Share Your Breakfast - A Sugary Start to the Day

Last week, Kellogg announced a new project called Share Your Breakfast, to help feed children from food-insecure households.  Acknowledging the seriousness of the USDA statistic that one in four children go without breakfast each morning, Kellogg has asked Americans to upload their breakfast photos to the website shareyourbreakfast.com, and in turn they will donate $200,000 or the equivalent of 1 million breakfasts to those in need. 

While this sounds like a noble endeavor, feeding hungry children highly processed, sugary cereals is not the answer.  The products Kellogg is promoting in this project include:

  o   Frosted Flakes, which contain 11 grams of sugar per three-fourths cup serving and the first three ingredients after corn are sugar, malt flavoring, and high-fructose corn syrup – even more sugar.

  o   Nutri-Grain bars, which are marketed as being a healthy, wholegrain snack, but actually contain over 30 ingredients, most of which is high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors and fruit puree from concentrate.  Each bar also contains 11 grams of sugar.

  o   Other products in this promotion include Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies, Mini-Wheats and Eggo Waffles, which contain high-fructose corn syrup, sugar, and partially hydrogenated oils.

Yet, Kellogg knows that giving away cereals with sugar and chemicals to hungry children will instigate backlash from concerned parents.  This is why they’ve used their website to correct false nutrition information about the “misunderstood” nutrients in sugar.  They also claim that sugar does not contribute to obesity, diabetes or heart disease. 

On one hand, it’s surprising to hear that Kellogg fails to acknowledge the role of sugar in the diet-related diseases of Americans.  Looking at the swath of research currently in existence on the effects of added sugars to the risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke and obesity, there is an undeniable correlation.  Yet, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense as many industry-supported studies have perpetuated the myth that children will not eat low-sugar cereals and that if faced with a sugary cereal or no breakfast at all, they are better off with the sugary cereal.  This is how they justify their position. 

            Above all else, Kellogg has created an advertising campaign with Share Your Breakfast.  The campaign has cost Kellogg a lot of money with ads in broadcast, print, digital and social media and while they say they will donate a couple hundred thousand dollars to hungry children, this is a drop in the bucket compared to what they spend on advertising each year and make in profit. 

            Of course, I think that we should be paying more attention to those children without access to breakfast and doing something about it.  But companies like Kellogg shouldn’t be allowed to promote their cereals that are loaded with sugar and additives as a reputable solution.  Which company will step up and provide children instead with eggs, milk, fresh fruit, whole-grain bread, or yogurt to start off their day?  How about Kellogg invests some of their million dollar-advertising budget to create real food?  Then maybe we’ll believe that they’re actually sincere about reducing the negative effects of a lack of breakfast for children across America.  

Chinese Food that Leaves you Wanting More

My notions of greasy, salty, homogenous Chinese food completely changed when I stumbled upon the Gourmet Dumpling House.  In the heart of China Town, near the corner of Beech St. and Harrison Ave., this little restaurant does a lot of business.  Most afternoons and evenings you’ll be among many customers waiting in line for a table, but don’t be discouraged, the line moves quickly.  Once you get inside, you’ll be pointed in the direction of your table, amidst the hustle and bustle of servers shouting in Chinese and customers excitedly eating and talking.  The modest décor of the dining room, bright overhead lights, high noise level and tight quarters adds to the no-frills appeal of the place.  You may find yourself sharing a table with another two or three people, or be in the very back by the fish tank, where perhaps you’ll have the experience of watching a fish get pulled from the tank and brought to the kitchen to be cooked.  Mostly, enjoy your meal, but don’t expect to linger.  The line at the door is a reminder that you shouldn’t outstay your welcome.  But ambience isn’t the reason to seek the Gourmet Dumpling House, really it comes down to the food.

            High turnover means fresh ingredients.  That’s something you get a sense of the minute you walk in the door.  Servers weave their ways through the tables carrying everything from heaping plates of steaming dumplings to bubbling soups to a whole fish splayed out on a large plate smothered in a spicy sauce.  The menu spans nearly six pages, typical of a Chinese restaurant, but the unique items set this place apart and there is certainly something for everyone, even vegetarians.  Those wishing to try something really unusual may gravitate towards the pickled mustard greens with intestines and blood pudding, the sautéed pig’s feet or the frog and clam soup.  Others looking for something more traditional may enjoy the made-to-order pork and leek or vegetarian dumplings, the braised eggplant with basil or the julienned chicken wonton soup with sprigs of cilantro and diced hot peppers.  As a semi-vegetarian myself, the menu offers a number of vegetable dishes.  My favorites include the spicy sautéed Chinese lettuce with enough of a kick to make your nose run, along with the sautéed pea shoots with garlic, wonderfully mild laid over a bowl of rice, and the fried scallion pancakes with a delicious soy ginger dipping sauce.  All of this can be washed down by beer or wine, although a nice cold Chinese Tsingtao beer really does the trick.

            The generous portions and the reasonable prices make this a great place to bring another person or a group.  You can get plenty of food and not break the bank.  Lunch specials are a set price of $7.25, appetizers $5-6 and dinner entrees mostly between $9-13.  If you don’t have time to sit down, they also offer a take-out menu. 

High on my list of best places in China Town, The Gourmet Dumpling House is a sure hit with everyone I recommend it to.  A sure feast for all the senses, especially your taste buds, stop in the next time you’re walking through China Town, you won’t regret it.  

The Pace of Our Meals Doesn't Curb Snacking

I’ve always heard (and sometimes practiced) the dieting rhetoric that eating more slowly, compared to gobbling down a meal, will help keep your appetite satisfied longer and prevent overeating.  Well, a recent study from the Netherlands, featured in The Journal of Nutrition, set out to see whether this was actually true.  The researchers looked at the speed of consumption and its effect on the diners’ feelings of satiety and hunger and on the chemical or hormonal signals involved in appetite regulation.  The researchers also wanted to determine how the pace of a meal affects postprandial snacking.  The results were quite interesting. 

For the study, the researchers asked 38 young men and women to eat the same meal in a controlled test kitchen on two separate days.  The meal was a typical Dutch dinner of salad, macaroni with meat sauce, vegetable lasagna and raspberry pudding for dessert.  The first day was a “nonstaggered” meal eaten in 30 minutes and the second day was a “staggered” meal, with 20 to 25 minute breaks between courses.  Before, after and throughout the course of the meal, blood samples were taken to measure the level of hormones involved in appetite signaling and participants were asked how full or hungry they felt. 

The study found that when participants ate the drawn-out meal, their satiety hormones increased more gradually compared to the nonstaggered meal, when they spiked more rapidly.  Also, participants who had eaten the drawn-out meal rated their satiety higher and their hunger lower.  Ok, so this makes sense – you eat more slowly and your body feels more satiated.  No wonder this is what we’ve been told to do to curb our appetites.  However, the study took an interesting turn when it introduced a snack two and a half hours after the beginning of the meal.

When the diners were offered a full spread of Dutch treats, such as apple cake, chocolate-covered marshmallows, peanuts, chips and waffles, the slow diners ate only 10 percent fewer snack calories than when they had consumed their meal quickly.  Even the differences in hormone levels did not significantly affect how much of the sweet and salty snacks were consumed.  This suggests that no matter the pace of our meals, the availability of tempting snacks can override the body’s internal messages about when to stop eating.    

I think this study is really interesting because it points to the fact that the food environment around us can completely override the body’s natural signals.  No wonder we have an obesity epidemic!  You can find cheap snack foods on every corner.  As it seems that our biological safeguards against weight gain are being disabled, I even more fully realize that the fight to prevent obesity is an up-hill battle.  So yes, eating slowly can in fact make you feel fuller longer, but the minute you step outside temptation awaits.  If we can’t rely on our bodies to tell us when to stop eating, it’s a scary idea to think we’ll have to rely on the food industry.  

Fed-Up with Standard School Food, College Kids Turn to Food Co-Ops

College students around the country are learning more about our food system and using this knowledge to get better food on campus.  The well-established pizza, French fries and burritos found in the dining hall aren’t always making the cut, as many student are shifting their preferences towards healthy, ethical and sustainably produced foods.  Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to change the food offered in the dining hall, as most colleges and universities have long-standing contracts with foodservice providers like Sodexo.  Yet, instead of waiting for those contracts to end, students at U.C. Berkeley took matters into their own hands with the creation of the Cooperative Food Empowerment Directive (Co-Fed).

Co-Fed began as students recognized their organizing power after the successful launch of the Berkeley Student Food Collective, a student-run co-op on the edge of campus.  Spurred by the success of the venture, the co-founder decided to take the idea national.  Now, only a couple years later, Co-Fed’s national volunteer staff is working with dozens of student organizations on the East and West coast to provide them with the skills needed for organizing an on-campus co-op.  This toolbox includes workshops, strategy sharing and week-long retreats to teach students how to write a business plan, do bookkeeping, organize other students and build a power map on their own campus. 

The on-campus co-op model is unique because it cuts out the middleman, using volunteer or member labor and uses college resources such as subsidized rent and student funds to reduce overhead costs.  This means that co-op prices can be comparable to other food on campus, illustrating good food doesn’t necessarily have to cost more.  Co-ops can also serve as working classrooms and event spaces to teach students about food preparation and food policy issues.  The idea behind the co-op is that most of the food will be sourced locally, furthering student knowledge about the production system and the need to support local agriculture. 

This growth of co-ops comes with a few challenges, however.  One of the biggest is that students are mostly a transient population, which can make maintaining a solid organizational structure year after year a difficult task.  Also, co-ops are designed not to make a profit, which can lower the incentive for new investment.  However, I think if students really begin to understand the choices they’re making every time they take bite of food, co-ops will become a fixture on college campuses.  Health and diet have become such strong influences on younger generations' lifestyle decisions, so the co-op model seems like a perfect way to get students involved with understanding the food system, but also learning the tools to be a successful entrepreneur.  Hopefully college administration begins to take notice and opts out of their food service contracts in favor of supporting local farmers and healthier options.   

Physical Inactivity Highest in Appalachia and the South

According to a new study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Americans living in Appalachia and the South are the most likely to be physically inactive during their leisure time.  The states ranking among the highest are Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee, whose physical inactivity rates are 29 percent or greater for more than 70 percent of the counties.  Compared to the high physical activity levels on the West Coast and in the Northeast, the South’s sedentary ways are catching up with them.  Soaring obesity rates and high levels of undiagnosed diabetes are among the most significant results of physical inactivity in these areas. 

For most people, it’s no surprise that exercise controls weight, reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, strengthens bones and muscles and overall increases energy.  Yet, the CDC found that physical inactivity in these areas wasn’t just about laziness or an unawareness of the health benefits of exercise, but more so due to a lack of health-promoting initiatives.  Since this study, the CDC has partnered with multiple community organizations and policymakers to implement projects aimed at getting people off the couch and on their feet.  Among these initiatives are the National Diabetes Prevention Program and numerous state-based Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity programs, which emphasize dietary change, coping skills and support to help participants lose weight and increase physical activity to at least 150 minutes per week.  

This study brought to mind the Jamie Oliver show Food Revolution, which chronicled Appalachian families struggling with obesity, diabetes, poor diets and a lack of physical activity.  Needing an intervention, the families were taught how to cook healthier foods at home, advocate for healthier food in their school lunches and overall improve their health enough to see their grandchildren grow up.  An eye-opening portrayal of the incredible obstacles facing many of these families in terms of improving their health, I thought the show was a great education tool for all Americans.  I wish it were coming back for another season!

I applaud the CDC for focusing their efforts on an area of the country so desperately in need of health-related resources and I hope their efforts are met with success.  Unfortunately, diet-related health issues run much deeper than not exercising, as Food Revolution so boldly revealed.  They can be a manifestation of socio-economic status, education, access to food, cooking skills, statewide politics and so much more.  This complicates the issues, but no matter what, we have to start somewhere, with a targeted approach at the local level to get communities moving.  The clock is ticking. 

Mark Bittman Spreads the Word about a more Sustainable Food System

Mark Bittman visited the MFA last week to promote a healthier American diet that’s sustainable for the planet and our health.  Advocating for fewer meat products and more plants, he called this new way of thinking as much a food movement as a political movement.  The lecture was nothing I hadn’t heard before from the likes of Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser and Marion Nestle, but nonetheless it was great to hear it one more time, from Bittman’s perspective, with a very engaged audience.  Following are some highlights from the lecture.  

Bittman began by discussing how the American palate is based on and heavily influenced by savvy marketing campaigns that steer us towards consuming junk food and meat-based products.  “We are lead to believe that we like donuts and chips and that we need meat to be healthy,” he said.  “However this comes from the influence of the food industry.  If we want to reduce meat consumption, and turn towards a more plant-based diet to reduce our ecological footprint, we need to use our purchasing power to steer the industry.”  In other words, we as consumers are going to have to actively make decisions about our own diets and their ecological impact because the food industry isn’t on our side. 

Bittman went on to describe the many hidden costs in the inexpensive American diet.  “We spend 7% of our income on food, which is the lowest in the world” he said. “Yet, our cheap food has many hidden and forestalled costs.”  Bittman used the example of a $0.99 hamburger.  This may sound like a great deal, but when you look more closely you realize this isn’t the case.  Not only are hamburgers contributing to our outrageous obesity epidemic, but livestock production uses an extraordinary amount of land and water in production.  In fact it takes nearly ten times the amount of land to produce meat as it does plants and at a rate of producing 10 billion animals a year, it doesn't take long to see that this isn't sustainable.

So what can we do about it?

Bittman offered a number of solutions to the problem, stressing the need to move quickly and enact change now. 

*First he mentioned organic and local as two options that reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural production and bring products closer to home with less travel time to market.  

*Second, we should address the obesity epidemic with anti-obesity campaigns just as powerful as the anti-smoking campaigns.  Its taken a while, but they've worked. 

*Third, the government needs to step up.  Whether it’s supplying better foods into our school lunch programs, taxing large food processing companies, reducing government subsidies of the large commodities, especially corn, taxing soda or reducing junk food marketing towards children.

 *Fourth, we should be subsidizing healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.  This could include giving tax breaks to the poor when they buy health products, supporting farmers markets, CSAs or farm to table direct sales or most importantly subsidizing the cooking material to teach people how to cook.  Only 10% of all meals are cooked at home and only 20% of this food comes from unprocessed vegetables.  Clearly we have to start learning what to do with all the vegetables we should be eating.

An interesting lecture, a good message and a good slide show to present the facts.  I hope Bittman continues to spread the word about the need for a healthier and more sustainable food system!  Boy do we need it!

A Step Up for Animal Welfare at Whole Foods

Whole Foods has recently introduced a 5-step Animal Welfare Rating system for all chicken, beef and pork sold in their stores.  This system, designated by a color-coded sticker, is designed to give customers better transparency as to how their meat was produced and allow consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.  Developed by the nonprofit Global Animal Partnership, this rating system allows third-party certifiers to audit farms and rate their practices using the 5-step system.  The tiers range from Step 1 – no crates, cages or crowding to Step 5 – the animal spends its entire life on one farm.  Already more than 1,200 farms and ranches that supply Whole Foods have received the Step certification and more are on the way.

I think this is a huge step in the right direction for our food system, environment and health, and I’m glad a large grocery store chain is taking some initiative to educate consumers on what they’re actually paying for.  What I like about this labeling scheme/certified standard is that it’s uniform across all stores.  I think it’s important for the consumer to identify one set of standards in the midst of so many conflicting messages.  It also makes the consumer think about what they’re eating and what practices they’re supporting.  Even the “informed” shopper of a Whole Foods may assume whatever product they put in their cart has a wholesome value over its conventional counterpart at the Stop & Shop, but what I think this rating system will expose are different quality standards you didn’t think existed within Whole Foods itself.  Consumers will hopefully begin to read the labels and feel a sense of power in understanding where and in support of what their money is going. 

Our country desperately needs to start to thinking about meat production in a new way.  In my opinion people shouldn’t be eating meat at all or at least very little of it, but with the understanding that everything happens incrementally, I think Whole Foods is on the right track.  I would love to see similar rating systems in mainstream grocery stores where consumers also need a better education about what they’re consuming.  Maybe this will take more time, but for now any awareness is a good thing and I applaud Whole Foods for their effort!

FDA to Limit Salt in Food Supply

In April 2010, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) urged the Food and Drug Administration to propose new regulation to limit the amount of salt in the American diet.  It is no surprise that thousands of Americans die each year from cardiovascular disease and one of the biggest contributors to this is too much salt in the food supply.  Much of the effort over the last 40 years to reduce sodium consumption has been unsuccessful because regulation has been voluntary on the part of the food industry.  Today this is compounded further by the fact that Americans have increasingly turned to sodium rich, heavily processed foods and restaurant meals for the bulk of their diet.  

The IOM’s recommended approach to solving this problem involves a multitude of stakeholders, including all players in the food industry, from manufacturers to restaurant and foodservice operators, public health and consumer organizations, and government agencies like Health and Human Services, to reduce sodium content gradually over a number of years.  The slow adjustment to the American palate will first allow consumers to develop new tastes in a way that will go unnoticed and not create public outcry and second give food manufacturers time to reformulate their products.

All of this seems like a firm step in the right direction, and surely there is no quick fix to any problem in our food system, but with most adults consuming twice the amount of recommended salt in their diets each day, can we wait for such a gradual process?  Much like proposals to reduce fat and sugar in the diet, are we sacrificing the health of American consumers for the needs of the food industry and their bottom line?

The 2011 Dietary Guidelines, put out just last week seem to think sodium should be reduced to less than 2,300 mg or one teaspoon per day, starting now.  I couldn’t agree more.  I propose that while we wait for the food companies to slowly reduce the amount of salt in a bag of Doritos or a box of Cheez-its, we as consumers get ourselves educated about what we put into our bodies.  I think it should be mandatory for the multi-stakeholder groups involved in this effort to simultaneously begin a ferocious sodium awareness campaign to educate consumers.  Consumers clearly don’t understand the importance of reading food labels, decreasing the amount of processed foods they eat and cooking more at home where the ingredients are measured.  Everyone is at risk for the health consequences of too much sodium and although the IOM makes some good recommendations, I worry that something too gradual will translate into something that has a far lesser effect than intended.       

A Different Incentive to Hit the Gym: Pay More if you DON'T Go?!

It’s a common New Years resolution to work out more.  So we join a gym with the good intention of losing weight, toning up and getting into a routine we can stick to.  Yet for many of us, these good intentions are short-lived as our busy lives take over and before we know it, workouts are missed, our bodies are out of shape and maybe we’ve even given up all together!  Well, if this is you, there may be a new motivation to get you back on the wagon.

Gym-Pact is a “motivational fee” program developed by two Harvard graduates, Yifan Zhang and Geoff Oberhofer, where customers agree to pay more money if they miss their scheduled workout.  Having learned in her behavioral economics class that people are more motivated by immediate consequences than future consequences, Zhang had the idea to apply this concept to workout motivation.  “People see gym membership fees as a sunk cost,” Zhang said, “especially if you pay at the beginning of the year…but if missing a workout costs people money, they’d be more motivated to stick with it.”

So far, the program looks like a success.  Two pilot programs have launched with small groups at Bally Total Fitness and Planet Fitness where Gym-Pact pays the membership fees if members agree to workout at least four times a week.  If a member misses any of these scheduled workouts in any given week, they pay $25 and if they leave the program without a valid excuse, other than illness or injury, they pay $75.    

This concept isn’t necessarily new, but it’s proven to be effective especially with short-term weight loss goals.  With soaring obesity rates, I think anything to entice people to get moving is a good thing and in this time of economic hardship hopefully members will be more inclined to hold on to their money and avoid weekly fees.  Perhaps the program could better ensure long-term participation by offering an additional bonus every six months for those members with perfect attendance.  This cash bonus could be subsidized through a partnership with the Public Health Commission of Massachusetts (or any state that takes on the program).  There’s a lot of potential with Gym-Pact and I hope for its wide success!