Cause & Effect?

I ran across these three things separately this morning, but felt like they told an interesting story when combined.

The first, a short PSA, warns that feeding our children  junk food may turn then into  addicts.

OK–that was a little over-the-top.  But judging by what’s being offered (and apparently eaten) in America’s fast food establishments, it may be closer to the truth than we realize: 

Exhibit A:  Carl\’s Jr. foot-long \”superburger\”

Exhibit B:  Dominos new breakfast pizza

Taco Wars

Earlier this week I ran across an online article that talked about Taco Bell’s newest offering,  Cantina Tacos.   According to the fast food giant the tacos are ”based upon authentic-style Mexican street tacos” and are served with chicken, carnitas or carne asada.  While there was nothing of much interest in the article itself, it did spark a lively debate in the accompanying comments section. 

There were quite a few posters who commented that there was no reason for them to ever try anything from Taco Bell.  They were convinced that for about the same price they could get much better food off of their local “taco truck”.  An equally opinionated group swore that they would never ingest anything that came off of a “roach coach”.

The most interesting argument that I read went something like this: Who do you trust more to make your food–an owner/operator whose livelihood rests on your satisfaction…or a disinterested minimum-wage employee who is assembling ingredients they get from a huge corporation that will do anything to trim costs?

Then in today’s Register they published this list of all of the food establishments in the valley that have had failing grades recently.  Apparently there are no hard and fast rules.  The list has both new restaurants and old standards that have been around for decades.  There’s a fair number of low-cost Mexican joints, but some of the trendiest names from upvalley are included as well.

Interestingly, there’s not a corporate fast-food place to be seen.  Apparently one advantage to being big is that your restaurant design and your training protocols are standardized and you get plenty of training on food safety.

So what’s your opinion?  If you’re looking for a quick, cheap meal where do you go—Taco Bell or taco truck?  There are a lot of trucks around town, do you have a favorite?

No-nothing Nanny

The board of supervisors in Santa Clara County just voted to take the fun out of “happy meals”.  If the popular child-size meals don’t meet certain nutritional standards it will be illegal to  give away promotional toys with them.

This of course is yet another symbolic gesture aimed at curbing childhood obesity that’s been enacted by people who have no real understanding of the problem.  They just know that they’re smarter than you and that it’s their duty to help you run your life.

Reading the quotes from board president Ken Yeager in this New York Times  article showed just how clueless our politicians can be.  Ken doesn’t have any children of his own, but he’s quite confident he knows how to best help you raise yours. 

He claims the new law would level “the playing field by taking away the incentive to choose fatty, sugary foods over healthier options.”  Sorry Ken, you can take away the toy, but the fatty, sugary foods are still going to taste good to kids.  Supermarkets sell plenty of candy, cookies, chips and other junk food without the need to include a cheap plastic trinket.

Mr. Know-it-all believes that children are choosing their meal based on the give-away that comes with it.  He then delivers this gem of parental wisdom: “Why would a kid say ‘I want a burger with fries’? It’s the toys that they want.”  That’s right Ken, give them a plastic whistle and they’ll be lined up three deep to eat brussels sprouts and tofu.

Weekend Wrap

Anyone who has been following this blog knows that nutritionists generally take a dim view of processed foods.   But one sector of this market has been given a free pass, and that’s products that are made with soy.  It seems as though it’s politically incorrect to criticize anything soy-based, because it’s the vegetarian protein source that’s going to feed the world.

But what could be more overly processed than a veggieburger?  What kind of manipulation do soybeans have to go through to make then look, feel, and taste like meat?  And can you expect a corporate food factory to put your health ahead of profits simply because they produce soy-based products?

If you eat soy-based products, I highly recommend you read this article from Mother Jones.  Perhaps this quote will whet your appetite: 

 If a non-organic product contains a soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, or texturized vegetable protein, you can be pretty sure it was made using soy beans that were made with hexane.

For you non-chemists out there, hexane is an EPA-registered air pollutant and neurotoxin.  Mmmm, tasty!

                            *               *               *

Here’s more good news that’s sure to get your attention.  According to researchers, dieting can actually harm your health, leading to conditions such as…drumroll please… heart disease, diabetes and cancer. 

The studies showed that women who were put on a restrictive diet (1200 calories daily) produced higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol.  Many of the subjects also experienced high levels of psychological stress because they were forced to count calories and constantly monitor what they ate.

Conclusion—yeah, you’ve heard it before—eating wholesome foods and exercising is the best way to stay healthy.

                                   *               *               *

Something else that you’ve probably heard before, but it’s worth repeating:

Want a better workout? Don\’t stretch before.

And finally, an interesting article from AlterNet that questions whether the multinational food industry can help alleviate global nutrition problems.  As you might expect, public health leaders are a little bit skeptical.  Lots of links are provided for extended weekend reading.

Monday Grab Bag

Get in line now, the Double Down (angina on a plate) will be available at KFC starting today.  And while we’re talking about bacon, here’s a link to an article about America’s love affair with the meat candy.

Who watched Jamie Oliver\’s Food Revolution this past weekend?  Were you shocked (NOT!) that Jamie was able to instantly convert his nemesis the radio DJ?  Were you amazed by how easy it is to cook a simple stir-fry (when someone else preps and measures all the ingredients for you)?  Doesn’t anyone else find it shockingly phony to see a man worth $60 million driving around in an old International Wagoneer?   Jamie may have won his “bet” on this reality show, but in the real world many are giving him a failing grade.

And speaking of fostering an image  (let’s wear scrubs every time we’re on TV!), ”America’s Doctor” is taking shots for offering advice that is unsupported by science.  “Dr. Oz promotes unproven approaches such as Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, and to support them he cherry-picks studies that are positive and ignores the negative ones,” says Dr. Mary Ann Malloy, a nationally known Illinois-based cardiologist.  Oz fans might be wise to seek a second opinion.

Healthier Fast Food Headed Here?

It was recently announced in this Napa Valley Register article that we’re going to have two new restaurants as neighbors.  Construction of the 1st  phase of the Napa Crossing project on the corner of California Blvd. and Trancas has begun, and could be completed before the end of the year.

The upscale shopping center will be home to a Chipolte Mexican Grill and to Noodles & Company.  Both are chain restaurants.  Chipolte has almost 1000 locations nationwide, while Noodles, a newcomer to Northern California, has 230 locations in 18 states.

Both restaurants seek to fill the gap between fast food and fine dining.  Chipolte’s main feature is big burritos that are built to order with high quality ingredients.  Noodles’  ”fast casual” menu offers  pasta, soup and salad items from various cultures.    The pair were both rated by Health Magazine among the top ten healthiest fast food restaurants in 2009.  Of course you need to take that with a grain of salt, as McDonald’s also made the list

Chipolte won high marks for its commitment to organics, hormone and antibiotic-free meats, and produce sourced from local suppliers.  surprisingly, the chain doesn’t go out of its way to brag about their sustainable farming practices.  They have been committed to green initiatives and followed a “food with integrity” philosophy long before it became popular to do so.

While these practices are certainly commendable, finding something on the menu that would qualify as truly “healthy” is a bit more problematic.  Diners are invited to stuff a smorgasboard of ingredients into a big flour tortilla, and it doesn’t take many additions to push your meal into dangerous territory.

Since all of their offering are custom made, finding nutritional data is a bit challenging.  The company says that their burritos caloric content ranges from 420-918, but those numbers may be misleading.  Indeed, using this online calculator I find that my order, while fairly benign (chicken with no cheese, guacamole, or sour cream), comes in at 775 calories.   With a couple of additions it’s easy to push the total up over 1000!

While I am fortunate and can handle a high caloric load, sodium is another matter.  And Chipolte is liberal with the salt shaker.  My burrito comes with over 2000 mg. of sodium, 87% of my recommended maximum daily allowance.  I guess I better skip the chips and salsa!

I’ve never been to a Noodles & Company, but it sounds like they may have a few more choices that fall within the healthy category.  Their web site currently boast of 16 bowls that are under 400 calories.  Most of the entrees start out as vegetarian fare, then you have the option to add lean proteins—hormone- and antibiotic-free chicken, beef, shrimp, and organic tofu.  They also add seasonal specialties to the menu, with fresh asparagus now on the menu through June. 

If you’re trying to cut down your sodium intake, you’ll need to be careful here too.  The harmless sounding Market Salad with Fat Free Asian Dressing comes it at a paltry 190 calories, yet manages to pack a tremendous wallop in the salt department, 2,760 mg.  That’s well over 100% of your RDA! 

On the plus side, the nutrition information on their website does address go into more detail than most.  You can find a list of low sodium recommendations, as well as low calorie, low fat, or low carb.  They also provide information for people who have food allergies.

It will certainly be nice to have a couple of moderately priced options for food on this side of town.  The fact that both restaurants are doing more to be socially and environmentally responsible is also a nice bonus.  Just  make sure to take a little extra time to educate yourself on your choices and try to make informed decisions.

It’s Grilled, It Must Be Healthy

It was about 6 months ago that I warned you that KFC was test marketing a more efficient way to deliver fat, grease and salt to the ravenous masses.  A week from today they roll this monstrosity out nationwide.

The “Double Down” is a bacon and cheese sandwich, if you can call something with no bread or bun a sandwich.  In this concoction the meat and cheese is enveloped in a pair of fried chicken breasts.  You can also get it with grilled chicken instead of fried if you’re looking for a “healthier” bacon and cheese sandwich.

Here’s the nutritional data: the Original Recipe sandwich will set you back about 540 calories, 32g of fat and 1380mg of sodium. The not-as-bad-for-you Grilled Double Down totals 460 calories, 23g of fat and 1430mg of sodium.  The calories aren’t as bad as I imagined, but it definitely packs a wallop in the sodium department.

UPDATE 4/09:  Here’s SF Gate columnist Mark Morford\’s take on the sandwich.  If you’re not familiar with his writing, be forewarned that he is militantly liberal, highly opinionated,  a bit profane, and loves to craft sentences that seem to run-on forever.  His job description for a fast-food executive is ”someone who sits around all day trying to discover new ways to manipulate, coerce, poison, and otherwise flagrantly kill millions of humans worldwide by convincing them to eat mass-produced, industrial feedlot, chemical-blasted garbage you should not feed to your dog unless you totally hate him and want him to get heart disease and die.”

Stephen Colbert recently did a funny segment on fast food, and includes his take on the Double Down, calling it “the warped creation of a syphilitic brain”.  Here’s a link for you to watch it.

In another shocking development the actual Double Down sandwich, when prepared by disinterested fast-food employees, served in a styro clamshell, and photographed in poor light with a cell phone, appears to look nothing like the sandwich portrayed in KFC’s advertising photo shown at the top of this page:

Pick your poison, fried (L) or grilled (R)

Food Revolution???

Just Like Oprah!

I’ll apologize up front..this may not be the most cohesive thing I’ve ever posted.  My head is spinning and I could take it in a dozen different directions.  But I’m just going to start writing and hit a few of the high points.  There will be plenty of links if you care to explore things further.

A few weeks ago I saw an advertisement for a new TV show, “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution”.  The premise looked interesting…a celebrity chef from Britain goes into “the unhealthiest community in America” and tries to improve their eating habits.  I made a mental note to tune in…and then promptly forgot all about it.

Then a couple of days ago I spotted a headline in my news feed—Kids to Jamie Oliver: Bag your healthy lunches.  It went on to explain that Jamie’s “revolution” wasn’t getting a lot of traction with school children.  They much preferred their chicken nuggets, pizza and chocolate milk to the healthier fare he was providing.

Reading that article made me even more interested in seeing the show.  A quick online search turned up a link that allows you to watch the the two episodes that have already aired.   If you’re into reality TV, this program takes the genre to a whole new level.

The executive producer is Ryan Seacrest, the American Idol guy.  He shares production duties with Oliver and some of the same people who bring us “Extreme Makeover Home Edition”.  Let’s just say there’s no shortage of contrived drama and conflict, and it’s all pasted together with a mixture of hair gel and tears.  

Prior to watching the show I didn’t know anything about Jamie Oliver.  Born to working-class parents in England, he dropped out of high school, went to cooking school, and then enjoyed a meteoric rise to the top of celebrity chefdom.  In 1999 his show The Naked Chef debuted and his cookbook became a number one best-seller in the UK.

He has subsequently become the head of his own multinational company, with 12 TV shows and 10 cookbooks to his credit.  He owns scores of restaurants, sells cookware, and even produces a namesake magazine Jamie.  His wife is a former model, and though only in his mid 30s, his personal empire is reportedly in excess of $60 million dollars.  Life is obviously pretty good for Mr. Oliver. 

He has used his wealth and fame to champion the causes he supports.  He led a campaign to get unhealthy foods removed from British schools.  This brought on radical changes and led to the British government contributing an additional billion dollars to fund school lunches.  He definitely knows how to get things done.

But if the first two episodes are any indication, Oliver may have bit off more than he can chew.   Here in the USA things are bad—very, very bad.  On his first morning in the school cafeteria he is introduced to “breakfast pizza” and sees children eating sugared cereals bathed in a luminous strawberry flavored sugary milk.  For lunch it’s chicken nuggets and a chemistry experiment that somehow turns into something resembling mashed potatoes.  While a little bit of real food like fruit and fresh-baked bread does make it onto the childen’s plates,  it appears that the majority of it gets scraped into the trash can.  

Then Oliver gets his big chance to cook his food for the kids.   This is not without its fair share of drama, as the school’s “lunch ladies” would much prefer to stick to the status quo.  Despite his efforts to build excitement for his healthy offerings (he visits classrooms dressed up as a pea!) the children are unimpressed.   We get to watch as they spit out his food and then dump it in the trash.  Jaime doesn’t quite understand this; in Britain he say’s he’d tell them to go back and finish. 

Jaime also visits a local family, all of whom are overweight.  It is here that we see exactly where the children develop their taste for unhealthy fare.  He piles the kitchen table with all of the foods they’ve consumed over the past week–a monotone mountain of brown and tan—pizzas, corn dogs, hamburgers, with nary a vegetable in sight.  Every meal comes out of the microwave or the deep fryer.

Needless to say “mom” is a little embarrassed by this (and a freezer crammed with about 40 cheap pizzas).  Jamie lets her know that she is contributing to her children’s obesity and shortening their lives.    You would think that seeing her 300 lb. 12 year-old son on a daily basis might have given her a hint something was wrong—but apparently this news must come as quite a shock to her, because she cries.

Jaime whips up a healthy meal for them, and also goes out in the yard and helps them bury the fryer.  That’s some good TV!  He also has a heart-to-heart with the obese 12 year-old, who admits the other kids tease him about his weight.   Jaime offers to give him cooking lessons and tells him the girls are going to really be impressed when he can whip up a nice meal.

Conflict, drama, contrived for TV stunts, predictable tears, this show has it all.  Oliver hopes the show leads to a “food revolution” across America’s school cafeterias.  He’s also angling to arrange a meeting with Michelle Obama so they can join forces and end childhood obesity.  He has a petition on his website that he hopes to deliver to the White House.

But if the results of his efforts in his home country are any example, Oliver is up for some fierce resistance.    When the British government implemented his school-lunch recommendations the negative reaction was dramatic.  Parents pulled 400,000 children from the school-lunch program, and many opted to hand food to their kids through the gates of school yards.  Vendors set up outside schools to sell food, and enterprising students began selling junk food to peers in schools, which led to kids getting suspended for  ”dealing” potato chips. 

A less-than-flattering view of Oliver and his efforts to influence the way people eat and how much the government should pay for it can be found in this article from Reason.com.   With over 300 comments and counting, it’s clear that “making school lunches healthier” is more controversial than you might think. 

 Civil liberties aside, many people are less than convinced that any government program is going to change the way people eat.   On a recent episodeof his late-night show David Letterman let Oliver know that his efforts were noble but futile.  The comedian turned serious, saying that in our food culture it was virtually impossible to lose weight.  He said that in the future he expects everyone to weigh 400 to 500 lbs and that science will have found a way to keep us healthy at that weight.

I could continue, but I would like to get this up and posted before tonight’s episode airs (9pm ABC).  Tune in and see what happens.  Like it or not, it will certainly make you think a little bit more about the way we feed our children.

Can the Clown?

I ran across an interesting article this morning.  A watchdog group, Corporate Accountability International, is calling for  Ronald McDonald to retire.

After 50 years as the company spokesman for the world’s largest fast food chain, the group says it’s time for the clown to step down.  They say that using kid-friendly images like Ronald and Joe Camel has an undue influence on today’s youth.

McDonald’s, of course, has an entirely different spin on the issue.  They point out all the good things Ronald McDonald House Charities does for children, and it’s hard to argue with that.  But then their PR department goes a bit overboard.

In a written statement, they claim  ”Ronald also helps deliver messages to families on many important subjects such as safety, literacy, and the importance of physical activity and making balanced food choices.”

I guess I’ve missed all the commercials where Ronald tells kids to eat less fast food.

Labeling Laws

” SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING:  Eating this product leads to heart disease, obesity, and enormous gelatinous thighs.”

That may be the message you see posted on restaurant menus and vending machines in the not-to-distant future.  Part of the health care reform bill recently passed in Washington has a provision that requires restaurant chains and vending machines to provide calorie information beginning in 2011.

The specifics of the regulations still need to be worked out by the Food and Drug Administration.  What we do know is that every restaurant chain with 20 or more locations will need to provide calorie information on their menus and drive-thru signs.  Food sold in vending machines will also be required to provide this data.

The intent of the legislation in to provide consumers with the information they need to make healthier choices.  Americans spend half of their food dollars outside the home, and it is hoped that this labeling will help curb our growing waistlines.  Obesity related diseases are on the rise and the cost of treating them is already having a tremendous impact on the health care system.

It will be interesting to see what kind of edict the FDA mandates.   The measure is modeled after a program that is already in effect in New York City.  Early studies there have shown mixed results, so it is unclear whether simply providing calorie information will have any effect on consumers’ food choices. 

The government’s use of labeling laws to change behavior is nothing new.  In 1966 smokers were warned that “ Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health”.  When that message failed to have much effect, it was changed to the sterner “The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health”.   By 1985 the message became even more graphic, warning that “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema,  And May Complicate Pregnancy”.

It isn’t too much of a stretch of the imagination to see food labeling evolve along similar lines.  Who knows, in a few years every pizza box may have a picture like this printed on the lid:

HIGH FAT FOOD WARNING: May Be Hazardous to Your Girth