Balance of Food

Changing definition of processed food doesn't change the concern

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.

— Andy Bellatti MS, RD (@andybellatti) February 4, 2018

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.

Woman's Day exposing food myths led to more food myths

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.

Jamie Oliver, beaver anal gland, hit late-night TV to promote LA version of the 'food revolution'

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.

Twitter capture: @andybellatti
photo credit: here

Cook County repeals excessive penny per ounce soda tax

Cook County soda tax: August 2, 2017-November 30, 2017 RIP

Soft drinks, especially those made with high-fructose corn syrup, are a great concern to the obesity battle. But this onerous soda tax was not a good weapon for this battle.

Too many other beverages were affected from diet drinks to lemonade. Too many beverages were wrongly taxed. Too many people drove to nearby counties or state lines to get their fix for those who could afford to make that drive.

Chicagoans were paying 3 different taxes on regular soft drinks: federal sales tax, a 3% tax in Chicago, and the 1¢/ounce tax since August 2. As of December 1, Chicagoans will still pay 2 taxes on regular soft drinks.

The Cook County Board's Finance Committee — made up of the entire board — voted 15-1 to repeal the tax on Tuesday. The full board voted 15-2 to repeal the tax on Wednesday. The tax will still be collected through the end of November.

Chicagoans pay 3 taxes on soda thanks to Cook County tax

Proposed Cook County soda tax has little to do with health

The Cook County reversal is on the heels of Boulder, CO and its 2¢/ounce tax that kicked in July 1. That tax does not include diet drinks. Details can be found here.

The Seattle City Council approved a 1.75¢/ounce soda tax (not on diet drinks). That tax kicks in January 1, 2018.

San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany (just north of Berkeley in Alameda County) passed soda taxes on November 8, 2016. The taxes have kicked in for Albany and Oakland; the San Francisco tax starts January 1. Each tax is 1¢/ounce.

Santa Fe, NM put a 2¢/ounce tax before the voters in May: 58 percent voted "no." Michigan is considering a bill passed by the Senate to pre-emptively prohibit cities from passing local taxes on food, drinks, and gum. No Michigan city is considering such a law.

For a great chart on soda taxes, click here.

Soda tax success at ballot box; Chicago to get 3 unelected taxes on soda

Philadelphia soda tax covers too much and does too little

Chicago's proposed 'sugary drinks' tax doesn't add up

Too much worry over taxing 'juice drinks and soda'

SF ban on HFCS should open up a dialogue

The TV viewers in the Chicago area were hit with a barrage of ads that were kinder than U.S. political ads but still as annoying. The pro-tax ads were paid for by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. The anti-tax ads came from the American Beverage Association and related interests.

Bloomberg reportedly spent $5 million in ads just on the Cook County soda tax. Factor in a large number for the pro-tax ads. Then take all that combined money and work on those in Congress to get rid of the subsidies for corn products, especially high-fructose corn syrup.

There is a smugness with the soda taxes. They are in predominately liberal areas. As we saw with the Cook County soda tax, those who had cars and the stubbornness to buy the drinks in nearby areas can afford to take a stand. If you don't own a car in Chicago and barely can find a nearby grocery store, you can't afford to take a stand.

Temptation of the Week: Fat tax

BalanceofFood.com local/state food policy coverage

The Michigan action speaks to a larger point. The areas that need help in the obesity battle won't be impacted by soda taxes. The only way they can get help is to have the price of soft drinks reflect their true cost. In a country where vegetables are relatively expensive, soda is cheap. At fast food places, a combo is only slightly more than the cost of a burger and fries. Of course, people are going to drink soda under those circumstances.

Cane-sugar versions are more expensive because sugar prices are artificially high and high-fructose corn syrup prices are artificially low. Until that dynamic changes, no amount of smug soda taxes will make an impact, especially on those who need the most help.

photos credit: me

The maple syrup story as told in a new documentary

My childhood was filled with "syrup" straight from the bottle with the rural wood-based domicile brand name. That syrup went on pancakes made from a mix.

Once I discovered real maple syrup, my taste buds have been enthralled since that point. Even though I love maple syrup, I didn't know much about how the process worked. But I was eager to learn.

The Essence of a Country (Le goût d’un pays) takes you through the path of maple syrup from the taps on the trees to the food on your plate. You might think a documentary on maple syrup would be as exciting as watching maple sap drip into a bucket or the excitement in watching maple sap boil down for hours into what looks a bit like maple syrup.

BalanceofFood.com Canada policy coverage

Francis Legault takes us through the process of maple syrup. The days are long, often 12-16 hours. The sap must be boiled down for hours. The long, specific path to maple syrup is tradition being passed down to generations.

The film also takes us into the world of cabana a sucre, or sugar shack, with large wooden tables full of fabulous food with maple syrup as the common denominator.

For more on this journey through maple syrup, click here for the full story and film review from our sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com.

photo credit: Le goût d’un pays

Chicagoans pay 3 taxes on soda thanks to Cook County tax

If you live in Cook County (Chicago and its inner suburbs), and you like lemonade, you might want to consider making your own thanks to an onerous 1¢ per ounce soda (and more) tax that starts today.

Proposed Cook County soda tax has little to do with health

We wrote about the overbearing "soda tax" last month when there was little to any chance of the tax being put into the system. A judge ruled not on the merits of the tax but whether the county could legally collect the tax. And so people who live in Chicago will be taxed 3 times for soda pop purchases. Those in the county (including Chicago) will pay the onerous 1¢ per ounce soda (and more) tax on lemonade, energy drinks, and yes, diet drinks.

For those of you who applaud soda taxes to fix health, this tax won't help a bit. The money isn't going to health programs. Consumption may go down some but Philadelphia's numbers didn't hit their target.

What is covered under the Cook County soda tax (Cook County)

Instead of further rants (however justified), let's look at alternative solutions:

• Since lemonade and similar drinks are covered, try making your own homemade lemonade. Follow a classic recipe to start but adapt as needed. You can use fresh lemons or buy bottled lemon juice. Don't be limited to regular sugar or even raw or cane sugar. Agave nectar, honey, maple syrup, other fruit juices are ways to sweeten the drink. If you add the sugar, you won't be taxed.
• You could do Sodastream or something similar. The tax on the syrup covers how many ounces of drink, not syrup. The equivalent will weigh less but cost the same per ounce of drink. You can mix to the strength you want.
• Buy a high-quality soft drink. If a 2-liter regular soda is 99¢ and comes with an extra 68¢, the tax will look even more outrageous. If you buy a 12 oz. bottle of soda with cane sugar that costs 99¢, the extra tax is "only" 12¢.
• You could water down your drink to stretch the drink cost over time. I had a friend who would water down her Diet Coke years ago. If your drink is too strong or too sweet, water will diffuse that rather well.
• Find a drink that is similar to soda but not covered by the tax, such as seltzer water.
• You could have fewer soft drinks. Use soft drinks for a special occasion instead of being bored with water.

As of this morning, people in the City of Chicago will pay 3 different taxes on regular soft drinks: sales tax, a 3% city tax, and the 1¢/ounce tax from the county. Even if you hate the idea of soft drinks, you have to admit this is very unfair.

All those people in Cook County also have their taxpayers dollars used to subsidize high-fructose corn syrup. If those subsidies disappeared, fewer people would buy soft drinks with that ingredient. That will truly reduce the obesity impact of soft drinks. If that is the ultimate goal, the cut in subsidies is a better weapon than soda taxes that aren't connected to health solutions.

photos credit: me

Proposed Cook County soda tax has little to do with health

People in Chicago were set to have a soda tax conundrum of magnitude proportions. Grocery tax, a 3% City of Chicago tax, and a Cook County tax charging 1¢ per ounce. That's right. Not a fixed percentage but tied to a measurement.

The Cook County version isn't limited to regular soda but impacts soda and diet soda; ready-to-drink sweetened coffees and teas; sports and energy drinks; and juice products that aren't 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice, among other products.

The latest tax was scheduled for July 1 but has been delayed as we figure out some of the logistical hurdles this new tax would reveal.

Regular readers know I don't like soda taxes, especially since millions of taxpayer dollars are given to the people who make high-fructose corn syrup. Consumers aren't paying the real price for those soft drinks. Want to discourage soda consumption? Zero out those subsidies for high-fructose corn syrup.

The proposed Cook County soda tax, which affects way more than soda, is a horrible economic proposal even in the world of soda taxes.

Soda tax success at ballot box; Chicago to get 3 unelected taxes on soda

Philadelphia soda tax covers too much and does too little

Chicago's proposed 'sugary drinks' tax doesn't add up

Too much worry over taxing 'juice drinks and soda'

SF ban on HFCS should open up a dialogue

The obvious comparison is the Philadelphia soda tax, which has been 1.5¢ per ounce since the beginning of 2017. Both the Philadelphia and potential Cook County soda taxes have brought up the question: What about free refills? What about the ice in a soft drink?

In the Cook County example, the tax is paid by the distributor and has to be passed on to the consumer. In a 32-oz. drink, you could charge 32¢ (48¢ in Philadelphia) tax with or without ice or try and factor in how much ice is in the cup.

Since consumers have to pay the tax, refills can only be done if the business controls the refills and a "free refill" is still 1¢ per ounce.

The syrup is taxed not on the actual amount but how much soda the syrup will create. That is a lot of upfront cost to the business.

At least Philadelphia made an argument for the tax money going to health. Cook County isn't even making that argument.

An exemption will apply to those on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal food stamp program. We see how that might work in the grocery store, but people on SNAP would have to show proof in a restaurant to not pay the tax there. Those people won't find the effort worth stating in public that they are getting help.

As exciting as "free" refills are, these taxes do illuminate the insanity that is the excitement of refills for a product that costs pennies to make. Refills don't cost fast food places a lot of money, especially if they encourage more eating (as sodas tend to do anecdotally). The headache comes not in the cost but collecting a random tax.

We do like the idea of adding a disincentive on "juice cocktails" that try and trick people in buying juice when it's not all juice. Then again, lemonades aren't trying to trick people but are lumped in the same category.

The solution to the latter problem is to reflect the true cost of high-fructose corn syrup. The tax is supposed to be a punishment but if consumers don't understand the impact of high-fructose corn syrup in the drinks in the first place, they aren't learning anything except why Cook County and Philadelphia is being so inefficient in their government structure.

The fact that various random drinks are also taxed at this level. Not a fan of diet drinks ever, but to treat them the same with this onerous tax sends confusing messages.

Then again, the proposed Cook County soda tax has nothing to do with health but is a money grab and one that produces real hardship for businesses.

There is a need to improve the numbers on soft drinks and similarly sweetened beverages. The system has been set up for some time to make soft drinks more alluring because they are artificially cheap. Taxation without education won't change trends on a long-term basis. Long-term changes should be the goal.

Temptation of the Week: Fat tax

BalanceofFood.com local/state food policy coverage

While this would apply to Chicago, the same is true for any American city: 3 different taxes on the same product. That looks ridiculous. We don't like Chicago's 3% tax but by comparison, that tax is reasonable to consumers and businesses alike. The Cook County proposed soda tax covers a larger scope than Chicago but the people of Chicago are already plenty "punished" for taxes on soda.  

Sierra Mist quietly went back to high-fructose corn syrup after switching in a loud fashion. Soft drink makers have come out with cane sugar versions. Ideally, pop or soda would be made with good ingredients and be a treat. Not everyone will make that choice but getting people to that point would mark progress toward a better balance.

photos credit: me

A tale of 2 fast food justification ads from Subway Canada and A&W Canada

This is the story of two fast food chains in Canada. Each restaurant recently ran what I call a justification ad during the NHL Center Ice free preview in early April.

One of these chains ran the ad mostly because of a recent scandal. One of these chains is known to be much healthier than the other one. But which ad was more meaningful? You might be surprised.

Subway Canada chicken comes up short on chicken, according to CBC Marketplace

Subway Canada ran a justification ad after a scandal where a CBC Marketplace investigation revealed that in a lab test, the chicken in the Oven Roasted Chicken Sandwich had an average chicken DNA of 53.6% and the chicken strips in the Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki was 42.8% chicken DNA.

Subway started out talking about fresh vegetables. The visual was small farms, but the wording was peculiar.

"What does quality mean to Subway?" A rather good question.

The ad talks about fresh vegetables day in and day out "partnering with hundreds of growers, including many family-run farms, who deliver over 50 million pounds of vegetables in a year."

You probably heard "family-run farms" or maybe even "family farms." But you certainly got the impression that most of those growers are not family-run farms. And is there a distinction between "family-run farms" and "family farms."

Subway certainly goes through a lot of vegetables, though quantity doesn't mean quality. While I have never eaten at a Subway Canada, I certainly have had quite a few sandwiches in the United States, though not recently. I was never that impressed with the vegetables. The worst tomato slices on a regular basis and iceberg lettuce weren't inspirational.

"100% white meat chicken with seasoning and marinade free of artificial colours and flavours."
"At Subway, we're committed to serving great tasting quality chicken you can feel good about in every bite in every sub every day."

Subway will not let the chicken thing die. Instead of letting the dust settle, the company is suing CBC and running this ad, 2 things I would have advised the company not to do. I would have advised the company to threaten to sue, but only because that convinces enough people that you did sue.

In the Marketplace episode, one person in the focus group thought one of the Subway Canada samples had fake grill marks. That may not fall under "colours and flavours," but still feels a bit weird. The marinade (perhaps) in the competitors only dropped the percentages by 10-15 percentage points.

Subway may be "committed" but the results haven't backed that up. Start out with dubious wording about vegetables that never mentions the quality of the product, and follow it up with what is almost certain to be a lie, and you have an ad that screams "deceiving."

People went back to eating Taco Bell taco filling even after the restaurant troubles. Subway can't leave well enough alone.

Drinks in frosted glass mugs. Makes onion rings fresh every day. "Believes the quality of a burger begins with its beef" meaning raised without the use of hormones/steroids.

"What kind of place cares as much about what goes into their food as how it tastes?"

The premise is pretty weak. Frosted mugs and hand-made onion rings aren't going to dazzle you. And we already knew the beef doesn't have hormones or steroids.

U.S. fast food outlets don't sing about the quality of their food, outside of Wendy's fresh, not frozen, beef.

I haven't had too much food from A&W Canada but the food I have had is fairly recent. I'm not sure their food stacks up as well as they think it does.

But the commercial feels honest, straightforward and not filled with deception, even if the topic is burgers and fries. A&W may not be all that high and mighty but you feel like everything you are told is true.

BalanceofFood.com advertising coverage

You could watch the Subway Canada ad without paying attention, and not know about the scandal, and be convinced that the Subway Canada is the better ad. You could laugh at the idea of a burger and fries place running such a justification ad.

Canadian ads from 2017 spring NHL Center Ice free preview

We have a couple of food ads in the spring update of Canadian ads via the NHL Center Ice free preview.

Swiss Chalet took us on a world flavor tour, including butter chicken. Montana's offered up a 7 oz. steak, no specific cut, with 2 sides for $14.99, a price that seem expensive compared to U.S. prices.

You can find the update here.

video and photo grabs: Subway Canada/A&W Canada

Ranking food and drink Super Bowl LI ads

We saw some really amazingly clever and emotional Super Bowl LI ads. Too bad most of those ads were for cars (I'm no longer in a job that covers cars) and beer. As for the food and drink ads, most of them were okay. But this wasn't the year for food and drink in Super Bowl ads.

The King's Hawaiian Rolls ad was by far the best of the food ads. The ad built on the existing ad campaign of hiding the rolls because they are so good. The dad has a secret compartment in the kitchen not realizing the kid finds them in the grandfather clock. The ad also mentions the new BBQ sauces that are coming this spring. While mixing more than a message in an ad that costs $5.1 million combined with a future message can cut back on the value, the BBQ sauces mention is growth for the company. Presuming this ad will run for awhile, the BBQ sauces become more relevant in the next few months. Just don't make the Blackberry mistake of promoting a product people couldn't get for awhile.

Snickers has a great campaign and has run memorable Super Bowl ads. This was not one of them. Even if you had sound where you were watching the game, the live ad didn't stand out at all. The Western theme dulled the impact of the candy bar. The dialogue was meant to be jumpy because it was live. The beauty of the ads is that one person is jumpy while everyone else is normal. This ad felt like everyone on the set, including the camera person and the director, was hypoglycemic and needed a candy bar with peanuts.

Avocadoes from Mexico had a decent concept on paper: a secret society that isn't so secret. One of the secrets is that avocadoes have good fat. This ad would have been more relevant if the group had just started the ad campaign. The group has run better ads during the Super Bowl and this was not one of them. The brief Jon Lovitz appearance, which had been teased online, had no purpose yet 30 seconds of Lovitz might have been a better sell.

Super Bowl ad analysis in recent years

2016   2015   2014   2013   2011

Those ads were way better than the attempt for pistachios with an elephant on a treadmill. Did the pistachios make him fall? Promoting the protein advantage for pistachios is a good thing (actual nutrition) though you might have wondered whether the elephant would rather have a Snickers.

The two fast food ads were okay to what the hell. Wendy's used Foreigner's current lead singer Kelly Hansen and the group's updated version of Cold As Ice to pound home the theme that Wendy's fast food burgers are fresh, never frozen. Most millennials (sadly) probably can't tell the difference between that version and the Lou Gramm classic. This would have been a better spot at the beginning of this campaign, but the use of the song drives the point home better than the previous spots.

Analyzing food ads from Super Bowl 50

KFC continues to dilute its brand with the Georgia gold ads. The newest KFC "Colonel" is Billy Zane, who I honestly mistook for Kiefer Sutherland. At least Zane is closer to the Colonel than Rob Riggle, who also appears in the ad. Riggle is the literal opposite of Colonel Sanders' gentile image. As we noted, Jim Gaffigan was the best pick of the actors in the role. But KFC has OCD when it comes to replacing the Colonel, a concept that was funny about the time last year when Gaffigan replaced Norm Macdonald. Meanwhile the signature dishes are ignored for honey mustard barbecue. At least Nashville hot chicken is a thing outside of KFC.

McDonald's had a Super Bowl ad but we only count ads that run from 6:30 pm Eastern to the conclusion of the game. But the campaign has definitely taken the "Big" out of the Big Mac.

The Internet went crazy for the Bai ad with Christopher Walken with Justin Timberlake. I like a subtle Super Bowl ad, and Walken reciting 'N Sync lyrics was pretty hilarious. The ad is much better than the product that doesn't off much of anything. Bai probably isn't bad for you, but there isn't much there there.

I'm not a fan of Lebron James or Sprite, but I loved the non-promotion within a promotion within the ad. James told us he won't say "drink Sprite" even if everything else tells us that message. A beautiful ad that will unfortunately led to more Sprite consumption. I don't drink too many soft drinks but you can do better than Sprite.

What's Tempting: Real treats from childhood

Coca-Cola ran an ad that reinforces its tradition, tying food to the soft drink. I love the message in the ad, even if it belongs to a time 40 years ago when the soft drink taste could back that up. The food is modern, but the Coca-Cola to go with it existed 40 years ago in the United States. I'm fascinated by the use of nostalgia to sell a current product that isn't relevant to the current product. The Little Debbie's campaign leaps to mind where the ad wants you to go back in a non-existent time machine. A good ad for a product you can only get if you buy Coca-Cola in almost any country other than the United States or Canada.

"Fiji water is a gift from nature to us to repay our gift of leaving it completely alone. Bottled at the source, untouched by man. It's Earth's finest water."

This is the content of the Fiji water ad in Super Bowl LI. English teachers and philosophers would have a joyous time breaking down the first sentence. Fiji water clearly isn't left alone since you are drinking the water. So nature is giving us a gift that goes against the spirit of the gift. That doesn't sound like something nature would do to us. Untouched by man is skeptical since man is bottling the water. The people who are drinking bottled water probably feel bad about fresh water reserves or how the people of Flint need bottled water because the state of Michigan made deliberate decisions to give Flint residents water that they couldn't use for drinking or bathing.

Or perhaps the people who can afford Fiji water can afford to not think about these questions.

At least that was an ad for water. I almost missed the Life WTR ad that didn't sell any water.

BalanceofFood.com advertising coverage

Skittles qualifies as food in that you can eat it. The Skittles ad about the lovelorn boy throwing Skittles into an open window was cute and a little over the top. This was the kind ad Skittles should run in a Super Bowl. Skittles will run this ad into the ground and eventually you will be sick of it. But that won't happen for awhile so enjoy.

videos credit: the companies in the ads

Celebrating the Michelle Obama legacy for food and nutrition

Michelle Obama will leave behind an incredible legacy as First Lady of the United States on food, nutrition, childhood obesity, and school lunches. Let's Move made an impact on trying to get kids to spend less time on screens and more time playing.

The First Lady used television well in a natural manner to spread the message. iCarly fit in well to attracting young people to hear the message. The Biggest Loser was a natural fit with people trying to lose weight. Let's not forget the many talk show appearances from Ellen to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

You might think that her natural grace and flair comes easy. Some of us still can't shake the image of Nancy Reagan on Diff'rent Strokes talking about drug abuse. Nancy Reagan used to be an actress.

Like Batman, Michelle Obama had her list of enemies: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Chicago Tribune, Basil Marceaux, James Sensenbrenner, those against federal school lunch programs. Instead of being constructive, they were destructive. Obama played it cool every time, even when the other side won significant victories. As she noted during the 2016 election campaign, "when they go low, we go high."

The White House organic garden started out as a powerful symbol but also proved beneficial to people in the capital city with bountiful produce.

Regardless of who the next president of the United States was going to be, Michelle Obama's legacy needs to be applauded. Michelle Obama, private citizen, will still have a platform after January 20 and we hope she takes advantage of that opportunity. The Obamas are staying in Washington until Sasha graduates from high school. The organic garden isn't too far away from their new home, if the new tenants will let her.

Her enemies, who fought hard and mostly without facts, will work to destroy anything Obama accomplished in her 8 years in that role. They can't take away her legacy, the idea that someone with power wanted people to eat better and exercise more. Obama talked about "vegetable feasts," not "federal food nannies." Her positivity can't be shattered.

Since there will be significant changes in the government, keeping the legacy of Michelle Obama alive requires the help of the people. We have touted the need for government to help where it can. The American people need to help out that legacy. Fight for school lunch reform. Encourage people to grow gardens. Focus on new food labels with an emphasis on added sugars.

The fear is that her legacy reads more like an obituary. Let's not make this an obituary.

BalanceofFood.com U.S. food policy coverage

BalanceofFood.com Congress food policy coverage

BalanceofFood.com school lunch coverage

Here are a few stories we have written over the years about Michelle Obama. The articles are in reverse chronological order so you can go back to the beginning.

2016

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

2015

Appreciating Jon Stewart, The Daily Show on food and nutrition

President Obama needs to replace Sam Kass with a nutrition czar

2014

Saying goodbye to the Colbert Report

Election Day back when school lunch reform made headlines

Michelle Obama fights back against GOP school lunch cuts

2013

Barack Obama has 4 more years to improve U.S. food supply, but we need to help

2012

Election Day through the eyes of the food supply

BalanceofFood.com endorses Michelle Obama to be First Lady for 4 more years

Sarah Palin's diet/fitness philosophy likely similar to Michelle Obama's approach

iCarly tries to make veggies 'wacky' to appeal to young children

Michelle Obama talks of vegetable feasts on 'Daily Show'

Michelle Obama uses 'Biggest Loser' to push 'Let's Move'

Latest school lunch improvements prove it's important who gets elected

Temptation of the Week: Resist the non-existent message that government wants to tell you what to eat

2012 braces to be rough political year for food advocacy

2011

Rep. James Sensenbrenner latest to pile onto Michelle Obama

'Federal Food Nannies' aren't real, despite Chicago Tribune editorial

What should Michelle Obama do if she wants to order fast food in public?

Christie, Huckabee stand up for Michelle Obama, but repeat Sarah Palin's lies in the process

Rush Limbaugh better off learning Michelle Obama's 'rules' before he criticizes them

Podcast: Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama, and the politics of breastfeeding

2010

Obama signs school lunch bill, still waiting on food safety bill

Sarah Palin could help improve food supply if she argued policy, not politics

Seek out White House reminders of fresh local food

Basil Marceaux's paranoia aside, government will never measure waistlines

Michelle Obama also strikes the balance of food

Going back to 1970s might be best way to cut future childhood obesity

Should hear soon about White House childhood obesity task force

Michelle Obama's 'Let's Move' gets Kids Choice Award seal of approval

Michelle Obama takes obesity fight straight to corporations

2009

Has Barack Obama found the Balance of Food?

Why White House organic vegetable garden is so important

photo credit: iCarly/Nickleodeon

Soda tax success at ballot box; Chicago to get 3 unelected taxes on soda

Soda taxes won out in this week's elections. The electoral success in Philadelphia and Berkeley, CA opened the path for new initiatives.

Berkeley got some neighbors on board as San Francisco (62%), Oakland (61%), and Albany (71%). Boulder, CO had a 54% majority for a 2¢/ounce soda tax. Each of the Bay Area cities was for a 1¢/ounce sales tax.

Cook County needed a tiebreaker from County Board President Toni Preckwinkle to pass 9-8 a 1¢/ounce sales tax.

The scenario in Chicago will be more dramatic since its citizens already pay a 3% retail sales tax on top of regular sales taxes.

The Cook County soda tax is much broader in effect. Those drinking soda with artificial sweeteners will have to pass the tax. So will drinkers of fruit, sports, and energy drinks. Lemonade? Tax. 100% fruit juice? No tax.

The new taxes in the Bay Area and Boulder go to distributors. Those taxes could be pushed to grocers and later to consumers. The Cook County tax is direct to consumers.

New York City soft drink ban should be complete or not at all

Michael Bloomberg loves to go after soft drinks. The former New York City mayor donated more than $18 million for the San Francisco and Oakland initiatives. Bloomberg spent $1 million toward the Cook County soda tax initiative.

The proposed New York City soda ban while Bloomberg was in office was full of huge holes. Clearly, Bloomberg has learned from that mistake.

How much money would it take to get the U.S. government to stop subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup. If Bloomberg really cares about the price of soft drinks, he could have spent his more than $19 billion to make the subsidies go away. If the true costs of soda were on the shelf, that would be more effective than any soda tax.

Bloomberg is one of the few people who has the power and money to fight the subsidies. They say rich people get to be rich by not spending much money. For way less than $19 billion, we could have reduced soda consumption without the expense of collecting soda taxes on the local level.

Philadelphia soda tax covers too much and does too little

Chicago's proposed 'sugary drinks' tax doesn't add up

Temptation of the Week: Fat tax

There is a significant exemption to these taxes. If you buy soda with SNAP benefits, you don't pay the extra tax. The taxes are regressive toward the poor as is. Rich people aren't going to care about paying these taxes.

But if the idea of the taxes is to reduce soda consumption, they miss a large group with the tax. Given that federal subsidies are the primary reason soda is cheap in the first place, those who are poorer have been more likely to buy the soda and might be reluctant to give up that habit, even with the tax.

BalanceofFood.com local/state food policy coverage

I live in Chicago and Cook County. I don't have a car to drive long distances to avoid paying the tax. I don't buy much soda: mostly Mexican Coca-Cola and an occasional other soft drink. I don't buy fruit beverages other than an very occasional lemonade.

I do know I will stock up on a few extra bottles in late June before the new county tax starts. That soda bottle will have 3 different taxes, none of which will go directly to helping people get healthier.

The "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol were deemed acceptable because they weren't necessary. People still buy plenty of cigarettes and alcohol even with high taxes.

Yes, soda isn't necessary but it is classified as a food. After all, you can buy soda with SNAP but not cigarettes and alcohol. Is food a "sin" even if it has no redeeming value.

On principle, food is not a sin. Having consumers choose to drink soda on occasion is a way to manage temptation.

Lemonade is not a sin. Lemonade has lemon juice with Vitamin C and likely has less added sugar than a soda. You don't "need" Gatorade but replenishment isn't a sin.

The tax won't stop me from buying sodas but only because I don't buy that many.

We believe in drinking fewer sodas, especially with high-fructose corn syrup. Soda should be an occasional treat not a extensive habit. But if you have a habit, and I certainly did many years ago, the cigarettes and alcohol analogy sticks. You will buy no matter what tax comes along.

Berkeley said its soda consumption dropped 21% with a soda tax. The city also does education to help reduce the impact so we don't know if the reduction was tax or education related. Why we don't agree with a soda tax, we do believe in soda education.

Don't misconstrue these actions as being on the side of the American Beverage Association. The ads for both sides were equally aggravating, though the anti-tax ads were more obnoxious. We might agree on some part of one issue, but that does not make us friends. Soda is already taxed in states that have a food tax. We don't disagree with taxing soda, just not this type of set-alone tax that doesn't correlate to health improvement.

Soda taxes are lazy and ineffective. The governments that implement them are also lazy. There are strong ways to combat soda use but not the courage and bravery to fight those battles. If a billionaire won't fight these battles, regular people would have a much harder fight.

video credit: YouTube/Berkeleyside
photo credit: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart/Comedy Central

Putting Canadian ketchups to the taste test: French's vs. Heinz

Canadians showed an unusual level of national pride earlier this year … over ketchup.

For those who don't remember this story, Heinz Canada and Leamington, Ontario tomatoes were an ideal match for 90 years. Then, Heinz announced the company wouldn't produce ketchup in Leamington.

Fast forward to the present, French's ketchup is made with Leamington tomatoes. I enjoy Heinz's in Canada because the regular recipe is made with liquid sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup (glucose-fructose in Canada).

But I like the idea of supporting a Canadian ketchup if French's ketchup is better.

Canadian ketchup war based on pride, not taste

On my last trip to Canada, I ended up with a pair of situations to try French's. While most of the ketchup at Shaw Field in Winnipeg is from Heinz, one vendor had several bottles of French's ketchup. So while watching the minor league baseball Winnipeg Goldeyes lose on a rainy Tuesday night, I got to try the ketchup.

The second place was a bar/restaurant in Regina, Saskatchewan. I asked how long French's had been in place there. My server said they had gone with French's for about 3 weeks. I did follow up with whether the move was patriotic, but she didn't know.

Ketchup can be subjective so I factor that into my consideration. I use Heinz Canada as my baseline for comparison.

French's is sweeter than Heinz in Canada. You might like that difference. Heinz used to have vinegar as the 2nd ingredient; now sugar is #2 and vinegar #3. Still, Heinz isn't as sweet as French's.

While French's was too sweet, the ketchup has quite a bit of flavor for a sweet ketchup. Too many bad ketchups use sweetness, usually high-fructose corn syrup, to mask any ketchup flavor or taste.

The French's ketchup had an aftertaste. This wasn't like a Stevia aftertaste, nothing that serious. The ketchup taste shouldn't last that long.

I would pick French's Canada over any mainstream U.S. ketchup with high-fructose corn syrup, though that is faint praise.

National pride, no matter how noble, won't convert you to a different ketchup. But national pride will make you want to try the new ketchup. Heinz is the dominant market leader but a business decision pushed customers to try the alternative. Even if you win out on taste, you will lose some customers, either through national pride or a better tasting ketchup.

photos credit: me