Fat good, carbs bad

Dr. Andrew Weil is probably a very nice man, but his views on health and medicine tend not to attract me.  Indeed, I tend to veer away from New Agey, Old Hippie kinds of things as much as possible (too much emotionalism, too much "true believer").  A recent Weil blog on the Huffington Post did, however, attract my attention for its discussion of fat versus carbs.  In it Weil draws on recent research and a recent book by Gary Taubes to highlight these points (made by Taubes in his book):

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease or any other chronic disease of civilization.
2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis -- the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight and well-being.
3. Sugars -- sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically -- are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
4. Through their direct effects on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other chronic diseases of modern civilization.

Weil does recommend, for environmental reasons, to reduce the amount of meat in the diet, but not to fear to give it its proper place.   As for me, Taubes has a whole chapter on fiber!  I am so getting this book.

Food Poison Journal

I'm liking this.  Seems like a good resource to learn more about food safety and disease outbreaks.  I'm reading more about the new report issued by the Institute of Medicine on FDA's role in managing food safety and ran across a link to this site.  I expect to be reading more from these guys to help understand what is happening with food safety in our country.

Rusty

It looks like I'm really rusty at blogging. A few months away from the keyboard and all sorts of errors are going to creep in. The last post (It's a Feast) was supposed to be scheduled for this morning. Instead it popped up yesterday afternoon. Grrr!

I think there may be a lot of that happening as I shake off the rust.

I spent some time yesterday re-reading a lot of what I had written in the past. There are some fairly sizable gaps in the past as well, related to storms and Mama's health and "events." I could also see that there have been quite a few changes in my thinking about food over time. More fresh, less canned. Still more creative than referential, but less experimentation with new foods. Even some of the foods that I had "discovered" in the past have disappeared as I revert to familiar vegetables and staples.

In some ways, I have gotten lazy about food. I still don't know the answers to how to live successfully as a diabetic nor how to keep Mama from wasting away without gaining weight myself. I have limited my shopping to the bare essentials, giving in to the physical limitations that have made it more onerous than fun. Age and infirmity have replaced the visceral fire that pushed me to push for a better world.

Boy, do I have a lot of work to do!

I think I better look at my labels again to remind myself about what's important--and get rid of the rust!

U. S. Senate passes food safety legislation

The U. S. Senate is now catching up with the House by getting a food safety bill out of committee. After many episodes of food-borne illness, even the food manufacturers are clamoring for more regulation (when there is a problem with one brand of peanuts, consumers tend to think "peanut"and not worry about which brand of peanuts is involved). The Senate bill (which still must be passed by the whole Senate and then make its way through a conference committee before final passage) increases inspections, requires traceability for fresh foods, but doesn't address cost.

To be sure, this legislation will cost. The FDA has been hamstrung in carrying out it much-restricted mission in recent years by the lack of funding. Food inspections have been low on the totem pole for either attention or funding. More funding will be needed to pay for those increased inspections.

The options for paying for the cost of this legislation include fees to producers or funds from general revenue (i.e., our tax dollars). My concern with fees is that they will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher food costs, just what we need to promote healthy eating. (Not.) Using tax dollars is appropriate since they will serve to protect the common good, i.e., public health. (My two cents!)

Getting control of portions

I think I will just continue to face defeat in getting control of my weight if I don't somehow manage to get control of the portions I eat. No matter how healthy my cooking is, if I eat too much of it, I will not lose weight. Indeed, I will probably gain weight.

What, however, is a serving size? Good ol' Wikipedia, once more, comes to the rescue with this article on serving size.

No wonder we can get confused about serving size! There are actually two kinds (serving size in the food pyramid and serving size on nutrition labels), and they are each based on different criteria. Yikes! What's a poor foodie to do?

Worse, different foods have different serving sizes. One egg is a serving all by itself, but a serving of meat measures about the size of a deck of cards. Celery comes in stalks but can be chopped to fit into a cup. Which is used for serving size?

Don't even try to think about how many servings to have in a day. Nobody even agrees on those for normal bodies much less metabolically impaired ones.

No wonder Americans have no clue about food. Guidelines are in conflict. Information sources contradict each other. Food marketing attempts to brainwash us into making food choices that are profitable for corporations but deadly for our bodies. Our local foodways channel our food choices to comfortable and familiar foods which are similarly deadly (have some more gravy, honey). And there is no easy way to get control of what we eat if we can't figure out how much of it to eat.

Well, this rambles, I know. I just tried to figure out serving size and got a brain freeze. The problem is way bigger than I thought. I guess I was hoping to find out that "3 cups of food per day" or some simple formula for calculating intake would pop up on these interwebs, and I could go back to thinking about flavor. No today. *sigh*

No fish no mo'

Just read "Aquacalypse Now: The End of Fish." It's not news. This concern has been around for quite some time.

The gist: the ocean is being over-fished and fish populations are being critically depleted.

The question is how to address it. And will whatever we do be too little too late?

Perhaps a starting point is to see where we as individuals fit into this. While I rarely eat fresh fish (and feel guilty--for health reasons--that I don't), I do have a few packets of frozen fish in the freezer. Then there are the canned items: tuna, salmon, maybe the occasional tin of smoked oysters or sardines. My Prince buys large bags of frozen shrimp at every available opportunity. We both take a daily fish oil capsule. We both delight in the occasional outing for all-you-can eat catfish and sometimes take Mama to her favorite restaurant: Red Lobster. While she eats chicken fingers (everywhere), we certainly know what to do in a seafood restaurant.

What I need to do, I suppose, is look at how those fish items (more than I thought) come to my table and tummy and then buy responsibly. I also should look at over consumption. Portion control is my personal demon anyway, but being good stewards of our planet may mean more self-restraint in partaking of her bounty. (May? Does!) Perhaps, without becoming total bores about the subject, we need to introduce the discussion of this issue to friends and family.

However, as the article points out, this is a matter of public policy which needs to be addressed by our nation at the global level. That makes it feel too big to handle, but we can, of course, if we are concerned enough, do our little bit on this and any of the big issues that concern us: a letter or call to our representatives expressing our thoughts does matter. Even if we have no specific recommendation, the call or letter is noted. When enough calls are made (as few as five can do it), the legislator will at least begin to pay attention to the issue. It's a thought.

Food Politics

My morning reading takes me through a regular series of web sites and blogs that provide me with news on subjects that interest me. Recently, I found another blog taking up the matter of the recent salmonella outbreak, and I read through the article with some interest to see someone else's take on the issue. One commenter pointed readers to this "interesting website."

I was disappointed when I did a quick check of Marion Nestle's take on diabetes (it's caused by being fat), but was quickly impressed by the breadth of her writings on food and policy and politics, impressed enough to think that I will take a second look. I guess we all have our axes to grind and blind spots in our understanding of how things work. So I'll be impressed but skeptical while I see what she has to offer.

Reducing America's salt intake

At least that's the plan for New York City's Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden. He has made a plea to Big Food, the corporations that provide the stuff we buy in the grocery store, to reduce sodium content in their products by 25% over the next 5 years and then by another 25% in the following 5 years. And he's thinking that this will end up helping our health as a nation.

It could be that Dr. Frieden is right to think so. He's been successful in previous campaigns regarding cooking with trans fats and posting calorie counts for restaurant menus. This time he is also joined by several other health departments in other states.

Although he has jurisdiction over only New York City, Dr. Frieden is presenting the plan as a “national salt-reduction initiative” that includes support from a half-dozen other health departments around the country and organizations like the American Medical Association.

I've no idea whether Texas or any of its local health departments has joined in the effort, but it would be interesting to find out.

Should we care?

Well, yes, because reducing dietary sodium is on of those healthy lifestyle changes that we are already being nagged about.

Well, also yes, because it's not easy to find low sodium alternatives at the grocery store. You can buy fresh--which is expensive, requires refrigeration, and is time consuming to prepare (not that there's anything wrong with that). You can buy frozen--which can be expensive, requires a freezer, and may require thawing before cooking (not that there's anything wrong with that). Canned goods of any sort are often cheaper, easier to store, and easier to prepare. Finding canned goods with less that a zillion grams of sodium per serving is the challenge.

Living a healthy lifestyle ought to be easy. Instead, the reverse is true. If Frieden can add some pressure to Big Food to think that healthy should be the norm instead of the specialty item, then more power to him.

Presidential eating

I love this picture! No matter how you might have felt about the results of the recent presidential election, I think you might share my appreciation of this image of a hungry man who just looks so happy to be sitting down to a meal.

As it happens, of course, this is no ordinary hungry man. (Nor is My Prince--ordinary, that is. He's always game for a good meal.) The picture accompanied an article about how President Obama can change the way our country eats and goes on to provide an intriguing list:

• He’s expected to support local and organic farmers
• Food prices may go down…or up
• Food safety should improve
• School nutrition will be in the spotlight

These are interesting items that will, no doubt, provide for some interesting debates about food policy. The one that most interests me at the moment is food safety and the article's speculation about funding for the FDA:

Working with the Obama administration, a Democratic-led Congress will likely be able to pass legislation that boosts the FDA’s oversight and pays for more food inspections, especially after the numerous and dangerous food scares of the last four years.

I know that some folks would argue that more regulation is just not what we need in the current economy, but I'm on the opposite side when it comes to food safety. We need more, not fewer food inspections.

Consider the current outbreak of salmonella and the impact that it has had on our economy. (Well, yes, there's that pesky health thing, but it's the money thing that is used to argue against more food inspections.) So far, more than 500 cases of salmonellosis have been reported (with many more likely unreported) in the current outbreak. For these individuals, there is incurred health care cost, loss of work (and, for some, loss of income), the multiplier effect of cost and loss when one family member's illness affects other family members' ability to work or function in their normal role (think caregiver, think mommy takes daddy to the hospital), etc. For their employers, there may be health care costs, especially if the company self-insures, and there may be loss of productivity/profit while a worker is absent from work.

This, of course, is small potatoes really. A mere 400 cases is pretty insignificant, given the size of much larger epidemics of HIV, diabetes, etc. With a death toll of 8, as heartbreaking as those deaths are to the families who suffered the loss, it's a small outbreak.

But now the public health folks are attributing the outbreak to peanuts. Whoa! I think maybe the only thing more ubiquitous in our food supply is corn. OK, wheat, sugar, chocolate are right up there, but peanuts are everywhere. Peanut butter is practically a food staple for some age groups. And, whatever the source of these peanuts, the outbreak has already spread to 42 US states. This is a much bigger outbreak than the numbers suggest. The wide geographical distribution alone makes it more than a little worrisome. The popularity of the food source makes it even more troublesome (unlike, say, spinach, which more folks would be happy to avoid in the first place).

What difference to the economy? Start with food recalls. That's gotta hurt--and that's only the products made by or from products made by Peanut Corporation of America. (PCA has been identified as the source of this outbreak.) What about peanut related products from other companies? Not recalled, no, but often tarred with the same brush, if you will. Consumers, hearing news reports about the salmonella outbreak, are certain to hear the word "peanut," not at all certain to remember the particular company involved. Could that mean a drop in consumption of all peanut products from all producers? A similar outbreak earlier in 2008 put a kink in tomato sales before jalapenos were finally identified as the source of the problem. So add to the cost of the outbreak the public relations damage to all things peanut and the effort that has to be made to identify what is actually safe.

Money, of course, doesn't count when a loved one is lost, but with 8 deaths to its credit, I also can see PCA subjected to at least 8 wrongful death suits, not to mention all the others for medical costs and such. This will give some money churn for legal fees, but I don't know that that will be an overall benefit to the economy.

Now, there are a couple of caveats that have to be made before going too far afield on the subject of regulation and inspection.

1. Peanut Corporation of America already knew that its products contained salmonella and shipped them anyway. No additional regulations would have helped in this case, although additional inspections might have. A corporation determined to place profit above public health could probably circumvent such inspections anyway.
2. The FDA, an agency that I generally respect, especially on the worker bee level, may not have been the heroes of the 2008 could-it-be-tomatoes salmonella outbreak. Floundering around, issuing conflicting advisories, and devastating producers doesn't seem like the most useful way to go about protecting the food supply.

I tend to think that more inspections would be better--I guess I'm just that kind of gal. However, if our Eater-in-Chief is going to try to make a difference in food safety, he might need to think about the role of competence in the earlier epidemic and the need for enforcement in the current epidemic. The point, however is this: preventing such an outbreak will still be cheaper than allowing one to happen. Improving food safety would, I think, be part of a valid approach to helping a troubled economy.

Where da brown rice?

My Prince and I just returned from a trip to our warehouse store. Buying bulk can really save us money--as long as we can use up what we buy and don't end up throwing some of it out because it has spoiled before we can consume it. We tend not to buy as much of the fresh items there but focus on multi-packs of favorite canned goods and big bales of necessary paper products for that very reason.

Today I was on the lookout for brown rice. We've eaten a lot of it this past week, so I need to rebuild my stock. I've noticed before that there were several varieties of white rice available, but never any brown rice.

Today I put the absence of brown rice together with my understanding that one of the "missions" of this warehouse store is to support small business by making the tools and supplies needed for small restaurants and convenience stores available in comparatively small (although humongous for a small family) quantities at discount prices. That "mission" paired with the absence of brown rice means that a healthy food choice will not be easily/cheaply available at the establishments run by their clients. This forces the small businesses and institutions that use the warehouse store as their supplier to offer a less healthy food choice to their customers, saving everyone a few pennies in the process but adding yet one more challenge to the health of everyone but those at the top of the chain.

Now, I know that I am making a judgment about the shaping of "food policy" by a corporation, and I have to acknowledge that brown rice is actually deemed inferior in most of the culture groups that use rice as a staple. Still it's sad to see 20- and 50-lb sacks of white and jasmine and basmati rice stacked on a good part of a very large aisle and not a single bag of brown. There is, however, instant and parboiled white rice in large containers to make even the cooking of white rice go faster. Brown rice is harder to cook and might not be the choice of other customers, perhaps making it uneconomical for the warehouse store to stock.

If I want to replenish my supply, I will have to do that at Fiesta, where I can get a 4-lb bag of brown rice. That's the biggest I've ever been able to find.

If I want to change our food culture, I have a much bigger chore, and I'm not entirely disposed to think that (a) I know enough to argue what changes we should be making or (b) I have the will to want to get involved in such a battle. If I did, one place to start would simply be a customer comment at the warehouse store, asking them to stock brown rice and telling them why. It worked for almonds! ;)

Food dating

Nope, this is not about going out to dinner with the hunk du jour. It's about those troublesome expiration/use by dates on food packages. Imagine my surprise to read this:

Frequently Asked Questions About Food Dates and Storage

Q: Should all food containers have dates on them?

A: There is no uniform system for food dating in the United States. Except for infant formula and some baby food, product dating is not required by federal regulations. Dating of foods is only required by about 20 states right now. Federal regulations do say, however, if a calendar date is used, it must express both the month and the day of the month. In the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the calendar date, if used, must also include the year. If this calendar is used, there must also be a phrase next to it explaining the meaning of the date, such as �sell by� or �use before.�

Dates found on foods may be �open dating� or �closed� or coded dating. Open dating is the use of a calendar date that the consumer can understand. In general, open dating is found primarily on perishable foods such as meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products. Closed or coded dates might appear on shelf-stable foods such as cans, boxes, bags, etc.

This comes from a University of Georgia web page dated simply "2005." It could be out of date, but I'm cynical enough to believe that it is not. And that annoys me. There are some regulations that might go to far, but I'm pretty much pro-regulation when it comes to food safety. Expiration dates and such are pretty important when deciding what to buy and when to eat it. This is something that I feel strongly enough about that I'm headed over to change.gov to make a recommendation that there ought to be federal standards to the effect that:

• all processed or packaged foods intended for human consumption should have an expiration or use by date, and
• the date should be written as a calendar date that includes month and year in a format easily understood by consumers.

Join me if you wish. Of course, change.gov is the easy way to voice an opinion on the subject. I have not yet discovered that Texas is one of the 20 states that require food expiration dates on products manufactured or sold within the state, so it might not be a bad idea to tell your Texas Representative and Senator about this (if you wish). And then there's your congresscritters (one rep and two senators).

UPDATE: And here's the comment on change.gov. There's already a discussion!

Food to get expensiver?

Yep, I know "expensiver" is not a real word--and poor grammar to boot--but it seems to fit the situation right now: Food prices are unreal and nudging us toward poor nutrition to boot. So, I'm so not happy to find, in the course of my dinking around on the interwebs, this prediction that food prices will continue to increase in 2009. Seems the high cost of some commodities cut into corporate profits last year, so, now that commodities prices have fallen, food prices will continue to rise so that those "lost" profits will be "recovered" by food corporations. Restaurants are following the same principle, so we can expect more increases there too.

Wanna bet that My Prince and I will dine out even less in 2009? Portion control takes on a whole new meaning in this context, doesn't it?

School lunches

I'm not qualified to talk about this too much, but I am thinking a bit about food policy. My reading is leading me down several paths that look interesting, but the whole issue is a tad complex--and overwhelming--to me. Still, I want to understand it better, so I will continue to try to work my way through it.

My basic question is: Why are carbs so cheap and green vegetables so expensive?

The answer seems to be that food policies are largely responsible. I just don't understand exactly how that may be, so I need to do more reading.

I am not alone in this examination of food policy, and I think a semi-big battle is going to be waged on the matter. We may not read about it so much in the newspapers, even though it will be important to each and every one of us, but the battle will still be fought.

The battlefield? School lunches. But don't be deceived that this is only about school lunches. It will be about farm subsidies, commodities programs, even the food pyramid. And it won't just be about what kids eat.

Here's what I'm looking at so far:

• Gaining "recession pounds"
• Farmer-in-chief
• President's Cancer Panel Report, Executive Summary
• News article on PCP Report
• Unhappy meals

High fiber reading, for sure!

Got milk?

Milk prices have gone out of sight. We don't buy as much with the grandson moved out of the house, but I just about need a guarantee that every drop will be consumed before I bring another gallon into the house. The price of cheese has escalated as well. My favorite 2 lb. bag of grated cheese is nearly $9 now. Needless to say, I monitor its use quite closely.

So imagine my surprise (and secret pleasure) when I ran across this article in the New York Times about the dairy glut that we are now in the middle of. Seems other parts of the world have developed a taste for dairy, thanks in part of the spread of McDonald's, and that (along with drought in New Zealand and Australia) produced high demand for American dairy. And that, my peeps, made for reduced supply in the US. Ergo higher prices for us.

The economy is in the tank globally as well as locally. This is bad, yes. Really tough times are ahead for all of us. Still, I couldn't stifle a little spark of happiness when I realized that there was actual hope that dairy products might eventually become affordable here in the US again. Milk, cheese, sour cream, ricotta, cottage cheese, mozzarella, parmesan--these are all basics in my kitchen. In normal times, I could only occasionally afford a taste of anything more exotic. I can't be unhappy that the home market will get a break for a while. I doubt we will be able to afford those exotics anytime soon, if at all, but it will be nice to get back to a more normal supply of affordable dairy products.

If that sounds a tad callous in regard to the income and well being of American dairy farmers, do note that we have price supports for dairy. The USDA will buy much of the surplus produced and put it into food programs for the poor, meaning more protein and Vitamin D for them, and continued production in the dairy sector. The high prices for the rest of us was a by-product of globalization. Lower prices will be a by-product of the collapse of the market. Dairy farmers will still get paid, just not so much.

Food Politics

Something I want to look at when I have more time is the politics of food. Somewhere in my checkered past, I have some (OK, a lot) of experience with political activities of one sort or another. I've seen the system from the inside as well as the outside. Let that suffice as enough reason to read this post about Food Politics by David Spero and take it as a foretaste of things to come.