Few few foods evoke as much controversy as does soy.  Depending on who you are and what expression of soy you’re eating, it can be either a healthy source of high-quality protein that may have some protective benefits against breast cancer risk, or a highly-processed food ingredient that may compromise your health and well-being in a handful of ways.

On one hand, there are multiple, large observational studies out of Asia which show a statistically significant association between higher intakes of natural soy foods and lower risk of developing breast cancer among (mostly post-menopausal) women.  And even those Asian studies which don’t support this association have not shown that eating more traditional soy foods ever increases the risk of breast cancer.  American studies have, by and large, failed to show a similar association, but most researchers chalk this up to the fact that even “high” intakes of soy in the U.S. are lower than the lowest intakes in Asia, meaning that American women are likely not eating enough of the natural phytochemicals in soy called isoflavones that have been credited with its potentially protective effect against breast cancer.  Furthermore, most of the soy eaten in the U.S. is not in the form of traditional, whole-r foods like tofu, miso, tempeh and natto like it is in Asia, but rather in the form of a processed, concentrated, soy-derived food additive called soy protein isolate (SPI), whose isoflavone content may or may not be comparable to that in traditional soy foods.

On the other hand, there is a quieter, but nonetheless disturbing, body of research out there that is linking higher intakes of soy with a variety of unwelcome health outcomes, including thyroid disorders in susceptible people, increased rates of food allergies (especially peanut), intolerances and asthma, and the potential for sexual development problems in children fed soy formula.  If the body of evidence continues to grow and proves these associations more definitively, there are probably a few different biological mechanisms at work here.

• Soy may influence the sexual development of children (especially children fed soy formula as infants) and the hormonal balance of women through the effect of naturally-occurring compounds called “phytoestrogens.” Phytoestrogens are plant estrogens similar enough in structure to the hormone estrogen produced in humans that they can actually bind to our estrogen receptors; soy isoflavones are one of several phytoestrogens present in soy.  Phytoestrogens appear to have potentially beneficial and potentially detrimental effects, which complicates the matter of evaluating soy’s healthfulness.  One one hand, researchers believe that phytoestrogens may compete with more biologically potent human estrogen for receptor sites in our body’s various tissues, and in so doing, it may DECREASE the risk of estrogen-linked cancers like breast cancer in adult women.  But in infants who are still developing, introducing high levels of soy phytoestrogens through soy formula can build up in their tiny bodies quite quickly and possibly influence their sexual development adversely.  Virtually all data on this possible association comes from animal studies– not human studies–so the evidence is not iron-clad that soy formula will increase the risk of problematic sexual development in human children.  However, animal studies suggest that possible side effects could be low testosterone leading to infertility in males and early-onset puberty in females.

• An effect of soy on the thyroid could be mediated by compounds in soy called goitrogens, naturally-occurring compounds that suppress the thyroid’s function by blocking its ability to take up iodine.  In soy, the isoflavone called genistein (which may be one of the same compounds responsible for soy’s beneficial effect on protecting against breast cancer), is goitrogenic.  To be sure, soy is not the only food in which similar goitrogenic compounds naturally occur: cruciferous vegetables (including broccoli, cabbage, turnips and brussels sprouts), millet, and strawberries also contain various types of goitrogens.  So what makes soy different than these other foods?  For starters, the goitrogens in most of these other foods are generally deactivated by the cooking (or fermentation) process.  What’s more is that we tend not to eat these foods in such quantities that the goitrogens in them–neutralized or not–will have any sort of adverse effect on us.  Unlike these other foods, however, the goitrogenic isoflavones in soy are not neutralized by typical cooking and fermentation processes.   In the case of, say, infants, whose sole source of nutrition is soy formula… or adults who are knowingly or unknowingly eating multiple foods everyday “fortified” with soy protein, the levels of goitrogens may become problematic and wreak a bit of havoc on the thyroid… particularly in people with underlying thyroid problems or who are genetically susceptible.  Low-levels of thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism) can cause attention-deficit disorders, memory problems, depression, loss of energy, thinning hair and weight gain.

• The third may be attributable to the fact that, since the launch of genetically modified (GMO) soy in 1996, >90% of soy grown in the world is now GMO, meaning that genes from different species of plants/animals are artificially injected into the soy plant to create novel proteins that our bodies have not before encountered in nature.  Some researchers suspect that in susceptible people–like young children who have immature digestive systems or people with weak/inflammed digestive systems (’leaky guts’)– these unfamiliar proteins can trigger immune responses to both themselves and to similar proteins which result in food allergies and intolerances, which are notably on the rise for some inexplicable reason.

One would have hoped that the FDA might have forced GMO soy developers (like Monsanto) to show evidence that their products did not, in fact, result in such outcomes before allowing them to unleash their products en masse into our food supply in the mid 1990s–as was done in many European countries.  But one would be disappointed to learn that this did not, in fact, come to pass.  And so, 13+ years after we’ve all been slipped GMO soy protein in everything from our infant formulas and granola bars to our breakfast cereals and fast-food burgers, evidence is just now trickling in that confirms some of these suspicions on the safety of processed soy in general–and GMO soy in particular.

So what’s an eater to do?

My vegetarian and vegan friends rely heavily on soy as a high-quality, complete source of vegetarian protein.  And health authorities keep telling those of us who eat meat to eat less of it… so wouldn’t soy be a lower-fat, healthy substitute?  It’s confusing to be sure.  I’ll be the first to admit that science has yet to offer a definitive answer on soy, but since this column is called “What I’m Eating Now,” I’ll give you my informed opinion, based on the state of the science and expert opinion today as I have come to understand it, on what I recommend with regards to soy. (And I should mention as a caveat that I don’t eat soy protein at all, since I have a digestive intolerance to it.  It’s worth mentioning that soy can be a difficult-to-digest protein for many, which is why the Asian cultures needed to ‘tame’ it through fermentation in many of their traditional foods.)

RED LIGHT SOY FOODS: Foods that just about everyone should avoid.

1. Soy infant formula. The figures I’ve seen show that 20%-25% of babies are being fed soy formula in this country, despite the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends only TWO
   

   Soy infant formulas are not recommended for milk-allergic babies unless they can't tolerate hypoallergenic, hydrolyzed cow's milk formulas, either.

   indications for the use of soy formula for feeding infants.  1) For vegan infants who are not breastfed; 2) For infants who suffer from a very rare and serious condition called galactosemia, in which they cannot digest lactose (milk sugar) at all, and therefore cannot have any milk-derived formulas. Unfortunately, it’s common practice for pediatricians to tell moms who think or know their babies have a sensitivity to cow’s milk protein (casein) to automatically switch to soy formula.  In fact, it is recommended to first try a hydrolyzed cow’s milk formula, in which the long milk proteins are “pre-digested” into smaller fragments called peptides that should not trigger allergic responses.  There are partially hydrolyzed formulas that contain peptides (small chains of a few amino acids) and elemental formulas, in which the milk proteins are completely broken down into individual amino acids (for hypersensitive infants).  It is always recommended to try these formulas in a milk-allergic baby first before resorting to soy-based formulas; however, their significantly higher cost (and stronger smells) may be prohibitive for many.  Because formula is an infant’s sole source of nutrition, the effect of some of soy’s more problematic compounds can be magnified in such large quantities in such tiny bodies. Soy protein can be difficult for babies to digest owing to the presence of naturally-occurrirng compounds called protease-inhibitors, and the phytates in soy can inhibit the absorption of various minerals, including calcium, iron and zinc. (Note that fermenting soy eliminates these latter problems, which is why traditional Asian foods are able to avoid these problems).   The use of soy formula also appears to be linked to higher rates of peanut allergy and other food intolerances than the use of cow’s milk formulas, so I’d recommend to exhaust all other options before using soy infant formulas if you can… especially if your baby is at high risk for developing food allergies.

YELLOW LIGHT SOY FOODS: If these are daily staples in your diet, I’d cut back to a few times/week for the whole lot combined.  But probably no need to avoid them altogether.

1. Processed foods and drinks containing soy protein isolate (SPI) or soy protein concentrate (SPC), like frozen veggie burgers (Boca Burgers, Gardenburgers, Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie patties), vegetarian meat substitutes made with “TVP” (textured vegetable protein), protein-fortified breakfast cereals (yes…this includes the wildly popular Kashi GoLean…please don’t shoot the messenger!), high-protein shakes or soy protein powders, most meal replacement/”energy” bars (and even some Granola bars, sadly), and soymilk.  (This has been the hardest paragraph I’ve written to date, as I know that many people are fiercely loyal to some of these products for their taste, convenience and ‘healthy’ halo…and frankly, I’m scared of the fallout I’m likely to get.) The fact of the matter is that (1) few Americans (even vegetarians) are protein deficient, so all of this added soy protein in our diets is nutritionally extraneous, (2) unless it’s labeled organic, the soy protein in these foods comes from GMO soy that has NOT been safety-tested in humans and is starting to be associated with some negative (but not life-threatening) health outcomes, (3) it is a highly-processed ingredient subjected to a host of unsavory chemical solvents that may retain toxic residues that can add up when consumed in large quantities, and (4) these foods contain 2-6x more isoflavones than traditional soy foods, delivering a concentrated dose of phytoestrogens that may mess around with your hormonal balance in an as-yet-unknown and possibly unwelcome way.  Now I’m not suggesting that it’s necessary go cold-turkey by any means, but I am suggesting that if your daily routine involves a bowl of Kashi GoLean in Soymilk for breakfast, a high-protein energy bar as an afternoon snack, and a frozen veggieburger for dinner, it might be a good idea to inject some healthy variety into your diet.

Sunshine Burgers are a rare breed of veggieburger: soy AND gluten free.

Alternatively, there are plenty of great convenience products out there that don’t use any soy at all that you might consider trying as well: Larabars are soy and gluten-free; There are a variety of non-dairy, soy-free, calcium-fortified “milks” for your breakfast cereals, including Oat milk, Almond milk, and Rice Milk, Hemp milk (which is a fantastic source of omega-3’s); Sunshine Burgers are sunflower and bean-based frozen veggieburgers that are both soy and gluten free; Mix1 makes refrigerated soy-and-lactose-free shakes that are high in protein, vitamins and fiber.  If you’re a protein-powder person, try hemp protein powder or whey protein isolate as good soy-free, gluten-free, low-lactose alternatives to soy protein powder.

GREEN LIGHT SOY FOODS: Foods you can enjoy without worry.

1. Organic, fermented/traditionally-prepared Asian soy foods like tofu, natto, tempeh or miso. By choosing organic, you’re eliminating the big question mark hanging over
   

   When it comes to soy, do as your fictional Asian grandmother would do

   the use of GMO soybeans, and by choosing more whole, traditionally-prepared foods, you’re benefiting from the time-tested fermentation processes that help tame most of soy’s more problematic nutritional quirks.  As mentioned earlier, virtually all of the data that show a health benefit for soy foods in preventing breast cancer are based on studies of Asian women who ate these types of foods.  There’s no compelling data to suggest you should limit these foods in your diet that I have come across.

2. Organic edamame.  Edamame, or boiled young soybeans, contain a moderate amount of isoflavones and lower levels of anti-nutrients (the protease inhibitors and phytates discussed above) than mature soybeans do.  As a result, edamame make a fine snack whenever you get a hankering.  XXXXXXXXX
3. Soy oil (or vegetable oil containing soy oil) and soy lecithin: If you live in America today and eat anything that comes in a bag, box or wrapper, it’s virtually impossible to avoid these soy-derived ingredients.  Fortunately, you really shouldn’t have to worry about them.  Soybean oil, by definition, won’t contain any detectable protein, and soy lecithin is a phospholipid (also a type of fat) used as an emulsifier in foods (like chocolate, margarine or ice cream) to help keep fat and water from separating.  There shouldn’t be any actual soy protein in either of these ingredients; many (but unfortunately not all) people who are allergic to soy are even able to consume products that contain these ingredients.

Tweet This Post

One of the most common questions people as me is whether paying more for organic is “worth it.”

The answer, of course, depends on a whole number of factors, and, like most questions, is best answered as “it depends.”

If your concern is environmental or related to concerns for the health of agricultural workers, then organic always wins.  But if you can’t afford to let your green inclinations dictate all of your purchases and want to prioritize your organic spending based on personal health considerations, then read on.

Health considerations of organic vs. conventional foods

Fruits & Vegetables

In my opinion, the #1 health reason to choose organic fruits and vegetables would be to minimize the number of pesticides you consume.   While the individual pesticides used in this country have been approved as “safe” by the EPA and it appears that the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables are well outweighed by the risks associated with consumption of pesticides, there are still a number of good reasons to try and minimize your pesticide intake if you can afford to do so.  For one, while individual pesticides may be considered safe by our country’s  regulatory bodies, it is unclear whether the cumulative impact of multiple pesticides consumed over a lifetime is really harmless.  There are reasons to believe that it is not.  The most compelling scientific evidence points to a role of pesticides as endocrine (hormone function) disruptors and neurotoxins that impact proper brain development and functioning.  Because hormones play a role in everything from sexual development, reproductive health and breast health to blood sugar control and metabolism, it seems prudent to try to minimize exposure to chemicals that could disrupt their ability to function properly. In fact, the Endocrine Society has recently issued a Scientific Statement regarding endocrine-disrupting chemicals, linking them to a host of adverse health conditions, from genital abnormalities in newborn boys and early puberty in girls to insulin resistance, diabetes and obesity. For those people exposed to very high levels of certain pesticides (e.g., agricultural workers), the risk of certain cancers and birth defects also appears to become elevated.  

Because organic can be more expensive (though it is NOT always necessarily so), my own practice is to prioritize buying organic for those items whose conventional versions have been shown to have the heaviest pesticide loads.  The Environmental Working Group offers a Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides: a list of the “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15″ that you can print out or download to your iPhone .  The “Clean 15″ refer to those fruits and vegetables that contain the lowest amount of pesticides even when grown conventionally, so if you had to compromise in your budget, this would be a good place to start.  Even cooler (but more frightening and time-consuming) is a new online tool launched by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) called “What’s On my Food?” This interactive tool allows you to pick any fruit or vegetable and see how many pesticides are found on it, what type of pesticides they are, what percent of all the fruit/vegetables actually contain this pesticide, and to compare what percent of conventional vs. organic versions of this fruit/vegetable contain the pesticide.  All of the data comes from the USDA and EPA.  If the data freaks you out, PAN offers you the chance to Take Action by sending a note to President Obama right from their website.

Other agricultural products

For some people, genetically-modified (GMO) agricultural products are also an area of concern.  The body of science is only just starting to catch up with the industry, and there’s emerging evidence to suggest that we may in fact have reason to be concerned about GMO foods for health reasons, with increased risk of food allergies/intolerances being one of the more compelling concerns. The greatest concern about GMO foods, though, is not what we know, but what we don’t know; there is very little by way of long-term safety data on human diets that include GMO foods, yet we already eat a whole heck of a lot of them.  For a list of foods that tend to be GMO in our country, you can check out the Institute for Responsible Technology’s Non-GMO Shopping Guide. Currently, a good rule of thumb is that if the corn or soybean derivatives in your food don’t explicitly claim to be organic or non-GMO, then they are GMO. Ditto for cottonseed oil, canola oil and sugar.  If that concerns you, then buy organic for these types of products.

Dairy

Moving beyond produce, legumes and grains, is organic dairy worth paying a premium for?  The #1 health reason to choose organic milk would be to avoid consuming a hormone called rBGH or rBST. Conventional milk comes from cows that were likely treated with this hormone in order to boost their milk production, and it contains significantly higher levels of a compound called Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1) as a result.  From a health perspective, there is a concern that this IGF-1 is absorbed by our bodies when we consume these dairy products, and since higher levels of endogenous IGF-1 are associated with breast and gastrointestinal cancers, this additional exogenous IGF-1 could produce a similar consequence. Yet the FDA has studied this matter and concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support this linkage.  So what to do?

This is one problem that the market may resolve for you.  Due to strong pressure from consumers, more and more brands of  non-organic dairy products are now pledging that their milk comes from cows are not treated with r-BGH.  For example, Lactaid milk, Wal Mart’s private label milk brand (Great Value), Dean, Hood and Farmland Dairy have already eliminated rBGH in some or all of their products, and Dannon yogurt recently pledged to remove milk containing rBGH from all of its products by the end of 2009.  Yoplait and Starbucks have made similar commitments, with the former company having promised to phase it out by August of this year. My own practice is to choose organic milk when a suitable lactose-free version is available for me (Organic Valley makes one, as does Horizon Organic); but I’ll buy conventional lactose-free milk from Lactaid, who claims that their cows were not treated with rBGH if the organic isn’t available.  Still, given the strong, clear evidence of the bone health consequences of not getting enough calcium vs. the more tenuous evidence of a potentially elevated cancer risk associated with conventional milk, I’d choose conventional milk over no milk at all even if organic and rBGH-free options weren’t available to me. Hands down.

Meat, Poultry & Fish

When it comes to meat and poultry, organic means that the animals were not routinely injected with antibiotics, nor were they treated with growth hormones.  It also means that the feed they ate was organic, which would imply much lower pesticide levels.  For many people, these are reasons enough to choose organic over conventional.  Still, it is worth mentioning that organic meat/poultry by definition does not imply that the nutritional profile of the beef/chicken itself is healthier, nor does it imply that the animal was raised humanely.  I’d look for “grass-fed” over simply “organic” for (though any beef that claims the former will often be organic, too) if you wanted beef that was higher in healthy omega-3 fats, and I’d look for “free range,” the “Certified Humane” designation or the Niman Ranch label if you want to know that your animal was raised more humanely.

When it comes to fish labeled “organic,” things get tricky.  Currently, the USDA does not permit any fish to be labeled as organic, since they have not yet established a standard.  Theoretically, however, since wild-caught fish would not be eligible to be certified organic (by definition), the only fish that will potentially be eligible to be labeled “organic” are going to be farm-raised fish that were fed “organic” feed.   In fact, a recently-adopted USDA panel approved guidelines for organic labeling for fish which specify that the fish-feed would need to contain 75% organic material and up to 25% wild fish for it to be labeled organic; it expected that this recommendation will pave the way for a formal organic standard for fish in the near future.   This seems sort of convoluted to me, as the healthiest fish are generally those that are wild-caught and dine exclusively on their natural diets of other wild fish, plankton or algae… not “organic” corn and soy feed.  But far be it for me to question the USDA’s infinite wisdom.

Personally, I think the more important claims to look for on seafood would be those that address safety, sustainability and country of origin. As I’ve suggested here before, you can download the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch guide, which combines a multitude of factors, including safety AND sustainability, in recommending the best seafood picks.  (The guides are even customized by geographic region).  Alternatively, you can download it to your iPhone so that its always with you when shopping.  You may be surprised to see that there are plenty of farmed fish varieties that make the cut as far as safety (low mercury and PCB levels) and sustainability go, so wild isn’t automatically the best choice in all circumstances.

Got all that?

Are organically-grown foods actually more nutritious?

While there are a small but  growing number of studies which suggest that organically-grown produce may be richer in nutrients than conventionally-grown produce when all other factors are controlled for, the reality is that your choices at a supermarket hardly resemble a controlled experiment.  You may have organically-grown asparagus that was picked a week ago from Argentina sitting alongside conventionally-grown asparagus that was picked 2 days ago from your own state: in this case, the locally-grown, conventional choice is likely to be more nutritious.  Organic farming methods are just one factor that play into the nutritional value of a given fruit or vegetable, with factors like weather, ripeness when picked, storage conditions,  processing and time since picking all influencing the final product.  So it’s not a foregone conclusion that always choosing organic will be a nutritionally superior proposition.

Tweet This Post

This is what authentic South-of-the-Border alegria looks like

I first encountered Alegria--which means ‘happiness’– when I was visiting Puebla, Mexico. It sort of looks like a thick rice cake, only it’s much denser and sweeter.  The fact that it’s mostly sold in confectionary shops belies the subversive nutritional value of this beloved treat, which is made of puffed, whole-grain, gluten-free amaranth bound together by honey, sugarcane syrup or molasses.  Some versions are studded with nuts and seeds (as pictured above), while others are pure cakes of uninterrupted amaranthness.

What’s that?  You’ve never heard of amaranth?

Well, I hadn’t either before I was forced to start exploring gluten-free grains to replace the couscous, pasta, bread and bulgur in my life .  And it’s a crying shame, since amaranth is one of the most nutritious ‘grains’ on the planet--second only to quinoa and teff in my book.  Like quinoa, amaranth hails from South America, is a seed that behaves like a cereal grain, and is very high in protein and fiber. It  also has a more complete protein profile than most other grains, containing certain essential amino acids that are not commonly found in other grains.  Amaranth has twice the iron as wheat does; though vegetarian sources of iron are generally difficult to absorb.  (But eating iron-rich plant foods like amaranth with vitamin-C rich foods, like fruit, can help with absorption.)

1/4 cup of raw amaranth, which will pop up to 1 cup “puffed” in the recipe below, contains 179 calories, 31g of carbohydrate (of which 3.2g is fiber), 77 mg of calcium (a non-trivial 8% of the daily value), 10% of the daily value of folate, and a surprising 3.7 mg of iron!  (That’s almost 50% of the daily value for men, but remember it’s not likely to be very well absorbed unless you eat it along with some vitamin C.

Cooked amaranth is delicious and nutritious as well, but be warned that the texture will be gooey/gummy and pasty rather than fluffy and grainy; in fact, it is often used as thickening agent for soups and stews.  I’d think about using cooked amaranth as a more nutritious substitute for savory grits or polenta rather than as a substitute for rice.  Perhaps I’ll even come up with a recipe that features it in the not-too-distant future.

Finally, amaranth leaves are also edible and ridiculously nutritious.  If you live in a neighborhood with a large Jamaican population, you may have seen them sold as callaloo, but they’re also used widely in East Asian, Southeast Asian and African cuisines under different names.  (Other Caribbean cultures call Taro leaves–rather than amaranth leaves– “callaloo,” so it may be hard to know which plant your callaloo really comes from unless you know what amaranth leaves look like.)   But I digress: if you happen to find it in your neck of the woods, don’t be afraid to give it a try!  You can use it in place of spinach in any recipe. 1 cup of cooked amaranth leaves/callaloo contains only 30 calories and almost a full day’s worth of Vitamin C and Vitamin A, 20% of the daily value for folate, and 30% of the daily value for calcium, making it an excellent non-dairy source of that elusive bone-building mineral.

Making alegria

The trick to making alegria at home is in puffing your own amaranth.  And the trick to puffing your own amaranth is a super-hot non-stick wok with a tight-fitting lid.  (Of course, if you live near a well-stocked health food store that actually sells puffed amaranth cereal, then this recipe will be an absolute breeze.)  It took me a few attempts to get this right, which is why I’d recommend having a little extra amaranth on hand in case the first few batches don’t quite puff as you want them to.

Raw amaranth (left) and popped (right)

Basically, get the wok nice and piping hot.  And then get it even hotter.  When you think the wok is hot enough, try adding 1 TBSP of the amaranth and close the lid immediately.  If it doesn’t start popping like crazy, your wok wasn’t hot enough.  (It took me a few failed TBSPs before my wok was hot enough, which is why I’d recommend having about 1/4 cup extra, just in case.) Within a minute of adding the amaranth, your crazy popping will slow down; using oven mitts if necessary, swirl the covered wok around a little as if you were popping popcorn; this should give the popping action a brief second wind before it grinds to a halt.  Once the popping dies down for good, remove the puffed amaranth from heat and repeat this process until all of your amaranth is puffed.  With each progressive batch, your puffing will improve since the wok will be hotter and hotter.  But don’t be tempted to add more than 1 TBSP at a time to speed things up, or you’ll end up with too many unpopped kernels.

Recipe: North of the Border Alegria

North of the border alegria: Maple-y and muy delicioso!

1/2 cup raw amaranth grain, puffed to about 2 cups per the instructions above (or, if you’re lucky enough to find puffed amaranth cereal in your area, you can just use 2 cups of it)

1/2 cup pure maple syrup (this is the part that makes it North of the Border.  Don’t use an adulterated “pancake syrup” like Aunt Jemima for these!)

1/4 cup dried fruit pieces (I used Vitamin C-rich dried cranberries)

1/4 cup toasted pumpkin seeds (pepitas)

Directions: In a saucepan, bring the maple syrup to a boil, and boil for at least 7 minutes to cook off some of the water so that your alegria bars won’t be too moist and fall apart.  (Ideally, if you have a candy thermometer, boil the syrup to about 240 degrees).  Then, add the amaranth and stir with a spatula to combine.  Add the dried fruit and pumpkin seeds and stir until well combined.  Pour mixture into a 9″x9″ baking dish lined with parchment paper and let cool.  Cut into 8 bars.

Nutrition info per bar (assumes recipe above makes 8 bars): 145 calories, 25g carbohydrate (of which 1g is fiber), 4g protein, 4g fat and 2 mg (25% of the daily value) of iron.

Take that, Rice Krispie treats!

Tweet This Post

So... you from around here?

Amid the excitement surrounding St. Patrick’s Day this week, a long-awaited milestone quietly took effect on March 16, but was celebrated widely by food safety advocates.  Federal “Country of Origin Labeling” legislation (or, “COOL,” in hip DC-parlance) mandated by the Farm Bill finally took effect, despite longstanding protests from the meat industry.

Although the law leaves a lot up to the discretion of food producers and marketers, it does require that unprocessed food items be labeled with their country of origin.  So for example, it would cover fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, ground beef/whole muscle meat, fish, fresh poultry and nuts…but not foods like bagged spinach, bacon, or frozen chicken nuggets.  In addition, seafood must be labeled by its method of production as either farm-raised or wild-caught.

So what should we make of this?

Well, for starters, it will make things easier for aspiring locavores.  You’ll know where all of your produce, meat and fish come from, which can help guide your choices if you’re trying to eat more locally.  (Though honestly, most of us didn’t need federally-mandated labeling legislation to know that our bananas aren’t from around these here parts, or that those big red tomatoes available in the dead of winter weren’t grown nearby.)

Personally, I’m most interested in this legislation as it pertains to fish.

Did anyone else catch that article that the New York Times did on the Chinese fish industry back in 2007?  It highlighted a (growing) problem of banned carcinogens, illegal antibiotics, pesticides (including DDT) and additives that were showing up in imported Chinese seafood, which according to the article comprised 22% of all seafood sold in the US.  (My guess is that percentage is even higher now.)  And while the FDA does routinely inspect samples, it only ends up checking a measly 1% of all imported food, meaning that unsafe fish are almost certainly finding their way into our food supply and onto our plates.  The problem up until now has been that there was no way to know where your fish came from, unless your supermarket volunteered the information.

Of course, labeling only helps us make better decisions about what to buy if it’s truthful.  (Too bad they didn’t name the legislation the Truthful Country of Origin Labeling Act, but I guess T’COOL wasn’t as catchy.)  In another brilliant fish-related expose, the New York Times sent samples of fish, purchased at various New York stores and labeled as “wild,” to an independent laboratory to verify whether they were indeed wild.  (About 90% of all salmon in the U.S. is farm-raised, which explains why wild salmon routinely costs 3-5x more than farmed.) The analysis found that only ONE of the eight samples tested positive for being wild; all of the others were overpriced, farm-raised imposters.  And they were being sold by some pretty snooty places, I may add.

Sigh.  As if the fish counter wasn’t already fraught with enough anxiety about what to purchase, between the mercury and the PCBs…. and now the added layer of wild-caught vs. farmed, and countries of origin to contend with.  What’s an omega-3 loving pescatarian to do?

Well, there are no easy answers.  But here are some things that I do.

1. At the risk of being sued by the Chinese fish industry, I will say that I don’t buy any seafood imported from China.  Period.  It’s never been a problem at Whole Foods, but I’ve passed on the tantalizingly-inexpensive fish sold at BJ’s wholesale club for precisely this reason.  Also, be sure to check the label on frozen seafood–like shrimp and scallops–as these often come from Asia and may possibly come from China specifically.
2. Download the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch guide, which combines a multitude of factors, including safety AND sustainability, in recommending the best seafood picks.  (The guides are even customized by geographic region).  The list gets updated frequently, as trends in overfishing change fish stocks dramatically, so make sure to check back every few months for an updated list.  Alternatively, you can download it to your iPhone so that its always with you when shopping.  You may be surprised to see that there are plenty of farmed fish varieties that make the cut as far as safety and sustainability go, so wild isn’t automatically the best choice in all circumstances.
3. Consider canned fish.  Canned salmon is almost universally wild-caught, low in mercury/PCBs and usually Alaskan.  As for tuna, look for products labeled  “troll,”  “hook and line” or “pole” caught, as they are the most sustainable.   (If you can afford to spend $5 on a can of tuna during a recession, then check out a brand called American Tuna and support their sustainable fishing practices. Your financial investment will buy you the peace of mind that your tuna comes from the US, and was caught using very sustainable practices.)  And sardines are making a huge comeback these days, with stores offering fancy, European-style versions bathed in swanky sauces…. and chefs embracing them for sandwiches and salads.  Today’s sardines are not the tinny, unsexy cast-offs you may recall.  They are worth a second look (and taste!)
4. See what your farmer’s market has to offer. Here in New York, there are vendors who sell locally-caught fish and scallops at the Union Square greenmarket, for prices on par with what’s being sold right across the street in Whole Foods.

So next time you’re in the supermarket, check out the new labels across the store and let me know what you make of it all; I’d love to know whether they change your buying habits in any way!

Tweet This Post

There is certainly no shortage of books (or blogs, I suppose…. guilty as charged) trying to tell you what to eat.  At least 75% of them can be sorted in to one of two bins before you take them to the curb for trash pickup: (1) Scientifically unfounded hogwash, or (2) the same basic message (eating less, exercising more and getting enough fruits and vegetables) wrapped up in a slick marketing program.  Perhaps in a future post, I will list some current books and tell you which bins they belong in.

But once in a while, a book comes along that actually offers some practical, relevant advice and that clarifies more than it confounds.   Surprisingly, the “Eat This, Not That” series by Men’s Health editor in chief David Zinczenko, along with the Food & Nutrition Editor Matt Goulding, fits this bill.  I say ’surprising’ because the most recent Supermarket edition has a fluorescent orange cover with gimmicky bright yellow sunbursts all over it that advertise “the NO-DIET weight loss solution.” And I found it at the cash wrap at Bed, Bath & Beyond, which is not the first place one might think to look for some common-sense advice of the nutritional nature.  But what was that about not judging a book by its cover?  So there you have it.

To be sure, the authors are not offering diet advice per se.  (Which is a good thing, because neither one of them has any sort of nutrition or health credentials as far as I can tell.)  They don’t discuss the fundamentals of a well-balanced diet and they don’t offer recommendations as to what an ideal diet would look like.  Any nutrition information they offer is pretty general and backed up by seemingly reputable sources.  A few small nits that I should mention: I always find these claims about cutting out X calories per day resulting in a 10lb weight loss per year (or whatever) to be a bit disingenuous.  As in, “if you swap out your daily Haagen Dazs for Breyers, you’ll lose 15lbs per year!”  These claims are always theoretical, and I don’t think that they usually bear out in reality for a whole variety of reasons.  Also, their book seems to imply, (though if you read more carefully, I don’t think they mean this at all),  that a diet full of packaged and processed foods isn’t necessarily a problem, so long as we pick the right packaged and processed foods.

But still, since packaged/processed foods are a convenient and necessary part of most of our lives–for better or for worse–we might as well know which ones to avoid.  Which brings us to the real meat of the book: the authors start with the assumption that the recommended daily intake for most Americans is: 2,000 calories, 65g of fat (no more than 20g of which should be saturated), no more than 2,400mg of sodium, and minimal added sugar.  Then, they go down the supermarket aisles and show you which products stack up the best and the worst by these standards.  In so doing, they reveal certain truths about packaged and processed foods that even surprised me, which reminded me of an often-forgotten lesson that you should never make an assumption about a particular food choice based on its category, its brand or its health claims. Rather, you need to judge the individual food by what it says on the label.

Some examples from the book that reminded me of this important lesson:

• Donuts (as a category) tend to be viewed as one of the most nutritionally bunk foods you could eat–especially for breakfast.  But in fact, a single packaged Otis Spunkmeyer banana nut muffin has 270 more calories, twice the fat and 3x more sugar than a single Krispy Cream Original Glazed donut.  The former has 460 calories, 22g fat and 32g of sugar; the latter has 190 calories, 11g fat and 10g sugar.  Not that either one makes a stellar choice, to be sure, but if you happen to be someone who just needs to have a sweet pastry for breakfast, then some not-stellar choices are still significantly better than others.

• I happen to like Stonyfield Farm Organic yogurt.  I like the brand, the fact that they use organic milk,  their friendly little cow logo, the fact that they recycle their used containers to the Preserve people to turn into plastic razors and toothbrushes.  Which is why I’ve probably allowed their brand halo to distract me from the fact that they put a ton of added sugar into their yogurts!  One 6oz container of their fat free Chocolate Underground yogurt contains 35g of sugar.  Now to be fair, about 12g of that would be naturally-occurring milk sugars (lactose), which means that they added ~23g of sugar.  (The fact that it’s organic sugar does not excuse it.)  To put that into terms most people can understand: a sugar packet, which is also a teaspoon, contains about 4g of sugar.  So this particular yogurt product contains the equivalent of about 6 sugar packets on top of the natural sugar contained in that tiny little yogurt container!  And lest you think that this product is an anomaly because it’s chocolate, I looked at their other flavors too.  They contain between 23g-26g of sugar per container, which means 11g-14g of added sugars.  That’s still a solid 4 tsp on average.  You’re better off just buying plain yogurt in bulk, adding your own fruit and, if need be, topping with 1 tsp of honey if you prefer some more sweetness.

• The previous example also illustrates the third point about not allowing health claims (”Fat free” and “organic,”  for example) to distract you from evaluating an individual product’s healthfulness.  The cereal aisle provides countless additional examples of this principle, making it one of the most treacherous places in the supermarket.  Take General Mills’ Basic 4 cereal, which has at least 3 large health claims printed on the front of the box: “Whole Grain guaranteed (1)” and a “low fat (2)…part of your heart-healthy diet (3).”  In fact, 1 cup of this cereal contains 200 calories, 13g of sugar (4+ tsps) and a mediocre 3g of fiber.  Compare that to a boring old classic, that makes no claims on its package other than a lame “Great new look! Same great taste!”, Post Shredded Wheat.  1 cup of that contains 170 calories, 0g sugar and 6g of fiber.  Even if you wanted to spruce it up by sprinkling a tsp of sugar on it, it would still be a healthier choice.  And if that doesn’t appeal to you, there are plenty of other lower-calorie, lower-sugar and higher-fiber cereal choices that the book lists: Cheerios, Nature’s Path Heritage Heirloom Multigrain and Kashi Vive, to name a few.  My own personal rule of thumb when it comes to cereal: I aim for no more than 10g of sugars per serving and at least 3g fiber–but ideally closer to 5g of fiber per serving. That should weed out a good 80% of cereals out there and help you focus on a smaller set of better choices.

Even if you don’t buy “junk food,” if you buy even a small amount of some packaged food basics– maybe some microwave popcorn, some cereal, some snacks for the kids, bread, cheese, yogurt, an occasional energy bar and some frozen entrees for emergencies– chances are you’ll find this book quite helpful in navigating the supermarket and ensuring that your choices aren’t undermining your health goals.  (Of course, if you don’t want to buy it, just read it while waiting on line to check out at Bed, Bath & Beyond.)   And if you find this edition helpful or entertaining, there are two others: a restaurant one and a kid’s food one.  The restaurant one is absolutely horrifying and infuriating, but if you never eat out at chain restaurants like Hardee’s, Chili’s or TGI Friday’s, you’ll probably also be entertained and happily smug in your superior self.

If you grow all your own food, milk your own dairy cows, bake your own bread and churn your own butter, then you probably won’t learn that much.  But you’ll probably be very entertained (or, possibly, horrified), at some of the foods that food marketers have the audacity to try to sell us.

Tweet This Post

foodnetwork.com

I came across an episode of Paula’s Home Cooking on the Food Network today where Paula was preparing a brunch for her girlfriends. Now, Paula Deen is not exactly known for her heart-healthy cuisine and I don’t begrudge anyone who enjoys an occasional romp in the hay with Southern cooking… but her “Lady’s Brunch Burger” was so over-the-top that I couldn’t just let it slide. (Lest you think I’m being the food police, I’m not alone here. Please see Paula Deen is Trying to Kill Us, Part 4: Bacon, Egg, Doughnut Burger.)

The oh-so ladylike burger consists of 8 oz of ground beef topped with fried bacon and an egg, and served in between *two* glazed donuts. (Because it would be so declasse to serve a beef-egg-bacon-donut burger open-faced…) How, exactly, is this a lady’s brunch food? This seems more like something a frat boy would concoct upon discovering that the last hamburger bun in his pantry had gone moldy.

So just for fun–since nutritional analysis is fun to people like me–I decided to tally up the damage that Paula inflicted on her poor, unsuspecting girlfriends who probably came over for brunch expecting salads or quiche or some dainty little cucumber sandwiches.

OK. So each burger contains the following ingredients:
* 1/2 pound ground beef (she said to use 85% lean beef on the show)
* Chopped parsley leaves
* Grated onion
* Seasoning
* ~0.6 TBSP butter
* 1 egg
* 2 slices bacon, cooked
* 2 glazed donuts

According to my calculations, assuming Krispy Kreme donuts for the “bun,” each of Paula’s brunchy burgers contains:

1,019 calories
68 grams of fat (or, 60% of calories from fat)…
… of which 29 grams are saturated fat (yes, that’s about 2-day’s worth for most women.)

Oh, Paula. Please tell me you’ll at least be steaming some collards for dinner…?

Tweet This Post