Breakfast Epiphanies, Part 2: Whither Bacon?

Mmm, mush!

Last time, we took a look at the history of breakfast. We learned that breakfast had always been a fairly light affair, considered rather unimportant, as meals go, to our foreparents. We asked, if this was the case for most of human history, why do we Americans eat like lumberjacks in the morning? You know, pancakes, smothered in syrup. Eggs, potatoes, and bacon. Especially bacon.

No, not you!

It seems there was this company called Beech-Nut. Today you may know it as the premier maker of baby food. Way back when, they made all kinds of stuff. Peanut butter, chewing gum, candy, ham, ketchup, pork and beans, coffee, chewing tobacco—if it could go in a container, Beech-Nut put it there and sold it to the public. After all, they had patented the first vacuum jar, the kind with the gasket at the top, which kept food fresh longer and also made it easier to transport. One product they were especially proud of in the early 1900's was their bacon. Bacon, in a jar!

Hand-packed—with loving care!

The trouble was, people just didn't eat all that much bacon back then. It was used to add flavor to other dishes, and sometimes on its own as a side dish, but it just wasn't a regular thing. This, Beech-Nut felt, was a problem. Something had to be done.

Fortunately for them, there was a guy who had just what they needed. 

This guy.

Edward Bernays

Edward Bernays was a whiz at getting people to do things they didn't want to do. He was pretty familiar with psychology, (being the nephew of Sigmund Freud) and he had gotten famous inventing what he called "public relations." Beech-Nut hired him to create a public demand for bacon.

A now familiar technique, and one that he pioneered for manipulating public opinion, was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. 

"If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway," he said. He used this to perfection in the cause of Beech-Nut's jarred bacon. He went to a doctor and posed the question: which is better for health, to have a light breakfast or a heartier one? The doctor (who worked for … Beech-Nut … ) said he supposed a heartier breakfast would be healthier. He asked the physician if he would be willing to write 5,000 physicians and ask them whether their opinion was the same. About 4,500 answered back, all concurring that a bigger breakfast was better for the health of the American people than a light breakfast. Which is a little like saying "more money is better than less money," but whatever. Bernays then arranged for this finding to be published in newspapers throughout the country. I'm not talking about paid advertising—I'm talking about articles that looked like legit reportage, with headlines such as "4,500 Physicians Urge Bigger Breakfast." Other articles he placed at the same time, seemingly unrelated, stated that bacon and eggs should be a central part of breakfast—a one-two punch that resulted in? a rise in the sale of bacon. 

Pretty hard to imagine a time when people had to be buffaloed into eating bacon, isn't it?

This manufactured love affair has never really stopped, but in 1955, something happened that put the brakes on it, for a little while, at least.

Let's call it the "Eisenhower Effect."

When President Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower suffered his heart attack, not only was it front page news, but a real turning point in the American diet. Having a heart attack is not really at the top of anyone's "to do" list; however, today, there are many medical interventions to make it survivable, under certain conditions, and having a normal life after the fact completely do-able. However, back in the '50's, surviving a heart attack was regarded as something that took you out of the game; the only thing prescribed was bed rest, for the rest of your life. Any amount of excitement, it was felt, put the patient at risk. 

Eisenhower, former Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, however, was not the guy who was going to take such a prognosis lying down. He had a re-election to win in 1955, and had no time or patience for bed rest. Ike also wanted to do everything he could to prevent being thought of as an invalid. He decided to publicize the steps he was taking to recover, particularly the dietary changes he was making on the advice of his doctors. They had been ordered by the President to come up with a treatment that would both keep him on his feet and improve his health. Their solution (based on very little scientific evidence, it seems, from what I've been reading) was to create a radical new remedy: the low-fat diet. 

Happier days ...

Naturally, after rigorous adherence to this diet, the President was able to maintain a healthy weight and never suffered another heart attack, living to the ripe old age of 102!

Actually, no, that's not what happened. Eisenhower suffered seven heart attacks in total from 1955 until his death by congestive heart failure in 1969, at the age of 78. An autopsy unexpectedly revealed an adrenal pheochromocytoma, a benign adrenaline-secreting tumor that may have made the President more vulnerable to heart disease. Which is really sad to think about. It probably didn't matter at all what the poor guy ate. He could've been using the time he had left stuffing himself full of his favorites, like beef stew, corn pudding, and Mamie's Million Dollar Fudge. 

Mamie and Ike, post-heart attack, presumably.

Which brings us back to breakfast.

The low-fat diet has been, perhaps, the most persistent of weight loss fads. It sounds like logic: eat fat, BE fat! Oh, the artery-clogging, infarction-causing eggs and bacon! Grains, we are told, are the ticket. Whole grains and multi-grains, "heart healthy" grains. The problem is, too often the benefits of whole grains—fiber— is lost to the incredible amount of sugar that is added to make something this good for you taste like candy. And sugar, in the amounts we are unsuspectedly consuming it, is poison.

Unless you are the ones profiting from throwing it into the food supply, then it's the opposite of poison; it's life-sustaining mana from Heaven.

Of course I'm talking about you, McDonalds.

Join us next time for more "Breakfast Epiphanies."

Grass-Fed Omaha Steaks!

We've talked before about the benefits of grass-fed cattle for our environment, and our health.

We've also talked about our favorite purveyor of meat-through-the-mails, Omaha Steaks. Last year in March we blogged about their introduction of vegetable meal options--a laudable effort (and hopefully a successful one for them). In that post, we also said this:

"… I'd also like to see (Omaha Steaks) offer organic, grass-fed beef and cage-free chicken, etc., choices, too, but maybe we'll get there eventually."

I was only mildly hopeful, given this statement on their website:

"For nearly 100 years, Omaha Steaks has sold grain-fed beef. Simply put, we wouldn't still be successful today if it were not the best way to consistently produce the highest quality and best-tasting steaks on earth."

We all know what that means: factory-farmed meat gives them the best bang for their buck, while meeting the expectations of the beef-buying public on what a steak should look like and taste like.

I should back up a bit. If you've ever ordered anything from Omaha Steaks in your life, you know that that is a high-maintenance relationship. If you gave them your e-mail, they WILL be updating you several times a week with new and tempting bargains. Of course, they'll have your mailing address, so expect packets of full-color and extremely glossy special offers arriving frequently, with pictures so succulent you seriously contemplate eating the paper they're printed on. What you NEVER want to do, fyi, is give them your telephone number. They pestered my 80-something father so badly he stopped answering his phone all together, and has informed my sisters and I that if we are expecting any more styrofoam boxes of meaty goodness from him in the future, we are out of luck. Thanks a lot, Omaha Steaks Pester Department.

I bring this up because recently we received one of those luscious picture packets in the mail, and what did my wondering eyes behold?

Hah! I admit to a slight feeling of satisfaction, as well as being impressed that Omaha Steaks continues to be so responsive to food trends. 

So that's the good news. As with anything else, quality does not come cheap. Click on this image to take a gander at those prices!

click to enlarge

According to The Google, pasture grazed, grass-fed beef is currently going for between $6.50 to $6.75 a pound on average. So by that score, Omaha Steaks' burgers (the fourth selection on the page above) is on sale for $24.99 for four six ounce burgers. That's a total of 24 ounces. There's 16 ounces in a pound, so that's a pound and half, making these burgers cost $16 a pound--quite a mark up over the going rate, and that doesn't even include shipping. Not to mention, if one fails to take advantage of the "bargain" and orders them at the regular price of $59.99, that would make your price per pound rise to, what, $36 a pound? My math skills are punking out on me here, but you get the idea.

Now if you're a bargain shopper, or, if you're a "green" shopper, you're probably not an Omaha Steaks customer anyway, so you aren't feeling my pain.

But you do have to wonder: why does it cost more to let cows eat what they find on the ground than go through the planting, harvesting, milling, and feeding of corn and grain to them?

This article, written by a grass-fed beef farmer, explains it in detail (not for the faint of heart, I might add) but I thought these statements were the most relevant (emphasis mine):

The key to profit in the grain/corn fed beef industry, which operates on extremely low individual margins is volume and speed. 

The sooner an animal can be brought to slaughter weight . . . the higher the volume and hence the greater the profit in the grocery store beef industry. Once placed in a feedlot, hyped up on growth hormones and grain/corn . . . the animal can be pushed to gains of of 3.5 to 5 lbs/day.

Animals finished on our grass pastures gain a natural 1.5 to 2 lbs/day.  While our cattle are still being fed and treated the way God intended, the grain/corn fed cows have already gone to market and the large producers are developing their next group of cattle.

Long story short, grass-fed takes longer, and, as we all know, time is money.

Some people, like Patrick Martins, founder of Heritage Foods USA and Heritage Radio Network, and the co-author of "The Carnivore's Manifesto: Eating Well, Eating Responsibly, and Eating Meat", believe that meat should be expensive, and that if the price were high enough, we would be getting a higher quality, healthier product, with far less negative impacts on the planet. As far as where that leaves those with less ability to pay, he reasons they would just have to eat less meat--not the worst thing in the world for their health, anyway. I understand what he's saying, and I don't even necessarily disagree, but it does sound an awful lot like "let them eat carrots," doesn't it?

Exorbitant prices aside, I think that Omaha Steaks move shows hope for the future. As Americans weaned on Capitalism, we know that supply follows demand. Omaha Steaks is throwing their hat in the grass-fed ring--many more venues have, as well. The demand is going up, and, inevitably, the price will come down (though even when it does, we probably shouldn't be eating all that much meat, anyhow).

Meanwhile, Dad has his own solutions to the price of grass-fed meat:

So stop calling him, Omaha Steaks.

Fear of the New

Starting new things is hard, and it can be scary. Whether it's a diet, an exercise program, a new school, a new job, or a new year, fear of the new and unknown is a completely natural response.

But what if that natural reticence is so overwhelming that it becomes a problem? Well, there's a word for that: neophobia.

You knew I was going to do that, right?

You may have seen the ABC News report a few years back on a little girl who was so opposed to trying new foods she would not deviate from her standard fare of french toast and pancakes. Now, as any parent knows, there's nothing ground-breaking about having a kid who's a picky eater. In this girl's case, however, she had such a fear of different foods, probably caused by stomach problems she'd experienced as a baby, that her doctors labeled it "food neophobia." The report follows the girl and her family as they seek help from a therapist to help her lead a more normal life.

Neophobia can also affect businesses and the marketplace. There, it's known as "disruptive innovation."

This could also be called "why we can't have nice things." Business, it seems, is a bit allergic to innovation, no matter how much you will hear that word tossed around. Sure, any business likes to offer new products before the competition can, just as long as it's not too new, or causes them to have to change much (or spend much) in their already established way of doing business. 

Tom Fishburne, marketer and award-winning cartoonist, explains it nicely:

https://marketoonist.com/2011/05/innovation-that-lays-the-golden-eggs.html

For myself, my neophobic moment came a few years ago, and its name was ALDI.

I had been told it was a bargain food market, but that logo certainly looked like a paint store. Or maybe hardware. But food?

Come on, Photoshop! Let's give 'em a hand!

Not perfect, but at least looks more like food!

Anyway, I had never even heard of ALDI before, obviously. But I'm usually up for new things--or so I thought. 

First off, you have to deposit a quarter to use a shopping cart. That was new, alright. A small, gas station-like food mart, but stocked like a regular grocery store, sort of, greeted me, beyond the shopping cart lock-up. I felt like maybe I was hallucinating, because none of the brands were anything I recognized, and yet, somehow familiar …

The whole appearance of the store--bare walls and cement floor, lack of muzak, narrow aisles, and limited choices on the shelves made me feel like maybe this whole thing was a clearing house for surplus grocery supply. Still, the prices were terribly low, so I chose some items and headed for check out. There, the new new information was that a) my items would not be bagged and b) if I wanted to bag them myself I would HAVE TO BUY A BAG or use an emptied cardboard box. The feeling of irritation was becoming immense (it had been a long time since I had been so challenged by a grocery store) but the coup de grâce came when I faced the checker, who told me that I couldn't use my bank card as "credit"--they only accepted debit or cash transactions. 

That was it, I was out.

First world problems? Definitely. A little too much "new" all at once? Absolutely. However, I had plenty of other options so I figured ALDI would just be a blip in my grocery store tail lights.

Flash forward three or so years. A few months ago, they put one in less than a mile from me, making it one of the closest grocery stores around. Hm. Was I going to have give up my anti-ALDI prejudice after all? I started reading about the store, taking into account that perhaps it was my lack of preparation that had lead to my less-than-satisfactory experience. I discovered that ALDI is a German-based company that also owns Trader Joe's. Interesting--I had often been to Trader Joe's and liked it. I kept reading.

It turns out, the things that had so put me off were the very things that attracted others. Enthusiastic consumer bloggers were writing that the small size, and lack of selection were actually selling points to them. That ALDI was a "boutique" experience, less Big Box American and more grab-a-bagette-on-my-way-home European. I had to admit, my usual grocery store offers a head-spinning array of choices that can make a person in hurry (me) long for the no-choice-but-one selection of ALDI. Another thing I learned was that the baggage issue, as well as the cash/debit-only tactic, weren't there just to throw a monkey wrench--they were cost saving measures, and, with a little pre-planning, easily dealt with. And the quarter shopping cart deposit? Is so you'll have an incentive to return your cart yourself, and they don't have to pay someone to do that--again, keeping costs down.

I was also impressed by the way ALDI treats it's workers. 

Pay starts at well above minimum wage, and all employees receive full benefits--dental and vision care as well as medical, 401(k) retirement plans, vacation time and paid holidays. Also, the cashiers are allowed to sit while they check you out. That, in my opinion, is pretty awesome.

Needless, to say, I realized I needed to put aside both my fear of the unknown AND the known, and give this ALDI paint store food market another try. I'm glad I did, because its prices are incredibly low compared to my regular market, even on the organic offerings, which they have quite a lot of. Also, everything I've bought there has been really tasty, despite its weird-looking knock-off packaging. Can I do all my shopping at Aldi's? No, more's the pity. They only carry one flavor of herbal tea--'nuff said! And the experience is a lot closer to Soviet Russia than baguette-grabbing Euro boutique. Example: once they run out of something, it's GONE. A while back, they ran a special on this great chicken apple sausage, and I happily bought it every week. 

A side note: this sausage was part of their "Never Any!" line, which includes products made without any antibiotics, preservatives or artificial flavors. These delicious chicken apple sausages contained: chicken, dried apples, water, honey, salt, spices, and parsley, period. No nitrates, no carrageenan, no long chemical concoctions or three different ways of saying "sugar." I've noticed this to be the case with many of their items, even things that aren't under the "Never Any!" banner.

Now, back to our story: I did notice that the packages disappeared as I bought them, and were not replaced. Then the day came when there were no more, and something else had appeared in its place. Dasvidanya, Comrade.

However, for great prices on staples, like cooking and baking needs, bread and meat, pre-made salads and fruits and veggies, as well as my own peculiarities: almond milk or lactose-free milk, ALDI, not a paint store, is a nice addition to the neighborhood.

What are you afraid of?

Fast Track Detoured

Previously, we talked about the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015) -- the “fast track” legislation to push through the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

We talked about how there's little in this sweeping TPP legislation for regular people to benefit from, and actually a lot for them to be worried about, if it were to pass. We even gave out ways to contact our representatives in Congress and urge them to vote against the fast track authority.

The good news is, it seems to have worked! 

Today, the deal's advocates were not able to pull in enough votes to make the thing happen, and for that, you can give yourselves a pat on the back, if you are one of the many people who did contact their congressperson. As CNN puts it:

(The defeat) showcased the strength of populist elements of both parties, who beat back an intense lobbying push from traditional Washington forces like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

However, no one should expect that this will now go away. We, the people, have shown that we can do it, and we need to keep showing it. Click here to contact your congressperson today, letting them know you are still very much a part of this fight! 

Just Say No

Previously on this blog, we talked about the so-called DARK Act, a bill before Congress that would make it illegal to label products that contain GMOs. Just in case it fails, there's another plan in place, one even weirder than DARK.

To ensure that the public will never know what's really in their food, there's the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The TPP is a sweeping international trade deal, negotiated largely in secret, designed almost exclusively by the corporations it would most benefit. It would affect everything from banking to farming to intellectual property rights, so there's lots of reasons to be alarmed. 

From Vox.com: 

... this system for setting global rules has some serious defects. We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these — it's secretive, it's dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.

Supporters of the deal say it will make the US more competitive in the global marketplace. I'm not sure turning the world into a court room where corporations can use legal muscle to trump native laws is what I would call "competition." This article is a great summary of the feeling:

Private corporations should not have the option of suing a nation whenever they feel like a rule or law has effected their profit rate. This is simply a part of doing business; an inherent aspect of capitalism. Investing is never risk-free; there are natural, social, and political changes that could always hurt an investment. More importantly, when a company’s product is hurting people or the environment, government has the right and obligation to stop it.

So what can any of us do to keep such a thing from happening? Well, there actually is something. There's a bill in Washington at the moment called the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015). It is “fast track” legislation to push through the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. “Fast track” authority would eliminate Congress’s right to make any changes to the President’s trade deals before signing off. The administration needs Congress to pass TPA-2015 to bring the TPP negotiations to fruition.

That's where you come in.

Click here to let your Senators know you oppose the TPP, and urge them to vote "no" on TPA-2015. Corporations that profit from hiding GMOs shouldn’t be the ones writing the rules about GMO labeling – but that’s exactly what TPP and fast track would mean.

To learn more visit exposethetpp.org

Thanks to Big Sister Marsha, RN, MSN, for giving us the heads up on this important issue.

The Sweet Life

I remember a conversation I had once with my dental hygienist. Out of curiosity, I asked her how previous generations had cared for their teeth, professional dental hygiene being an extremely recent development, after all. She explained that they had had their own techniques for dealing with it, but that the most important factor was that they, our ancestors, didn't use sugar, so tooth decay wasn't as serious and rampant as it is today.

It's difficult to imagine a world without sugar, isn't it? For centuries, honey was the only sweetener people knew, but, unlike sugar, honey possessed certain health benefits. First cultivated in Asia, it wasn't until the eighteenth century that sugar became popular and affordable for Westerners.

Sugar has become so ubiquitous in our food today, it's rare to find an item that doesn't have it in it. Look at the ingredients of anything on a grocery store shelf, and nine times out of ten, you're going to find added sugar listed. Bread, canned vegetables, juice--my chewable vitamin C tablets! There are a lot of health reasons all that sugar is bad for us, and the threat to our teeth is just one of them.

This article describes a recent study revealing the sweet, sweet relationship that the sugar industry enjoyed with the U.S. government in the 1960's and early 70s: 

All but one member of the government task force on tooth decay also sat on the sugar industry’s expert panel, and that 78 percent of industry recommendations crept into the 1971 National Caries Program … Stanton A. Glantz, a researcher who coauthored the paper, said: “Our findings are a wake-up call for government officials…to understand that the sugar industry, like the tobacco industry, seeks to protect profits over public health.”

"Profits over public health"? Four words that I, for one, am sick of hearing.

click on the image to enlarge

This Just In...

Earlier in this blog we talked about how American chocolate had won a fight to keep British chocolate, made with more natural ingredients, out of this country. Today, Hershey's has announced its pulling some GMOs out of their most popular products:

from The Daily Mail:

The company is also dropping emulsifier polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR) and artificial vanillin, the Confectionery News reported. PGPR reduces the viscosity of chocolate and is used by companies as a replacement for expensive raw ingredient cocoa butter...The decision comes amid a growing backlash against 'Frankenfoods'. Critics of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) foods consider them environmentally suspect and a possible health threat.

This new direction was caused, it turns out, by a vocal backlash against the use of GMOs on Hershey's Facebook page, but also a lean, as the article mentions, of its competitors away from GMOs and other items of offense, such as high fructose corn syrup. Anyway, this is a step in the right direction for Hershey and American foods in general. As the Aussies would say, "Good on ya, Hershey Facebook followers!"

As consumers, and as citizens, we need to keep up the pressure on not just food producers, but legislators, too, for healthy, natural, or at the very least, in my view, clearly labeled products to help us make the best decisions for ourselves and our families. Even on stuff we shouldn't be eating anyway, like candy bars.

A whole new world--now with fewer mystery ingredients!

The High Cost of Eating Cheap

Eating healthy on a tight budget is one of the most challenging things you can try to do. The good news (I guess) is that you're not alone.

This fantastic article from Dr. Mark Hyman explains in detail why it's so hard, and offers tips to help. He also highlights the importance of a healthy diet, not just for long-term consequences, but also for  more immediate concerns. I have bolded the optimal sentences:

...(w)hen you eat unhealthy foods [fast food and/or processed, packaged food], the costs of medical visits, co-pays, prescription medications, and other health services skyrocket. There are other non-economic costs of eating poorly as well. You reduce your ability to enjoy life in the moment due to increased fatigue, low-grade health complaints, obesity, depression, and more.

Just looking at this is depressing me

Dr. Hyman goes on to say that: 

The biggest advantage of eating well now is not just preventing disease and costs later, but simply enjoying each day to its fullest. You can make that happen. Eating well doesn’t have to cost more.

I highly recommend following the link and reading the article in its entirety.