Balance of Food

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.

'Pink slime' conversions prove that food quality battle is all about PR

 

Jamie Oliver has to be a little pissed off these days, and rightly so.

Oliver demonstrated how pink slime is produced, and did all of this on U.S. broadcast television … in April 2011.

Okay, so most Americans weren't paying attention. And Oliver wasn't even the first person who has brought this up. Oliver, though, is famous and showed us on TV, where we get most of our news.

In the premiere episode of Season 2, Oliver demonstrated the process in Jamie's Kitchen, washing machine and all. My take at the time?

"The bits and trimmings of the inedible meat, then separated in a washing machine, and mixed with water and ammonia — boy that was hard to watch, even if you are an omnivore."

Jamie's words got lost due to poor ratings, a key reason for the gap between the first two episodes and the rest of the show. By the time the momentum kicked in for the series during Friday airings in June, Oliver's pink slime demonstration was lost in the shuffle.

The recent push of events that has had so many companies run screaming away from "pink slime" demonstrates why getting better food quality has to be an ongoing battle.

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

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" took on the topic last week, coming late to the party. But as often happens, Stewart put what we were eating in perspective, and why we'll eat whatever is in front of us.

"McDonald's walked away from it? McDonald's doesn't think it's an appropriate thing to eat? These are the people that molded a pork disk into a rib-shaped sandwich that contains no ribs. But this stuff, pink slime, that's too fake for McDonald's."

Ask any of the school systems, chain restaurants, and grocery stores whether they thought pink slime was a big deal, they know the key issue is public relations. Companies ran away from high-fructose corn syrup not because of the nuances of sweeteners, but as a way to stand out in the marketplace and pressure from the public.

The beef industry isn't thrilled with this change of events, because it was winning the Orwellian war. Calling ammonia-treated bits and trimmings of inedible meat "lean, finely textured beef" instead of "pink slime" — PR genius, unless you have to eat it.

Iowa State Sen. Brad Zaun (R) tried to get the PR advantage in writing a letter to the editor in the Des Moines Register. However, Zaun was unscrupulous in disparaging BalanceofFood.com friend Michelle Simon. You be the judge.

Simon: "So let’s hope this week’s groundswell of interest in pink slime inspires Americans to demand labeling, buy organic, or stop eating ground beef all together."

Zaun: "So let’s hope this week’s groundswell of interest in pink slime inspires Americans to … stop eating ground beef all together."

Simon's point is that consumers should know what they're eating. Zaun's point was to be deceptive to try and discredit legitimate concern over what we're eating.

Despite what we think sometimes, the Daily Show is about comedy first. So in search of a punchline, Stewart admitted what we all fear. If it's in front of us, we will eat it.

"Pink slime. Face it. It's probably no worse than the shit you already eat."

Let's hope from now on, we'll be eating less pink slime and less of the other … er, well, crap.

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.

Iowa ag-gag law puts corporate protection over free speech and food safety

Openness and transparency is good enough for our government, but in some circles, not for our food.

"In a post 9/11 world, transparency is important for farmers and consumers alike. Responsible farmers take good care of their land and livestock and want to employ honest, hardworking people that have the welfare of their livestock as their top priority." said Iowa Farm Bureau Federation President and livestock farmer Craig Hill in a statement.

Iowa’s House File 589 doesn't really address those issues. The bill is designed to make it more difficult to know what is going on in factory farms. As for those consumers, it's a lack of transparency.

Iowa isn't the only state where factory farms are fighting back against those who want to know more about how our food is grown. Seven states — Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York and Utah — have plans in the works for similar legislation.

So what does Iowa’s House File 589 do?

Agricultural production facility fraud. 1. A person is guilty of agricultural production facility fraud if the person willfully does any of the following: a. Obtains access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses. b. Makes a false statement or representation as part of an application or agreement to be employed at an agricultural production facility, if the person knows the statement to be false, and makes the statement with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the agricultural production facility, knowing that the act is not authorized.

So if you legitimately work in an agricultural production facility, and you are concerned about the practices where you work, if you take action, your employer will go after you for fraud that doesn't have to be true to be scary. Because somehow if you are concerned about the animals around you, this will be assumed from the start that you came into your job with the intent of disrupting the company.

One element that you got from watching "Fresh" was the number of chicken coop owners who felt like they couldn't appear on camera. So much is hidden from the process, from how the animals are treated to how the animals are processed.

Hill's statement reflects on "honest, hardworking people that have the welfare of their livestock as their top priority." That is what those who have been fighting for transparency want from the food system. If what Hill is saying is true, we don't need this legislation. Then again, they may disagree on the definitions of "honest" and "hardworking" and "welfare of their livestock as their top priority."

Chicken nuggets added to 4-year-old's lunch proves liberals, conservatives can agree on school lunches

While it's sad that food quality has become a political issue, you can find joy when liberals and conservatives agree on a food issue.

In this instance, both liberals and conservatives disagreed with the decision to supplement a 4-year-old home-packed lunch with chicken nuggets.

Conservatives felt the decision smacked of the nanny state and government intruding in the role of parents.

Liberals hated the idea of a reasonably healthy lunch supplemented with "nutritious" processed chicken.

They were both right in that the decision was wrong. And perhaps, this could be a teaching moment to prove that the sides of the school lunch battle can agree on something.

The school lunch battle has been intense enough without dealing in home-packed lunches. Conservatives wouldn't want interference with home-packed lunches. Liberals have bigger problems to consider.

After all, this is what the small child had in her lunch box: turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice. Sounds better than most school lunches.

Adults eat unbalanced meals and mostly do okay. Children need more balanced meals, but the difficulty stems from another element where liberals and conservatives can agree, though for different reasons: the USDA guidelines aren't a good way to determine whether a meal is nutritious.

Conservatives don't think the government should set standards. Liberals hate that French fries, tater tots, pizza, and ketchup become "vegetables."

From what we've heard, the 4-year-old child was missing milk from her meal (though cheese could have counted) and somehow ended up with chicken nuggets. And it's not like this happens on a regular basis, even in day care centers and preschools in North Carolina.

Wouldn't it be nice … if parents packed lunches for their kids each and every day, and those lunches were reasonably nutritious, and the kids ate most if not all of those lunches. Conservatives and liberals would like that.
Wouldn't it be nice … if parents gave their kids a balanced breakfast in the morning and a good nutritious dinner at night. Liberals and conservatives would like that.
Wouldn't it be nice … if schools would have well-prepared food to supplement children's lunches on those days and times where close to perfect isn't even a remote possibility. Oh well, two out of three ain't bad.

Despite the "Leave It to Beaver" mentality of some of the GOP presidential contenders, if that world ever existed, we don't have that world now. Our school children are suffering not just in terms of food but also the energy to learn and play.

Even if liberals and conservatives disagree on the solutions, do they agree on the problems? Until they agree on the problems, very little will get solved … even with chicken nuggets.

Temptation of the Week: Reducing salt intake

Two peanuts were walking down the road when one was assaulted.

Eventually the 9-year-old and 39-year-old will laugh at that joke. The 9-year-old will laugh louder than the adult would. The adult might be more worried about the salt content of the joke.

The USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans say we should get no more than 2300 mg of sodium a day, 1500 mg if we fall into a riskier category. Right now, our low range of what we do consume is higher than what we should have if we're otherwise healthy: 2395-4476 mg.

Top 10 foods for sodium content
Ranking	Food
1	Bread and rolls
2	Luncheon meats
3	Pizza
4	Poultry products (nuggets, patties)
5	Soups
6	Cheeseburgers/other sandwiches
7	Cheese
8	Pasta
9	Meat dishes
10	Snack foods (pretzels, chips, popcorn)

I spent part of a recent Saturday trying out new fast food items that were being handed out for free. McDonald's was pushing its Chicken McBites. Its free sample consisted of 2½ tiny pieces of breaded, deep-fried chicken. Burger King was pushing its new onion rings just after the restaurant touted its new French fries.

I foolishly tried the French fries and onion rings together along with a Burger King hamburger (the McDonald's "meal" didn't fill me up). Admittedly, I don't eat too many fast food fries, especially a regular order, and had forgotten how much salt they cake onto the fries.

When you shake a fast food French fry, you get enough white tiny pellets to fall out that it looks more like dandruff. You get the feeling that the meager wages of a fast food employee is augmented by a salting bonus, where extra money rains down (Morton Salt reference, ask your parents) if you oversalt the food.

If you salivate every time Giada DeLaurentiis oversalts the pasta water, you might have a problem with salt, unless you avoid processed food. Good luck with that.

Bread and rolls came in #1 for the most oversalted processed food, according to the Vital Signs Report from the CDC. The top 10 list accounted for 44% of our salt consumption.

How much could you improve your salt intake if you reduced your dependence on processed food? We get 65% of our sodium intake from foods from stores, more than 2½ times as much from restaurants.

We need salt, lest we die. Salt is not killing us, but too much is not doing us well. If you reduced sodium in products, and then salted to taste, you would get a win-win since everyone would enjoy food at their ideal salt level. Until then, do what you can to obtain a balance of salt in your food.

Culinary high school programs could solve multiple food issues

Those of generations before me (I'm not that old) remember home economics as an option for high-school students to learn the basics of running a house.

Grist recently linked to an article about culinary students at Jasper Place High School in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. To show surprise, the author then said, "(yes, Canada apparently has culinary programs in high school)."

I did not know that.

The article talked about how the students were raising 100 tilapia in such a way that the fish add leftover vegetables and scraps and how the fish waste helped the plants grow above the fish tank. Talk about a life cycle.

Though I am much more into food than I would have been in high school, I still would have loved the idea of taking culinary classes in high school. The folks at Grist and I agree on one thing: we would love to know if this type of program exists throughout much of Canada or if this is a rare occurrence.

The original article via the Winnipeg Free Press noted that the kids cook in a commercial-style kitchen, fixing lunches each day for 2,500 students and staff. Having some students cook for other students would make cooking and food into a teaching moment on both sides of the cafeteria. Students learn a valuable skill in cooking the food and those who eat the food would appreciate the food more if it came from their peers.

This isn't some kind of left-wing warm-weather place such as Berkeley, CA. This is Edmonton in Alberta, the most conservative province, at a latitude of 53°34', slightly south of Juneau, Alaska.

Latest school lunch improvements prove it's important who gets elected

The push back is going in the direction of improved school lunches. The announcement, with First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and celebrity chef Rachael Ray, should give supporters great joy and pride.

The first major overhaul of school lunch in over 15 years is cause for celebration.

Yes, pizza and French fries have a more prominent position in school lunches, thanks to moves by (mostly) Republicans. Funny how conservative politicians complain that government shouldn't tell people what to eat, yet they want government to make sure more of their French fries get served in public schools.

Well, French fries and tater tots. The move by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is more about potatoes, trying to find ways to keep potatoes but make them healthier.

School lunches can get healthier, but the potato will almost certainly be fried in French fry form or tater tot form. Yes, the potato is healthy when baked and boiled, but the chances of that happening in school lunchrooms are slimmer than having a Republican president push for more school lunch funding.

On the good side, school lunches will come in with reduced sodium, more whole grains, and more choices for fruits and vegetables.

One overlooked change is a change from "nutrition-based" or "nutrient standard" to a "food-based" system. Think fewer fortified foods and more real foods, a pleasant and very positive change.

We see the contrast of school lunch reform with a Democratic-controlled Congress vs. a Republican-controlled Congress. The positive improvements stem from legislation fashioned when the Dems were in charge. Classifying pizza as a vegetable and fighting for more potatoes -- under a GOP-controlled Congress.

In presidential years, the primary focus is on who runs for president, as it should. Michelle Obama has fought harder than anyone in power for these improvements. Every two years, citizens get to vote for who goes to the House and Senate. It does matter who is in charge of the House and Senate.

Georgia childhood obesity campaign should be more positive for everyone

An adult such as Paula Deen getting Type 2 diabetes is tragic enough, but people usually factor in that adults have more control over the factors that led to the disease. The often quoted figure that 1 in 3 children born in 2000 will be diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes is sadder when you consider that children don't have as much control over their risk factors

Even if fat children don't get Type 2 diabetes, they are still stigimized in ways that make it more difficult to eat better and get healthier.

Even if you weren't a fat kid growing up, you felt sorry for the fat kids. The taunting, teasing, and abuse. Children get teased all the time, but it never seem as bad as the abuse of the fat kids.

Being a fat kid these days is easier and tougher at the same time. Easier because the Internet can give you hope and allow you to be a kid who isn't judged on size, and you are not alone these days. Tougher because kids can take pictures of you with cellphone cameras and post pictures on that same Internet.

The kids in the PSA campaign in Georgia (home state of Paula Deen) to get kids to lose weight get the added stigma of being identified in videos and pictures as "the fat kid."

One young girl is concerned because she has hypertension. Another girl doesn't want to go to school because kids make fun of her.

We are anxious for the future generation, wanting them to be in better shape. Even as we list the numerous reasons for why our children are fatter than ever before — school lunches, video games, parental lack of knowledge, fast food advertising, lack of recess, too many organized sports — as a society, we tend to blame people who are fat, especially children.

The ad campaign notes that 75% of parents of overweight kids ignore the problem. In one of the videos, a young boy asks his mother why he is fat. One look at her gives you a good idea. 

The campaign identifies children that are fat, and leads you to a Web site with more details. The Web site has some pretty good tips. Though, the tips are fairly mild, as in "your child is a little overweight and here are some good points." The kids in the campaign are not just a little overweight.

You likely have seen kids who weigh more than these children, but the kids that was selected are in a normal range of fat.

Identifying the problem is easy, once you get parents to recognize that a problem needs to be identified. The hard part is instituting change. These fat kids in the campaign made an extreme sacrifice. They have to go back to their lives and be the fat kids in real life, too. They have the added stigma of being a fat kid in videos and still pictures on how not to be.

Getting kids to eat better and get more exercise is a worthy goal, regardless of what weight your kids might be. The goal of the campaign is to stop childhood obesity. The goal should have been for all kids to be more involved in their health.

The girl in the video wonders what hypertension is; we would be better off if she learned that word while doing a report on health than hearing it from a doctor.

Canada proves that high cheese standards are worth having

The Supreme Court of Canada could be considered a "foodie" in the United States.

The court refused to hear an appeal from cheese manufacturers Saputo and Kraft that wanted to use more milk solids in cheese and less milk in the process. The rules that were upheld require cheese to have more full-fat milk.

This may have seemed like a common sense ruling but in the United States, common sense in food labeling is very difficult to locate. Substances that are labelled "cheese" in marketing in the United States as already identified as "processed cheese" in Canada.

Previous coverage: U.S. standards need to limit labeling 'cheese' for actual cheese

The ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada shows what regulation can mean to the quality of food. You can imagine that if the current U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to rule on food quality standards, corporate food manufacturers would walk away smiling.

Knowledgable people know processed cheese isn't real cheese, but if you aren't paying attention, and you hear the word "cheese," you should have a reasonable expectation of getting cheese. You can get that in Canada, but not in the United States. Freedom indeed.