Halloween Candy Cookies

So....for any of you guys out there who think I am an evil nasty mommy who has robbed her kids of an endless gorging of candy on Halloween, I think I have struck a balance with the kiddos.

Thing 2 had no idea what was going on with Halloween. He just liked dressing up and staying out late. He loved eating the candy, but had no idea why people were giving it to him and when the night was finished he had no concept of how much loot he had gotten. Thing 1 understands the concept now. So you can't just take the candy away from him. I agree, taking away somthing precious from your child, even if it isn't good for them, is a good way to break trust with your kid. If you want to wrestle the candy out of their tightly closed sweaty palms, you have to win them over with rational thought, or style, or both.

Last weekend I took all the chocolate bars from their big bag of candy and make Halloween Candy Cookies. My thinking was that in cookie form the kids could see that candy had some uses other than just fast joyless consumption. Also, I figured that with some whole grains and pastured butter, all that sugar would be in better company. Plus, some fat and fiber would slow the absorption of the sugar down, making for less crazy children. I don't know about you, but my kids are crazy after having candy, they fight and crab, you name it.

I made just the Toll House cookie recipe which I think is just the bees' knees. Of course, I made some changes, I used Organic Valley's Pastured Butter. I also used 100% whole wheat flour instead of white and I used rapadura instead of the white sugar. Since it has been a week, I can't remember, but I think I used one cup of rapadura instead of the one and a half cups of white sugar that the original recipe calls for. If you are having trouble finding rapadura, it is sold by a company called Rapunzel under a slightly different name. You can find it at Whole Foods, but Tropical Traditions does sell it. I have identified it as a product I love. You can find a like to Tropical Traditions in my side bar. And of course I used chopped up candy bars instead of chocolate chips. The changes made for a slightly less sweet cookie. But now that we are accustomed to eating 100% whole wheat flour, I had no issues with that.

I made the cookies while Thing 2 and DH were passed out for an afternoon nap. Thing 1 helped. I gave him a dinner knife and let him cut up some of the candy. I also let him mix the butter and shape some of the balls. We had a good time together. And having him help was crucial to this. He got to sample some of the candy before it went in the batter. He got to see what I was doing with all the candy. And at the end, he got cookies warm from the oven. Not a half bad deal. And by the way, the cookies with the Butterfinger pieces were so good that I am considering an entire Butterfinger batch at some point.

So you see, I wasn't just planning on rudely snatching my kids Halloween candy away from them. I wanted them to be a part of the life cycle of that candy. Thing 1 hasn't asked for any candy since we made the cookies. And there still was more left, just all the non-chocolate pieces. He was really into eating the cookies themselves. The holiday is officially over and I have to give my kids credit. They indulged the night of Halloween and for the week or so after they had one or two pieces a night. They didn't fall on the ground and tantrum for more. They earned their candy by eating good healthy balanced dinners. Maybe they are learning to put sugar in perspective after all? Still, next year I imagine I will forget this moment of sanity and give a few stern lectures over the evils of sugar. We are not perfect, after all.

Enjoy!

How Do You Talk To Your Kids About Food Without Making Them Crazy?

I appreciate all of my readers comments. That isn't just lip service. A 'way to go' does alot to brighten my day. And I rarely counter a negative comment because if someone is motivated to tell me off then they probably had a pretty good reason. As a blogger (and intelligent human being), it is my responsibility to be open to listen. We can all grow and learn from constructive criticism.

Last week I posted about a conversation I had had with Thing 1 on junk food. The conversation was precious because he freely shared information with me, which I always love. And because he was in such a sharing mood, I asked a few questions that I thought were harmless. And Thing 1 answered them happily. I received several interesting comments which gave me some perspective on our family's struggle with the omnipresent junk food monster. And then, I received this comment:

"Honestly, anything that is preceded: "Because it's OK if you did...you can tell me" is a TRAP! This is true in marriage, parenting, etc- not that it isn't OK for them to tell you, but obviously there will be consequences if the asker does not receive the answer they want.

I mean, he's what- three? Four? How many times a day, for how many days of his life, are you going to make what he eats an issue? If it were me, I would learn to lie just to avoid another barrage of questions. He may end up feeling paranoid with how insistent you are to know what he's putting in his mouth 24-7- and hey, it's your prerogative as a parent.

But since you're asking for feedback, I will tell you that I think you are setting your kid up to hide candy bar wrappers in old shoe boxes in his closet because he doesn't want to disappoint you.

Lay off a little bit...You can be an advocate for your children to eat healthy food, but sometimes when you try too hard to push them into a mold (even for good, solid reasons- like health) you end up getting the opposite reaction because, well, you'll end up coming off as obnoxious. I don't think I'd want to be asked about ANYTHING when I come home from a long day as much you've asked him about his food in the above conversation. By saying "It's OK if you did" and then asking 20 follow-up questions about what he ate suggests to him that his initial answer wasn't satisfactory to you and he's obviously trying to avoid the subject by "looking off into space"- this is learned behavior that is supposed to signal, "Jeez lady, drop the darn food thing already..." "

Well then. Okay. I kept the comment in my inbox for several days. I reread it a few times to soak in the author's intentions and perspective. I think there are some valid points to be had here. First and foremost, trusting your child and involving him in family decisions is paramount to building a strong relationship with him. Also, pushing a child into a tight mold doesn't always work and can strain one's relationship with their child and possibly even eventually alienate him from you in adulthood. Wasn't that the overarching message of Tiger Mom?

But one other point in this comment leaves me frustrated. The very idea that eliminating or at all limiting junk food from my child's diet would drive a wedge between my child and I is completely preposterous. I write this blog to share my experiences with other parents who have similar beliefs and share information that supports my beliefs. And what I have found is that there are many many other parents searching for the same thing, a safe food environment for their kids. Our food Nirvana is one without food coloring, chemical preservatives and excessive sugar. I want to give my kids good food, and in writing this blog I have connected with other parents who want to do the same. Isn't that what a blog IS? In spite of the shortness of the junk food conversation with Thing 1, if my strong relationship with my child hasn't come through in the post then I have to assume that my writing was sub-par. I admit this particular article was hastily written. I take full responsibility.

But the commenter brings up a good point on which I have been meaning to touch. Does talking to your kids about healthy food versus unhealthy food create anxiety in your child? Will this dialogue lead to eating disorders like hoarding, binging and even anorexia?

Dietitians and nutritionists LOVE to tell us not to label foods healthy or unhealthy for fear that the general public will not be able to cope with our guilt when we do indulge. Pediatric nutritionists also sound the warning call about creating anorexia and bulimia in our children. But at their core, eating disorders are anxiety disorders. In certain cases, I can imagine the extremely high standards of perfectionist parents can create anxiety in a child. I have seen it happen and I imagine you have also. Especially when there is more than one area of a child's life where perfection is expected like food, academics and sports. All the stress to perform can manifest in a food related anxiety disorder like anorexia. But often the food itself is just the tool of the anxiety. In the fascinating book Drinking A Love Story, Caroline Knapp writes of only sober period as the year when she traded alcoholism for anorexia. For a time starving herself was her way of coping. Once she started abusing alcohol as a coping mechanism again, the anorexia was no longer needed and disappeared. The topic of anorexia is complex, it goes way beyond a fear of food and often incorporates fear, anxiety and control issues. Anorexia often surfaces in a young person who feels powerless. One's diet is something over which one can execute considerable control.

Telling your four year old that potato chips are junk will not create anorexia in you child. Such a statement would be a trite insult to those suffering with such a debilitating disorder. Furthermore, placing limits on junk food will also not cause binging and hoarding. And if you explain yourself, as parents should in order to teach their children, your children can begin to understand WHY you might choose to limit junk food.

Of course intention is key, telling your child that junk food is unhealthy for them is a very different message than junk food makes you fat and it is bad to be fat. It is also different than constantly berating them or cruelly reminding them that junk food is unhealthy. Be sure, my conversations with my kids are occasional and center around feeling strong, growing tall, managing their hunger and having energy. I don't tell my kids that it is bad to be fat, every child carries weight differently as they move in and out of growth spurts. And weight or appearance is something over which a child has very little control. Inferring that a child would be unlovable if they were overweight might indeed create anxiety in said child. I would love my kids desperately no matter what they looked like.

In fact I believe that if you are eating real food, your body will do what it needs to do to and be what it needs to be. Eating real food and not processed garbage has gone a long way toward helping me to accept my own body. Eating real food has also helped me not fall to pieces when I indulge in cake or potato chips. Truly, a piece of cake can be part of a nourishing and healthy diet, but in order to say that first you have to have a truly nourishing and healthy diet. I don't advocate perfection. And anyone reading this blog for any length of time has seen me post about my family's lack of perfection.

In light of that comment I wrote The Grinch That Stole Halloween and tried to clearly articulate all of the above. I wanted to communicate that the holiday was fun, that we were excited to participate and even have some candy! But that I had issues with the focus of the holiday being JUST candy and gluttony. That is like Christmas just being about the presents, and most people seem to agree that there is more to Christmas than presents. Remember too that Halloween was a precursor to All Saints Day where we remember the saints who have all passed on. It is a time of year to honor the dead. Born out of an older pagan ritual, people would dress up in costumes the night before so that the awoken spirits would not recognize them. And so that they could do mean things to others with impunity. The candy thing is a modern alteration.

Then I got this comment...

"Between your interrogation of your four about what he eats everyday, and this trick or treating thing...I have to conclude that I am extremely happy you aren't my mom! Aren't there better, greater things to worry about than if your kid eats a few Butterfingers one day a year? Your house sounds like no fun."

Okay. The first comment I took to heart. I thought it was important that I truly examine my interactions with my children when it comes to food. Also I would hate to alienate a regular reader, I value you guys. But after the second comment...well...I had to ask myself does this person even regularly read my blog? This is a non-processed food blog. It is a blog about feeding one's kids REAL food, not convenience foods. It is a blog about challenging the accepted notion that we should gorge on sugar and fat whenever we get the chance. Has this person read any of the other stuff I have written against sugar? See here and here and here--those links are ALL different.

Seriously, if you can't imagine giving up candy, I have to question what you are eating. Candy tastes terrible. My homemade pizza, creamy sausage pasta, marinated steak, buttery mashed potatoes, crispy pork tacos in homemade tortillas and homemade maple granola all taste better than the crappy Kraft caramel I had this week that had a grainy texture and flat flavor.

What about Allergenic kids? Do they grow up angry with their parents because they cannot eat peanuts, gluten or whatever they are allergic to? What about children brought up as Kosher? Do they feel like their parents have deprived them of pork and shellfish? What about them? Is there a greater risk of binging and hoarding among those kids? No. Because they are given a logical reason why they cannot eat those foods. My kids can choose as adults if they want to follow this way of life or not. It will be there choice at that point.

All I am saying is that I am giving my kids real reasons why we eat this way. We embrace fat because we understand that it is important in appetite control, proper cell function and even brain function. We eat pastured animals because they are healthier, resulting in meat that is higher in Omega-3's which are heart healthy, as opposed to CAFO meat which are higher in Omega-6's. We avoid sugar because it is implicated in cancer and heart disease, obesity and Diabetes, degenerative diseases. Hell, sugar is even implicated in Restless Leg Syndrome.

My kids NEED to know about food. It is not some little part of our lives. So they get fewer lollipops growing up than I did. Why is that important? Our children's generation is the first in the history of our nation to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. I damn well better be doing SOMETHING to help my children have a healthy life with food and without sugar, or else I can't say I have done all I can as a parent. This isn't about weight or looks, it is about health.

And lastly, comments like this do alot to intimidate us as healthy parents into not speaking our minds about the way that we raise our kids. And I for one will NOT be intimidated into raising a child that eats the Standard American Diet. If you don't like what I am feeding my kids, you can go read someone else's blog.

This post is shared with Fight Back Fridays and Fat Tuesday and Simple Lives Thursdays

The Grinch That Stole Halloween

It should not be shocking that I dislike Halloween. Okay, it is not so much Halloween that I dislike, it is the candy, because the costumes and the fall theme are pretty fun! So I, um...kinda...um, never told my kids about trick or treating. Plus I have never taken them. They know about it now. But they didn't hear it from me. And while they have costumes, I don't plan on taking them trick or treating again this year. And furthermore, I don't feel the slightest guilty about it. Let me try to explain why.

Remember back when you were a kid? Halloween was an exciting time when you got to choose your costume, my mom (and later I) made my costume and then you got to show it off while getting candy from the neighbors? I remember the houses that gave out Snickers, Bottle Caps and caramels (good candy) and the houses that gave out peanut squares, Charleston Chews and bubble gum (lousy candy). And most of all I remember the houses that gave out HANDFULS of candy as opposed to one or two pieces. Those houses rocked. After the evening's haul had been acquired, we would go back home and sort through everything (make sure there were no acid squares or anything that could have had a razor blade in it), eat our most favorite pieces and pass out from all the excitement

Every year I could pour my modest haul between my two legs and count the pieces. My candy was all eaten up in a couple of weeks. I never remember having any leftover at Thanksgiving. Also, I don't think my mother ever took candy away from me in the hopes that I would eat less of it. My mother never worried about that.

Today, things seem so different. First off, I have bought every Halloween costume that my kids have ever had. I never even tried making something. But this year Thing 1 wanted to dress up as Super Why, the leader of the Super Readers on the eponymous show. I was pretty sure that no one makes a Super Why costume. So we went out and bought green tee-shirts, felt, glitter paint and fabric glue and now we have...ta-da!

I am so proud of this! Even though now I know that I spent more on supplies than the costume would have cost, it doesn't matter. Thing 1 loves this. Thing 2 has no idea what is going on, but he loves it too. I do think that part of the fun of Halloween this year has been the homemade costume. I would like to think that I will do this every year until they get old enough to get bored of it. Again, I promise to be inconsistent at best.

But also, I feel like Halloween has turned into a no-rules opportunity for kids to gorge on candy. Perhaps too great a societal focus on healthy eating has created a super demand for unhealthy foods? Even though we don't actually eat all that healthfully as a society, because we know it and obsess over it we create great guilt over our eating habits. Then Halloween rolls around and kids stuff their faces with candy like they will never have it again. This is classic deprivation behavior. What is so crazy is that most people and kids are not junk food or candy deprived. I wish I had more time to study eating behavior and culture.

Remember what I said about those houses that gave out HANDFULS of candy? Well now it seems like everyone is doing it. Our wonderful daycare took Thing 2 trick or treating last Friday around at some local businesses. He came home with easily 2 pounds of candy. He is 2!!! Now I don't fault the daycare. I truly love them. They didn't let him EAT the candy and trick or treating was a very fun activity for the kids. I am glad that Thing 2 went and had such a great time. But can you imagine seeing a dressed up 2 year old and giving him a massive handful of candy? I mean, they don't even care about the candy. The fun for them is the interaction. This is what he came home with.

The quantity is disturbing to me. What ever happened to giving out one or two pieces to each kid? Why am I looked upon as such a stingy Grinch for not letting my kids gorge on candy? Am I depriving them of a rite of passage? Or am I depriving them of a stomach ache? Though perhaps I am not the only adult with a bit of good sense. If you look closely in the pile, you will see two or three small toys and two toothbrushes. Nice.

For the record, I do let my kids have candy. And not just on Halloween. They eat some candy probably every week, though that is usually because DH has something in his pocket when he gets home from work. That is fine, but I don't see the sense in going overboard. I don't restrict my kids food intake. If you are hungry and want thirds, go for it. We eat fat. We eat lots of fat, butter on toast, full fat dairy products, nuts and even coconut oil on our oatmeal! But I do restrict junk food, candy particularly. Does that make me a Grinch? I think it makes me sensible. And it is sad to me to think that such behavior is 'old-fashioned'.

Furthermore, why should I take my kids trick or treating on Halloween? They both went trick or treating at their schools, they'll get treats and parties on top of that, we plan on going to a Halloween party where there will definitely be treats, and every family member and friend that stops by comes with something sweet for the kids. The world has given my kids enough candy. Why the hell do I need to drag them from apartment to apartment in my building and ask for even more handouts from semi-strangers. Isn't the fun of Halloween in dressing up, seeing friends and having a party on a week night? The candy seems like such a sad supporting act.

And lastly, I admit. I am that mom. I will totally throw out all remaining candy that has not been consumed within a week or two. I have done it every year without fail. The kids have never noticed or cared. What a waste. Next time, just give my kid one piece. Any more is like throwing money in the garbage.

Bah Humbug.

Required Reading: Is Sugar Toxic? By Gary Taubes

When I have researched sugar in the past, it has been difficult to find definitive research about sugar being a toxic substance. There are a few people writing about sugar's role in heart disease and cancer. But the vast majority of nutritionists and doctors just see sugar as an empty calorie. Sure you shouldn't eat it, but sugar as a poison? Is it detrimental even in small doses? Does it make us sick? How could it contribute to heart disease? Isn't that what saturated fat does?

Last week on Twitter I saw several people a-twittering about the below article. The article was written by Gary Taubes author of Good Calories Bad Calories which I am told is an amazing book. It is high on the list. I respect Taubes' authority as well as the NY Times to bring to the reader only items that are thoroughly researched. I encourage every reader to read this rather long article. Particularly read this article if you think that High-Fructose Corn Syrup is worse for you than sugar. My hope is that this article gets people talking about GIVING UP sugar, or at least drastically reducing consumption of sugar.

What do you think? Is sugar contributing to our national sickness?

NYTimes.com: Is Sugar Toxic? By Gary Taubes

NYC Anti Sugar Campaign

Shortly after DH and I married, we went to Ireland. It was about six months after our wedding. So while I always refer to it as our honeymoon, but I guess some could construe it as just a trip.

As we were lying in the bed of our comfy bed and breakfast hungover from the previous evening's revelry, we saw a gruesome public service ad depicting a couple of young teenagers laughing and joking talking on their phones as they crossed the road. They weren't paying attention as a car came up and plowed right through them. The moral of the graphic ad? Pay attention. In the US those images would be far too shocking. But in the EU, they felt that the subject matter was important enough and required a shocking ad.

Never again had I seen a graphic public ad. But NYC is coming close with their recent anti-obesity ads. There has been significant publicity around the TV ad showing a man drink what looks like pounds of fat from a glass of soda. It was really gross. That ad angered and shocked alot of people.

Last week as I rode on the A train I saw this ad campaign. In my subway car, the ad campaign had a total of 15 ads. There were maybe five or six different pictorials. 5 of the 15 pictorials were printed in Spanish. I am proud of my city for taking on sugary beverages. If the federal government continues to subsidize corn, we are subsidizing soda. What is a local jurisdiction to do? We can do little except public education. Here is the new anti-sugar campaign in New York City. I love it.

My only questions is...what is more shocking? 85 packets of sugar? Or one and three quarter of a cup of sugar? Will lots and lots of little bits be more scary for the general public or a measure of sugar that is usually only seen in whole recipes? What do you think? One packet of sugar is one teaspoon. There are 12 teaspoons in every quarter cup. 85 packets of sugar is a cup and three quarters. What is the more shocking amount to you?

This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays at Kelly the Kitchen Kop and Food Renegade's Fight Back Friday

All the Stuff I Never Knew About Splenda (and Sucralose)

When I wrote that post about Splenda last week, I realized a couple things.

I have never heard of any major bad studies showing ill effects of Splenda (hereafter to be known as sucralose). I know that sucralose is made from sugar, But I don't know what else it is. Caramel is also made from sugar, but there are a few more ingredients, so that isn't enough for me. I didn't know what the daily expected intake should be. I don't eat sucralose. I don't care for the flavor. And as you know, I have issues with no calorie sweeteners because of how they trick the body into believing that calories will be digested, yet provide no calories. But I know alot of people who do eat sucralose. And for many people, the knowledge that sucralose is made from sugar is enough for them. So this post is for all those that eat sucralose. This post is also for all those people for whom the questions surrounding sucralose are scratching at the back of their heads.

Facts About Sucralose as I have found on the Internet

1) Sucralose is an artifical sweetener. It has no calories because your body doesn't break it down. You poop it out. Well, that's the official version. But according to Wikipedia, in the body of the article, you do absorb or metabolize somewhere between 11 and 30% of all sucralose ingested.

2) Each 1 gram yellow packet of sucralose contains 3.31 calories. I am not saying that this is some kind of heresy. It is only 3.31 calories. But you ought to know, right? One Splenda packet has the sweetness level of 2 teaspoons of sugar. Two teaspoons of sugar contains 30 calories.

3) The FDA acceptable daily intake level of sucralose is set at 5 mg per day per kg. For the average 150 pound person, this means just over 3 tenths of a gram. I found this confusing, because several sites said that one sole Splenda packet contained 1 gram. Yet Wikipedia referred to packets as being just over one hundredth of a gram-or one mg. Then I realized my mistake. Splenda is NOT sucralose. One packet of Splenda contains 95% dextrose and/ or maltodextrin (hyper processed corn sugars), and only the remaining 5% (or .05 grams, or 5 mg) is actual sucralose. Once I figured this out, I realized pretty easily, that a 150 pound person should consume no more than 68 packets of Splenda according to the FDA. And easily enough, that is exactly one packet for every kilogram you weigh. To get your weight in kg, just divide your weight in pounds by 2.2. And furthermore for all you math freaks out there, each packet is a quarter of a teaspoon, so at 150 pounds you can eat just one quarter cup (plus one extra tablespoon) each day of traditional Splenda. I don't know about their Granular product. Not sure if the makeup of that is different than what's in the packets.

4) Pure Sucralose is about 300-1000 times sweeter than sugar to the human tounge.

5) According to Wikipedia, sucralose "is manufactured by the selective chlorination of sucrose (table sugar), which substitutes three of the hydroxyl groups with chloride. The selective chlorination is achieved by selective protection of the primary alcohol groups followed by acetylation and then deprotection of the primary alcohol groups. Following an induced acetyl migration on one of the hydroxyl groups, the partially acetylated sugar is then chlorinated with a chlorinating agent such as phosphorus oxychloride, followed by removal of the acetyl groups to give sucralose" Did ya' catch that? So yeah, I guess it's true, sucralose is made from sugar. But it isn't like bread is made from grains. It is a little more complicated than that. But hey, now you know.

6) The Sugar Association (Washington DC Sugar Lobby) doesn't like Splenda. In fact, while they settled their lawsuit which alleged that McNeil Specialty Products falsely advertised Splenda since it is NOT a natural product, our lovely Sugar Lobby has set up a website dedicated to the undoing of Splenda. And for once I am in agreement with the Sugar Association. Splenda is not natural, it IS a chlorinated artificial sweetener.

7) The above website I mentioned cites a Duke University study (as does the Wikipedia article) that shows that sucralose intake of within the FDA approved limit "suppresses beneficial bacteria and directly affects the expression of the transporter P-gp and cytochrome P-450 isozymes that are known to interfere with the bioavailability of drugs and nutrients." So ingesting sucralose at certain levels (well within the FDA safe levels) can decrease many of the good bacteria. But it can also create an environment within the body known to reduce it's ability to absorb and utilize nutrients and medication.

So there you go! That is all the things I learned about Splenda in just one night of searching. What if I had spent more time searching? No major studies linking sucralose and Splenda to cancer. But at the very least, now I am educated. I am still not gonna eat sucralose and Splenda. But maybe, just maybe, someone who reads this will stop.

Just eat real food. Eat honey, rapadura, pure maple syrup. Don't eat alot of it, because it is also not good for you. But first and foremost, ask questions of your food. Google search until you find answers. Be skeptics. And once you find out what you are eating, make a good decision about whether you should continue.


Refer to--
Wikipedia, Sucralose Entry
Wikipedia, Spelda Entry
Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; Sucralose. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Heath and Human Services.

This Post is entered in Real Food Whole Health's Fresh Bites Friday
and Food Renegade's Fight Back Friday

Reducing Fat Leads to Obesity

A new study examining the dietary habits of Americans over a 25-year period has revealed that while overall fat intake reduced by 3%, obesity in men tripled and in women doubled. The research – published this month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition – also reveals that carbohydrate intake increased by 4% over the same period, while protein intake fell slightly. 

This is clear evidence that reducing a nation’s fat intake isn’t going to impact on weight problems. 

Fat does not make you fat – it’s too many refined carbohydrates and sugar that are the culprits. This is why eating a low-GL diet works so well, because it reduces intake of the harmful kinds of carbohydrate while increasing protein and healthy fats from sources like oily fish, nuts and seeds. This balances your blood sugar and helps you achieve, and maintain, a healthy weight. 

And speaking about too many refined carbs and sugar,

Check this out, only three foods make my cut: Steel Cut Oats, King Arthur organic flour, and quinoa.  The rest are JUNQUE!

The Healthiest Carbs In Your Supermarket

 

A Few Ways I Am Trying to Ward Off Sugar This Month

Egads. It has already begun. The Holiday decoration have been up for almost a month in Macy's (maybe more), there is a bitter wind blowing through Manhattan, and there are tons of crowds piling onto the B and D trains just so they can get to Rockefeller Center. It is Christmas time in the city, ring-a-ling, hear them ring....

One sure fire was you can tel it is Christmas is that all of a sudden there are piles of candy cropping up all over my office. First I saw a bowl on someone's desk inside a neat office. Later in the week that bowl made it's way out to sit right on top of the storage closet next to my cube. Then in the mailroom I saw half empty gift mugs filled with various chocolates. Next it will be the gift baskets coming in from the accounts that still buy us gifts (as opposed to the other way around) and after that it will be the sugary Christmas gifts between co-workers. And then finally, around the 21st of December, it will be homemade cookies. It tends to always happen in that order in my office. Is it slightly different for you?

I still maintain that I have beaten the Sugar Monster, but this is the first Christmas that I have been trying to eat mostly real food. On previous years, Christmas was a 4-5 week period fraught with tummy aches and sugar shock. I don't typically gain weight during the holiday season, as my indulging is limited to three or four days (and that's not going to kill anyone). But now that I have cleaned myself up and know a little more about what sugar is and what it does to your body, well, I am really noticing how much of it is around me all the time.

So here are a few ideas to limit the sugar in your Christmas, while still enjoying yourself and being able to participate.

* Look at your breakfast. This is usually where sugar sneaks in first for me. Instead of sweetened yogurt, try plain. I also recommend the whole or full fat yogurt, which will keep you more satiated. If you are eating flour/ gluten, breakfast is probably the best place to do it because you have ample time to burn off all that energy. Recently, a dear Eastern European friend told me that some traditional Eastern Europeans typically would have flour foods (even pasta!) only in the morning, for that very reason. I have to respect several generations of culture after all! I would definitely balance out any flour foods with some protein or fat though. This will help you to stay full until lunch and ward off the snackies which usually lead straight to a box of Harry and David's Lemon Shortbread Cookies.

* Be sure to get some protein (and fat) with your lunch. I eat a raw salad almost every day (almost). But if I don't have some fat component, like avacado, and some protein component, like chicken, I find that the salad never lasts me all day. It is that 3-4pm time period when I need a little sugary pick me up.

* Be prepared with some protein snacks. I like to keep nuts around just in case I really need a pick me up. A glass of good quality milk is also a great afternoon snack. Cheese would be good too.

* Don't eat crappy treats. Here is where I am the most passionate. I absolutely think that you should have some refined sugar this year unless you have some real serious aversion to it, or your food religion condones only strict abstinence (my food religion embraces a smidge of sin). However, why on earth would you want to eat the lousy stuff? You have put in so much work making sure that you are filled with filling fats and healthy proteins and nutrient rich veggies, why would you go and eat some crappy Hersey's bar. You should have Teucsher! The whole point about limiting sugar is really about purposeful eating. There is no auto-pilot setting. If food makes you happy, enjoy it, love it, relish it. But don't get into the mind set that you have to eat everything in sight. The space in your tummy (and there is only so much) is valuable real estate. And all those sugary treats should be dolling themselves up to vie for which one is going to get in your tummy. Only choose the best.

* Don't be the sugar pusher. Just because you don't want to be the one to eat the lovingly gifted Whitman Sampler does not mean you should be pushing it on every unsuspecting lady in your office or family. She might not be in possession of your strong will! I see absolutely nothing wrong with pitching unwanted sugar. Wait until January 2nd if you feel you must. But why on earth do you feel that someone must consume something, just because it exists. I consider this slightly irrational thinking. It doesn't matter if it goes to waste.

* Get enough sleep. Since I am currently up way too late blogging about this, I sense the irony of suggesting this. Just make sure you get 8 hours of sleep. You know the drill, hunger hormones, sleep deprivations triggers them..yada yada yada

* Lastly, NO regrets. Now that you have had two helpings of Office-Christmas-Party-Catering-Cupcakes, let it go. I have found that most weight put on in a month will come off in a month if you make the right choices in losing the weight. You know the most brilliant thing I have discovered since I started eating real food? Usually when my clothes start to feel a little tight it is because I have been overeating. So cutting back slightly for a week or two makes that overly full feeling go away as well as making my pants fit better.

No go out there and enjoy Christmas for Christ's sake!

How I Beat The Sugar Monster

When I first started out on Weight Watchers all those years ago, I noticed a big difference. And my friends all said the same thing happened to them too. We developed a sweet tooth.

Prior to WW, I affectionately called my cravings my 'fat tooth' for most of my quasi adult life because I was always drawn to snack on things like french fries and potato chips and cheezits. If it was salty and fattening, that was what I wanted in a down moment. I liked sweet foods, deserts etc, but I have never had a real problem with them, per se.

That all changed when I started on WW. I began to crave sugar powerfully. I liked to have a sweet something after every meal except breakfast and sweet treats in between meals weren't denied either. And usually breakfast had some sweetish element to it. My sugar cravings were strong and forceful. And while I pacified them with dried or fresh fruit, what I really wanted was mind numbingly sweet. When I was pregnant with Thing 2 I was CRAZY for sugar, not chocolate, but pure sugar like jelly beans and candy and soda. It was beyond weird. Even since I have been working on the blog I have craved sweet treats all while looking for ways to eliminate sugar, hence the Date Truffles.

But in the last month or so I have noticed a lovely turnaround. My hunger has been under control as well as my sugar sanity. Last week while visiting my folks I ate half a piece of pie. Just HALF, because it was too sweet to finish. Same with a cupcake (though I waited 90 minutes or so and polished off the remaining piece). I thoroughly enjoyed both items. I just didn't need a full serving to feel that I had had enough. I can't take full credit and I cannot say that this is a personal moral triumph. The truth is, I eat fat.

I have talked alot about this recently. I eat fat. I have switched back to whole milk. I use cream in my recipes that call for it without substituting for something less fatty. I have been adding coconut oil to my oatmeal in the morning, but also to my (full fat) yogurt or granola if that is what I eat for breakfast. I'll even lick the coco oil spoon before I put it in the dishwasher. There is a treat. I fully embrace butter. And I have been frying my hamburgers in beef tallow, because, well it just makes sense, beef and beef fat-no? On one hand, my mouth is happy. Just like a special treat, I really enjoy the fat in my dishes. And food should be completely enjoyed and savored. We cannot eat endlessly, so we should celebrate each delicious bite while we have room. Food is not just the sum of it's parts. It is passion and happiness. It is sensory and beautiful. Fat in food gives us the sensation of pleasure, so why not herald that?

But fat also makes us full. More nutritionists and health advocates talk about fiber or protein making you full these days. And that is true, fiber and protein do make you full. But if fiber makes you feel physically full and possibly slightly bloated, fat turns hunger off. For me it turns hunger off like a switch. I'll add nuts or a big tablespoon of almond butter (Thanks S!!) to oatmeal and without it I cannot make it to lunch. Protein is another very important macronutrient that keeps you full. But fiber and protein together need some fat to make them really fill your tummy. And I remind you. I have not gained any weight since I made these slight changes to my diet. The healthy fat in my diet has kept me full enough that I have refused 15 or so pleas for me to take someone's leftover Halloween Candy. I was not trying to be political about sugar, nor was I trying to be morally and gastronomically superior. I was in fact, too satiated. I didn't want it.

This brings up the interesting phrase "She can eat anything she wants". I kinda think I can eat anything I want. I can eat as much as I want too! (Now she is drunk with freedom). But the truth is, I eat clean, which makes me want to eat mostly clean foods. And I eat healthy fats, so I get full. What I an trying to do now is to avoid overeating. Because now a healthy portion means something smaller than what it used to be. Thinking in those terms, I can eat anything I want and as much as I want. Because everything I want is highly nourishing, and the amount that I want to eat is smaller than it used to be.

I don't think that adding fat to your diet means adding crappy food, but you knew that. You can't go eating a bunch of chocolate, or chicken fried steak. I don't think all the processed fatty foods and the polyunsaturated oils are having the same effect in my body. But the natural and saturated fats have been making me very happy. And sugar? There is no longer a red furry electrically charged monster creeping behind me. I beat the sugar monster.

So try it, stitch to whole milk. Then wait a week and buy coconut oil, etc. You don't have to make changes all at once. I didn't. Let yourself acclimate to them. You might just like them!!

Almond-Date Truffles

In the beginning of my "experiment" I still bought candy or cookies, I just bought fewer of them. DH complained but for the most part he fell in line.

Now that we are a little deeper in I have replaced more of our junk. The one thing that DH bitches about more than anything else is candy and desserts. I have the ingredients to make a pie or cookies, but to go to all the effort just to keep a "sometimes" food on hand? Well I am not really doing that. Once in a while is one thing, but I would so much rather spend my time being sneaky getting veggies into my kids tummies.

Then I got an idea for a "candy" that I wouldn't mind keeping around the house. This is one that contains no refined sugar and has a good amount of raw nuts, a healthy source of protein and nuts. Also, I convinced Thing 1 that helping me to make them would be more fun than watching the Backyardagins! Really, this are just tiny home made Larabars (love those things!)

Almond-Date Truffles

1/2 cup Raw Organic Almonds
8 oz Organic Mejool Dates
Unsweetened Shredded Organic Coconut for dusting

Of course my recipe calls for organic everything, but you guys are adults and know that you can substitute roasted for raw and conventional for organic. But I am shooting for as organic as possible.

In your food processor run the almonds until they are well chopped.

Then add your dates, make sure you remove all the pits before pulsing. Date pits are not good eats. Run your dates and almonds together until they form a coarse crumb. You can then either measure out the mix, or eyeball it. But either way form the crumbs into balls by pressing into your hands. Then take the balls and roll them in a shallow dish of the organic unsweetened shredded coconut. Or you could get your 3 year old to do that part for you. And although he got coconut everywhere, he did a pretty good job and I didn't have to intervene and do it for him.

So everyone is happy with this recipe. DH is happy to have something sweet in the house. Thing 1 thinks he is getting candy. Mommy is happy that these are whole foods, no refined sugar or icky ingredients. Only...Thing 2 is kind of pissed. He is a little too young for nuts, so I think he feels a little left out. Oh well, you can't please all the people all the time.

Enjoy!

Examining Natural Cereal Ingredients: Sugar-loaded

UPDATE: 27 August - 

Coming soon, the wheat revolution: Scientists DNA breakthrough paves the way for cheaper bread

By Paul Bentley

 27th August 2010

A vital crop: The breakthrough means new super strains of wheat could be created, with growers about to filter poor quality seeds

British scientists have cracked the genetic code for wheat – paving the way for a new breed of crops resistant to disease.
The experts will today share the map of the wheat genome online for free, allowing growers around the world to develop super strains of the crop.
The development could also lead to massively increased production – and in turn lower bread prices.
But last night there were fears the breakthrough could open the doors to genetically modified 'Frankenstein foods' as scientists will now be able to manipulate the wheat DNA.
The mapped genome will also allow growers to identify weaknesses, filtering out poor quality seeds.
It is hoped new breeds of crops will be producing higher wheat yields in as little as five years' time.
This could mean a significant reduction in the price of bread and greater food security in the developing world.
It is estimated that world food production will have to increase by 50 per cent over the next 40 years to feed the rising population.
Wheat yield is also of particular concern this summer because of the failure of the harvest in Russia.

Professor Neil Hall, a genome scientist at Liverpool University – one of three research centres to carry out the study – said the breakthrough would increase wheat production dramatically.
'A process that now takes five or six years will take one or two years,' he said.
'It is quite possible that in five years' time a loaf of bread will be cheaper because of this.' 
Professor Keith Edwards, from Bristol University, said the findings were highly significant.
'In a short space of time we have delivered most of the sequences necessary for plant breeders to identify genetic differences in wheat,' he said.

Cheaper: The price of bread could fall if the new wheat leads to increased production, while also improving food security in the third world

'The public release of the data will dramatically increase the efficiency of breeding new crop varieties.'
Over the past decade wheat yields have hit a plateau, failing to keep up with increased demand, largely because of constantly evolving diseases.
Professor Hall said: 'It is estimated that in Europe, productivity needs to double to keep pace with demand and to maintain stable prices.
'We need to start breeding new varieties of wheat that will be important in five or ten years' time.'
But Professor Hall warned that 'nature may not be enough' and that 'genetic modification will also be necessary to boost yields'.
The decoding of the wheat genome was completed in less than a year by the British scientists.
The research project cost £1.8million and was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
'Sequencing the human genome took 15 years . . . but with huge advances in DNA technology, the wheat genome took only a year,' Professor Hall said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a big fan of cold cereal.  Mostly I dislike the fact that it is about pure carb, and not the slow-digesting kind.   These days you have to watch out for GMO ingredients, additives, colorings, and so many more unneeded components. Even worse has been the longtime usage in the majority of these products of HFCS and even toxic artificial sweeteners.

What is even worse is the application of the sugaring of alleged "natural" products sold in your health store or that section in your supermarket.

Here's a story that warmed my belly this morning; obviously someone else shares my concerns.

Kashi is a high end food brand, with an impressive number of cereals in its lineup. It was founded in 1984 in Southern California and acquired by Kellogg’s in 2000. The company advertises their products as “natural”, containing a blend of seven whole grains and sesame. There is a strong emphasis on high protein and fiber content.So is Kashi a good start to the day? We decided to check out an exemplar – Kashi GoLean Crunch…

Make sure you start label reading, it is a good habit to develop if you want healthy food for you, your kids, or your family.

And don't overlook the use of soy and canola! Problematic even is alleged to be "organic".

Sugar and School Lunch

School lunch is a hot topic these days. Whether it is Jaime Oliver or Michelle Obama, everyone seems the be growing aware of the swill that has been served to our children for decades.

I attended public schools for elementary, junior high and high school. I ate school lunch at my elementary school virtually every day for 6 years. I remember that lunch cost 95cents. You could buy ice cream for 40 cents, so I would try to keep up with all my leftover nickels for two weeks to get an ice cream bar. I remember the lunch room distinctly. The lunch ladies were very friendly. I remember there were some things I liked (tacos) and some things I didn't like (hot ham sandwiches) and I remember the square pizza tasting weird (it was actually rectangle pizza, I am fussy about my shapes!). I still ate it though. I don't remember there being a lot of choice. I am sure there were some veggies beyond potato flakes. There were virtually no raw vegetables, like carrot sticks. I remember lunch being hot every day. We did get whole fruit sometimes if I remember correctly. We were only served lunch, not breakfast.

In the summer I went to camp at a lovely place that functioned as a private school during the year. This private school had a huge estate of land, a pool, a lake with canoes, soccer field, a baseball field, a full playground, woods. The place was enormous! The food that was served there I noticed to be much better than what I got during my school year. The offering was simpler most of the time, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, pasta with meat sauce. There were lots of whole fruits available, and raw veggies a lot too. There might have been salads too. I can't quite remember.

When I moved on to junior high school and high school I never ate lunch at school even once. My mother never packed a lunch for me after that, it became my responsibility to pack my own lunch when I turned 12. School lunch was really gross at my high school. There was always a hot offering, but they served an alternate of hamburgers and fries or pizza virtually EVERY DAY. Now I was just learning to eat properly myself, so there were days that all I packed for myself was cheese and crackers (not that healthy). But when your lunch period is at 10:45am, a full meal almost doesn't matter. I had eaten breakfast four hours earlier and I usually ate again when I got home.

For the last couple of months I have been follow a great blog, Fed Up With School Lunch. An anonymous teacher by the pseudonym of Mrs Q has been eating school lunch every day since January and has been documenting the offering, what it tasted like, how she feels afterward and also how much waste is produced every day. It is a fascinating blog and the daily debate among followers is very interesting. She has guest bloggers from time to time. And last week she had a piece written by Ed Bruske of The Slow Cook and Better D.C. School Food. One thing he said really took my breath away. On a trip to his daughter's school, he had seen the kitchen where meals were being prepared. The breakfasts the children were eating were swimming in sugar. Candy frosted cereals, flavored milk, orange juice and POP TARTS!! The average kid was wolfing down 50-60 grams of sugar, or around 15 teaspoons! That is more than a quarter of a cup of sugar. Would you let your kid put a quarter of a cup of sugar on his first meal of the day?

Bruske's posting was what got me thinking about sugar in the first place. I mentioned earlier in the week that the Sugar Association had successfully lobbied the USDA to remove all mention of added sugars in their food pyramid literature? Well that directly translates to the National School Lunch Program. To date not one piece of legislation has successfully regulated the amount of sugar in school lunch. Now the American Heart Association came out last year with sugar limits for adults (no more than 5 teaspoons for a moderately active adult woman). But their recommendations failed to offer advise for children. Unfortunate, but not shocking either.

Several school systems and food service companies who cater school lunches have thrown their hands in the air saying "this is what the kids want to eat, we can make other food but how do we get the kids to eat it rather than throw it away?" Or one of my personal favorites "flavored milks are way better than sodas in the nutrition department, if we stop serving flavored milks the kids might not drink milk at all!" Well, I looked it up. Wisconsin Dairy Farmers have a very easy to use website that the shows the consumption of fluid milk and milk products since 1960. The data is the most complete between 1980 and today. Whole milk consumption has, as you would expect, gone down dramatically. Lowfat milk consumption has risen. Flavored milks were barely on the radar in 1960 and even today, although their consumption has more than doubled since 1980, they are only 7% of the total. What I think is interesting is that consumption of cream products(whipping cream and half and half and sour cream) have more than doubled since 1980. So although we are drinking more low fat milk, we are still eating the fat that has been taken out of our milk. We are just eating it in prepared foods now.

There is no clear evidence that kids won't drink regular milk if they are not offered flavored milk. This is just one more sales tactic of food companies to protect a business that they have carved out for themselves. But without proper legislation the sugar problem will never go away.

The newest Child Nutrition Act, which is up for review right now, also dos not discuss setting caps on the amount of sugar that children are served during the school day. In some schools now the estimate is that 44% of a child's school lunch calories are coming from solid fats and sugars. Remember what I said earlier this week, the WHO quietly recommends getting no more than 10% of your calories from sugar. And while they didn't stipulate different percentages for adults and children, I think this is a good gauge. Children's nutrient requirements per pound are enormous when compared with adults. Staggering physical changes and growth take place during the formative years. There is only so much room for food in a child's tummy, and I think that food really should be filled with the proper nutrients, vitamins and good things that will foster proper growth.

I could go on forever, and i probably will. The debate is on in many places. Follow the links I have provided to learn more.

I am really happy to say that after I wrote this, but before I published it, I read on Ed Bruske's blog the DC schools will be banning strawberry, chocolate and other flavored milks starting with the next school year! They will also be banning sugary cereals. Hooray! I love that there is so much dialogue out there, but what I really love is action!


Notes:
Bruske, Ed. Sweet and Low. Grist, A Beacon in the Smog. http://www.grist.org/ 19 April, 2010.

US Fluid Milk Product Sales-1960-2007. Wisconsin Dairy. http://www.wisdairy.com/ 16 June, 2010.

Nestle, Marion. Sugary school meals hit lobbyists' sweet spot. http://www.sfgate.com/ 2 May, 2010.

Main, Emily. Chocolate Milk Debate Rages On. http://www.rodale.com/ 30 Nov, 2009

Sugar Addiction?

This topic came about due to a friend telling me how much she just loves sugar and feels like she has to eat it whenever it is around. I have never really been a sugar junkie. I have always craved things like french fries and popcorn and potato chips. Now I have met few cakes that I didn't like, but I have never planned an entire day's activities around being in the right part of town to get dessert (however, I have done that for french fries, and if you are ever near a Pommes Frites in New York, you will know what I am talking about.)

When I googled 'sugar addiction' I turned up a few anti-sugar blogs, a few advertisements telling me how to wean myself off sugar addiction, but very few articles regarding experiments or hard science or even industry findings. In fact even the Wikipedia article entitled 'Sugar Addiction' had a disclaimer saying that the article did not have enough contributors and that it was flawed in a couple ways. And Wikipedia is my go to for basic information!!

Well, from what I did find I have a feeling that sugar addiction exists, but no one has put any money into researching it. And why would they? The Government wouldn't think that was an appropriate use of taxpayer money. Plus they wouldn't want to turn up any information that would cause widespread panic. Because if you advertise that the food supply is unsafe, well that is anarchy territory and no matter what your political views no one wants that (even if they think they do). And the food processors certainly don't want that. They certainly don't want to admit that a food additive is causing addiction in their consumers. Right now the general consensus is that addiction to sugar and food is the fault of the addicted person, not the fault of the food, and no one who is selling food is going to change that. Can you imagine the lawsuits????

I did come up with a couple interesting bits of information on the topic though.

Addiction is classified as having three stages, a behavioral pattern of increased intake and brain chemistry changes, then signs of withdrawl and further changes in brain chemistry upon deprivation, and lastly signs of craving and relapse after withdrawl is over. Not enough research has been done to definitively prove the above with sugar.

What's more, Wikipedia states:

In 2008, Nicole Avena published data stating that sugar affects opioids and dopamine in the brain, and thus might be expected to have addictive potential. She references "Bingeing," "withdrawl," "craving" and "cross-sensitization" are each given operational definitions and demonstrated behaviorally with sugar bingeing as the reinforcer.... [She states] "Recent behavioral tests in rats further back the idea of an overlap between sweets and drugs. Drug addiction often includes three steps. A person will increase his intake of the drug, experience withdrawl symptoms when access to the drug is cut off and then face an urge to relapse back into drug use. Rats on sugar have similar experiences. Researchers withheld food for 12 hours and then gave rats food plus sugar water. This created a cycle of binging where the animals increased their daily sugar intake until it doubled. When researchers either stopped the diet or administered an opiod blocker the rats showed signs common to drug withdrawl, such as teeth-chattering and the shakes. Early findings also indicate signs of relapse."

That is just one study. I am sure there have been others. Rather than comb the Internet for more hidden studies of strung out rats, I will take my own experience. When I was pregnant, both times, my cravings for sugar were out of control. My strongest cravings were for pure sugar, like soda and jelly beans, not sugar with fat like ice cream or cake (though I had my share of that). I think that was because I would be full from a meal, but my body was still craving more calories. I could have spooned sugar from a bowl. The more I ate the more I wanted. Even after delivery, I had to keep myself on a low sugar diet so to manage my sugar cravings. Now I eat relatively low amounts of sugar and the cravings are gone. I worked to eliminate sugar from my diet a little at a time, switching to a whole grain cereal with no sugar at all, eliminating the honey from my berries and yogurt, and of course cutting back on dessert. I still eat a lot of fruit, but the fiber keeps the sugar from being digested so fast, so my blood sugar never spikes. But as with anything, I look at fruit in the cost/ benefit sense. You get so much nutrition from fruit with relatively few calories, even if there is sugar in there. The good stuff far outweighs the bad stuff!

Notes:

Rubaum-Keller, Irene. Is Sugar Addictive? The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 18 June, 2009.

Sugar addiction. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://www.wikipedia.org/ 15 June, 2010.

Sugar vs. High Fructose Corn Syrup

When my friends and I talk about sugar, usually we are talking about all sugars in a general sense. Like 'that glass of chocolate milk has 16 grams of sugar'. The 16 grams are made up of a mix of lactose, sucrose or fructose and glucose (and probably others). All those -ose's together are what we talk about.

When I am talking about SUGAR on this week's posts I need to be more specific. The sugar I mentioned yesterday was all what we'd think of as table sugar, pure crystalline sucrose. Sucrose is a diasaccharide composed of glucose and fructose bonded together with a relatively weak molecular bond. That bond is broken when it's in your tummy being digested.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is different.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is produced by milling corn to produce starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup (think Karo Pecan Pie ingredients). Standard corn syrup is almost entirely glucose and doesn't taste as sweet to the human tongue as sucrose (or table sugar) does. Regular corn syrup was all we had for a while, but it doesn't fit the bill as a sugar replacement because it just doesn't taste right. Anyone who has tasted Karo knows what I am talking about. But in 1957 Richard O. Marshall and Earl P. Kooi added enzymes to that glucose corn syrup. Those enzymes changed most of the glucose into fructose.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is derived by mixing the original standard corn syrup (almost pure glucose) and the altered corn syrup (overwhelmingly fructose). The more fructose you add, the sweeter the mixture tastes on the tongue. HFCS 55 is 55% fructose and has a comparable sweetness to table sugar, only in liquid form. And that is the particular HFCS that is used to make soda.

Why is this significant? The current US Sugar policy began in 1934 to shore up prices for cane sugar. They implemented a price floor so that sugar(cane and beet) grown in the US would fetch a higher price when it was sold domestically. These policies are still in place, and so consequently the price of sugar in the US is about three times as high as the world market.

Conversely, The US Government has been, since the Depression, subsidizing corn growers (among many other growers of commodities). Every year the government sets a price floor for corn that is slightly above the free market price. Let's say that price is $3.00 a bushel. The government promises that every farmer will get no less than $3.00 for every bushel of corn, plus they give every farmer an additional 52 cents(at least that was the 2002 number) on top of that floor price. If the price of corn comes in at $2.95 the government will give that farmer the 52 cent subsidy plus the 5 cent difference between the market price and the floor price of corn, and they will do that for EVERY bushel of corn that farmer sells.

As a result, the only way to make more money as a corn farmer is to grow more corn. More bushels equals more money in your pocket. Only problem is, the more corn there is, the lower the price goes. Nowadays because of these subsidies, we have a whole lot of corn, and a whole lot of farmers who struggle to break even as the price of corn drives lower.

Now I am not going to sit here and bad mouth the Farm Bill. That is not the purpose of my writing. And I am not an economist, nor do I have a formal background in agriculture (or any background other than hailing from a state that still boasts a state agricultural college). But I do know that these policies create an oversupply of commodities like corn. And this over supply gives food processors access to a steady stream of cheap raw materials. The thing that is important about this is that since the thirties the price of sugar has been rising due to the policies surrounding sugar. That makes food made with sugar more expensive. But the price of corn has been falling, or at least holding steady amid inflation and other economic changes. And that makes food made out of corn less expensive. The next step is an easy one.......food processors put HFCS in everything these days because it became cheaper than sugar. And because it is liquid, it is super easy to make it into products like soda and baked good. This has been a win for the processors.

People recently have been fighting back against HFCS and I think they should. As a result, processors are removing it from hundreds of products. They are now advertising having real cane sugar as an ingredient as a health benefit. But because of the switch to sugar, food prices will naturally go up. I wish the dialogue out there at the water cooler, on the playground and on the Internet was more about eliminating HFCS from our diet rather than just replacing it with cane sugar. There has been some talk about HFCS being worse for you than sugar, or being more likely to trigger obesity. And there may be something to it. But I think that if you looked at enough studies and info on the subject you would see that obesity rates have climbed since HFCS has started being included in virtually every food except whole foods. The overall number of calories that are daily consumed by the average American have increased over the last 30 years. I think that better explains our current rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

In my reading I did uncover some interesting finds.

Coca-Cola switched it's operations to use HFCS in 1984. But they still make soda with sugar in other nations where the price remains low. Mexico is one of those countries. Apparently you can find this Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries. And some people swear they can tell the difference. I was allergic to something in the Coca-Cola formula while I was a child, so I did not have my first Coke until probably 1990. So I am sure that I have never had a Coke made with sugar.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest threatened a lawsuit against Cadbury-Schweppes in 2006 for labeling 7Up as "All Natural". The FDA has no legal definition of the word 'natural'. FDA regulations do define "natural flavoring" to include products of vegetables. The FDA has since stated that the agency does not object to labeling HFCS as "natural". But the CSPI does not believe that HFCS is a "natural" ingredient due to the high level of processing require to make it. (Neither do I) But in early 2007 Cadbury-Schweppes agreed to stop calling 7Up "All Natural" and they now label it "100% Natural Flavors", which does comply to the FDA definition.

And just in case you were waiting for me to say it, whole foods do not have any added sugar of any kind.


Notes:
High-fructose corn syrup. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. wikipedia.org 11 June, 2010.

Agriculture subsidy. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. wikipedia.org 9 June, 2010.

Sugar and Sweetners Policy. USDA Economic Research Servie Briefing Rooms. ers.usda.gov 9 June, 2010.

Virata, Gillian. The Effects of the U.S. Sugar Policy. internationalecon.com 9 June, 2010.

Big Sugar, Day One

This week at The Table of Promise I will relate the findings of my recent Internet digging surrounding sugar. There is a lot more to the story of sugar and sucrose/ fructose as it relates to our diet and health than you might think.

For me it all started as a simple question, "There is a sugar lobby in Washington?" Yes, in fact there is. There are a group of lobbyists in Washington DC whose job it is to promote sugar and it's use, both to the general public and to lawmakers.

Meet the key players to US Sugar Policy:

The Sugar Association: they are who we know as the Sugar Lobby. The Sugar Association was formed by growers and refiners in the US sugar industry. They began in 1934 under the name of The Sugar Research Foundation, dedicated to the scientific study of sugar's role in food and the communication of that role to the public. In 1947, the foundation changed their name it's current name. On their website, they state

"The Sugar Association continues with its mission of educating health professionals, media, government officials and the public about sugar's goodness."

Florida Sugar Growers (among other states): Florida contributes the largest amount of domestic sugar to the US sugar supply each year. Cane grown in Florida account for 24% of all the refined sugar in the US. The single company US Sugar alone contributes 10% of the domestic supply. Sugar Cane and sugar beets grown in cooler northern climes each account for about 50% of the domestic US sugar supply. Many of the cane and beet farms are connected as different branches of the same conglomerate company. But the Florida contribution to the total is more significant that any other.

The World Health Organization (WHO): This international organization conducts research and make statements to the international community on health issues as wide ranging as diet to childbirth. Their current statement on sugar, as made in 2003, is that sugar should not exceed more than 10% of a person's total caloric intake.

The USDA and the USDA Food Pyramid: The USDA and their food pyramid have been taking a lot of heat in recent years for the new and relatively unpublicized discovery that suggesting that we root our diet in grain products actually worked against it's intention to guide the country into better health. Rates of obesity and diabetes have soared in the last 30 years creating the greatest health crisis in modern history. For the first time in US history, our children's generation has a shorter life expectancy than their parents. The USDA has revamped the food pyramid to suggest that we eat more fruits and veggies than anything else, 5cups of veg versus 3 cups of grains. But the way the pyramid is designed breaks up fruits and veggies into their own categories. This makes it look like grains are still the most important, or at the base of the pyramid. This is a great creative way to not have to come out and say "we screwed up, you really should make plant based food the most important part of your diet". I don't have many issues with what is in the pyramid, but at least come clean to the American Public. The public has proven over the last 30-40 to be listening to what the government says about nutrition.

Now that we know the players we can look at their interaction. In 2003, the WHO published it's latest report regarding diet. They stated that sugar should make up no more than 10% of a person's total daily calories.

The Sugar Association fought back hard stating that they had evidence that said that a person's daily intake of sugar could safely be 25% of a person's calories. WHO subsequently reworded their recommendation on sugar stating that no one should eat sugar more than four times a day. But of course they don't say how much you can eat in any of those times, so draw your own conclusions.

The head of the expert team that wrote the Association's scientific evidence saying that sugar could comprise 25% of your calorie intake per day and still be safe, is Harvey Fineberg. Amongst all the highly publicized fighting, Fineberg called the US Health Secretary at the time, Tommy Thompson, to say that his report was being misinterpreted by the Sugar Association. Even he did not want to be associated with the fallout.

The Sugar Association was so outraged by the WHO's report that they contacted our legislature to suggest a law that all future WHO funding should be predicated on an agreement from WHO to base it's reports on science. (Huh? Really?)

The Sugar Association has also successfully fought to eliminate the USDA's ability to mention sugar in it's dietary suggestions. If you click on the link to the new food pyramid I provided you will see that the top part of the pyramid that was up there for years, the "use added fats, oils and sweets sparingly" is now missing. Their recommendations regard only food. This has a couple of effects. It eliminates the sugar dialogue from the consumers mindset, and it levels the playing field among food products. If it is good to eat 6 servings of grains per week, the USDA has made no recommendation that you should limit breads that have added HFCS (Hi Fructose Corn Syrup). And furthermore I bet that a packet of instant flavored oatmeal with 16g of sugar added to the flavoring counts as a serving of whole grain. The fact is that the government is hush hush about even discussing the issue of sugar.

Thousands of products have added sugar. They lurk in the obvious places like cookies and soda. But they also are in less obvious places like breads and yogurts, flavored milk (I kinda think milk tastes pretty good the way God gave it to us), pre-made pizza crusts, rolls and hamburger buns, ketchup, dried fruit, juices marketed as real fruit juice, the list goes on an on. The average consumption of added sugars has reached record highs! In 1996 each American consumed a record average of 152 pounds of caloric sweeteners!! That is about two fifths of a pound PER DAY. By contrast, total meat consumption in 1996 was 192 pounds. That includes all red meat, poultry and fish.

Food for thought.

Tomorrow, Real Cane Sugar vs. HFCS

Notes--

Virata, Gillian. The Effects of the U.S. Sugar Policy. internationalecon.com. 9 June, 2010.

Bosley, Sarah. Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO. The Guardian. guardian.co.uk.com 21 April, 2003.

Big Sugar. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com 16 April, 2005.

US Agriculture--Linking Consumers and Producers. United States Department of Agriculture. usda.gov 9 June 2010.

An Overview of Florida Sugarcane. University of Florida IFAS Extension. eds.ifas.ufl.edu 11 June 2010.