Balance of Food

What's Tempting: Food labels listing added sugars

If you felt a little dizzy this week with the whirlwind of news from the government, you are forgiven.

First Lady Michelle Obama started the parade by talking about a proposal to ban the marketing of junk food in schools. In the mainstream media, this is labeled as a "controversial statement." Oh no, we can't offend companies that make junk food.

"We'll be eliminating advertising for unhealthy foods and beverages in our schools because I think we can all agree that our classrooms should be healthy places where our kids aren't bombarded with ads for junk food. And these guidelines are part of a broader effort to inspire food companies to rethink how they market food to kids in general," Michelle Obama said at a press event.

All the junk food companies will have left is marketing with TV programs, billboards, ads, magazines, online ads …

Seriously, school should be about learning. Students get plenty of exposure to ads in the outside world.

The proposal builds on standards set in the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. The marketing of all food/drinks needs to conform the same healthy standards required of foods sold starting in the fall of 2014.

"I don't understand a First Lady accomplishing something. Everything they do is supposed to be a symbolic waste of time," said Stephen Colbert.

---

Journalists are plagued with being horrible at math. While I'm an exception, I can relate to the frustration of staring at the back of a food label and calculating the viability of the food.

The proposed new labels will adjust portion size to standards set by American consumers. For example, apparently no one eats ½ cup of ice cream, so the new standard would be 1 cup.

So instead of being "tricked" into seeing 150 calories for a ½ cup, you can now be "freaked out" by seeing 300 calories for a cup. This way, you avoid the need to multiply 150 x 2. The bad news is that you have to look at what you served and still guess whether you now have a 1-cup serving.

One pressing question is whether all manufacturers in a product category would have to conform to the same standard. In the cereal aisle, a serving can be 1 cup or ¾ cup or a ½ cup. In the story we did on Grape-Nuts, we found the company undercut the size of the serving and undersold the amount of protein in a real serving.

For foods that can easily be consumed in one sitting, the food labels would reflect this reality, or at least offer side-by-side a per serving/per container option.

The new labels will be less cluttered with certain categories (i.e., calories) in larger fonts. This will likely come at the expense of information we can use and can't find otherwise.

The absolute best part of the new potential labels is a category for "added sugars."

Sure your yogurt may have fruit, but if the company adds high-fructose corn syrup, that will be more clearly marked on the back of the label.

Right now, on a container with yogurt and fruit, you have total sugar, but that includes milk sugar and fruit sugar. Naturally occurring sugars will be exempt from "added sugars" since they aren't added.

Natural applesauce is made up of apples and water where conventional applesauce adds high-fructose corn syrup or sugar. The added sugars would reflect a difference so a consumer can see side-by-side that 0g added sugars are better than some added sugars.

Those who can interpret the added sugars on food labels are at an advantage, so adding that category will level the playing field. The true rational is to put pressure on companies to reduce added sugars to improve the perception (and reality) of their food products.

The new labels won't be seen for some time, and will go through a lengthy process and likely won't end up as ideal as the stories have made out the changes.

Most of the changes involves easier math or less math, but will still require some math. If nothing else, you can take your kids food shopping and have them figure out the math.

---

video credit: Colbert Report
graphic credit: Food and Drug Administration

Daily Show takes on Subway yoga mat bread

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show gave us a nice wrapup of recent food stories that make you question why you are eating anything you don't make with your own two hands.

Stewart joked about having a mid-show snack. His first try was Subway sandwiches.

Then he "finds out" that Subway had azodicarbonamide in its bread. The funny visual is having azodicarbonamide spread in huge letters across the entire screen via the Al-Jazeera feed.

While the company says the chemical makes bread look white and fluffier, but azodicarbonamide is found in yoga mats and the soles of shoes.

Previous coverage:

Slider Bites: Subway takes out yoga mat chemical from its bread

His second snack choice is Kraft Singles. Kraft just announced that sorbic acid in the full-fat American and White American varieties only will be replaced by natamycin, which Kraft says is a "natural mold inhibitor."

Stewart jokes that since Kraft Singles are American, they don't need a mold inhibitor since they never go bad.

The third and final snack option is Hot Pockets, Philly Cheese Steak version. That version was part of the 8.7 million lbs. of beef recall from Ranchero.

"I had no idea they put actual beef in these," said Stewart.

The meat comes from "diseased and unsound animals."

What's Tempting: Accurate fruit juice labeling

Being a journalist, especially a food journalist, means wanting the truth when it comes to food. And this is why I hate shopping in the juice aisle.

We all know to watch for the phrase "juice cocktail" to avoid those containers. However, buying 100% juice isn't enough to know what you are getting in your juice.

Even if the label says "cranberry" or "pomegranate" or "mango," the primary ingredients, even in 100% juice, will be apple or grape or white grape juice. The name of the product doesn't reflect that reality.

Juice blends emphasize sweeter juices in the ingredient list while painting a different picture on the front of the label. Since companies are required to list ingredients in descending order, we can find out the truth. But the truth isn't obvious unless you are looking carefully.

Let's use a real-life example of Tropicana's Farmstand Strawberry Banana. Sweet potato juice, grape juice, apple juice, and carrot juice are listed before any mention of strawberry or banana on the ingredient list.

The juices are filtered water and concentrates as well. Again, this isn't unique to one company, but one example in the marketplace.

Cranberry, mango, and pomegranate are what is used to sell the juice that does technically contain those flavors. This would be the equivalent of mentioning cranberry in a headline and then you don't read about cranberry until halfway through a story. Even then, you don't find out much about cranberry.

That might work for BuzzFeed, but food isn't about Internet clicks.

With truthful labeling, virtually all major brand juice blends would read something like:

Apple and white grape juice

Special appearances by cranberry, pomegranate, and mango juices and/or concentrates.

I was duly impressed when touring through Eataly Chicago for lots of reasons, but was overjoyed to see the ingredient list on the products from Italy. The labels listed the ingredients in descending order, but also posted percentages of the primary ingredients.

Instead of knowing that "Ingredient A" was the dominant product, the label would read "Ingredient A 74%."

The difference caught my eye, but also made me more likely to buy a product knowing the percentages of the primary products.

For the juice blends, this approach would sway me to buy or not buy based on percentages. Let's compare two hypothetical juice blends:

Juice blend A: apple juice 32%, grape juice 27%, cranberry juice (water, cranberry juice concentrate) 18%, pomegranate juice (water, pomegranate juice concentrate) 14%, pineapple juice 7%, other juices 2%.

Juice blend B: apple juice 24%, grape juice 22%, cranberry juice (water, cranberry juice concentrate) 20%, pomegranate juice (water, pomegranate juice concentrate) 16%, pineapple juice 7%, white grape juice 6%, mango juice 5%.

Juice Blend B would be a much better pick, though you need to factor in the white grape juice in the second juice blend. In Juice Blend A: the really sweet juices come out to 59%; in Juice Blend B, the really sweet juices come out to 52%.

The percentages are slightly higher in Juice Blend B for the cranberry and pomegranate juices, plus the mango has a nice contrasting flavor, though maybe Juice Blend A has mango in the "other juices" category.

The ideal solution would be to buy 100% cranberry juice, pomegranate juice, or mango juice, and dilute it with as little of a sweeter juice as you could stand to drink. You would likely save money, though this would take up more time. The key is you get to play with the percentages: you could put cranberry juice at 32% and apple juie at 16%. And you would know what those percentages are since you came up with them. U.S. ingredient labels leave us clueless; when you are in charge of the juice blend, you have all the power and knowledge.

What's Tempting: Home cooking on Valentines Day

Valentines Day has been set up to be about blowing a bunch of money on bad chocolate and expensive dinners. If you do the holiday properly, you'll be a bigger hit with your SO and your wallet will be happier, too.

Cancel your reservations at the fancy dinner. Do that now. Then you can plan.

Cooking for your SO, or preferably cooking for each other, is a great way to draw closer to your loved one. Cooking a dinner together puts both people on the same level. Valentines Day is typically men treating women well (and they should), but by preparing the meal together, they share time and the experience.

This link says the average Valentines Day dinner is $135 and offers to cut that cost in half. Not to seem cheap, but you could make a nice romantic dinner for a lot less if you put some personal thought into the process.

You may not have the desired ingredients, and if you're caught in a polar vortex, you may not be able to get what you want. Then again, in a polar vortex, you may not be able to get to the restaurant anyway.

In that case, you could do a picnic. A picnic blanket will produce warm thoughts, if nothing else. Your food can be simple; it's more about the environment and the company than the food. Cost isn't an issue; eat simply and embrace the romantic gesture.

If you aren't trapped in a polar vortex, you can still go the expensive route, but save money on that meal by cooking it yourself. And the bargain kicks in even before restaurants mark up prices for that special day.

You can get better chocolate; dark chocolate is better for your heart in more ways than one. You can splurge since you are saving money in other areas. Think of what you could buy with the valet cost alone.

One meal that can bring people together and force them to talk is fondue. Cheese and chocolate can definitely be romantic. I grew up with butter as the fondue choice. No matter what I might think about family dynamics based on my own experience growing up, we did talk more and better during a fondue meal.

The warmth of the sterno and knowing you all cut up all the food can be highly romantic. Plus the cooking process forces conversations in between bites.

What if you want to be served? Having someone take care of you feels romantic. Maybe the waiter spills soup on your loved one. You could make the same mistake but you are only worried about one person on that day; servers have many tables, especially on a hectic day.

If you do insist on eating out, how about going to that place where you first met, or the first time your loved one said, "I love you." That could have been Denny's; and if you don't want to eat at Denny's anymore, you can always get coffee.

You might be surprised that all your SO wants is to be appreciated for who they are. Cooking a favorite dish with love is a great way to acknowledge uniqueness.

When you break it down, love can be eating TV dinners if that is what you really want to do. Valentines Day is supposed to be about appreciating the person across the way from you.

Putting your own personal touch on a Valentines Day meal is a great method to spell romance in a way to make the holiday more memorable for many years to come.

If you're single, make yourself a nice dinner. Eat your dinner in front of a mirror, saying nice things about yourself to yourself.

Yes, that is a picture of Nancy and Ann Wilson of "Heart," now in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Heart = Valentine's Day.
photo credit: Heart

Slider Bites: Subway takes out yoga mat chemical from its bread

I haven't bought chicken in awhile, not consciously or unconsciously. I do buy better-grown chicken, but realize I've eaten other's chicken that is not grown as humanely.

This Food and Water Watch video strikes an ideal tone. You learn about how chickens are raised on factory farms, but in an entertaining fashion and, above all, not patronizing.

This also addresses the obsession (in mostly good ways) about asking our servers about what we're eating.

---

The Farm Bill was signed by President Barack Obama at Michigan State University, known for its agricultural program. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the man Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008, spoke up about the legislation.

While we don't agree on most issues with the senator from Arizona, you have to appreciate his take on the Farm Bill.

"But, unfortunately, just about every subsidy eliminated under Farm Bill's is simply re-invented into a new, more expensive program. For example, we have a new 'Agriculture Risk Coverage' (ARC) program, which locks-in today's record-high crop prices and guarantees farmers up to an 86 percent return on their crop. Depending on market conditions, ARC could cost taxpayers between $3 billion to $14 billion each year — far more expensive than the $5 billion saved by the elimination of the Direct Payments Program. This bill also maintains the $95 billion federally-backed crop insurance program which subsidizes crop insurance premiums. We then pile on a new $20 billion program called Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) that subsidizes crop insurance deductibles.

"This Farm Bill also strips an amendment offered by my colleagues, Senator (Dick) Durbin and Senator (Tom) Coburn, which would have prevented crop insurance subsidies from going to individuals with a gross income greater than $750,000 a year. That amendment was adopted by 59 votes in the Senate's Farm Bill earlier last year — and now it's absent from the conference agreement. Millionaire farmers can rejoice that their crop insurance subsidies are safe.

"This is all part of Farm Bill politics. In order to pass a Farm Bill, Congress must find a way to appease every special interest of every commodity association from asparagus farmers to wheat growers. If you cut somebody's subsidy, you give them a grant. If you kill their grant, then you subsidize their crop insurance.

McCain goes on about waste in the bill. Some items don't seem so bad, but there are a few head-shakers.

"The bill reauthorizes USDA loan subsidies for peanut growers and allows them to use their peanuts as collateral. If a peanut grower forfeits on their USDA loan, the federal government takes ownership of the peanuts and taxpayers bear the costs of storing the nuts!

"The infamous sugar program is housed in this Farm Bill. Like the peanut program, USDA gives sugar growers primarily in Florida, Louisiana, and Michigan hundreds of millions of dollars in loans each year. If a sugar grower misses their profit margins, they get to keep the loan and transfer their excess sugar to the federal government as collateral. Over the past year, sugar subsides and forfeitures have cost taxpayers $258 million while over 640,000 tons of sugar was handed over to USDA. Combined with import tariffs and marketing controls, the USDA sugar program cost consumers over $3 billion each year. It is one of the most obscene federal farm subsidies ever conceived and this Farm Bill does nothing to reform it.

McCain also mentions a hidden "tax" on heating oil, which seemingly has nothing to do with farmers.

You really should read the entirety of the statement to truly appreciate the problems in the bill. And this doesn't even count what progressives and liberals are upset about (e.g., food stamps cuts).

Click here for the whole statement from Sen. McCain.

---

I used to be a Subway fan, but over time I struggled with the quality of the bread and vegetables. The bread never fit the true sense of a sub(no way) sandwich and tasted too sweet for my tastes.

Subway says it will get rid of azodicarbonamide, a plastic-based additive chemical used in yoga mats.

The chemical helps add air into the bread. Azodicarbonamide is banned in Europe and Australia, while legal in the United States and Canada. The World Health Organization has linked azodicarbonamide to respiratory issues, allergies, and asthma. Yikes!

You can usually judge a food ingredient by whether there is a ban in Europe. If Europe says "non," you should too.

This still doesn't mean I'm going back, but it will help millions of those who do.

---

Editor's note: 2014 will see more Slider Bites columns. We've fallen a bit behind for a few reasons. We appreciate your patience.

What's Tempting: Ketchup flavored Doritos

Canada loves its ketchup potato chips while most of the United States has no concept about the existence of ketchup chips.

While I don't go as crazy as some Canadians (or wannabes) on U.S. soil for the ketchup chips, I do find them to be a nice alternative to shake up the palate.

So when I was grocery shopping in Canada last month, and came across ketchup flavored Doritos, the bag went into the cart and made it safely across the border.

I saved the special bag of Doritos until Super Bowl Sunday. Yes, Super Bowl Sunday is the ultimate "American" eating holiday that shouldn't be wasted on Canadian snack foods. When you run two ads in the Super Bowl, the Americanness of Doritos outweighs the Canadian influence.

Ketchup flavored chips don't so much taste like ketchup but more like tomato powder with a splash of vinegar. Some ketchup chips have a more intense taste to them, which is nice on one level because the taste is bold but a drawback if you aren't used to strong tasting potato chips — i.e., most of the U.S. chips market.

The Doritos version of ketchup chips fall well into the U.S. palate; not a bold ketchup flavor. And quite frankly, ketchup-flavored potato chips work better than ketchup-flavored corn chips. However, ketchup-flavored Doritos would be a good way to entice those in the States to this unusual treat.

Nacho cheese Doritos fans know the orange fingers you get from eating the snack chip. With ketchup flavored Doritos, you get the red fingers.

The Ketchup-flavored Doritos are a nice change of pace. If you really like Doritos, you should definitely try the ketchup variety. If you aren't as much of a fan, the novelty will be enough to give it a try.

Previous coverage:

Jos. Louis snack cakes, ketchup chips spotted in Southwestern MI grocery store

Potato chips through the 'eyes' of Canadians

As people who adore food, we are always intrigued by different flavor presentations. I recall visiting the Coca-Cola Museum many years ago and sampling different Coke products from around the world. There were a few that I would drink again, but some tastes pleasantly surprised me. And I've learned that even Coca-Cola tastes different depending on which country produced the soft drink.

Lay's is having a contest to pick out new flavors for its potato chips. Ketchup would be a nice option, but "Americans" aren't likely to vote for ketchup since they may not have a clue as to their taste.

I wanted the ketchup flavored Doritos to have that intense "ketchup" taste, but found that came up short. I suppose I would have the same reaction to ranch Doritos if I were to accidentally eat one.

I did find the Herr ketchup potato chips complete with a Heinz tie-in (both companies are from Pennsylvania) a couple of years ago. I remember those ketchup chips being pretty good, though not as good as Canadian brands. I haven't seen the Herr chips since.

When I bought the ketchup Doritos in Canada, I also picked up a couple of bags of lime and black pepper chips. I like the intense taste I get with those chips. Like the ketchup Doritos, you can't get them at the local corner store.

Ketchup flavored Doritos is available for a limited time and only in Canada. I wouldn't go to Canada just for the chips, but was glad I bought them as long as I was there. If you are game and nowhere near the border, perhaps a Canadian friend can help you.

Senate passes Farm Bill; food stamps cuts don't add up

“Our political system is basically evil versus spineless now,” former Clinton USDA official Joel Berg.

As someone who has worked well with words over the years, I couldn't sum up how I felt about the savage attack on food stamps in the new Farm Bill soon to reach the desk of President Barack Obama. The quote above was as close as I could get.

The Farm Bill cuts $8 billion in food stamps in the next 10 years. In practical terms, this means an average cut of $90 per month.

Those cuts are on top of $11 billion over the next 2 years that came a few weeks ago — benefits that expired from the 2009 stimulus bill. The average cut works out to $38/month.

The $8 billion is presumably a "compromise" especially since Senate Dems opened the bidding at $4 billion in cuts. This would be the spineless portion of the negotiations.

Berg is on the frontline of this battle as the executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger and author of “All You Can Eat: How Hungry Is America?"

The politician who has received the most criticism on the food stamps cuts is Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

Sen. Stabenow points out that the new Farm Bill gets rid of direct payment subsidies. The senator also points out changes for those who want more support for local and organic foods.

"Our agriculture economy is increasingly based on rising consumer demand for healthy, locally grown foods. We're investing more in programs to promote fruits and vegetables. We provide over four times more funding for farmers' markets and strong support for growers who want to transition to organics. We create local food hubs to help institutions like hospitals, restaurants and schools buy more local foods."

Specifically, the senator states that the new Farm Bill "doubles SNAP benefits for low-income families when they buy healthy produce at farmer's markets, increases funding for food banks, and provides financing for new grocery stores in underserved areas."

As for the food stamps cuts, Sen. Stabenow says the bill is designed to reduce fraud and misuse. The "heat and eat" programs — where states can get extra SNAP money for signing up people for home heating assistance — is the primary focus. The senator says any SNAP recipient getting more than $20/year in home heating assistance won't get SNAP cuts, and those getting less assistance have to show a heating bill to keep their SNAP benefits at the status quo mark.

Even if the bill does address direct payments, the bill still has plenty of crop subsidies and expensive crop insurance. The louder Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN) screams, the better the bill will be. Fincher is in the dubious position of taking huge payments to not grow crops while calling for radical cuts in food stamps.

If people are choosing between heating their homes and eating, then we are shortchanging those people.

And if we are saving this much money from payments to those who don't need the money, then we should be able to afford a boost for those who still need help.

The truth likely rests somewhere in between. The sad part is that we may not learn about whether people are suffering from the food stamps cuts since those stories go underreported. And in a struggling economy, especially without a subsequent raise in the minimum wage, it looks bad to cut food assistance, no matter how that might be done.

I love reforms to make sure those who need help are getting help. But those that need help aren't getting enough help.

President Obama will be under significant pressure to sign the bill into law. Fights over the Farm Bill have weighed down Congress, but then again, this is part of the GOP strategy. Unfortunately, for Americans who struggle in real life with putting food on the table, the politicians in Washington have other priorities.

Super Bowl XLVIII food ad analysis

Food commercials were aplenty in last night's Super Bowl XLVIII in East Rutherford, New Jersey. But which ones stood out?

Oikos yogurt got the hype for a "Full House" male reunion. However, that wasn't even the most interesting ad for yogurt. Chobani Greek yogurt gave us a great, creative ad about a selective bear raiding a small-town general store. More interesting and told us something about the product.

The biracial Cheerios kid made a return, this time using Cheerios to convey to the girl that she is getting a baby brother. Her counteroffer of a puppy was accepted. Didn't tie into the health claims but reinforced the association with Cheerios and family.

I love Stephen Colbert and the pistachios spot fit Colbert's personality. I especially liked the wraparound where the commercial was "interrupted" by a David Beckham H&M ad. Getting 2 mentions really helped. The only drawback was that pistachios played second-fiddle to Colbert, though Colbert splitting open his head amplified what pistachios are all about.

Previous coverage:

Temptation of the Week: Making your own soft drinks

Super Bowl ad wrapup: 'Ad' for farmers topped the list

Super Bowl Monday morning ad analysis: PepsiMax signifies jealousy, violence more than diet

Butterfinger was the solution to chocolate and peanut butter being in therapy. I thought the ad was for Reeses at first, but that was the point as Butterfinger is trying to be an alternative. I hadn't associated Butterfinger with peanut butter; the company is hoping for $4 million that consumers will give that a try.

Subway is offering a sandwich with Fritos in the sandwich. There was a Fritos chicken enchilada sandwich and a Fritos pulled pork sandwich. You can get Fritos with a sandwich and put them on your own sandwich. Wish Subway would concentrate more on better tasting bread and better looking vegetables on their sandwiches.

To be fair, Subway talks about its sandwiches. I'm still amazed that Jimmy John's makes sandwiches and never talks about what's in them. Equating Jimmy John's with roses for an anniversary would have made for a great parody if someone else produced the ad. This was a wasted $4 million.

Doritos ran two ads: Time Machine and a kid riding a dog. The theme of Doritos being bold was reinforced. The Time Machine ad was definitely better, but both spots were very visual. When you're watching at a party or a bar, you want visual ads where the words don't matter. The visuals were more important in these ads.

Heinz ketchup ran a cute ad about how Heinz makes you happy enough to clap your hands. The classic bottle also ran as a theme; grandma uses a squeeze bottle and makes an unfortunate noise inferred to be flatulence. Funny after pushing the squeeze bottle as convenience, Heinz went a bit retro with the glass bottle. If only Heinz would go truly retro and ditch high-fructose corn syrup.

M&Ms had an Italian stereotype about chopping someone into pieces and then sprinkling that … over ice cream. Turns out the peanut M&M was in the trunk and doesn't understand Italian. The candy company has done a lot better; your Super Bowl ad shouldn't make consumers cringe and wish for your less expensive ads in comparison.

---

Drinks aren't really food, but we'll take a brief look at the spots.

The lovely Scarlet Johansson talked up Sodastream. The company teased an alternative ad with a tagline attacking Coke and Pepsi. Sodastream knew the ad wouldn't make it to the Super Bowl, but put it out there to attract more attention.

Johansson attracted more attention to a controversy involving Oxfam and settlements in the Middle East. Funny how Sodastream is running against Coke and Pepsi, but won't make alternative syrups to satisfy that audience.

Coca-Cola ran 2 ads: one with different languages singing America the Beautiful and a kid running a TD all the way to Lambeau Field in Green Bay. The football one tied in well with the game but not the product. And the international voices remind us they every country outside the United States and Canada has a better version of Coca-Cola.

---

Full disclosure: my day job did not run an ad in Super Bowl XLVIII, but has run an ad in recent years.

---

video credits: Chobani, Cheerios, countournuts.com