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.
The disconnect between people who need food assistance and those who don't seek food assistance is often tied back to shame. They don't want to be seen as needing a food handout.
Given the millions of people who fall short of where they need to be from a food standpoint, shame should be the last consideration. The reality is that solutions need to factor in the shame quotient.
The little free pantry is based on the concept of the little free library. In the library, you can take a book, return a book, donate a book. No witnesses are needed; this works on the honor system.
The little free pantry in the photos is on the grounds of a neighborhood church. The pantry works similar to the library. If you need the food, you can take the food. If you want to donate food, you can donate food. Once again, no witnesses and we are on the honor system. Taking the food isn't a handout and no one has to know.
If you are unsure about using the free pantry, if you are there when someone you know approaches, you can always say you were dropping off food, even if you wanted to get the food for yourself.
Maybe you bought too much of something at the store or you bought the wrong item for your meal. Just donate the food to the free pantry.
You can donate food to regular food banks and food pantries, but perhaps you are too shy to do so in person. Free pantries allow people to donate food without drawing attention to themselves.
The one real drawback is that food has to be shelf-stable to survive any time in the pantry. That is a reasonable condition.
If you haven't been to a food pantry or food bank, you might have the impression of the clients. These days, clients come in every color of the rainbow, every gender, creed, origin, height, sexual orientation, and weight.
In fact, the more people who feel comfortable to come forward, the stronger we can be to reduce the stigma of food assistance and fight harder to improve conditions so fewer of us go hungry.
Until that happens, the little free pantry can be a tool to get help for those who feel shame to need food assistance.
Thinking about the Island of Misfit Toys might seem a bit early but those misfit toys come to mind when thinking about ugly produce. The fruits and vegetables have been judged to less than ideal but they still deserve a home.
The wrong shape, a minor bruise, not red enough: produce that grocery stores won't carry, won't put out on shelves to be bought by consumers.
Companies such as Imperfect Produce are trying to play Santa to give these misfits a home.
If you do most of your produce shopping at grocery stores, you might think "ugly" produce is ugly on the inside. You would have to be convinced that ugly can mean beautiful and that ugly is worth buying.
Being trapped in the corporate world means you likely have seen a fruit tray with absolutely gorgeous strawberries completely out of season. They look so good but when you taste them, they have no taste.
Less than ideal produce has the opposite problem: Cinderella before the ball. Beautiful on the inside but no way to show her outer beauty.
There is a level of criticism that groups such as Imperfect Produce make a profit off of less than perfect produce leaving fewer items to be donated to food banks.
While some of the criticism has legs, ideally there would be plenty of options to give rid of this level of food waste. And more people hired to pick that produce that can be saved.
Second Harvest in Canada collects surplus foods and donates that food to social agencies. The organization's Web site — foodrescue.ca — helps join businesses with food with Second Harvest to find a better home for that produce.
Saving food is half the battle. The other half is changing the perception of less than ideal fruits and vegetables.
We have no issue eating applesauce, even if some of those apples are less than ideal. We have no issue for babies eating strained carrots, even if some of those carrots are less than ideal.
We have previously mentioned about asking (politely) farmers at farmers markets if they have any less than ideal produce. Your spaghetti sauce won't know the difference if you used less than ideal looking tomatoes.
Less than perfect produce can be donated to food banks and food pantries, though you should check their local rules to see if they were take produce. Their clients, well everybody, should get guidance on how to make the best of their newfound beauty.
In the world of supermodels and lists of the most handsome men, convincing ourselves to make good use of less than ideal produce is a significant challenge. Lower costs would be a primary reason to buy less than perfect produce.
The telenovela Betty La Fea, later adapted to the U.S. TV show Ugly Betty, showed us that ugly was often more beautiful than pretty was. We could have a TV show called Ugly Produce with braces on peaches. The Food Network and/or Cooking Channel could run promos in between shows on advantages to using ugly produce. Give ugly produce a PBS show. Have people brag about how their excellent dish was made with the ugliest produce in similar ways to people who brag about thrift purchases on a dress or coat. What if the Great British Bake Off adopted Great Ugly Produce Baking?
The idea of the Island of Misfit Toys was that yes, the toys were not ideal but a water pistol that shoots grape jelly, a cowboy riding an ostrich, a Charlie in the box, and a spotted elephant had some value. The less than ideal produce has some value. Maybe that produce, like the toys, are only misfits in perception, not reality.
Do you love food and eating food but hate the idea of undocumented immigration? As Full Frontal with Samantha Bee points out, if you feel this way, you will starve pretty quickly.
Samantha Bee, a documented immigrant herself (she's from Canada) guides us through a path of undocumented immigrants in kitchens. We stop in Philadelphia where Cristina Martinez runs a popular barbacoa restaurant. Martinez is undocumented but was willing to go on camera. (Bee talked later to other undocumented restaurant employees who didn't want their identity revealed.)
Martinez explains in Spanish that she came to the United States to escape her abusive now ex-husband.
Bee also incorporates fellow immigrant Padma Lakshmi, host of Top Chef. Lakshmi talked about the importance of immigrants to restaurants and how they want the same things everyone else wants.
"I think the food landscape in this country would be completely different without immigrant labor," said Lakshmi. "We all have a responsibility to reach down and pull up the people who really break their back for you day in and day out."
The financial reality is that restaurants rely on undocumented immigrants for success. So do farmers to help pick the crops that you enjoy in the grocery store and the restaurant.
You can certainly choose to disagree on what to do with undocumented immigrants but you should acknowledge the realities of the current food system and the impact if these people weren't here.
At the end of the segment, Bee mentioned thegivingkitchen.org, the recipient of proceeds for a T-shirt filled with "thank you" in multiple languages. She noted that the organization provides financial assistance to restaurant workers in crisis.
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee airs Wednesday nights at 10:30 pm Eastern on TBS.
video and photo credit: Full Frontal with Samantha Bee/TBS
If you need a long-shelf life for your regular milk, you might be excited that you are seeing expiration dates longer into the future. We are seeing this especially in organic milk.
However, those longer shelf-lives come as a result of the milk going through the process of ultra high temperature (UHT) or being ultra-pasteurized. Are the advantages of organic milk being compromised by being UHT?
I learned the different pasteurization techniques via Alton Brown on an episode of Good Eats. The conventional process is 145°F for 30 minutes. Brown referenced HTST pasteurization (high temperature/short time), which is 161°F for 15 seconds. UHT is 280°F for 2 seconds and then cooled quickly.
Brown noted that low and slow is the way to go because it produces better flavor and body.
Nutrition is more important than taste, but a better tasting milk means more milk will be consumed, especially by children. Drinking milk is also about health above and beyond calcium and protein.
Scouring the Internet won't take you long to find articles about the evils of UHT pasteurization, such as altering the milk protein structure is altered and that UHT milk has less folate and could have reduced Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, and Thiamin.
According to Lee Dexter, microbiologist and owner of White Egret Farm goat dairy in Austin, Texas, ultra-pasteurization is an extremely harmful process to inflict on the fragile components of milk. Dexter explains that milk proteins are complex, three-dimensional molecules, like tinker toys. They are broken down and digested when special enzymes fit into the parts that stick out. Rapid heat treatments like pasteurization, and especially ultra-pasteurization, actually flatten the molecules so the enzymes cannot do their work. If such proteins pass into the bloodstream (a frequent occurrence in those suffering from "leaky gut," a condition that can be brought on by drinking processed commercial milk), the body perceives them as foreign proteins and mounts an immune response. That means a chronically overstressed immune system and much less energy available for growth and repair.
If you like raw milk or want to have the milk as little pasteurized as possible, UHT milk goes to the other extreme.
The UHT process doesn’t add nutrition to the process. UHT milk isn’t safer than regular pasteurization. The primary advantage to UHT is that grocery stores can increase profits. Less milk to throw out and more people will buy milk with a longer shelf life.
You can drink regular milk past the expiration date. Unless you take a long time to consume a container of milk, you almost never have to worry about spoilage. And if you need a long-term, shelf-stable milk, you can buy non-dairy milk.
Your food can be “too safe.” The U.S. has allowed irradiation of ground beef since 1999. Health Canada approved irradiation of ground beef last year but that information must be declared on the label. Irradiated ground beef might be "safe" but I wouldn't want to eat that beef.
We praise Europe’s food process, but the UHT wave comes from Europe. You might remember the Parmalat milk from the 1990s. Finding UHT milk is much easier in Europe, but then again, raw milk is easier to find in Europe.
If I’m going to drink milk, I want to get as much complete nutrition as I can in that glass. UHT milk makes buying and drinking milk less worrisome to some people, but provides no worthy reason where nutrition is concerned.
I haven't bought much milk in Canada but I can tell you Canadian milk, in bags or in jugs, is expensive. Canadian eggs and poultry are also quite expensive.
Canada supply management has come up in NAFTA negotiations and the tariffs battle between the United States and Canada. Canada limits production, mostly for internal use, and allows farmers to get a good price for their output.
The American subsidies help consumers more than farmers; the Canadian subsidies help farmers more than consumers. The surprise is the Canadian approach isn't supply management or subsidies, but that they make average Canadians pay. No wonder Canadians cross the border for cheaper American milk.
Eating vegetables have many barriers: Texture, raw vs. cooked, cost, taste. Pesticides are a concern but they shouldn't prevent you from eating vegetables.
A dietitian friend of mine had a social media post that said people were not eating enough fruits and vegetables. I would argue that fruits aren't as much of a concern, but we all agree that we aren't eating enough vegetables.
The next part of the post puzzled me: the Dirty Dozen, Clean 15, and other lists were scaring people away from eating fruits and vegetables. I responded online that people weren't being scared away from fruits and vegetables because of the lists.
To clarify, the Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 type lists break down which fruits and vegetables should be bought as organic vs. conventionally grown. The lists are also helpful in what isn't on them. They suggest buying organic for certain fruits and vegetables. If a fruit or vegetable isn't on that list, then the lists tell us you don't have to be as concerned. The lists should increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables by giving consumers information to make safer and better choices.
The reply was that people were scared and this study was the proof.
"We surveyed 510 low-income shoppers to learn about their attitudes about organic and conventional fruits and vegetables (FV) and what would happen if we provided them with information about organic and conventional growing practices from a variety of sources. In general, participants preferred organic FV; however, cost was a significant barrier to purchase them. Informational statements about organic and conventional FV did not increase participants' likelihood to purchase more FV. In contrast, messages naming specific FV with pesticides shifted participants toward 'less likely' to purchase any type of FV regardless whether organically or conventionally grown. The results provide insight about how low-income people view FV and how communications may influence their purchase intention."
The study focuses on the impact of communications on purchase intention. The flaw in the study is that the information is incomplete and without context. Let's look at 3 major areas of concern:
People are scared of the idea of pesticides without knowing a whole lot. Let's start with a dose of reality: conventional-grown produce has pesticides. Organic produce can and often has pesticides. The difference is which pesticides are used, how much of the pesticide is being used, and whether or not those pesticides are outlawed in other parts of the world.
Farmers markets sell produce that often is grown to organic standards without being certified organic in part due to cost and tedious paperwork. Produce at those markets are usually cheaper than certified organic products in a grocery store. Some farmers markets take food assistance funds (food stamps) as payment.
The study doesn't address hydroponic vegetables grown in warehouses without a speck of pesticide.
"In general, participants preferred organic FV; however, cost was a significant barrier to purchase them." We hear this quite often that "organic" means "too expensive." Sometimes, this is true but the marketplace has shifted quite a bit. Trader Joe's, for those who are near one, and even conventional stores carry organic foods at more reasonable prices.
The U.S. consumer complains about high food prices. In a world comparison, U.S. food prices are pretty low compared to similar countries but U.S. wages have been stagnant in terms of buying power for 40 years. The cost difference between conventional and organic may seem too high for some consumers but may depend on accessibility to cheaper organic food.
You have to develop your own system for buying fruits and vegetables that fit your nutritional, physical, and psychological concerns. You might want to support local farmers. You might not care where your fruits and vegetables got their start. The marketplace is large enough for all types of decisions.
You might enjoy rinsing and cleaning your fruits and vegetables and figure this is the price you pay for buying relatively cheaper produce. You can choose to follow the clean organic lists such as the Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 for some produce and be more open in other areas of produce.
You might not have enough time or money to do anything more than shop in one huge place where organic is a pipe dream. Everybody in all these scenarios and more have an obligation to themselves to consume fruits and vegetables.
Frozen or canned fruits and vegetables can be a wonderful option for consumers. With canned fruits and vegetables, rinsing canned fruit (for ingredients that aren't juice) and vegetables (too much sodium) is a really good idea. Fresh fruit and vegetables can be an amazing supplement when in season whether growing them yourself, getting them at farmers markets, or at the local supermarket.
The ultimate reason you will eat those fruits and vegetables is taste. People who pick organic or farmers markets usually find that the taste of fruits and vegetables is better. They might pay more but they are more likely to eat those fruit and vegetables. Nutrition only counts if you eat what you buy.
For those 510 low-income people in Chicago (a significant scientific flaw in the study for using 510 people all from one location: Chicago), we have good news. You can use food assistance funds in select farmers markets. There are beautiful hydroponic vegetables growing in warehouses in your city without a drop of pesticides.
The United States makes food shopping rather difficult because of the Wild West mentality that food companies can try to sneak things past you that you don't want in your family's food supply. Being diligent has to be a part of the food shopping process. You have to learn about what is out there and make your own smart decisions that work with your core values. And yes, you have to eat your fruits and vegetables.
Separating Monsanto and glyphosate from the overall concept of genetic engineering, the fear against those GMOs has a lot to do with mistrust of the food system. The FDA standard of GRAS — generally regarded as safe — makes a lot of people feel unsafe.
Some people have certainly taken advantage of people's fears to make money and to spread more fear. The forum that followed the Food Evolution film didn't really talk much about the film. The primary connection with the film focused on condescending views about economic incentives driving people to speak poorly about GMOs i.e., glyphosate. This ignores that Monsanto does the same thing.
Food Evolution has very little to justify the use of glyphosate. The forum wasn't that much better. They said that scientists spoke up initially about the positive nature of GMOs. I tend to believe them but those voices were pretty soft and didn't address Monsanto or glyphosate. When I asked at the forum about the advantages of Monsanto and glyphosate to the average consumer, the primary answer was the environmental impact of no-till agriculture.
The people who think the United States has the safest food supply are puzzled as to why people are concerned about the food they eat. Those who live in the United States who go to farmers markets and try to eat organic, or close to organic, are puzzled why their voices are buried in the avalanche that is the status quo.
Before the film and the forum, my hope was for a middle path, something between the extremes.
The concern over glyphosate is also tied to the concern over monocultures, big farms that produce massive manure runoffs that cause e-coli scares in vegetables as well as the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Small farmers who use better growing techniques end up with better-tasting, more nutritious food for those who can afford to buy this food and have reasonably easy access.
Shopping at Wal-Mart is easier than going to Whole Foods. Rolling over and blindly buying food is simple. Turn off your brain and buy high-fructose corn syrup made from GMO corn. Farmers markets aren't as easy to random shop on a one-time basis; the benefits are greater if you go on a regular basis.
Do people who are conscious about their food do so to be liberal or pretentious? Do they work harder, read more food labels, spend more money and time to stand out in a crowd?
Grocery shopping is a lot easier in Europe. You do have to read some food labels but most food isn't hiding ingredients that are less than stellar. You do have to watch for UHT in Europe so buying milk requires a bit more thought. Then again, "food safety" people in the United States couldn't handle the idea of nonrefrigerated eggs and raw milk for sale.
"Furthermore, almost all of the foods currently produced using genetic engineering are useless at best and harmful at worst: 'GMOs' are mostly present in junk food, which you want to avoid anyway."
Mark Bittman and David L. Katz supplied that answer in a conversation about food and nutrition. The answer is simple: the more wholesome food you buy, the fewer labels you have to read. High-fructose corn syrup from GMO corn can't be found in products without labels.
Shopping on the outside edge of the grocery store still requires some thought, even without labels. "Natural" and "grass-finished" are very unhelpful terms in the meat department. You might buy organic apples but maybe not bananas.
The general consensus of eating as close to natural as one can is the overall best direction to head in established your own balance of food. The more truly natural you eat, the less GMOs (i.e., glyphosate) are a concern to your diet and health.
If you do spend more time at farmers markets this spring, ask them how they deal with their pests or what they feed their animals. If you don't normally spend time at a farmers market, learn what makes them different. Even if your proverbial shopping cart is mostly GMOs, see why people go to farmers markets. If you find yourself being anti-GMO, learn about genetic engineering outside of Monsanto and glyphosate.
The middle ground is not directly in the middle. Golden rice might make a world of difference in some parts of the world. You can be in favor of genetic engineering and still be concerned about glyphosate and Monsanto.
"(Monsanto) should have been more transparent (about GMOs) in reaching the public." — Dr. Robert T. Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto.
This statement may win the "duh" award. Monsanto's actions have been a huge force behind people's concerns over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) since they came into force in 1996.
The primary purpose of the Food Evolution film is to make fun of those people who see GMOs as a threat and mocking them for not understanding the nuances of genetic engineering.
The film starts out with the story of the rainbow papaya in Hawaii. The rainbow papaya was nearly wiped out until scientists put a gene into the rainbow papaya and ended up saving the crop. The film notes that one Hawaii county voted to ban GMOs while leaving an exception for the rainbow papaya. The scientists in the film mock their ignorance over not seeing that GE and GMOs are the same technology.
Food Evolution talks about the advantages of genetic engineering such as golden rice, where Vitamin A is added to rice in areas that are deficient in that vitamin, a potential allergy-free peanut, disease-resistant crops, and drought-tolerant crops. The film also explores Uganda bananas with a similar concern as the rainbow papaya in Hawaii. The film puts the blame on anti-GMO proponents for why bananas can't be saved in Uganda.
The people behind Food Evolution don't understand the confusion behind genetic engineering as a concept but you don't have to read too much into the film to see there are some benefits to genetic modification of food. Neil Degrasse Tyson, who narrates this film, should make his own film about the science to help people understand the concept.
Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle are in this film. Their excerpts in the film make them look more like hostages reading off a script. The statements are brief and offer absolutely no context to anything else they might have said in the interview. Both Pollan and Nestle have complained about the editing of the film.
Director Scott Hamilton Kennedy employs a number of questionable edits and choices in the film to put opponents in bad light that make viewers uncomfortable, even if you are likely to agree on the subject.
The Washington Post science journalist Tamar Haspel is in the film. I don't always agree with Haspel but was curious to see where she was on the topic. Haspel tells us that "we make decisions based on our gut." Not very scientific. Haspel doesn't contribute anything of science in the film, an odd omission and a bit disappointing. Given that she has an opinion on most everything, viewers can infer that her answers didn't suit the message of the film.
Kennedy brushes off the story of Monsanto suing farmers over the patents of their seeds. He implies that this really comes down to one case in Canada and that farmer had a lot of Monsanto seeds that he just didn't want to pay for. A very simple Google search with legitimate news sources would tell you Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers in the United States over the patents of seeds. One case involving Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman went to the Supreme Court of the United States; Monsanto won that case. Again, the facts are easy to prove. So why lie about a small thing such as this?
The film spends a bit of time about a Gilles-Eric Seralini study on tumors in rats. The scientists blame GMO fears off this specific study. The scientists make a common mistake assuming regular people have a specific study as a reason for being concerned about GMOs. Maybe their concerns about the study are quite legitimate. The problem is that refuting one study or so-called expert doesn't win you an argument.
Food Evolution goes after Dr. Oz a lot. A Venn diagram would find some common areas of those who question Dr. Oz and are anti-GMOs. The film goes out of its way to mock people such as Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America, Jeffrey Smith, and the Food Babe.
The folks with March Against Myths challenge Honeycutt on the streets in downtown Chicago. The filmmakers think March Against Myths won the argument hands down, but the consensus is that neither side dealt well with their argument.
A primary argument against Moms Against America and the Food Babe revolve around products they sell on their Web sites. This is one of many moments in the film where the viewers would shrug and say "so what."
Mark Lynas is a food science journalist who switched from being anti-GMO to now being pro-GMO. Lynas apologized for vandalizing field trials of genetically engineered crops. He says in the film that if we were totally organic, we would have to get rid of the rainforest to feed the world's population. That last sentence seems more hyperbole than science not to mention that the rainforest is already being destroyed even with GMOs.
Food Evolution does reflect briefly on the dominance of Monsanto and other similar players with 90%-93% of GMO dominance of corn, soybeans, and cotton. You can like Monsanto and still be concerned about those statistics.
Food Evolution makes the argument that glyphosate is better than other pesticides. The film mentions that glyphosate has a LD50 mark of 5600 mg/kg, which by that measurement makes it less toxic than either caffeine or table salt. That sounds too impressive. But this is the only measurement that is in the film.
The film spends about 2-3 minutes on organic farming. The talk is positive about organic but does point out that the "challenge is producing food on a large scale." This speaks to the theoretical advanced yields of GMOs, which relates back to the Lynas rainforest comment.
The film concludes with a debate from Intelligent Squared in New York City in late 2014. The question is over genetically modified food: yes or no.
Status
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
Before
32
30
38
After
60
31
9
Those numbers look really great for the pro-GMO side. The debate parallels the film in that the acceptance of genetic modification is an implied consent to glyphosate and Monsanto. You can watch the full debate and see for yourself.
The film runs a graphic about net sales of Whole Foods vs. Monsanto. The Whole Foods number is slightly higher. No context is given but the implied message is along the lines of Whole Foods is also a big scary corporation.
The companies are set up very differently. Whole Foods has to deal with brick-and-mortar locations, delivery issues, petty theft, and dealing with consumers. Monsanto and other similar players have a 90%-93% dominant market share where farmers are forced to buy their product every year. And the more resistant weeds are developed, the more Roundup has to be bought, increasing sales.
This "liberals are afraid of large corporations" argument is confusing at best. Apple Corporation is only one of many arguments against the concept. Liberals might be afraid of some large corporations but they are very afraid of Monsanto.
Nothing in this review or the film spells in a definitive manner whether glyphosate, Roundup, or Monsanto is beneficiary to the public. Food Evolution makes a good and fairly solid reasoning for exploring genetically modified food and the potential benefits. Past that, the film suffers from bad or awkward editing to make opponents look clueless and stupid. At other points, the film is plain dishonest.
Most films on food do promote organic and similarly grown methods. The difference with those films is that they are more positive about the attributes of their leanings and they want to inform those who do not believe instead of making fun of them. Food Evolution could use some of that etiquette and a lot nicer editing process.
The more knowledgeable you are about the food supply, the easier you can follow the truth and the hype in Food Evolution. But if you already are that smart about the food supply, chances are you won't learn much from the film.
I've seen a number of films that profess the wonders of growing organic. Being anti-GMO is part of the drill.
Food Evolution is a film that tells us GMOs are good. The truth lies somewhere in between but is that closer to this new film?
As part of a lunch-and-learn series this month, we will see the film broken up in 2 different sessions followed by a discussion on the topic.
The films I've seen want the truth. Food Evolution wants the truth. As we've learned about freedom on this food blog, truth seems to be in the eye of the beholder. While the definition of freedom will always have different hues, truth should be black and white.
There may be a section of anti-GMOs proponents who are also against genetic engineering of any kind. Most of the anti-GMO crowd can handle what happened to the rainbow papaya in Hawaii, where inserting genes from another plant helped bring back the plant to life. Given that GMOs work in a similar way to genetic engineering (GE), you might wonder about splitting hairs but this argument isn't as much about the technology but how that technology is being used. In other words, genetic engineering has some validity; Monsanto's use of said technology doesn't have validity.
Golden rice, adding beta-carotene (Vitamin A) to rice, as well as developing disease-resistant and drought-tolerant crops are examples of genetic engineering that have great potential, with the emphasis on potential to be a positive force in improving nutrition around the world.
These films have a point of view. How that point of view is presented speaks volumes about their own case. If you have the truth on your side, using propaganda techniques doesn't help your cause. BalanceofFood is a journalism blog so we don't like propaganda even if we agree with the message.
We will have a review of the film later this month as well as a wrapup of the discussion early in April.
Important to understand processed food exists on a spectrum. Slicing an apple in half is one end; Pop-Tarts on the other. We need nuance when talking about processed food, hence the term 'ultraprocessed'. Yes, technically cooking quinoa is 'processing', I get it. Not the point.
Processed food can be considered a bogeyman of sorts. Dietitians tell us to eat around the outside edge of the grocery store. But what happens when a good dietitian asks us to rethink processed food in a positive way? Let's find out.
"All foods (with a few exceptions) are processed. It’s simply not possible, convenient, or even healthy to avoid all processed foods."
You could do rather well without processed foods. You would need tons of time and money. Fruits, vegetables, meat, fish in their natural state sound appealing. Milk and butter might fit her definition of processed food, but most people don't think of milk and butter as “processed food.” If you pick well, you could eat quite healthy without processed foods.
"The Industrial Revolution is what allowed us to achieve these important qualities in our food system. Food ingredients, from ones that are centuries old to ones more recently developed, help make possible a safe, convenient, healthful, flavorful and affordable food supply. By processing food and incorporating different ingredients, we are able to enjoy safer food (through the use of preservatives, like ascorbic acid, i.e., vitamin C), higher-quality food (which stays fresh longer), more nutritious food (by enriching with various nutrients), and more delicious food (enhanced taste and texture through flavors, spices, emulsifiers, etc.)"
Yes, the food industry and consumers have benefited from the Industrial Revolution. The objections to processed food have more to do with the last 40 years than the previous 100 years. And we aren’t worried about ascorbic acid.
We do have more enriched food than ever before but that is because we strip so many nutrients from food. A loaf of whole wheat bread from 100 years ago has a lot more nutrients but won’t last as long on the shelf as Wonder Bread. That classic loaf of bread isn't made artificially sweet with lots of high-fructose corn syrup. I'm picking the older loaf even if I know I had to eat it up much quicker.
Our dietitian friend brings in a food historian and author:
"Farm products are not food; they are the raw materials for food. Turning plants and animals into something edible is just as difficult, just as laborious as farming itself."
Uh, farm products are food. Raw food but still food. Cutting up animals as "processed food" is a very odd definition. A steak or a pork tenderloin doesn't have chemicals and artificial colors and preservatives. I have enough respect for farmers to know their work is more laborious than minimal processing of plants and animals.
"Very few of our calories come from raw, unprocessed food. And if those calories are from fruits and vegetables, then it's only because centuries of breeding has [sic] made them less chewy, more tasty, and easier to digest."
She is correct on the first part. That's not a good statement but it's true. So hundred of years of breeding fruits and vegetables is the same as processed food, equal to processed food? That is rethinking processed food but not in a helpful way.
"Cooking, which is one part of processing, went hand in hand with becoming human. Human food is processed food."
The idea of taking raw ingredients and cooking them is a healthy step to avoid processed food. If cooking from raw ingredients counts as "processed food," then you've made a mockery of the term "processed food."
We are told by dietitians that you don't have to eat fresh fruits and vegetables; frozen fruits and vegetables can help out. By the definition of these two people, frozen fruits and vegetables are "processed food."
The design of this article appears to diminish the legitimate concerns about what is in our food supply by dragging in the Industrial Revolution and lumping butter and milk with heavily preserved items in the middle of the store.
Not all of us will make our own ketchup or mayonnaise but we can buy smarter versions of these products. Sometimes, we will choose a more processed bread but we should know there are better alternatives out there. Chances are you don't use castoreum, high-fructose corn syrup, or food dyes when you cook at home.
Avoiding "processed food" by the standard definition is difficult, but a smarter consumer can pay more attention and make wiser choices in the processed food world. This advice might sound better coming from a dietitian, but sometimes agendas are in conflict.
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.
