Balance of Food

Kraft Singles nutrition 'endorsement' puts dietitians in bad light

"Turns out the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is an academy in the same way this (Kraft Singles) is cheese." — Jon Stewart, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

You see a label on a food that says "Kids Eat Right." Even if you are paying attention in a grocery store with your kids, you might not take too much time to look into what the label means.

If you do look closer and you see that the label is brought to you by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, you would be justified in thinking this was an endorsement of the food.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has a program called Kids Eat Right. The organization says food companies that help with that program get rewarded with a "Kids Eat Right" label on their products.

As horrible as that idea sounds, the only thing that would be worse is picking a really horrible example as the first food to get the label. Enter Kraft Singles.

Kraft Singles were traditionally allowed to positioned itself as American cheese when it was "pasteurized process cheese food" -- a category that only allows for 51% cheese yet could be called cheese. Now Kraft Singles are legally classified as "pasteurized prepared cheese product." The FDA prohibited Kraft from referring to the product as "pasteurized process cheese food," a step higher in the food chain but a long way from actual cheese.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) — formerly the American Dietetic Association — is no stranger to corporate tie-ins with food companies. The AND says the label is not an endorsement, though Kraft said this was an endorsement. The label does walk and talk like an endorsement from an organization of dietitians.

(Full disclosure: I once interviewed for a job at the organization, back when it was the American Dietetic Association. I did not get the position.)

This "endorsement" against "pasteurized process cheese food" comes from Sargento, a company that makes real cheese.

In the weeks leading up to this embarrassing AND/Kraft Singles PR disaster, Sargento has been running an ad advertising 100% cheese: "Real cheese people don't eat pasteurized process cheese food" and how pasteurized process cheese food is "only required to contain 51% real cheese."

Remember that Kraft Singles isn't even good enough to be "pasteurized process cheese food."

If the dietitians that I know were setting the rules, the AND would put stickers on fruit and vegetables containers that say "Kids Eat Right." But those companies don't have the resources to advertise, much less put in enough money to sway the interests of the AND. Kraft does.

Some dietitians are fighting back with a petition to the AND to get the organization to rescind the policy. They don't want their hard work to be overshadowed by a financial arrangement that looks like fake cheese is getting rewarded.

There is a divide among dietitians. Some dietitians work for PR agencies that represent food companies or directly for the food companies. They use their dietary knowledge and expertise as a cover for food companies to try to convince us a food is healthier than its actual reality.

Dietitians are good and bad; human like the rest of us. Doctors and nurses are also good and bad, but they aren't working for companies that are trying to do the opposite of what they learned in their education.

I know dietitians in both camps; I find them to be good people. But most people don't know a dietitian. Many people who could use the help of a dietitian aren't sure where to turn. A lot of those dietitians who could help can't because they work for PR agencies and food companies with designs to embrace strategies to convince consumers to eat a particular processed food.

One major resource where people can go to find a dietitian is the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Yes, we see the irony.

Dietitians who want to work with people to help them have been overshadowed by corporate food interests for some time. Those dietitians are trapped in a tidal wave of messages from advertising, food companies tricks on the front labels of products and one particularly bad trick on the ingredient label.

The Kraft Singles controversy is an extreme example in the desire for some dietitians to suck up to large food companies. But the dietitian world shouldn't pretend that this is the only problem.

video credit: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart/photo credits: Kraft; Sargento

Nightly Show takes on obesity

"America's obesity rate creeps up to 27.7%. On the plus side, now it's higher than our math scores."

We were very worried about coverage of food/nutrition/obesity after the end of the Colbert Report run. The show that took the Colbert Report timeslot — The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore — gave us its take on the obesity issue.

Wilmore had two focuses in the episode: rising obesity rates and that Europe's highest court ruled that sometimes obesity can be a disability.

To watch the entire episode, click here.

Obesity numbers aside, the timing is linked to one of our unofficial eating holiday: Super Bowl Sunday. Wilmore joked about his 7-layer corn tortilla double dipped bacon deep fried sour cream stuffed crust panini.

Wilmore did point out that Americans on Super Bowl Sunday ate 1.25 billion chicken wings and 11.2 million lbs. of potato chips. Chances are if you are watching the game, even for the commercials, you are eating more than usual on a Sunday night.

The show's format has an opening monologue followed by a panel discussion and then a "keep it 100" segment where the panelists are asked to be honest over a tough question.

Wilmore gave us a bit of history: back in the day when fat was a good thing, the poor couldn't keep up because they literally didn't have enough food. Now that thin is a good thing, the poor can't afford trainers and to have large grocery stores in their neighborhood.

The panel talked about food deserts and paying for obesity through healthcare. Wilmore also noted that blacks have the highest obesity rate at 47%, and that childhood obesity doubled in children and tripled in adults in the last 30 years.

The disability angle? The European Court of Justice standard of obesity being a disability goes to whether it "hinders the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers."

Businesses have to accommodate workers accordingly. World Health Organizations figures have 20% of European men and 23% of European women are obese, lower than the United States but higher than you would expect.

The panel was Morgan Spurlock, Marianne Kirby, a fat acceptance advocate, and 2 comedians: Lavell Crawford, a large black man, and Shannon DeVido, a disabled woman.

Problems get discussed on the program, but solutions aren't always funny. Still, a great chance to bring obesity to a serious TV discussion. When was the last time a cable news channel spent 30 minutes on food, nutrition, and obesity?

With the Colbert Report, the comedy would have been better but the show wouldn't have spent the whole episode on just one topic. Colbert would have focused on food and food marketing; Wilmore went to the after effects of eating that food.

The Nightly Show being the latest spinoff from The Daily Show -- which has plenty of food coverage itself.

The commercial right out of the first break of the show: KFC popcorn nuggets "made from the world's best chicken." That doesn't help those who are struggling with obesity. The idea that KFC is made from the world's best chicken can't be literal.

photo credit: Twitter @therotund

Saying goodbye to the Colbert Report

No news show, no program on the Food Network or the Cooking Channel has done more to attack the hype of food, food obsession, and food marketing than the Colbert Report.

Whether that be Thought for Food or challenging Dr. Robert Lustig on high-fructose corn syrup or many spirited battles with Michael Pollan or his classic Wheat Thins segment, Stephen Colbert has been a champion for a better-run society when it comes to food.

The Colbert Report started out to be a spoof of shows such as the O'Reilly Factor. Colbert took his success and used it to call out hypocrisy and food marketing shame. As himself, he testified before Congress about the plight of farm workers.

BalanceofFood.com coverage of the Colbert Report

BalanceofFood.com coverage of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Colbert is ending the Colbert Report tonight to take over for David Letterman on CBS sometime in 2015. We fear very deeply that Colbert won't cover food topics with the vigor he did on the Colbert Report, if he covers them at all.

Here are some of the many segments that made us laugh and think over the last 9 years.

Stephen Colbert mocks concept of serving size in Wheat Thins parody

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

What's Tempting: Food labels listing added sugars

What's Tempting: Banning trans fats

School lunch

Colbert deservedly mocks Domino's Smart Slice

Stephen Colbert fights for school tater tots and Taco Bell 'food'

Colbert Report: Tom Vilsack and school lunches

Stephen Colbert calls out Tom Vilsack for ag policy contradictions

Dr. Robert Lustig

Dr. Robert Lustig's slightly shifting views on high-fructose corn syrup

Stephen Colbert knows more than Dr. Robert Lustig about high-fructose corn syrup dangers

Food quality

Colbert showcases government extreme on addressing raw milk

Behind the jokes, Stephen Colbert shines light on plight of farm workers

Stephen Colbert holds up a mirror to the meat industry

Colbert Report to shine spotlight on farm workers and their sacrifices

Colbert gives a lick about salt and the FDA

Colbert weighs in on the politics of sugar

Animal cruelty

Stephen Colbert fights for 'huge' chicken cages

Colbert Report pokes at Prozac in poultry

Michael Pollan and other supporters

Michael Pollan goes 'cooking' with Colbert Report

Will Allen gains new audience with Good Food Revolution

Weight of the Nation should be serious about why we're obese

Michael Pollan needs to be straightforward about high-fructose corn syrup

Michael Pollan says our bodies don't know what to do with HFCS

Way too much corn in our food

Snack foods

Colbert Report's Thought for Food: Can't stop at one?

Temptation of the Week: Doritos Tacos Locos

Portion sizes

Colbert Report pokes fun at shrinking candy bars, second breakfasts

Pyramids, plates offer 2-dimensional help in a 3-dimensional world

Food obsession

Colbert frowns on air in chocolate, and overdoing undercooked bacon

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

U.S. standards need to limit labeling 'cheese' for actual cheese

Colbert's Thought for Food: Foot-long cheeseburger and sugary cereals

Colbert's Thought for Food: Grilled Cheese Burger Melt

Colbert weighs in KFC Double Down, cupcakes for Germans

Our high-fructose corn syrup obsessions wrapped in Colbert humor

What's Tempting: KFC Go Cup used for healthy snacks

photos credit: Colbert Report

Restaurants and open carry guns are not a good mix

Would you be more likely to eat at a restaurant where you wouldn't run into someone visibly carrying a gun?

If confronted with large guns in a Chipotle, my instinct would be to get my food to go.

We've seen several chains — Chili's, Chipotle, Sonic, Jack in the Box — express concern over open carry demonstrations, most notably in Texas.

Restaurants try to not get involved in political discussions. After all, restaurants are all about customers and food. They want left-wing and right-wing people to come eat there.

We've written about Chick-Fil-A from the other side of the political spectrum. Will gun enthusiasts react similarly to chains that discourage open carry?

The good news for those chains is that they may not have to pay a high price for their actions. Those on the left are more about boycotts than those on the right. Also, the restaurants are concerned with open carry vs. concealed carry.

To be honest, I'm still learning about concealed carry since I live in the last state to switch to concealed carry (and we didn't even vote on this) and next to the 49th state to go to concealed carry.

We see the tiny signs banning guns from property, reminders that guns would otherwise be allowed in the building. Still getting used to this new world.

Police officers eat a lot in restaurants, and they are armed. Open carry but not in a way that the open carry protesters are doing. They don't bother me in the slightest. First of all, you should eat where cops eat because they know the best places to eat. But if something were to happen, then I would feel safer.

The eating environment is preached on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives talk about family values and eating together as a family; liberals do too but conservatives are louder on this topic. The eating environment should be about comfort, whether dining at home or in a booth in a restaurant.

For most people, seeing heavily armed private citizens while eating in a restaurant is not a comfortable environment for digestion.

Drive-thrus, when available, offer a compromise. Those carrying serious guns can keep them in the car while ordering their food.

Open carry vs. concealed carry might be splitting hairs, but in a restaurant environment, this can make a huge difference. May never get used to the idea of concealed carry, but that looks smarter compared to open carry.

We mentioning the police. They are armed and everyone knows it. But the police do so in a way that isn't, well, obnoxious.

People need to respect guns. And people respect people who respect guns. Police really respect their weapons. These open carry protesters aren't respecting their weapons.

The eating experience doesn't always have to sacred, but it should be enjoyable. And ideally gun-free.

Jason Greenslate is no proof of food stamps fraud

Meet Jason Greenslate.

In one world, Greenslate is the poster child for food stamps fraud because he bought lobster even though he draws $200/month in food stamps.

The Fox "News" cameras catch him buying lobster and sushi. Does that mean Greenslate buys lobster all the time? The one time for the camera? We don't know.

By capturing one moment of ringing up lobster, but not showing the actual purchase with food stamps, the outrage caused GOP politicians to push for — successfully — to reduce money for food stamps for those who truly need help.

“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said on camera. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”

Off-camera, Greenslate was more in the reality world "I don't think that one person should be the decision for 47 million people," he told the Huffington Post.

Previous coverage:

Expensive seafood on food stamps is latest conservative lie

Greenslate could be a genius on some level, though the Fox cameras don't portray him as such. Chances are Greenslate got played by a sophisticated media strategy; seems quite plausible.

Two conclusions from this effort should scare us as a society: 1) this was the best Fox "News" could come up with as an example, and 2) this worked to reduce money for food stamps.

For the record, you can buy lobster with food stamps. Sushi, too. But if you want to eat for the rest of the month, you aren't likely to do that too often. In a world where calories are king, lobster isn't even the best purchase. You can load up on a lot of steak for the price of lobster, but a lot of what you get with a lobster are parts you can't eat.

Food stamps recipients not on TV aren't buying lobster or tons of steak because they live in a non-TV reality world.

A true news investigation would show a widespread pattern of buying lobster or hidden outside income or a luxury apartment or something to show that Greenslate is typical.

But Fox does none of those things. You only see Greenslate buy lobster once. Greenslate paints a picture where this happens all the time, but you don't see any proof.

Two conclusions to take away from the Jason Greenslate "example": 1) Nothing Greenslate admitted to on camera is illegal, and 2) Even the Fox pundits aren't arguing for a change in the law.

When James O'Keefe first burst onto the scene, he was painted by Fox as a independent journalist. Well, O'Keefe wasn't from the start, using unethical tactics and incorporating heavily edited recordings to paint a false picture. By the time that was revealed, the perceptions of what he had done stuck with much of the public. Never mind that truth played no part.

We definitely aren't comparing Greenslate to O'Keefe, but both examples don't pass the smell test.

Jon Stewart also plays selective quotes to paint a picture on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And some of those quotes are used to draw laughter, a non-partisan activity. As we've seen all too often from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, it takes a comedian, lots of comedy writers, and an arsenal of news footage to show more truth than any cable news TV outlet.

Paul Ryan school lunch lie is why we need truthful discussion

"What they're offering people is a full stomach and an empty soul."

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the man who wanted to be vice president of the United States, told a story about a child who didn't want a free school lunch. He wanted a lunch in a brown paper bag "because he knew a kid with a brown-paper bag had someone who cared for him."

That story would be emotionally telling … if it were true.

Ryan heard the story from Wisconsin Department of Children and Families Secretary Eloise Anderson at a 2013 Congressional hearing. The story Anderson told was actually based off a TV interview with the boy in the book, "An Invisible Thread."

Anderson inserted the school lunch program, not mentioned in the book, into the anecdote. And the story in the book is an executive who offers the child money to buy lunch for the week or to make a lunch for the child. The child chooses the brown paper bag lunch because that means "somebody cares" about him.

The representative from Wisconsin later regretted "failing to verify the original source of the story."

That was 1 of about 8 things Ryan did wrong: the most important thing was telling that story at CPAC knowing that the story was incorrect.

This implies that we are calling Rep. Ryan a liar. Yes, that is true. This speaks to an issue that we have had with some politicians, mostly conservative, on these topics.

Just because someone says something you like or falls in your comfort zone doesn't mean it's true. You have a responsibility to find out whether the third-hand story you are telling has a kernel of truth.

The false story that Rep. Paul Ryan told at CPAC literally has no truth to be found.

The damage has been done, of course, which is the point. If you like Ryan, you will believe the story he told, even if the "liberal press" told you otherwise. And someone in a conversation will overhear someone tell that story, as if it were true, and the story will spread.

I could write a column every day for a year filled with criticisms of the school lunch program. But not having a program would never be one of those criticisms.

Ryan spoke of a "full stomach and an empty soul," the one part of the story that came from him. The implication is that a "free lunch" hurts a child when accepted.

"Full stomach means a full brain" is a slogan we like a lot better. That "free education" the child receives goes a lot better when the stomach is full, making things easier for the child to learn. This is especially true when that school lunch is healthy.

Yes, a number of conservatives don't like the idea of a "free education," but "free lunch" is an easier target.

As adults, we can argue the issues of child poverty and the impact of smart children on a society. And we can even discuss the impact of healthy food for school children.

We need two ground rules for this to work: 1) children need to be protected from being literally in the argument (e.g., Salt Lake City taking school lunches from kids), and 2) we need to work from the truth.

Rep. Ryan and any other politician who wants to take on the school lunch program: we want you to be a part of the discussion, but only if you are willing to work with the truth.

Expensive seafood on food stamps is latest conservative lie

Lent is the time to talk about eating more seafood, especially on Fridays and well, being Catholic. As we've learned from Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, some Fox 'News' pundits don't want that seafood paid for by food stamps receipients.

The Fox pundits are correct about one thing: you can buy seafood on food stamps. Let's see what else you can buy with food stamps:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:
breads and cereals;
fruits and vegetables;
meats, fish and poultry; and dairy products.
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

While you can't buy hot foods, "in some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals."

Otherwise, you can buy seafood but you have to cook it yourself.

Seafood is higher in Omega 3s and other nutrients compared to traditional grown beef. Buffalo, elk, grass-fed beef are also higher in Omega 3s and as expensive as some forms of seafood, but perhaps the Fox pundits are less aware of those options.

People on food stamps have to deal with a ridiculously small budget, even if food stamps are only part of their food budget. So the seafood that food stamps receipients are buying more likely says "Chicken of the Sea" on the side.

If you get $31 a week to spend on food, you could buy a pound of scallops at $10.99 plus tax, but that would be beyond foolish. But it wouldn't be illegal.

The excerpts that Stewart played on the show illuminate a conservative approach that in "giving money to poor people," their decisions need to be scrutinized.

"Why are they getting [seafood, steak, etc.] and I'm eating hamburger and I'm not on food stamps?"

If you are fortunate enough to not be on food stamps, you would manage your food budget in a way that correlates with your income. You can decide that cable or payments on a car are more important than food. You could spend as little on food as you saw fit because you would make sound choices based on your priorities.

Those on food stamps, whatever their ideal priorities, are making two adjustments. They are deciding that food has a higher priority in their lives at the sacrifice of cable and car payments, and they are much better at stretching food dollars than you are.

All of these people who experiment with eating on $31/week do it for a week and find that they struggle. It's never easy to eat on $31/week, but those on food stamps have developed strategies to try and cope. So these people are better at managing help from the government than people are managing their own budgets.

A lot of these stories that you hear from conservatives are the same stories that I heard growing up. Where I grew up, the stories were more racial, not accounting for the fact that the majority of those on food stamps, then and now, were the same pale hue as we all were. Perhaps we have made progress in that the stories are less racial; even if that isn't true, I hope it is somehow.

The problem is that we are making official government policy that affects millions of people based on racism and class warfare, and not on the facts.

Even if Congress passed a law to ban food stamps receipients from buying seafood, conservatives would still hate food stamps. Even if Congress passed a law requiring food stamps receipients to eat lentils, beans, and gruel, conservatives would still hate food stamps.

People who have enough to eat make jokes about being on a seafood diet: they see food and they eat it. It's a funny joke. But if you don't have easy access to food, it's harder to see food, much less eat food.

This latest collection of conservative food stamps bashing has led to a new challenge. Instead of eating for $31/week, conservatives could buy a 1-lb. lobster and then eat for a week for $31/week minus the cost of the lobster. Sure that lobster would taste good, but they would discover that by Thursday, the lobster would be an unnecessary purchase and impossible in reality.

Conservatives and skeptics: we invite you to jump in and take on the food stamps challenge. If you do, you'll find yourself eating your own words … because you need the calories.

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."

Daily Show on the real life Hunger Games

The sequester quietly forced $5 billion in cuts to food stamps on November 1. The GOP wants another $40 billion cut over 10 years. The Dems knocked that down to only $4 billion in cuts.

The "Hunger Games" analogy used by "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" was too easy a target. Yet the segment illustrated how little we are paying attention to the loss of food stamps when they are desperately needed.

Jessica Williams helped us see this distopian view of the hungry by introducing us to Forbes columnist John Tamny.

"Food stamps are cruel," says Tamny. Not as cruel as starving or being forced to go hungry while making sure your kids are fed.

Conservatives think food stamps are "cruel" because they promote dependence. Except every statistic shows this isn't true, but this is about political theory, not the truth.

"If people were literally starving, you would see a massive outpouring of charity to make up that fact," Tamny notes. Except we haven't. Williams contrasts the $80 billion in government funding versus the $5 billion in charitable donations.

Conservatives would be in the streets protesting to charities to do more to contribute. Except they aren't.

"Media is going to do a good job of exposing people starving or in need," Tamny observes. Except they aren't.

Forbes is considered the media; we must have missed the huge number of stories Forbes has written on the topic. Tamny lives in Washington, DC, but hasn't seen people starving or in need. Those windows must be pretty tinted on his ride home.

The food stamps cuts, short-term and long-term, haven't been covered in great detail. People who are suffering aren't visible. Tamny wants us to wait to see shrunken bellies, like a Sally Struthers commercial for world hunger. We should strive to do better than wait for that extreme.

As disturbing as Tamny's views are, he represents a power base in Washington that has little regard for those who don't get enough to eat. As much as the GOP resembles Scrooge, the Dems aren't fighting very hard to help those in need. The status quo from before November 1 would be a significant improvement for those in need.

Yes, if Tamny's utopia did exist, people would get help from private charity. Then again, the minimum wage would be higher so people could afford food. The GOP would take the subsidies for the rich in the farm bill and put that back into food stamps.

Until that happens, people who either get help or they will starve. Real-life hunger is no game.

What's Tempting: Chicago pizza

Jon Stewart presents a world where there are only two different kinds of pizza: New York pizza and Chicago pizza. Except that Chicago pizza isn't pizza.

New York pizza for Jon Stewart is the only pizza. In Chicago, Chicago pizza is the best pizza.

Stewart took the debate further about Chicago pizza, proclaiming that it wasn't pizza. Probably in the same fashion that I made fun of the poutine fest for serving dishes that didn't resemble poutine.

The food revolution seems to be about taking what was and putting a unique spin on a dish. "Fusion" is a loved and hated word in the food spectrum.

But we often forget about what made that food great in the first place: simplicity.

A fish taco is grilled or fried fish with cabbage and mayo and garnish. I've seen some very cool fish tacos that deviate on taste, but present similar ingredients. The mayo is still there but now has a new spice kick.

New York pizza is similar to Italian pizza, but has enough variation. A really thin crust is subjective; some love the thinness, while others truly want a thicker crust.

Chicago pizza has crust, tomatoes, sausage, spinach, and cheese, but presents them in an inflated state. Pizza, yes, but more like pizza pie. Yes, New York pizza is often called pizza pie. But the Chicago version acts more like a key lime or banana cream pie. And unlike New York pizza, you do need a fork and knife to consume the pizza pie.

The sensitivity to poutine isn't about the ability to change the dish into something completely different. People should discover what poutine is first and then you can play with variations.

Whether you grow up in a large city such as New York or Chicago or a small town, you've had exposure to basic pizza. A national chain, a delivery, a small town treasure — all ways to be exposed to pizza. Bad pizza. Good pizza. But you learn pizza, at least the U.S. version of what pizza looks like.

A Italian from Italy would look at the U.S. version of pizza and laugh and/or cry. Turns out the "American" version of pizza isn't terribly authentic. Someday, I hope to try pizza in Italy and taste a true authentic version. Having had poutine in Montreal, I have a good idea about what poutine should be. Even attempts in the United States that try to stick to the classic formula fall short.

My variation on pizzas is out of necessity than vanity. Can't tolerate mozzarella cheese, so most conventional pizzas, regardless of geography, are ineligible for my palette.

While there are a few places that will help me out, my best option is make it my way. My usual go-to pizza is tomato puree on the crust, basil and red pepper for the spice, then I'll pile on sauteed mushrooms, green pepper, shallots, and, sometimes, garlic. Anchovies are optional, olives are occassional. Well-grown sausage almost always is on the pizza. A nice scattering of pecorino romano is a rare option, though not more than a light dusting.

Pizza lovers would look at my pizza and recoil in horror. You can actually see the ingredients on the pizza. New York pizza lovers would ask where the cheese went; Chicago pizza lovers would wonder if I needed to cover my pizza's exposed elements.

When I bite into my pizza, I can taste the ingredients and the rich combination of flavors. No mild cheese to hide things; no playing "where are the toppings." And when I'm done, I feel satisfied but not weighed down.

My pizza is still pizza. Their pizza is pizza. Yes, mine doesn't have cheese, but mine has tomatoes and toppings on crust.

Poutine has fries, cheese curds, and gravy. Some versions are minus potatoes, others include cheese but not curds, and the definition of gravy is iffy. If you want to descretate the original poutine, call it out as a variation. Southern poutine, red-eye poutine, and what most have them should be called, hipster poutine.

By labeling New York pizza and Chicago pizza, these people recognize that these are variations of pizza. But they have distinct titles. We know what we are getting with Chicago pizza and New York pizza. Using the "poutine" label should mean some form of fries, cheese curds, and gravy. And know that if you don't, you'll be called out as the poser you are.