Balance of Food

Are Americans consuming high-fructose corn syrup with 90% fructose?

Watching people with proper training (dietitians, doctors) tell us that there is no difference between sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is bad enough. Technically, they aren't the same, and this assumes we're talking HFCS-55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose).

But what if that product with high-fructose corn syrup contains HFCS-90?

Not wanting to play conspiracy games, but we don't honestly know what level of high-fructose corn syrup we're getting. We've been told HFCS-55, though we don't know.

According to Food Identity Theft, we know this has been in existence for quite some time.

"But now, the CRA (Corn Refiners Association) itself has come out and admitted that HFCS containing such mega doses of fructose has been in use "with FDA knowledge for decades."

Whether the FDA knows exactly what is going on is up for debate. We are the consumers ingesting high-fructose corn syrup, and we don't know what we are ingesting.

If some or most of the products containing high-fructose corn syrup had elevated levels of fructose (60%? 70%? 80%?), that would explain the liver problems and other health issues caused by excess fructose. Perhaps Dr. Robert Lustig can explain to us that sugar and HFCS-90 are "exactly the same."

I've made my biases against high-fructose corn syrup known, but if you think about this independently, every element of society, from processed food to lack of recess to video games to fast food, has been examined to see its role in childhood and adult obesity. Somehow, with high-fructose corn syrup, the political pressures are too high to give this a thorough study.

Yes, the experts tell us that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup have been studied and they are virtually/exactly the same. But the impact of high-fructose corn syrup and the significantly higher use of it in products hasn't been examined even lightly.

Like the pro-HFCS people will tell you, high-fructose corn syrup is not the sole reason for the obesity epidemic. Even I would never say that. High-fructose corn syrup has a significant role in the climbing obesity numbers. And if we've been eating HFCS-90 in some products, well, that would be a lot easier to prove.

Temptation of the Week: Vachon 'Twinkies' made with sugar

You might think that not seeing the Jos. Louis snack cakes on my spring food run to Meijer's would leave me very sad. Well, a little sad, but there was enough joy elsewhere to make things right.

Vachon, the company that makes Jos. Louis snack cakes, was not missing from the store shelves. The company had its version of Twinkies, Cup Cakes, and Ding Dongs.

You know what's coming next. Yes, they have sugar, but not high-fructose corn syrup.

They compare favorably to what used to be the Canadian products (no longer available anywhere) and are way better than the Hostess products (currently available in Canada, not the United States).

I hadn't noticed the Vachon Hostess castoffs before in Canada, but may not have paid much attention. So I don't know if the Canadian version has glucose-fructose (high-fructose corn syrup) or sugar. The U.S. version of the Jos. Louis snack cakes had sugar while the Canadian version had glucose-fructose.

As much as I have wrote about the Jos. Louis snack cakes, and they are better than most of what you find on U.S. shelves, I like these snack cakes better.

But like all snack cakes — to be enjoyed in moderation. Truthfully, I froze the Jos. Louis snack cakes from last fall, and they still taste good. They're even better a little cold. Might have to see if the Vachon cakes freeze just as well. After all, I can only eat so much sugar at a time, even if they are sugar and not high-fructose corn syrup. They wil tide me past the temptation to buy the new American Twinkies (unless they change back to sugar) sometime this summer.

If you see the Jos. Louis snack cakes somewhere else in the States, let us know. Same goes for the Vachon "Twinkies," "Cup Cakes," and "Ding Dongs."

Taste of Spring 2013 Canadian food ads via NHL Center Ice

We normally expect a bunch of Tim Horton commercials when we get a peek into the world of Canadian food ads.

But we didn't see any new Tim Horton ads in this latest stretch.

We only got the preview that paralleled the beginning of the MLB season, and not the end of the NHL season this week.

The coolest ad involved beer, which isn't technically food. (For more, check out the full version from our sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com.)

There was fast food news in the mix. Let's check in with the column from CanadianCrossing.com with more:

 

In fast food news, Harvey's was pushing a 4-cheese burger with Monterey Jack, cheddar, gouda, and swiss.

Americans like the idea of 4 cheeses on a burger, but might make "safer" choices. I'd be curious to see if gouda would make a top 10 list.

KFC is adapting its Big Crunch sandwich to be a Big Crunch Tower. The regular sandwich is a extra crispy breast with lettuce and mayonnaise sauce.

Mayonnaise sauce sounds even less healthy than mayo.

The Big Crunch Tower adds ketchup, cheese, and a hash brown patty. In case you weren't getting even carbohydrates.

Ketchup, even if Canadian ketchup is usually better, should never go on a chicken sandwich. And mayonnaise sauce sounds depressing. Not sure that cheese even belongs on that sandwich, though some cheeses go well with chicken.

Crunchy hash browns on a crunchy chicken sandwich is overdoing it on carbs, but we've heard worse. Not sure I'll make a road trip for that sandwich.

photo credit: KFC Canada

Michael Pollan goes 'cooking' with Colbert Report

"You can have the pasta. Maybe get whole wheat pasta if you're concerned about that."
"Whole wheat pasta sucks."

Michael Pollan's latest message about the world of food is that you are in good shape as long as a human being is cooking your food.

"This explains the health problem … The most important thing about your diet is not a nutrient, but an activity — cooking."

Colbert pointed out that you can't make Funyuns at home. Pollan added cheese doodles to the list but asked Colbert, "if you were cooking at home, how often would you make French fries?"

Colbert replied that he didn't know how to make French fries.

The theme of Pollan's new book — Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation — isn't that new. Pollan has used the line about cooking one's French fries before.

Yet, Pollan does reduce the issue to a simple term that can penetrate a cynical consumer market. Those that know aren't the cynical ones; this is about getting through to people who hate Michelle Obama because she wants them to healthier.

This doesn't mean that you can't eat out. After all, if a human cooks the food in a restaurant, then that meal qualifies on Pollan's watch.

Colbert's joke in the open of his show talked about how raw ingredients become food. "Simple. You puncture the wrapper and set it on High for 3 minutes."

Jokes aside, this is how some people cook.

Pollan noted that corporations cook with lots of chemicals that you don't have in your pantry. After all, you can't buy high-fructose corn syrup in the store to sweeten your foods.

While we outsource certain kinds of cooking, Pollan breaks down cooking into Earth (cooking with microbes, using bacteria to ferment food: beer, kimchi, sauerkraut), air (baking), Water (soups, stews, braises), and fire (barbecue).

As for whole wheat pasta, I finally found an area of disagreement with Colbert over food. Yes, whole wheat pasta was not good — a long time ago. Improvement has been exponential, especially in the last few years. I suffered in those days and made it the other side. Where I would eat one or two brands, I could pick up most whole wheat pasta and be content to eat in in my home, cooked by me.

Temptation of the Week: Doing KFC Boneless

I had the idea a few years back: KFC's Original Recipe chicken but in a boneless strip. When KFC came out with boneless strips of chicken, the chicken came in extra crispy, or a lesser version of what I remember extra crispy to be when KFC first introduced it.

The crispy boneless chicken was okay, but wasn't identifiable as a KFC product. Honestly, Popeye's spicy version was just as crispy but with more flavor.

So you would think I would be excited that KFC is finally coming out with a boneless Original Recipe version.

Like the Double Down sandwich, I would have been more excited if this came out 5 years ago. Seriously, KFC. You are slower with your innovations than any other fast food chain — even McDonald's is faster.

But unlike the Double Down sandwich, I could see myself ordering this.

The review

For those who remember my Double Down review, I felt like I got an inferior product, even by normal standards. This was the opposite. The counter person apologized more than once because they had to cook it fresh. I reassured him that was fine. (Yes, this was a different store.)

The advertising emphasized the meal, but the in-store advertising pointed out that I could add a boneless Original Recipe piece for $1 with any purchase. I bought a small cole slaw and a boneless Original Recipe piece for less than $3.

I ordered the white meat, but it also comes in dark meat. KFC tells us that the boneless white meat has 200 calories; a dark meat piece has 250 calories.

I actually got two small pieces for that $1. I was ready to take my purchase to the table when another counter person asked me what dipping sauce I wanted with that. In the spirit of Cartman, I went with the gravy.

The chicken was really hot, something that isn't normally true. My intention was to use my hands, but the spork came in very handy.

I enjoyed the taste of the Original Recipe. If you closed your eyes, you would know it wasn't the same feeling as eating a piece of regular chicken. Yes, the new chicken is boneless, but also skinless. You had the taste of the Original Recipe, but it wasn't as good as the skin off a breast or a leg.

The best part was the parts within the piece that didn't have chicken attached to it. This was as close to KFC skin as you can get without the skin itself.

The chicken itself was pretty dry, something true of the boneless, skinless variety. The gravy, still very good, came in handy.

As I was waiting for my chicken, I noticed that KFC has bite-sized Original Recipe chicken. I wondered what the big deal was about the boneless piece if KFC already had a smaller version of the same product. This would be worth another trip, maybe with a side of gravy for dipping.

Modern chicken: no bones, no skin

As much as I like the idea of boneless Original Recipe, I mourn the idea that actually eating chicken pieces is not cool anymore. Meat is attached to bones in animals. People do eat chicken wings, mostly buffalo, with bones, but somehow that is more ironic, not to mention the increase of "boneless wings."

People buy chicken breasts sans bone, even though it's more expensive and not as tasty. Convenience really is more important these days.

KFC says 80% of fried chicken in the United States is served off the bone. Figure that most of the remaining 20% is buffalo wings, and that speaks volumes about how Americans eat their chicken.

What KFC really should sell is Original Recipe skin. Give us a bunch of Original Recipe skin, some grilled chicken on the side, and cole slaw. Cartman's end around of eating just the skin illustrated what a lot of us felt and still feel like when it came to KFC.

"I ate the bones" is the theme of the advertising, since the chicken is boneless. "I ate the skin" also applies because the chicken is skinless. I wouldn't mind eating the skin.

I can't say this would make me go frequently to KFC, but the boneless Original Recipe was pretty good. I didn't have that sluggish feeling I had after the Double Down. I might be better off with the Original Recipe bites. If nothing else, this reminded me of why I liked KFC as a child, the joy of the original 11 herbs and spices in a piece of fried chicken, bones and all.

photo by me

Expired food: When in doubt, throw it out

We've gone far enough into 2013 that if you have food in your pantry or cupboards that expired in 2012, time to throw that food out.

Now you could make a pile of food that expired in December, perhaps November in 2012. Depends on the food and how quickly you are willing to eat that food.

Who are we kidding, though? Most of that food, however well-intentioned, isn't good any more. You can't feed kids in China or Bangladesh with that food. You can't donate the food to the food pantry. Let it go. Let it die.

Restaurants overserve us, so we either finish it or try to take it home, if we can. Sometimes, the food just can't be finished. Food waste is horrible, but you shouldn't be a one-person solution crew.

Winter time usually means food storing. Like 5½-foot tall squirrels, we gather food before the heavy snow falls. Often, we lose track of this food along the winter and the food lingers in our pantry, refrigerator, and freezer. Suddenly, a new year is upon us and we are debating about throwing out the food with last year's expired date.

Food that is on sale is only a bargain if you eat the food while it's still good.

Complaining about spending too much on food? Save money by not buying food you don't ultimately eat.

The childhood mantra of "Take all you want, but eat all you take" carries through into adulthood. Stocking up on groceries? Great. But you have to eat them by the expiration date.

Temptation of the Week: Reading food labels every day

Tying in April 11 (4/11 — 411) to National "Read Your Labels" Day was a cute idea (411 = information), but in reality, every day should be Read Your Labels Day.

Even if you bypass the front labels of the product, as you probably should, the ingredient label is the most important part.

But reading the front label is a good way to see which way the product wants you to go. Sometimes, the information is literal: "no high-fructose corn syrup." Makes me want to pick up a product, even if it does have sugar. But I know before I look at the nutrition label that I don't have to worry about that ingredient.

Juice cocktail would be on the front label if that is the product, but you might gloss over that information. A product that is "sugar-free" looks tempting but often you should judge a product by what it has, not what it doesn't. Fat-free often means more sugar, more than likely to actually be high-fructose corn syrup.

The front of the label speaks to a code. They want you to notice the product, but aren't straightforward about what it has or doesn't have. And this code is everchanging. "Trans fat free" used to be a big deal.

Nutrition information on the back of the label doesn't mean much until you take in the serving size. And in comparing products, such as breakfast cereals, some will say ¾ oz. while others say 1 oz. Everything else being equal required things to be equal at the start.

How often should you read a nutritional label? Sometimes, if the product is susceptible to switching back to high-fructose corn syrup, you should check every time.

Unfortunately, a true "Read Your Labels" Day won't happen as long as the government has a policy where castoreum is masked as "natural flavor" and is never seen on a list of ingredients.

Food labels are a game to food companies, mostly the content in the front but also within the nutritional label. So many sources of sweetness, sugar alcohols, and artificial sweeteners under different names.

The best way to play the game is to be as diligent in scrutinizing the labels and be one step ahead of the food companies. That is a 24/7, 365 day game, because you ultimately decide what you put into your body.

If you really don't want to read labels, buy fruits and vegetables and drink water. No label required on an apple or a stalk of celery.

photo credit: Center for Science in the Public Interest

Optimal nutrition is good to know, even if you don't always follow along

Optimum nutrition is just that — optimum. The ideal. The pinnacle. The apex. Top of the heap.

But how close to the top do we need to get to before we are "healthy"?

While more workplaces are introducing wellness for their employees, chances are you don't work for that kind of company. Since I do in my day job, I wanted to pass along some of that information.

The theme of the two lectures centered around the ideal way to live one's life. The intensity came with the lectures in both cases. Both were given by physicians who work with orthopedics.

The first doctor's story centered on practices that have developed after ballooning to 330 pounds and contracting Type 1 diabetes. He told us that we should take in about 2000 calories if we do 45 minutes of cardio work per day and 1700 calories if we didn't. There was no gender breakdown.

He said we should drink ½ our body weight in ounces of water. Drinking caffeine, pop, alcohol, and coffee means you should add an extra glass of water for each drink. You can get water from the foods you eat, particularly fruits and vegetables, though he didn't mention that.

"Don't wait until you're thirsty to drink." — good advice

This doctor definitely dials into organic, free range, grass fed sources of protein. He cited the advantage of organic eggs because of less corn product; same thing for organic beef. He played up the higher Omega3 and fewer Omega6s.

His reasoning for being anti-dairy was added hormones and high-fructose corn syrup in yogurts. Since I don't do the flavored yogurts, I had forgotten about the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup. Dairy is difficult for me to give up or even reduce, but this is always in the back of my head. Soy milk is not viable in large amounts, he notes, preferring rice milk.

As for carbohydrates, he said cauliflower and broccoli count as "carbs" in bigger servings, like 90g. Still seems like those vegetables are worthwhile overall, but good info to know. He thinks we should eliminate gluten (easier said than, well, you know). And we should eat at least ⅓ uncooked food.

His take on high-fructose corn syrup was intriguing, and I love to bring him to talk to some dietitians who don't think high-fructose corn syrup is that big of a deal. He pointed out that fructose from fruit was easier to digest than corn fructose, how cells are built to break down glucose and only glucose — how high-fructose corn syrup stays free floating, high-fructose corn syrup is pre-digested to provide an easy high, but than a crash leading to a carb coma.

The second doctor talked about stress reduction, but added some nutrition notes to his talk. He was much less intense than the first doctor, but stressed (pun intended) the ideal way to go.

He pointed out the split personality of coffee, red meat, coffee, and alcohol: how in the right circumstances and portion size, they could reduce stress. For many, they can add negative stress.

He said a 2x2 square of 80% cacao or higher of dark chocolate won't raise his blood sugar. Organic coffee was crucial, since coffee is high in pesticides. Organic beef since cows are designed to eat grass, not corn.

The doctor noted that Omega 3s reduce inflammation, a good reason to source your meat and eggs. He also said that most salmon is corn-fed salmon, which would reduce the positive impact of salmon in your diet.

"If it's real, you can eat it." — good advice.

The doctor encouraged us to eat the rainbow, and that white foods, other than cauliflower, aren't healthy. "White flour, white salt, white sugar" is a mantra that is pretty easy to remember. He also advised to walk around the outside of the grocery store.

We know a lot of these methods and ways to improve our diets, but we don't always remember them day to day. I know I attended similar lectures last year and without looking at my notes, I couldn't tell you what was said. I hope in 12 months to remember better what these two doctors said. This doesn't mean I will do everything they say at the level in which they do so. But I would like to incorporate the reminders throughout the next year to reinforce what I have done and what I want to do to improve the way I eat.

Temptation of the Week: Sex Cereal

Sex.

We were taught as kids that whatever sugary cereal was on the television that the sugary cereal was part of a balanced breakfast.

As adults, we want more from our cereal.

Sex Cereal was created by a Canadian businessman to help people improve their sexual performance through a specially designed breakfast cereal.

Cereal primarily goes with breakfast, but eating food to improve things in the bedroom is more about after-dinner activities. But you have to start somewhere. Now you know why breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

His Ingredients

Rolled oats, wheat germ, water, chia seeds, black sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, blueberries (sweetened with apple juice), cacao nibs, goji berries, bee pollen, maca powder, camu camu, coconut sugar

Her Ingredients

Rolled oats, oat bran, sunflower seeds, water, flax seeds, chia seeds, soy protein, cranberries (sweetened with apple juice), goji berries, cacao nibs, almonds, ginger ground, maca powder, coconut sugar

There are two problems to consider before you jump at the chance to eat Sex Cereal. The cereal is $12/bag and is only available in Canada. First Twinkies, now Sex Cereal. Damn Canadians. :)

And couples can't share a bag, unless they're same gender couples. Of course, gays and lesbians can get married throughout Canada.

Both genders get rolled oats, water, chia seeds, cacao nibs, goji berries, maca powder, and coconut sugar. Men get blueberries while women get cranberries, but both are sweetened with apple juice.

Wheat germ is for men, oat bran for women. Seeds help produce good seeds, as men drift toward black sesame and pumpkin, while women go for sunflower and flax.

Wild cards? Men get bee pollen and camu camu while women get soy protein, almonds, and ginger ground.

Having breakfast does make your day go better. If somehow Sex Cereal gets people "up" to eat breakfasts they otherwise might skip, the cereal will have done its job regardless of any other benefits.

They say "sex sells." If sex can't sell people on the concept of having breakfast, nothing else can.

photo credit: Sex Cereal

Cook to 160°F minimum a sign to look elsewhere for meat

We don't think of cooking meat in terms of temperature; we know rare, medium-rare, medium, medium-well, and well. So most consumers wouldn't think twice about seeing that message on a package of ground beef. To the discerning eye, the label screams "Don't eat me. I'm not good."

Before last summer, I wouldn't have figured out right away what 160°F meant. But thanks to the fiasco of the medium-rare burger in Alberta last summer, I know that 145°F is medium-rare and 160°F is well.

So cooking beef to 160°F minimum is not about taste or flavor, but only a CYA maneuver (cover … your …).

You wouldn't be surprised to learn that the label comes from Cargill Meat Solutions and the package was sold at Wal-Mart. I discovered this by poking around the new Wal-Mart out of curiosity, not thinking I would see anything quite this distasteful.

In established circles, my view is very much in the minority. The USDA wants you to cook your ground beef to 160°F and use a food thermometer.

"When a hamburger is cooked to 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer, it is both safe and delicious!"

Safe, yes. Delicious? No thanks.

Cooking meat to 160°F is a way of skating around questionable beef processing practices. This doesn't even factor in what the cows are eating or being injected with or any pink slime problems. This is purely based on what may get mixed into the meat in harvesting cows and processing their meat.

But what gets me about "Cook to 160°F minimum" is the last word: minimum. How far does Cargill and Wal-Mart want us to cook this meat? 170°F? 180°F? 212°F is boiling, so that meat would be ideal for a little Cincinnati chili.

What goes past well? Doesn't sound like a good "meat solution."

We go out of our way to say food is safe even when it isn't, but this label on the package of beef says, "I'm not safe. You have to overcook me. Even if you reach the CYA cut from the USDA, this is only the minimum. You should go beyond well if you want to be sure. This is how crappy our food is for you."

We should be thankful that this product has such a prominent warning label. Very colorful and really stands out. The problem is that the vast majority of consumers don't know what the label means and won't take steps, however draconian they may be, to cook the beef to such an extreme temperature.

As a country that prides itself on eating a lot of meat, we should have beef that would make us proud. We should have beef so well processed that it should have warning labels not to cook this meat above 150°F (medium). Now that beef would be worth having for dinner.