Balance of Food

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.

Temptation of the Week: Canadian fat cakes

I've never had a fat cake, Canadian or American. And yet I want one.

The only problem is that fat cakes aren't real.

I'm not in the ideal demo for "iCarly,' but was glad to stumble on the episode where most of the cast tours a plant where Canadian fat cakes are made. Sam (left), one of the lead characters, is obsessed with fat cakes. She has heard that fat cakes in Canada taste better because they are made with "cane fat" while American Fat Cakes are made with "corn fat."

The catch for Sam is that you aren't allowed to bring in Canadian Fat Cakes into the United States. Sam tries to bring them back across the border strapped to her person under a long coat. Unfortunately for Sam, she gets caught smuggling them back.

(Amusingly, this episode originally aired just after Michelle Obama was in an episode of iCarly. From good health to fat cakes, a true Balance of Food.)

You certainly can bring back processed baked goods from Canada into the United States. Long-time readers know of my adventures with Canadian Twinkies. And before glucose-fructose (HFCS) came to Canada, I brought back Canadian versions of soft drinks.

As it turns out, Fat Cakes have been a floating theme through the show. According to this wikia, they are "made with marshmallow and have pink coconut shavings on top and a chocolate cake in the middle with cream filling."

Sounds like more of a take on Sno Balls. They don't sound like much of a temptation, though Jennette McCurdy, the actress who plays Sam, convinces you that they are worth risking the wrath of customs. If Canadian Twinkies were illegal in the United States, I'd be tempted to smuggle them into the States.

We often are tempted by what we can't have, whether that is a certain fast food restaurant or regional favorite. When we travel somewhere, we want to retain that experience long after our trip is over.

I have "smuggled" garlic back from San Francisco on the plane, but within your own country, you can bring such things back without any customs trouble.

When you travel outside the country, you are subject to restrictions on what you can "smuggle" back into your home country. Plants and meat bring up red flags, as tempting as that ham from Spain can be.

If you aren't sure, check with the laws in the country where you live, since that is where you'll be returning. If what you want to bring back fits within those confines, travel and enjoy your food experience, wherever that takes you.

For the Canadian take, check out this story from our sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com.

photo credit: iCarly

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.

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.

Canada focuses sharpest budget cuts on those who protect food safety

The good news is that Canada has a department devoted to food inspection. The bad news is that there will be fewer inspectors as a result of federal budget cuts.

The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture Canada will suffer among the worst hits in federal budget cuts by the Harper government.

In the election campaign of 2011, the Conservative budget promised $100 million over five years to increase capacity in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Politicians do break promises on occasion. When you offer to raise the stakes to protect citizens from tainted food, and you make the department that helps prevent tainted food a high priority for a deep cut, well that decision makes a significant impact on average Canadians.

Under the Harper government, a listeriosis outbreak in 2008 led to 22 deaths and 35 serious illnesses from tainted deli meat.

Canada has an advantage over the United States since it has a government agency devoted to food inspection. The USDA runs marketing and inspection of the same food, and as we've seen lately, the FDA begging for voluntary help in cutting down on antibiotics in the food supply is really sad and pathetic.

But if that agency can't be effective, especially given the increasing number of food problems in recent years, Canada's advantage isn't nearly as large as it should be.

Crossing your fingers that your food is safe isn't a smart government policy.

Previous coverage:

What a Stephen Harper government means for Canada's national food strategy

Canada's political parties have stronger food policies in their platforms for the upcoming election

Temptation of the Week: eating insects

We are drawn to eating food based on color, and so in a lot of processed foods, we get to eat dyes to satisfy our visual nature. In a bag of Wheat Thins Veggie Toasted Chips, you can consume 4 dyes: Blue 2, Red 40, Yellow 6, and Yellow 5.

The chips also have dehydrated vegetables, which you would think would be a good source of color. We are told, after all, to eat color through vegetables. But in chips that contain sugar, malt syrup, high-fructose corn syrup AND MSG, at least the dyes are the last ingredient listed.

Still, the idea of eating something horrible to satisfy a visual makes you want to eat your food with your eyes closed.

Starbucks customers found out recently they were eating something horrible to satisfy a visual: insects are used to achieve the red color in a Strawberries & Creme Frappuccino.

Eating insects, even dipped in chocolate, won't appeal to many, other than your Anthony Bourdain types or adolescent boys on a dare. Somehow, crushed up insects might be more plausible, but if you're a vegetarian, you would prefer that nothing die for your overpriced coffee drinks.

Grist weighs in with a very good point: eating insects is still better than consuming coal tar or petroleum. Jess Zimmerman notes that the alternative to cochineal (bugs) is Red 40 (coal tar/petroleum).

Where did we hear about Red 40? That's right: the Wheat Thins chips.

Put me down for those insects. Mmmmmm. Protein.

The other issue is why a drink that contains strawberries wouldn't provide enough red for you to love its color. After all, strawberries and milk in a blender will turn pink.

The strawberries come from strawberry puree concentrate. The white grape juice concentrate dominates the sauce, so perhaps the sauce doesn't have enough strawberries, or red ones at least.

If you see the ingredients on the sauce (see link above) and you know that cochineal extract means dried female cochineal insects, then you are aware. If you mindlessly order the drink, you would have no idea whether the red color came from strawberries, petroleum, or crushed dead insects.

Plant-based foods can supply needed color in foods so companies don't have to resort to insects or petroleum, but those probably cost more.

The insects are natural, even more natural than good ol' castoreum (beaver anal gland). The idea of drinking petroleum is gross, especially if it's only to get a product that should be red, more red.

You might upset people if you hold up a line in Starbucks asking them if their drinks have dead insects or petroleum, but you do have a right to know what is in your food and drink. Then you can decide is eating insects is right for you.

Michelle Obama uses 'Biggest Loser' to push 'Let's Move'

"I will make a complete fool out of myself if it means that more children and families get excited about the idea of incorporating nutrition and fitness into their lives." -- First Lady Michelle Obama

You could argue that the First Lady being on "The Biggest Loser," a reality TV show, qualifies her as making a complete fool of herself. It's a whole lot better than Nancy Reagan and "Diff'rent Strokes." However, Mrs. Obama recognizes that this is a way to get her message out to eat better and exercise more, especially to families.

It wasn't a coincidence that the families were with the contestants as they met the First Lady in the White House. "1 in 3 children in this nation are overweight or obese. And ⅓ of our children are at risk of developing diabetes at some point in their lifetimes. So this is a major issue," said Mrs. Obama.

Michelle Obama was worried about making a fool of herself in working out with the contestants. But among the group, she was in the best shape of everyone.

"Michelle Obama is what No Excuses is all about. I mean, think about it. Who is busier than the First Lady, other than the president of the United States. This woman finds time to work out practically every single day. We all should be doing this." -- Bob Harper, senior trainer on "The Biggest Loser."

Clearly, the First Lady has time to watch the show since she knew quite a bit about the contestants. Then again, she pointed out that she works out harder after having seen the show.

Her ⅓ numbers gave us an unintentional parallel — get to be overweight or obese and you are heading for diabetes. The idea is to avoid that happening.

Mrs. Obama brought up the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award, where they get families for 6 consecutive weeks to "eat healthy and get active" with adults doing 30 minutes and children do 60 minutes of exercise per day.

The First Lady mentioned nutrition twice overall. Like "The Biggest Loser," this was much more about "Let's Move" than "Let's eat better."

Too bad Michelle Obama didn't stay for the next segment. Chris is 42 and she is a contestant on the show. We see her in a hotel room surrounded by food. We see her spreading mayonnaise from a jar on a cheeseburger, putting mayonnaise on a grilled cheese sandwich, chocolate and peanut butter on a banana, and peanut butter and mayonnaise on that burger.

"Literally these foods were calling my name. You know, all the stuff that I know I shouldn't be eating. But I'm just angry and disgusted. And because of that, I'm doing all the things that a person would do to somebody that they didn't like, except I'm just doing it to myself."

I was hoping Mrs. Obama would come out from the shadows and talk to Chris. After all, we didn't hear much about food and nutrition. Yes, children are heavier than they should be and not moving around enough. But this is all about what children are eating … and their parents, too.

Yes, her husband is the one running for re-election. But Michelle Obama is also running to remind people what she has done as First Lady, and to show a different side of the Obamas. After all, some may not like her husband, but some of those people might like Michelle more.

So it's no surprise to see more of the First Lady in media appearances not just because of the re-election campaign, but so Michelle Obama can get the word out more about eating better and "Let's Move."

Unfortunately, Mrs. Obama wasn't on the Colbert Report to talk childhood obesity. The theme was helping military families, which as Colbert noted that Mrs. Obama's two main themes are helping military families and childhood obesity.

This was Michelle Obama's first appearance on the program as First Lady. Given Colbert's emphasis on the ridiculousness of food and food marketing, she should find a way to go back on the show just to talk childhood obesity. That conversation would be more about nutrition rather than fitness.

photo credit: NBC

Dr. Sanjay Gupta protects high-fructose corn syrup in misleading '60 Minutes' segment

 

"Dr. Lustig says they (sugar and high-fructose corn syrup) are both toxic because they both contain fructose." -- Dr. Sanjay Gupta on "60 Minutes."

Yesterday was April Fool's Day, but statements such as that resonated throughout Gupta's "60 Minutes" segment on whether "sugar" was toxic.

Technically, the statement is true because sucrose is an equal mix of glucose and fructose, and standard high-fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose, 42% glucose. By Dr. Robert Lustig's logic, fruit is toxic.

"Since the 1970s, sugar consumption has gone down nearly 40%, but high-fructose corn syrup has more than made up the difference," Dr. Gupta notes.

Given where our health figures were in the 1970s, you might think a radical switch in major sweeteners isn't just a coincidence. If sugar — real sugar — not HFCS, is so toxic, wouldn't we have discovered this a long time ago? Or is it the impact of 30 years of high-fructose corn syrup on our food supply. Unfortunately, Gupta doesn't want to know the answer to that question.

"But as sugar and high-fructose corn syrup became cheaper to refine and produce, we started gorging on them." Uh, Dr. Gupta, sugar isn't as cheap as high-fructose corn syrup because of politics that makes HFCS cheaper and sugar more expensive.

Fortunately, we get to hear from Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at UC/Davis. Stanhope is doing a 5-year study "which has already shown strong evidence linking excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption to an increase in risk factors for heart disease and stroke."

"We found that the subjects who consumed high-fructose corn syrup had increased blood levels of LDL cholesterol and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease," said Dr. Stanhope. She pointed out that the changes occur within 2 weeks.

Gupta slips into "60 Minutes" mode at the end where the reporter confronts the person who has done the wrong and grill them on what they've done. Gupta remains consistent to his cluelessness about high-fructose corn syrup and interviews a guy from the sugarcane industry.

What?

We quote again from Dr. Gupta's own words: "Since the 1970s, sugar consumption has gone down nearly 40%, but high-fructose corn syrup has more than made up the difference."

Of course, Gupta can't interview the high-fructose corn syrup people because they need to be protected. Mike Wallace wouldn't have done it this way.

Jim Simon, who is on the board of the Sugar Association, draws Gupta's ire.

"You must have looked at some of these studies. What do you say about that?" -- Gupta

"Science is not completely clear here." -- Simon

"But some of these studies exist." -- Gupta

Some of these studies exist, so others don't exist? And the studies that Gupta cites in the story aren't complete or well-known. And Lustig isn't the most credible guest. Of course, sugar from sugarcane isn't nearly as prevalent in American food as high-fructose corn syrup, even with changes in the marketplace.

Gupta did the story for "60 Minutes" because he is a doctor, but as we've seen, he is more concerned about protecting the status quo than in pursuing the truth. Those consumers who rely on "60 Minutes" and health news are probably more confused than they were before the segment aired.

The segment asks "Is Sugar Toxic?" We don't get the answer to that question. The better question to ask? "Is High-fructose Corn Syrup Toxic?" That is a question for "60 Minutes," as long as Dr. Gupta isn't asking the questions.

USDA needs better reasons to avoid telling us that we're eating pink slime

"Warning: Pink Slime contained in this meat."

We haven't been crazy about the trend of plastering nutrition info on menu boards because the information is contained elsewhere and you (should) have some idea about those numbers. But we generously support any attempt to tell us what is in the food we are eating, especially when the government doesn't want us to know what we are eating.

While the news that schools could choose not to carry "pink slime" meat was thrilling, the actual numbers behind the statistics aren't thrilling. What's worse is that this is a reminder once again that the USDA doesn't want us to know that we are eating meat treated with ammonia.

Watching the U.S food supply in motion is sadly reminiscent of the Monty Python skit, "Crunchy Frog." Without spoiling the humor, the sketch is about a candy maker with deceiving names for peculiar confectionaries. At one point, the candy maker mentions a key ingredient for a candy as larx vomit. The constable suggests a big warning label that says, "Warning: Larx Vomit." The candy maker notes that his sales would plummet if they knew the candy contained the odorous ingredient.

The fine print on the pink slime in school lunchrooms is that the ban only applies to 20% of the beef, since the rest is purchased through USDA-approved vendors. And if already placed orders aren't reversed, the changes that may eventually come won't come as soon as was hoped.

"Warning: Ammonia is an ingredient in what you are about to eat."

Would you pick that up? Would you sniff it first?

Unless you are really good about where you source your foods or if you a vegetarian/vegan, chances are you have eaten pink slime. I'm virtually certain I have.

Jamie Oliver's take on pink slime in Season 2 of the "Food Revolution" was disgusting. Since no one sued Jamie Oliver for what he did, we have to assume that it's true.

Even the vast majority of those who watched Oliver do what he did have consumed pink slime since then because we aren't reminded often enough of what we are eating.

In the Monty Python skit, the idea is if a candy has a warning for larx vomit, you won't eat it. The underlying message is "Don't put larx vomit in your candy." Well, don't put pink slime in your food, especially for the children.

Ammonia is used to treat potential e-coli that stems from poor handling of animals and meat in the whole of the factory farm system. So even if we got rid of ammonia, we still have the underlying problem. But if the government considered ammonia to be an ingredient worth posting in our food supply, we would get a lot angrier at the prospect. And that would be a good start toward making things better.