Cheap Foods That Are Good For You
Rebecca Ruiz, 03.16.10, 4:00 PM ET
Forbes.com
Every few months, the food cognoscenti start touting a new super food for its ability to ward off disease. Hot foods in recent years include wild salmon ($15 a pound and packed with omega-3 fatty acids), antioxidant-loaded leeks ($3 a bunch), and the exotic açaí and goji berries (as much as $20 and $40 per 16 ounces, respectively). These foods are packed with nutrients but can send your grocery bill into the stratosphere.
You can get all the nutrition you need for much less money if you shop carefully. A cup of cooked navy beans has a similar amount of protein as 3 ounces of salmon, and is loaded with more magnesium, phosphorous and potassium. One large orange has almost seven times the amount of vitamin C and more fiber than a cup of raw blueberries, at a small fraction the berries' price this time of year. A $3 bunch of dark green, leafy kale is a big nutritional improvement on watery iceberg lettuce--but broccoli has just as many nutrients at half the price.
These are comparisons that Adam Drewnowski, the director of the Center for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Washington, has focused on in recent years. To help ordinary Americans who don't have unlimited budgets, Drewnowski has created an index ranking the most affordable healthy foods, ones that are packed with essential nutrients.
Drewnowski favors basic foods that are widely available year-round. His approach is the opposite of one taken by Omnivore's Dilemma author Michael Pollan, who has championed unprocessed, locally grown foods. “These foods give you maximum nutrition per dollar,” Drewnowski says.
Many items that rank high on his list, including milk, broccoli, beans, and tomato juice, won't surprise anyone. Others are a little more curious: Eggs make the cut despite their high cholesterol content because they are cheap and packed with protein and nutrients. Potatoes (skin on) also do well. And a few items on the index are jaw-dropping. If you believe Drewnowski, hamburger is a health food. He maintains that its high levels of protein and affordable price outweigh its huge saturated fat content. Read More
Common sense continues to show that eating a balanced diet which includes items such as meat, dairy and eggs is not only healthy but also affordable. As is typical, the reporter tries to plant a seed of doubt in everyone’s head, however no one can argue that these are very nutrient dense food. Think of them like tasty vitamins.
Showing posts with label foodies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foodies. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Hungry Americans
One in Eight Americans Used Food Banks in 2009
By SCOTT KILMAN
CHICAGO—A charitable organization estimated Tuesday that 37 million Americans—or one in eight people—turned to food pantries and soup kitchens during the 2009 recession, forcing some sites to cut meal portions and turn away people.
Feeding America, a Chicago-based network of 200 food banks, said in its quadrennial hunger study that 46% more people visited a hunger-relief charity at least once in 2009 than did in 2005. The estimate was based on a survey of officials at 37,000 local feeding agencies nationwide.
President Barack Obama has a stated goal of ending childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. But the Feeding America study indicated that high unemployment and growing health-care costs were undermining increases in federal spending on nutrition programs.
As part of the hunger study, the group also interviewed 61,000 patrons at emergency feeding sites from February through June of last year. Among other things, the Feeding America study estimated that 13.9 million children were served by an emergency feeding center in 2009 compared with 9.23 million children in 2005.
Feeding America, which changed its name in 2008 from America's Second Harvest, said its survey showed that 76% of the adults who used a food pantry in 2009 were unemployed, including 3.2 million who had lost their jobs within the past 12 months. Read More
At the same time we are seeing an increase of people who are struggling to afford food for their families, we have food elitists who continue to advocate for a higher priced food supply. I can guarantee you that hungry people aren’t concerned about “food miles” or the technology used to grow it. The people that are worried about those types of things are the ones with full stomachs. So who should we be catering to in this country? Should we use the Pollan plan and turn our backs on the last century of progress in food production and have no regard for how many people we can feed? Or should we concentrate on making food more accessible by keeping it as affordable as possible? I, for one, am much more concerned about the empty stomachs than the full ones.
By SCOTT KILMAN
CHICAGO—A charitable organization estimated Tuesday that 37 million Americans—or one in eight people—turned to food pantries and soup kitchens during the 2009 recession, forcing some sites to cut meal portions and turn away people.
Feeding America, a Chicago-based network of 200 food banks, said in its quadrennial hunger study that 46% more people visited a hunger-relief charity at least once in 2009 than did in 2005. The estimate was based on a survey of officials at 37,000 local feeding agencies nationwide.
President Barack Obama has a stated goal of ending childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. But the Feeding America study indicated that high unemployment and growing health-care costs were undermining increases in federal spending on nutrition programs.
As part of the hunger study, the group also interviewed 61,000 patrons at emergency feeding sites from February through June of last year. Among other things, the Feeding America study estimated that 13.9 million children were served by an emergency feeding center in 2009 compared with 9.23 million children in 2005.
Feeding America, which changed its name in 2008 from America's Second Harvest, said its survey showed that 76% of the adults who used a food pantry in 2009 were unemployed, including 3.2 million who had lost their jobs within the past 12 months. Read More
At the same time we are seeing an increase of people who are struggling to afford food for their families, we have food elitists who continue to advocate for a higher priced food supply. I can guarantee you that hungry people aren’t concerned about “food miles” or the technology used to grow it. The people that are worried about those types of things are the ones with full stomachs. So who should we be catering to in this country? Should we use the Pollan plan and turn our backs on the last century of progress in food production and have no regard for how many people we can feed? Or should we concentrate on making food more accessible by keeping it as affordable as possible? I, for one, am much more concerned about the empty stomachs than the full ones.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
America's Agricultural Angst
America's Agricultural Angst
Joel Kotkin, 01.19.10, 12:01 AM ET
Forbes.com
In this high-tech information age few look to the most basic industries as sources of national economic power. Yet no sector in America is better positioned for the future than agriculture--if we allow it to reach its potential.
Like manufacturers and homebuilders before them, farmers have found themselves in the crosshairs of urban aesthetes and green activists who hope to impose their own Utopian vision of agriculture. This vision includes shutting down large-scale scientifically run farms and replacing them with small organic homesteads and urban gardens.
Troublingly, the assault on mainstream farmers is moving into the policy arena. It extends to cut-offs on water, stricter rules on the use of pesticides, prohibitions on the caging of chickens and a growing movement to ban the use of genetic engineering in crops. And it could undermine a sector that has performed well over the past decade and has excellent long-term prospects.
Over the next 40 years the world will be adding some 3 billion people. These people will not only want to eat, they will want to improve their intake of proteins, grains, fresh vegetables and fruits. The U.S., with the most arable land and developed agricultural production, stands to gain from these growing markets. Last year the U.S.' export surplus in agriculture grew to nearly $35 billion, compared with roughly $5 billion in 2005.
Yet none of this seems to be slowing the mounting criticisms of "corporate agriculture." A typical article in Time, called "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food," assailed the "U.S. agricultural industry" for precipitating an ecological disaster. "With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil--which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills--our industrial style of food production," the article predicts, "will end sooner or later."
The romantic model being promoted by Time and agri-intellectuals like Michael Pollan hearkens back to European and Tolstoyan notions of small family farms run by generations of happy peasants. But this really has little to do with the essential ethos of American agriculture.
Read More
It’s great to see common sense in the media these days. This columnist realizes that our goal should be to utilize technology, like we have for generations in agriculture, to improve our food supply and stop attacking family farmers and ranchers. The anti-agriculture crowd likes to pretend that they support families that farm but their actions show otherwise. Agriculture can supply the wealthy with their specialized food requests, but it’s unconscionable for them to force this upon everyone else.
Joel Kotkin, 01.19.10, 12:01 AM ET
Forbes.com
In this high-tech information age few look to the most basic industries as sources of national economic power. Yet no sector in America is better positioned for the future than agriculture--if we allow it to reach its potential.
Like manufacturers and homebuilders before them, farmers have found themselves in the crosshairs of urban aesthetes and green activists who hope to impose their own Utopian vision of agriculture. This vision includes shutting down large-scale scientifically run farms and replacing them with small organic homesteads and urban gardens.
Troublingly, the assault on mainstream farmers is moving into the policy arena. It extends to cut-offs on water, stricter rules on the use of pesticides, prohibitions on the caging of chickens and a growing movement to ban the use of genetic engineering in crops. And it could undermine a sector that has performed well over the past decade and has excellent long-term prospects.
Over the next 40 years the world will be adding some 3 billion people. These people will not only want to eat, they will want to improve their intake of proteins, grains, fresh vegetables and fruits. The U.S., with the most arable land and developed agricultural production, stands to gain from these growing markets. Last year the U.S.' export surplus in agriculture grew to nearly $35 billion, compared with roughly $5 billion in 2005.
Yet none of this seems to be slowing the mounting criticisms of "corporate agriculture." A typical article in Time, called "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food," assailed the "U.S. agricultural industry" for precipitating an ecological disaster. "With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil--which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills--our industrial style of food production," the article predicts, "will end sooner or later."
The romantic model being promoted by Time and agri-intellectuals like Michael Pollan hearkens back to European and Tolstoyan notions of small family farms run by generations of happy peasants. But this really has little to do with the essential ethos of American agriculture.
Read More
It’s great to see common sense in the media these days. This columnist realizes that our goal should be to utilize technology, like we have for generations in agriculture, to improve our food supply and stop attacking family farmers and ranchers. The anti-agriculture crowd likes to pretend that they support families that farm but their actions show otherwise. Agriculture can supply the wealthy with their specialized food requests, but it’s unconscionable for them to force this upon everyone else.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Another Food Elitist
Against meat or against agriculture?
Drovers news source Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Animal Agriculture Alliance is disappointed that yet another anti-agriculture activist voice has been welcomed into the media spotlight.ﾠ New York Times readers were confronted with some of the most negative stereotypes of modern agriculture on Oct. 11, when Jonathan Safran Foer's "Against Meat" ran in the food edition of the Sunday magazine.
It's not a surprise to see Foer writing such a one-sided account of meat production. In 2006, he helped create a video entitled "If This is Kosher..." for PETA to encourage those of the Jewish faith to become vegetarians that included undercover footage from PETA and Animal Liberation Israel. He also sits on the Board of Directors for Farming Forward, a group that he cites within his article that actively promotes the greatest myths of modern farming as fact.
Farming Forward is a vegetarian activist group headed by a business consultant and a professor of religious studies; just as with Michael Pollan, an agricultural background is notably missing. The group's Web site pushes for agricultural practices that were replaced long ago by more productive and sustainable methods, stating that it is "easier to see inside a prison than a CAFO" and that "99 percent of meat is produced in unsustainable and cruel factory farming methods."
Good Shepherd Turkey Ranch is a farm supported by the group, and owner Frank Reese should be congratulated for the effort he has put into developing a niche market. It's important to note, however, that there is a cost associated with raising birds like this - two fresh Cornish chickens from Reese's farm cost $94 and 15 pounds of ground turkey goes for $104.99. Compare this with the $7 rotisserie chicken available at your grocery store and you can see why many people simply can't afford to eat the old-fashioned way. Read More
There seems to be no shortage of food elitists. They continue to receive undeserved praise for their unscrutinized opinions. It’s a plain and simple fact that if people like Pollan and Foer were to get their way, food production would drastically decline and widespread hunger would become the norm. Even where food was more available, the cost of it would be staggering. In today’s society, people have a choice of what type of food they want to buy, but Pollan and Foer want that choice taken away. So if you want to be told what and if you will eat then I would encourage you to support people like this, but if you enjoy the affordability and selection of today’s food supply then please support America’s farmers and ranchers.
Drovers news source Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Animal Agriculture Alliance is disappointed that yet another anti-agriculture activist voice has been welcomed into the media spotlight.ﾠ New York Times readers were confronted with some of the most negative stereotypes of modern agriculture on Oct. 11, when Jonathan Safran Foer's "Against Meat" ran in the food edition of the Sunday magazine.
It's not a surprise to see Foer writing such a one-sided account of meat production. In 2006, he helped create a video entitled "If This is Kosher..." for PETA to encourage those of the Jewish faith to become vegetarians that included undercover footage from PETA and Animal Liberation Israel. He also sits on the Board of Directors for Farming Forward, a group that he cites within his article that actively promotes the greatest myths of modern farming as fact.
Farming Forward is a vegetarian activist group headed by a business consultant and a professor of religious studies; just as with Michael Pollan, an agricultural background is notably missing. The group's Web site pushes for agricultural practices that were replaced long ago by more productive and sustainable methods, stating that it is "easier to see inside a prison than a CAFO" and that "99 percent of meat is produced in unsustainable and cruel factory farming methods."
Good Shepherd Turkey Ranch is a farm supported by the group, and owner Frank Reese should be congratulated for the effort he has put into developing a niche market. It's important to note, however, that there is a cost associated with raising birds like this - two fresh Cornish chickens from Reese's farm cost $94 and 15 pounds of ground turkey goes for $104.99. Compare this with the $7 rotisserie chicken available at your grocery store and you can see why many people simply can't afford to eat the old-fashioned way. Read More
There seems to be no shortage of food elitists. They continue to receive undeserved praise for their unscrutinized opinions. It’s a plain and simple fact that if people like Pollan and Foer were to get their way, food production would drastically decline and widespread hunger would become the norm. Even where food was more available, the cost of it would be staggering. In today’s society, people have a choice of what type of food they want to buy, but Pollan and Foer want that choice taken away. So if you want to be told what and if you will eat then I would encourage you to support people like this, but if you enjoy the affordability and selection of today’s food supply then please support America’s farmers and ranchers.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Chemicals Improve Sweet Corn's Nutrition
First Evidence That Weed Killers Improve Nutritional Value Of A Key Food Crop
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2009) — Scientists are reporting for the first time that the use of weed killers in farmers' fields boosts the nutritional value of an important food a crop. Application of two common herbicides to several varieties of sweet corn significantly increased the amount of key nutrients termed carotenoids in the corn kernels, according to a new study.
In the new study, Dean Kopsell and colleagues note that farmers grow about 240,000 acres of sweet corn in the United States each year, making it an important food crop. Corn is among only a few vegetable crops that are good sources of zeaxanthin carotenoids. Consuming carotenoid-rich vegetables may reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration (a leading cause of vision loss among older people), heart disease, and cancer, the study notes.
The scientists exposed several varieties of sweet corn plants to the herbicide mesotrione or a combination of mesotrione and atrazine, another commonly used weed killer, and harvested mature corn 45 days later. Herbicide applications made the corn an even-better source of carotenoids, boosting levels in the mature kernels of some varieties by up to 15 percent. It specifically increased levels of lutein and zeaxanthin, the major carotenoids in sweet corn kernels, which studies have linked to a reduced risk of age-related macular degeneration.
Link
Journal reference:
Kopsell et al. Increase in Nutritionally Important Sweet Corn Kernel Carotenoids following Mesotrione and Atrazine Applications. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009; 090619124509017 DOI: 10.1021/jf9013313
We are constantly told by detractors of modern agriculture that the use of chemicals is dangerous to our health and the environment. While it may be fun for some people to spread doom and gloom, the truth is a much different story. Chemicals have been an extremely safe and useful tool for producing food. Now it appears that it can also improve the nutrition of the food we are eating. Sweet corn is everyone's favorite food and now thanks to these weed killing chemicals, it's even better for you too.
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2009) — Scientists are reporting for the first time that the use of weed killers in farmers' fields boosts the nutritional value of an important food a crop. Application of two common herbicides to several varieties of sweet corn significantly increased the amount of key nutrients termed carotenoids in the corn kernels, according to a new study.
In the new study, Dean Kopsell and colleagues note that farmers grow about 240,000 acres of sweet corn in the United States each year, making it an important food crop. Corn is among only a few vegetable crops that are good sources of zeaxanthin carotenoids. Consuming carotenoid-rich vegetables may reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration (a leading cause of vision loss among older people), heart disease, and cancer, the study notes.
The scientists exposed several varieties of sweet corn plants to the herbicide mesotrione or a combination of mesotrione and atrazine, another commonly used weed killer, and harvested mature corn 45 days later. Herbicide applications made the corn an even-better source of carotenoids, boosting levels in the mature kernels of some varieties by up to 15 percent. It specifically increased levels of lutein and zeaxanthin, the major carotenoids in sweet corn kernels, which studies have linked to a reduced risk of age-related macular degeneration.
Link
Journal reference:
Kopsell et al. Increase in Nutritionally Important Sweet Corn Kernel Carotenoids following Mesotrione and Atrazine Applications. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009; 090619124509017 DOI: 10.1021/jf9013313
We are constantly told by detractors of modern agriculture that the use of chemicals is dangerous to our health and the environment. While it may be fun for some people to spread doom and gloom, the truth is a much different story. Chemicals have been an extremely safe and useful tool for producing food. Now it appears that it can also improve the nutrition of the food we are eating. Sweet corn is everyone's favorite food and now thanks to these weed killing chemicals, it's even better for you too.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Reality of Local Food
A bitter reality
Choose local food for the taste? Sure. But if you’re convinced you’re saving the world, think again.
By Tom Keane
June 28, 2009
“Local food’’ is all the rage, touted by adherents as offering better food, an environmentally responsible lifestyle, and self-sufficient communities. The first of those claims is sometimes true. Local tomatoes and corn may well taste better than those from afar. Beyond that, though, the local food movement is an affectation based on bad logic and bad economics, one that, widely adopted, would actually harm the environment and potentially impoverish millions. Particularly here in New England, it would also turn mealtimes into dull, pallid affairs.
Luckily, chances are slim that most of us will become ardent “locavores” (the most extreme of whom will eat only foods sourced within 100 miles of their homes). We like bananas and pineapples, want fresh vegetables year round, and enjoy olive oil and balsamic vinegar on our salads. Principles have their limits, and even as we might pay homage to the wonders of local foods, most of us are not about to give up those or the myriad other things we eat and drink that have to travel a distance.
And that’s not a problem, because local food is not greener food. Locavores’ green claims rest on the seemingly obvious assumption that transporting foods a long distance is environmentally taxing. But, in fact, shipping is a small portion of the total carbon footprint of any foodstuff, averaging just 4 percent, according to a 2008 Carnegie Mellon University analysis. It’s the production of the food itself that is far more damaging, and it’s here that the mega-farms some decry have an edge. They produce more with fewer people, can effectively use machinery, are located in places where conditions are ideal for growing, and have the skills and know-how to maximize food production per acre. That’s the reason local tomatoes are so much more expensive than those shipped from California and Florida: They are more resource-intensive to produce. Read More
The local food movement has benefitted mostly from the romanticized idea rather than reality. This article does a fantastic job of exposing the consequences of the movement. There are so many people that refuse to look at the big picture when it comes to producing food. All food is local to someone and not all food can be raised everywhere. The local food movement, if taken fully to fruition, could very well wipe out rural America. Due to consumer’s misunderstandings, more harm than good can occur. There are benefits and drawbacks to every type of production system.
Choose local food for the taste? Sure. But if you’re convinced you’re saving the world, think again.
By Tom Keane
June 28, 2009
“Local food’’ is all the rage, touted by adherents as offering better food, an environmentally responsible lifestyle, and self-sufficient communities. The first of those claims is sometimes true. Local tomatoes and corn may well taste better than those from afar. Beyond that, though, the local food movement is an affectation based on bad logic and bad economics, one that, widely adopted, would actually harm the environment and potentially impoverish millions. Particularly here in New England, it would also turn mealtimes into dull, pallid affairs.
Luckily, chances are slim that most of us will become ardent “locavores” (the most extreme of whom will eat only foods sourced within 100 miles of their homes). We like bananas and pineapples, want fresh vegetables year round, and enjoy olive oil and balsamic vinegar on our salads. Principles have their limits, and even as we might pay homage to the wonders of local foods, most of us are not about to give up those or the myriad other things we eat and drink that have to travel a distance.
And that’s not a problem, because local food is not greener food. Locavores’ green claims rest on the seemingly obvious assumption that transporting foods a long distance is environmentally taxing. But, in fact, shipping is a small portion of the total carbon footprint of any foodstuff, averaging just 4 percent, according to a 2008 Carnegie Mellon University analysis. It’s the production of the food itself that is far more damaging, and it’s here that the mega-farms some decry have an edge. They produce more with fewer people, can effectively use machinery, are located in places where conditions are ideal for growing, and have the skills and know-how to maximize food production per acre. That’s the reason local tomatoes are so much more expensive than those shipped from California and Florida: They are more resource-intensive to produce. Read More
The local food movement has benefitted mostly from the romanticized idea rather than reality. This article does a fantastic job of exposing the consequences of the movement. There are so many people that refuse to look at the big picture when it comes to producing food. All food is local to someone and not all food can be raised everywhere. The local food movement, if taken fully to fruition, could very well wipe out rural America. Due to consumer’s misunderstandings, more harm than good can occur. There are benefits and drawbacks to every type of production system.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Foodies Ignore Need For Food
What Food Activists Ignore
Rebecca Ruiz, 06.11.09, 1:40 PM ET
The new documentary Food, Inc., a meditation on the health and environmental costs of industrial food production, closes with a list of wholesome directives: shop at farmer's markets, plant a garden, eat locally, etc. It leaves viewers with an inspirational message: "You can change the world with every bite."
For skeptics, the mantra is easily ridiculed for its preciousness. For true believers, it's the latest attempt to shake Americans out of a complacency that has spawned diabetes and obesity epidemics, a preponderance of factory farms, a rise in e.coli infections and antibiotic resistance, and the corporate takeover of the country's food production.
It's also common practice, within the locavore movement, to make bogeymen out of multi-national corporations like Tyson and Monsanto. While certain practices, like forcing animals to gain weight rapidly and strictly controlling a farmer's seed stock, may seem reprehensible to some, such companies have built a revolutionary infrastructure that feeds billions of people.
Perhaps, as the film suggests, the industrial food complex has no regard for long-term public health and environmental costs. But if food activists continue to cling to unrealistic ideals--and atypical examples of success--and fail to confront the questions of cost and scale, then they will vindicate critics of the movement, who argue that this new era of food production is only for the privileged. Read More
The biggest issue that’s never discussed by critics of our food system is how they would feed everyone. They love to run on and on about how our system is broken and they have the solution. But their solution is temporary at best. Their production methods will not grow enough food to feed everyone. You would think this would be everyone’s goal, but sadly it’s not. People like Michael Pollan continue to promote systems which will cause some people to go hungry, mostly the poor.
Rebecca Ruiz, 06.11.09, 1:40 PM ET
The new documentary Food, Inc., a meditation on the health and environmental costs of industrial food production, closes with a list of wholesome directives: shop at farmer's markets, plant a garden, eat locally, etc. It leaves viewers with an inspirational message: "You can change the world with every bite."
For skeptics, the mantra is easily ridiculed for its preciousness. For true believers, it's the latest attempt to shake Americans out of a complacency that has spawned diabetes and obesity epidemics, a preponderance of factory farms, a rise in e.coli infections and antibiotic resistance, and the corporate takeover of the country's food production.
It's also common practice, within the locavore movement, to make bogeymen out of multi-national corporations like Tyson and Monsanto. While certain practices, like forcing animals to gain weight rapidly and strictly controlling a farmer's seed stock, may seem reprehensible to some, such companies have built a revolutionary infrastructure that feeds billions of people.
Perhaps, as the film suggests, the industrial food complex has no regard for long-term public health and environmental costs. But if food activists continue to cling to unrealistic ideals--and atypical examples of success--and fail to confront the questions of cost and scale, then they will vindicate critics of the movement, who argue that this new era of food production is only for the privileged. Read More
The biggest issue that’s never discussed by critics of our food system is how they would feed everyone. They love to run on and on about how our system is broken and they have the solution. But their solution is temporary at best. Their production methods will not grow enough food to feed everyone. You would think this would be everyone’s goal, but sadly it’s not. People like Michael Pollan continue to promote systems which will cause some people to go hungry, mostly the poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)