Archive

Archive for July, 2011

Top 10 Healthy “Convenience” Foods

July 31st, 2011 17 comments

This a guest blog post by Sharon Palmer, RD

Drive-thru hamburgers, microwavable pizza pockets and bags of chips—these are the foods that probably come to mind when you think of convenience. For busy people on the run, convenience usually means fast food fare, pop in the microwave processed foods, and grab and go packs—foods typically laden with calories, fat, refined carbs and sodium—and low in vitamins, minerals, fiber and phytonutrients.

But it’s time for a food attitude adjustment; convenience is not just limited to low-nutrient food choices. Plenty of healthy foods can be easily stored and whipped up in minutes in the time it would take you to pick up takeout.  The supermarket is home to a number of convenient whole foods that can help you turn out healthy meals in minutes; here are my top picks.

1. Fresh fruit. The world’s original “fast food”, fresh fruit such as apples, pears, bananas, peaches and oranges comes with natural grab and go packaging.
2. Bagged salad greens. Just toss a bag of pre-washed salad greens into your shopping cart and you’ve got a quick side salad for dinner. Or make salad your entrée by adding chopped cooked chicken, fresh vegetables and a splash of olive oil.

3. Fish fillets. Top an individually frozen fish fillet with herbs, garlic and lemon, throw it under the broiler, and serve it with a side of grains and salad for a quick, tasty meal.

4. Whole grains. Place whole grains such as quinoa, bulgur, brown rice and wheat berries into a rice cooker with water (according to package directions), push the button and walk away. Then toss the steamed grains with cooked lean meat, herbs, garlic, and chopped vegetables for a delicious, nutritious dinner.

5. Yogurt. Throw a cup of yogurt into a briefcase or enjoy it as an after-dinner treat.

6. Frozen vegetables. While there’s nothing better than fresh vegetables, if you’re in a rush just pop frozen vegetables into the microwave and you’ve got a healthy sidedish in a flash.

7. Canned beans. Rinse a can of beans to remove sodium by up to 36 percent and stir them into salads, sidedishes, soups, and stews.

8. Canned tomatoes. Stir a can of low-sodium tomatoes into pastas, soups, sauces, stews, and casseroles for fast comfort food.

9. Nuts. A handful of nuts like almonds, walnuts or peanuts makes a perfect nutrient-rich complement for lunch on the run.

10. Oatmeal. The perfect solution for breakfast; just pop it into the microwave and add milk, nuts and fruit.

Sharon Palmer is a registered dietitian and food and nutrition writer. Visit her website www.sharonpalmer.com

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

5 Ways the Nutrition Field Hinders Its Own Progress

July 29th, 2011 35 comments

This is a guest blog post by Andy Bellatti, MS, RD. It originally appeared on his blog Small Bites

I often write about the external factors that pose a threat to the nutrition field, including (but not limited to) Big Food’s egregious advertising budgets, deceptive claims seen on food packaging, misguided agricultural policies that subsidize the foods we should all be eating less of, and the politics that often taint seemingly-subjective processes like FDA approval of substances that end up in our food supply.

This time, however, I’m shining the spotlight inward, taking a look at pervasive, accepted, and often times unquestioned concepts, ideas, and issues within the field of nutrition that carry a significant risk of self-harm.  They are dangerous because they don’t allow for growth, critical analysis, or substantive dialogue; instead, they minimize the nutrition field’s importance and have helped create the current free-for-all we are in, where the term “nutrition expert” is as loosely thrown around as “reality TV star”.  Although presented in no particular order; in my mind, they are all equally damaging.

1) “There is no such thing as junk food”/”there are no bad foods”:

This is one of the core philosophies that comes up with eating disorder patients.  In that particular context, I comprehend its importance — strip away judgmental labels on food and bring it to its most basic function: nourishment for survival.  However, I’ve increasingly started seeing some people in the nutrition field, who do not work in the realm of eating disorders, bring this up as a ‘take-home’ message for all their clients.

I understand that, to varying degrees, food is closely tied with emotions.  If a client reports eating a king size Snickers bar as a snack every day, a response of “Ew, why would you eat that?” is unprofessional, unnecessarily aggressive, and not at all helpful.  I am by no means condoning the heinous “Jillian Michaels method” of trying to pass off belittling as “motivation”.

That said, I believe that the ultimate goal of a nutritionist or dietitian is to help people eat better.  I am not a “weight loss-itian”.  I don’t consider my job done simply because someone loses 10 pounds in 2 months. After all, weight loss can be achieved by eating minimally nutritious foods while keeping calories down.

My intent is to help people reevaluate how they view food and get them back to “nutritional basics”, so to speak.  In order to do that, I can’t equalize the playing field and say something as disingenuous as “there is no such thing as junk food.”  One individual I’ve worked worked with used to start their day — five days a week — with a diet soda and a fast food breakfast sandwich.  Over the course of several months of working together, he shifted and eventually ended up replacing that with a bowl of “loaded” oatmeal (think fresh fruit, nuts/or seeds/or respective butters, and various spices).  One of the first things he told me was how much better he physically and mentally felt as a result of eating a healthier breakfast.

So, yes, there most certainly is junk food, which usually makes people feel sluggish, tired, and generally “not good”.  Nutrition professionals need to recognize — and capitalize on — that.  Telling someone  that it’s okay to keep eating a fast food breakfast sandwich,  “but instead of a diet soda, have orange juice” doesn’t do anyone any favors.  Sure, changes do not happen overnight (meaning someone may benefit from stepping down gradually and going from eating something five days a week to three days a week to one day a week), but change should still be encouraged.  It has been my experience that many people eat unhealthy foods simply out of habit and ease; once they begin to appreciate new and different flavors, their tastebuds undergo a metamorphosis as well and they find unhealthy foods less palatable.

2) “Moderation!”

To my ears, “everything in moderation!” is the equivalent of six hundreds fingernails on a chalkboard, the never-ending drip of a leaky faucet, and an eternally-ringing phone that never gets answered.  Just like the word “natural” — which food companies love to plaster on the most un-natural of products — the term “moderation” is absolutely meaningless.  Ask twenty different dietitians what it means and you’ll get twenty different responses.

“But that’s the beauty of it — each person can define it themselves!”, some say.  That doesn’t sound like beauty to me; it sounds like chaos.

“Everything in moderation” is another way in which we as nutrition professionals do a huge disservice to ourselves by once again unnecessarily equalizing the nutritional field.  “Everything in moderation” operates on the inane — and utterly insane — notion that peaches, Pop-Tarts, muffins, soda, lentils, and tomatoes should all be approached the same way.

Three cups of mixed greens as part of a salad are not the same thing as three cups of chocolate pudding.  A large Dunkin’ Donuts Mountain Dew coolatta should not be consumed with the same frequency as unsweetened green tea.  It’s silly to pretend that eating a pint of blueberries throughout the course of a day for two weeks should be perceived in the same way as a eating a pint of Haagen Dazs on a daily basis over that same period of time.

Nutrition professionals should not act like defense lawyers for fast food companies, especially at a time where the average American could seriously benefit from eating less fast food.  Again, this does not mean someone has to be scolded for eating unhealthy foods on occasion.  However, we can not — and should not — deny that certain foods belong in the “eat always” category, others in the “eat sometimes” category, and others in the “eat rarely” category.

Some people argue that if we do not preach moderation, we are setting the stage for unreachable perfectionism and eating disorders, a position that I find grossly melodramatic.  Recommending that people shy away from fast food whenever possible is not about perfection; it’s healthful advice.

3) “Healthy Eater = Red Flag”

Most of my nutrition textbooks are quick to point out that vegetarians, vegans, and “those who avoid certain food groups” must be dealt with carefully, for if they do not plan their diets adequately, all sorts of nutritional ills could befall them.  Meanwhile, the average American (and by average, that means omnivore) falls short of the recommended intake of fiber and several minerals, including magnesium.  Of course, this is not because omnivorous diets are inherently unhealthy, but because the majority of omnivores are eating highly processed foods with little nutritional value.

The “vegans must plan their diets adequately or else!” operates under the beyond-elementary assumption that “meat = protein and iron” and “milk = calcium and vitamin D”, and if you don’t eat either of those two things, well, you’ve got your work cut out for you.  Forethought, knowledge, and planning are important for all diets.  Simply being omnivore does not mean one can throw caution to the wind and not worry about nutrient deficiencies.

It troubles me that, rather than recognize the significant amount of research which shows that plant-based diets (as well as omnivorous ones that are largely plant-centric) provide a multitude of health benefits, most of mainstream nutrition treats these eating patterns as “niche”, “fads”, or ones that need close medical supervision.  Don’t even get me started on the ignorant and fear-mongering magazine articles which warn mothers that if their teenage daughter is considering vegetarianism, she could be on her way to an eating disorder (because, you know, vegetarians just eat a small bowl of salad with no dressing as a meal).

4) “You Have To Be Realistic”:

This is often mentioned as a way to justify telling people they can still eat at their favorite fast food chain; “just get the small portion”.  I used to think this way when I first started studying nutrition, before I interacted with any clients.  I now see that the most satisfied individuals I have worked with are those who stepped outside their comfort zone.  Sure, they stop by a fast food place for some fries every now and then, but they can’t believe they once ate fast food several times a week.

We should not feel “bad” for gently challenging people, or for suggesting healthier meals.  One irritating straw-man argument I often hear is “not everyone is going to eat steamed kale and brown rice”, as if the only options available to people were a quadruple Baconator burger from a fast food chain or a bowl of steamed vegetables.  There are plenty of foods that fit between that spectrum, and which have the added bonus of helping people learn where food comes from and gets them involved in preparation (I’m talking something as simple as buying a sweet potato, washing it, cutting it into planks, mixing that with some olive or coconut oil and spices, and letting it bake for 20 minutes).  Simply because it has become “the norm” to nuke dinner in the microwave or get take-out a few times a week does not mean we as health professionals should encourage that.  After all, it has become the norm for people to have credit card debt, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a financial advisor who will say “eh, $3,000 in credit card debt is no biggie; most people have $20,000!”.

Instead of telling people to “just choose a diet soda” next time they go out to eat, we should truly tell them why diet soda isn’t that great of a choice to start with.  This is not about scare tactics or “forbidding” foods; it’s about providing people with the gift of information.  Simply parroting the press-release-friendly “well, the research says all artificial sweeteners is safe” is not helpful or even accurate.  The best thing we can truly say is that “the current research, which is limited, politically charged, and says nothing about long-term use, proposes that these artificial sweeteners are safe.”  That at least provides a more realistic overview of the issue.  People have the right to know that Splenda has been found to alter gut microflora and therefore interfere with mineral absorption.  I am not a Splenda executive; I am a nutrition professional, and as such I can’t honestly tell someone “Splenda is totally fine, just have no more than two packets a day.”

Then there’s the notion that recommending quinoa (which these days is available at Costco and Trader Joe’s) or a vegan bean-based chili or a kale-based salad that takes 15 minutes to prepare is “asking for too much” or “not realistic”.  In my experience, most people are interested in new foods and are willing to try anything once.  Whole grains cook just like refined grains; some just take an additional 10 minutes.  So what?  They are an additional 10 minutes that don’t require someone to be in the kitchen.

Of course, I am talking about people who live in cities and towns where they can feasibly get these items (food deserts are a different challenge).

This is not about turning people into vegetarians or vegans, but we can not deny that the average Americans needs to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.   In order for this to happen, people need to be appropriately challenged and exposed to new ways of eating.

5) The American Dietetic Association Isn’t A Health Organization:

I am currently studying to take my Registered Dietitian exam.  This past weekend I was reviewing several hundred practice questions provided in a study guide given to me by a fellow intern.  As I flipped through the pages, I felt a mixture of frustration and disbelief that, assuming the exam poses similar questions, this is what the American Dietetic Association considers important information.

As far as I can tell, these practice questions are from 2003.  Every question that relates to food science involves red meat, eggs, cakes, margarine, and pies.  In fact, the correct answer to a question on the best way to lower sodium in a meal was to use low-sodium margarine in place of regular margarine.  The ADA wants to make sure I know how to prevent a cake from coming out too spongy, and yet apparently doesn’t care if I know the nutritional differences between — and specific health benefits of — chia seeds, hemp seeds, and flax seeds, or the health implications of a diet too high in omega 6 and too low in omega 3 fatty acids.

Other questions that the ADA considers important — so important, in fact, that they dedicate an entire third of the exam to them — have to do with the layout of a food service kitchen, what cleaning cycle is best for a dishwasher, how to deal with budget reductions in a food service facility, and how much hamburger I would need to make 300 three-ounce patties with a 20 percent shrinkage.  And here I thought it was important to know how the mineral content of whole wheat flour differs from that of white flour.

Frustrating, to say the least.  Oh, and, of course, I am expected to answer that I should worry about vitamin B12 and vitamin D deficiencies if a client tells me they are vegan.  Funny — thinking back to my outpatient and clinical experiences, about 90% of patients were vitamin D deficient, and I would wager that 98% of them were omnivores.  This question is especially silly given that almost all vegan dairy alternatives are fortified with vitamin D and B12.

As a future Registered Dietitian, I am beginning to understand why the credential is completely foreign to the average American, why we are often seen by some people as advocates for lobby groups rather than health, and why the field we are supposed to have ownership of is claimed by so many.  I am encouraged, though, to have met Registered Dietitians who are independent thinkers and are passionate about clean and healthful eating.  It’s my sincere hope that we can mobilize and help bring the field we have so much faith in to the forward-thinking place where it truly belongs.

Andy Bellatti, MS,RD is a Seattle-based nutritionist, writer, and speaker, and is the creator of the Small Bites blog.

You can follow him on Twitter @andybellatti.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

8 Things to Know About Corn Syrup

July 28th, 2011 9 comments

Corn syrup is used abundantly in our food industry. You’ve probably seen it as an ingredient on many products at the grocery store. You can actually buy corn syrup as a product for your recipes. But what exactly is it?

1. Corn syrup is a liquid sweetener derived from corn starch (or maize).

2. Corn starch is used extensively in processed foods and drinks because it is less expensive than sugar, doesn’t crystallize as easily, adds flavor and softens the texture of food.

3. Light corn syrup has been processed to remove all color and doesn’t contain much flavor, while dark corn syrup has had caramel color and molasses added to it.

4. Corn syrup is NOT THE SAME AS from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The vilified HFCS is is derived from corn syrup that is processed with enzymes to create a sweeter syrup with a higher percentage of fructose.

5. Corn syrup is made of sugar and oligosaccharides. Both are carbohydrates. Another carbohydrate, by the way, is starch.When we refer to “sugar”, we mean one of the most simple forms of a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates can be “complex”, such as starch, or “simple”, such as table sugar (sucrose).

6. Oligosaccharides, which make up about 50% of corn syrup, are a form of carbohydrate that is almost as simple as sugar, but  have a few more molecules attached to them. So they are a little more complex, but not enough to be called a starch.

7. The more simple a carbohydrate, the quicker your body absorbs it, causing your “blood sugars” to rise up very quickly, but then drop just as fast. This will make you feel hungry pretty quickly after you’ve eaten something with a high sugar content. Ideally, we want to consume more of the complex carbohydrates, giving us blood sugar levels that don’t fluctuate as much throughout the day.

8. While corn syrup doesn’t have the bad rap of HFCS, it is still loaded with sugar! If corn syrup is listed as one of the top ingredients in a food product, it’s probably a good idea to steer clear of it..

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

McDonald’s Happy Meal Makeover: A (Small) Step in the Right Direction

July 27th, 2011 25 comments

McDonald’s announced yesterday that the Happy Meal is changing:

1. The amount of french fries will more than halve from 2.4 oz to 1.1.

2. 5 Apple slices will be added to each Happy Meal.

3. Low fat chocolate milk will be listed as an option instead of soda.

The change is being rolled out in September cross all US locations.

Additional changes to McDonald’s menu:

1. Gradual 15% sodium reduction in the next few years on non-beverage/dessert items.

2. Removal of caramel sauce from the standard Apple Dippers side, henceforth Apple Slices.

According to a company spokesperson: “We are doing what we can. We have to evolve with the times…our customers are asking us to offer more options.” Read more from the New York Times…

Nutrition experts are divided on this move. Marion Nestle, nutrition professor and one of our favorite food bloggers calls this move a sham, while Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest sees the silver lining.

Our key takeaway points:

1. McDonald’s has made a brilliant PR move that will further help build its image as a partner in the battle against obesity rather than its cause.

2. The actual changes in consumption habits by children will not be that substantial. We’d love to see how many kids actually eat those apple slices. We’re sure that percentage will be much lower than those wolfing down the fries and taking some from mom’s order. And in any case, the quality of the ingredients in chicken mcnuggets or the burgers is so poor, not to mention the nutritional value.

3. McDonald’s strategy is clear – making parents feel less guilty about feeding fast food to their children, and thus turning them into frequent customers. Right now, the average American child eats at McDonald’s 3 times a month! Moving that up to 3.5 times means billions of additional revenues.

4. While small, the change is significant on one way – it has shown that public pressure works people. The more we push, the more the food industry will listen. The more our elected officials will listen. Are you pushing hard enough for changes to your kids’ foods, and essentially, their future?

Lastly, in case you were wondering, the Happy Meal toy is staying.

What can McDonald’s do to create real change in America’s fast food paradigm?

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Could Food Diversity be Causing Obesity?

July 26th, 2011 16 comments

Here’s an interesting theory on the cause for rising obesity rates. Researchers have conducted experiments to assess the validity of their theory that the abundance of food choices promotes, in some people, excess consumption:

In the study out of the State University of New York at Buffalo, scientists found that both obese and non-obese women who were given macaroni and cheese daily for five days reduced their intake, compared to women who were given macaroni and cheese once a week for five weeks. read more…

Another study found that changing the number of colors in a bowl of M&Ms from 7 to 10 different colors, increased consumption by 43%.

We would add that a supermarket lined with tens of thousands of products makes us want to buy more food. Oversize fridges and pantries filled with ready to eat processed foods that don’t require any work other than a 2 minute zap in the microwave certainly make it easy to eat more.

On the other hand, who would want to live in a world where we eat the same fare over and over?

Additionally, as many parents know, children actually like monotony in their daily routine. It includes seeing the same move over and over, asking to be read the same stories night after night, and being to able to eat the same spaghetti and tomato sauce for 5 straight dinners if given a choice.

What do you think?
Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Categories: News, Snacks Tags:

All Natural Fruit Snack?

July 25th, 2011 16 comments

Take a look at Mott’s Medley’s Fruit Snack. The package looks promising:

  • All natural fruit snack
  • Good source of vitamin C
  • Gluten Free & Fat Free
  • No Artificial Flavors, Colors, Sweeteners, or Preservatives
  • made with real fruit and vegetable juice.

But what’s really inside?

What you need to know:

As much as Mott’s would like to think this is a great snack for your kids, we beg to differ. Each serving has 3.5 tsp of sugar, which for fruit is to be expected. But unfortunately, there is ZERO fiber in this product, unlike real fruit. The reason, of course, is that this snack is made from fruit juice, not fruit. And that is an important distinction. Fruit is healthy. Fruit juice is basically sugar.

The vitamin C, naturally abundant in many fruits has long gone, and is added here as a supplementary ingredient.

Here is the ingredient list:

fruit and vegetable juice from concentrate (apple, grape, carrot, sweet potato), corn syrup, sugar, modified food starch (corn), gelatin, citric acid, natural flavor, acerola extract (vitamin c), sodium citrate, white mineral oil, carnauba wax.

As for the rest of the natural ingredients: Yes, technically Mott’s is correct. But come on – corn syrup, sugar? modified corn starch? White mineral oil? These ingredients don’t exactly conjure visions of nature…That’s the problem with “natural” as a description for foods. There is no really good definition for it.

What about the gluten free claim? that’s just riding on the gluten free marketing wave sweeping America today.

And Fat Free ? That’s harnessing our embedded fear of fats. (Although science has shown that fats are not the problem , it’s trans-fats and saturated fats).

On the positive side, there are no artificial colors in this snack. There are no trans-fats and no questionable chemicals.

Bottom line – If you want to give your kids a treat, consider these instead of some candy. But in your mind, don’t equate these “fruit snacks” to fruit for even one second.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s summer, fruit is plentiful and relatively cheap. Great opportunity to discover new flavors and recipes with fresh and sweet fruit.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Please Vote for Fooducate’s Nutriton Label Redesign!

July 24th, 2011 23 comments

Rethink the Food Label is a project by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism’s News21 program and Good Magazine. They asked the public, food thinkers, nutritionists, and designers to redesign the Nutrition Facts Label to make it easier to read and more useful to people who want to consume healthier, more nutritious and wholesome food.

Above is what team Fooducate came up with – a label that’s not on the label. It’s outside the box. On your smartphone. The advantages are clear. Information provided to the consumer does not depend solely on the product manufacturer, whose interest is to sell you the box.

The contest judges are Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and Food Rules, Robert H. Lustig, M.D. is Professor of Clinical Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, Michael Jacobson is the co-founder of the Center for Science in the Public Interest,  Andrew Vande Moere is Associate Professor at K.U. Leuven University, Belgium and founder of Information Aesthetics, and Laura Brunow Miner, designer and founder of Pictory.

They will be picking the winner, but there is also a people’s choice award based on votes from … you. So take a look at our design and others, then vote for your favorite by clicking its “like” button.

In health!

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Categories: Food Label, Fooducate Tags:

Fruity Cheerios – “Naturally” Flavored, Artificially Colored

July 24th, 2011 7 comments

Fruity Cheerios is a relatively new extension of the venerable Cheerios line of cereals. The marketing pitch is directed at moms:

Kids love the fruity fun, Moms love the Calcium and Vitamin D!

Here’s more copyedit:

Here’s why they are so good:

  • Made with whole grain
  • 12 essential vitamins & minerals
  • Good source of calcium
  • Excellent source of iron

Are these little o’s really so healthy? Let’s peel back the claims and see what’s really going on here.

What you need to know:

As sweetened kids-cereals go, this one does have slightly less sugar than the average 3 teaspoons per serving. The 9 grams are just over 2 teaspoonfuls. A good benchmark for cereal is less than a teaspoon and a half (6 grams). Regular Cheerios have only 1 gram of sugar. Multi-grain have 6 grams.

The fiber count in Fruity Cheerios, despite the “Whole Grain” promise, is low – only 2 grams. Not exciting, especially based on General Mills “Whole Grain” marketing pitch. A good cereal should have at least 3 grams of fiber.

Now take a look at the items (marked in bold) in the ingredient list responsible for the “fruity fun” kids love so much:

Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Whole Grain Oats, Corn Syrup, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Pear Puree Concentrate, Salt, Corn Starch, Dried Corn Syrup, Corn Bran, Trisodium Phosphate, Natural Flavor, Color (Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and Other Color Added), Sodium Citrate, Vitamin E (Mixed Tocopherols), BHT and Ascorbic Acid Added to Preserve Freshness. Vitamins and Minerals: Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin C (Sodium Ascorbate), Zinc and Iron (Mineral Nutrients), a B Vitamin (Niacinamide), Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine Hydrochloride), Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin), Vitamin B1 (Thiamin Mononitrate), Vitamin A (Palmitate), a B Vitamin (Folic Acid), Vitamin B12, Vitamin D3.

So there is a bit of fruit in here – pear puree. But mostly the fruit flavor comes from “Natural Flavors” instead of real fruit. Most disturbingly, the colorful fruit fun comes from artificial colors which are potential carcinogens and may cause hyperactivity in kids. While the FDA regards these colors as safe, European food agencies do not share the sentiment. In the UK, products with Red #40 are required to carry a warning label – “May cause hyperactivity in Children”. As a result most red coloring in Great Britain today is made with beet juice. Slightly more expensive to the manufacturers, but no debates about neurological effects on kids.

As for all the purported vitamins and minerals – they are all added as fortifications to the product. They are not part of the original ingredients. Counting on 12 nutrients that are added to a relatively nutrient poor product is the wrong way to go about healthy eating. The bio-availability of all these nutrients mixed together in not necessarily the same as having each of them in its natural state from fruit vegetable or unprocessed whole grains.

What to do at the supermarket:

When buying food for your kids, mind the sugars and artificial colors. As cereals go, 3 grams of fiber or higher, 6 grams or less of sugar. Hey, you can always add your own sweetener to the mix.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Michelle Obama’s War on Food Deserts

July 23rd, 2011 12 comments

Earlier this week, the first lady was joined by a band of grocery retailers and the Partnership for a Healthier America in announcing a bold new move to reduce food deserts in America.

Details:

1. The program will be bringing supermarkets within reach of 10 million Americans.

2. 1,500 new groceries will open in the next 5 years,  creating tens of thousands of new jobs.

3. Participating grocers include SuperValu, Walgreens, Walmart, and a few regional retailers. (Walgreens ?!?)

4. The plan, of course, is to sell affordable and nutritious foods.

As you may recall, Mrs. Obama’s Let’s Move! Campaign is all about reducing childhood obesity within a generation.While we maintain a healthy skepticism about the execution of this plan (It requires a revamped Farm Bill and an end to corporate lobbying as we know it), there is no doubt the first lady’s heart is in the right place.

All stats point to a clear relationship between access to nutritious foods and rates of obesity. According to the USDA 23.5 million people  live in food desert. 6.5 million are kids. Many are poor. Some don’t have cars or the ability to drive 30 miles to a decent grocery store. So getting a supermarket into their neighborhood, within walking distance, or a few bus stops, is a very big deal.

With respect to Walgreens which is the largest drugstore in the US and NOT synonymous with real food, plans are to transform 1,000 locations into “food oasis” stores, selling whole fruits and vegetables, pre-cut fruit salads and green salads and more healthy fare.

Let’s hope the plans do pan out instead of fizzling out once media attention disappears. In addition, we hope the new grocers will reach out to their communities with cooking classes and nutrition education. Because access to good ingredients is the first step, you then need to learn what to do with them…

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Are You Buying Meat But Paying for Salt Water?

July 22nd, 2011 12 comments

There’s a dirty little secret that not many grocery shoppers are aware of. Many times, cuts of poultry, pork and meat are “enhanced” with a liquid solution that is essentially water and salt. And we’re paying for this added weight without even knowing it.

This practice has been going on since the 1970’s. Poultry processors, for example, use special equipment to inject chicken with a saltwater broth and binders that enhance its flavor. Hundreds of tiny needles inject a single chicken passing through a conveyer belt. Apparently, adding salt at home is no match for this technology.

Manufacturers who add sodium and water claim that this is what consumers want. But the difference in sodium per serving can be staggering – 500mg of sodium per serving vs. just 75mg unsalted!

Not to mention the fact that we’re paying extra money for saltwater.

The worst part is that consumers don’t always know if the chicken breast they are about to purchase is “enhanced” or not. This is because there are no strict labeling requirements in this matter.

Clearer labeling would help consumers better understand what they are buying.  But this is not something the injecting processors would like to do, for obvious reasons. The Truthful Labeling Coalition, a lobbying group of poultry producers that don’t enhance their products, has been pushing the USDA to demand strict labeling on this matter.

The good news is that the USDA seems to be listening. Yesterday, FSIS (the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA) announced Proposed Rules etter Label Raw Meat and Poultry Containing Added Solutions. From the USDA announcement:

FSIS has determined that some labels do not clearly identify if a solution has been added to a raw product to enhance flavor or texture. As a result, consumers may be purchasing raw meat and poultry products with higher sodium content than they realize. The agency invites comments on the proposed rule, which is intended to clarify these products’ labels so consumers can easily distinguish them from raw meat and poultry that do not contain added solutions.

“Consumers should be able to make an informed choice in the store, which is why we need to provide clear, informative labels that will help consumers make the best decisions about feeding their families,” said Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen. “It has become evident that some raw meat and poultry labels, even those that follow our current guidelines, may not be clear.”

When will we see revised lables in supermarkets? It will take some time, as comments have to be made, opposing voices heard, lobbies heard again, etc…

What to do in the meantime at the supermarket:

Read the fine print on the label. If it says “enhanced with broth” or something similar, this means your chicken may contain up to 15% water and a whole lot of sodium you don’t want. You get punished twice – paying for chicken while getting water, and consuming excess sodium.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate