Balance of Food

Stephen Colbert opens up can of sand as Taco Bell lawsuit gets more publicity

To no one's surprise, Stephen Colbert weighed in on the Taco Bell lawsuit. And Colbert dared to do what most of us literally couldn't stomach: he literally put the Beefy Crunchy Burrito in his mouth.

Colbert noted the accusation of less than 35% of beef in the taco filling, and the USDA requirement that taco filling "must contain at least 40 percent fresh meat." The audience groaned on cue about how little meat is actually required.

Colbert talked about the reaction from the Taco Bell company and how the company starts with "100 percent USDA-inspected beef." Even if the USDA later approves the beef, the company's language seemed odd and disingenuous, unless there is a dramatic difference between USDA-approved and USDA-inspected.

Taco Bell, in its claim, says the taco filling is 88% meat and claims no filler. But the list of ingredients, as noted by Colbert, included isolated oat product, soybean-based anti-dusting agent, and silicon dioxide (otherwise known as sand).

The fast food company has been rather defensive about the lawsuit accusations, more than the usual take from a large food corporation. Even if the company gets the lawsuit thrown out of court, Taco Bell's name will now be associated with "sand."

Of course, MSM journalists aren't talking about sand; that gets left for a professional comedian for comment.

The difference between 'less than 35 percent" and "88 percent" is enormous, and the only loser in that battle is going to be Taco Bell.

If you had thought about Taco Bell's taco filling a month ago, you might have wondered as to whether this taco filling had cheap meat or some filler, since that burrito is only 99¢. But you may not have thought about it at all; the lawsuit could do some good, no matter the outcome.

Knowledge is good if you are the consumer, not so good for the company serving you the food.

Podcast: Athletes as dietary role models

This week's podcast deals with the athletes as dietary role models.

To access the podcasts, check them out in the podcast library.

Podcast 012811

Taco Bell lawsuit, like the 'beef' at Taco Bell, may not have enough meat to it

Suing fast food restaurant chains is very fashionable, and mostly a waste of time, no matter how meritorious the issues might be. But there is one new lawsuit that may some "meat" to it.

A California woman is suing Taco Bell because the chain doesn't have enough beef in its meat filling.

The filling is referred to as "seasoned ground beef or seasoned beef," according to the lawsuit. But the chain does not refer to what would appear to be beef as "beef."

In this Orwellian fashion, if you don't use the word "beef" — even if it looks like beef, the substance can contain as little as 40% meat. The claim in the suit is that the material is about 35% was solid with about 15% constituting protein.

Those who brought the lawsuit had the mixture tested and found water, isolated oat product, wheat oats, soy lecithin, maltodextrin, anti-dusting agent, autolyzed yeast extract, modified corn starch, and sodium phosphate, along with some beef and seasonings.

In a prepared statement, the company said "Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican inspired food with great value."

First of all, any image that Taco Bell works in "high-quality" anything is fairly ludicrous. On the other side, what kind of food do you expect to get in something that costs 99¢.

This lawsuit should go ahead if for shining a light on how little cow parts can be in something and still be called "beef" or "meat." Whether we are talking 15% or 40%, we should have higher standards. Think about it: even 60% allows for a lot of cheap non-animal related products. This would be a huge step up from the status quo.

If we are going to have such low standards in our food, we shouldn't be ashamed of them. When someone says America is #1, remind them of how little meat we have in our "meat filling." Because America is #1 — we have the most Orwellian language to describe our "food."

Wal-Mart's 2015 program comes up short and takes too long

Wal-Mart figured prominently in the food news last week. Most people read about the program to sell healthier food over an extended period of time. There was also a study that said people who live near a new Wal-Mart end up heavier.

The two stories are connected on one point: because of the chain's size, Wal-Mart sells a lot of food, and a lot of that food is unhealthy.

Wal-Mart brags about its "always low prices," so when it comes to food, cheap subsidized processed carbohydrates are often cheaper.

The chain is trying to use its power for good, so let's take a deeper look into this new program.

The goal for 2015 is to reduce sodium by 25% and sugar by 10% in products. But even with Wal-Mart's power, the impetus will be on the food companies to deliver, and no penalty if the goals aren't met — in four years.

The self-labeling for nutrition is a wash since the idea is to set a standard before the FDA can do the same, and likely set lamer standards in what will be more confusing to the consumer. And this synopsis is based on what I've already seen in other grocery stores.

Making healthier processed foods more affordable — this is a plus. But any grocery store would be better off making produce cheaper without sacrificing quality.

Increasing charitable support for nutrition programs — again a plus, but not in itself hugely significant.

The idea of putting more Wal-Marts into "food deserts" is the most intriguing one of all. On the surface, the strategy is self-serving in two respects: more Wal-Marts and more of them in major cities, where they haven't always been and are running into problems in establishing locations.

I can speak first-hand with Wal-Mart's efforts in Chicago; Wal-Mart has run into a number of problems getting locations in Chicago.

The Wal-Mart strategy lends itself to the middle of nowhere as opposed to a large city. Traditionally, Wal-Marts come into an area that has established stores, and tries to run those businesses out of town. Large cities have different dynamics, which is why Wal-Mart didn't try that hard to get there for so long.

The other issue with Wal-Marts in food deserts is that building huge spaces doesn't work well in large cities. Wal-Marts thrive on size. Building a 100,000 sq. ft. supercenter is easier to do where land is more plentiful and cheaper.

This program does have the support of First Lady Michelle Obama, who served two years on the board of a Wal-Mart food vendor between 2005 and 2007.

The main issue is that the biggest news would be if Wal-Mart could actually pressure food companies to change their ways. And there isn't any proof that this is true, or might be true. Perhaps in 2015, some of us will have egg on our face, hopefully egg at a lower price. But given Wal-Mart's track record, please don't hold your breath.

Imagine if Wal-Mart announced that it wouldn't carry any products that contained high-fructose corn syrup, and that in one year's time, no product with HFCS will be on their shelves. That would actually be progress.

But notice that there is no penalty behind the Wal-Mart efforts. No penalty even if it doesn't fix its own products.

Wal-Mart has power, but the power only works if there is a chance that the chain won't carry certain products. No stick, no incentive to create change.

We understand the desperation of Michelle Obama wanting to support a corporate effort to try and improve the food supply. But her past ties to Wal-Mart, the slow pace to try and achieve very little progress, the self-serving agenda from the chain, and the lack of penalties make the Wal-Mart program not that good.

The program might nullify the 1.5 pounds per person gained by residents who live near a new Wal-Mart, but not much else.

IL, WI governors use sports bet to focus on food pantries

Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers, winners of the NFC Championship over the Chicago Bears. The Packers now go on to the Super Bowl against the New York Jets/Pittsburgh Steelers in Dallas, er, Arlington, TX.

But the real winners of the NFC Championship are people served by food pantries in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker made a wager where the losing team's governor had to work in a food pantry wearing the winning team's jersey.

Quinn and Walker are on opposite sides of the political fence; in fact, Walker made snide remarks about going after businesses in Illinois after that state passed a tax increase. And neither governor has been in office for that long; Quinn finished out the remaining years of Rod Blagojevich's term before being elected in November and Walker is in his first month on the job.

Yet both elected officials saw past the usual "you send us cheese, we'll send you sausage" type bets that political officials usually make. Quinn and Walker thought outside the box to people who were suffering and decided to make it about them.

We look forward to seeing Gov. Quinn serving food to those who are less fortunate, even if he has to do so wearing a Green Bay Packers jersey. And we hope that Gov. Walker will make an appearance in his home state at a food pantry wearing the winner's garb, drawing more attention to the food crisis in this country.

As an added gesture, several Wisconsin organizations made promises to donate food to food pantries, regardless of the football game winner. The foods include cranberry products, cherry pies, bratwurst, frozen custard, and honey. No word from Illinois food companies about a similar offer.

Usually in food bets such as this, the food ultimately goes to food pantries anyway, but by shining the spotlight on food pantries, Govs. Quinn and Walker did a fine public service to a noble cause.

Podcast: Searching for the real in food

This week's podcast deals with the art of fake blueberries vs. finding the real McCoy.

To access the podcasts, check them out in the podcast library.

Podcast 012111

Village on a Diet needs more about food and less about exercise

As readers of my sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com, know, the United States and Canada share the world's longest unprotected border, but there are different sensibilities on each side of the border.

So when the CBC launched Village on a Diet, there was hope that a TV reality weight-loss show would find a better balance between food and exercise. There may be less yelling, but the food part still isn't even close to being on par.

At least, this is true according to WeightyMatters.ca, a Web site keeping track of Village on a Diet episodes

In the Episode 3 recap, the chef holds up a piece of fennel, and no one knows what it is. Shades of the Jamie Oliver experiment with the school kids that was so important ABC made part of the segment available before the show started.

I know that fennel exists, but couldn't swear to what it looks like. I might guess "fennel" and be right, but it would be a semi-educated guess.

The residents of Taylor, BC did get a bag of vegetables — that is an improvement.

They learned about portion control but not about calories. The show got the pizzeria to make the pizzas healthier for a week.

We realize that food isn't as sexy on TV as exercise can be, but the true measure is a combination of both.

Here is a link to the Village on a Diet update. The CBC Web site isn't listing the weight loss of the town, though the site originally had a slot for that total. The goal is still 2,000 pounds in 10 weeks, though we might have to wait until the end to find out whether the effort was successful.

Fruit is a better value in its original form, and out of the hands of large corporations

You hear a certain glee in the voices of food companies, if they could talk. They want to help people get their 5-9 servings of fruits and vegetables.

While vegetables occasionally make a presence, food companies usually take the easy way out and go the fruit route.

But fruit is much easier for people to get and eat than vegetables. Even in food deserts, fruit is still easier to find and enjoy, by comparison.

I was reflecting on this in noting last week's take on the new fruit puree products from Pepsi/Tropicana from the Colbert Report.

Fruit products are easier to do because fruit contains natural sugar, even if fruit products are easily manipulated to be sweeter than they need to be. Even if the label says cranberry or mango, high sugar fruit juices — such as apple and grape — are high on the list of ingredients.

Outside of carrots, vegetables don't have that level of sweetness.

Perhaps, asking Americans to absorb vegetables in a fun way is virtually impossible (in this context) since companies can't make a product sweet enough for consumers' American sweet tooth.

Despite Pepsi's attempt to improve fruit eating — through purchases from large corporations, you are better off eating fruits and vegetables as they are. As Colbert noted, apples come in their own edible skin. Amazing!!

Making vegetables more fun may be beyond the interest of large corporations, but you can do your part, even if it requires more work. Cutting your own veggies, packing a dip (preferably homemade) may not be as cool as brightly colored pouches, but the fun you'll get is eating vegetables without unnecessary sugar.

And making your own homemade dip/dressing allows great flexibility and a chance to make it to your own taste. Some buttermilk, fat-free yogurt and (optional) mayonnaise makes a great base.

Colbert's Thought for Food: Fruit puree in a pouch

The latest "Colbert for Thought" has disturbing news, weird news, and actually good news in the world of food.

"Snackify" and "drinkify" are not words, but in the land of PepsiCo, these are buzz words to sell Tropolis from Tropicana, fruit puree in a squeezable pouch.

Colbert mocks the concept by pointing out that "fruit, in its current form is impossible to eat." He shows us how to open a banana with a hammer and wonders if PepsiCo can design an "apple snack encased in some sort of edible skin."

Fruit is cheaper than these alternatives, and even though PepsiCo says Tropolis is a "good source of fiber" — real fruit has way more fiber and has the extra pleasantry of tasting like fruit.

The weird news is devoted to this relatively new media phenomenon where an ad that never was intended for air gets leaked, and is labeled as "controversial." The ad, stemming from a fan submission in a contest, infers that the Catholic Church changes the wafers to Doritos (also a PepsiCo product).

We have saved the good news for last. 7-11 has slightly reduced the size of the Super Big Gulp from 44 oz. to 40 oz. Shrinking packaging has been prominent on grocery store shelves to reduce content without having to raise prices.

If a 16 oz. box of spaghetti is $1.49, a 12.75 oz. for $1.49 might not look like a price increase, but in a breakdown per ounce, the cost is higher.

Colbert mocks the obsession over huge drinks in a way that is better seen on video than described. Promise that it is funny.

40 oz. is still way too much high-fructose corn syrup or artificial sweetener, but somehow, a 4 oz. reduction — however symbolic it might be — is welcome.

Podcast: Chasing the idea of bringing back recess

This week's podcast deals with chasing the idea of getting recess back into schools.

To access the podcasts, check them out in the podcast library.

Podcast 011411