Balance of Food

Making local fruit available year-round

The frozen blueberries from last summer made it to May, a new personal all-time record. The previous record had been April.

Buying fruit out of season requires too much money and the taste never lives up to what you see.

One of the local farmers sells blueberries in 5 lb. boxes for $20. Sure, carrying home that many blueberries is a lot of work. Putting the haul into the freezer containers takes a bit of time. You have to resist the temptation of not eating them. And you have to hope that the electricity doesn't go out long enough to make an impact.

Room in the freezer, paying money upfront for fruit you won't eat for months. And even if the fruit is tasty, it never quite has the same taste as it did in summertime.

Try buying good local fresh blueberries for $4/lb. in the winter. You can take them out of the freezer as you are leaving for work, leave them in your desk all morning, and they are perfectly thawed by the lunch comes along.

Even if you buy frozen blueberries, they won't have that local taste nor will you support the farmers. And even if packaged frozen blueberries are slightly less in cost, I'll stick with the locally grown, frozen myself blueberries.

By lasting until May, the blueberries will be here sooner than we think. And the strawberries will keep us company in the meantime.

'Weight of the Nation' should be serious about why we're obese

"Weight of the Nation" promises to be a chance to use serious television to tell the complex story of obesity in the United States. Based on some early reviews, "Weight of the Nation" focuses more on telling us that we're fat, and not what we can do about it.

Good signs:

-- HBO, where commercial sponsors won't interfere in the message, unlike Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution.
-- 4-part series, to show we can't solve this neatly in a 1-hour take.
-- Colbert bump, as Stephen Colbert interviewed Dr. Francis Collins from the documentary.

Bad signs:

-- Limited accessibility. Yes, it's on HBO, but a small slice of people within the cable world get HBO.
-- Fear that they're using fear to state the obvious: we're fat.

Collins presented a good face for what we hope to see in the documentary. He told Colbert about his own personal 30 pounds loss, showing him a prop of 5 lbs. of fat. Collins said this struggle had to be about the individual, family, community, and the food industry. He also noted that we had to stop with the finger waving approach.

The problem in the past is we're told that we're fat, but afraid to tell us why. Knowing why would help us become less fat.

High-fructose corn syrup has been a contributor. But its co-conspirators make up a long list, ranging from multiple sources of sweet to farm policy to reduced recess in schools to depressed wages. Our cynicism about "Weight of the Nation" stems from a society that protects those partially responsible for the mess we have on our hands.

See the trailer, read the bad reviews, and if you have HBO, judge for yourself. If we find out more about the documentary, we'll pass it on through the Twitter feed and here at the blog.

Temptation of the Week: AYCE at MLB ballparks

Those who obsess about calorie counting likely recoil at the idea of eating 2,200 calories in a day when they really wanted to eat 1,900 calories.

Eating 7,800 calories in one setting — almost 4 days worth of food for an average male — might cause a calorie counter to faint at the thought.

The case study, that's one way to put it, came from a story in The Washington Post a while back on MLB ballparks All You Can Eat offers.

Case in point: Before the first pitch at Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore last week, Mark Mirchandani casually announced that he already had gobbled three Esskay dogs. Nearly three hours later, when the Orioles had finished off the Toronto Blue Jays, 2-1, Mirchandani said he had polished off 10 franks — not to mention two orders of nachos, two servings of peanuts, five tiny cups of ice cream, one soda and, apparently to restore order to his battered digestive system, a small container of salad. He had his reasons for the binge, which, incidentally, totaled approximately 7,800 calories, or about three times what the average male needs a day.

This isn't an admonishment or an endorsement of what he did; this is much more about why he ate so much, and what it says about the financial value we place on food.

This gentleman paid $35 to take in this feast in Baltimore. In Maryland's largest city, you could get a nice fresh seafood dinner for $35. Let's say you order a pound of crab legs, a side of fries, a bread basket, soup or salad, and maybe dessert. Most people would enjoy that meal, even if it didn't have as much "value."

We view food value in terms of quantity for money; the more food you can eat, the more value you get. Once you reach equal value, especially at ballpark prices, anything over that becomes free food.

If you don't sit in an AYCE area, you wouldn't order as much food as he did because you would have to pay for it. $35 at a MLB ballpark would likely buy you 5 hot dogs ($17.50), 1 order of nachos ($5.50), 1 bag of peanuts ($4), 1 small helmet full of ice cream ($4), and 1 soda ($4). The free food becomes the other 5 hot dogs, 1 order of nachos, 1 serving of peanuts, a small helmet of ice cream, and the small container of salad — slightly more than half of the food he ate.

The ballpark food bought at face value is almost 4,000 calories — about twice as much as the average male should consume. However, if the goal is calories for the buck, the ballpark dinner beats out the nice crab dinner.

The guy in Baltimore got 2.23 calories per penny. As food-wise bargains go, that would be hard to top.

If you are as young a person as this guy is (25) and you regularly consume 2,600 calories per day, you are still eating 3 days worth of food in one meal. If only we were bears, that would be awesome.

As for the curmudgeon to The Washington Post food chat, you are correct. "If I want to eat 8000 unhealthy calories at a baseball game its (sic) my business."

You might want to know that you are eating 8,000 calories. You might even be impressed with that. You should have an idea about how many calories you would require, as a point of comparison. This isn't anybody telling me what to do/not do. Just letting you know what you are doing to yourself.

My one ballpark meal in Baltimore was a crab sandwich from Ethel & Ramone's at the outdoor market ($9) that I brought into the stadium, a Boog Powell barbecue sandwich ($9), and tap water. Calorie total? Have not a clue. Cost? Slightly more than half of the $35 pigout. Value? Well, not as many calories per penny as the guy did in Baltimore, but the crab sandwich was amazing. Boog Powell knows what he is doing with barbecue. Paying $35 for food at Oriole Park without a Boog Powell barbecue sandwich? Not my definition of value.

Feeding tube brides symptom of larger problem with crash diets

The word "diet" has split in two in our culture. "Diet" means losing weight over a long period with the goal of losing weight and keeping it off. "Diet" also means losing a bunch of weight really fast with little or no hope of keeping that weight off permanently.

At BalanceofFood.com, without using the word "diet," we support the former. The "Bridal Hunger Games" mentality rewards the latter.

"Crash diet" was the phrase most associated with upcoming brides walking around with a feeding tube up their noses. If you're the groom, you don't want to see this bride before the wedding and not just because she has a tube up her nose. If you're going a long time without food, Bridezilla might be mild compared to what that would be like.

The other image I get when I see this is the old Sweathogs line, "up your nose with a rubber hose." Whereas they would go up to her now and say, "Up your nose with … never mind."

Like the Sweathogs, "crash diet" is a thing of the past. While we certainly don't have to bring back the name, we do need to bring back that mentality.

No, not endorsing "crash diets" — just separating them, or whatever we shall call them, away from diets.

Long-term diets don't always work, but they do have setups designed to lose weight in a manner that is healthier and more likely to have a long-term impact. Crash diets aren't expected to work past a certain point, if at all.

Weddings are for a day. Marriages last a lifetime. Besides, if you try years later to get back to your wedding weight, and you eat food in the way before your wedding, you'll have an easier time reaching that goal.

Though if you are a bride that decides to go the feeding tube route, do your guests a favor. Have your first meal be the wedding dinner. Please.

So when the guests tap their glasses to get the couple to kiss, they'll hear this from the bride, "Later. I'm eating." Then again, if the bride has to work that hard to get into the dress, having even a little bit of food could produce moments like you see in the Subway ads where buttons pop.

If the bride waits until the honeymoon to eat solid food again, the groom won't be the sweetest thing in the room. Cake? Pie? Both?

Seriously, weddings are a time of stress, but they are supposed to be about celebrating the start of a beautiful lifelong commitment (you can tell I'm not married). They are parties where people are supposed to have fun. Live a little. Eat something.

Chicago's proposed 'sugary drinks' tax doesn't add up

The City of Chicago is considering a tax of 15-35¢ on "sugary drinks" with the money going to health promotion programs. While the advocates for such a tax have their heart in the right place, the idea has as many holes as Chicago streets after a long hard winter.

The Chicago City Council holds a committee hearing today on the proposed tax.

Instead of being a tight-ass on this topic, I have decided out of the goodness of my heart to guide these people and those in other cities toward a better policy that can help some of their goals.

-- The obvious problem with the proposed tax hasn't even been brought up yet. The tax would be equal for sugar drinks vs. drinks with high-fructose corn syrup. Sugar isn't supported by federal farm subsidies; high-fructose corn syrup is financially supported by federal farm subsidies. This tax still creates an uneven playing field.

While this may sound like whining against high-fructose corn syrup, the policy is racially insensitive to Mexican products (Mexican Coca-Cola, Jarritos) that are made with sugar.

-- Not that you can compare soda taxes to handgun bans, but having a citywide policy only hurts those without easy access to nearby suburbs. CTA trains go into Evanston, Skokie, and Oak Park and CTA and Pace buses serve many neighboring suburbs. Even without a car, one can score "sugary drinks" without the tax.

-- Those who receive food assistance (SNAP, food stamps) wouldn't be affected by the proposed tax. As to whether soft drinks should be an item worthy of SNAP dollars, I would agree to have that discussion IF we looked at all foods under the program. Not a big fan of starting a slippery slope.

-- Even without SNAP dollars, sales taxes are regressive toward the poor, though interestingly some might see this as an advantage. The poor probably drink more soft drinks than richer classes, but, the carbs/money value issue is a real one among the poor, not as much for those who make more money.

-- While a tax does bring in extra revenue, and tying the tax to health promotion programs makes better financial sense, a lot of what might work is murky at best. How well do the health promotion programs work so far? And in a city that has squandered 75 years of parking fees for $1 billion that the city has spent most of already (72 more years to go), spending money wisely is not something Chicago does well.

Spending national farm subsidies better would make more of an impact on consumption of "sugary drinks" than anything Chicago or other major city might do. And if the tax is regressive, and people get stubborn, then they will spend less money on real food to get their soft drinks fix.

Balance of Food on why it's ethical to eat meat

Today being May 1, those who are too cheap or lazy (yours truly included) to subscribe to The New York Times online can use their first free read to see the top 6 results of "why it's ethical to eat meat" essay contest.

As you may have guessed, I entered the contest and, shock, did not place in the top 6. Compared to the winners, my essay wasn't as heartfelt or full of crazy stories. Mine was too practical and realistic, hallmark traits of my work here at BalanceofFood.com. Since this audience will appreciate it more than The New York Times, here is the essay in its entirety. Oh, and feel free to eat some meat, hopefully well-grown, while reading my essay.

Man is not the only animal that eats meat, but it's the only one who gives it any thought. Eat cow and chicken, but not dog and cat. Eat white meat but not dark meat. Eat the lean meat, not the liver. Eat cows but not veal.

When a tiger rips into the flesh of a smaller animal, the tiger never asks, "Was this grass-fed?" The tiger eats the meat, no questions asked.

Man used to justify eating meat out of self-defense. If he didn't kill the saber-tooth tiger, the tiger would eat him.

Man no longer needs to feel threatened by the animals in his world. The cow does not look at us as his dinner. Cows, chickens and pigs are meant to be vegetarians. Buffaloes eat grass.

So now man questions whether we should eat meat.

The Christian imagery in the United States is Adam having the animals at his disposal. Native peoples speak of respect for the animal, using all parts of the animal. The understanding: we have access to the animals in question, but in return, we must respect the animals.

The lack of respect for the animals is a major reason why mankind currently contemplates a world where animals are not eaten, and why many people have recently converted to vegetarianism. "If only we treat the animals better," is a common reason for new vegetarians.

About three generations ago, we had a society where we treated animals better, even as we were eating them. People ate dark meat and livers. We appreciated tougher cuts of meat because meat was expensive. Having meat on your table was a big deal.

The Interstate Highway System and fast food made for a convenient marriage. We decided we needed more meat but certain cuts, and meat had to be cheaper. We started being pickier about what meat we ate. Gone was the flavorful dark meat of the chicken. "Give me some of that white meat with 11 herbs and spices and deep fry it."

Then we decided that cows and chickens weren't fat enough fast enough. So we came up with a system to feed corn to cows. "Who cares if they can't stomach that corn? Feed them antibiotics and hormones to solve the problem."

We take inedible parts of the animal, clean them up with ammonia, and feed it to school children. Our value of the animal has been reduced to "pink slime."

So if we somehow magically go back to a time where we do treat our animals with respect, should we still eat them?

Humans can't eat grass, but cows and buffalo can eat grass. You eat what the animals you eat have eaten. When done properly and ethically, meat supplies mankind with nutrients in a distinctive and flavorful fashion.

In a world where we don't eat meat, we would have fewer cows, pigs, and chickens. Who would take care of those remaining animals? Farmers would be too busy raising vegetarian crops to feed people.

Do we want to shift our land priorities to bury cows and pigs? What about the deer overpopulation?

We would be better off if we ate less meat and more well-raised meat. The world also benefits from having more vegetarians, regardless of reason, and flexitarians, those who occasionally eat meat.

Pulling back to a time where meat was more rare (in temperature and availability) would make us appreciate the gift we have of the animals all around us.

Temptation of the Week: 'Authentic' Mexican Coca-Cola

Mexican Coca-Cola is supposed to be the cat's meow, the great alternative to those frustrated by the American version with high-fructose corn syrup. Used to be that you could travel to neighboring countries Canada and Mexico and you'd be guaranteed an experience free of high-fructose corn syrup.

Then, glucose-fructose sneaked its way into Canada; no one really explaining that glucose-fructose is high-fructose corn syrup. Lately, we've been hearing stories about Mexicans having to deal with American coke, er, Coca-Cola. And I've seen "Mexican Coca-Cola" that says on the label "high-fructose corn syrup and/or sugar."

NAFTA is the reason why high-fructose corn syrup has invaded Canada and Mexico. Free trade agreements do have some advantages, but the loss of sovereignty is always a bad side effect. The United States has a lot of power to force something into another country; that power is not as reciprocal in reality.

We live in a society where we can't find out whether the milk we drink has been treated with growth hormones. For consumers who want to avoid high-fructose corn syrup for any number of reasons (time will tell if the autism connection has much validity), they deserve to know whether they are consuming high-fructose corn syrup.

For those looking to cut down on high-fructose corn syrup, Mexican Coca-Cola has been a wonderful option while occasionally having a soft drink. The treat of Mexican Coca-Cola only works if you are drinking "the real thing" (yes, an old company slogan).

If your drink is from a glass bottle and says Coca-Cola and comes from Mexico, it's only real if the label doesn't say high-fructose corn syrup. Anything else isn't "the real thing."

Still wondering why regular U.S. Coca-Cola products are allowed to have the words "Original Formula," when no one knows that to be true.

The popularity of Mexican Coca-Cola should prove to the corporate folks in Atlanta that there is an audience for what Coca-Cola produced before the company switched to high-fructose corn syrup. I have two 2-liter bottles of Kosher for Passover Coca-Cola, another popular choice where available. The switch back to sugar would be the opposite publicity the company received for switching to New Coke.

The best rule of thumb is if the label doesn't mention high-fructose corn syrup, you should be fine. If you see the words "high-fructose corn syrup and/or sugar," place the bottle gently down and run.

"The customer is always right" and "give the people what they want" haven't applied when it comes to Coca-Cola.

This is a painful reminder that we keep needing to bring up: read labels. Seriously. You never know what food manufacturers are going to do.

Even prisoners deserve a good breakfast

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day … unless it's the weekend or a holiday and you're an Illinois state prisoner.

In a budget-cutting move, the Illinois Department of Corrections will only serve offer brunch to prison inmates on Sundays and stop serving breakfast. The move will reportedly save about $2.5 million over a year's time.

Instead of getting 21 meals per week, prisoners will only get 19 meals.

Illinois isn't the only state making these types of budget cuts. Ohio and Georgia are among a few states that have made this move.

For those who complain about the government being in the food business, think about the two classes of people fed by the government are school children and prisoners. Based on the track record, no one would voluntarily submit to having government choose their food options.

The quality of the food you get and how much you get is at the whim of bureaucrats who are more concerned about the bottom line than what you eat.

You don't read too many articles that are sympathetic to prisoners, but the advantages to feeding school children well (paying more attention, less acting out) would also make for a better prison experience for all parties concerned. And if prisoners are trying to get a better life, such as studying for a GED or for a trade position, then they need to start their day with a good breakfast.

These government policies seem like a good idea now, but are more harmful in the long run, just like skipping breakfast and then eating more later on in the day.

We teach our children that breakfast is really important. We try to incorporate breakfast into our lives, even if we aren't successful. Yes, prisoners lose many of their rights in jail, but even prisoners deserve a good daily breakfast.

Kraft can use Oreos commercial leak to promote breastfeeding

News outlets reporting on Kraft's controversial Oreo breastfeeding ad felt the need to censor the photograph to protect sensitive readers. The outlets chose to blur out the 20% of the exposed nipple of a breastfeeding woman doing what comes naturally.

They should have blurred out the cookie.

The United States is the one major country that freaks out over female nipples, yet high-fructose corn syrup was created in that country and its food policy works terribly hard to export high-fructose corn syrup to other countries. And yes, while a baby holding a processed cookie is offensive enough, holding a cookie tied into Kraft's insistence on using high-fructose corn syrup in Oreos is that much more disturbing.

BalanceofFood.com strongly encourages adults to make proper nutrition choices, but recognizes that free will allows us true freedom to choose good vs. not-so-good. Babies haven't earned that right.

Kraft tells us the ad "was never intended for public distribution or use with consumers" though the possible South Korean audience are much more confident in their ability to handle a partial female nipple. Taking them at their word, someone still set up a photo shoot, put the cookie in the baby's hands, and took the picture. And that picture sends a terrible message about babies and food marketing.

Advocates against marketing food to children who are tougher on that subject than I am point out that children can't process the ability to make good food decisions. True, babies aren't pressuring their parents to buy Oreos or other cookies, but "Milk's favorite cookie" in that context putting unnecessary pressure on newborn mothers and fathers.

The growth that babies experience between 0-3 years old requires extra care about their nutrition, not less. We have also gone on the record as saying breastfeeding is the best choice for young babies whenever and wherever possible.

If Kraft and Oreos wanted to do it right, the tagline on the ad would read something like:

"Someday, this child will enjoy an Oreo cookie for the very first time. But until then, this child should settle for milk … without the cookie."

Food companies pour millions into advertising while fruits and vegetables and breastfeeding get a tiny fraction of the ad time and space. Having a major food marketer push a pro-breastfeeding agenda with a sly nod to one of its products would be a win-win situation in the marketplace — provided that Americans get over their phobia of the female nipple.

photo credit

'Colbert Report' pokes at Prozac in poultry

Usually, the fun of "Thought for Food" on the "Colbert Report" is that most of the crazy food happenings can be avoided by making easy choices. We've known about bugs in a Starbucks drink for some time, and we've tweeted the joys of Pizza Hut's hot dog stuffed pizza (though sadly only in the UK).

Prozac in our poultry? That's depressing, and not the kind of depressing that can be cured with Prozac. Colbert also reported on caffeine, banned antibiotics and arsenic.

This is a new low for what we apparently can't know what is in our food.

Colbert had a little bit of fun with the chicken and drugs theme with Xanax nuggets, blazin' buffalo Benadryl dipped into Hidden Valley Robitussin, Lipitor frittata, and KFCialis.

For the Starbucks story, Colbert's suggestions of spraying your food with bug spray doesn't seem far off, given the spraying of crops by factory farms. Amazing how a hot dog trapped inside a pizza crust and dangerous drugs in our poultry makes drinking bugs really not that bad.

If/when Pizza Hut brings the hot dog inside the pizza craze to the States, we know we can avoid it. But in eating chicken wings at a bar, we shouldn't get a drug such as Prozac unless we want it and with a prescription.