"All Natural"

Going to the grocery store and paying full attention to what you are purchasing is no small task. Many people are watching what they eat, choosing items with lower sodium, less calories, less fat, lower carb, and perhaps organic. Good, healthy, informed choices are supposed to be made while weaving in and out of the aisles, trying to decide what to make for dinner, with kids screaming or pulling products off the shelves whining "can we get this?" Right. The quickest and easiest way that most consumers make a decision about what to buy are the nutritional claims on the front of the package. But do you know what those nutritional claims actually mean?

Take fat for instance. It's one of our favorite topics after all. At 9 kilocalories per gram, and a fast highway to high cholesterol through the animal variety, it's always on our minds. According to the FDA which is the agency that regulates nutrition claims, for an item to be fat free, it must contain no more than 0.5 grams of fat per serving. If the "fat free" item contains 0.5 grams of fat and you eat 5 servings, you have just consumed 2.5 grams of fat. It is, therefore, not fat free.

The organic industry has grown exponentially since its entrance onto the fringes of food consumption in the 60s and 70s. Most grocery stores stock organic products in almost every section from produce to spices. What does the word organic really mean? The USDA regulates organic labeling and the USDA organic seal of which about half of organic producers display on their product. Only the term “100% Organic” means that the item has been certified to be chemical-free, produced organically, and not transported with non-organic foods. “Certified Organic” means that the item is 95% organic. Only these two certifications are allowed to carry the USDA Organic seal. There is also a qualification for “Made with Organic Ingredients” which is at least 70% organic. If a product contains less than 70% organic ingredients they are only allowed to show those items in the ingredients list specified as organic. Confusing? It can be. Do you think you are getting what you pay for? Flashy marketing sells. Food labels do not. To be the most informed consumer, just check the label.

Oh, and "all natural"? It it meaningless.

The Opportunity Cost of Home Cookin'

In a USDA report entitled "Who Has Time to Cook? How Family Resources Influence Food Preparation" takes a look at the relationship between home food preparation and wage rate. The other factor that was explored was the precious resource of time. Lower income households are less able and less willing to substitute time for money. It was found that the opportunity cost of sacrificing time, which can be converted into money or wages, was too large for those earning lower incomes. As of 2005 women still performed 3 times as much of the meal preparation as men, therefore the study focuses mostly on women as the correlations don't coincide as strongly with men. It is noted that as women's work hours increase, their time spent preparing food decreases. Non-working women spent on average 71 minutes daily preparing food and women who worked full-time spent on average 38 to 46 minutes. Interestingly, the women who had lower incomes were near the 46 minute range. One can conclude that time resources are the largest determinant on whether meals are made at home; income is only a secondary determinant. Being a single parent and working full-time are the most detrimental factors on home cooking.

It is no doubt that income is a determining factor in food choice. In a recent national campaign to improve Americans' nutritional decisions, establishments with more than 20 locations will be required to post nutritional data. New York City was ahead of this trend and mandated in 2008 that nutritional data be posted at restaurants with more than 15 locations. In a joint study by Yale and New York University professors, the choices of fast food customers in poor areas of NYC were followed. The results showed that the attempt at calorie sticker shock had little to no impact on how many calories were ultimately consumed. Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Washington DC Center for Science in the Public Interest, says "Nutrition is not the top concern of low-income people, who are probably the least amenable to calorie labeling." Given the above USDA study, could it be that people just need access to more quick, healthy choices? Could it be that Americans who are both busy and have lower incomes are simply looking for quick, calorie dense foods? More bang for the buck, perhaps? I believe it comes down to education around the cost and value of food. Simple carbohydrates, high fructose corn syrup, and sugar will cause the blood sugar to spike and the subsequent energy crash will ensue. That value meal really isn't much of a value now is it?

Condiment crazy

Ah, condiments. Our refrigerator doors are weighed down at the hinges due to rows of mustards, dressings, sauces, mayonnaise, jellies, relishes, and marinades. We dip, we spread, we squeeze, we squirt, shake, and spoon these flavorful many times high-fat, high-sodium content additions onto our food. Long ago before the days of refrigeration, sauces and gravies were used to mask the flavor of spoiled meat. Today, they are many times used to add flavor (fat) and enhance lack of flavor (sodium) in food that is neither nutritious nor fresh. Americans are obsessed with condiments. We encourage kids to dip their veggies in ranch dressing so they will get their daily recommended amount of vegetables. According to Better Homes & Gardens, "If you have picky eaters in your home, you already know the magic a bit of ranch dressing can work on a turned-up nose." We love to dip our chicken nuggets into various little tubs of salty, corn syrup concoctions. Sometimes the food itself is nothing but an answer to the question "what can I spread this on?" Do you know anyone who eats plain celery without dipping it into dressing or slathering it with peanut butter?

Doesn't "enriched" mean it's better?

Flour enrichment began in 1941 when it was found that many Americans were lacking important nutrients in their diets. In the instance of enriched flour, nutrients are stripped from the wheat: the germ containing all of the nutrients and fiber. The flour is then "enriched" with B vitamins like thiamine, riboflavin, folic acid, and niacin. Iron is also added. White flour gained popularity in Europe during the middle ages because it was seen as "cleaner" and "healthier". During the 1920s, it was discovered that this white flour lacked many nutrients that whole wheat flour offered. The 1940s brought rationing and the nutritional deficiencies that went along with it. When grains are refined, the bran and the germ are removed leaving the endosperm which is similar to the white of an egg in that it surrounds the embryo (germ) and provides nutrition and energy in the form of starch. The bran, which is the outer shell, of the whole grain provides the fiber. A main concern for producers of baked goods is shelf life. The wheat germ, which contains all of the vitamins and essential fatty acids also contains oil which spoils products faster (rancidity) when it is present. Therefore, there is monetary incentive for food producers to make products containing flour from which the wheat germ has been stripped.

I am not a mathematician, but when you take away more than 10 essential nutrients, and add 5 lab-produced vitamins, the result is not an "enriched" product. As a consumer, you must also be aware of nutritional claims involving the words "whole wheat". The first item on the list of ingredients must be "whole wheat flour" NOT "enriched wheat flour". Pay no attention to the flashy marketing on the front of the package. "Made with whole grains!" can mean the product contains 5% whole grain flour. What is the incentive to keep whole grains out of food? If you were selling a product and you had a choice between a 1 month shelf life or a 6 month shelf life, which one would you choose? Do a 180 and turn to the boring side of the package. It may not be what you thought you were buying.

The Bokeh of Food

Blurry. The untold story. The background. Bokeh; the Japanese word that means blur or haze. The unfocused areas of a photograph are bokeh. Some of my favorite photographs tell a story through the indistinct reflections of light and color behind the subject. We are not trained to focus on the bokeh, but there is always a story there to be told. Our eyes tune it out, but do we dig deeper? Dig deeper into the earth where your food is grown. Dig deeper into the warehouses where your meat is raised. Dig deeper into what your kids are eating before school, at school, after school, and in front of the tele at night. Make connections between where the money flows and the health issues facing this nation. Pull the out of focus into focus.