Balance of Food

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.

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.

'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.

Cinnamon is good for you; Cinnamon Challenge might not be

 

The story started out from a co-worker who said that her friend in Missouri read a story about a kid in Ohio who tried to get high on cinnamon and had to go to the hospital.

Like most Internet stories, part of it is true.

The Cinnamon Challenge seemed simple in itself: eat a teaspoon of cinnamon and go a minute without swallowing water. A high school freshman from Michigan (not Ohio) was hospitalized with an infection and a collapsed right lung. And the challenge isn't designed to get anyone high.

Eating a teaspoon of cinnamon without water or other beverage is not a healthy thing since cinnamon dust can be problematic for those with breathing issues.

Eating cinnamon with water or other beverage is a healthy thing since cinnamon is good for those with blood sugar issues.

Cinnamon also has anti-inflammatory properties; contains manganese, dietary fiber, iron, and calcium; may significantly lower LDL, total cholesterol, and triglycerides; and can enhance memory.

The catch is that cinnamon can be toxic in large doses. Cinnamon is good for you, and it tastes good. The Cinnamon Challenge won't harm most people, is a little strange, and can harm some people.

Sprinkle cinnamon on desserts and yogurt. Make cinnamon toast. Pour some cinnamon on your breakfast cereal. Have some in your coffee or hot chocolate.

Cinnamon will not get you high but can rescue you from blood sugar lows. Just sprinkle it all around.

Leap Day allows for a 'once in 4 years' treat

If you have chosen to eat better in your life, you may have put some dishes in the back of your mind. You said, "Someday, I'm going to eat that food once again."

You could wait for a birthday or some other holiday, but you might decide that even 1 day a year is too frequent for a particular meal. Well, today is the day you can break out that menu and truly treat yourself.

Today is Leap Day, the extra day we get every 4 years in years evenly divisible by 4. A special day once every 4 years? Break out the crazy menu.

If absence makes the heart grow fonder, waiting 4 years for a treat would be almost too much to take. This is your chance. Take a shot.

The question is whether you can have an occasional treat such as this and be able to handle the time in between visits. For most foods, a 4-year wait is beyond the realm. We would want a taste, a sniff more frequently than an American presidential term.

However, if you are just starting out, or taking Lent to experiment with eating better, you can set a 4-year break as a "someday." For those who choose to play this way, someday is today.

Enjoy this while you can. Your next chance to play will be February 29, 2016. That's a mighty long time from now.

picture credit

Temptation of the Week: Girl Scout cookies

"Mmmmm. You can taste the palm oil."
— actual quote from me after eating a Thin Mints cookie.

Okay, so I was being sarcastic. You can't literally taste the palm oil. But you may notice it when it's gone.

As heart-warming as the Girl Scouts are, and all of the wonderful things they do and learn, and how they need our support against a bizarre political accusation, you might be inclined not to buy the Girl Scout cookies … for the palm oil.

You've read the stories about the evils of palm oil, and how the Girl Scouts just won't take the palm oil out of the cookies.

This is also Girl Scouts cookie season when your co-workers that are parents or you're the parent and Girl Scout cookies are all around the office. Or someone you know bought some and passed one onto you.

My boss at my day job offered me a Thin Mint and I took it. It was good. Quite good. But I didn't want to eat a whole box. None would have been sad; one was just right.

I could have said "no" because of palm oil or high-fructose corn syrup or calories or any of a number of good excuses. And I had turned down the peanut butter kind. I said "yes" because I wanted a Thin Mint cookie.

Would it be better with sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup? Oh, yea. Would it be better with trans fats rather than palm oil? No. Would it be better without palm oil? My hunch is that the taste would change, and not for the better.

I'm also not eating 10-20 cookies. One cookie with some palm oil won't make a difference.

How many are too much? Like the owl in the 1970's Tootsie Pop commercial, you can't always know the answer to some questions.

If you really feel bad about what is in the cookies, you can buy the cookies and not eat them. Buy the cookies and give them to someone else. Give the Girl Scouts money and don't take the cookies.

At some point, the Girl Scouts will likely get rid of palm oil in the cookies, and maybe high-fructose corn syrup. But we aren't going to hold our collective breath on this. Enjoy the cookies or don't. If you do take a cookie or a box, enjoy them at a leisurely pace. After all, a cookie is a treat but the money you give to those Girl Scouts pays itself in multiples down the road. The future of these young women is more important than a little extra palm oil in your life.

Save the sugary cereals for dessert instead of a 'part of a balanced breakfast'

Growing up with sugary cereals as "part of a balanced breakfast" is a cherished childhood memory, but given what we are hearing from a recent report in kids cereals, how much of what was in the bowl was "sugary" and how much was "cereal"?

True, these percentages may not have been as high when you were a child as they are now, and if you are of a certain age, your childhood wasn't spent absorbing high-fructose corn syrup. Still, the numbers from the Environmental Working Group speak to a more unbalanced breakfast.

The Top 10 worse cereals by sugar-related content exceed 40% sugar. While my tastes have refined, I would still go for a bowl of Cap'n Crunch Original (5th, 44.4%), Apple Jacks (8th, 42.9%), or Crunch Berries (9th, 42.3%). Then again, I've never had Honey Smacks (1st, 56%).

If you haven't had sugary cereal in awhile, you might be inclined to hang on to that nostalgia and say, "Aaaawww. A occasional bowl of sugary cereal isn't so bad." It's not. Just not as "part of a balanced breakfast."

The stories about this report compare the sugar content to Twinkies or processed cookies. With that in mind, the solution lies in having a bowl of sugary cereal … for dessert.

Cereal manufacturers have had this idea for awhile, breaking cereal out of its breakfast-only mold. You might recall earlier this year when I blasted Special K's attempt to cozy up to women's obsession with chocolate with Special K Chocolatey Delight. In the commercial, Special K was promoting the cereal as a post 9 pm snack for women to get a chocolate fix.

With its chocolatey chunks (sugar, partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, cocoa processed with alkali, cocoa, soy lecithin, artificial flavor, milk), sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup, women (and men) are better off with a small piece of dark chocolate close to bedtime.

I have only seen Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Treasures in a drug store, but the cereal says it offers up half the sugar of the regular version. While I have not tried it, online reviews aren't kind to the taste. Often, you can find enough pleasure from either a healthier cereal, or the regular version of these high-sugar cereals.

Earlier in the evening, after dinner, isn't a bad time to have a little extra sugar. Theoretically, you can burn some of that off in the nighttime.

And while that sounds like a great argument for sugary cereals at breakfast time, kids need to concentrate in class and excess sugar isn't the best option for them. If you are 40-something and still eating a high-sugar cereal as part of your "balanced" breakfast, your concentration may not be as sharp for work.

Getting sugary cereals away from breakfast and more for dinner has a few advantages:

-- The cereals are fortified, so while it may have as much sugar as cookies, the cereal is healthier than the cookies. You are getting milk with your cereal, so the protein and vitamins adds to the mix. You might have milk with cookies, but cereal offers a stronger guarantee of milk.
-- Usually one bowl of cereal at a time satisfies you; with cookies, you might not stop at three.
-- If you're looking for that one cynical advantage that no one else though about: cereal per serving is pretty cheap, cereal is usually on sale, and if you already have cereal in the house for the kids, then you are saving money by not also buying the cookies.

photo credit

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.

'Colbert Report' teaches us new way to cram in food

The Colbert Report (and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) are on a well-deserved vacation. Stephen Colbert left us a Thought for Food, though the segment didn't have much on food, but how to eat said food.

Pushy Pops make it "easier" to cram food into your mouth. We're told that more people in Western European countries are eating food on the run these days, so Americans need to find easier ways to eat food on the run.

Those of us (including myself) who grew up not wanting to touch other things on a plate would be horrified to have to eat with a Pushy Pop.

Colbert took cheesecake, meatloaf, mashed potatoes, and salad (reverse order) and pushed in with the Pushy Pop. Surprisingly, he didn't eat it. Colbert is usually more brave about such things, but maybe we finally found his tipping point.

For those who wonder what the hell "natural flavor" is on an ingredient list, Stephen told us the segment was sponsored by Triscuit rosemary and olive oil crackers, where it says right on the box, "natural flavor with other natural flavor." To us, "natural flavor" better be rosemary or olive oil or something already spelled out. We know what artificial flavor means, but natural flavor should be more obvious than it is.

photo credit: Colbert Report

Raw milk has to go underground despite a lack of negative proof

"Raw milk" is a phrase where neutrality is as small as Vatican City or San Marino. Either you are intrigued by the value of what it can bring into your life, or you are so horrified at the prospect that you wonder why we are even having a conversation.

Raw milk should really be called "unpasteurized milk." You can make cheese, butter, yogurt, and other milk products from raw milk, but those who consume raw milk usually do so as a glass of milk.

Countless anecdotes speak to raw milk being a godsend to their lives or their loved ones, helping with allergies, illnesses, and overall health. And while anecdotes aren't hard evidence, their stories are rather compelling.

So what do we have on the other side? Harsh stories about how a child got sick from raw milk? Tragic stories about a dying grandmother who drank raw milk? Not really.

If anecdotes exist on the other side of the debate, we aren't hearing about them. We hear when e.coli taints a hamburger or spinach, but not raw milk.

We have gone on and on about a lack of food safety, particularly when it comes to factory farms. And in an era where the sparseness of food inspections would make Upton Sinclair furious, raw milk has been attacked by government officials on countless levels.

Even if you don't believe 90% of what is in movies such as "Farmageddon," the remaining 10% is enough to make you go "why all the fuss?"

Laws on raw milk vary state-by-state, with many allowing raw milk as long as certain guidelines are met. In some states, you can't sell it to non-owners, but people buy a percentage of the cow to work around the requirement. In some states, you can sell raw milk but you need a license.

The stories from the raw milk advocates paint a picture of law officials going after those farmers that are following the rules, and for those who don't get a license, reacting in an overblown fashion given the lack of severity of the charges.

If raw milk and its by-products were so bad for us, you would think that all 50 states would ban raw milk, even for the farmer. But they don't.

Given the few people who drink it, law enforcement spends a boatload of money per incident going after farmers over raw milk. Buying raw milk isn't the problem, as these stories never seem to involve the consumers, only the farmers.

The message is clear: don't sell raw milk, even if it's legal. And if you do sell raw milk, don't be public about it. What isn't clear in the message is why this message, and who wants it this way.

On many levels, we are told to trust factory farms and GMOs, but we can't trust local farmers. Think of how many farmers follow organic practices, but can't declare "organic" because the paperwork costs are too high. Informed consumers are finding it easier to trust local farmers rather than factory farms and GMOs. And raw milk is part of that battle.

When the late David Shaw was writing about a rare burger for the Los Angeles Times, he suggested a solution to satisfy all comers.

I think every place that serves hamburgers (or any other food) should closely monitor the quality and care of its meat (and everything else it serves). Maybe every place that serves hamburgers should also have a legal waiver available to customers. You want a rare burger, you get a rare burger. But first you have to sign a form acknowledging that you recognize the potential danger from E. coli and indemnifying the restaurant against any damages should you get sick.

Kids can't sign legally binding waivers, of course, but I'm not a kid. I'm an adult and I want to be treated as an adult, someone capable of evaluating potential risks and making decisions accordingly.

I want to try raw milk, and maybe even some yogurt made from raw milk. I am an adult. I am responsible. And though getting raw milk will be difficult, I want to try it for myself. I will keep you informed as to how that goes.

Raw milk advocates want to be treated as adults, and they want to have that freedom. If you are going to take that freedom away, then you better have a good reason. We're waiting.