Visualizing the problem

When it comes to debating healthy food access in America, I believe it all comes down to subsidies. The premise is simple but its effects are far-reaching. Basically, the federal government pays farmers millions of dollars (possibly more) to grow certain crops. The plants that receive the most attention are corn, soy and wheat. Through subsidization the price of the processed crops are cheaper because the planting and processing is paid for by the government. These food subsidies are rooted in the Farm Bill. This piece of legislature defines and enforces our nations agricultural policy which in turn, influences international trade agreements, health and nutrition policy, school food and other economic needs.

The pyramid above does a great job of showing the reality of food distribution in America. I apologize for the small print, so I will explain what’s going on in the picture. (For the original text and image, go here.) The pyramid on the left represents which foods and how much of those foods were subsidized between 1995 and 2005. The pyramid on the right reflects the federal nutrition recommendations. To contrast these two perspectives shows just how corrupt and broken our food system is.

For those of you who buy milk and meat at the regular ol’ grocery store on a daily basis, the pyramid on the left explains why the costs are so low. It’s not that the cows or pigs or chickens themselves are subsidized, it’s the cost of production. One of the reasons corn, soy and wheat are so heavily subsidized is to provide feed for our nation’s industrial meat production. When the feed is co cheap and the production is so large, the costs to produce enormous amounts of meat go down. (See an earlier post to visualize the consequence of cheap meat.)

At the same time, the pyramid on the left also shows the minimal margin between subsidised sugar and other grains. According to the recommended nutrition pyramid, grains are to make up the majority of our diet. And yet they receive a mere 13% of federal assistance. This puny number is just 3 percentage points above sugar. And we all know how little sugar we even need. To add to this, the abundance of corn led to the development of corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. So not only is sugar subsidized a significant amount, but you also have huge quantities of super sugar being processed as well.

When you look at the pyramid on the right you see a large green section. Looking at the foods on the right, more than 30% of our diet is supposed to be fruits and vegetables. If that’s the case, why aren’t they subsidized?! And that my friends, is the crux of the issue. (One of the cruxes at least.)

Until fruits and vegetables are subsidized significantly and less money is provided to corn, soy and wheat, our national health concerns will not lessen. Obesity, heart disease and diabetes type 2 are all linked to the food we eat. It’s really possible to prevent these awful health concerns to arise. It must begin with reforming the Farm Bill and subsidizing healthy foods.

Related posts:

1. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
2. To Tax or Not To Tax? Obesity is the Question.
3. Urban farming, Low-Income Communities and Burgeoning Dietary Epidemics

Eggs!

I have not eaten an egg for 64 days. As you may recall I began an elimination diet on the first of January, and I have diligently (and strictly) avoided the 19 items on my allergy list. Tomorrow I will visit the narturopath to discuss the effects of the cleanse on my digestion and general health. As agreed, the 2-month elimination will cease after the allotted time has passed. Therefore, tomorrow begins a new stage in the “allergy experience.”

For the next 19 weeks I will re-introduce each of the individual foods items back into my diet. Now that I have experienced the effects of strict eating restraints, I will soon learn the nuanced needs of my body. Each week I will introduce one item from the list; I will consume the “foreign” food for 3 days. Thereafter I will end the consumption of that same item. In 3-4 days time I will likely grasp the varying intensities of each food allergy.

It is my hope that I can choose the order of food introductions. Some I crave far more than others. The most difficult foods have been eggs, tomatoes, mushrooms, yeast and lemons. If I can reintroduce at my leisure, I will surely begin with the egg.

As you might expect, breakfast has been challenging. Yes, I have grown to enjoy the texture of porridge and the sweet summertime taste of smoothies, but there’s something about eggs that leaves me satiated. To both celebrate the egg I intend on eating lots of eggs for 4 days. Breakfast, lunch and dinner will find room for my egg binge. If I’m allergic, I’ll have to say good-bye to a food I really enjoy. Given this uncertainty, I want to treat each ingredient like its the last time we’ll dine together.

To this end, I want to write a series on this process. Each time I re-introduce a food item, I will write an article on that item, with emphasis on the different recipes or dishes I want to make with the ingredient. In this particular case, I think it’s important for me to note that todayI will not be posting a typical weekly menu post. I have decided instead to write a list of meals I look forward to making that require the use of egg(s).

Starting this weekend and going through the first couple days of next week, I hope to eat many egg dishes. Here are a list of ideas/desires that I want to fulfill in the coming days:

• quiche or souffle
• a tasty banana muffin recipe I have awaiting me
• salty caramel ice cream
• an omelette with broccoli and cheddar cheese
• a desert with meringue
• corn pudding

I’m salivating just at the thought of making any of these much-wanted treats!  Please allergy-gods, please let me eat eggs again!

Related posts:

1. No Idea (weekly menu 24)
2. The Elimination Diet and a Cleanse
3. Bring Me the Meat! (weekly menu 13)

In lieu of the ominous warnings around us there are measures of hope and idealism. The challenge is acknowledging what is hopeful and what is not. In the context of public health and our national food system, I believe there are some powerful ideas out there for mending it. At the same time, the most provocative and powerful measures are strongly disliked by too many people. When it comes to weight (60% of Americans are overweight or obese,) a long-overdue position has been put forth. To combat obesity and the foods linked to it, why not simply tax junk food?  Will taxes change our behavior and make us healthier? Or just make folks more angry with the federal government?

Like our nation’s addiction to tobacco, sugar is the new target of public health initiatives. The main distinction being: tobacco smoking is addictive and linked to disease – if you smoke you are likely to get sick and die. Sugar on the other hand, is not so transparent. Yes, many people consume multiple sugary foods and beverages every day and this is linked to weight gain and health concerns. But, you can have a soda every once in a while or junk food on occasion and not be distressed over obesity and heart disease.

So where does taxation enter the issue? Well, as mentioned before, our economy is still in trouble and job growth remains stagnant. As far as the government (both state and federal) is concerned, jobs = revenue and happy Americans. When there is a drop in revenue, government programs are cut or underfunded and Americans are pissed off. To bring in money (and disregard the happiness of the population) taxes are sometimes introduced. Given the plethora of studies linking sugar/soda/junk food to obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease, there is a real incentive to taxing the beast(s) of unhealthy foods and beverages.

A recent study that was published in Psychological Science discovered in important piece to the taxation conundrum. Scientists at SUNY Buffalo found that an increase in junk food cost led to an increase in healthy food purchases. Since the idea makes sense, I suppose it’s good to hear the assumption proved true. The assumption being that expensive junk food will prevent shoppers from purchases and instead, further the investment in healthy food. That said, a counter discovery was also exposed. Tom Laskawy, a writer for Grist.org wrote a great article on the study. While discussing the findings, Laskway explains that the increase in healthy food does not suggest a profound change in consumer behavior.

The junk food taxes caused a real shift in nutritional quality because the money saved on junk food was spent on healthy food, which has more nutrients per calories. However, when the researchers subsidized healthy food in their test, many participants spent the savings on—wait for it—junk food. A subsidy for health foods actually increased the amount of fat, protein, and carbohydrates from that simulated shopping trip by about 10 percent each.

It seems the interest in eating healthy is not so intentional, instead its plain ol’ economic. If expensive junk food makes people purchase healthy food, which by contrast (in the study) is cheaper. Doesn’t that prove the importance of subsidized healthy food choices?

The playing field is currently unequal, drastically so. The subsidization of corn, wheat and soybeans has provided industries the opportunity to vastly expand the processed food market. Meanwhile, a farmer interested in growing fruits and vegetables has to compete at the same store as subsidized food items.

The last time I wrote about the soda tax, I argued against the logic of it. I think it’s ludicrous to tax soda and still subsidize corn. This time around, it is clear that subsidization of healthy foods must happen. In another article, Laskway writes, “It’s nice that we are finally willing to start taxing unhealthy food. But without doing something about the good stuff, we’re only fighting half the battle.” For a country that prides itself on the “free market,” the grocery store is an awful example of this economic ideal. At any grocery store, you have whole foods competing with processed foods, and the latter has the advantage of subsidized ingredients. If we want to practice what we preach, the least we could do is subsidize the whole foods too.

If the study at SUNY Buffalo is to tell us anything, it’s that the average person seeks junk food over healthy food. Taxes will likely change people’s behavior. I would like to think that over time, when people’s taste buds regain form and can distinguish tasty food that has no sugar, returning to the study would make for interesting analysis.

If the subsidization of whole fruits, vegetables and grains is out of the question. If removing the subsidies on corn, wheat and soy are also out of the question. Then I say we tax the hell out of soda and junk food. As many agree, the billions in revenue would be more than enough to create farmers markets across the nation, especially in poorer communities. Shoot, we could even use the revenue to support (subsidize) the growth of healthy food and make the playing field equal. Even though I think the subsidization of corn, wheat and soy is outrageous, I think it’s high time we pay the real price for a hamburger, a can of soda and bag of chips.

Related posts:

1. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
2. Drink Soda, Get Fat or “Don’t Drink Yourself Fat”
3. Food Subsidies – Our Biggest Threat

If you’re like me and sugar addiction is all-to-present in your life, you may be equally saddended to learn the following news: agave nectar is no better than other processed foods that rely on intelligent marketing and good-intentioned folks trying to eat healthier and pay the extra cost.

A new article on the Weston A. Price Foundation website examines the history and lies behind agave nectar. It turns out that agave nectar is similar to HFCS in that its production requires a process that converts starch into a fructose-rich syrup. Unlike the story told on packages, the popular nectar product today is not the fermented sap of agave plants. Maybe indigenous people in Mexico celebrated this native sweetener, but the liquid sold in stores is far from the truth.

The nectar that we know is made from the starchy bulb of the plant. Like corn or rice, the bulb is processed and the starches (simple sugars) are extracted. The complex carbohydrates provided are called inulin. The agave’s iunlin and glucose are converted into fructose. The levels of fructose reach 70% in agave nectar and this is actually higher than the levels in HFCS! It is true that agave does not raise one’s blood glucose levels, but the fructose in agave is still capable of “mineral depletion, liver inflammation, hardening of the arteries, insulin resistance leading to diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and obesity.”

The reality strikes back. If we want to eat healthy we must refrain from processed foods. This includes sugars too. For the die-hard anti-sugar advocates, this means reverting to a diet sweetened by honey, maple syrup and fruit juice. It’s hard to imagine a delicious piece of cake or fresh pastry sweetened with fruit juice, but in time I believe we will all see the effects of highly processed sugars in the food we eat.

Related posts:

1. The Elimination Diet and a Cleanse
2. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
3. Food Subsidies – Our Biggest Threat

But my world is not the real world.

For better or for worse, most Americans eat food from a package. And on that package comes a label. Understanding the “terms of engagement” are crucial to eating packaged foods and not gaining weight, raising blood-sugar levels or cholesterol, or any of the other ailments related to processed foods.

When I was growing up I remember learning that the average person should consume 2,500 calories a day. At different moments over the years I recall the feeling of wanting to know my caloric intake. Our culture is so obsessed with image that even the skinny folk (like me) start to wonder about these things. No matter how often the thought crossed my mind, I never had the desire to carry a calculator with me. The idea of literally counting calories at each meal seemed insane. Today, it still seems insane.

Luckily, for those who want to count but lack the calculator or the time to calculate, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) makes it easy for you. In 1991, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Thereafter, packaged foods were required to provide an easy-to-read label of all the important nutrients in the food item.

On the one hand, the “nutrition facts” label is great for all the health-minded citizens who want to know the nutritional benefits of the food they eat. The labels provide the consumer both ‘nutritional facts’ of the food, but also explain the suggested serving size for the item. For all the desired transparency provided by the nutrient list, there remained a troubling technicality. Yes, the consumer could now determine if the food had the right amount of calories or sodium or fats or sugar, but the necessary equation to decipher the actual amounts of these nutrients was missing.

Take this label for example,

Tilamook's "Oregon Black Cherry Ice Cream"

According to the label, one serving of this ice cream has 9 grams of fat, five of which are saturated; 18 grams of carbohydrates (most of which are likely sugar), and 3 grams of sugar. (Note: when a food item has a high carbohydrate number, look to see if the sugar number is close in rank. Often, carbohydrates in highly processed foods are actually simple carbs, i.e. sugar.) Now, depending on what kind of ice cream you enjoy, this label may or may not impress (or intimidate) you.

What should surprise you is the quantity of these “nutrients” in relation to the quantity of the serving. On this ice cream container, Tillamook states that there are 14 servings. Each serving is a 1/2 cup.

Herein lies a serious problem.

When eating ice cream, who in the world eats a half cup for dessert?! Nobody in their right mind (sugar-addicted state of mind that is) would feel satisfied by a 1/2 cup of ice cream. If you own an ice cream scooper, go into your kitchen and figure out the size of the scoop. Then determine how many (on average) scoops you put in your bowl when you serve ice cream. If you’re a good host or a dessert lover, I am certain the quantity exceeds half a cup.

This discrepancy on the label is up for debate at the moment. In the context of rising rates of obese children and adults, the FDA is reconsidering the “nutrient fact” label on processed food items. Even though the numbers are there for all to see, the serving sizes do not match up with the average American diet.

On Friday, The New York Times published “One Bowl = 2 Servings. F.D.A. May Fix That.” According to the article, the FDA is under pressure to change the presentation of serving size data on food labels. Considering our cultural appetite for processed foods, it seems that the consumers need to see a more explicit presentation of serving size. To find out that a couple cookies or a handful of potato chips, actually provide hundreds of calories to one’s diet – should startle the average consumer, not get them to eat more.

I suppose my desire for the production of processed foods to suddenly end is nowhere in sight. And maybe our world will remain saturated with labels informing us of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ decisions. But as long as we rely on labels to influence our decisions, I think I’ll try to stay away from labeled food.

Related posts:

1. Homemade candy bars (or) A drug of choice?
2. Eggs (weekly menu 23)
3. Losing faith in nutrition

Drama aside, the weekly menu writing has faced gaining difficulty. At the moment I am most tortured by the absence of eggs and tomatoes in my diet. The egg-free issue totally affects breakfast options. Forget eating out. At the same time, I have to temporarily say good-bye to custard, quiche and other souffles. The casserole scene deflates when the egg is gone.

Tomatoes on the other hand, have absolutely killed my beef ideas. While planning this week I considered what I could make with ground beef. It seems like all ground beef recipes call for tomatoes; and if I want to braise some tough cuts, there again, are tomatoes.

There are lots of options out there. The problem is, I don’t know all of them. (If you’re reading this and have ideas, please comment and share them with me!) Considering this limited view of culinary possibility, here is the menu I wrote for the coming week:

• Hamburgers, sweet potato fries and pickles (no pickles for me though)
• Curried rice noodles with vegetables and ground beef
• Three vegetables sides: braised greens, spicy roasted cauliflower and carrot/parsnip puree
• Double Dutch mac ‘n’ cheese with chard and steamed broccoli
• Coconut curry with beef and vegetables over rice
• Sweet potato and sage soup

While flipping through Bittman’s How to Cook Everything I found a great recipe that uses beef and does not require tomatoes but curried noodles instead. As a fan of rice noodles, this meal shall be especially delicious. Having white rice noodles (as opposed to brown rice) is a nice change of pace. The Asian brands are cheaper and larger than the GF brown rice variety. Interesting though, this recipe only calls for 1/2 a pound of ground beef. With the remaining half I want to make the hamburgers. Normally I try to stick with 2 meat dishes in a week, but since this calls for two 1/2 pound portions, look’s like we’ll have three.

I also found a package of beef stew meat in the basement freezer. I’m thinking of throwing this into a green coconut curry with some vegetables. Yes, I know I make a curry dish regularly, but there’s something about the meat addition that adds excitement to the weekly rice meal.

Overall, it looks to be another fabulous week of food. Maybe later this week I’ll finally get around to posting a recipe for one of these dinners…

Related posts:

1. Asian Madness (weekly menu 9)
2. A Fresh Perspective (weekly menu 20)
3. The New Year (weekly menu 15)

Let’s start with the elimination diet explanation. For those of you who a) don’t live on the West coast, b) have never visited a naturopath, or c) don’t immerse yourself in dietary literature, an elimination diet is used to help an individual determine what foods cause them allergic reactions. The symptoms can be various, from digestive to emotions to body aches to respiratory. In my case, the severity of the digestive issues in my life have led me to this “diet.”

The process of the diet is as follows: one eliminates certain food items from their diet for a period of weeks or months; and then, after a determined period of time passes, each item is reintroduced to the individual’s diet. As each item is consumed over the course of several days, it is then removed from consumption and the individual notices differences in health. For me, the items chosen for elimination are based on a blood test prescribed by my naturopath. I received the results yesterday. The following items will be completely removed from my diet (and weekly menus) for the next 2 months:

• green beans
• kidney beans
• pinto beans
• yellow wax beans
• soy beans
• clams
• oysters
• scallops
• mushrooms
• eggs
• grapefruits
• oranges
• lemons
• limes
• tangerines
• tomatoes
• wheat
• baker’s yeast
• brewer’s yeast

In total, there are 19 items that will be eliminated from my diet starting tomorrow. My blood was tested with 115 different food antigens and had negative reactions to those listed above. Beyond the 100-mile diet, I think this will be the toughest food challenge yet! But I am not afraid or nervous, though maybe a bit saddened. I think eggs, tomato and yeast will be the most difficult items to avoid, as they are found in many of my favorite or commonly-made meals. It should also be noted that yeast is found in wine, beer, sake and some liquor (depending on how many times it’s distilled), as well as vinegar. No vinegar means no salad dressing, anything pickled or balsamic sauce reductions. Yes, this will be a challenge.

BUT, after 2 months I will slowly reintroduce these 19 food items one at a time. Depending on their affect, I will either completely eliminate them from my diet or eat them on occasion. No matter the difficulty of this challenge, I do seek health and sanity. Ultimately, I am willing to sacrifice any of these items if it means I can live a more “normal” life. Now, it’s just a matter of time.

*

The cleanse on the other hand, is not intended to help me lose or gain weight or even affect my digestive ideals. Rather, my goals are to experience a ‘cleaner’ self – one with less overeating, sugar binges and uncomfortable physical sensations. To attain these goals, starting tomorrow I will refrain from consuming sugar, caffeine and alcohol for one month. I don’t think caffeine and alcohol will be difficult especially since the latter is eliminated with the yeast allergy. Here, the real challenge will be sugar. No refined sugar, no honey, no maple syrup. The only sweetener I’m allowing is agave nectar. Compared to sugar, agave nectar is like a mouse next to a lion.

After reading this article on sugar addiction, I was destined to change my ways. Long story short, sugar’s affect on our brain and behavior is equivalent to heroine. And the people who know this best are companies that produce scores of processed foods doused in sugar, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. To confront this world of sugar that we live in and to empower myself as a sugar-free human, capable of making eating choices out of choice and not addiction, I will refrain from sugar for a month. Thereafter, it will depend on how I feel or how I want to feel. The fact that this cleanse coincides with the elimination diet is a good thing. I think the combination will be for the better.

Over the next several weeks I hope to write occasionally on this experience. For those of you with your own dietary challenges or eating resolutions, the best of luck to you!

Everyone else, happy new year!

Related posts:

1. Eggs (weekly menu 23)
2. The Pains of Eliminating (weekly menu 19)
3. Sorry for the Delay (weekly menu 17)