WIN/LOSE: Patenting genes, HFCS in sodassss

I've returned from my sabbatical to bring you a new feature I'd like to call WIN/LOSE. It's pretty straightforward, but please pay attention: One news item will be good news (i.e. a "win") while the other will be bad news (i.e. a "los--"... hmm. The verb doesn't work in that context, does it?)

So, do you want the good news or the bad news first?

LOSE: High Fructose Corn Syrup in soda... Liars, liars, pants on fires

Remember how HFCS is supposed to be virtually identical to regular cane sugar? Well, it's possible that the HFCS in soda pop is actually sweeter than advertised, making it not identical to regular sugar.

A recent study suggests that the HFCS added to soda actually has upwards of 30% more fructose than previously thought. The NPR report acknowledges that the study is controversial, and people on both sides are not totally convinced yet. They even quote Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina (author of The World is Fat) admitting, "We have no real indication that the science of just a small amount [of] more fructose matters."

But then, blamo! Here's Marion Nestle on the study:

The metabolic problems that result from sugar intake are mostly due to the fructose content.  Less is better for health.  More is better for the soft drink industry, however.  Fructose is sweeter than either glucose or sucrose, and sweet is what sells sodas.

At most, HFCS is supposed to be 55% fructose, as compared to the 50% in table sugar.  Most foods and drinks are supposed to be  using HFCS that is 42% fructose.  A percentage of 55 is not much different biologically than 50, which is why the assumption has been that there is no biologically meaningful difference between HFCS and table sugar.   This study, if confirmed, means that this supposition may need some rethinking.

In fact, analysis of the study has produced a number of possible issues in the methodology, which you can read about at Nestle's blog, if you care. But the study does raise some interesting questions, and needs to be replicated more responsibly.

If it is found that soda companies are commonly using HFCS that is 60% fructose and calling it table sugar, there are some major legal issues to address, as well as the public health concern. Among them, violations of federal law against food adulteration, false and misleading food labeling, and false and misleading advertising.

What I always find the most interesting in these situations, is the industry's response. In this case, Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association says via press release,

"Consumers should know that fructose is safe... Fructose is commonly found in many fruits and vegetables, as well as honey, maple syrup, processed sugars, and high fructose corn syrup or corn sugar."

Uh, ok. We know.... Wait, corn sugar? Yes. The Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the FDA for the right to change the name of HFCS to "corn sugar."

This has nothing to do with all the bad press HFCS has gotten in the last few years, right?

WIN: US Justice Department says you can't patent a "naturally occurring" human gene

This isn't exactly breaking news, but I thought I'd spread the word. Marion Nestle talked about this on her blog last week and points to the New York Times articles that highlighted a newly released friend-of-the-court brief outlining the issue.

The practice of isolating and patenting human genes is fairly common, but became a contentious issue when Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation patented two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Owning the patent to these two genes has enabled Myriad to charge $3,000 for a test that detects genetic variations associated with a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The patents prevent other companies from developing similar tests which would drive down the price.

To compare, the Times reports that it costs at least $10,000 to get a personal genome sequence, but that the cost is expected to fall to around $1,000 in a few years. Myriad's outrageous price to test for just two genes simply seems greedy and unethical.

So exploiting the very real health fears of women is what capitalism is all about, right? Kevin E. Noonan, a patent lawyer in Chicago who represents biotech companies like Myriad, put down his sippy cup long enough to complain to the Times:

“It’s dumb,” Mr. Noonan said of the government’s brief. “It shows a singular ignorance of the technology and the law at the same time.”

Attorney Noonan also opined that

the government’s stance would endanger innovation because the same philosophy against patenting products isolated from nature might be extended to protein-based drugs and antibiotics.

Forgive me, but it's these bullshit ideas about "capitalism" that created the stupid system we've got today. Innovation and discovery existed looooooooooonngg before the United States was around letting everyone patent every g.d. picture their preschooler drew in class. If the only goal of innovation is to make a buck, then yes, this Justice Department ruling is the pits. Who's going to want to discover anything if they can't get all the credit, prestige and cash?

However, innovation is also driven by the desire to further the progress of humanity... you know, curing diseases and all that jazz. Which is sure to continue indefinitely, because we're naturally curious and we also kinda like it here. It's nice. Sunsets are pretty. Wine is good. Cheese is tasty.

So, please stop worrying about biotech companies and their shareholders. They will be fine. Or they will go bankrupt and other, more worthwhile enterprises will arise in their wake.

Masticate on THAT, hump day

Man oh man. It has been quite the week! Oh wait, it's only Tuesday. That would make tomorrow "hump day", which is a name (or euphemism?) that I despise. It makes me think of a bell curve, which doesn't really make any sense if your time-line is Sunday through Saturday. I suppose if we were tracking general displeasure throughout the work week it might peak on Wednesday, making it the day of the hump in data. The bell curve is about probability though, right? So that makes any reasoning completely nonsensical.

Also, I think we should discourage the use of the word "hump" as much as possible in everyday conversation. It's weird and awkward.

You know what else is weird and awkward? The modern history of diets. Particularly the Fletcherizing movement of 1903, encouraging people to chew their food 32 times. The founder, Horace Fletcher, ingeniously reasoned through rhyme that, "Nature will castigate those who don't masticate." (Masticate means chew. Get your mind out of the gutter.)

In more urgent and important news, President Obama needs to cut down on the desserts according to his doctor. From Obama's other health downfall @LA Times:

The famously self-disciplined president who seemingly can't miss a morning workout has a secret craving: pie.

Skipping dessert won't be easy. The Thanksgiving menu at the White House included six kinds of pie.

SIX (6) KINDS OF PIE? As in, 5 + 1 = 6? WHO WOULDN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SIX KINDS OF PIE?! I would be disappointed if Obama wasn't eating loads of gourmet pies, cobblers, tarts, et al. More disappointed than health care.

And also, who doesn't love pie? Even the most disciplined eater cannot resist a flaky, buttery crust with a warm, fruity filling. I don't think there is a more American vice. Well, maybe hydrogenated oil. Or Pop Tarts. (Actually, my ex did not like pie. We were clearly incompatible on a very deep level.)

Lastly, Chloe's Show and Tell time.

I took this picture last week. The date stamp ruined it. I have a lot to learn.

Monthly Post to let you know I am still Alive

It's official! I'm still Alive (capital A). And my newest hobby is consuming large quantities of off-brand Cheez-its. LARGE QUANTITIES. The grocery store had a sale today: 2 boxes for $5. What is a girl to do...

This evening, I am proud to present several brief items, in no particular order.

1.) Part-time Carnivore
My dear friend Simone alerted me to a new campaign called Part-time Carnivore. Launched just a few days ago, Part-time Carnivore reasons that eating less meat has a big effect on climate change and on world hunger, because current meat producing methods are irresponsible and unsustainable.

Part-time Carnivore encourages people to eat less meat by pledging to follow one of several options, such as Meat-Free Mondays or Meating-Out (only eating meat away from home).

I haven't signed up for anything specific, because (I'm lazy and) I already have a casual system is place where I allow myself to include meat in 1 or 2 meals a week. I've been reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals, which has unsettled me a lot and made me confront a lot of uncomfortable truths about our modern food system. I would highly recommend this book if you like being uncomfortable and grossed out and very, very angry. Or also if you care about eating meat produced by morally bankrupt corporations.

You know, at some point, you have to make a decision.

2.) Making some sense of supplements
David McCandless is an extremely talented author, writer and designer who likes to put data, ideas and information into really cool visualizations.

One of his latest projects is called Snake Oil? Scientific Evidence for Health Supplements. This interactive graphic organizes a variety of supplements by the amount of research conducted and the strength of the evidence supporting health claims. Um, awesome! Check it out.


3.) Sexual Assault on Campus
I suppose I try to stay away from issues in this realm, because although I am a feminist and I care about the well-being of my fellow woman, it's not really the focus of this blog. However, since I write this thing and no one pays me and like 3 of you read it, I've decided I can do WHATEVER I want.

Anyway, I follow a few women's health type blogs, one of them being Women's Health News. Today Rachel noted a recent NPR story, Myths That Make It Hard To Stop Campus Rape. I appreciated this article for it's non-hysterical discussion of sexual predators on college campuses, which profiled a typical predator and emphasized the role of alcohol in attacks.

I'm not going to get into the issues at the moment, so suffice it to say, NPR brings up some interesting points. Hit it up.

4.) Target Women on Current TV


On a strong recommendation from Wellesley friend, I checked out Target Women hosted by Sarah Haskins. A mix of cheese, camp and sarcasm (or something?) Target Women is sometimes awkward, but entertaining always. I particularly enjoyed this episode on security systems, and now I am encouraging you to partake in the insanity. Bon appetit!

Most Adults Do Not Finish Their Peas, Shouldn't Get Dessert

When we were young, our parents decided what we ate. Example: "No dessert until you finish your peas!" As we got older, though, it was exciting to to make our own food decisions. Perhaps too exciting. Suddenly dessert came first, coffee became an acceptable breakfast, and Pop Tarts and Easy Mac constituted complete meals.

Some people never grow out of (what I'd refer to as) the "Student Diet". On a daily basis, sweets are consumed early and often and the later meals are usually fatty and convenient. For most of the people I know who adhere to this regimen, this routine evolved from the undergrad/grad mantra that all time must be spent studying. Time not spent studying should be used to either talk about studying, worry about studying, or engage in completely unproductive and/or illegal activities. This leaves zero time for thinking about food, let alone preparing your own meals.

As the study-obsessed student graduates and gets older, the "studying" gets replaced by other things. Work. Relationships. Hobbies. More work... and so on forever. Then one day, these adults procreate and pass their attitudes about food and nutrition onto the offspring, and new little crazy people are made. The point is, there are lots of adults who have pretty terrible eating habits, and I think it's because it is difficult to re-value food and nutrition if a person has neglected these things for a very long time.

Case in point: the CDC recently published a report on fruit and vegetable eating habits in the United States. Guess what?

• 33% of adults consume the recommended 2 or more servings of fruit every day.
• 27% of adults get the recommended 3 or more servings of vegetables.
  
• 14% of adults eat BOTH the recommended daily fruit and vegetable servings. (See map)

I bet you saw that coming.

The report, called State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009, is the first to break down fruit and veggie consumption by state. It seems more reports with a national scope are doing this often, which makes a lot of sense. Since the U.S. is so incredibly huge and diverse, the state breakdown makes these statistics a bit more manageable. Also, we get a better idea of who's not eating their peas!

The fruit and veggie consumption data from the report was collected as part of a progress report for the Healthy People 2010 initiative, which aims for 75% of adults to eat the recommended fruit and 50% of adults to eat the recommended vegetables. Right, good luck with that.

The State Indicator Report does include 3 key policy recommendations to increase fruit and veggie consumption:

1. Healthier food retail, encouraging groceries and markets to stock fresh, affordable produce.
   
2. Make healthier foods more available in schools. (Because the "Student Diet" gets started early)
   
3. Increased food system support, primarily by increasing the number of local food councils that will "make recommendations about policies and programs such as farm–to–school programs, community gardens, farmers markets and availability of fresh produce in supermarkets."

These recommendations seem to be aimed more towards the state and local municipalities, and less towards individuals, but I'd thought it was important to mention.

Now, the percentages of people reporting they eat fruits and veggies are low, but I suspect the actual numbers are even lower. The data was collected through voluntary phone interviews, so we're dealing with self-report and selection biases probably. Who even participates in those interviews? And are people actually honest about how often they eat carrots? (Which was one of the questions.) I know these government-funded studies typically include thousands of participants which eliminates the margin of error and blah blah blah... but it still makes me wonder how accurate people are when reporting their food habits. I'm not sure even really sure how I would answer!

It's very noble to want to eat enough fruit and vegetables every day, but do you actually do it? I know that I make a good effort, but it doesn't always happen. And in truth, although the government recommends 2 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables, it's unlikely that eating more will hurt you.

So what is there to do? Eat more salad? Ugh. This is the point in the conversation where a lot of the experts make vague allusions to steaming vegetables and eating less french fries, which always makes vegetables sound like they are something you have to choke down. The truth is vegetables can be delicious if you cook them properly, i.e. move beyond the lettuce-tomato-ranch salad. To start, here are a few examples the CDC gives for a single serving of fruits or vegetables:
Ok, now that we've established a possible list of ingredients and quantities, I wanted to share a few of my favorite veggie heavy recipes. Before the list, though, I want to emphasize that while this is not a food blog and I am not a foodie, I do appreciate good food. In my new job, I also do a lot of cooking (at least one meal a day for up to 20 people), so food is front and center on my radar nowadays.

• Garlic Ginger Tofu Stir Fry (via VegCooking)
• Vegetable Frittata (via Epicurious. A fantastic option for incorporating whatever is in the fridge.)
• Kale (or Spinach) and Olive Oil Mashed Potatoes (via 101cookbooks)
• Green Beans Amandine (almonds browned in a bit of butter over cooked beans, from my Better Homes & Gardens cookbook. easy peasy)
• Sweet Potato Fries (with an Avocado Dip) (via Food Network)

Also, I typically eat a lot of fajitas, veggie-heavy wraps/sandwiches, and anything sauteed with garlic. So there are a few ideas!

This is obviously not a very extensive list of dishes requiring 1-3 servings of vegetables, so please share yours in the comments! Or if you'd rather not write a novel, email me and I'll put together a few more recipes for a future post. For my own peace of mind, I just needed to break the trend of saying EAT MORE VEGETABLES and then providing no practical means for doing that.

Enjoy!

ADA Weighs in on Benefits of Organic Foods

A few weeks ago I posted about a recent study out of the UK that claimed that organic foods are not nutritionally superior to conventionally grown foods. For some reason, the popular media interpreted the study to say, There Are No Compelling Reasons to Buy Organic Food (Unless You Are An Elitest Foodie Jackass Who Cares About Taste and Not Being Poisoned).

There are many reasons why drawing such bold conclusions from a very limited study is not only annoying but irresponsible. To fully capture the various issues associated with organic foods, a broader perspective is needed to explore the production, processing and nutrition of organic foods and how each step impacts human health, the environment, labor practices, etc.

...And here's a good start! The American Dietetic Association recently published a review of organic foods as part of their "Hot Topics" series. The review, "Perspective on the Benefits of Organic Foods", is by no means an exhaustive discussion of the research, but it touches the major issues that surround organic foods.

When considering benefits and costs of organic versus conventional agricultural production, it is important to consider benefits and costs to consumers, farmers, communities and the environment. For example, current research in numerous areas is showing both short-and long-term benefits to our population and the planet with organic and other sustainable production systems. Documented environmental benefits of organic production systems include reduced nutrient pollution, improved soil organic matter, lower energy use, reduced pesticide residues in food and water and enhanced biodiversity.

Additionally, the "Perspective..." lists nine discussion points, or considerations, with regards to the organic. Briefly summarized, here they are:

1. Organic produce may contain more phytochemicals than conventionally grown produce.
2. "Organic meat may reduce the development of human antibiotic resistance and lessen air and water pollution."
3. Organic dairy products may be more beneficial to young children than regular dairy.
4. Organic = no pesticides.
5. Organic typically = sustainable farming.
6. Small and medium sized farms are able to participate in the organic marketplace, not just giant ones.
   
7. Insects, bees, birds and other wild life will not be poisoned by pesticides.
8. "Organic agricultural systems offer multiple opportunities to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and counteract global warming."
9. Biodiversity is enhanced, making farms more resilient.
   

So, are there still "no compelling reasons" to choose organic foods? Unfortunately, information like this gets very little circulation in the media. God forbid all those news outlets that reported the UK study do any homework whatsoever or publish a follow-up. Fair and balanced reporting, my butt!

Furthermore, I think it's important to practice what you preach. I try to buy organic produce as much as possible, but I also can't afford to spend $20 a week on carrots. Luckily, the farmer's market is in high gear right now, so I've been rolling in vegetables for less than $10 a week (actually less than that, since I split the bounty with my S.O.)

In any case, buying all organic all the time is not realistic for 99% of the people I know. What you can do though, is look up your favorite produce on the Internet and find out which ones are better to buy organic (For example, The Daily Green's Dirty Dozen). You can also go above and beyond and read Marion Nestle's What to Eat, because she is very smart and will tell you lots of things about food.

In conclusion, this post reminded me of a Howard Zinn quote that I love: "You can't be neutral on a moving train." Things are happening in the food world that have can have a big impact on your life, whether you like it or not...

So you better like it.

Why Does Everyone Hate Organic?

That would seem to be the case the last few days following the publication of a new study by researchers at the Food Standards Agency in England. The study (200+ pages! Click if you dare) analyzed the last fifty years worth of research on the nutritiousness of organic foods versus conventionally grown foods. A year and £120,000 later, what did they find? There are some differences between organic and conventionally produced food but these were not sufficiently important to make any difference to a person’s health or give nutritional benefit.

That is, as the Boston Metro put it, "Organics not really better for you."

Ok, so my first reaction was, "Duh." Food is food is food. An organic carrot is not more magically nutritious than a genetically modified carrot grown with pesticides. There seem to be slightly higher amounts of some minerals and other things, but overall, they typically provide the same amount of basic nutrients.

It is true that some organic products are purported to be more amazing than they actually are, and there are many people that swear by organic produce because of it's health benefits and whatnot. The one good thing about this study is that it silences those annoying people and products for now.

However, the retarded media is spewing the conclusions of this new study like they've just blown the lid off the Organic Industry's tightly sealed jar of LIES. Um, no, not really.

The Times Online says, "Shoppers pay more for organic fruit, vegetables, chicken, beef and milk but the food gives no nutritional enhancement to people’s diet." Who's talking about enhancement? Organic products are not like other items you might see on late night infomercials.

Or check out this short local news report from WPRI Channel 12 in Providence, Rhode Island:

"There is no compelling reason to buy organic." ????? And I thought the news media was supposed to be unbiased.

But don't take my word for it. Let us defer to an expert. I've been reading What To Eat by professor/food expert Marion Nestle and she discusses this issue in some depth. (In fact, she just posted on this very topic yesterday on her blog!) When asked if organic farming methods have any effect on the nutritional effect on foods, Nestle says, "Don't go there":

I can't think of any reason why organically grown foods would have fewer nutrients than conventionally grown foods, and I have no trouble thinking of several reasons why they might have more, but so what? I doubt the slight increase would be enough to make any measurable difference to health. Just as people differ, carrots or heads of cauliflower differ, and the differences in the nutrient content of one carrot or cauliflower and the next can be substantial.

The thing is, (HERE'S THE THING) there are other reasons to buy organic! Choosing fruits and veggies and dairy products and meats that are produced without pesticides and chemicals and hormones and other craziness may not have a huge health benefit to you personally, but that doesn't mean there are no reasons at all to buy organic.

To explain these reasons, Nestle quotes Joan Gussow, the former head of the nutrition department at Columbia University. She asks:

shouldn't we hope that people will choose organic foods on grounds more reliable than whether they contain a little more carotene or zinc? Isn't the most important story that organic production conserves natural resources, solves rather than creates environmental problems, and reduces the pollution of air, water, soil... and food?

Conservation of natural resources, eh? Resolving environmental problems? Reducing pollution? I would consider these to be fairly compelling reasons.

"But what's in it for ME?" you ask. Sure, organic products cost more and there may not be a direct benefit to your health by consuming them. What can you do? I'd say, the best you can, people! Obviously, no one can eat organic stuff ALL THE TIME without running out of money for their light bill.

So you do the best you can. Eat an organic potato once in awhile. At least now you know whats up. Don't be a h8r.

REVISITED: NY Times Reporter's File on Obesity

In April, a tip from a loyal reader lead me to check out the NY Times Reporter's File on Obesity (because apparently the Times needs to be the authority on EVERYTHING).

In my response which you can find here, I discussed the issue of diet as presented by the Reporter's File. The File proposed that the rise in obesity was more due to the increasingly sedentary lifestyle of Americans than a deteriorating diet. I disagreed with the statement about diet, citing the gargantuan proportions of burgers, fries and soda that McDonald's currently serves in a typical combo meal, as opposed to the seemingly dainty single-patty burger of yesteryear.

If that example of growing portions didn't convince you, maybe you'll find this interactive quiz from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute more enjoyable: Portion Distortion!

I'm not entirely sure how accurate the calorie counts are for all the foods, but if nothing else, it's interesting to note how much HUGER things like bagels and meatballs have become. (Meatballs? Really?)



















Note: I took this quiz with Jared and we both failed. It is truly challenging.

Comfort food: Mac and Cheese

Today is one of those days when I need to eat my feelings. I won't go into the sob-story details, but the tipping point came while trying to finish the B.S. task of hand writing nearly 30 invitations in the last three days. My wrist and elbow are throbbing from writing so much, the pen is close to running out, and I just sealed and stamped two invitations for people I just realized are on the "Cannot Attend" list... meaning that I just wasted about 20 minutes of my life and 84 cents! No, that is not a significant amount of time or money, but I have no perspective right now. I hate it too much.

Really, it's ok. I've come to terms with the fact that I'm not "administrative assistant material". Instead of being bitter, I will go home tonight and cook a delicious meal of Mac and Cheese! It always does the trick. And apparently it is America's favorite comfort food. (Although there doesn't seem to be any data backing up that claim.)

I used to go for the blue box (Kraft) growing up, and then I had my Annie's phase a bit later, but now I make my own. Sure, the boxed stuff is easier to buy, its slightly easier to prepare and it's Comfort Food, so you're not supposed to worry about nutrition. But you should.

However, instead of me monologuing about the reasons you should make your own Mac and Cheese as opposed to eating it from a box, we're going to do a fun little nutrition comparison of Kraft's The Cheesiest and Annie's Shells and Cheddar so you can see the difference yourself. Excited?!

Before we look at the nutrition facts, let's talk about serving size for a second. This is where the SOB's who write these 'facts' like to get fancy. Kraft's serving size is 1/3 of the box, whereas Annie's is a bit more than than (2.5 servings per box). This is why the percentages and totals don't completely add up. Thanks for making it so difficult, jerks!

Kraft The Cheesiest vs. Annie's Shells & Cheddar

Calories: 260 vs. 270

Cals from fat: 32 vs. 36

Saturated fat: 2g vs. 3g

Cholesterol: 15mg vs. 10mg

Sodium: 580mg vs. 530mg of DV

Total carb: 48g vs. 47g

Protein: 9g vs. 10g

And the rest is negligible.

So basically... the same.

"But wait!" you cry. "Isn't Annie's ALL NATURAL?! Isn't it made with ORGANIC ingredients?! Surely that should count for something. Maybe some karma points."

Well, yes, sure. Anastacia Marx de Salcedo weighed in on this issue at Salon (The bunny vs. the blue box, 1/30/07) in a much funnier and informative piece than this... but I don't think she has to endure the daily horrors of office work, so I figure we're even. In any case, she wrote:

Annie's stinks. Ever caught a surprise whiff as you guide stove-top traffic at dinnertime? (Right rear pot cleared for takeoff. Climb to avoid hot and high left front.) The stuff is rank; think sweaty T-shirt marinated in a gym bag for a week. Yet kids, whose palates are usually so delicate, lap it up. Which leads one to wonder, what's in those little hare-festooned envelopes anyway? Heroin? As a matter of fact, it's pretty much the same thing that's in the famous blue box: pasta, cheese, milk, salt. Granted, Annie's has only nine ingredients while Kraft has 20, most of which, nasty as they sound, replace nutrients removed in processing or are naturally occurring and have a long history as additives. Just two Kraft ingredients raise the mercury on the toxic-meter: yellow dyes No. 5 and No. 6, which impart the infamous fluorescent hue.

It's true that Annie's is made with "all natural"* organic ingredients, and Kraft throws in some chemical dyes to amp up that lovely cheesy coloring. But nutritionally, as we saw above, they're pretty similar! In my opinion, if you're seriously worried about scoring karma points, make your own. Mac and cheese is easy! It's cooking 101! And believe me, if I say it's easy, it's the truth. Notice this is a wellness blog, not a cooking one.

So here is the recipe I've been using for awhile, from The Mom's Guide to Meal Makeovers (Yes, I read mom cookbooks). It's similar to the boxed stuff because it only take a few minutes, but you control what's going in! For a lactard like me, it's Lactaid heaven on Earth.

Mom’s made-over Mac and Cheese
8 oz dried small elbow macaroni (about 2 cups)
1.5 cups lowfat milk
2 tbsp all-purpose flour
1 tsp Dijon mustard
½ tsp garlic powder
1.5 cups pre-shredded reduced fat Cheddar cheese (or whatever)
2 tbsp grated Parmesan cheese

1. Cook pasta according to package directions. Drain and set aside.
2. Return the saucepan to the stove (do no place over heat just yet). Add the milk, flour, mustard, and garlic powder and whisk until well blended.
3. Place over medium-high heat and bring to a simmer, stirring constantly. Reduce the heat and continue to simmer and stir gently until the mixture thickens slightly, about 2 min.
4. Add the Cheddar cheese and Parmesan cheese and stir until the cheese melts. Stir in the pasta, heat through and serve.

Prep time: 5 min
Cooking time: 15 min
Servings: About as much as a box, whatever that is.

Now, don't just look at the calories and freak out. Yes, there are more calories in Mom's, but there is also a lot less sodium and double the protein. To me, this means a more substantial meal.

Plus, the great thing about this recipe (and Mac and Cheese in general) is that it's hard to screw up and easy to improvise. I usually put in more than one type of cheese or different herbs or vegetables. It's actually really good with broccoli!

In conclusion, Mac and Cheese can be a Comfort Food that doesn't have to make you uncomfortable. AND you can make it without the box. Promise. Do it!

*FYI-- there isn't a firm definition of "all natural" so it doesn't really mean anything.

Um, what do they say about it again?

Have you seen this commercial? Stupid know-it-all girlfriends! Who do they think they are?! And the Corn Refiners Association is the biggest proponent of these obnoxious women and their sassy opinions of High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS.

Really though, it's the guy's fault. Who says, "Well you know what they say..." without actually knowing what they say? Amateur.

We've all heard a lot about HFCS, but personally, I've never taken the time to form an opinion of it. It's assumed that HFCS is bad, but very few people can actually tell you why, like the guy in the commercial. Since the appearance of the TV ads a few months ago, there has been a lot written about HFCS, from TIME to WebMD, and much more.

Most of the articles address the 3 assertions made by the know-it-all girlfriend in favor of HFCS.

1. It's made from corn, so it's "all natural."

TRUE, it is made from corn. However, it is not a naturally occurring substance. The extensive processing involved in producing HFCS is hardly easy, quick or painless. Linda Joyce Forristal of the Weston A. Price Foundation details the process here.

2. It has the same calories as sugar.

TRUE. Nutritionally, it's pretty much the same as sugar, which most support by citing the American Medical Associations' position that HFCS does not contribute more to obesity that sugar.

3. It's fine to consume in moderation.

TRUE. But the key word here is "moderation." It can be difficult to moderate your consumption of HFCS because it is in a huge number of foods and beverages, particularly processed products. The Mayo Clinic discusses how this impacts health and diet.

So, it's not like the Corn Refiners Association is selling blatant lies, but they are only telling a small part of the story. Check out their arsenal of marketing tools in their HCFS Facts Press Kit. You have to admit, the time and energy spent creating such a beautifully crafted half-truth is impressive. You're in for a sweet surprise indeed.

Furthermore, the Washington Post brings up a point that the know-it-all girlfriend (and most of the popular articles) fails to mention: the impact of producing HFCS on the environment, which is rather large. Michael Pollan has become the resident expert on this issue, and if you haven't already, I'd check out The Omivore's Dilemma.

So! Do you feel more capable of saying "Well, you know what they say about High Fructose Corn Syrup..." and having an actual answer to back it up?

Carbs are like, good for your smartness!

Could a Low-Carb Diet Make You Ditzy? presents recent research from Tufts University about how low- to no-carb diets can affect cognition and memory.

Oh boy. Did you know that Glamour has a health blog? It's called Vitamin G (I already don't get it). Responding to mainstream crap like this is the reason I started this blog. So here we go!

The study consisted of 19 female participants who were allowed to choose between a low-carb diet and a low-calorie diet to adhere to for three weeks. The ScienceDaily press release explains how a lack of carbohydrates affects the body and brain:

While the brain uses glucose as its primary fuel, it has no way of storing it. Rather, the body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, which is carried to the brain through the blood stream and used immediately by nerve cells for energy. Reduced carbohydrate intake should thus reduce the brain’s source of energy. Therefore, researchers hypothesized that diets low in carbohydrates would affect cognitive skills.

And the researchers were right. The participants' cognitive skills were impaired after just a three weeks on a low carb diet. On memory tasks, low-carb dieters had slower reaction time and their visuospatial memory was not as sharp and the low-calorie group. However, low-carb beat low-cal on attention vigilance tasks, which sounds fantastically primal, although I'm not entirely sure what it means.

But how does Vitamin G interpret this information? They dumb it down so that their non-carb eating readers can process it. There is no mention of the reason that carbs are essential for optimal brain performance--only that if you never eat any like, bread and stuff, your memory might not be great.

I hate the lack of information! By assuming that women won't care to know (or won't be able to understand) the scientific bodily processes involved, Glamour squashes curiosity and makes it easy for women to remain ignorant about their bodies. What if they just threw in a short sentence about how carbs turn into glucose, and glucose fuels your brain? That's not hard.

Bottom line reporting is informative to an extent, but ultimately it's irresponsible and promotes misinformation.

Exhibits A-G: Check out the reader comments. Yikes.

The Healthiest Grocery Store?

From Fox News.



Yeah, the results are not surprising.

However, why is there no discussion of the quality of produce?

Eating fruits and vegetables is a bigger part of healthy eating than whether or not you're consuming organic granola bars or whatever. I'm sorry, but in my mind, if it's processed food, it's processed food, regardless if 100% of the ingredients are USDA Certified Organic. A lot of the same corn- and soy-based preservatives that are used in regular cereals and snacks are also allowed in their organic counterparts. (Sustainable Table has a pretty good overview here.)

Sure, I suppose organic snacks are somewhat healthier, but I think the attention should be focused on REAL FOOD, i.e. fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy products, etc.

For me, that is what would make or break the "healthiness" of a grocery store.

P.S. Furthermore, is it safe to say that Whole Foods would top the list of "Most Expensive Grocery Stores" also? I bet you five bucks.

P.P.S. I didn't insert this website I came across in the main text, so here it is: Food Additives, where they explain:

Food additives have become a necessity of all types of food products and food industry. Right from the aroma of the beverage, the texture of the food and its visual appeal, has to be enriched to make it acceptable. (my emphasis)

Hahahahaha. I think someone is taking themselves a little too seriously...

"There's a whole anti-oxidant network"

"Young professionals don't eat particularly well", says Dr. Andrew Shao, Vice President of Scientific & Regulatory Affairs at the Council on Responsible Nutrition. "And there is need for supplementation." His association is currently working on initiatives for the research community, urging them not to study supplements in isolation. "When these vitamins are part of a diet, there's a whole anti-oxidant network. But we're setting up these massive, randomized trials where we're giving participants one nutrient and trying for crazy results--nutrition is just not that simple."

From "E said, C said: Talking vitamins," by Aarti Virani in the Boston Metro (for some reason I couldn't find the whole article on the website... probably because it's crap).

I love this quote for three big reasons:

1. It's a practical response to the recent results being reported that vitamins play no part in cancer prevention.
   
2. It's directed towards youngish people who are in the process of developing life-long habits, both good and bad.
3. It recognizes that it's stupid to even try to study one supplement at a time. I think my body would be offended by attempts to simplify the process by which it nourishes itself with the food I feed it. Which is not to say that we can't and will never be able to understand the process, but it seems disrespectful to break down such a wonderfully complex system and spew petty advice like, "Take vitamin A every day and you'll never develop cancer." Come on, now... really?
   

The problem with this advice is that it's COMMON SENSE. It's not new and shiny and impossibly complicated. There are no infomercials about the benefits of "Moderation!" and surely Marie Osmond will never be the spokeslady. It's a damn shame (about the infomercial).

If Only I Could Have A Chair Made Out of Corn to Rest My Corn-Fed Hind Parts

If you’ve ever attempted to find and read a scholarly article online, you know that a username and password is required to access the vast majority of academic research. (Which is crap.) This is why I was too excited to find that the full text of a new study published by A. Hope Jahren and Rebecca A. Kraft of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu is available online! Share my excitement here.

Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confin sounds thrilling, no? Basically, here’s what happened:

Fastfood was purchased from America’s top 3 chains: McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s; each restaurant was sampled at 3 locations within 6 major U.S. cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Detroit, Boston, and Baltimore. At each location, 9 items were purchased: 3 hamburgers, 3 chicken sandwiches, and 3 orders of fries.

Easy enough to follow. After doing a lot of analyzing, Jahren and Kraft concluded:

Fast food corporations, although they constitute more than half the restaurants in the U.S. and sell more than 1 hundred billion dollars of food each year, oppose regulation of ingredient reporting.

And we’re about to find out why…

Ingredients matter for many reasons: U.S. corn agriculture has been criticized as environmentally unsustainable and conspicuously subsidized. Of 160 food products we purchased at Wendy’s throughout the United States, not 1 item could be traced back to a noncorn source. Our work also identified corn feed as the overwhelming source of food for tissue growth, hence for beef and chicken meat, at fast food restaurants.

It’s ALL corn?! Well, yes, almost. For those of you who’ve read The Omivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, this is not new information. Fortunately, this new study confirms Pollan’s assertions, renewing the interest in mainstream media.

Both Forbes Health (What’s Really In Your Fast Food?) and Wired Science (Fast Food: Just Another Name for Corn) covered the release of the study, both interviewing the articles authors and other prominent US experts in food policy and agriculture.

Interestingly, Forbes contacted the Big 3 for comment. None were too eager to gush about the results.

Burger King declined to comment on the study. A spokesman for Wendy's said the company has "very strict procedures in place" to protect animal welfare. A spokeswoman for McDonald's declined to comment and instead referred to a statement issued by the American Meat Institute, a trade association.

Janet M. Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for AMI, said that carbon and nitrogen isotopes are naturally occurring and are expected to be found in the environment and humans. She also said that while the study's authors had called for greater transparency regarding information about livestock feeding and production practices, consumers "appear satisfied" with the amount of information currently available.

The last part is particularly intriguing. The American Meat Institute basically refuses to become more transparent in their production practices because consumers are ok with being ignorant to the origin of their meat. Wow. Didn't your mothers ever tell you that just because you CAN get away with something, doesn't mean you SHOULD?!

I checked out the AMI website and they've got a nice little collection of fact sheets to answer all your extremely vague and surface questions about the meat industry. Apparently, AMI produced a "get to know you" type video and put it on YouTube last year, but when I went to check it out, I found that it no longer exists. Instead, I chose to include this chart. Enjoy!


Also this: US Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer schmoozing at the 2008 AMI Annual Hot Dog Lunch (albeit with his mouth full of Italian sausage).