Riding the train home from work the other day I noticed an add targeted towards reducing child obesity. The organization called Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children (CLOCC) is promoting its message during the month of October called "5-4-3-2-1 Go!" that calls for 5 servings of fruits/vegetables, 4 servings of water, 3 servings of low-fat dairy, 2 or less hours in front of the TV or computer and 1 or more hours of physical activity.
First of all, I always find anything that discusses servings interesting because no one has a clue what a serving is. Most processed and packaged foods provide misleading servings. A candy bar that is clearly intended to be 1 serving is often listed as multiple servings so if you glance at the fat content you rarely notice that you need to multiply it by, say, 3x to get the accurate amount right before you crumple up the empty wrapper. I actually use this as a sign when I buy packaged foods. You'll notice that your average product on the shelves of Whole Foods has a much more honest serving size calculation than your average product at a traditional grocery or convenience store. If a product is clearly designed to be eaten by one person at one sitting and it is listed as having multiple servings, this is a red flag to me. But let's take things that aren't packaged and so don't have clear serving sizes. Fruits and vegetable serving sizes are usually set at about 1/2 cup for most, but a full cup for stuff like lettuce that takes up a lot of space. Many fruits are a single serving: bananas, apples, peaches, etc. An apple is a good marker to use for other fruits -- an apple size handful of grapes, berries, etc. is about a fruit. Vegetables are roughly the same. Of course the less that is edible the larger the serving -- like for corn an entire ear is one serving. While personally I don't think it really counts unless its truly freshly squeezed or juiced, 1/2 cup to 3/4 of a cup of fruit or vegetable juice is also considered a serving.
But what also bothers me about CLOCC's message is the diary emphasis. I think it is a wide misconseption that humans need to consume dairy. I have relaxed from my earlier in life viewpoint that diary is necessarily bad for you. I do not believe that is true for the right people and the right dairy (milk from cows given rBGH, for instance, is always bad for you). I also still believe that the emphasis on dairy from cows is a silly product of industrialized farming considering cows to be more economical. Humans, however, have a much easier time digesting sheep and goats milk. But steping back, why would dairy be a necessary element of our diet? No other animal drinks the milk of another animal (and no animal drinks the milk of their mother past their youth). Humans have certainly lived in areas of our planet for centuries without access to dairy. Indeed some ethnicities do far better digesting dairy than others. For instance, virtually all Asians are lactose intolerant. Even Asian-Americans are about 90% lactose intolerant. African-Americans, Mexicans and American Jews are also largely lactose intolerant, while Northern Europeans and their decendants have almost no lactose intolerance and the American children of each group tends to be less intolerant than the previous generations. (This all began with the domestication of animals about 10,000 years ago and shows how different groups evolved depending on their use of dairy. Groups that used dairy more exhibit less lactose intolerance.) So for starters, this shows that we can't all be expected to consume the same amount of dairy in the same forms. Serving milk to kids in schools may not be such a good idea (though children as a rule exhibit less lactose intolerance than adults).
But we need milk and dairy for healthy growth, strong teeth and bones, and so forth, right? Not really actually. Studies have shown that milk doesn't improve bone integrity in children or reduce fracture risks in elderly adults. Yes, calcium is important, but it can be found in small doses in all sorts of foods that build up, and those foods tend to provide far more digestible calcium than dairy. Indeed, the famous nutritionist Marion Nestle points out that rates of bone density loss (osteoporsis) are highest in countriest that eat the most dairy. This is of course more complicated than I lay out. Americans also consume the most meat which is known to reduce calcium levels in the body. Perhaps our foods are so lacking in nutrition today will all of our processed crap that we lack sufficient vitamin D, magnesium and potassium to properly absorb the calcium in dairy and other foods. What remains clear is that dairy is not necessary. If you love milk in your cereal or a kid needs a glass with desert, most people wouldn't say that's a health risk. But to say it's a requirement for good health is a leap that is totally unsupported by scientific research. This leaves us with my largest frustration: the fact that non-profits and government organizations that either really intend (or pretend to intend) to help us live and eat healthier are spreading false messages.
Personally I think it is more important to focus on what NOT to eat. Focus on avoiding soft drinks, limiting processed foods, eliminating all fast food, and reducing animal-based proteins. People will still be thirsty and will still be hungry. If they can be convinced to avoid soft drinks they will be more likely to drink water. If they can be reminded that fast food literally kills you in the same way as a pack of cigarettes they will seek out alternatives rather than go hungry. If they decide it may be a good idea to eat a smaller portion of meat at dinner they will be more likely to eat more vegetables to fill themselves up. Is this really that complicated? Can't someone compile this into a cheer as catchy as "5-4-3-2-1 Go!"?
Showing posts with label Whole Foods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whole Foods. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
From soy to hemp
As I eat my breakfast today I thought I'd write a quick note about hemp milk. You can't be conscious in America and be unaware of the rise of soy milk (or soy generally). Many people think that soy milk is a healthy alternative to milk (for intolerance issues, fat, etc.). Others think that soy actually provides health benefits over alternatives. Soy milk has been pushed big time and Americans have drank it up. Soy milk had sales of about $2 million in 1980, and currently posts sales over $300 million a year. The truth is that soy milk is not healthy (nor is any fermented soy). And like anything dangerous to eat, it is far worse for growing children. Plus, soy eaten as part of a omnivorous diet is not great, but eaten on a vegetarian diet it is particularly unhealthy and damaging, as people count on it to provide what they miss from meat, and yet it often fails to provide those nutrients and hurts the bodies ability to get them elsewhere, as is shown below.
The list of what's wrong with unfermented soy is pretty long. Here's a few: it blocks protein digestion (what you eat isn't necessarily digested) that also can cause problems with amino acid uptake and other nutrient deficiencies including calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc in the intestines, it promotes clotting that causes the clumping of red blood cells, it acts as a growth inhibitor, it depresses thyroid function, and contains isoflavones that are estrogen-like compounds that are widely believed to increase cancer risks, particularly amongst women and even more particularly for post-menopausal women (many people actually take these isoflavones in pill form as a supplement). Further, any health benefit of soy is really unclear. Some studies show that soy reduces certain types of cancer, while others show that it most likely increases the risks of other types. Some women look to soy to help reduce their chances of breast cancer, but as Marian Burros of the New York Times has discussed, some studies show that soy reduces breast cancer risks and others show that it increases it. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, for instance, reported over 10 years ago that soy increases breast cell proliferation in women -- and the greater the cell proliferation the greater the chance of breast cancer cells developing.
To me, the message here is fairly clear when you look past Silk's health claims: avoid it. Unfermented soy at most has unproven health benefits, and at worst is a cause of significant diet related problems and even cancer. Yes, the Japanese consume soy. But they consume it primarily in FERMENTED form. Fermentation largely reduces or eliminates every health concern listed above. Further, the Japanese on average consume small amounts of soy with meals. Americans think there is no such thing as too much of a good thing. Well there just might be. (I'll also add that there are particular types of cancer that the Japanese have higher rates of, and some attribute this to soy intake.)
So what should you do about your cereal and your coffee and your smoothie? While Starbucks may only offer milk or soy milk, even regular grocery stores now often offer numerous alternatives. The most popular are almond milk and rice milk (and some people will also drink oat milk). However, both offer almost no health benefits. So you're better off using either to soy milk, but I want to suggest a better alternative: hempmilk. Hempmilk is taking on in the health food community. I have been drinking it for years now and recently realized on a trip to a primarily organic grocery store that the soy milk consumed a tiny amount of shelf space, while hempmilk was offered in three different flavors from multiple brands. This has clearly become the preferred alternative to those who have become well informed on soy. Hempmilk has more calcium that cows milk, and is packed with Omega 3s and 6s. It contains a good amount of digestible protein, amino acids, and numerous minerals. Hempmilk is pretty darn good for you. Give it a try -- I personally love Living Harvest Hempmilk's vanilla flavor. You can certainly get it at Whole Foods, health food stores, Green Grocer in Chicago, or online here. (Oh, and for those of you who may think this also gets you high, it doesn't. Hemp food products are all THC-free. Though unfortunately the wise government of the United States does not allow the growing of hemp seeds, so these are usually imported from Canada or other more progressive countries.)
The list of what's wrong with unfermented soy is pretty long. Here's a few: it blocks protein digestion (what you eat isn't necessarily digested) that also can cause problems with amino acid uptake and other nutrient deficiencies including calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc in the intestines, it promotes clotting that causes the clumping of red blood cells, it acts as a growth inhibitor, it depresses thyroid function, and contains isoflavones that are estrogen-like compounds that are widely believed to increase cancer risks, particularly amongst women and even more particularly for post-menopausal women (many people actually take these isoflavones in pill form as a supplement). Further, any health benefit of soy is really unclear. Some studies show that soy reduces certain types of cancer, while others show that it most likely increases the risks of other types. Some women look to soy to help reduce their chances of breast cancer, but as Marian Burros of the New York Times has discussed, some studies show that soy reduces breast cancer risks and others show that it increases it. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, for instance, reported over 10 years ago that soy increases breast cell proliferation in women -- and the greater the cell proliferation the greater the chance of breast cancer cells developing.
To me, the message here is fairly clear when you look past Silk's health claims: avoid it. Unfermented soy at most has unproven health benefits, and at worst is a cause of significant diet related problems and even cancer. Yes, the Japanese consume soy. But they consume it primarily in FERMENTED form. Fermentation largely reduces or eliminates every health concern listed above. Further, the Japanese on average consume small amounts of soy with meals. Americans think there is no such thing as too much of a good thing. Well there just might be. (I'll also add that there are particular types of cancer that the Japanese have higher rates of, and some attribute this to soy intake.)
So what should you do about your cereal and your coffee and your smoothie? While Starbucks may only offer milk or soy milk, even regular grocery stores now often offer numerous alternatives. The most popular are almond milk and rice milk (and some people will also drink oat milk). However, both offer almost no health benefits. So you're better off using either to soy milk, but I want to suggest a better alternative: hempmilk. Hempmilk is taking on in the health food community. I have been drinking it for years now and recently realized on a trip to a primarily organic grocery store that the soy milk consumed a tiny amount of shelf space, while hempmilk was offered in three different flavors from multiple brands. This has clearly become the preferred alternative to those who have become well informed on soy. Hempmilk has more calcium that cows milk, and is packed with Omega 3s and 6s. It contains a good amount of digestible protein, amino acids, and numerous minerals. Hempmilk is pretty darn good for you. Give it a try -- I personally love Living Harvest Hempmilk's vanilla flavor. You can certainly get it at Whole Foods, health food stores, Green Grocer in Chicago, or online here. (Oh, and for those of you who may think this also gets you high, it doesn't. Hemp food products are all THC-free. Though unfortunately the wise government of the United States does not allow the growing of hemp seeds, so these are usually imported from Canada or other more progressive countries.)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Organic milk
I've written before about milk -- about the risks of bovine hormones that boost production and the absurdity of our laws that require milk to be pasteurized (and the common misconception that "raw" milk is unsafe). You can usually find milk that is "homone free" or "rBGH" free and that's a good start. Additionally, organic milk has become widely available and will continue to be more available and more affordable (for better or worse is a whole other topic). Organic milk must come from "organic cows" just as with organic beef. This requires certification and compliance with USDA rules. Organic cows cannot be injected with hormones, and cannot be given antibiotics except sometimes in limited situations where the health of the animal is truly at issue (this is a point that has developed some controversy as without some flexibility a cow would either have to be left to suffer and die as an "organic cow" or given the necessary drugs and then perhaps sold to a factor farm now that it lost its organic status or separated from the organic herd for at least a year).
Additionally, organic cows must have access to pasture. They truly need to be able to walk around and eat grass when possible. This can be difficult depending on the season and geography, and certainly favors smaller farms as requirements of rotational grazing, herding, etc. clearly become more problematic when you go from 300 cows to 1,000 to 5,000. The good news is cows like to graze. It's in their nature. Farmers report that cows run to the pasture enthusiasm (for a cow) -- not unlike a dog that gets excited to go outside. And as I've discussed so many times, grass is what a cow is meant to eat. When you feed an animal its natural diet it will be healthier (thus the significantly reduced need for banned antibiotics, etc.) and it will produce healthier food for humans. Organic milk has been found to produce as much as 500x more beneficial fatty acids (particularly conjugated linoleic acid or CLA), anticarcinogens and vitamin E as conventional milk where cows are fed a "grain diet" (corn). Other benefits include 75% more vitamin A and 2-3x more antioxidants. And of course there are no traces of those hormones and antibiotics, which are significantly more dangerous to children than adults.
There are many concerns as the industry develops. The nation's largest producer of organic milk is Aurora Organic Dairy. They have been a center of controversy from the start, as chronicled in Samuel Fromartz's book Organic, Inc. And they remain representative of the problems in this industry. Aurora Dairy is huge. Unlike most organic dairy farms, they operate on a huge scale and use industrial-scale dairies more like massive conventional dairy farms. They are one of the primary suppliers to Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway and Costco, among others. Unfortunately, they have always had a problem with the grazing requirements. In 2007 the USDA found them to have "willfully" violated numerous USDA organic regulations. Earlier this month they made negative headlines again when The Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint with the USDA that Aurora was failing to comply with USDA organic guidelines in at least one dairy.
While perhaps technically in compliance, you may also want to avoid the largest brands in general. Horizon is owned by Dean Foods, and has been found to also represent much of what is wrong in the direction of organic milk today. They pioneered ultrapasteurization that heats milk to even higher levels to increase shelf life for distant transportation, but exacerbates the problems of pasteurization. Also at the bottom of organic milk surveys are most store brands (with the notable exception of Whole Foods 365, which has been deemed "excellent").
Additionally, organic cows must have access to pasture. They truly need to be able to walk around and eat grass when possible. This can be difficult depending on the season and geography, and certainly favors smaller farms as requirements of rotational grazing, herding, etc. clearly become more problematic when you go from 300 cows to 1,000 to 5,000. The good news is cows like to graze. It's in their nature. Farmers report that cows run to the pasture enthusiasm (for a cow) -- not unlike a dog that gets excited to go outside. And as I've discussed so many times, grass is what a cow is meant to eat. When you feed an animal its natural diet it will be healthier (thus the significantly reduced need for banned antibiotics, etc.) and it will produce healthier food for humans. Organic milk has been found to produce as much as 500x more beneficial fatty acids (particularly conjugated linoleic acid or CLA), anticarcinogens and vitamin E as conventional milk where cows are fed a "grain diet" (corn). Other benefits include 75% more vitamin A and 2-3x more antioxidants. And of course there are no traces of those hormones and antibiotics, which are significantly more dangerous to children than adults.
There are many concerns as the industry develops. The nation's largest producer of organic milk is Aurora Organic Dairy. They have been a center of controversy from the start, as chronicled in Samuel Fromartz's book Organic, Inc. And they remain representative of the problems in this industry. Aurora Dairy is huge. Unlike most organic dairy farms, they operate on a huge scale and use industrial-scale dairies more like massive conventional dairy farms. They are one of the primary suppliers to Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway and Costco, among others. Unfortunately, they have always had a problem with the grazing requirements. In 2007 the USDA found them to have "willfully" violated numerous USDA organic regulations. Earlier this month they made negative headlines again when The Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint with the USDA that Aurora was failing to comply with USDA organic guidelines in at least one dairy.
While perhaps technically in compliance, you may also want to avoid the largest brands in general. Horizon is owned by Dean Foods, and has been found to also represent much of what is wrong in the direction of organic milk today. They pioneered ultrapasteurization that heats milk to even higher levels to increase shelf life for distant transportation, but exacerbates the problems of pasteurization. Also at the bottom of organic milk surveys are most store brands (with the notable exception of Whole Foods 365, which has been deemed "excellent").
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Real chocolate
I just finished my Gnosis Chocolate bar (pronounced "nosis") and thought I'd drop a little note about it here. Gnosis is a New York company started by the beautiful Vanessa Barg. All of their chocolates are handmade (meaning they use absolutely no machines whatsoever), raw, and vegan. Even those fancy chocolate bars you find at Whole Foods will often be filled with emulsifiers, have unnecessary dairy added, etc. None of that here. It's pretty well known now that chocolate is extremely good for you in moderation. The issue, though, is what's chocolate? A Hershey's bar is not, if you get my drift. Gnosis' products are. This is one of those things where we ate chocolate, industry and food companies took over and gave us a watered down, artificial version, and companies like Gnosis are giving us options to eat the real stuff. I highly recommend you seek it out, which is available at some Whole Foods, Hanna's Bretzel in Chicago, and on their website here.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Pasta whore
Last night I had fresh pasta from Pasta Puttana -- or Pasta Whore. This is a small business started by Jessica Volpe (not a Chicago native but living here now). She makes a few varieties of pasta and sells them at the Edgewater Farmers Market, the Green City Market, and at Green Grocery (where I got mine last night). The pasta was different in texture and flavor than I am used to. It also cooks in 10 seconds. How's that for fast food? It's $8 for what amounts to a serving for two people -- if it's not all you eat for dinner this really is for two people -- so it's not that expensive. The ingredients are not 100% organic but many of them are, and with one or two exceptions all are locally sourced. The pasta can be frozen and just dropped into boiling water to cook still in 10 seconds (otherwise it spoils quickly). You can read more about Jessica and her company here.
This is the sort of business that deserves supporting: quality artisan products but someone who loves that type of food so much they want to dedicate their life (or at least their free time) to making it. This is also the type of product you'll never find at a Whole Foods or a Trader Joes with a national buying system. Shops like Green Grocer bring things products within our reach. They spend the time finding them, and all we need to do is find the shops. I know there are more artisan food shops near me. I just need to find them now!
Friday, May 29, 2009
Reading food packages in the dark
I've already expressed my utter distrust for the USDA (and related agencies). And anyone who cares enough about what they eat to read this probably knows to take certain "labels" and claims on packaging with a grain of salt. Many already know, for instance, that "free range" doesn't really mean that Sally the Chicken is out there living her life under the sun, stretching her talons into nice grass. Rather it means that Sally probably lives in a pretty awful, dirty, cramped building, that has a little door in it that leads to a patch of grass. If Sally wanted she could go out that door and chill for all long as she wants. But she has never been out there and she will never go out there.
What does all this mean? That "free range" is a bunch of b.s. If you want to know that your chicken lived its life as a chicken (meaning it will produce tastier and healthier meat and eggs) then you want it to have lived in a pasture -- "pastured chicken" or "pastured eggs" so to speak. But perhaps more importantly you want to know where it is coming from. The risk here is that so many people realize the virtues of pastured eggs that the word is used inappropriately. Every claim on a package must be read with a massive grain of salt. (Take "all-vegetarian diet" for instance -- it's nice to know that your chickens weren't fed other chickens and may not have some future mad chicken disease but does it mean? Chickens eat worms and worms are not part of a vegetarian diet. From that alone you know it makes no sense. Other reasons we can leave aside for now.)
The concern overall is that people react to what they read and hear. These terms are often not regulated and when they are you can believe one thing: that the big companies will convince the USDA to stretch the regulation to include them. When that happens it has no meaning anymore. Your free range chickens are exactly the same as your not free range chickens.
Advocates and fans of the grassfed or pastured movement are now concerned that it is picking up enough that it will be next. When I think of grassfed cattle I think of a cow who lives its entire life on a pasture eating grass. This would be overseen by a farmer who never injects the cattle with antiobiotics and never feed anything but the grass on the ground or natural hay when the grass isn't growing (and careful here of the "grain finished" meat -- as it's a way a farmer can fatten up its cow at the end of its life using corn). But the USDA doesn't see it that way. As I understand it, grassfed beef farmers (the so called true "grass farmers") have been continually lobbying the USDA to restrict use of related terms to only the meaning as I understand it (as everyone who knows the term understands it). I am not aware of exactly how successful or unsuccessful that lobbying is but I don't have my fingers crossed. If you can make an "organic" twinkie using the USDA's regulated term (you can) then you will someday be able to buy a "grassfed" steak using the USDA regulated term from a cow that never lived on a pasture, was injected with antiobiotics, and who knows what else.
The good news is that we aren't there yet. The most prevelant grassfed beef available in my area is Tallgrass and it is true, 100% grassfed beef. Whole Foods won't buy lamb that is not 100% grass fed in the true meaning (access to pastures its entire life). But the day may come when this ends and it goes back to knowing what you are eating. Much of the beef, lamb, goat, chicken and turkey I've encountered that claims to be pasture-raised comes from farms that have websites where you can read all about the philosophy of the farm and the way the animals are raised. They are also sold at farmers markets where you can meet their representatives and look them in the eye, or at boutique shops that buy directly from the farm and you can look that person in the eye. I have found that such shops know I am serious about my inquiry and will not just say something to shut me up. Provenence in Logan Square (also has a Lincoln Square location) for instance, told me that they did not believe their poultry was pastured. I asked if their grassfed ground beef was grain finished and they looked up the farm on the internet and called them for me before answering.
Now not everyone will go to such lengths and most Americans need to go to Jewel, not Provenence, to buy their meat. But these stores don't change out brands that often so you can do your own research quite easily with a few Google searches and be the educated consumer that helps raise the quality of our food. And I always try to remember that no matter how bright it is under those supermarket lights, it's really dark in there and I can't really see what I'm looking at.
What does all this mean? That "free range" is a bunch of b.s. If you want to know that your chicken lived its life as a chicken (meaning it will produce tastier and healthier meat and eggs) then you want it to have lived in a pasture -- "pastured chicken" or "pastured eggs" so to speak. But perhaps more importantly you want to know where it is coming from. The risk here is that so many people realize the virtues of pastured eggs that the word is used inappropriately. Every claim on a package must be read with a massive grain of salt. (Take "all-vegetarian diet" for instance -- it's nice to know that your chickens weren't fed other chickens and may not have some future mad chicken disease but does it mean? Chickens eat worms and worms are not part of a vegetarian diet. From that alone you know it makes no sense. Other reasons we can leave aside for now.)
The concern overall is that people react to what they read and hear. These terms are often not regulated and when they are you can believe one thing: that the big companies will convince the USDA to stretch the regulation to include them. When that happens it has no meaning anymore. Your free range chickens are exactly the same as your not free range chickens.
Advocates and fans of the grassfed or pastured movement are now concerned that it is picking up enough that it will be next. When I think of grassfed cattle I think of a cow who lives its entire life on a pasture eating grass. This would be overseen by a farmer who never injects the cattle with antiobiotics and never feed anything but the grass on the ground or natural hay when the grass isn't growing (and careful here of the "grain finished" meat -- as it's a way a farmer can fatten up its cow at the end of its life using corn). But the USDA doesn't see it that way. As I understand it, grassfed beef farmers (the so called true "grass farmers") have been continually lobbying the USDA to restrict use of related terms to only the meaning as I understand it (as everyone who knows the term understands it). I am not aware of exactly how successful or unsuccessful that lobbying is but I don't have my fingers crossed. If you can make an "organic" twinkie using the USDA's regulated term (you can) then you will someday be able to buy a "grassfed" steak using the USDA regulated term from a cow that never lived on a pasture, was injected with antiobiotics, and who knows what else.
The good news is that we aren't there yet. The most prevelant grassfed beef available in my area is Tallgrass and it is true, 100% grassfed beef. Whole Foods won't buy lamb that is not 100% grass fed in the true meaning (access to pastures its entire life). But the day may come when this ends and it goes back to knowing what you are eating. Much of the beef, lamb, goat, chicken and turkey I've encountered that claims to be pasture-raised comes from farms that have websites where you can read all about the philosophy of the farm and the way the animals are raised. They are also sold at farmers markets where you can meet their representatives and look them in the eye, or at boutique shops that buy directly from the farm and you can look that person in the eye. I have found that such shops know I am serious about my inquiry and will not just say something to shut me up. Provenence in Logan Square (also has a Lincoln Square location) for instance, told me that they did not believe their poultry was pastured. I asked if their grassfed ground beef was grain finished and they looked up the farm on the internet and called them for me before answering.
Now not everyone will go to such lengths and most Americans need to go to Jewel, not Provenence, to buy their meat. But these stores don't change out brands that often so you can do your own research quite easily with a few Google searches and be the educated consumer that helps raise the quality of our food. And I always try to remember that no matter how bright it is under those supermarket lights, it's really dark in there and I can't really see what I'm looking at.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Spending more on my food
I'm looking forward to checking out a little shop in Chicago this weekend called the Green Grocer by Grand and Ogden. From what I understand they've got grass-fed meat, raw cheeses and a host of great stuff (who wouldn't want an organic locally made doughnut?!). Places like the Green Grocer (sort of the anti-establishment version of Whole Foods) and Whole Foods itself, are certainly for the wealthier residents of this world. Particularly in our current times, spending $9 for a jar of pickled tomatoes or $3 for an avocado is nothing short of comical to most Americans (who are of course overall some of the wealthiest people in the history of the world -- or dying middle class aside). It is not hard to spend $300 on a 45 minute trip to Whole Foods or spend $150 filling up a little basket at a place like Provenance, Olivia's Market, etc. Yet perhaps it is not that simple. There is some evidence that we has slowly but surely been spending less on food (as a percentage of our individuals incomes) as each century and decade goes by. Indeed, we spend less on food than anyone in the history of the world (or anyone else in our current world) -- that comes out to less than 10% of disposable income. Just in America, in the past 35 years, we have gone from spending on average just under 13% of disposable income on food to just under 10%.
What does this mean? I don't know if it means more of us are taking our families to McDonald's instead of Chili's or if it means that we buy the same eggs and bread at the same stores but the prices have overall come down relative to inflation. Maybe it means that we reach for the cheaper brands and economize on the bulk stores that let families pretend they are readying a bunker. Or maybe it means that we just don't consider food as much of a priority. That bread over there is certainly better for us and tastes better, but it's literally twice as expensive -- so this bread will be fine for little Jimmy's lunches. Have our taste buds been dumbed down to enjoy what's cheapest? Kids want white bread not some artisan whole grain loaf, or bologna over real prosciutto, American cheese over fresh mozzarella, Sunny-D over fresh squeezed juices, a Snickers bar over Dutch chocolates.
It's a complicated issue but it brings up one important point in my mind -- I can justify spending more on food. I can make high quality food a little bit more of a priority. Spending a couple hundred dollars at "Whole Paycheck" hurts, but gosh it tastes so much better and I believe it will pay for itself in the long run when it keeps me out of the hospital (though I'll ignore that dying prematurely is probably the best way to save money). My grass fed steaks from Tallgrass were pricey -- about $26/lb, but they are FAR healthier than the ones right next to them from corn-fed cows for $9/lb. If we want, we can make food more of a priority in our budgets and our calendars (I acknowledge that these little shops don't sell everything I need so the idea of one-stop shopping goes out the window). I look forward to spending some good, hard earned money at the Green Grocer tomorrow.
What does this mean? I don't know if it means more of us are taking our families to McDonald's instead of Chili's or if it means that we buy the same eggs and bread at the same stores but the prices have overall come down relative to inflation. Maybe it means that we reach for the cheaper brands and economize on the bulk stores that let families pretend they are readying a bunker. Or maybe it means that we just don't consider food as much of a priority. That bread over there is certainly better for us and tastes better, but it's literally twice as expensive -- so this bread will be fine for little Jimmy's lunches. Have our taste buds been dumbed down to enjoy what's cheapest? Kids want white bread not some artisan whole grain loaf, or bologna over real prosciutto, American cheese over fresh mozzarella, Sunny-D over fresh squeezed juices, a Snickers bar over Dutch chocolates.
It's a complicated issue but it brings up one important point in my mind -- I can justify spending more on food. I can make high quality food a little bit more of a priority. Spending a couple hundred dollars at "Whole Paycheck" hurts, but gosh it tastes so much better and I believe it will pay for itself in the long run when it keeps me out of the hospital (though I'll ignore that dying prematurely is probably the best way to save money). My grass fed steaks from Tallgrass were pricey -- about $26/lb, but they are FAR healthier than the ones right next to them from corn-fed cows for $9/lb. If we want, we can make food more of a priority in our budgets and our calendars (I acknowledge that these little shops don't sell everything I need so the idea of one-stop shopping goes out the window). I look forward to spending some good, hard earned money at the Green Grocer tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Processed vegetarian/vegan food
I promised to write more about Veggie Bite today (the vegan "fast food" two store chain in Chicago). The reason I want to talk about Veggie Bite has less to do with the "restaurants" themselves and much more to do with what they represent -- and that is a belief by vegans and vegetarians that when they cut out flesh (or all animal products for vegans) they are eating healthier no matter what. I never bought into that mentality entirely, but I certainly found myself filling half my cart from the frozen section in Whole Foods. That meant I had fake chicken nuggets, vegan TV dinners, soy ice cream sandwiches, vegan meatballs, and who knows what else. I started to realize how absurd it was that I could believe I was eating healthy. Above all else, our bodies cannot handle processed foods. I am a firm believer that processed foods are the cause of so many healthy problems today. Maybe my foods lacked processed (a/k/a hydrogenated) oils, or some of the worst of processed corn byproducts (like high fructose corn syrup) but they still entailed an ingredient list that took up the entire side of the box and contained few items I recognized or could pronounce. This cannot possible be healthy. Indeed, research has shown that unfermented soy products are not only a poor source of nutrition as they are not very digestible, but they can wreak havoc in other ways -- even impeding the bodies ability to absorb protein. (Note that soymilk is one type of unfermented soy product).
This goes back to the basic and sensible thought that natural is better then processed, no matter how bad you think the natural is. The butter v. margarine issue provides perhaps the best example. Margarine is clearly worse for you overall. Making the same spread contain less fat is to ignore the terrible things that the processed ingredients in margarine will do to you over time. This is the same with vegetarian and vegan meals. Vegetarians often think that now their diet lacks unhealthy meat so they can eat as much cheese and milk as they want (which in their current form in America is usually a poor choice for a meal -- more to come on that another day). And together with vegans, we reach for fake chicken nuggets and the like. Besides the soy argument, believe it or not, the unhealthy thing about a chicken nugget is not just the part about the chicken.
I'll end by admitting that I know when vegans and vegetarians reach for these foods at times. This comes down to comfort and convenience. We remember eating them as kids, etc. and the only way we can eat a ruben again is to eat one made out of fake ingredients so it takes and feels like the real thing. We also can't always have a fridge full of fresh veggies and the time to wash and prepare them all so sometimes you need to pull something out of the freezer.
I think we just need to be aware of how unhealthy these foods can be, and that there are alternatives. Seitan (the wheat gluten byproduct) for instance, is much healthier than unfermented soy (so long as you don't have any gluten intollerance). And there are plenty of all veggie dishes that don't require fake meat. Wendy's serves chili -- why hasn't Veggie Bite thought to add a vegan chili that would be filled with vegetables, protein-packed beans and great flavor without any health issues? The reason seems to be that they blindly subscribe to the idea that as long as their food can be made without harming an animal (besides those who digest it) and without any ingredients of or from an animal, it can be deep fried in oil, made of unfermented soy, filled with processed ingredients, and still do a body good.
PS. I do not want to give the impression that unfermented soy should be avoided at all costs. As I understand it there are some benefits to soy regardless of fermentation -- the point is to be aware of what you are eating and to eat certain items (such as unfermented soy) in moderation. Some nuitritionists recommend no more then two servings of soy per day -- and we're talking 1/2 cup servings here (not a Texas lunch). So if you're worried that you're killing yourself with your daily Starbucks venti soy latte, my personal advice would be to take it down to a tall and avoid unfermented soy the rest of the day.
This goes back to the basic and sensible thought that natural is better then processed, no matter how bad you think the natural is. The butter v. margarine issue provides perhaps the best example. Margarine is clearly worse for you overall. Making the same spread contain less fat is to ignore the terrible things that the processed ingredients in margarine will do to you over time. This is the same with vegetarian and vegan meals. Vegetarians often think that now their diet lacks unhealthy meat so they can eat as much cheese and milk as they want (which in their current form in America is usually a poor choice for a meal -- more to come on that another day). And together with vegans, we reach for fake chicken nuggets and the like. Besides the soy argument, believe it or not, the unhealthy thing about a chicken nugget is not just the part about the chicken.
I'll end by admitting that I know when vegans and vegetarians reach for these foods at times. This comes down to comfort and convenience. We remember eating them as kids, etc. and the only way we can eat a ruben again is to eat one made out of fake ingredients so it takes and feels like the real thing. We also can't always have a fridge full of fresh veggies and the time to wash and prepare them all so sometimes you need to pull something out of the freezer.
I think we just need to be aware of how unhealthy these foods can be, and that there are alternatives. Seitan (the wheat gluten byproduct) for instance, is much healthier than unfermented soy (so long as you don't have any gluten intollerance). And there are plenty of all veggie dishes that don't require fake meat. Wendy's serves chili -- why hasn't Veggie Bite thought to add a vegan chili that would be filled with vegetables, protein-packed beans and great flavor without any health issues? The reason seems to be that they blindly subscribe to the idea that as long as their food can be made without harming an animal (besides those who digest it) and without any ingredients of or from an animal, it can be deep fried in oil, made of unfermented soy, filled with processed ingredients, and still do a body good.
PS. I do not want to give the impression that unfermented soy should be avoided at all costs. As I understand it there are some benefits to soy regardless of fermentation -- the point is to be aware of what you are eating and to eat certain items (such as unfermented soy) in moderation. Some nuitritionists recommend no more then two servings of soy per day -- and we're talking 1/2 cup servings here (not a Texas lunch). So if you're worried that you're killing yourself with your daily Starbucks venti soy latte, my personal advice would be to take it down to a tall and avoid unfermented soy the rest of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
