Merry Christmas!

The work of the  incomparable Haddon Sundblom.

Top Five Books for Eaters of Food

'Tis the season for list making. The "best" of this, the "worst" of that. Usually about events, products, and personages pertaining to the year that's on its way out; in this case, 2015.

This is not one of those.

My list is for all of you who are in the midst of holiday shopping, and maybe you've got someone in your life that has an interest in health and nutrition, weight loss, or just weight management. Now buying diet books as gifts is tricky; you don't want to be like, "Here, I thought you could use this to HELP YOU LOOSE WEIGHT!" That would go over like a lead reindeer, wouldn't it? The cool thing about my list is that these books are tools for learning about more than just dieting. For instance, you won't find a single "21-Day Diet!" type thing here--and there's just one cook book (sorry!). Instead, your friend or relative or co-worker (or, let's be honest, you--you're going to get at least one Barnes and Noble gift card, you know you will) will get a lot more than that.

From each of these five books, you'll learn something new about food, its history, its incredible diversity, and its ever-changing role in culture and health.  And a thing or two about how to eat the right stuff, for you, your family, and your budget.

I didn't pick these books because they are the very best books of their type on the market (though I think they'd easily make that list). I picked them because they are the best books I've read on the subject of food (so far). They influenced me to start this blog, and to be "tuned in" about what I think is the main problem with food today--that it has become "product", and whatever gets that "product" to market looking the best, at the lowest cost, with the highest rate of return, regardless of whether it is even "food" anymore.  I have listed them in the order that I read them, so it's not a case of one being necessarily better than the other in ranking. 

Sick of the preamble? Let's get to the list!

1. COOK THIS, NOT THAT!
by David Zinczenko and Matt Goulding
Why I like it: This is part of a very popular series that I'm sure everyone is familiar with, being, as they are, so ubiquitous that they are for sale in my local Kinkos (??). I like this one in particular because of the simple, easy-to-follow recipes that break down not just the calories, but compare the home made version to what you'd be consuming by having the same meal in a restaurant.

Who it would make a good gift for: A young person, maybe just starting college, or moving out on their own, or anyone who needs a little jump start to stop eating out and learn the benefits of kicking' it in the kitchen. It can guide a beginner through the process of cooking, give tips on how to prepare all the meals of the day including snacks, as well as the aforementioned calorie comparison--a kind of "scared-straight" of calorie counting!
Click here for details.

2. FOOD RULES
by Michael Pollan
Why I like it: This book can fit in your pocket, for one thing. It's a handy-dandy little guide, a "commonplace book," if you will, for the eaters among us. Author Michael Pollan is much more famous for writing probably the seminal work in the world of food and health, "An Omnivore's Dilemma," but I haven't read that yet, so I can't recommend it personally. I can recommend this, though, as a great introduction to healthy eating habits, broken down into quick, bite-sized morsels (natch!). 

Who it would make a good gift for: Someone who is just getting interested in how diet affects health, and wants tips to eating (and feeling!) better.
Click here for more details.

3. FAT CHANCE
by Robert H. Lustig, M.D.
Why I like it: I first learned Dr. Lustig's name watching the documentary "Fed Up!". He impressed me as the person talking who was making the most sense, and who seemed the most knowledgeable about the topic of obesity, its causes, and its dangers. This book follows his experiences as a pediatric endocrinologist and how that led him to, unexpectedly, to become a healthy diet champion. It is a very readable book, written in a warm, self-deprecating yet serious tone. I highly recommend it.

Who it would make a good gift for: If there is someone in your life who has an interest in learning about how food affects health and chronic diseases, this would be a great choice for its in-depth, and possibly life-changing, information.
Click here for more details.

4. EATING ON THE WILD SIDE
by Jo Robinson
Why I like it: This book has it all. Explanations of the origins of the plants we eat, why some plants are better for us than others, and, most helpfully, how to select the best quality fruits and vegetables in the market and how to store them for maximum freshness at home. And, for you gardeners out there, Ms. Robinson supplies lots of info on what seeds to buy and how to cultivate them. This is probably my favorite book on this list.

Who it would make a good gift for: Someone who is ready to dive into the deep end of food, serious about wanting to shop smarter and eat healthier. Also, as mentioned, a good choice for the gardeners in your life.
Click here for more details.

5. THE DORITO EFFECT
by Mark Schatzker
Why I like it: This book is like a culmination of all the others on this list and then some, though it has most in common with "Fat Chance," in that it is focused on the science behind food today (and why that can be a bad thing). It is a great, easy to read examination of that stuff on our grocery shelves, how it got that way, and why we as consumers should be running in the opposite direction.

Who it would make a good gift for: The person who has had enough of commercialized food "product", who no longer accepts that a calorie is a calorie, or who thinks that meals should never come in through the window of a car. With this book, this person is about to achieve a black belt in consumer wisdom.
Click here for more details. 

That list again:

Cook This, Not That!
by David Zinczenko and Matt Goulding

Food Rules, An Eater's Manual
by Michael Pollan

Fat Chance
by Robert H. Lustig, M.D.

Eating on the Wild Side
by Jo Robinson

The Dorito Effect
by Mark Schatzker

That's it! I hope this has been helpful--happy shopping! 

Better Luck Next Time, Coke

Earlier this year, we talked about  The Global Energy Balance Network, a group organized to praise the benefits of exercise, and to assure us that sugary drinks such as Coke have nothing to do with the world's growing obesity problems. This group denied it had any connection to Coca-Cola. 

An investigation by the Associated Press proved otherwise:

The emails obtained by the AP through a records request showed Coke executives and the group's leaders held meetings and conference calls to develop the group's mission. A proposal circulated via email at Coke laid out a vision for a group that would "quickly establish itself as the place the media goes to for comment on any obesity issue." It said the group would run a political-style campaign to counter the "shrill rhetoric" of "public health extremists."

"Public health extremists?" Ouch. Wonder how that worked out for them?

(Following revelations about Coke's involvement with the group), The Global Energy Balance Network said on its website Monday night that it is "discontinuing operations due to resource limitations." The decision was effective immediately.

As much as I'd like to think that this would be the end of this particular tactic, if history has taught us anything, it's that there is no bad idea that won't be used again. I'm sure it won't be long before Coke thinks they've perfected a new strategy to spread their not-calories-exercise gospel.

How's that for "shrill rhetoric", Coke?

Happy Thanksgiving!

FrankenFish and Cultured Chicken

Last week, the FDA stunned the anti-GMO movement by approving a genetically modified Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption--the first such approval for an animal whose DNA has been scientifically modified. The new fish will have its genes altered to enable it to grow faster than un-altered salmon, thus increasing its profitability without, its makers say, making it unsafe for the public. The new salmon will not have to be labeled as a GMO product, either, according to the FDA. Activist groups have vowed to oppose the sale of these new fish, and some retailers, such as Kroger's, have said they will not carry it on their shelves.

Science is here to stay, it seems, in all aspects of our lives, to be sure--and that's not necessarily a bad thing. We accept CAT scans and airplanes and microwave ovens, cellphones and hairdryers--all products of Science, which we use with varying levels of unease throughout our daily lives. That Science rears its head in the production of our food? This, I think, trips our inner alarm bells in an even more visceral way, especially when choice--not labeling a GMO product as such, for instance--is taken away from us. It conflates into the ugliest notions about Science and scientists: that it is somehow a conspiracy of eggheads who, at best, are the helpless pawns of conciousless corporate overlords, or, at worst, a group of PhDed psychopaths determined to destroy all mankind for their own sick pleasure.

Stereotypes aside, what is Science up to with our food, and why? That things must be made cheaper, faster, last longer on the shelves, and cause no immediate, easily verifiable damage to our bodies seems to be the goal of modern food production in America. Whatever negative impacts are made on the environment in this quest seems to never be part of the equation, and, somewhere below that never, the well-being of the animals on whose flesh we feed.

But what if that were not the case? What if Science was as concerned with the environment and the animals we consume, while also trying to provide us with animal products? Enter "Cultured Chicken," the result of The Modern Agriculture Foundation (MAF) in Ramat Gan, Israel. This all volunteer, nonprofit organization was founded in March last year, and by January launched the world’s first feasibility study to determine the cost, timetable and resources to create commercial cultured chicken breast.

What is the world is a "cultured chicken breast"? Does it enjoy Proust, ponder Hegel, weep at the climax of La Traviata? Sadly, no. Let's let MFA explain in their handy infographic, below:

Says MAF cofounder Shir Friedman:

“Today, the meat, dairy and egg industries are among the major contributors to climate change. They consume huge amounts of valuable resources such as energy and fresh water, contribute to the outbreak of pandemics such as swine flu and are the cause of deaths of billions of animals every year."

About half the earth’s land area is taken up by livestock and the crops that feed them. A third of our freshwater is used for livestock and their food, and half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cattle headed to slaughter. Cultured meat production would require between seven and 45 percent less energy, 90% less fresh water and 99% less land, and would result in 80 to 90% less greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere.

One of the MAF’s biggest challenges, says the article, is to convince people that cultured meat is not “Frankenfood” and involves no genetic engineering. It is not a meat substitute, but 100% meat. When produced on a mass scale, cultured meat won’t be made in a lab but in a factory just like any other processed food from ketchup to cornflakes.

Talk about "cruelty-free!"

Now look here, you say. That's all well and good, but darn it, can't I just have a piece of chicken without Science all up in it? The kind of chicken Grandma had--is it really too much to ask?? 

It turns out, it is. Even Grandma stopped having chicken like she grew up with, if Grandma grew up in the pre-World War ll era. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that Science has, for a long time now, been up in your chicken.

Let's go all the way back, about 2,000 years ago, when chickens were first domesticated. From the very start of the human-chicken relationship, we have used what we would call Science to change them for our purposes. Strange as it may seem, chickens weren't initially bred to be meals back then, but for their fighting abilities--that's right, cock fighting. 

a mosaic uncovered in Pompeii, probably from the first century AD.

Over time, however, the primary value in poultry keeping was eggs, and meat was considered a byproduct of egg production. Its supply was less than the demand, and poultry was expensive. Except in hot weather, eggs can be shipped and stored without refrigeration for some time before going bad; this was important in the days before widespread refrigeration. There was a reason Herbert Hoover's Presidential campaign slogan in 1928 was "A Chicken in Every Pot." Chicken was expensive, and a rarity, and being able to have it was indeed a sign of prosperity.

By the late 1950s, poultry production had changed dramatically. Refrigeration, the development of Vitamin D (which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round), new breeding and in-cage- egg-laying techniques all helped to industrialize something that once was a niche product of small family farms. 

All this helped to make chicken the item that we perhaps most take for granted on any given menu. 

But back to your Grandma's chicken.

The other way that chicken has changed, besides becoming cheaper and more easily available to us than previous generations, is the sheer size of the things. Check it out:

Cross breeding chickens in the late '40's created the monsters we find wrapped in cellophane in our markets today: plumper thighs, meatier drumsticks, and breasts that would make Mae West blush. And, though products of breeding rather than genetic manipulation (or growth hormones, still illegal in the U.S.) they share the fast growth rate of their salmon cousins, going from chick to a five-pound bird in just six weeks. 

The downside?

These ideal chickens don’t have ideal health. The bigger, fatter chickens get sicker than the birds of yesterday. Confinement and excess weight lead to stress, reproductive issues, cardiovascular disease, and skeletal problems. Heavy antibiotics use — needed to combat disease — has led to disease-resistant bacteria, which are present in about half of all chicken in US stores.

As if that weren't bad enough, these mutant birds don't taste very good either. In my experience buying the big breasts or thighs, usually because of some irresistible sale, I'm lead to regret my thrift because the meat is tough and tasteless. Something the industry could care less about, having already got my money, I'm sure. 

For all these reasons--environmental, animal welfare, the health of us humans, and the taste of our dinners, I'm fairly interested in this cultured chicken business (and also beef).

Hebrew University Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, says that if the process becomes economically feasible, “the ecological and ethical considerations would make cultured meat irresistible. Cultured meat is one of the most important revolutions in the history of food and in the history of humankind itself.”

What do you think, Calvin?

Paleo ... Cheerios?

We've talked before on this blog about the problems with the USDA's food labeling system. How proposed changes don't go far enough, and how misleading though completely legal some aspects of labeling can be. Usually, one is merely annoyed by such tactics; however, annoyance can sometimes become elevated to outright disgust. It's not a nice feeling to be lied to, especially by your food.

Not everyone is taking it lying down. As reported in Mother Jones, a group called The Center for Science in the Public Interest has had enough with the labeling shenanigans already, and has filed a class-action lawsuit against General Mills over their product Cheerios Protein. In a California federal court, CSPI alleges that "General Mills falsely and misleadingly markets Cheerios Protein to children and adults as a high protein, healthful alternative to Cheerios," when, in fact, it is anything but. I won't spoil it for you, by all means click over to the article for full details, but I will say that it seems you are getting something extra when you buy Cheerios Protein, but it's more than just protein.

Not pictured: the "S" word.

Baby Steps: The Childhood Obesity Smackdown

It doesn't take a scientist to tell you that there are a lot of over-weight kids out there. Nor do you need a laundry list of the less-than-desirable outcomes for these kids, both physical and mental, awaiting them in the future, or that they are experiencing right now, if something isn't done. 

As for the causes, there are almost too many boogie men to point the finger at: a prevalence of cheap but unhealthy foods and sugary drinks that all too often target children, lack of access to exercise, and lack of knowledge about health and diet from the adults in their lives, to name a few.

Still part of the problem, McDonalds

But the good news is, there is actually some good news. Although overall obesity rates remain high, and prevalence among 2-19 year olds and adults in the United States has not changed significantly between 2003-2004 and 2011-2012, for very young children, however, data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) do show a decline in obesity prevalence in the 2 to 5 year old age group from nearly 14 percent in 2003-2004, to just over 12 percent in 2009-2010, to just over 8 percent in 2011-2012.

Below, childhood obesity by state.
2003:

2011:

Good on ya, Oregon, New Mexico, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana,
New York and New Jersey! Not so good on ya, a lot of other states.

Clearly, though there is still much work to do, these states that have seen their childhood obesity rates among their 2 to 5 year olds fall may have something to offer in terms of how they got those numbers down.

On the national level, a way to help kids have more and better options to healthy food has come through the new mandates set for the National School Lunch Program. It requires every school student to have at least one choice of fruit and one vegetable per school-supplied meal. So, that's a "top down" approach, and laudable as far as it goes. But, much like how leading a horse to water doesn't necessarily mean it will drink, just giving kids access to fruits and veggies doesn't mean they will eat them, as any parent knows. And as frustrating as it can sometimes be trying to get your own kids to eat right, imagine that same difficulty on a national scale! 

This article, however, describes a study conducted in 2011 that lead to a solution to the problem that borders on the zen-like in its simplicity. Want kids to stop throwing away their fruits and veggies and eat them? Reschedule recess.

Emphasis mine.

“Recess is often held after lunch so children hurry to “finish” so that they can go play—this results in wasted fruits and vegetables,” explains co-author David Just, PhD of Cornell University, “However, we found that if recess is held before lunch, students come to lunch with healthy appetites and less urgency and are more likely to eat their fruits and vegetables.” 

... After analyzing a total of 22,939 observations, the researchers concluded that in the schools that switched recess to before lunch children ate 54% more fruits and vegetables. There was also a 45% increase in those eating at least one serving of fruits and vegetables. During the same time period consumption of fruits and vegetables actually decreased in the schools that didn’t switch.

Not only did this switch help the kids, but it saved the school districts money by decreasing food waste, offsetting the higher cost of offering healthier food choices. 

And that helps everybody.