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.

Chia Seeds: Novelty, Popularity & Controversy

Chia seeds first gained attention in the U.S. in the '80s when the Chia Pet appeared in commercials on the boob tube accompanied by the catchy ch-ch-chia jingle.  I don't think it crossed the minds of many people at the time that the chia seeds, which sprout into a green hairy coating on an animal-shaped terra cotta figurine ("the pottery that grows"), were edible.  I imagine parents even scolded their children for putting the sprouts in their mouths.  Little did they know that the seeds of Salvia hispanica plant (aka. chia) have been consumed for centuries in Mexico where they are indigenous.  Even though they are entirely edible and nutritious, the seeds included in Chia Pet kits have never been promoted as a food because Joseph Enterprises, who holds the patent on the product, never applied for FDA approval.

Fast forward to 25 years... Chia seeds are now one of the hottest foods among certain circles of runners and health faddists in the U.S.  The publication of Born to Run in 2009 not only popularized the practice of barefoot running, it also catapulted the seed, which was previously viewed as a child's novelty, into a trendy health food.  Legends of Aztec warriors subsisting on little more than a spoonful of chia seeds during periods of conquest have been cited as reason to spend up to $10 a pound on the so-called superfood.  Dr. Oz and Dr. Weil have endorsed chia for its high Omega-3 (ALA) and soluble fiber content.  If you can stomach the gelatinous consistency of the seed when it is combined with water (the gooeyness is what makes chia capable of adhering to the Chia pet), you'll also benefit from its amino acids, vitamins, minerals & antioxidants.

What Food Labels DON'T Tell You

I have already warned readers of this blog to be wary of claims that manufacturers put on the front of processed food packages (I'm someone who believes that you shouldn't be eating anything with a label in the first place, but that's another story...).  Consumers who wish to verify information used to sell products know to read the fine print, which in this case takes the form of nutrition facts and ingredient lists.  However, due to "leniencies" in food labeling regulations, the black and white facts printed on the side and back panels of packages can also be deceiving.

Loopholes are commonly used by companies to claim that their product is "free" or  "low" in calories, an undesirable macronutrient (such as fat) or ingredient (such as high fructose corn syrup).  When the declaration of trans fat content became mandatory in 2006, the industry pounced on the opportunity to add front-of-package "Trans Fat Free" declarations at the same time that they were revising their nutrition facts panels to be compliant with the new law.  Many took advantage of the rule allowing them to report "0" for quantities under .5 grams so they didn't have to remove partially hydrogenated oils entirely.  They simply decreased portion size or substituted a part of the undesirable ingredient with a less notorious type of fat.

In the current climate of heightened awareness around the link between diet & disease, deceiving health claims on processed food packages have a short half-life.  It also helps that the First Lady has been vocal about children's nutrition prompting the FTC to crack down on misleading ad campaigns (for instance, the New York Times recently reported about how Kellogg's can no longer suggest that Rice Krispies and Frosted Mini-Wheats improve children's health). Aggressive R&D efforts and increased availability of alternative ingredients have allowed food makers to keep pace with current health trends without having to sacrifice profits too much.  It's a fact of life: "the good stuff ain't cheap."  In addition to the cost, natural ingredients that won't compromise your health don't have the minimum shelf  life required by most manufacturers (and consumers who have become accustomed to the convenience of non-perishable foods).

Natural Products

I recently attended the natural products expo - Expo East - to check out the latest and greatest edible substances (aka. food, grub, cuisine) on the market. [Natural supplement & body care products also have a place at the show but I will ignore them for the purposes of this blog.]  All products on display were free of artificial ingredients including artificial colors, artificial flavors, synthetic preservatives and hydrogenated oils.  Exhibitors included large multinational conglomerates in the guise of the natural product companies they've acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars (ie. Kellogg's represented by Kashi and Bear Naked), well-established independent brands, and regional entrepreneurs.  Samples and sales pitches were abundant and varied to cater to the needs of practically every lifestyle on the planet.  Raw, vegan, lactose intolerant, gluten-free, low-carb, etc.  You name it; there is a company trying to capitalize on your allergy, dietary preference, weight loss aspiration or medical condition.

Some brands boasted what they didn't contain (ie. gluten, dairy, fat, or calories), while others enticed with functional ingredients (fiber, antioxidants, and omega-3's) they've added to their products to set themselves apart from the competition - and from nature.  At times, it seemed almost too good to be true: high fiber multi-grain chips, carb-free noodles, sugar-free energy drinks, decadent dark chocolate candy containing a day's worth of 15 vitamins & minerals.  I was often let down when I read the ingredient lists of these miraculous products.  The slightest attention to fine print makes it glaringly apparent that natural food manufacturers use many of the same tricks and deceptive marketing tactics that the rest of the marketplace does.

Allow me to pull the wool from from over your eyes...

Boorito 2010

I just stumbled upon this very cute promotion Chipotle is running on Halloween to raise awareness about "The Horrors of Processed Food" and help raise money for Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. Customers who go into a Chipotle restaurant after 6pm on Sunday dressed up as a horrifying processed food product can get an entree for just $2 and enter the costume contest for a chance to win up to $2500.

I agree whole-heartedly with the folks at Chipotle: "Processed food can be pretty scary" so you don't have to put much effort into making yourself look scary; just feign fake food and you're golden (come to think of it, anything fried in rancid vegetable oil to have a crispy golden brown exterior would make a pretty frightening costume).

I'd go out right now to try and put together a clever outfit if only I liked the fare at Chipotle.  Or more accurately, if the food at Chipotle liked me a little more.  The quality is definitely leaps and bounds above Taco Bell in terms of healthfulness and taste.  However, the few times I have eaten Chipotle burritos; the beans & rice have made an unpleasant exit from my body. I'm really not in the mood for a trick of this nature on Halloween (I have to go to work the next day).

I do enjoy homemade Tex-Mex food made with fresh ingredients.  But I am very picky about where and what I eat when it comes to this type of cuisine because one of my major pet peeves is improperly cooked beans.  What most people don't realize is that beans don't have to cause uncomfortable gas & bloating.  Soaking and cooking beans sufficiently help remove a large portion of the ogliosaccharides (long chains of sugar molecules) which the human body can not digest and results in flatulence when bacteria in the large intestine start to break down the saccharide polymers.  Make sure to discard the soaking liquid and use fresh water to cook with or else you'll end up back where you started.  I also like to cook my beans with a piece of kombu, aka. kelp, because it contains the enzyme, alpha-galactosidase, which has the ability to digest complex sugars and adds additional trace minerals to the mix.   Beans possess a lot of health benefits - soluble fiber, antioxidants, protein, minerals, etc - but they are of little use if your body can't access them.  So cook those beans well and cook them twice (yumm.. refried beans!) if you have to.

Personal problems are no longer private

The state of Massachusetts passed a law, which recently went into effect, requiring restaurants to train their staff on how to prevent contamination of food by allergenic ingredients and post signs that say: "Before placing your order, please inform your server if a person in your party has a food allergy."  The frequency with which people request special meals and substitutions these days, you'd think that afflicted diners were in the majority.  However, only about 4% of the American population has a food allergy. Why the new mandate?  Well, the very vocal minority of consumers and assertive advocacy groups have convinced legislators to place an obligation on food handlers.

Allergies are no laughing matter.  Anaphylaxis, an acute hypersensitivity reaction that can be fatal, may be triggered by nuts, shellfish and other foods.  Most people who have a true allergy - an actual immune system-mediated condition and not just an intolerance or phobia - will not die from something they ate.  They may just get a rash or itchy dermatitis, have difficulty breathing, develop a stomachache and perhaps experience a bout of diarrhea.  I don't mean to be disrespectful to those with a true diagnosis, but I do believe that some folks exaggerate the extent of their suffering.  I even dare say that food allergies and sensitivities are en vogue today.  Psychosomatic symptoms and self-diagnosis are rampant thanks to the vast amount of medical and pseudo-scientific information available on demand with any internet-enabled mobile device anywhere you happen to be (make sure to sanitize your Blackberry when you're done with your research).

Fear and neurosis can illicit an "allergic reaction."  Simply suspecting that you inadvertently consumed dairy can cause gas & bloating due to a distorted variation of the placebo effect.  If you've ever had food poisoning, you probably avoided the food which harbored the bacteria that made you sick for a while after your unpleasant experience.  Someone with a tendency toward hypochondria and OCD may never touch that food again in their life.  Rather than admit a fear or dislike for something, a certain percentage of people will claim to have an allergy.  And the power of conviction will likely be there to reinforce the claim with physical proof.

Notwithstanding the the rise in "alleged allergies," more consumers are being clinically diagnosed and advised to avoid certain things than ever before.  When you work in the food business, you come across a lot of people with food allergies, which makes you wonder WHY?  I'd like to discuss a few of the theories which I think have the most merit.  Unfortunately, understanding what causes food allergies won't necessarily cure them.  Making conscious food choices can minimize your suffering and perhaps spare future generations.

1. Inadequate breastfeeding
I apologize for placing the blame on Mom, but the truth is that breast milk contains antibodies designed to promote infantile intestinal health. A baby's gut lacks IgA molecules making it permeable to proteins which act as allergens, like casein from cow's milk.  Mother's milk provides an early infusion of these antibodies to help create a barrier capable of protecting against offensive substances.  Healthy gut microflora is the first line of defense against bacteria, viruses, AND.... potential allergens.

2. Over-sterile environment
The obsession with anti-bacterial soaps, gels and cleaning products has wrecked havoc on children's immune systems.  Numerous studies support the "hygiene hypothesis" which explains the link between too clean an environment and higher rates of conditions caused by a compromised immune system, namely allergies & asthma.  Immunological disorders are less common in developing countries where standards of sanitation and cleanliness are much lower than those here in the U.S.  Peanut allergies are virtually unknown in poor African nations where crowding and frequent infections are the norm.  Peanut butter, in the form of "Plumpy'nut" (a paste made of peanut butter, milk powder, vitamins & minerals), has saved tens of thousands of malnourished African children. This nutrient-dense formula would be banned in many American schools and could only be administered in the country with EpiPen in hand.

3. Overconsumption of processed foods
Sweets and processed foods with added sugars and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils also screw up the immune system.  Excess sugar and white flour incites an inflammatory response that is similar to  the body's response to an allergen.  Eating too much sugar may also disrupt the digestive system allowing undigested food particles to enter the bloodstream (aka. "leaky gut syndrome") and result in an allergic reaction. Hydrogenated oils are pro-inflammatory which explains why they are capable of causing a laundry list of physiological problems.  Food allergies are just one of the many consequences that should motivate you to avoid artificial trans fats (the naturally occurring trans fat called conjugated linoleic acid, derived from ruminant animal products, is not associated with the same adverse health effects as artificial ones, and is actually beneficial).

4. Underconsumption of nutritious, whole foods
Americans are notoriously overfed and undernourished because of poor eating habits.  People just don't eat enough fruits and vegetables that are rich in vitamin C and antioxidants which support healthy immune function.  Popping a multivitamin pill containing synthetic nutrients is not as effective as getting health-promoting substances straight from Nature.  Increased production and marketing of dairy & meat substitutes has encouraged many allergy sufferers to rely on processed foods to fill the voids in their diets  thus perpetuating dependency on "edible food-like substances."

A good dietary rule of thumb is to only eat things you could make in your own kitchen.  If your go-to dairy substitute contains ingredients you can't pronounce or buy in your neighborhood grocery store then consider putting it back on the shelf.  This may necessitate your rethinking your daily habits and change your point of view.  I tell a lot of people who are newly diagnosed with an allergy and frantic about what they (or their child in the case of a parent) can now eat to consider their food allergy to be a blessing rather than a curse.  Be grateful that your health condition is not life threatening and presents the opportunity to explore new & healthy foods you may not have tried before.

Why Does My Stomach Hurt?

In my last post, I shared my observations of some of the conventional and not so conventional things that people eat when they eat out.  I find watching other people's nutritional indiscretions and unusual food combinations to be humorous at best and horrifying at worst.  Making up stories about strangers out of context reveals more about the storyteller than the characters in the narrative, so I bit my tongue.  I didn't try to read people's minds, interpret their behavior, or judge their decisions.  I hope that my silence allowed you to enjoy dramas of your own imagination and prejudices.

Now, I'd like to step into the commercial kitchen where the food you buy is prepared by people you don't know.  This is not going to be a repulsive expose of food safety violations.  Rather than focus on the ingredients or cooking methods that compromise you health, I am interested in exploring the atmosphere and attitudes which beget indigestion.

What I am about to describe pertains to the 98% (this is my approximation) of restaurants and food retail outlets where Americans eat outside of their own homes.  For the moment, I am going to ignore the tiny percentage of uber-upscale places where executive chefs still prepare carefully crafted & innovative menu items of their own fancy.  I am also excluding the down-home joints with an inspired proprietor who deserves a visit by Guy Fieri because of the care & attention he/she gives to simple comfort food.

In spite of the glamor surrounding culinary arts and the prestige bestowed upon chefs, food service jobs are low-paying, back-breaking and downright sweaty.  Even in restaurants where well-trained chefs prepare food "a la minute"for their diners, most of the work of washing, peeling and chopping vegetables is left to dishwashers (people who wash dishes, not machines) and prep cooks making between $8 and $10/hour.  Wages paid to fast food workers are even less.  Did you ever stop to consider what might be going through the mind of the high school kid flipping your burger for minimum wage?  Is he distracted by the the attractive girl who just walked in the door or thinking about a homework assignment he has to complete after his shift?

Not all low-wage workers are young and immature.  A majority of the people employed in food service are immigrants (legal and illegal) who work their tails off trying to make ends meet with one or two full-time jobs.  And thanks to the recession, more unemployed white collar workers are calling restaurants to inquire about something other than a reservation.  Career changers learn the hard way that cooking for a paycheck is not as fun as cooking for family and friends.  Chopping dozens of onions, assembling sandwiches for strangers and hauling a 50 gallon garbage bag out to the dumpster changes one's rosy view of food preparation.

On the other end of the spectrum are the professionals who have chosen to pursue a career in the restaurant industry.  The qualities that make a good line cook in a commercial kitchen setting, who does the work of "cooking" your appetizer or entree to order (this could consist of actually cooking from the raw state or simply reheating and plating a dish), are not the same as those of the home cook.  People who get paid to cook and can truthfully say they enjoy their jobs thrive in a hot, fast-paced environment.  Nourishing and pleasing the diner is an afterthought.  They are motivated to show up at work everyday because they love the adrenaline rush they get from fighting their way "out of the weeds" on a Saturday night.  They enjoy boasting about the number of fires they've put out and will show you their scars.

Next time you go out to eat and are are presented with a plate of perfectly seared duck breast (or whatever animal flesh you prefer) surrounded by an exquisite sauce and accompanied by silky smooth mashed potatoes, stop for a second to ponder how it came to be.  Maybe the chef purchased the baby lettuces & heirloom tomatoes in your salad from a local farm.  Did you choose the roast chicken because the menu said it was "free range"?  If so, do you care that between you and the humanely raised & organically grown ingredients on your plate stands a hot & sweaty line cook?  A guy so bogged down with orders that he doesn't have time to wipe his brow or take a sip of water.  

The plate sitting in front of you has been wiped clean around the edges so as not to reveal any hint that it is the product of a highly stressful, fast-paced and exhausting environment.  There are many reasons why restaurant food tastes nothing like what you would make at home.  It's not just the liberal use of salt & butter that sets it apart.  There is a certain atmosphere and methodical approach to restaurant cooking which objectifies each dish.  And the heat of a commerical kitchen - both physical and psychological - is strong enough to upset not just the cook's & restaurant manager's stomachs but the guts of their diners, too.

What constitutes a meal?

Aside from curiosity and egotistic judgment, why, you may be wondering, do I keep returning to the keyboard to blog? And what gives me the right to make such audacious statements?

Without divulging my occupation and employer, let's just say that I am in a position at work to observe the preparation of food for retail and the people who buy prepared, ready-to-eat meals.  Over the past 7 years, I've seen a lot of unsavory acts - both unintentional & premeditated - that should have earned the perpetrators a bit more than a slap on the wrist.  If I was good at telling jokes, I could probably have a successful stand-up comic career.  But I'm not, so I choose to blog.

In today's hectic & entrepreneurial society, the traditional practice of eating "three square" meals a day has become nearly extinct.  Workaholic Americans have abandoned the old-fashioned breakfast, lunch and dinner routine opting to either graze on candy & snack foods at their desk all day or just wait to binge when they get home from work.

And what many people eat now when they get a chance to sit down and fill their belly would make grandma turn in her grave.  From what I have observed, it seems that anything goes.  Forget any preconceived notions that a meal should contain at least 3 food groups or revolve around a source of animal protein.  Pizza for breakfast - why not?  A bowl of cereal for dinner - hell yeah when there's nothing else in the house to eat.  All of the following selections seem to be fair game any time of day:

1. Sushi and a chocolate chip cookie
2. Or just the cookie
3. Two scoops of ice cream
4. Sandwich and a piece of fruit
5. Baguette with butter or cream cheese
6. Apple and peanut butter
7. Mac & cheese with a couple chicken fingers on top
8. Half a rotisserie chicken 
9. Yogurt parfait
10. Humongous burrito
11. "Power" bar (no trademark, could be anyone of the thousands of brands of protein-enhanced products)
12. A couple avocados
13. Cheese and crackers
14. A few handfuls of cashews
15. A quart container of vanilla yogurt (yes, the whole thing)
16. Cup of tomato soup with oyster crackers
17. Salad containing a variety of veggies, deli salads (ie. macaroni, potato salad, etc) & protein
18. Bag of baby carrots
19. Protein shake/smoothie
20. Muffin and OJ

I'll refrain from the color commentary at this time to allow your own imaginations to run wild. I hope you will amuse yourself by picturing strangers or the people you know eating one or more of the items on the above list.  Maybe you feel relieved that you're not the only one who makes a meal out of a Clif bar or cookie.  For even more amusing culinary quirks that people like to keep to themselves, check out Deborah Madison's observations of  "What We Eat When We  Eat Alone."

Fat & Cholesterol: Friend or Foe?

The fact that excess fat & cholesterol clogs arteries and ultimately leads to heart attacks, and in some cases death, is common knowledge. The majority of doctors, registered dietitians, politicians and lay folk have accepted this "lipid hypothesis" as gospel since the latter half of the 20th century. The upshot of this theory has directed dietary guidelines, food science, pharmaceutical agendas, and medical practice, procedures & billing.

If eating foods containing saturated fats* & trans fatty acids raises levels of low density lipoproteins (aka. LDLs) which contributes to "hardening" of the coronary arteries; then the prudent thing to do would be to avoid foods rich in saturated fat or processed with (ie. fried) partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Right? That would make American stand-bys and favorite comfort foods, like cheeseburgers w/ fries, chicken pot pie, and mac & cheese, bad for you. What about love? Can't mom's doting and affectionate intentions act as an antidote to rich, down-home ingredients with which she cooks? Nope, not according to the science.

Just because the USDA issues dietary guidelines to help the populace adopt "good dietary habits to promote health and reduce risk of major chronic diseases," doesn't mean you have to follow them. Were you actually paying attention to the government in 2005, the last time its advisory committee published recommendations? Are you anxious to hear what the official word will be when the latest guidelines are finalized & released this year? Will you offend grandma the next time she tries to serve you her wickedly delicious meatloaf and mashed potatoes?

From what I've observed in life and on TV as well as the things I read on-line, in magazines and newspapers; I believe that American consumers fall into four distinct categories.

1. The ignorant (or just plain irresponsible)

These are the folks who eat fast food at least 3 times a week. Some will claim that they'd like to eat more healthfully but don't have the time or money. I can only sympathize for people who rely on government support to feed their families and lack access to fresh, healthy foods. I have nothing polite to say about parents who feed their obese, pre-diabetic children fried and processed foods without remorse.

2. The responsible

You don't have to be perfect to fall into this category. Diners who are aware of the connection between diet and health don't always make choices which would meet approval by the American Heart Association. In my mind, you don't have to be a militant vegan who shuns all animal products or macrobiotic devotee to be a health conscious eater. In fact, I think it better that you allow yourself a "treat" every now and then (but not too often). If you think you're holier-than-thou because you don't put fattening food, sugar or whatever in your mouth, then you may have orthorexia. In which case, you should speak to a shrink.

3. The proud rebellious

Then there are those who go out of their way to show off their indulgent habits and behaviors, which they know are not politically correct. Take for instance, the proprietor and employees of the Heart Attack Grill, whose tagline is: "Taste Worth Dying For." They offer a Quadruple Bypass Burger [trademark] consisting of four ground beef patties, 8 slices of cheese with all the fixin's (minus the lettuce) between a bun. The manager calls himself "Dr. Jon" and the waitresses walk around dressed as nurses who pretend to check your vital signs.

Anthony Bourdain and Adam Richman, hosts of "No Reservations" and "Man v. Food", respectively; are two people who also come to mind. They travel around the country and the world looking for the most enormous, repulsive and fattening meals. These two so-called 'food authorities' are proud to eat a day's worth of food in a single sitting in front of the camera. Sensationalism may not be responsible but it sure boosts ratings for the Travel Channel.

4. The contrarian

And finally, there is the minority of consumers who don't believe everything they hear via mainstream media channels and aren't afraid to question authority. They refuse to accept nutritional dogma which they claim is based on flawed scientific studies. One such vocal community is the Weston A Price Foundation (in the interest of full disclosure, I am a paying member of this organization). Their official stance is as follows:

Current USDA dietary guidelines are based on the flawed notion that cholesterol and saturated fat are unhealthy. They are unrealistic, unworkable, unscientific and impractical; they have resulted in widespread nutrient deficiencies and contributed to a proliferation of obesity and degenerative disease, including problems with growth, behavior and learning in children. The US government is promoting a lowfat, plant-based diet that ignores the vital role animal protein and fats have played in human nutrition throughout the ages.

They can cite peer-reviewed research and anthropological evidence to disprove modern dietary opinions and many medical theories which ignore the role of diet & lifestyle. Like-minded communities who also question the credibility of our country's elected & appointed officials and suspect unethical research practices include proponents of the Paleolithic, Atkins and The Maker's Diets.

In addition, there are plenty of chefs & diners who simply ignore approved nutritional advice because they simply prefer "old-fashioned" foods and recipes. Chris Cosentino is one of the more well-known chefs leading the "tail-to-snout" movement with his refined preparation of offal. Organ meats, including liver, kidneys, hearts and glands, which were once eaten out of necessity are now relished by adventurous diners in our industrialized society willing to pay big bucks for the least expensive parts of the animal - parts they would have thrown away in disgust a few years ago before celebrity chefs began celebrating frugality in the kitchen.

Which category do you fall under? Is this something you are proud about or could you care less?

*Note that this statement is inaccurate in its simplicity. Not all saturated fats raise LDL. While the type of saturated fatty acid predominate in beef, palmitic acid, does raise LDL; stearic acid, which you'll find in abundance in chocolate, has no effect on LDL. Lauric acid, a major component of coconut oil, raises LDL as well as HDL. And unless you cut out all sources of fat from your diet, even healthy sources like nuts and avocados, there is truly no way to avoid consuming the saturated kind. All natural sources of the macronutrient contain a combination of poly-, mono-, and un-saturated fatty acids (determined by the number of double bonds in the molecule). Mother Nature must be telling us something, don't you think?

The Climate Fight gets Spicy

Since recognizing the important role that methane emissions play in global warming, climate change scientists are paying serious attention to agriculture. Livestock emit a significant quantity of methane - yes, out of their behinds, a greenhouse gas which is actually 25 times more potent (or more depending on who you ask) than carbon dioxide. In my previous post, I mentioned the contribution that the improper fermentation of compostable materials, like SunChips packaging and food scraps, in landfill makes to rising methane levels. However, it turns out that ruminants are active methane factories through no fault of humans. It is estimated that cattle belch about 16% of annual methane emissions worldwide and the combined total for all livestock production is 37%.

Since it is unlikely that global demand for meat will decrease anytime soon, scientists are researching ways to capture and curb greenhouse gas emissions on the farm. Raising cattle on grass instead of grain has been suggested to promote healthy soil which keeps CO2 buried underground. 100% grass fed beef is also healthier for humans because it is leaner, higher in omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin & minerals. However, like people, cows consuming a diet high in fiber-rich plant material release more gas - both belches and flatus - than those fed cereal grains (the primary component of feed favored by industrial farming operations). The net effect of raising animals on pasture supposedly favors carbon sequester. Unfortunately, "old-fashioned" animal husbandry techniques are unlikely to the solve climate crisis. The cost of doing so is prohibitive and yields can not satisfy Americans' hunger for animal flesh nor fulfill the increasing demand from China and the developing world.

Researchers at Newcastle University have discovered a promising new strategy for reducing livestock's contribution to methane emission which applies age-old culinary wisdom. Taking cues from Indian cuisine, they studied the effect that cumin, coriander, clove, turmeric and cinnamon had on methane produced in a solution similar to that found in the rumen of sheep. They measured impressive reductions in the amount of methane - as much as 40% less when coriander was thrown in the mix.

These 5 spices are among many used by Indian cooks not just to add flavor, but to improve digestion and relieve abdominal pain & gas. Their benefits in cooking and for promoting health were originally suggested by practitioners of Ayurveda, a medical system derived from ancient Indian texts. Herbs & spices are still prescribed in India (and around the world by advocates like myself) to cure infections, boost the immune system and more.

Now that administering antibiotics to farm animals is criticized for bolstering antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and causing other serious human health problems, veterinarians are seeking options from alternative medicine. Could simple kitchen remedies also be the key to solving global warming?

The ancient vaidyas, Ayurvedic physicians, suggested using spices to alleviate many woes facing civilization at their time. If they could have foreseen rising temperatures, maybe they would have a suggested a remedy for that too. Some of the health & healing properties of the five spices studied by today's climate scientists include:

• Cumin: stimulates agni (digestive fire), eliminates ama (toxins) and stomach pain, cures vaginal infections
• Coriander: improves digestions, relieves gas, reduces fever, promotes urination
• Clove: improves digestion, soothes coughs, relieves toothaches
• Turmeric: improves digestion, decreases inflammations, apply to cuts or wounds to prevent infection, adds luster to skin, reduces stress & anxiety
• Cinnamon: improves circulation, reduces blood sugar levels, relieve coughs & colds

If it weren't for global warming, the gas-relieving properties of cumin, coriander, clove, turmeric and cinnamon may never have been proved by Western scientists. Now will Western doctors heed the results and prescribe spices to their gassy patients?

"Guilt Free" Packaging?

Frito-Lay recently came under fire for introducing new biodegradable packaging for its SunChips snacks which consumers complain is unacceptably loud, annoying and embarrassing. The sound it makes has been compared to a "revving motorcycle" and "glass breaking." The company acknowledges that the new packages are "a little bit louder" than consumers are used to but expresses confidence that people will "appreciate the change and the positive environmental impact it will have."

The company website claims that "every 10 1/2 oz. SunChips package is designed to fully breakdown in just 14 weeks when placed in a hot, active compost bin or pile." What are the chances that the package is going to wind up in the compost pile? Probably very slim. A tiny percentage of Americans who are not required by local municipal laws (such as those in San Francisco and Seattle) separate compostable kitchen waste from trash (the stuff that by definition can not be composted, recycled or reused in some way). I imagine that the majority of SunChips packages are purchased at convenience stores & gas stations therefore suffer the fate of a typical drive-thru meal: a couple weeks on the backseat of the car followed by relocation to a garbage bag destined for the landfill.

Throwing new-fangled compostable food packaging (not to be confused with "biodegradable" materials which can leave traces of toxins when they decompose) into the garbage defeats the whole purpose of using it as an alternative to petroleum-based products. When organic materials, such as empty SunChips bags, are left to "rot" in landfills instead of undergo the intended biological breakdown process at a compost facility, they actually release methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In an ideal world, all food scraps and man-made compostable food containers would be placed in the "hot, active compost pile" as described by the makers of Frito-Lay packaging for the purpose of producing a handy fertilizer for the idyllic Levittown yard.

Speaking of simple & carefree living, Frito-Lay would also like you to believe that SunChips are the answer to your craving for something crunchy & tasty AND desire to eat healthfully. Each serving contains 18 grams of whole grains so these chips are guilt-free, right? The Frito-Lay nutritionists figured that by including whole grains and adding two wholesome grams of fiber, "it was a little thing we could do for your heart while we keep your taste buds happy."

They also think you'll be thrilled by the fact that SunChips have 30% less fat than regular potato chips. What kind of standard is that? A two-ounce single serving bag contains 13 grams of fat! The nutrition facts panel will tell you that this translate to 110 calories from fat. However, if you do the math, you'll discover that Frito-Lay takes advantage of leniencies in the labeling laws. 13 grams of fat actually contains 117 calories since each gram of fat has 9 calories. The FDA Rounding Rules allow manufacturers to express "calories from fat" in 10 calorie increments when the total amount is greater than 100. They should technically round up to 120 since that's the nearest multiple of 10.

Why am I splitting hairs over 7 measly calories? I don't mean to be a number-crunching, calorie-counting nazi by this criticism. My point is that this numerical manipulation is just one indication of the misleading claims that Frito-Lay and other companies make to persuade consumers to buy their products. The FDA has actually made it relatively easy for junk food makers to sell their crap as health products. By establishing legal definitions for what ingredients and nutrients are beneficial vs. harmful, the government created a playground for creative marketing schemes that profit from consumer ignorance.

Moral of the story, don't believe anything you read on the front of a food package. Heck, don't trust the nutrition facts panel (as I just demonstrated, numbers are not always objective). Get out your glasses or a magnifying glass and read the ingredient list for yourself. In the case of SunChips, the second ingredient is sunflower oil. There's more oil in the product than there is whole wheat or whole oat flour. Is that what YOU would call a healthy "Multigrain Snack"?

Precocious Puberty

Another disturbing health study made headlines this past week. Researchers concluded that girls are reaching puberty earlier than ever - as early as 7 years old! Breast development was used as the diagnostic which means that the examiners were basically measuring FAT. Adipose tissue (aka. FAT) makes up the bulk of the female breast and is a source of estrogen in the body. It is also a medical fact that overweight girls have more insulin circulating in their blood which stimulates the production of hormones in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Is this early puberty scare really news? No. Didn't we already know that kids are fatter than ever and obesity is affecting young & younger children? The CDC has been following the trend for over 20 years and the media hasn't failed to notice it either. Fat kids, both boys and girls, grow breasts before reaching puberty because the human body just naturally deposits excess fat on the chest and buttocks (T&A, you know?).