodies, there is appeal in letting a skilled chef serve you want he/she wants to cook rather than ordering off a printed menu.  Eating out has become a form of entertainment, especially for folks who like surprises.  And yet, the food is so complex at El Bulli that I imagine some diners must feel like children watching an R-rated film: they walk away having experienced both amusement and perplexity.  While not clearly spelled out by the footage in the film, it is apparent that there's a rhyme & reason to the progression of courses.  I doubt that anyone who hasn't had a glimpse behind-the-scenes would be able to fully appreciate Adria's thought process.  So I wonder: if you don't know why you're eating what your eating, what's the point?  Should you eat courses containing foods you dislike or are morally opposed to eating just to be polite or to "expand one's culinary horizons"?  And if so, how can you honestly claim that you were completely satisfied at the end of the meal?  I may never be able to judge Ferran Adria's style of service for myself, but I did enjoy watching it unfold.

How to Lose Weight

The weight loss industry is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Americans spend their hard-earned money on books, pills, diet "shakes" and low-cal, low-carb and sugar-free substitutes for their favorite food vices.  Rather than take the free common-sense dietary advice provided by the USDA on the MyPyramid.gov site,  people pay health coaches, personal trainers and weight loss gurus to provide a personalized plan and hold them accountable.  And the recession has not appeared to put a dent in the profits of Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and other popular weight loss programs (especially those created or endorsed by celebrities).

I have thought about capitalizing on the obesity epidemic & people's widespread desperation to attain a certain number myself by writing a book on healthy living and weight loss.  But so much has been written on the subject that I haven't been able to conceive a truly unique perspective that would not overlap with any of the thousands of opinions out there.  So rather than reinvent the wheel, here is a sampling of the words of wisdom and advice (most of which I have stumbled across for free) that resonate with me:

1. Mark Bittman, NYTimes food writer and cookbook author: "Eat vegan until six." (from Food Matters)

2. Suzanne Somers, actress and diet guru: "Fat is your friend and sugar is the greatest enemy." (from Sexy Forever: How to Fight Fat After Forty

3. Dr. Oz, doctor, TV celebrity and author : "The only white things you should have in you fridge are egg whites, cauliflower and fish." (from You: On a Diet)

4. Michael Pollan, influential journalist, journalism professor and author: "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants." (from In Defense of Food)

5. Dr. David Kessler, former FDA commissioner and author: "People get fat because they eat more than people who are lean." (from The End of Overeating)

6. Rory Freedman, author of Skinny Bitch: "Beer is for frat boys, not skinny bitches.  It makes you fat, bloaty and farty."

7. Alton Brown, Food Network television host: "Eating is an intensely intimate act, and you get what you pay for.  So, rethink that 74-cent can of chili from China."

8. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition and public health at NYU and author: "The basic principles of good diets are so simple that I can summarize them in just ten words: eat less, move more, eat lots of fruits and vegetables.  For additional clarification, a five-word modifier helps: go easy on junk foods." (from What to Eat)

9. Yogi Bhajan, natural healer who brought the practice of Kundalini yoga to America: "Eat only in a pleasant, relaxing environment." 

10. Terry Walters, holistic health counselor, food educator and cookbook author: "Chew, Chew, Chew!"  She elaborates: "The more you chew, the more digestive enzymes you secrete, the less stress on your digestive organs, the more nutrients you absorb from your food, the more easily you eliminate." (from Clean Food)

Note that these tidbits of wisdom are helpful for everyone who wants to live a healthy & harmonious life. 

Meat to get Nutrition Labels

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced last week that nutrition labels will become mandatory on 40 popular fresh meat and poultry products starting on January 1, 2012.  While packages of processed meaty items like bacon, hot dogs and cold cuts have worn a nutrition facts panel since 1994 in accordance with the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), most unprocessed foods have remained unlabeled (voluntary labeling guidelines have remained largely unheeded since 1993).  As suppliers and retailers prepare to comply with the new mandate as the deadline approaches this year, consumers should start noticing numbers on their steaks, chicken breasts, chops and more.

Nutrition labeling is meant to inform people and help them comply with the government's Dietary Guidelines (USDA and Department of Health and Human Services) which advise limiting fat & saturated fat intake.  In theory, the average American will read & understand the Nutrition Facts panel then act in a prudent manner.  Over the past 16 years, people have become fatter and sicker  despite having calorie and fat information for processed foods at their finger tips.  What makes the public health officials think that placing nutrition labels on meat will make much difference to consumers?

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at NYU and author of such popular books as Food Politics and What to Eat, says that the new mandate "will be very helpful to people who are bewildered by what's in meat." She thinks that "people will be shocked at the calories and fat."  While I am a fan of Nestle and applaud her efforts to reveal the influence that politics and the food industry have on nutrition and health policies, I personally disagree with her optimism.  Sure, the label-reading public will continue to read labels.  This particular segment of the population already avoids the fattiest of meats so the new law will have little, if any, effect on their shopping behavior.  Folks who usually ignore the fine print may notice the new labels.  But I have my doubts about whether they will actually change their purchasing habits based on the numbers that are soon to be in clear view.

Case in point: People still purchase DiGiorno frozen pepperoni pizza even though the nutrition facts panel declares that a single 8" pie contains 33 grams of fat, of which 15 grams are saturated, and 900 calories.  In order to determine the total quantity of fat and calories in the box the consumer must make a simple calculation. 11 grams of fat per serving X 3 servings.  One serving is just 1/3 of a pizza.  At first glance, the label makes it seem that a single pizza contains just 17% of the recommended daily value of fat when, in fact, it contains about a half.  Eating an entire frozen pie is not out of the question for Americans accustomed to the inflated portions they are served in restaurants these days.  Solving a mathematical equation is another story...

Many of the standard serving sizes used on food labels were determined in the 1990s by surveys taken in the previous two decades.  It is a well-known fact that people tend to underestimate how much they eat.  Given the increase in appetites since the '70s, the F.D.A. needs to seriously re-evaluate serving sizes.  However, doing so introduces debate about the message that larger serving sizes would send to an overweight population.

For the time being, 4 ounces will be the serving size used for the purpose of labeling the nutritional content of meat.  That's a quarter pound.  The McDonald's "Quarter Pounder" was invented in 1971 by a franchise owner who "felt there was a void in our menu vis-a-vis the adult who wanted a higher ratio of meat to bun." The new menu item was an immediate success and introduced nation-wide.  Unfortunately, the quarter pound (raw weight) burger is no longer an extravagant novelty.  Half pounders, or two quarter pound patties sandwiched together, are easy to come by in pubs and fast casual restaurants.

For those who enjoy a high "meat to bun" ratio, the nutrition facts for a single serving of ground beef will drastically underestimate the calories and fat they are accustomed to eating in a single sitting.  To make matters worse, the FSIS has decided that printing "the number of servings per container is not necessary information on the nutrition labels or point-of-purchase materials of the major cuts or non-major cuts of single-ingredient, raw products because these products are typically random weight products."  In other words, since the weight of raw meat packaged at the retail level varies from package to package, the government doesn't think the number of servings per package needs to be mentioned.

Another silly decision is the requirement that any statement of lean percentage on the package of ground or chopped meat be accompanied by the percent fat.  Listing both is redundant because the two numbers simply add up to 100%.  This resolution was meant to appease concerns that listing just the percentage of lean meat on products that do not meet regulatory for "low fat" (no more than 3 grams fat per serving) would lead the consumer to believe the product is low in fat.  Since lean percentages have become an industry norm, it would have made no sense to replace then with the fat percentage.  So the logical thing (in fed's mind) to do is to list both percentages side by side.

This ruling does nothing to educate the consumer about a percentage of great nutritional importance: the fraction of calories that comes from the product's fat content.  Ground sirloin, the "lightest" option, is in the range of 90-95% lean yet derives about 45-52% of calories from fat (each gram of fat contains 9 calories compared to 4 calories per gram of protein).  The only way to figure this out from the nutrition facts panel is to read the fine print and do the math yourself (calories from fat divided by total calories).

The last, but not the least, shortcoming of putting nutrition on packages of fresh, unprocessed meat is the inherent inaccuracy of labeling an agricultural product with natural variability.  The values used will come from the USDA's Nutrient Data Bank.  As long as no health claims are made on the product label or at the point of purchase, the FSIS will not sample or conduct nutrient analysis of any retail specimens.  So, there is no way to know if the local butcher inadvertently mixed up a batch of ground round (85% - 89% lean) and ground chuck (78% - 84% lean).  You'd hope that he'd be able to visually identify and differentiate batches but who's monitoring?  Slap on a label and you're good to go!

Sweet Ignorance

A can of Red Bull helps to jump start the day.  If there's time in the morning to chew & swallow something, a muffin is a handy way to curb the appetite till lunchtime rolls around.  When the mid-afternoon energy lull hits, a chocolate chip cookie or handful of M&Ms is the perfect antidote.  While a fruit smoothie quenches the thirst and revives the spirit of "health nuts."  And, finally, a scoop or two of ice cream is in order after dinner - just because.  You may not have a sweet tooth, but it's hard to resist a piece of pie or slice of Buche de Noel when the holidays roll around.

Does any of this sound familiar?  Americans are addicted to sugar.  The cupcake craze, which began in the late '90s, is stronger than ever thanks to crafty pastry chefs capitalizing on our ever growing desire to have our cake and eat it too.  Bakeries specializing in mini cakes topped with gobs of frosting are popping up everywhere.  It is now not only convenient but socially acceptable to satisfy one's craving for childhood nostalgia at any time or place.  Rationalizations are really only necessary to quell self-inflicted guilt.

Annual per capita sugar consumption in the United States is over 150 pounds.  What I find more disturbing than this outrageous statistic is the pervasive indifference about sugar's deleterious effects.  Aside from the obvious warnings about dental cavities and weight gain, reducing sugar intake is typically not recommended by conventional medicine as a way to mitigate other common problems like high blood pressure and chronic disease (ie. arthritis, allergies).  However, doing so has many positive health implications.  Here are a few reasons to kick the sugar habit...

1. Sugar suppresses the immune system
Glucose, the most basic form of sugar, has a chemical structure similar to ascorbic acid (aka. Vitamin C) which the immune system requires to fight off bacteria and viruses.  They compete with each other in vivo.  The more glucose there is floating around, the less Vitamin C can get into the cells that need it which compromises the immunity.  If you want to avoid getting sick this winter, abstaining from dessert is a good strategy.

2. Sugar accelerates aging
Sugar bonds to proteins and lipids (fat) in a process called "glycation," which is the first step in a series of reactions that lead to AGEs or advanced glycation endproducts.  AGEs interfere with basic cellular functions throughout the body.  Since they are eliminated slowly, there is plenty of time for them to wreck havoc on collagen, retina cells, beta cells in the liver, DNA, etc.  Some of the noticeable symptoms include a sullen complexion, wrinkled skin and liver spots.

3. Heart disease/increased triglycerides
Sugar raises triglycerides and LDLs.  Excess sugar consumption leads to insulin resistance which depresses magnesium stores.  Without adequate magnesium, muscles constrict and high blood pressure can result.  All these factors increase heart disease risk.  Instead of obsessing over saturated fat, you'd be wise to be more mindful about the sugar content of your diet.

Just because something is edible - and tastes good - does not mean that you should eat it and eat it often.  It doesn't matter what kind of sugar - high fructose corn syrup, agave nectar, maple syrup, honey or plain old white sugar.  Sugar is sugar. 

Vegetables don't get the respect they deserve

Even among fruit & vegetable eaters, edible plants don't get the respect they deserve.  Since they have no feelings - or at least that is what we human beings think - they fall outside the domain governed by morals and decency.  If an apple rolls off the table and hits the floor, the damage to its flesh is obvious and immediate: a soft, mushy, discolored spot at the point of impact.  Many folks would toss the marred fruit in the garbage without a second thought.  People who insist on washing the dirt off and cutting the bruise away to render it edible again risk being stigmatized as frugal.

The other thing that bothers me is the expectation that veggies should be cheap.  Even Americans of comfortable means (I'm talking about people earning six figure salaries) will complain about the price of produce.  They'll buy potatoes and salad greens in bulk at Costco only to have the dollars saved rot away in their refrigerator's crisper drawer after a week or two of neglect.

This morning at the gym, I overhead a conversation between two women which supports my argument.  One lady was talking about her love of vegetables and favorite ways to prepare kale and butternut squash.  When asked where she buys her produce, she replied that she shops at a local independently-owned market known for their cheap and abundant vegetables.  "I'd never buy celery for $2.19 a bunch at the supermarket when I can get it for 79 cents."  But then she explained that she bought her kale somewhere else because the bunches have less stem.  "You pay for the stem," she said and also mentioned that she always buys broccoli crowns to avoid having to pay for something she doesn't eat.

But the conversation didn't end there.  The penny-pinching produce lover also went on to say that while she doesn't eat much red meat, that she looks for beef that has been humanely raised.  She goes out of her way to buy grass-fed beef, which I estimate costs about 30% more than conventional.  It has never been proven that vegetables don't have feelings.  So why do we complain so much about the price of plants?  And we're not even talking about organically grown produce which sells for a premium.

God-forbid California is deluged with excessive rainfall and the price of strawberries goes up in price suddenly.  The average consumer will curse the store manager instead of feeling sympathy for the farmer.  Farmers make pennies on every retail dollar transaction that takes place out of their hands (after their produce has been passed through several middlemen) .  Most Americans have become selfishly accustomed to choosing from all varieties of produce grown domestically and abroad year-round.  If you want to eat blueberries in February then you better be willing to pay the cost of shipping them all the way from Chile.  You don't think twice about spending more on gas to drive an extra ten miles to a less expensive store.  Someone's gotta pay to transport vegetables from the Southern to the Northern hemisphere.  

As with all things in life, you get what you pay for.  Fruits and vegetables are no exception.

1. In most cases, fruits and vegetables grown with toxic pesticides & herbicides are cheaper and prettier than produce grown using organic means. As much as we'd like to believe that we can outsmart Mother Nature, the bitter truth is that conventional farming does more harm than good.  Planting genetically-modified seed, applying petrochemicals to the soil and spraying fields with neurotoxins increases yields and efficiency in the short-term. However, bioengineering & technology have long-term consequences that will have to paid for at a later date.  You know what they say about too much of a good thing...

Cheap produce is laced with hundreds of chemicals shown to have adverse human health effects.  If you dare to step outside of your sphere of blissful ignorance, check out the website "What's on my food?"

2. The other cheapskate misconception that I'd like to obliterate is the idea that shoppers should only pay for the edible portion of vegetables.  First of all, educated consumers should know by now that the minimally processed or prepped an item is, the cheaper the unit price.  A stalk of broccoli which has had its stem hacked off, affectionately labeled "broccoli crown," costs more per pound.  Even if the price differential seems like a reasonable sacrifice, think again.  I choose broccoli as an example because most people throw away a large portion of the edible stem.  The stem is just as nutritious and tasty as the florets plus it has a great crunch.  To enjoy it, you just have to peel the outside a little bit and cut off the very end of the stem.  My other beef with broccoli crowns is their lack of taste, which is an indication of their inferior nutritional content.  Once you cut a fruit or vegetable, it releases enzymes which cause brown discoloration and destroy nutrients.  Even non-edible parts of some vegetables can be put to good use.  The green fibrous tops of leeks and fennel can used to infuse soups and stews with great flavor.  Think about it, if you have a good friend but didn't like the color of her hair, would you demand that she cut it off?  Of course, not.  Then why do you insist on rejecting the least attractive portion of Mother Nature's bounty?

Do yourself a favor by not skimping when you shop for produce.  And pay your veggies some respect by preparing them with care and eating before they suffer a slow, painful death by decay in the fridge.