Most people eat some combination of food that is good for them and food that tastes good. Finding the balance between the two is a lifelong journey. This is the story of that struggle.
Tis the season of the pumpkin. We carve it, get scared by it, rip its guts out. We toast pumpkin seeds and bake pumpkin bread and of course, pumpkin pie.
Kids will eat anything pumpkin at the drop of a hat. That is, of course, until they learn the secret.
Pumpkin is a vegetable.
True, in pumpkin bread and pumpkin pie, we add sugar and eggs and flour and non-vegetable stuff, but the core ingredient is still a vegetable.
I decided to remind myself of this with a dish I occasionally make. The long elaborate name of the dish is "Pumpkin pie minus the crust and most of the sugar." There is no short name for the dish.
The premise is simple: take canned pumpkin, add as little raw sugar as one can to eat it, and top with tons of pumpkin pie spice or cinnamon and whipped cream.
The taste is like pumpkin pie in an odd parallel universe, not as horrible as the relationship between barium milkshakes and real milkshakes, but definitely not quite like pumpkin pie in terms of taste.
Outside of carrots, vegetables aren't supposed to be sweet. This is why it's called chocolate zucchini bread, not zucchini chocolate bread.
But in holiday time, pumpkin pie isn't the worst dessert choice. And if you make the pumpkin pie yourself, cut back on the sugar, leave out the artificial sweeteners, add more cinnamon, and hope that kids won't realize that they are that much closer to tasting vegetables.
First Lady Michelle Obama made a trip to Chicago. News coverage pointed out that she was in the city for a fundraiser. Oh, by the way, they subtly mocked, she was here to talk about getting healthy food to food deserts.
Michelle Obama went to a Walgreens at 75th and State on the South Side to play up drug stores and supermarkets stepping up to add more fresh food to serve residents of food deserts. The First Lady spoke in front of mayors, including Mayor Rahm Emanuel, her husband's former chief of staff. The trip also took her to an urban farm growing food to help give those in food deserts more and better options.
In watching the coverage, I wondered what would happen if Michelle Obama took a bus similar to what Sarah Palin did this summer, and go on a road trip to promote healthy eating.
Okay, so the logistics might be tougher. Secret Service detail can slow down any type activity, something Palin doesn't have to worry about.
Mrs. Obama knows Chicago really well, better than her husband. She knows generations of food deserts, long before the name for them. So speaking in Chicago is easier for her. It's just that her message of healthy eating needs to be heard in small and big cities throughout this country.
The first lady usually can go to and speak on matters that the president can't, mostly for political reasons. True, his political opponents have been rather mean to Michelle for promoting healthier eating. However, among the people, not the pundits, Mrs. Obama should be warmly received, and her message definitely needs to be heard.
You have seen the articles about the tie-ins with Occupy Wall Street and the food industry. If you haven't, then you aren't on my Twitter feed (a subtle reminder to follow me on Twitter.)
The critics, MSM and elsewhere, of Occupy Wall Street point to a myriad of concerns on the part of those who are protesting with Occupy Wall Street. To be fair, this is a group that has been neglected politically for some time, a lot of pent-up frustration involved.
For our part, we concentrate on the food industry so we don't have a horizontal list of concerns, just a long vertical list of issues.
Unfortunately in the food world, you can't occupy one spot. Wall Street has its share of blame, but occupying Wall Street is a drop in the pond of problems with the food supply. Would be nice if protesting outside Archer Daniels Midland would do the trick. Or the USDA. Or the FDA. Or Monsanto. Or tons of food companies. Or Cargill. Or meat processing plants. … .
The other argument you hear is that you don't need to occupy anything to make a difference: vote with your pocketbook. I barely know what a pocketbook is, but you get the point. Where you spend your money makes a difference.
As good as it might make you feel to be off the processed food grid, this kind of change comes way too slow. Subtle losses will barely be felt by these groups.
No matter what, a significant portion of the U.S. food supply will be processed. That jeannie isn't going back in the bottle. The process to the processed food should be done a lot better.
Even if we get rid of high-fructose corn syrup, our processed food will still be too sweet. The front labels reflect reality as much as the cast of "Friends" reflected the demographics of New York City. No matter who is president, the USDA will still be in the business of promoting and regulating the U.S. food supply. Our school lunches will still be too starchy.
Here is the good news: progress is being made. Those who are ready for the change and knowledgeable are making a difference in their own eating habits. Others are learning through observation. Some who can't duplicate that all the time are doing what they can when they can.
Those who play the drums or hold the signs are trying to make things better, to make a difference. And those with signs reflecting food supply issues speak a message that needs to be seen and heard.
They represent so many more people who are frustrated at the quality of our food supply and the incestuous corporation-government relationship that marks our food, people who don't know how to make their voices heard.
Think of it as Occupy Main Street. Make it simple. Invite someone who may not get it to have a home-grown, home-cooked meal. Stand with a local farmer. Be your own farmer: grow your own food. Volunteer in a food pantry. Encourage more options in your community to get better quality food. Start a farmers market. Expand a farmers market. Ask your local library if you can present a talk on the idea of eating better.
We are made up of tiny communities in a huge country. Spread the word like you would spread butter made from grass-fed milk. Show the world that eating quality food is worth it, financially and otherwise.
We need the loud response of Occupy Wall Street and Occupy in other cities. We need the direct questioning of corporations and government. But we also need quiet, subtle, game-changing actions within our own communities. Every little bit helps, because a lot of little bits do add up. This will take time and lots of effort, and it still won't produce the kind of world we want. Making a difference will make a difference.
When you think of Valentine's Day, you might think hearts, candy, chocolate, pressure, flowers, cards, more pressure, expensive dinners but we forget sometimes that Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love in all forms.
Today is Food Day, in case you were unaware. A chance to celebrate food, but as you might have guessed, the newest holiday is about food in a specific kind of way.
Calling a holiday Local, Organic, Sustainable, Treating Workers Well, Well-Grown Food Day is not very catchy, but this is the intended theme.
So Food Day doesn't exist to celebrate Flamin' Hot Cheetos, but since you can't make people celebrate a holiday the way you want, some will hold up similar type snacks in exaltation.
Celebrating well-grown food needs more than just one day, but it's a start. Education is a wonderful idea. Calling attention to well-grown food is cause for celebration.
Does a day called Food Day does this? We have a wide divide wider than any obese person on what is "food."
Those who love and appreciate well-grown food don't think Flamin' Hot Cheetos is food. Last week, Stephen Colbert embraced the idea that a Taco Bell gordita may not be "food." To a certain percentage of the population, Flamin' Hot Cheetos and Taco Bell gordita are more food than a lot of items that well-grown food lovers embrace as food.
This cultural divide won't be solved, but it is a reminder that "Food Day" means different things to different people.
Food Day comes from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has done a fine job at telling us which foods aren't good for us. As for the foods that are good, others tell that story.
While the vagueness of Food Day plays to some advantages, it doesn't highlight the main point: celebrating Local, Organic, Sustainable, Treating Workers Well, Well-Grown Food.
Scheduling the holiday on a Monday is also awkward, especially when Meatless Monday takes up that space. Food Day could easily celebrate free-range meat on Meatless Monday. Even if people get inspired to buy better-sourced food, the weekend would be a more ideal time to their shopping habits.
People who love well-grown food shop more the European way, buying fresh and using it up quickly. Those who struggle and are on the go often shop in 2-week binges.
So everything is awesome about Food Day except the scheduling and the name. The scheduling can be excused, but the name Food Day only means something to those who don't need to be convinced.
What about Well-Grown Food Day? Nutrition Day? Nutritious Food Day?
The other problem is we can't even decide "what is nutritious food?" In a "corporations are people" type society, the sensible logical rules over what is nutritious are thrown over for policies from "people" with a vested interest in corporate-speak on nutrition.
A lot of good people are working very hard to make Food Day a truly important day, and their efforts should be lauded. Just remember that in a shared dialogue on food, we should agree first on what is food and more importantly, what is nutritious food.
Your parents, well, let's be realistic, your mom would always say, "Look, but don't touch." So when you got to be an adult, you wanted a world where you bypassed "look" and went straight to "touch."
Being an adult gives you great freedom to look and touch food without that voice over your shoulder. Then again, that is when we usually get into trouble. And we have adopted the phrase, "If I see it, I'll want to eat it."
Classic steakhouses will show you a cart of the meat cuts, which aren't as appetizing since they are raw. Other classic restaurants will roll out a dessert tray, designed to tempt you just with a visual cue.
When you run across foods that you don't think you should have, do you shield your eyes for fear of wanting to touch the food? Or can you resist temptation despite viewing the food?
When I first started to eat better, I would walk into fast food places and donut shops and stare at food. I found staring at it for a few minutes helped me overcome the temptation of wanting the food.
That might not be typical behavior. Usually, if you look, you want. Somehow, looking and yes, staring, helped me psyche out the food, or psyche myself up. I almost felt as if I were taunting the food, though for decorum sake, never stuck out my tongue.
Looking is one thing, like from the outside. Smelling the food from the inside proved more difficult.
The initial power I got from looking but not consuming wore off after awhile. Not that I gave into temptation; I just stopped going inside to look.
I do find with foods where I can look — but not smell — that I gain power over the food. Not perfection, but most of the time.
Food appreciation is really about the 5 senses: look, touch, smell, hear, and taste. Frying bacon has an unmatched sound. You can be tempted to use 4 of the 5 senses and still not make an impact on your waistline. Taste is the only one that ultimately pays a price.
The things Stephen Colbert will do for his "Thought for Food" segment …
Boy, we haven't heard from Colbert and his take on food in awhile. Last night, Colbert reported on the move to ban potatoes in schools as well as the Yum brand restaurants fighting for food stamps dollars to be spent in fast food restaurants.
Colbert tried to reassure us that tater tots were necessary as an absorbent for emotional feelings tied to hormones and puberty. (Watching the video makes way more sense than watching me explain it.)
Serving potatoes is one issue, especially when fried. Identifying them as vegetables is something that should have been addressed a long time ago, even before the Reagan Administration called for ketchup to be a "vegetable."
Colbert accused the government that if it denied food stamps for the Yum brands, then what they serve isn't food. To prove otherwise, he proceeds to eat a nacho cheese gordita.
"Mmmm. Food. It had better be. Because it is in my mouth," said Colbert as he ate the gordita.
He points out that now 1 in 7 receive food stamps, and the poor are more likely to suffer from a lack of good nutritious options.
As Colbert noted, poor people were now on the Yum brands gravy train. "Warning: gravy train may contain no actual gravy." Coming off the heels of adding bacon to the KFC Famous Bowls, Yum may never have had good timing in making this move, but now is definitely not that time.
Tater tots, Fritos, and a nacho cheese gordita — Colbert makes the food sacrifices that we shouldn't make, especially in front of a camera.
Thriving in the 21st century requires that education not be limited to what kids learn 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months out of the year.
However, since a number of parents don't do much beyond what is taught within the walls of school, thank goodness for FoodCorps and other groups that bring food education into the classroom.
Those that watch tons of documentaries on local, organic, sustainable food see kids being taught about food in schools, usually schools designed around the ideas stemming from well-grown food.
Most schools don't have that luxury or the time or the money or the resources. And even if they had all of that, they would also need the knowledge.
I don't know much about FoodCorps, other than what I have read and they are part of AmeriCorps. The idea of FoodCorps sounds marvelous. Take those who know what they are doing, teach people who need to know, and hopefully make it fun and interesting to leave a lasting impact on young, impressionable minds.
After watching two seasons of school interactions on "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution," children need to learn more about nutrition. Though at the time we mocked the vegetable identification segment in season 1 with the Huntington, WV first-graders, maybe that was closer to reality than we originally thought. The School Nutrition Association says children get about 4-5 hours of nutrition education each year, less than a day-long field trip.
If FoodCorps isn't coming to your state anytime soon, or as a supplement, schools should partner more with dietitians to put together nutrition education programs. We have said that dietitians know basic information and these kids need that information, even if the school lunches aren't always backing up what the dietitians say.
A few schools at the top of the heap will make time and effort for programs that increase awareness of nutrition education. We need to do more to help the vast majority of school children who don't get the easy opportunities.
In a food lecture from Chicago Ideas Week, a cook who goes into schools was recounting how some children didn't know what a carrot looked like. This rang familiar with Jamie Oliver's stunt in Huntington, WV, when he quizzed 1st graders on vegetables.
Back in the old days when I was a child, I did know what a carrot looked like in the grocery store. But I also had a huge advantage that perhaps kids these days don't have: I knew what carrots looked like from Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Bugs Bunny ate a lot of carrots. He didn't eat pre cut-up carrots. Bugs' carrots had the green leafy part on the end. Real carrots.
Yes, children these days can see Bugs Bunny, but in my day, the Looney Tunes cartoons were on all the time.
Okay, so I didn't know what parsley was. I didn't realize the parsley garnish on the Mr. Twist at Howard Johnson's was edible. Even when I learned it was food, I still didn't want to eat it.
Ideally, going to a farm or growing your own vegetables is the best way to teach your kid about vegetables. If not, consider a good grocery store or worse comes to worse, a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
We all know happy-type meals are designed to get children to beg, cry, and scream until their parents take them to a fast food restaurant. But children aren't the only target of bribes by fast food outlets. What about bribes for adults?
"2 breakfast sandwiches for $2." "2 burgers for $3." You see the enticement on the marquee or posters in the windows. "Think our prices are low. Watch them get lower," the sirens seem to wail.
The prices are low, though you get what you pay for on several levels. But if price is your thing, a slightly lower price or a chance to get much more food for not much more money will get your attention.
The fast food restaurants know that you aren't recruiting a friend to eat that second Whopper or McMuffin. The rationalization of a Whopper for $1.50 isn't always as strong as 2 Whoppers for $3.
Sometimes, games and prizes are used, such as the Monopoly game at McDonald's. The current TV campaign plays with the idea of odds in a society that is seriously math-challenged. Then again, most get the idea of 1 in 4 of winning a prize, even if that prize is more McDonald's food.
Fast food restaurants' internal research knows whether they are drawing more from their regular customers or whether these bribes entice those who rarely visit their restaurants. My guess would be the former, though the latter will drive some traffic.
What you don't see are mid-level restaurants offering similar bribes. Sure they have occasional specials, but they aren't offering to double your food or make it really easy to get free food. And they don't make a regular habit of offering even slight reductions.
Fast food restaurants feel the need to bribe adults and children to visit their establishments, even with low prices and quick food. Speaks volumes for what they might think of their product, and what we expect from our fast food restaurants.
No reason for us to be tempted unless we really like the food or we don't have enough money. Even without a reason, sometimes we don't need a reason — the temptation is too great.
You can have the desire to cook up amazing recipes and the discipline to eat better grown, locally sourced food. However, without a proper oven, your well-made plans may fall short.
My oven has been silent for most of the summer and now fall as the landlord has been slow to fix it each time it stops working. In a panic, I went out and bought a toaster oven, which is slightly better than the new Easy Bake oven, but not by much. Its timer is always ticking, like a bomb, which makes me want to leave the room when it's on.
I do have a working stovetop, an electric indoor grill, and a toaster, but as long-time readers know, the kitchen has no microwave oven.
People who get their kitchens worked on suffer for extensive periods of time without a stovetop and oven, but at least they get hope of a better tomorrow.
Now your ability to feel sorry for me likely stops at "the kitchen has no microwave oven."
True, I could buy a microwave, but I don't want one and it wouldn't replace a working oven anyway. I may curse the toaster oven, but it eventually somewhat does what an oven should. A microwave still doesn't.
My solution, had I researched this better, would be to get a convection oven, but I confess that I know little about them.
So instead of me being the expert, I throw this out to you, the loyal followers and occasional readers of BalanceofFood.com. What are some good options for someone in my situation? Can you utilize the stovetop better? Should I learn to grill everything? Get a better toaster oven?
There is no right way to finding the balance of food, just your way. My typical breakfast is whole wheat spaghetti with homemade sauce, sautéed mushrooms, and a naturally low-fat Italian cheese sprinkled on top. Works for me.
