Balance of Food

Daily Show addresses increased junk food in school lunches

The news on American school lunches has not been good since January 20, 2017. Roy Wood Jr. and The Daily Show team along with Margo Wootan, vice president for nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, compare and contrast the school lunch approach under Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

"Flavored chocolate milk" returned to the menu.

The segment allows Wooten to paint a picture of what lunch was like not so long ago. Food "is supposed to help you learn, not make them fall asleep," Wootan explained. "We give kids choices but all of those choices need to be healthy."

CSPI’s @MargoWootan discusses school lunch with @roywoodjr on @TheDailyShow: Trump administration putting politics before kids’ health by rolling back school nutrition standards. https://t.co/p9v066dV7n

— CSPI (@CSPI) May 7, 2019

She notes that the previous lunch program would reduce childhood obesity numbers by 2 million kids and save $800 million in health care costs.

"Three-quarters of kids who get school lunches come from low-income families," Wootan noted.

Wood takes on a drill sergeant motif to convince the kids to not eat the junk food. Wood's mantra of "nutrition now, nutrition tomorrow, nutrition forever" is a homage to "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" from George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address in Wood's home state of Alabama.

This illustration gives a sharp contrast filled with subtlety. The color of the bun indicates more whole grains and leaner meats have less visible fat. Carrots vs. French fries is a bit more obvious, even if Wood points out the potatoes also grow in the ground. Carrots are high in natural sugar compared to most vegetables but checks off more nutrition boxes than French fries.

The pictured chocolate milk in the segment is skim milk, robbing kids of fat from milk that can make them feel more full.

Blanche Lincoln, who worked hard to cut school lunch increase, lost her Senate race

Chipping away at the few school lunch gains under Barack Obama

Donald Trump wants to gut food safety regulations

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on how they approach food

5 questions you should ask presidential candidates about U.S. food policy

BalanceofFood.com school lunch coverage

BalanceofFood.com Daily Show coverage

Just so this story isn't completely depressing, Higher Ground, Barack and Michelle Obama's production company, is working on a half-hour series for Netflix called Listen to Your Vegetables & Eat Your Parents. The program will “take young children and their families around the globe on an adventure that tells us the story of our food.”

Since the show is aimed at kids, this might be an animated series though that is purely speculation.

We have said, even during the Obama Administration, that government can only do so much to instill better eating habits. A Netflix show can help more than the current regime.

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah airs Monday-Thursday on Comedy Central.

video and photo credit: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Twitter capture: @CSPI

Backlash against fear-based food marketing is the real fear

Fear-based food marketing has taken over: gluten-free, non-GMO, antibiotic-free & more. Learn more about what to look for on food labels in @drsusanmitchell's 8-minute interview with me for her Breaking Down Nutrition for Medical Professional podcast. https://t.co/iqT7WB9U97

— Neva Cochran, MS, RD (@NevaRDLD) December 28, 2018

"let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933 Inaugural Address.

There is fear-based food marketing, such as calling something "natural" where there is no standard definition. As we see above, the movement by some dietitians isn't about that kind of confusion. Their fear is that consumers will avoid products with GMOs, antibiotics, and hormones.

The bigger question is why those dietitians spend so much time with their own level of fear.

An item identified as gluten-free is informational. There is not fear in something being without gluten. Those who are more sensitive have the fear of buying a product that can do them harm, especially over cross-contamination concerns. "Gluten-free" does not inspire fear.

A lot of people want to know if products contain GMOs, especially glyphosate from Monsanto. There is a concern of eating foods that contain glyphosate. If you don't care, you have no concern.

People concerned over the abundant use of antibiotics are fearful of antibiotics not working for them when they need them. People are concerned about eating animals and consuming their byproducts if the food they are eating contains antibiotics and hormones.

People who exhibit legitimate fear are underdogs in a situation. Those who support glyphosate, antibiotics, and hormones are in the vast majority of U.S. food policy. The easiest thing is to eat all of those things. When the most powerful exhibit fear and try to transfer their fear onto others, that is unsettling.

Have you noticed how the marketing of food has changed? Whoever thought fear mongering would be a part of it? I'm not talking about cibophobia or the fear of food that's a complicated phobia rather fear-based marketing and how it affects food choices. Choose food, not fear.

Let's say one of your patients or clients picks up a can of some vegetable at the store and sees words and symbols on the label that might include all-natural, no msg, gluten-free, antibiotic-free, made in the USA, non-bpa liner or non-GMO ingredients. Some of these terms are vague or have no legal meaning. What really bugs me is a label that states a product is non-GMO or gluten-free when it never would contain those things to begin with. So does a label like this suggest that the competitor next to it on the shelf may contain all those ingredients so you better not choose it? Is this fear-based marketing when the potential lack of consumer knowledge along with fear of certain ingredients and a label of symbols and words leads someone to grab one product over another?

This Dr. Susan Mitchell excerpt mentioned in the tweet at the top of this column furthers the paranoia. A product could put a label that says non-GMO as a benefit but there are few food products on the shelves that absolutely couldn't have GMOs. Anything that potentially has a sweetener could have GMO-filled high-fructose corn syrup, especially in a product category that shouldn't be sweet.

The dietitians on the podcast say consumers should ignore those concerns and worry about whether foods have fat or sodium or vitamins.

What's Tempting: GMO-free Cheerios

BalanceofFood.com U.S. food policy coverage

We should be thankful that consumers want to know what is in their food. There are a lot of ingredients hidden behind "natural flavor" (e.g., castoreum from the back side of the beaver is "natural flavor") and "artificial flavor." If a product doesn't lend itself to glyphosate, but you find out later that your Cheerios has been sprayed with glyphosate, you won't find out on the food label.

Information on the front of food labels can be sleight of hand, such as advertising "no trans fat" on milk containers. Most consumers know the back of the food label is most significant; when added sugars is finally on the label, consumers will be even wiser.

Dietitians go to school and gain significant knowledge. They should be pressing for fun and interesting ways to eat fruits and vegetables instead of wasting resources on sucking up to corporate food masters.

photo credit: Texas Farm Bureau

How to protect yourself since USDA declares 'pink slime' as 'ground beef'

The USDA, looking out for your corporations' best interest, has ruled that "pink slime" can now be considered ground beef.

Understand that "pink slime" has been in inferior beef for some time. Just because we knew about it didn't mean pink slime went away. The classification allows company to sell the pink slime by itself if necessary.

In case you didn't remember, according to yourdictionary.com:

Pink slime is defined as finely ground beef scraps, fat and tissue that have been made into a protein paste and treated to kill bacteria, to become a meat additive that is added into ground beef and processed meats as filler.

Ammonia is added to the process. Yum.

'Pink slime' conversions prove that food quality battle is all about PR

USDA needs better reasons to avoid telling us that we're eating pink slime

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

You can avoid pink slime by buying beef from meat growers committed to a well-grown process from what they eat to how they are processed.

You can also get to a better temperature from well-grown meat because the meat will come from a single cow. Processing meat from multiple cows increases chances of e-coli.

The FDA and USDA is not here to protect you from pink slime or e-coli in romaine lettuce. You have to provide your own protection from those who want to sell you inferior meat.

Eat less meat but eat better beef.

photo credit: me

Romaine lettuce can't be a liability in the food supply

The commercial would start out with a black-and-white version of the above photo with an announcer asking us, "Tired of throwing away romaine lettuce over possible e-coli."

Then the commercial would be in color with the solution to help you rid you of e-coli to protect your romaine lettuce.

There is no such product that can help with this sadly off-and-on food safety issue.

While the latest outbreak hit Canada in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, that lettuce and the lettuce in the United States came from the United States. We're #1??

We can't blame Yuma, AZ in the latest outbreak. We have a vague direction of the Central Coastal growing regions of northern and central California. You can track a purchase from Amazon but not the origin of your lettuce.

There is actual talk of labels with a harvest location by region for romaine lettuce products. Even then, the labels won't prevent the e-coli madness but can lead to fewer romaine lettuce heads being thrown out.

If you really are tired of throwing out perfectly good romaine lettuce, here are options for you.

• Stop buying bagged salad. Just stop. Mechanically chopped lettuce is becoming a problem for the potential spread of bad diseases. Tearing apart leaves of romaine lettuce can be done even if you are tired. You will be using fresher lettuce that tastes better.
• Look into hydroponic or greenhouse-grown romaine lettuce. Neither of these were linked to any outbreak. The lettuce will be local and available year-round. Or buy from a trusted local farmer. The lettuce may be more expensive but you'll know where it comes from and has no chance of e-coli runoff from factory farms.
• Don't replace romaine lettuce with iceberg lettuce in those moments. Unless you are eating a wedge salad ironically, you have no need for iceberg lettuce. Discover some really great lettuces. Turns out green leaf is the best friend to any sandwich.
• Badger your Congressperson and senator. Tell them you want to invest in food safety in the United States. Maybe your Congressperson will be someone new in January. Make sure you get that name correct.

"Ill people in this outbreak were infected with E. coli bacteria with the same DNA fingerprint as the E. coli strain isolated from ill people in a 2017 outbreak linked to leafy greens in the United States and to romaine lettuce in Canada. The current outbreak is not related to a spring 2018 multistate outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to romaine lettuce."

This CDC directive refers to multiple recent outbreaks involving lettuce. Lettuce is supposed to be a safe vegetable as a welcome base to salads everywhere. We need to work harder to return to a world where lettuce is safe once again.

Editor's note: This was one of 2 heads of romaine lettuce that I threw away. Food waste is bad but not as bad as getting e.coli.

photo credit: me

How to take the shame out of needing food pantries

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.

photos credit: me

Ugly produce has beauty in the eye of the beholder

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.

Slider Bites: MSNBC focuses on food waste

What's Tempting: Ugly fruits and vegetables

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.

photos credit: me; FoodRescue.ca

The food system is also about who is involved in your food

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

UHT milk provides longer shelf life but nutrition and taste are lost

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.

From the Weston A. Price Foundation:

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.

'Schitt's Creek' amplifies illegality of raw milk

What's Tempting: Finally tasting raw milk

What's Tempting: Fairlife as a milk alternative

What's Tempting: Raw milk from a vending machine

What's Tempting: Raw milk in 2014

Colbert showcases government extreme on addressing raw milk

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.

Farmers benefit more than consumers with Canada supply management

"And they buy our milk at Sam's because Canadian milk is very expensive. True story."

This quote came from a Detroit-area woman who commented on Canadians for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in 2013 as Al Madrigal hosted a segment on the (now-named) Gordie Howe bridge.

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.

Balanceoffood.com Canada food policy coverage

For more details on this story, check out this story from our sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com.

video credit: YouTube/pincstuff
photo credit: Dairy Farmers of Canada

Organic or conventional, you still have to eat fruits and vegetables

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.

photo credit: this site