Balance of Food

Are Americans consuming high-fructose corn syrup with 90% fructose?

Watching people with proper training (dietitians, doctors) tell us that there is no difference between sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is bad enough. Technically, they aren't the same, and this assumes we're talking HFCS-55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose).

But what if that product with high-fructose corn syrup contains HFCS-90?

Not wanting to play conspiracy games, but we don't honestly know what level of high-fructose corn syrup we're getting. We've been told HFCS-55, though we don't know.

According to Food Identity Theft, we know this has been in existence for quite some time.

"But now, the CRA (Corn Refiners Association) itself has come out and admitted that HFCS containing such mega doses of fructose has been in use "with FDA knowledge for decades."

Whether the FDA knows exactly what is going on is up for debate. We are the consumers ingesting high-fructose corn syrup, and we don't know what we are ingesting.

If some or most of the products containing high-fructose corn syrup had elevated levels of fructose (60%? 70%? 80%?), that would explain the liver problems and other health issues caused by excess fructose. Perhaps Dr. Robert Lustig can explain to us that sugar and HFCS-90 are "exactly the same."

I've made my biases against high-fructose corn syrup known, but if you think about this independently, every element of society, from processed food to lack of recess to video games to fast food, has been examined to see its role in childhood and adult obesity. Somehow, with high-fructose corn syrup, the political pressures are too high to give this a thorough study.

Yes, the experts tell us that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup have been studied and they are virtually/exactly the same. But the impact of high-fructose corn syrup and the significantly higher use of it in products hasn't been examined even lightly.

Like the pro-HFCS people will tell you, high-fructose corn syrup is not the sole reason for the obesity epidemic. Even I would never say that. High-fructose corn syrup has a significant role in the climbing obesity numbers. And if we've been eating HFCS-90 in some products, well, that would be a lot easier to prove.

Temptation of the Week: Reading food labels every day

Tying in April 11 (4/11 — 411) to National "Read Your Labels" Day was a cute idea (411 = information), but in reality, every day should be Read Your Labels Day.

Even if you bypass the front labels of the product, as you probably should, the ingredient label is the most important part.

But reading the front label is a good way to see which way the product wants you to go. Sometimes, the information is literal: "no high-fructose corn syrup." Makes me want to pick up a product, even if it does have sugar. But I know before I look at the nutrition label that I don't have to worry about that ingredient.

Juice cocktail would be on the front label if that is the product, but you might gloss over that information. A product that is "sugar-free" looks tempting but often you should judge a product by what it has, not what it doesn't. Fat-free often means more sugar, more than likely to actually be high-fructose corn syrup.

The front of the label speaks to a code. They want you to notice the product, but aren't straightforward about what it has or doesn't have. And this code is everchanging. "Trans fat free" used to be a big deal.

Nutrition information on the back of the label doesn't mean much until you take in the serving size. And in comparing products, such as breakfast cereals, some will say ¾ oz. while others say 1 oz. Everything else being equal required things to be equal at the start.

How often should you read a nutritional label? Sometimes, if the product is susceptible to switching back to high-fructose corn syrup, you should check every time.

Unfortunately, a true "Read Your Labels" Day won't happen as long as the government has a policy where castoreum is masked as "natural flavor" and is never seen on a list of ingredients.

Food labels are a game to food companies, mostly the content in the front but also within the nutritional label. So many sources of sweetness, sugar alcohols, and artificial sweeteners under different names.

The best way to play the game is to be as diligent in scrutinizing the labels and be one step ahead of the food companies. That is a 24/7, 365 day game, because you ultimately decide what you put into your body.

If you really don't want to read labels, buy fruits and vegetables and drink water. No label required on an apple or a stalk of celery.

photo credit: Center for Science in the Public Interest

Cook to 160°F minimum a sign to look elsewhere for meat

We don't think of cooking meat in terms of temperature; we know rare, medium-rare, medium, medium-well, and well. So most consumers wouldn't think twice about seeing that message on a package of ground beef. To the discerning eye, the label screams "Don't eat me. I'm not good."

Before last summer, I wouldn't have figured out right away what 160°F meant. But thanks to the fiasco of the medium-rare burger in Alberta last summer, I know that 145°F is medium-rare and 160°F is well.

So cooking beef to 160°F minimum is not about taste or flavor, but only a CYA maneuver (cover … your …).

You wouldn't be surprised to learn that the label comes from Cargill Meat Solutions and the package was sold at Wal-Mart. I discovered this by poking around the new Wal-Mart out of curiosity, not thinking I would see anything quite this distasteful.

In established circles, my view is very much in the minority. The USDA wants you to cook your ground beef to 160°F and use a food thermometer.

"When a hamburger is cooked to 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer, it is both safe and delicious!"

Safe, yes. Delicious? No thanks.

Cooking meat to 160°F is a way of skating around questionable beef processing practices. This doesn't even factor in what the cows are eating or being injected with or any pink slime problems. This is purely based on what may get mixed into the meat in harvesting cows and processing their meat.

But what gets me about "Cook to 160°F minimum" is the last word: minimum. How far does Cargill and Wal-Mart want us to cook this meat? 170°F? 180°F? 212°F is boiling, so that meat would be ideal for a little Cincinnati chili.

What goes past well? Doesn't sound like a good "meat solution."

We go out of our way to say food is safe even when it isn't, but this label on the package of beef says, "I'm not safe. You have to overcook me. Even if you reach the CYA cut from the USDA, this is only the minimum. You should go beyond well if you want to be sure. This is how crappy our food is for you."

We should be thankful that this product has such a prominent warning label. Very colorful and really stands out. The problem is that the vast majority of consumers don't know what the label means and won't take steps, however draconian they may be, to cook the beef to such an extreme temperature.

As a country that prides itself on eating a lot of meat, we should have beef that would make us proud. We should have beef so well processed that it should have warning labels not to cook this meat above 150°F (medium). Now that's beef that would be worth having for dinner.

'Daily Show' finds the bliss point with Michael Moss

Part I

Part II

"They don't eat their own products."

We learned in the Michael Moss interview on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" that the people making processed food tastier and more addictive are not evil plotters and they don't eat their own food.

The problem is they are really good at what they do, and the profit principle overrules all.

The profit issue isn't always internal.  As an example, Campbell's worked to lower the sodium in its soups. Moss noted that Campbell's found a way to reduce the sodium and still make the soups taste good. But since only one company in the marketplace was doing so, a cough or hiccup from Wall Street, and Campbell's put the salt back.

Making Cheetos more fun or Dr. Pepper taste better — each individual act in itself, not bad. The problem is that the junk food of a more innocent time (for these purposes, the 1970s) isn't what kids (and adults) are eating now.

Nestle, with 700 scientists, creates products to make you obese and help you once you've had gastric bypass surgery.

Moss noted that the Obama Administration is working to improve the economics by leveling the playing field, since processed food is more subsidized than fruits and vegetables. In the GOP world, we're at balance now since the corporations are the winners.

The segment also allowed those who hadn't picked up on terms such as "vanishing caloric density."

In the extended segment (Part II), they compared processed food to the Manhattan Project and reflect on the former Coca-Cola executive now selling baby carrots (Stewart says he's still going to Hell).

New York City soft drink ban should be complete or not at all

The soft drink ban in New York City was overturned by a New York State Supreme Court justice because the new law was "arbitrary and capricious." Which means that we are as smart about the law as a New York State Supreme Court justice.

For those who are greatly concerned about the impact of soda pop in our society, you should be relieved and upset about the ruling, the same reaction — for different reason — you would have if the law was now in effect.

You could get a large soda pop at a 7-11 but not a movie theater. You can get a large soda pop at a movie theater if it was diet. This certainly qualifies as "arbitrary."

Capricious is the fancier legal word used by the judge. While the word means "given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior," the use fits in with arbitrary in the sense that the randomness of the law doesn't effectively deal with the issue.

Political legislation is a flawed process, no matter how good the intentions of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and advocates for reducing soda pop consumption. Even by those standards, this law had serious holes.

Previous coverage:

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

Temptation of the Week: Fat tax

Bloomberg and New York City can still get the point across without being so arbitrary. If the issue is serving sizes, then you need to ban the serving sizes, whether that be diet pop, orange juice, Red Bull, or regular soda pop.

The fast food calorie boards didn't apply to every New York City restaurant; the law applied to businesses with large enough sales (chains) and not to mom-and-pop places. In other words, you could target Big Gulp sizes but let a local restaurant serve a 20 oz. drink. Fair, no. Legal? Probably.

If the issue is the damage done by high-fructose corn syrup, then set a ban of any serving size of a drink featuring high-fructose corn syrup. You would see a lot of Mexican Coke, er, Coca-Cola in New York City. That law might still be too arbitrary but would be more useful.

Conformity within the law can sometimes backfire as well. Take Chicago's soft drink tax. The tax is supposed to offset the obesity issue by making soft drinks more expensive. Except the drinks with high-fructose corn syrup, which receives federal subsidies, are treated the same as drinks with sugar, which is artifically higher thanks to federal policy. This meets the requirement of equality, but punishes those who choose better options.

Law writing never should be truly easy, but some problems require more complex solutions. Removing federal subsidies from corn products would do more good in New York City than any of Bloomberg's proposals. Since that isn't happening anytime soon, Bloomberg is working with a disadvantage. Just means his quest will take longer and require more thought.

A smartly written law will have a more meaningful impact than one poorly written, and the general public will respect it more. Jon Stewart will miss having this as a target of ridicule, but even he would want a better written law to deal with the impact of obesity caused in part by huge soft drink sizes.

Colbert Report's Thought for Food: Can't stop at one?

Jays potato chips has had the slogan "Can't stop eating 'em" for as long as I can remember. Lay's potato chips (no relation) had the slogan of "betcha can't eat just one."

This goes back well before food science tried to find the "bliss point" as profiled in "The Extraordinary Science of Alluring Junk Food" in The New York Times and on the Colbert Report's "Thought for Food."

The article, from Michael Moss, notes the careful work done by food companies to produce "complex formulas that pique the taste buds enough to be alluring but don't have a distinct, overriding single flavor that tells the brain to stop eating."

Colbert poked some fun at that using Tostitos scoop chips. He professes to being able to eat just one chip out of a huge bowl of Tostitos. Feeling very proud of himself for eating one chip, he proceeds to bring out an oversized chip as his "second chip." And since these chips are designed for dipping, Colbert scoops up the smaller chips as the "dip" and eat the chips.

At the end of the show, Colbert has the bowl of chips in front of him, running the chips through his hands but not actually eating one of them.

Food companies have always wanted us to eat and drink lots of their products; the difference is that the science is better. Anecdotal evidence has skyrocketed that consuming high-fructose corn syrup causes you to eat more. And if those salty snacks are designed to get you to eat even more of them, then washing it down with high-fructose corn syrup kicks in the cycle.

Colbert starts out the segment in an attack on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the impending drink size bans because Colbert thinks Bloomberg thinks people can't control what goes into their mouths "Well, he's wrong. We can control our mouths, or at least, the snack food scientists can."

"Vanishing caloric density" is a popular term describing the ennui of eating something with taste yet that feels like you aren't consuming a whole lot of calories. While I can't say I thought of that at the time, I do see that when I experimented with Flamin' Hot Cheetos. I loved the taste in the first few bites. After all, I grew bored with the taste, but still kept eating them.

Snack foods are supposed to be fun, a loose relationship between human and processed food. Snack foods aren't supposed to be your friend. Colbert and his writers came out with a Doritos flavor that parodies finding that bliss point: Blazin' Buffalo Bottomless Pit of Unfulfilled Longing.

The best solution is to eat foods that provide taste where a little bit goes a long way toward fulfilling what it is that you need. A little bit of Gruyere, a cheese can is higher in fat, can be better for you than a pile of low-fat mozzarella cheese.

Snacking can be fun as long as you aren't using the food for solace. Food is not a therapist. Food is food. That really is a Thought for Food.

Temptation of the Week: 'A Place at the Table'

Daily Show Part I

Daily Show Part II

Food budgets are tricky, but many people feel like they can save money on food and still eat pretty well. If we looked at the way the United States spends its food budget, we would find too much money spent on corn subsidies and direct and indirect payments to large conglomerate farms. We have matching issues of starvation and obesity.

"A Place at the Table," opening this weekend, helps us to visualize what it means to be hungry.

The statistics cited are startling: 50 million people in the United States, including 25% of children, don't know where they will get their next meal. So many wonder: where is the disconnect and why?

Since the economy is better than it was, society has less sympathy for those who struggle to find food. Then again, the invisibility increases because people are reluctant to admit that they are hungry.

Directors Kristi Jacobson and Lori Silverbush take us to Collbran, Colorado; Jonestown, Mississippi; and Philadelphia to give us three stories about the different ways people are hungry in this country.

"This is really solvable," Silverbush said on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." "We know what causes hunger; we know how to fix it."

The film points out that hunger in the United States was pretty much solved by the late 1970s. The "Hunger in America" film that aired on CBS in 1968 is referred. Within two weeks, Congress passed bipartisan legislation. CBS followed up 10 years later to see that the hunger problem got better (yes in pre-cable news, TV journalists would follow up on complex topics).

Why did things change? "In a word, Reagan," Silverbush said to Stewart.

The directors pointed out that this country went from 200 food banks to 40,000 food pantries and banks, yet the hunger problem was "too big for those groups to handle," Jacobson said to Stewart.

They point out that 80% of people on SNAP are working poor. "Poor people need a better lobby," Stewart said.

The timing of the release of the film obviously wasn't scheduled as the same day of the sequestration, but the directors did point out that the government cuts means that 600,000 mothers and infants will lose formula.

The hope from the directors and everyone involved in the film is for as many people to see this film as possible. But the underlying purpose is to get people involved in helping those who don't have enough to eat, and getting people with food to be able to afford better choices.

At a dinner table around the holidays, we always say that there is room for one more. Well, America has a table and 50 million in the United States are looking for a place at that table.

"A Place At The Table" opens today in theatres. If you don't live near one of the theatres, the film is available on iTunes and OnDemand.

Editor's note: My plan is to see the film and review it for you in the near future. Feel free to let you know what you think if you see the film.

Knowing what is in your food should be the norm

When you can look an animal in its face, raise it, treat it well, and then slaughter it, you know what you are getting on your plate. In 2013, this knowledge of your food is easier on the local level and much more difficult on a world scale.

Countries that don't like to eat horse meat have the right to not get horse meat if they choose to do so. Those buying fish should get what they pay for. And clearly, this isn't happening.

In the United States, we could laugh at the saga going on in Europe, but with the mix of meat that passes for "beef" in our country, we literally don't know what we are eating.

Even for those who resolve to eat only local and only animals that they know, they and everybody else should be alarmed that we don't know what we are eating.

I voluntarily choose to not eat veal. If I choose to change my mind about veal, that is my choice. I have the freedom to eat veal or not eat veal. If someone came along to put veal into what is supposed to be beef, I would consider that a violation.

Even if you aren't a vegetarian, you should feel for Indians who were horrified to discover that McDonald's French fries were cooked in beef tallow.

Some countries in Europe eat horse. On the North American continent, you can find horse meat in Quebec in Canada. So the issue isn't eating horse; this is about wanting beef and getting something else. If you can find horse in your beef, you might find beef in your horse.

Even Reese's peanut butter cups acknowledge that they contain peanut butter and chocolate.

Companies list potential allergens because certain foods can trigger allergies even if there is a possible connection. In these troubling times, we could extend the concept: "This beef product may have come in contact with horse, and by come in contact, we mean some horse might be in your beef."

These cases involved suppliers; it's not like Burger King grows its own cows. The more hands that get on food, the more likely something such as this can happen. Local has the advantage of involving fewer hands.

In this post-regulation world, the trick is making food as cheap as possible, regardless of quality, ingredients, and basic decent common sense. While those who try and keep their food pure are often chastised for their extreme attitude, they know what they are eating. That shouldn't be extreme; knowing what is in your food should be the norm.

Those on food stamps need to see role models of success

 

We talk a lot about food stamps and how vital they are to our society. But food stamps, SNAP — whatever we are calling them — are invisible. And we've made them even more invisible to make people feel better about getting the help they need.

The drawback of invisibility is that we don't have role models to tell us about what it's like and why having them is so important.

This is why one particular TV spot in the NoKidHungry.org campaign struck me as being poignant. You had people in the public eye telling stories about what it was like to be on food stamps and what that meant to them.

"Today I have cooking shows, but when I was a kid, my brothers and sisters and I needed food stamps to survive," says Food Network star Sandra Lee.

"Today I am a congressman, but as a young veteran, food stamps helped me feed my family," says Joe Baca (D-CA).

"Today, I play pro basketball. But as a kid, food stamps gave me the energy I needed to play ball and study," said WNBA star Ruth Riley. "Give hungry kids like me a chance to succeed."

Riley, Baca, and Lee all needed food stamps at some point in their lives. What makes their stories even more special is that they rose above needing food stamps to make something of their lives.

The cries from conservatives are that food stamps and welfare is a way to keep people down for multiple generations. While a small percentage falls into that trap, most people on food stamps use them temporarily until life gets better. Not all the stories are as vibrant as the three examples, but they are necessary proof to show that a helping hand does help.

At some point in 2013, the farm bill will be addressed and SNAP is covered. Food stamps in the discussion is about as invisible as those who use them. The more awareness that exists in society, the harder it will be to ignore changes in food stamps programs.

The poor are already invisible in our society as it is. The sympathy that some had for food stamps receipients was based on the poor economy. Now that the economy is doing much better, that level of sympathy is decreasing.

Barack Obama has 4 more years to improve U.S. food supply, but we need to help

Around Noon Eastern, we will have almost 4 more years of the Barack Obama Administration. We saw wonderful legislation signed in his first two years, only some of which is finally coming to fruition in 2013 (food safety improvements).

The nightmares of a parallel universe where Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan help decide about food safety, school lunch, and farm subsidies should finally ease up. We can bemoan that not much will get done until 2015 thanks to the Republican-led House, but we can reflect on Inauguration Day that we don't live in that parallel universe.

Obama's second term is a painful reminder that if progressives and food enthusiasts want change that will last, time is ticking away. A Democratic person could be elected president in 2016, but they may not be as enthusiastic about the cause, and certainly not have a First Lady (Spouse) as passionate as Michelle Obama.

As we've learned from the delayed Farm Bill, even those who identify as Dem aren't always onboard with changing, or as we put it, going back to Grandma's time. Seriously, those who are conservative should be on the same wavelength as progressives on the ills of our food supply. One of the issues is that many on the right – yes, the Tea Party folk, love corporations as much as they hate the government.

Liberals don't love government as much as conservatives think they do. Liberals want taxes to be collected responsibly to do things for society that private society can't/won't accomplish on its own. And to get out of the way in areas where government ruins things (subsidizing corn, giving farm subsidies to rich people without farms).

Conservatives, rather Tea Party people, don't like government, unless it is the business of killing people who aren't from here. They whine about the debt, so they could be on board with reductions in subsidies for corn and no more farm subsidies for rich people. They may not be happy with increases for school lunch programs or rising food prices, even if U.S. food is the cheapest per capita of developed nations.

The odd disconnect is their love for corporations, as if they are rooting for companies to be deceptive in their labels and to make food as cheap as possible, ingredients be damned. Conservatives are by nature old-school, except on food. They appreciate traditions and traditional means of food, along with progressives, but the results don't match up in the pantries and on the dinner tables.

As much as we would love the federal government to do more about the food supply, not much will get done for 2 more years. If the stars align, the Dems grab back the House and scramble to hang on to the Senate in 2014, Obama and his people have 2 more years to build on 2009-2011. And they will have a lot on their plate, as it were – gun violence, climate change, immigration – so food can easily be lost in the shuffle.

Let's be honest; even if all of that happens, Obama isn't lightning on getting things done. In other words, holding our breath until the Dems take back the House of Representatives will result in lots of unnecessary oxygen losses.

Grassroots, or literally grass grassroots, may be the way to convince those who don't trust progressives too much that food is really important to the growth and improvement of our society. Everything doesn't have to be organic or cooked in foam to make a difference. Changes can be simple, inexpensive, and worthwhile to even the most hardened people.

Progressives waited for years for help from Washington. 2009-2011 showed more improvement from the nation's capital than any 2 years in recent memory. But change can't come just from Washington; if people stand up for a better food supply, there are many in Washington who will help. They can't and won't do it alone; they need your help.

Some other famous president said at his inauguration: “As k not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country.” You have 4 more years, starting today.