Meatless Monday, Long Road to China Edition

China. A nation famous for its ancient culture and traditions, as well as for being that place where all our stuff is made these days, from underwear to beach chairs to iPhones. It's no secret, as well, that it's also where a lot of bad things can happen to food.

So it was pretty surprising when, in 2014, the USDA (The United States Department of Agriculture) approved a deal that would allow chicken produced in the US to be sent to China for processing, before being shipped back for human consumption. To put it another way, the U.S. would allow frozen American chicken to be shipped to China, to have a Chinese company thaw the chicken, cook the chicken, refreeze it, and send it back to the States. I get paranoid just doing that with left-overs—and I'm not even sending it on a 14,000 mile round trip!

Which even National Chicken Council spokesman Tom Super says is a long way to go to process a chicken, and “doesn’t make much sense economically." 

So what's the deal, USDA?

Munchies, a website and digital video channel dedicated to the modern food scene, speculates that: 

“The USDA’s move to bring Chinese plants into the American fold is just the first step in a politically motivated process to get the country to give the U.S. something in return. In 2003, when mad cow disease was discovered in cattle in Washington state, China enacted a ban on imported U.S. beef that continues to this day. With China’s meat consumption on the rise, it makes sense that U.S. beef producers would want to recapture that lucrative market. By starting to accept China’s processed chicken, the U.S. is apparently warming to the idea of soon accepting the country’s raw, unprocessed poultry—a move that might convince China to lift its beef ban.”

Oh, okay; political two-step, a "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" move, if Munchies is correct. For their part, it's been reported that our four major chicken companies, Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Sanderson Farms and Perdue Farms, have nothing to do with this deal, nor do they want to. They have yet to put any money into developing an export/import strategy; neither has the National Chicken Council or the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. And lobbyists, as well as other chicken industry proponents, emphatically argue no U.S. company will ever ship chicken to China for processing because, as quoted above, it “doesn’t make much sense economically." 

Mr. Super's comment  is, I'm sure, supposed to be a comforting one, though, of course what it means, is that if there was a way to make a buck on it, they'd do it in a heartbeat, which this USDA plan has now made possible. Writing of the situation in China, award-winning poet and critic of governmental policy Yang Lian states:

"Seduced by the high profits that can be earned from selling food, food producers have no qualms about selling fake or substandard food, or even adding poisonous chemicals to food products, as long as it makes the food look good enough to dupe the customers into buying it."

He could just as easily be talking about the US, couldn't he? After all, if profit is the primary factor, not the health and safety of the consumer, what, then, is the difference?

I rest my case!

Liquidated

Everybody knows by now that we should drink 8 glasses of water a day for good health. Water is super great for us, as it helps us absorb nutrients, cushion our bones, and move waste out of the body, among many other benefits. The trouble is, staying hydrated can be a pain. When I read "drink 8 glasses of water a day," all I see is those glasses of water lined up in a row and me thinking, "I can't possibly drink all that in one day."

So it was quite a relief for me to read that this 8 glasses a day thing has been debunked. 

The New York Times:

"Contrary to many stories you may hear, there’s no real scientific proof that, for otherwise healthy people, drinking extra water has any health benefits. For instance, reviews have failed to find that there’s any evidence that drinking more water keeps skin hydrated and makes it look healthier or wrinkle free. It is true that some retrospective cohort studies have found increased water to be associated with better outcomes, but these are subject to the usual epidemiologic problems, such as an inability to prove causation. Moreover, they defined 'high' water consumption at far fewer than eight glasses."

Finally! One less thing to feel guilty about not doing right. What the author, Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, points out, is that most of us get plenty of hydration from the food we eat as well as from what we drink. Fruits and vegetables contain water, for instance. As does any beverage you can think of.

So, we're not stuck drinking plain old boring water anymore, right? Not to rain on that parade (har har) but this infographic I found shows how quickly calories from other choices add up: 

from http://www.entwellbeing.com.au/alcohol/

1,370 calories!? Should have had 0 calorie water, instead!

It's not just the calories, either. It's the caffeine, and the chemicals, and the alcohol, that we're better off without. 

Personally, I think staying on top of one's water consumption is important. It's too easy to go an entire day and at the end of it, realize, "Hey, I'm really thirsty--and I've BEEN really thirsty for A WHILE now." 

So, how DO we keep ourselves properly hydrated throughout the day? I can't vouch for the accuracy of the healthful effects stated here (they do seem a little sketchy), but I think this infographic (below) is a pretty good schedule for keeping on track, nonetheless. 

http://deafseniorsusa.blogspot.com/2013/01/best-times-to-drink-waterfind-out-why.html

The Best "Science" Money Can Buy

Just when you think science has made a definitive statement, it seems like they switch it up on you. First, it's low-fats, then it's no fat, then it's some fats are good, then it's fats are okay, it's sugar that's the problem. Sometimes, these switch-ups are a natural progression of scientific inquiry; as more and better data becomes available, science will, as it must, change its consensus. Confusing for the rest of us, unfortunately, but, at least, it's the result of honest science.

And then there's the other kind. The kind of switch-up that's not made by scientists, and honesty has nothing to do with it. I'm speaking now about a new nonprofit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network, dedicated to creating "balance" in the way we think about diet, disease prevention, and exercise.

The group's vice president, Steven N. Blair, has this to say about its goals:

“Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh, they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on, and there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.” 

Uh … No compelling evidence? Doesn't he know that we know exactly how many calories are burned by exercising, and that the damage caused by bad food habits (heart disease, liver disease, etc.) can't be exercised away? Maybe not! Here's a tweet he made recently:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fitness, I'm all for exercise. But to claim it's more important than eating healthy is just plain mind-boggling in this day and age. Where did this Global Energy Balance Network and it's cockamamie ideas come from, anyway?

Maybe the following quotes from a piece in The New York Times can shed a little light on that:

"Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new “science-based” solution to the obesity crisis: To maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting calories … Coke has made a substantial investment in the new nonprofit [Global Energy Balance Network]. [Coke] had donated $1.5 million last year to start the organization … Since 2008, the company has also provided close to $4 million in funding for various projects to two of the organization’s founding members: Dr. Blair, a professor at the University of South Carolina whose research over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on physical activity, and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University School of Public Health."

So an organization supposedly dedicated to improving public health is, in fact, merely a prop, and the professors involved, merely puppets, for a soda giant.

Why the creepy clandestine approach, Coke?

"Health experts say [it is] part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. They contend that the company is using the new group to convince the public that physical activity can offset a bad diet despite evidence that exercise has only minimal impact on weight compared with what people consume."

This sort of behavior by corporations is nothing new, of course. In marketing parlance, it's called having a "front" organization--that's right, just like the mob. Tobacco companies are probably the most notorious for the tactic, frequently using front organizations and doctors to advocate their arguments about tobacco use. One less-than-subtle example:

Click on the image to marvel at the fine print.

It'll be interesting, won't it, to see who comes out of the woodwork to parrot the Global Energy Balance Network's new fitness-over-diet mantra. When you see them, you'll know whose money is in their pocket, and whose best interest they really have at heart.

As for the rest of us, we should feel pretty proud of ourselves. We've been so good at avoiding their products that they've resorted to crazy puppet show theater to lure us back. 

Shame on you, Coca-Cola. Shame on you.

Thanks to Friend of the Blog, Michael, for sending along the NYT article.

Words to Live By

I saw this phrase on a T-shirt over the weekend; I absolutely agree with it.

And so does our cat.

New Rules: the FDA Gets Serious About Sugar

Last time, I posted the recipe for my mom's holiday punch. 

I've felt a little guilty about it. 

After all, we're trying not to have things like punch, right? Loaded with sugar and artificial flavorings and colors, it's a little out of keeping with that healthy lifestyle one works so hard to achieve. The thing is, though, it is a treat. Something for a special occasion or holiday, enjoyed maybe once or twice a year. Nobody would make a daily habit out of it. 

Or would they? 

We all consume far more sugar every day than humans ever have, and it's leading to the myriad health problems we increasingly suffer from; diabetes, heart conditions, obesity. One of the ways, it was hoped, we would make better choices about what we eat was the enactment of the nutrition facts labeling system, appearing on packaged food since 1994. However, the illnesses it hoped to reduce since then have only gotten worse.

This month (July, 2015), the Food and Drug Administration has issued a supplemental proposed rule updating the nutrition facts label on food that would, among other things, require declaration of the percent daily value (%DV) for added sugars, as well as change the current footnote on the Nutrition Facts label.

The label on the left is the current label. The one on the right has the proposed changes.

(click on the image to enlarge)

"The Food and Drug Administration wants to make it easier for Americans to track how much added sugars we're getting in the foods and beverages we choose.

So, in addition to a proposed requirement to list amounts of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panels, the FDA is now proposing that companies declare a daily percent value, too.

What this means is that, instead of just listing the 65 grams of added sugar in that Coke, soda companies would be required to list that it represents 130 percent of the recommended daily intake. In other words, that one bottle contains more added sugar than you should be eating in an entire day." (emphasis mine) Source 

Do these changes have value? Will they help us make better food choices? Are they earth-shakingly brilliant, or are they modest at best? Whatever your opinion, the FDA invites you to share it with them to help guide the development of the new rules. Starting July 27th, and running until Oct. 13th, 2015, you can follow this link to read the full proposal and follow this link to make a comment, suggestion, or constructive criticism, after having read the changes.

This seems like a great idea to me!

Mom's Easy Party Punch

Does anyone make punch for parties anymore? Well, do they? It's too bad if they don't, 'cause back in the day, no party was quite complete without it.

At our house, we had our Mom's punch recipe, which was, and is, quite simply, the best ever. I don't know if she got it from a cook book or created it herself, but it's the real deal. I decided to post it here because, too often, you hear about cherished family recipes that, once that special someone passes away, their recipes go with them. I certainly don't want that to happen to Mom's Easy Party Punch. She may be gone, but her punch, at least, should live forever.

Okay! I have rewritten the steps and ingredients below, adding all the details I could think of, because Mom didn't write it down for anyone but herself, I don't think. She knew what she was doing. The rest of us may need a little help.

"Easy Party Punch"

You will need:

Ingredients:

1 package (0.13 oz.) cherry Kool Aid

1 package (0.13 oz.) raspberry Kool Aid

2 cups White Sugar

2 quarts Water

1 can of Pineapple Juice (46 oz.)

1 quart Chilled Ginger Ale

1 container of Raspberry Sherbet

Ice Ring (optional)

Alternate Flavor: Green!

To make Green Easy Party Punch, substitute 2 packages of lemon-lime Kool Aid for cherry and raspberry, and pineapple or lime sherbet for raspberry. I don't have a favorite; they are both incredible. Also, as I recall, if you make both they look pretty spectacular side by side on a Christmas party table.

Hardware:

Big Spoon or Spatula for stirring

Punch Bowl

Mellon Baller or small sized ice cream scoop

Wax Paper

Cookie Sheet or Baking Tray

Plastic Wrap (maybe you'll need it, maybe you won't--see below)

Prep:

Line a cookie sheet or baking tray with a piece of wax paper. Also, clear a huge space in your fridge for the punch bowl to fit into to chill; likewise your freezer, for the sherbet ball tray.

Mix both Kool Aid packages, sugar and water together in punch bowl. Add pineapple juice. CHILL. Mom doesn't say how long to chill it, but probably I hour at least, probably more like 2 to be sure. If chilling over-night, cover with plastic wrap. 

Next, use your mellon baller to scoop the sherbet balls, placing each one on your prepped wax paper. Place sherbet balls on tray in freezer. When ready to serve, place sherbet balls in punch, and pour the ginger ale over the sherbet. Add an ice ring if desired. SERVE.

Not a hair out of place. How DID she do it??

Waste Not: "Just Eat It," the Documentary

Back in January, 2013, I made two New Years Resolutions. The first was to stop wasting so much food; the second was stop using so much plastic. I did fairly well on the first, though it interfered a bit with the second. Being more on top of food storage meant a certain investment in Tupperware-like plastic containers. Hm.

Anyway, little did I know at the time that my personal battle against wasting food was a much larger issue. 

Irony abounds in the fact that, as a nation, we are fatter than ever, even while more and more Americans enter into "food insecurity" -- not having enough money left over after bills for food--every day. 

The irony does not end there. While our dependence on food assistance grows, and the difficulty in funding it does too, there is, in fact, an abundance of food that goes into landfills via restaurant and grocery store dumpsters, and our own household trash cans. According to a study done in 2011, approximately 40 percent of food in the U.S. goes to waste, and about one third of the food produced in the world for humans is lost or wasted.

A sorry state of affairs.

And it's not just a problem in the way that would have aggravated many of our mother's "waste not, want not" philosophies. If your mom (like mine) was one of those--made you clean your plate, and smuggled home uneaten bread rolls from restaurants in her purse--then you know what I'm talking about.  It's also increasingly being seen as a serious environmental and economic issue.

In 2014, two young filmmakers decided to document their efforts to not just reduce their own food waste, but to literally consume the discarded food of others, for six months. The resulting film, "Just Eat It," is available in its entirety on YouTube. Serious eww factor warning: they regularly "rescued" food from dumpsters and. ate. it. Not only did they never get food poisoning and die (not that they mentioned, anyway) they found such an abundance of available free food that they couldn't even store it all.

Filmmaker Grant Baldwin eyes a dumpster filled with discarded though viable yogurt.

So why DO we waste so much food? The film answers this question in a variety of ways, with enough blame to go around. From confusing labeling requirements  (expire dates and "sell by" dates are not, apparently, the same thing) and safety standards, to our own kitchens, where fresh produce goes bad and dairy products always find their way to the back of the fridge. 

I highly recommend this film, and since, like I said, you can watch it now for free (natch!) on YouTube, it couldn't be easier. 

Bon appétit!

For more how to feed people, not garbage cans, visit the "Just Eat It" Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/Justeatitmovie