Make you Fink on Friday

As a parent there is one battle you’ll never win.

Eat your veges!

I had a pet hate when I was a kid, eat a bean, not on your life, but I loved peas. My brother was the opposite; he’d eat beans, but touch a pea, not until Hell froze over.

But now I eat beans, in fact, I had French beans just last night. I don’t know about my brother, if he now eats peas or not.

But for my mother it was pure torment.

Here’s an interesting article:

Don’t make children eat their greens

It’s the age-old family dilemma. And guess what, parents? It isn’t worth the bother

Tim and Ruby Lott. Photograph: Pål Hansen for Observer Food Monthly

One day, when my daughter, Ruby, was about 10 years old, I had a colossal argument with her about a pea. We were in Ikea in Brent Cross, north London. We had ordered lunch in the Ikea restaurant. It involved something and peas.

I had struggled to get Ruby to “eat normally” for as long as I could remember. She refused a wide variety of foods – most fruits, and most particularly any kind of green vegetable. On this day, I’d just had enough.

I was determined to make Ruby eat just one pea. Just one. It could be smothered in tomato ketchup. It could be dipped in honey. I just wanted her to eat… the… fucking… pea.

We spent half an hour discussing, arguing about and reasoning over that pea. I offered an absurd array of rewards. I don’t remember what they were, but they were princely. Whatever she wanted she could have. If she would just eat that pea. Then I began to threaten punishments. She could see she had made me angry, and it was obvious I was going to get even angrier if she didn’t Eat the Pea.

But she still wouldn’t eat the pea. And she hasn’t eaten one since.

After the Battle of the Pea, I reached a watershed. I became a lot less fussed about what Ruby ate. I don’t know if it made any difference. I don’t recall any marked immediate improvement in her eating behaviour. But I suspect that my defeat was a good thing.

Now she is 20, she has a very healthy attitude to food. She doesn’t worry about it. She loves steak tartare. She craves sushi and sashimi, she eats fruit, she’ll try most things. She has no body issues and no food issues that I can see. She has glowing skin and hair, and is a healthy weight.

She still doesn’t eat peas. Or any other kind of green vegetable, including salad. Her explanation is straightforward: “They don’t taste good.”

They don’t. But then, why do we spend so much time trying to get our children to eat them? And is it really, in the end, worth the candle?

My suspicion is that all the effort, care and concern that many families expend to get their children to “eat healthy”, may have no effect, or a bad effect. We worry too much, and this worry has as much to do with social shame, social display and a need for control as it does with healthy eating.

We don’t want our children to end up living on convenience foods, snacks and chips – partly because it is bad for them, but more pressingly, because it is bad for us. Because it is embarrassing.

Around the time of the Pea Incident, I had taken Ruby and her sister Cissy to a fancy French hotel in Mauritius. One night a week, they offered an amazing buffet. I sent the girls off to graze among the 50 or so amazingly varied and delicious platters of French and Asian food and charcuterie.

They came back with chips, white bread and a bit of chicken. That time I wasn’t even furious. I was just ashamed. What was wrong with these kids that amid all this wonderful plenty, they opted for the crappiest dishes on the menu? I just thought they must be horribly spoilt.

Ruby aged 7 and Cissy Lott aged 5. Photograph: Tim Lott

Perhaps this was unfair of me. But I do think many parents would feel the same. Yet it was just a meal. Why was I so upset? Perhaps the need for our children to eat healthy food is just a mask for a number of other anxieties. We want to fit in with our neighbours. We want to be able to make the correct social signals to our peer group – “I am a good middle-class person, because my children eat a varied diet and healthy food”. We are terrified our children might be overweight, which is now as much a social marker as a predictor of poor health.

Nutritional science, however, is inexact. Why did Ruby grow up with clear skin, shining hair and a healthy attitude to food despite eating very little fruit and no green vegetables and a relatively limited diet through most of her childhood?

The human body is more complex and adaptable than we realise. The Kitava tribe of Papua New Guinea subsist on a diet that mainly consists of sweet potato, coconut and some fish. They are healthy, have good skin, strong teeth and suffer from virtually none of all the “diseases of civilisation”. They don’t eat any green vegetables.

Greens are not a must-have. Nutrients found in green vegetables can easily be found elsewhere. “The human body is very clever and can adapt over generations. It can use what resources it has available,” says Charlotte Stirling-Reed of the Nutrition Society, an independent organisation that promotes and disseminates nutritional science. “If you still eat a wide variety of different foods you will get those nutrients elsewhere.

“Most of the vitamins and nutrients in green vegetables can easily be found from other sources – in meat and fish and lentils and beans, in other fruit and vegetables. As long as you are getting variety and the right amount of food every day you will be OK.

“Everybody is individual and very different. If Ruby is eating well, every day, mainly healthy foods, she will be thriving. The anxieties and concerns and worries of the parents can rub off on their children and cause fussy eating. That’s very common.”

The psychotherapist Susie Orbach, author of Fat Is a Feminist Issue, makes a similar point about adults getting over-anxious about food and sees parental anxiety as a major contributor to disordered eating. I told her that I used to get particularly upset if I spent a lot of time and effort preparing my children’s food and they rejected it.

She sees such anxiety as centring on issues of control and rejection of the offerer of the food rather than the food itself. In other words, you’re not getting upset when your child won’t eat because it’s not healthy. It’s because you perceive the child as rejecting your love. And the whole framing of the issue around health and nutrition – food as “medicine” – is misguided.

Read more

Yes, it’s a dilemma faced by all parents. But don’t stop here, read more of this fascinating story

Monday Moaning

Why Do Governments Recommend This Toxic Food Today When They Didn’t A Decade Ago?

If we analyze the food guide and government advice on nutrition over a decade ago and compare those advisements to what is recommended today, there is one big difference–one specific food crept up onto the radar of public health officials as if it had some kind of miraculous nutritional benefit for the public. The problem is, 80 percent of this food is genetically modified, contains toxic phytochemicals and is linked to digestive distress, immune system breakdown, allergies, ADD and ADHD, higher risk of heart disease and cancer, malnutrition, and loss of libido. Yet, governments seem to think that’s not a problem. (emphasis mine)

You’ve probably already figured out that the food is soy.

I’ll get to how deadly soy is shortly, but first let’s backtrack to the year 2000 and analyze the food guides of two countries, namely Canada and The United States.

The waybackmachine is a beautiful tool that can show us exactly what a website looked like in the past. So if we plug in both the USDA and Health Canada websites in the year 2000 at about the same period, we can see exactly how each publicly funded message translated to each respective food guide or pyramid.

In the Year 2000
On the Health Canada website, there was absolutely no mention of soy at all. Under milk products, the main message was to choose lower-fat milk products more often. Most people had no idea back then how toxic pasteurized milk was, so it was heavily consumed, much more than it is today. There are currently huge debates throughout the internet as to why humans are drinking milk at all.

On the USDA website on either the Milk, Yogurt & Cheese page or the main page illustrating the Food Guide Pyramid, there is again no mention of soy. The recommendation was also low dairy.

So what happened?

In the Year 2013
Today, Health Canada promotes fortified soy beverages on their website for those who don’t drink milk. So we go out of the frying pan and into the fire. We go from the recommendation of a dead liquid, namely pasteurized milk to a beverage that may be even more harmful to public health.

“Have milk or fortified soy beverages by the glass or use them in recipes.”

“Use milk or fortified soy beverages when preparing scrambled eggs, hot cereal, casseroles and soups.”

“Create smoothies by blending lower fat milk or fortified soy beverage with a combination of fresh or frozen fruits.”

“Try a latte made with low fat milk or fortified soy beverage.”

“Use milk or fortified soy beverages to replace some or all of the water when reconstituting canned tomato or cream soups.”

The USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), kicked their message into high gear in 2002 when they started heavily promoting soy across the United States. Their key message is still to switch to fat-free or low-fat milk, however consume calcium-fortified soy milk is a main heading.

“For those who are lactose intolerant… include lactose-reduced or lactose-free milk, yogurt, and cheese, and calcium-fortified soymilk (soy beverage).”

Under Tips For Vegetarians

“Sources of protein for vegetarians and vegans include beans, nuts, nut butters, peas, and soy products (tofu, tempeh, veggie burgers).”

“Sources of calcium for vegetarians and vegans include calcium-fortified soymilk“

“Calcium-fortified soymilk provides calcium in amounts similar to milk. It is usually low in fat and does not contain cholesterol.”

“For breakfast, try soy-based sausage patties or links.”

“try veggie burgers, soy hot dogs, marinated tofu or tempeh, and veggie kabobs.”

The site is littered with soy recommendations not only for vegetarians, but also in the promotion of protein foods.

How did this happen? When soy industry lobbyists get together and decide to change the framework of nutrition for the masses, it happens. It’s really that simple.

It’s not only soy. If you care to investigate further, you’ll also notice how three of the most toxic genetically modified oils in the world, canola, corn and soyabean oil are heavily promoted today on both the Health Canada website and the CNPP website (on behalf of the USDA), and neither agency had those recommendations in 2000.

The USDA had absolutely no mention of any of these oils in 2000.

Health Canada also has no mention of these oils in 2000.

How Deadly is Soy?

Source: Prevent Disease Read more, you’ll be shocked!

Opinion:

I’m not even going to bother with an opinion here, you’ll form your own after reading this and the link, your opinion will be the same as mine.

Make you Fink on Friday

Eating green may not be green

GOOD BUT GREEN? Scientists have long advised people to switch to a plant-based diet to benefit the environment but that may not be borne out by research.

A nutritious diet that includes lots of fruits and vegetables might not be the greenest in its environmental impact, according to a new study.

After analysing the eating habits of about 2,000 French adults, and the greenhouse gas emissions generated by producing the plants, fish, meat, fowl and other ingredients, researchers concluded that widely embraced goals for the health of people and for the health of the planet are not necessarily perfectly compatible.

Growing fruit and vegetables doesn’t produce as much greenhouse gas as raising cattle or livestock, the study confirms, but people who eat a primarily plant-based diet make up for that by eating more of those foods.

“When you eat healthy, you have to eat a lot of food that has a low content of energy. You have to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables,” said Nicole Darmon, the study’s senior author from the National Research Institute of Agronomy in Marseille, France.

Greenhouse gases – which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – are produced by machines that burn fossil fuels. That gas is then released into the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

Food production – including the use of farming equipment and transportation – is estimated to be responsible for 15 per cent to 30 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries, the authors write in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Scientists have long advised people to switch to a plant-based diet to benefit the environment and their own health.

To more closely examine that premise, Darmon and her colleagues used food diaries from 1,918 French adults to compare the nutritional quality of people’s real-world diets and how much greenhouse gas they produced.

Read more

Comment:

Which is roughly what I have suggested here in the past.

Make you Fink on Friday

Pink Slime

Officially called lean finely textured beef

It even looks disgusting as it’s nickname suggests, pale and insipid.

Some of the things we are offered by the meat industry really need to be examined. Nothing to do with nutrition, everything to do with profits and to hell with your health.

‘Pink slime’ beef off US school menu

Some liken the boneless beef to pet food, but others say it is not a nutritional concern

Schools across the US are to be allowed to stop serving so-called “pink slime” beef to their pupils at mealtimes.

In a statement, the US Department of Agriculture said schools buying beef from a central government scheme could now choose from a range of options.

The term has become used to describe a type of beef trimming commonly found in school and restaurant beef in the US.

Reports it was widely used in schools prompted a popular outcry, although the beef is certified as safe to eat.

Social media campaigns and an online petition sprung up to oppose the use of the product. The beef’s producer led a campaign to explain it was nutritional and safe.

Last year, British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver publicly criticised the product on his now-defunct US TV show, and McDonald’s recently said it would phase out the use of “pink slime” in its burgers.

Centrifugal beef

The US agriculture department said on Thursday it would now offer alternatives to the beef – officially called lean finely textured beef – for schools buying meat through its programmes.

The department (USDA) said the change was “due to customer demand”.

“USDA continues to affirm the safety of Lean Finely Textured Beef product for all consumers and urges customers to consult science based information on the safety and quality of this product,” it added.

School administrators reacted positively to the change.

“Our district has long advocated for purity and disclosure in food products. And we will definitely be moving to the pure ground beef when that becomes available,” John Schuster, spokesman for Florida’s Miami-Dade school system, told the Associated Press.

“Pink slime” – a term reportedly coined by a microbiologist working for the US government – is a form of lean beef formed by reclaiming the small parts of meat from leftover cuts with a high fat content.

The beef is spun in a centrifuge to separate the meat from the fat, before the final product is treated with a puff of ammonium hydroxide gas to kill any bacteria.

Produced in bulk by a firm in North Dakota, the derogatory nature of the term “pink slime” has coloured the debate, some experts say.

It is “unappetising”, Sarah Klein, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the Los Angeles Times, “but perhaps not more so than other things that are routinely part of a hamburger”.

“What pink slime reveals to us,” she told the newspaper, “is the unsavoury marriage of engineering and food, but it’s present in a lot of the products we eat.”

Source: BBC News

Opinion:

Safe to eat. Then why is it treated with ‘a puff of ammonium hydroxide’ to kill the bacteria. Doesn’t that sound harmless ‘a puff’? So what about the residue of the ammonium hydroxide? If ‘a puff’ of ammonium hydroxide kills bacteria, what does it do to the meat?

It appears from the article that this was the only option for schools buying meat from “a central government scheme” although that appears it is now changing and “a range of options” are available. Notice that it doesn’t say that natural beef will be optional. Which prompts me to ask, what are the ‘range of options’, are they as equally as horrendous as pink slime?

I love the statement: “The department (USDA) said the change was ‘due to customer demand’.” Translated, that means, “We had to change because the public had the politicians by the balls!”

Nutritional… It’s made from parts of the animal that housewives throw out; why, because it’s ‘nutritional’?

And, of course, the likes of McDonald’s will be quick to reassess the use of pink slime because people will stop buying burgers. And their chicken nuggets are just the same, made from pink chicken slime.

In Brazil the supermarkets are full of products made from various slime themes. Ready-made hamburger patties, all sorts of chicken nibbles, the euphemistically called ‘chicken steak.’ I have no doubt that this is a worldwide problem. If it’s in the USA and I see it here in Brazil, then one can safely assume we are not alone.

The problem is that because these products are available and cheap, many of the world’s poor are forced by financial constraints to buy them.

Here’s something to consider… Is pink slime served in the White House? Will you ever hear one of the Wall Street thieves say, “I’ll have Chardonnay with my pink slime”?