I'm finding great comfort in my cups of ginger tea, and have been pondering the fact that ginger is often a spice relegated to stir-fries and cakes, overpowered by the stronger sensations of soy sauce and sugar (respectively!)... so I thought I would share a few of its beneficial properties with you, to try and increase its presence in our kitchens and recipes.
Ginger is best known for it's role in the relief of 'digestive complaints', and this covers a multitude of properties including the alleviation of gastrointestinal gas, the ability to relax and soothe the digestive tract (which includes anti-vomiting properties), and the prevention of motion sickness. It also has an ability to help reduce/eliminate nausea, and combined with its safety during pregnancy, this makes it every ‘expecting’ woman's best friend!
Ginger also contains potent anti-inflammatory compounds, which can help relieve inflammatory-based diseases such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. These same anti-inflammatory compounds (called gingerols and responsible for the distinct flavor of ginger) may also inhibit colorectal cancer cell growth, and induce the death of ovarian cancer cells. Genius.
Quite frankly, these attributes are argument enough to start focusing on this root, I reckon … and to make it even easier, fresh ginger root is available all year round. While 'ground ginger' is often called for in baking recipes, I recommend using its fresh counterpart wherever possible. It's deliciously pungent and more nutritious, and it's easy to have on hand since I've found that it freezes well for at least 6 months as long as it is unpeeled.
To make Ginger Tea, simply grate or slice about 1 cm of fresh ginger root into a mug and add boiling water. If you want something sweet, add 1 teaspoon of Blue Agave, and if you want something with more of a 'bite', add the juice of 1/2 fresh lemon. Delicious.
If you feel like getting more adventurous, try this fish recipe below adapted from The Australian Women's Weekly '30-Minute Meals'; it's quick, easy, nutritious and delicious. What more could you want?!
LEMON GINGER FISH FILLETS
This is a very simple recipe – and can be used with a number of different types of fish – I have even cooked this with wild salmon fillets – so take your pick! Serve with baked sweet potatoes and a big green salad.
• 4 (800g) firm white fish fillets (avoid Mackerel if purine-sensitive or are dealing with gout)
• 80g of butter, or some olive oil if you are dairy-sensitive
• 1 tablespoon of finely grated lemon rind
• 2 tablespoons lemon juice
• 1 teaspoon grated fresh ginger
• 2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh parsley
• 3 green onions/scallions/spring onions, sliced thinly
Cook the fish in a large, heated, oiled frying pan until browned lightly both sides and cooked through.
Meanwhile….melt the butter/heat the olive oil in a small saucepan; add rind, juice and ginger. Cook for 1 minute. Stir in the parsley and onion and serve the sauce over the fish.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Waste not, Want not ...
'If you don't waste things, you are less likely to end up lacking' ... apparently this isn't something we consider when regarding food. My latest Environmental Nutrition issue has an article dedicated to food waste, and I have to admit to finding it shocking.
Apparently, over 40% of all the food produced in America, goes to waste. I mean, seriously? The article in the March 2010 issue makes it clear that the food-scrooge in us that was enforced by past wars and famines has long gone, and we are now an extremely wasteful society when it comes to food because it is 'plentiful' and 'cheap'.
I happened to be reading this article with CNN on in the background, and the discord between the thousands of victims in Haiti and the facts and figures that were leaping out of the page in front of me made me feel pretty disgusted. According to the EN article, food waste in America has increased by about 50% since 1974 and is now at a height of almost 1400 calories per person per day. I mean, whaaaaat? That means that every person in America can feed over 1/2 another person from their waste alone.
The article goes on to explain why we no longer value food (it is as cheap and plentiful as it has ever been), and how our demand for the 'perfect food' means that if it is not pristine in appearance, we throw it out. As far as I can see, we have, in simple terms, become spoiled.
The only silver lining to this whole 'problem' is that we can actually do something about it, starting now. First, become mindful of food waste. Don't over-purchase at the grocery store (which in turn causes food to spoil in our fridges and consequently be thrown out). And in the same vein, don't over-order when eating out. Portion sizes are, in my opinion, out of control in this country, so order accordingly. Share, ask for an appetizer size, or, at the very least, request a box so you can take your left-overs home for later use. The same goes for home-cooking. Keen not to create a situation of 'want' when we don't need to, the average person makes more than enough at each meal. Save the left-overs and either get creative with them the next day, or simply re-heat them to eat again. We really do not have to have a brand new taste-sensation every single meal, and in the long run it is better for our pockets, our environment and our economy to do our best to curb this waste sooner rather than later.
While I do not agree with the age-old 'finish your plate' philosophy of our food-valuing ancestors, I also don't think that leaving a plate full of food is the right answer either. In short, whenever you have the option, take a little less than you think you'd like and know that you can go back for more if you so desire. What's left in the saucepan can easily be stored in the refrigerator for later use, but what's left on your plate will be thrown away.
All things in nature and homeostasis are at a fine balance. Our attitudes and activities associated with food seem to be disrupting them both. Maybe it's time to think about the bigger picture, as well as our well-scrutinized figures ... maybe it's time to be mindful, not wasteful.
Apparently, over 40% of all the food produced in America, goes to waste. I mean, seriously? The article in the March 2010 issue makes it clear that the food-scrooge in us that was enforced by past wars and famines has long gone, and we are now an extremely wasteful society when it comes to food because it is 'plentiful' and 'cheap'.
I happened to be reading this article with CNN on in the background, and the discord between the thousands of victims in Haiti and the facts and figures that were leaping out of the page in front of me made me feel pretty disgusted. According to the EN article, food waste in America has increased by about 50% since 1974 and is now at a height of almost 1400 calories per person per day. I mean, whaaaaat? That means that every person in America can feed over 1/2 another person from their waste alone.
The article goes on to explain why we no longer value food (it is as cheap and plentiful as it has ever been), and how our demand for the 'perfect food' means that if it is not pristine in appearance, we throw it out. As far as I can see, we have, in simple terms, become spoiled.
The only silver lining to this whole 'problem' is that we can actually do something about it, starting now. First, become mindful of food waste. Don't over-purchase at the grocery store (which in turn causes food to spoil in our fridges and consequently be thrown out). And in the same vein, don't over-order when eating out. Portion sizes are, in my opinion, out of control in this country, so order accordingly. Share, ask for an appetizer size, or, at the very least, request a box so you can take your left-overs home for later use. The same goes for home-cooking. Keen not to create a situation of 'want' when we don't need to, the average person makes more than enough at each meal. Save the left-overs and either get creative with them the next day, or simply re-heat them to eat again. We really do not have to have a brand new taste-sensation every single meal, and in the long run it is better for our pockets, our environment and our economy to do our best to curb this waste sooner rather than later.
While I do not agree with the age-old 'finish your plate' philosophy of our food-valuing ancestors, I also don't think that leaving a plate full of food is the right answer either. In short, whenever you have the option, take a little less than you think you'd like and know that you can go back for more if you so desire. What's left in the saucepan can easily be stored in the refrigerator for later use, but what's left on your plate will be thrown away.
All things in nature and homeostasis are at a fine balance. Our attitudes and activities associated with food seem to be disrupting them both. Maybe it's time to think about the bigger picture, as well as our well-scrutinized figures ... maybe it's time to be mindful, not wasteful.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Should Children take Vitamin Supplements?
One third of US children take a daily multi-vitamin, but does the science really show this to be a good thing? I am often asked about this topic and so I looked into the most recent research. Unsurprisingly, the results are conflicting (what’s new…?!) but there are some points worth noting.
First of all, I should make clear that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend supplements for children, unless they have specific digestive problems or diseases, or are dramatically underweight. One of the negatives associated with taking supplements at such a young age is that it can put pressure on young livers (our liver acts as a filter and vitamin supplements can stress it, especially the fat-soluble vitamins A & D). This can, at the extreme, cause liver abnormalities. In addition, potential overdose is highly toxic, and since children’s vitamins today look and taste very much like candy, this issue is more prevalent than you would think (yikes) … and one more point on that – the ‘candy’ look-alike is far from sugar-free, so many pediatricians see these vitamins as another avenue for a sugar-injection into the nation’s children – and more sugar is just what we don’t need. It is also worth noting that even these harmless-looking candy-‘cousins’ can interact with medications, and this can in turn, be very dangerous.
So, why is there a multi-billion dollar market surrounding these supplements? The main answer is good advertising which feeds into the fact that many parents see them as an ‘insurance’ option for their children’s health. In truth, as long as your children are eating healthily and have a varied diet, this ‘insurance’ appears to be completely unnecessary.
The one occasion where vitamin supplementation does seem warranted for the healthy child is in the case of vitamin D. A nationwide study looked at 6,000 US children between the ages of 1-21 years old and found an unexpectedly high level of vitamin D deficiency. This is attributed to high use of sunscreens, less ‘playtime’ outside and the more sedentary lifestyle our children have adopted (think TV, video & computer games). The results were so overwhelming that the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends infants, children and teens to take 400 IU of vitamin D/day. Fish and fortified milk (including formula) and cereal are good food sources of this vitamin but our main source is sunlight, so if you live in an area which gets a good dose of sun, I would argue that letting your children spend 10 minutes outside without sunscreen, each day, would mean you didn’t need to worry about supplementation.
And finally – it was interesting to me to see that a study in 2009 showed that the children who are taking supplements are those who don’t need to take them! The children who are taking multi-vitamins are those who are healthy, have an active lifestyle, with access to good food and health care. This plays directly into Michael Pollen’s latest book ‘Food Rules’, in which rule #40 instructs you be the kind of person who takes supplements, and then to skip the supplement! While Michael Pollen isn’t addressing children directly, it makes sense that parents who are mindful of their own health (and who believe supplements play a part in this), will extend this behavior to their children. Apparently the supplement part isn’t integral to their healthy status!
So – to those of you whose children play outside and eat healthy, varied meals, think twice before you pop that sugar-coated gummy-'vitamin' into their mouth. However, if you live in a northern hemisphere or you have a child who is not healthy … or even a particularly picky eater, it might be worth thinking about a vitamin supplement. Just make sure you read the ingredients and make sure they are a true vitamin, and not colored sugar dressed up as a healthy hoax!
Personally, I’m all about some time in the sand box, and colorful dinners. Keep it simple. And natural. Plenty of time for pills later in life, right?!
First of all, I should make clear that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend supplements for children, unless they have specific digestive problems or diseases, or are dramatically underweight. One of the negatives associated with taking supplements at such a young age is that it can put pressure on young livers (our liver acts as a filter and vitamin supplements can stress it, especially the fat-soluble vitamins A & D). This can, at the extreme, cause liver abnormalities. In addition, potential overdose is highly toxic, and since children’s vitamins today look and taste very much like candy, this issue is more prevalent than you would think (yikes) … and one more point on that – the ‘candy’ look-alike is far from sugar-free, so many pediatricians see these vitamins as another avenue for a sugar-injection into the nation’s children – and more sugar is just what we don’t need. It is also worth noting that even these harmless-looking candy-‘cousins’ can interact with medications, and this can in turn, be very dangerous.
So, why is there a multi-billion dollar market surrounding these supplements? The main answer is good advertising which feeds into the fact that many parents see them as an ‘insurance’ option for their children’s health. In truth, as long as your children are eating healthily and have a varied diet, this ‘insurance’ appears to be completely unnecessary.
The one occasion where vitamin supplementation does seem warranted for the healthy child is in the case of vitamin D. A nationwide study looked at 6,000 US children between the ages of 1-21 years old and found an unexpectedly high level of vitamin D deficiency. This is attributed to high use of sunscreens, less ‘playtime’ outside and the more sedentary lifestyle our children have adopted (think TV, video & computer games). The results were so overwhelming that the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends infants, children and teens to take 400 IU of vitamin D/day. Fish and fortified milk (including formula) and cereal are good food sources of this vitamin but our main source is sunlight, so if you live in an area which gets a good dose of sun, I would argue that letting your children spend 10 minutes outside without sunscreen, each day, would mean you didn’t need to worry about supplementation.
And finally – it was interesting to me to see that a study in 2009 showed that the children who are taking supplements are those who don’t need to take them! The children who are taking multi-vitamins are those who are healthy, have an active lifestyle, with access to good food and health care. This plays directly into Michael Pollen’s latest book ‘Food Rules’, in which rule #40 instructs you be the kind of person who takes supplements, and then to skip the supplement! While Michael Pollen isn’t addressing children directly, it makes sense that parents who are mindful of their own health (and who believe supplements play a part in this), will extend this behavior to their children. Apparently the supplement part isn’t integral to their healthy status!
So – to those of you whose children play outside and eat healthy, varied meals, think twice before you pop that sugar-coated gummy-'vitamin' into their mouth. However, if you live in a northern hemisphere or you have a child who is not healthy … or even a particularly picky eater, it might be worth thinking about a vitamin supplement. Just make sure you read the ingredients and make sure they are a true vitamin, and not colored sugar dressed up as a healthy hoax!
Personally, I’m all about some time in the sand box, and colorful dinners. Keep it simple. And natural. Plenty of time for pills later in life, right?!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Happy Valentine's Day!
A few quick words to wish you all a Happy Valentine's Day tomorrow.
In my last blog I talked about making a chocolate fondue at home to create a healthier (and more calming) night of romance with your loved one ... and so it might make you laugh to know that while my husband is most definitely a romantic, a Valentine's Day supporter he is most certainly NOT, so there will be no candle-lit gazing in our home tomorrow night. In fact, I'm almost certain he will be at work until late, so my Valentine's night will most likely kick off with sausages, peas and potatoes with my 2 year old son at the romantic hour of 5pm!
Although this is a blog based on nutrition, I wanted to veer away from food for this post and make a point we so easily forget in this treat-based world. While the grocery and gift stores might delude us into thinking that no 'holiday' is complete without something to tantalize our taste-buds, we should balance this sensory bombardment with the knowledge that not all treats need to be of the culinary order! Defining a treat (which is not food-based) is very individual, and often changes as we move through the chapters of our life. To illustrate this, it is a friend's birthday today and when I asked her whether her boys had spoiled her (she has a husband and 3 sons, one of which is a newborn), she replied with a huge smile and said 'Yes! They let me sleep in this morning'. I remember thinking a lie-in was most definitely a RIGHT, when I was a college student ... and now I completely understand why it is something precious enough to be given to a mother on her birthday!
So you get my point. Should you, like me, be spending the evening of February 14th alone, resist the urge to buy a huge box of chocolates and cry yourself through a romantic comedy DVD ... instead, be your own Valentine. God knows I'm sure you need a bit of self-appreciation, and going to bed on a stomach full of cheap chocolates definitely doesn't help your relationship with yourself ... we've all been there! Instead, take a minute to think about what you would consider a treat, and use this day to enjoy being kind to yourself.
As for me ... I'm all set for a long hot bubble bath and a glossy fashion magazine. Bliss!
Happy Valentine's Day!
In my last blog I talked about making a chocolate fondue at home to create a healthier (and more calming) night of romance with your loved one ... and so it might make you laugh to know that while my husband is most definitely a romantic, a Valentine's Day supporter he is most certainly NOT, so there will be no candle-lit gazing in our home tomorrow night. In fact, I'm almost certain he will be at work until late, so my Valentine's night will most likely kick off with sausages, peas and potatoes with my 2 year old son at the romantic hour of 5pm!
Although this is a blog based on nutrition, I wanted to veer away from food for this post and make a point we so easily forget in this treat-based world. While the grocery and gift stores might delude us into thinking that no 'holiday' is complete without something to tantalize our taste-buds, we should balance this sensory bombardment with the knowledge that not all treats need to be of the culinary order! Defining a treat (which is not food-based) is very individual, and often changes as we move through the chapters of our life. To illustrate this, it is a friend's birthday today and when I asked her whether her boys had spoiled her (she has a husband and 3 sons, one of which is a newborn), she replied with a huge smile and said 'Yes! They let me sleep in this morning'. I remember thinking a lie-in was most definitely a RIGHT, when I was a college student ... and now I completely understand why it is something precious enough to be given to a mother on her birthday!
So you get my point. Should you, like me, be spending the evening of February 14th alone, resist the urge to buy a huge box of chocolates and cry yourself through a romantic comedy DVD ... instead, be your own Valentine. God knows I'm sure you need a bit of self-appreciation, and going to bed on a stomach full of cheap chocolates definitely doesn't help your relationship with yourself ... we've all been there! Instead, take a minute to think about what you would consider a treat, and use this day to enjoy being kind to yourself.
As for me ... I'm all set for a long hot bubble bath and a glossy fashion magazine. Bliss!
Happy Valentine's Day!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
That 'chocolate' thing ...
To ensure I don't loose my entire readership before we are even one sixth of the way through the year(!), today I wanted to write about something more fun (and a hell of a lot sweeter!). So I chose the obvious ... Chocolate!
As Valentine's Day approaches, chocolate moves from the center-aisles of the markets to become the one commodity you really can't escape, whichever way you look. If you are easily enticed, you will be pleased to hear that despite its appearance when dressed in dazzling shades of pink and red, chocolate is considered by its connoisseurs to be a 'healthy food of the earth'!
Yes, I do realize that it looks more like a UFO at this time of year, but if we remove the sugar, cream and liquor flavorings, one can, at a push, apparently claim that it is a plant-based food! ... at least according to Debra Miller PhD, Senior Nutrition Scientist with the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition (no prizes for guessing which advertising angle she's taking!). Ok skeptics, step aside ... her claim is actually based in truth, as cocoa beans are the seeds of the fruit of the cacao tree, and these should, in theory, be the main ingredient in chocolate. The problem is that in our traditional 'chocolate bar', the ingredients have been so doctored that it's not only the appearance which resembles a UFO, but its contents also appear more at home in outer space than in our food chain!
So, here's my thought. How about, this Valentine's day, we take a step closer to nature - 'chocolately' speaking! What I mean is, why not avoid the processed pink hearts, and enjoy this food for what it should be. Rich, dark and delicious (and with the bonus of packing a great antioxidant punch to boot!).
At the risk of highlighting the fact that I'm the only person in the world who doesn't enjoy being crammed into an overcrowded restaurant with every other table set as a 'two-top', and being forced to eat off an over-simplified, under-inspired menu (seriously, how many asparagus spears do you really have to eat to get the aphrodisiac effect?), I propose engaging in your chocolate feast at home. Keep it simple. Two words: Chocolate Fondue!
Simply buy a couple of bars of good quality dark chocolate (I recommend a cocoa-content of at least 70%) and some organic fruits like apples, mandarins, strawberries, blueberries and grapes. Break up the chocolate roughly and melt it in a bowl over a saucepan of simmering water (caution: do not stir the chocolate while it is melting. I don't know why, but it can ruin its texture!). Chop the fruit into bite-sized pieces and arrange them on a plate in a fashion that credits your inner artist. A couple of forks or skewers and a bottle of good wine and voila, you're done. Delicious .... and not devoid of those all-enticing, menu-price-raising aphrodisiacs, either, in case you’re wondering!
Maybe it's not so difficult to eat closer to nature after all?!
As Valentine's Day approaches, chocolate moves from the center-aisles of the markets to become the one commodity you really can't escape, whichever way you look. If you are easily enticed, you will be pleased to hear that despite its appearance when dressed in dazzling shades of pink and red, chocolate is considered by its connoisseurs to be a 'healthy food of the earth'!
Yes, I do realize that it looks more like a UFO at this time of year, but if we remove the sugar, cream and liquor flavorings, one can, at a push, apparently claim that it is a plant-based food! ... at least according to Debra Miller PhD, Senior Nutrition Scientist with the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition (no prizes for guessing which advertising angle she's taking!). Ok skeptics, step aside ... her claim is actually based in truth, as cocoa beans are the seeds of the fruit of the cacao tree, and these should, in theory, be the main ingredient in chocolate. The problem is that in our traditional 'chocolate bar', the ingredients have been so doctored that it's not only the appearance which resembles a UFO, but its contents also appear more at home in outer space than in our food chain!
So, here's my thought. How about, this Valentine's day, we take a step closer to nature - 'chocolately' speaking! What I mean is, why not avoid the processed pink hearts, and enjoy this food for what it should be. Rich, dark and delicious (and with the bonus of packing a great antioxidant punch to boot!).
At the risk of highlighting the fact that I'm the only person in the world who doesn't enjoy being crammed into an overcrowded restaurant with every other table set as a 'two-top', and being forced to eat off an over-simplified, under-inspired menu (seriously, how many asparagus spears do you really have to eat to get the aphrodisiac effect?), I propose engaging in your chocolate feast at home. Keep it simple. Two words: Chocolate Fondue!
Simply buy a couple of bars of good quality dark chocolate (I recommend a cocoa-content of at least 70%) and some organic fruits like apples, mandarins, strawberries, blueberries and grapes. Break up the chocolate roughly and melt it in a bowl over a saucepan of simmering water (caution: do not stir the chocolate while it is melting. I don't know why, but it can ruin its texture!). Chop the fruit into bite-sized pieces and arrange them on a plate in a fashion that credits your inner artist. A couple of forks or skewers and a bottle of good wine and voila, you're done. Delicious .... and not devoid of those all-enticing, menu-price-raising aphrodisiacs, either, in case you’re wondering!
Maybe it's not so difficult to eat closer to nature after all?!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The scoop on 'GM' foods.
In my last post, I rather flippantly noted that the topic of Genetically Modified foods was worthy of a blog in its own right. However, now concentrating more seriously on it, I realize that it would have to be one hell of a long blog to do justice to the hot debate that surrounds this advancement in technology! Here I aim to try and give a brief overview; the good, the bad and the ugly ... and hopefully arm us all with some information from which we can make our own decisions (yes, ok, I surrender, this is still a relatively long blog…..)
In simple terms, Genetically Modified (GM) foods or Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) most commonly refer to plant crops which have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits (such as increased resistance to herbicides, weather extremes, improved nutritional content etc). Historically, this was achieved by selective breeding, but plant breeding methods are time consuming and often not accurate, so in walks Mr. Technology, and suddenly we are feeding the 5,000 from one field of genetically-doctored corn ...
There are fierce and raging arguments going on around the world as to whether this technique is safe and acceptable, and it would require a dissertation of many thousands of words for me to explain the details, but here are the commonly quoted pros and cons:
Pros:
- GM foods promise to meet the booming population needs predicted over the next 50 years; conventionally created crops do not. This is due to the fact that GM crops have a higher degree of pest-resistance (loss of yield from pest damage is huge and can be devastating to farmers and food availability in developing countries), herbicide tolerance, disease resistance and extreme weather tolerance.
- GM foods can be engineered to contain specific nutrients for specific areas of the world which are malnourished (eg. blindness is a problem in developing countries due to vitamin A deficiency and researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology for Plant Sciences have created a strain of rice ('golden rice') containing an unusually high level of beta-carotene (vitamin A)).
- There is a proposal that foods will be created which contain specific pharmaceuticals within the food so that edible vaccines can replace conventional vaccines(!) and this would be easier to administer in developing countries (a little scary?!)
- Plants such as popular trees which have been GM to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil can help reduce soil and groundwater pollution.
Cons:
- Unintended harm to other organisms caused by contamination to natural food sources from the GM crops (high mortality rates have been seen in the Monarch Butterfly caterpillar due to this). This impacts the whole food chain reliant on the Monarch Butterfly.
- Reduced effectiveness of pesticides due to developed resistance (think: mosquitoes and the-now-banned DDT).
- Cross-breeding between GM crops (in the fields) will cause gene-transfer to non-target species, creating a whole new plethora of GM food options (terrifying thought?!).
- Increased food - allergies in children and adults due to the introduction of new genes ...I'm thinking that this must SURELY screw with our digestive systems??
- Unknown risk to human health - I think the general consensus is that there hasn't been enough testing in this area... this category also embraces an increase in antibiotic resistance which could be potentially fatal...
- Due to the high costs involved in bringing a new GM crop to market, farmers are beginning to patent their specific GM plant - increasing seed prices and further increasing the gap between the rich and poor farmer.
At the moment, the US is the largest producer of GM crops, and more than a dozen other countries have adopted the technology, including Argentina, China, Canada, Australia, India and Mexico.
In contrast, the EU has banned GM foods from being imported or produced on their soil.
So the world is split ... this is an advancement in technology that could 'cure world hunger' but also disrupt the balance of 'nature' for ever more (let alone the balance in your own body when you eat the food). If you live in the US, I'm afraid it's virtually impossible to eat a GM-free diet, even if you shop solely at the delicious but bank-breaking Whole Foods (which claims to be a GM-free store), since both the labeling regulations and the GM-detection-protocol leave much to be desired at this point. The EU do not import any foods with GM ingredients, but from the research I have done, it appears wishful thinking to believe that there is no cross-contaminated ingredients from GM crops in these imported products...
The whole topic leaves me slightly at a loss for words, to be honest (despite this rather lengthy posting!). I whole-heartedly love and support the push to overcome world-hunger, but not at the expense of human wellness, and the little bit of nature we've got left ... as a consumer, I just remind you that money is power. If you do feel you would like to avoid GM foods as much as possible, there are brands which do not source from GM crops such as Frito-Lay, Whole Foods market brand and Gerber baby food (among others), so look for the 'No GMO ..' labels. As with everything, the dollar talks, and businesses will watch what the consumer supports so hopefully being educated will help you as an individual to drive the next chapter of this story in the direction you want it to go.
To re-cap what I said in my last blog, the foods which are most commonly genetically modified are: soy, corn, cotton and rapeseed oil. So yes, that in turn means that 60-70% of processed foods on the shelves of American grocery stores contain GM ingredients. Yikes! I guess that plays into my mantra.... focus on whole foods, and try and avoid the lure of those colorful cardboard boxes! In case you’re in any doubt, I’m personally siding with my mother-country, hoping to God that this powerful technology doesn’t advance faster than our intelligence on the subject.
In simple terms, Genetically Modified (GM) foods or Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) most commonly refer to plant crops which have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits (such as increased resistance to herbicides, weather extremes, improved nutritional content etc). Historically, this was achieved by selective breeding, but plant breeding methods are time consuming and often not accurate, so in walks Mr. Technology, and suddenly we are feeding the 5,000 from one field of genetically-doctored corn ...
There are fierce and raging arguments going on around the world as to whether this technique is safe and acceptable, and it would require a dissertation of many thousands of words for me to explain the details, but here are the commonly quoted pros and cons:
Pros:
- GM foods promise to meet the booming population needs predicted over the next 50 years; conventionally created crops do not. This is due to the fact that GM crops have a higher degree of pest-resistance (loss of yield from pest damage is huge and can be devastating to farmers and food availability in developing countries), herbicide tolerance, disease resistance and extreme weather tolerance.
- GM foods can be engineered to contain specific nutrients for specific areas of the world which are malnourished (eg. blindness is a problem in developing countries due to vitamin A deficiency and researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology for Plant Sciences have created a strain of rice ('golden rice') containing an unusually high level of beta-carotene (vitamin A)).
- There is a proposal that foods will be created which contain specific pharmaceuticals within the food so that edible vaccines can replace conventional vaccines(!) and this would be easier to administer in developing countries (a little scary?!)
- Plants such as popular trees which have been GM to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil can help reduce soil and groundwater pollution.
Cons:
- Unintended harm to other organisms caused by contamination to natural food sources from the GM crops (high mortality rates have been seen in the Monarch Butterfly caterpillar due to this). This impacts the whole food chain reliant on the Monarch Butterfly.
- Reduced effectiveness of pesticides due to developed resistance (think: mosquitoes and the-now-banned DDT).
- Cross-breeding between GM crops (in the fields) will cause gene-transfer to non-target species, creating a whole new plethora of GM food options (terrifying thought?!).
- Increased food - allergies in children and adults due to the introduction of new genes ...I'm thinking that this must SURELY screw with our digestive systems??
- Unknown risk to human health - I think the general consensus is that there hasn't been enough testing in this area... this category also embraces an increase in antibiotic resistance which could be potentially fatal...
- Due to the high costs involved in bringing a new GM crop to market, farmers are beginning to patent their specific GM plant - increasing seed prices and further increasing the gap between the rich and poor farmer.
At the moment, the US is the largest producer of GM crops, and more than a dozen other countries have adopted the technology, including Argentina, China, Canada, Australia, India and Mexico.
In contrast, the EU has banned GM foods from being imported or produced on their soil.
So the world is split ... this is an advancement in technology that could 'cure world hunger' but also disrupt the balance of 'nature' for ever more (let alone the balance in your own body when you eat the food). If you live in the US, I'm afraid it's virtually impossible to eat a GM-free diet, even if you shop solely at the delicious but bank-breaking Whole Foods (which claims to be a GM-free store), since both the labeling regulations and the GM-detection-protocol leave much to be desired at this point. The EU do not import any foods with GM ingredients, but from the research I have done, it appears wishful thinking to believe that there is no cross-contaminated ingredients from GM crops in these imported products...
The whole topic leaves me slightly at a loss for words, to be honest (despite this rather lengthy posting!). I whole-heartedly love and support the push to overcome world-hunger, but not at the expense of human wellness, and the little bit of nature we've got left ... as a consumer, I just remind you that money is power. If you do feel you would like to avoid GM foods as much as possible, there are brands which do not source from GM crops such as Frito-Lay, Whole Foods market brand and Gerber baby food (among others), so look for the 'No GMO ..' labels. As with everything, the dollar talks, and businesses will watch what the consumer supports so hopefully being educated will help you as an individual to drive the next chapter of this story in the direction you want it to go.
To re-cap what I said in my last blog, the foods which are most commonly genetically modified are: soy, corn, cotton and rapeseed oil. So yes, that in turn means that 60-70% of processed foods on the shelves of American grocery stores contain GM ingredients. Yikes! I guess that plays into my mantra.... focus on whole foods, and try and avoid the lure of those colorful cardboard boxes! In case you’re in any doubt, I’m personally siding with my mother-country, hoping to God that this powerful technology doesn’t advance faster than our intelligence on the subject.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Just because it's organic, doesn't mean it's healthy!
As marketing intelligence increases, consumers have to wade through a jungle of confusing messages to navigate the aisles of the grocery store. We go there in search of food, and many of us return with 'products'. Yes, that's right, 'products' ... albeit for our stomach and digestive system, and carrying the widely flaunted label of 'food' ... but these are often far-flung from the simple nutrients on which our ancestors thrived.
Aside from the extravagant labeling of health benefits that adorn these packaged foods (this topic is worthy of a whole new blog), something which confounds many of my friends and clients alike is the connotation of the term 'organic'. To start at the basics, here in the States, there products can be labeled as 'Organic' and '100% Organic':
- Products labeled as 'Organic' must contain at least 95% of organic ingredients (excluding water or salt), and any remaining ingredients must consist of 'approved nonagricultural substances and specific non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form'.
- Products labeled as '100% Organic' must contain ingredients which are only organically produced and processed (excluding water and salt).
The general consensus is that 'organic is good', right? I mean, when we talk about single-ingredient items such as meat, fish, dairy and fresh produce, 'organic' means less human interference - whether that be added hormones and antibiotics, or toxic pesticides ... and the less of those the better. The confusion comes when we move away from simple foods, and into the packaged 'products' the food industry works so hard to sell us. I'm talking about cookies, breads, jellies/jams, cereals, frozen dinners, foot-long sandwiches ... and the list continues. These are the 'foods' which are not produced by nature, but by factories, and in today's world they fill an increasingly large portion of the average family's shopping cart. These are the foods which are packaged in pretty colors, and on which the 'organic' labels tend to deflect us from the true ingredients.
A case in point - I was talking to a friend of mine here in Vegas about bread, and she mentioned that she always chose a certain brand because it was organic. And yes, it was organic, but when I looked closer, I realized that the 'organic' label acted as a great camouflage for the fact that it contained less that half the fiber of most whole-grain breads, and almost double the amount of added sugar (for those of you reading this outside the US, it is normal for bread here to have some added sugars). So really, although the ingredients were organic, it wasn't the healthiest choice?!
Now, I'm not proposing that we spend our days baking our own bread, nor making our cereals from scratch (however wonderful both of those options would be!), but it's important not to be too easily persuaded when you are shopping those 'inner' aisles of the grocery store. While the word ‘organic’ is a great help in determining which peach you choose, it is important to ask yourself whether your 'organic' dollars are best spent on flour and sugar?! Possibly not?
So, I hear you ask, if you can't just assume that the labels will point you in the right direction, what the hell should you look for when buying food? The answer to this question is worthy of more than this blog, but in short, here are my tips:
- When buying baked goods and cereals, try to make sure the fiber content is high (usually whole-grains are a good start), there are no trans-fats, and that the added sugars are not too high.
- When buying frozen meals (I shudder at the thought!) - and yes, this includes pizza and pasta dishes - again look for whole-grains to increase the fiber content, low amounts of added sugars, absolutely no listing of 'partially hydrogenated oils' (aka trans fats) in the ingredients, and if possible, organic sources of dairy and protein.
- When buying fresh produce, consult the list of 'dirtiest' produce created and updated by the Environmental Working Group at http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php and try to buy these fresh fruits and vegetables organic whenever possible.
- When buying single-ingredient animal products such as dairy, meat and fish, I recommend organic wherever possible to avoid the added antibiotics and hormones commonly found in their conventionally-reared counterparts.
- When buying foods which contain commonly genetically modified ingredients, such as corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed oil, I recommend searching to find the brands which contain 'no GMO ingredients'. (As a side-note, 60-70% of processed foods in the US contain genetically modified ingredients, including most breakfast cereals, most foods containing soy, many baby foods, snack foods and sodas ... while the government deems GMO foods safe to eat, I try and avoid them where possible, my reasons are once again worthy of another blog!).
In short, I guess my main message is this: start with real, whole foods, and try and buy these in as pure a form as possible (here, I think the organic label is worthy of its perceived high status). When pretty packages start seducing you (and we're all guilty of that!), don't be misled by them flaunting that their ingredients are organic. It doesn't sanction them as 'healthy'!
Embrace your inner-detective ... apparently your health depends on it!
Aside from the extravagant labeling of health benefits that adorn these packaged foods (this topic is worthy of a whole new blog), something which confounds many of my friends and clients alike is the connotation of the term 'organic'. To start at the basics, here in the States, there products can be labeled as 'Organic' and '100% Organic':
- Products labeled as 'Organic' must contain at least 95% of organic ingredients (excluding water or salt), and any remaining ingredients must consist of 'approved nonagricultural substances and specific non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form'.
- Products labeled as '100% Organic' must contain ingredients which are only organically produced and processed (excluding water and salt).
The general consensus is that 'organic is good', right? I mean, when we talk about single-ingredient items such as meat, fish, dairy and fresh produce, 'organic' means less human interference - whether that be added hormones and antibiotics, or toxic pesticides ... and the less of those the better. The confusion comes when we move away from simple foods, and into the packaged 'products' the food industry works so hard to sell us. I'm talking about cookies, breads, jellies/jams, cereals, frozen dinners, foot-long sandwiches ... and the list continues. These are the 'foods' which are not produced by nature, but by factories, and in today's world they fill an increasingly large portion of the average family's shopping cart. These are the foods which are packaged in pretty colors, and on which the 'organic' labels tend to deflect us from the true ingredients.
A case in point - I was talking to a friend of mine here in Vegas about bread, and she mentioned that she always chose a certain brand because it was organic. And yes, it was organic, but when I looked closer, I realized that the 'organic' label acted as a great camouflage for the fact that it contained less that half the fiber of most whole-grain breads, and almost double the amount of added sugar (for those of you reading this outside the US, it is normal for bread here to have some added sugars). So really, although the ingredients were organic, it wasn't the healthiest choice?!
Now, I'm not proposing that we spend our days baking our own bread, nor making our cereals from scratch (however wonderful both of those options would be!), but it's important not to be too easily persuaded when you are shopping those 'inner' aisles of the grocery store. While the word ‘organic’ is a great help in determining which peach you choose, it is important to ask yourself whether your 'organic' dollars are best spent on flour and sugar?! Possibly not?
So, I hear you ask, if you can't just assume that the labels will point you in the right direction, what the hell should you look for when buying food? The answer to this question is worthy of more than this blog, but in short, here are my tips:
- When buying baked goods and cereals, try to make sure the fiber content is high (usually whole-grains are a good start), there are no trans-fats, and that the added sugars are not too high.
- When buying frozen meals (I shudder at the thought!) - and yes, this includes pizza and pasta dishes - again look for whole-grains to increase the fiber content, low amounts of added sugars, absolutely no listing of 'partially hydrogenated oils' (aka trans fats) in the ingredients, and if possible, organic sources of dairy and protein.
- When buying fresh produce, consult the list of 'dirtiest' produce created and updated by the Environmental Working Group at http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php and try to buy these fresh fruits and vegetables organic whenever possible.
- When buying single-ingredient animal products such as dairy, meat and fish, I recommend organic wherever possible to avoid the added antibiotics and hormones commonly found in their conventionally-reared counterparts.
- When buying foods which contain commonly genetically modified ingredients, such as corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed oil, I recommend searching to find the brands which contain 'no GMO ingredients'. (As a side-note, 60-70% of processed foods in the US contain genetically modified ingredients, including most breakfast cereals, most foods containing soy, many baby foods, snack foods and sodas ... while the government deems GMO foods safe to eat, I try and avoid them where possible, my reasons are once again worthy of another blog!).
In short, I guess my main message is this: start with real, whole foods, and try and buy these in as pure a form as possible (here, I think the organic label is worthy of its perceived high status). When pretty packages start seducing you (and we're all guilty of that!), don't be misled by them flaunting that their ingredients are organic. It doesn't sanction them as 'healthy'!
Embrace your inner-detective ... apparently your health depends on it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)