Mary's Gone Crackers

When I started this blog I imagined a string of product reviews. But I have realized, that when you value whole foods, there are not that many 'products' that fall into that category. Processed foods and prepackaged foods generally contain additives and sugar and alot of the time center around commodity products like corn, wheat and soybeans, all foods that are holding less and less of a market share in my diet. There is one new product that I am excited about. Mary's Gone Crackers.

It wasn't until this afternoon that I even realized that this title is a pun, on one hand the crackers are 'gone' because they are so good you always eat them all. But also, Mary is clearly 'crackers'. Ha! I love that stuff.

What are Mary's Gone Crackers? They are these very crunchy, very savory crackers that are wheat and gluten free and certified organic. Their main ingredients are brown rice, whole quinoa, flax seeds and sesame seeds. I started buying them recently because I have not found a good cracker that is minimally processed enough and some friends at work have become positively hooked on them. Now me too. I have not yet brought them home for the boys, but perhaps I should! I have been buying the herb variety, and I can see the rosemary right there in the cracker! That is refreshing.

Their website states that the cracker recipe was invented in 1994 after Mary and her son were both diagnosed as having Celiac Disease. She started reproducing grain based deserts like brownies and cookies from gluten free grains, but it was the crackers, that she would make at home and bring to parties so that she could enjoy dips and cheese, that really took off. These are crackers that you will love if you are a Celiac, but everyone in my office loves them too, and we do not have wheat sensitivities.

Mary's Gone Crackers has a website where you can purchase cases of their products as well as locate a store to buy them in slightly smaller sizes.

I have lately begun to limit wheat for both myself and my children. Wheat just doesn't supply enough nutrition to form the basis of a healthy diet. I would describe my wheat intake as recreational right now, I love to eat it, but it is not the main event. My family might never be off wheat completely, but I love having a product that is wheat free and organic and still tastes good. Thanks Mary!!

CSA Week 17

This week was especially exciting because we worked at the CSA! We are required (not forcefully) by our CSA to work 2-2 hour shifts. You show up and unload the truck, write out the sign that shows people how much to pick up, you help people with their items and then you clean up. One group does the set up and the other group does the break down and clean up. Last year I was home on maternity leave and so I worked an extra shift when they were short. This year, I bailed on my first shift and then today I brought both the kids to help. Actually I have been home this week because our babysitter has been sick. That's part of why I haven't been posting on facebook regularly and haven't been responding to comments so quickly. I mean usually I respond pretty quickly, if I have something intelligent to say. Sometimes I just don't have anything to say.

So I took both the kids. Thing 2 was in the Ergo and Thing 1 was "helping" by staying out of trouble. I was worried that not only would we be no help at all but that we would actually be detrimental to the process. You never know with kids. Sometimes they can play so sweetly and stay out of trouble, and then other times they'll take every opportunity to throw a tantrum and hold you hostage with bad behavior. Today I got off easy. And I think it is important that the kids see that we have to contribute by giving back. Before I got pregnant with Thing 1 I used to be active in my church's soup kitchen. It was a rewarding experience. But having little-bitties is not condusive to that environment. When they get old enough to be able to serve food and help I might start bringing them again. This CSA is a better place for them to cut their proverbial service teeth.

I digress, back to the veggies. This week we got leeks, 2 peppers, one head of lettuce, 2 heads of greens (I chose kale and chard), 2 winter squash, one bunch of herbs (I chose parsley), one bunch of carrots (I got weird ones!! Haha!), one purple tomato (already eaten and not pictured), one large beefsteak tomato, 50 cherry tomatoes and 10 apples. I now have enough apples to do something with them other than eat them raw. I am not sure about a pie, or apple butter. I want to make apple butter, but I am scared I don't have enough. And the Things eat 1-2 apples a day. I discovered that Thing 2 is ready to eat apples now and likes to eat them whole. Thing 1 always prefers them cut up and just like a first born, also liked them peeled. I won't peel them anymore. And most of the time now he just gets an apple whole. Now he'll eat the outside skin and want to throw the rest away, but the skinless core is perfect Thing 2, he will finish it down to the seeds and stem. What a way to let nothing go to waste.

This week I have alot of food hanging around from last week. So I am going to try and cook the squash and puree it and freeze it. I am not sure what to add it to, but some folks have recommended mac and cheese. Maybe mashed potatoes? Also I have the peppers from the last three weeks in my fridge. I think I am going to make pepper jelly. I don't really LIKE peppers, so this might end up as a gift...but many websites recommend cream cheese and crackers? That does sound awesome. And then the apple butter, and pesto. Getting all that cooked and into the freezer should free up some much needed room in my fridge. And help my goal of finishing off all the potatoes that are still hanging around my house!

Coconut Oil

I have been doing alot of research about fats recently. I have decided that my family can get everything that it needs from traditional, minimally processed fats like expeller pressed olive oil, butter, lard and now, coconut oil. Most people have some experience with the first three, but not the last. So I thought I would jot down some information about coconut oil for you.

Coconut Oil is a traditional oil of the tropics. It is over 80% saturated fat. But has the same levels of total fats as all the other oils I detailed a couple weeks ago in my article about Lard. Coconut oil will be solid at cooler temperatures, like the grocery store, but at around 70 degrees Fahrenheit it becomes liquid. Imagine my surprise when I purchased some as a solid, knowing it was such a saturated fat, and then the next morning went to use some and it was totally liquid! Because it is a saturated fat it is stable it will remain fresh even at warm temperature, whereas many other unsaturated vegetable oils can go rancid easily. Rancid oils are full of free radicals which can set the stage for cancer and many other degenerative diseases. There is a growing group of people out there that feel that all standard polyunsaturated vegetable oils like soybean, canola, safflower, corn and the like are all at some level of rancidity. Take a look at this site. The guy's picture is a little weird, but the site is worth a look. Part of the reason I am starting to think this bit about polyunsaturated fats might actually be true is that I first read this concept in Fallon's Nourishing Traditions (I know, I know..I can't shut up about that book!), but then I found it again while researching Coconut Oil and then I came across that last site when I google searched it. I am done with them all, corn, soybean, canola, sunflower, safflower, you name them I am done with them! When will our government stop subsidizing foods that are making us sick? NOTE: Olive Oil is a MONOunsaturated fat and does not fall prey to the same instability.

Coconut oil is also has known antibacterial and anti fungal properties from it's high lauric acid content. Lauric Acid is a a fatty acid that is a Medium Chain Triglyceride, or MCT for short. The only other significant source of MCT's in our diet is human breastmilk. And not many of us are really getting that in large quantities. I found some good articles at the website coconutoil.com (yeah, the internet is crazy amazing). Brian and Marianita Silhavy write in their article The Health Benefits of Virgin Coconut Oil,

"When Lauric Acid is consumed in the diet either in human breastmilk or in coconut oil, lauric acid forms a monoglyceride called monolaurin, which has been shown to destroy several bacteria and viruses, including listeria monocytogenes and heliocobacter pylori, and protoza such as giardia lamblia. Some of the viruses that have been destoyed by monolaurin include HIV, measles, herpes simplex virus-1, vesicular stomatitis virus, influenza and cytomegalovirus. There is also evidence now that the MCTs in coconut oil kill yeast infections, such as Candida."

The Silhavy's also writes that most long chain triglycerides (such as those found in soybean and safflower oil) are typically stored in the body as fat whereas MCTs are burned for energy, and that MCTs raise the body's metabolism leading to weight loss. In nature, you would never have consumed pure soybean oil. The small particles of fat in soybeans would have been tied up in the proteins and fiber of the bean. How many soybeans would you have to eat as a whole food to get one tablespoon of soybean oil? If someone knows please alert me. It reminds me of all those old cereal commercials with the ridiculous number of bowls of somebody else's cereal you would have to eat... Whereas coconuts are a natural fat source whether you eat them whole or chopped. I feel that the fat in coconut is meant to be eaten because there is so much there! But that is simply me extrapolating, which I am prone to doing.

I highly recommend that you click on the links and begin to read the varied places where I have found positive information about coconut oil. I don't believe things that I only hear in one place anymore. If I feel that an idea sounds compelling, I look into it. If I can find many varied sources that all say the same thing I begin to see that such an idea might have merit. Coconut Oil seems to also have a healthy industry around it and it properties. While I am not anti-supplement, I definitely think food sources are better than supplements. So rather than pay good money for a lauric acid supplement (yes, they exist), just eat some coconut oil. Oh yeah! I forgot to mention how delicious it is. The oil is mostly flavorless, but I do notice some coconutty overtones. I shamelessly stole a friend's idea and am now putting coconut oil into my oatmeal (and yes I feed this to my children). I have used it to make muffins and it would be great if you are making some Asian inspired dish. I would absolutely stir fry chicken with curry and veggies in coconut oil. Yum. What other uses do my faboo readers have?? I want to know. I would rather not just take one spoonful of this stuff every day, but I will get to that if I can't think of what to do with it. Granola? What do you think? Anybody?

Enjoy!

This article is part of Food Renegade's Fight Back Friday!

What You Are Not Hearing About GMO Franken-Fish

Are Genetically Engineered Foods (Including Salmon) More Allergenic?

By Kiera Butler | Mon Sep. 27, 2010 

ScienceDaily (2010-09-25) -- An expert comments on potential FDA approval of the first genetically engineered animal for use as food.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100925105209.htm

---

You've probably heard that the FDA is considering whether to approve the first-ever genetically-engineered fish [1]. Developed by a Massachusetts-based company called AquaBounty Technologies [2], this new supersalmon is basically an Atlantic salmon with genes from Chinook salmon and a fish called the ocean pout [3]. In theory, this could be a good thing: The new genes allow the fish, called AquAdvantage, to grow twice as fast [4] as regular salmon, meaning more salmon for everyone, and less stress on wild stocks.
But a number of consumer, health, and environmental groups say that neither AquaBounty Technologies nor the FDA has enough evidence to ensure the public that the fish—which wouldn't have to be labeled as genetically engineered (GE) on supermarket shelves—is safe for people or the planet. Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen called the company's food safety tests "woefully incomplete [5]," and the group pointed out that the FDA approval panel is mostly comprised of GE cheerleaders [6], with no fish ecologists or allergists. Why's an allergist important? Because the company's own tests suggest that the new salmon could be much more allergenic than regular salmon.
In order to understand the allergy tests, a bit of backstory on how AquAdvantage salmon are made [7] is necessary. First, genetic engineers create a "diploid" fish, meaning like people, it has two sets of chromosomes. Then, to make the final market product, they add genetic material from other fish and breed a new salmon with three sets of chromosomes—a "triploid" female that can't reproduce. AquaBounty researchers compared the allergenicity—or potential to cause an allergic reaction—of a control group of salmon to both the genetically engineered diploids and triploids. They found (PDF [8], see page 102) that the diploid salmon were 40 percent more allergenic than the control, while the triploid group was 19 percent more allergenic.
AquaBounty says that the triploids' allergenicity level wasn't statistically significant, and although the diploids' level is significant, it doesn't matter because only triploids will be sold. But Hansen of the Consumers Union finds a few problems with this argument. For starters, the test wasn't double blind, meaning the researchers knew which fish were part of which test group. Second, the sample size of triploid fish was tiny—only six fish in all. Third, although AquaBounty is going to try to turn all its market-bound fish into triploid sterile females, the process isn't perfect, and some 5 percent could end up as the more allergenic diploid. Especially scary when you consider that unlike the triploids, the diploids aren't sterile. So if they escaped, they could breed with wild salmon.
The FDA simply doesn't have enough information to determine whether AquaBounty's salmon are likely to cause more allergic reactions than their non-GE counterparts. But there is good reason to be concerned about the potential allergenicity of all GE foods, says Margaret Mellon, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientsts. "You have this technology that allows you to essentially move proteins around from food to food," she says. "You can move a highly allergenic protein into a new food, and no one will know to avoid the new food."
Indeed, a 1996 study [9] published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to soy beans that had been implanted with a Brazil nut protein. There is also some evidence that even proteins don't usually cause allergies can become allergenic when they are moved to a new food. A 2005 Australian study [10] found that mice who were fed peas containing a typically non-allergenic protein from kidney beans experienced allergic reactions.
Another worry is that potentially allergenic GE crops might "escape" into foods. In the late '90s, the pharmaceutical giant Aventis introduced StarLink, a genetically engineered variety of corn. StarLink was approved for sale in the US, but only for non-food uses, since it contained a potentially allergenic protein. But then, traces of it started turning up in food (most famously, Taco Bell taco shells [11]), and 28 people claimed they had suffered allergic reactions to foods containing StarLink. Although the CDC later found no medical evidence [12] that any of those people had an allergy to the corn, an EPA advisory panel acknowledged that the CDC's tests did "not eliminate StarLink...protein as a potential cause of allergic symptoms."
The bottom line: It's not that genetically engineered foods are inherently more allergenic than traditional foods, but transfering genes does make it more likely that allergens might pop up in unexpected places. "There can be a lot of unintended side effects when you do genetic modification, which means you have to test very carefully," says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the watchdog group Food and Water Watch [13]. "In the case of salmon, one test on six fish just seems very insufficient for something that will open the floodgates to other GE meat and fish."

---

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/09/genetically-engineered-salmon-allergies

Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html
[2] http://www.aquabounty.com/
[3] http://www.stripersonline.com/ubb547/image_uploads6/oceanpout2.jpg
[4] http://www.aquabounty.com/products/aquadvantage-295.aspx
[5] http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/016893.html
[6] http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-why-is-the-fda-about-to-rubber-stamp-ge-salmon/
[7] http://www.alternet.org/food/148156/the_creepy_science_behind_genetically_engineered_%22frankenfish%22_about_to_enter_our_food_supply_unlabeled/
[8] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf
[9] http://www.contentnejmorg.zuom.info/cgi/content/full/334/11/688
[10] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8347
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/business/kraft-recalls-taco-shells-with-bioengineered-corn.html
[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/business/us-finds-no-allergies-to-altered-corn.html
[13] http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/seafood/stop-frankenfish/

Dogma and a Dip in the Paleo Pool...

Throughout my blog project I have questioned what purpose the blog serves in my life. It is part creative pet-project, part daily writing exercise, part exploration opportunity and part soapbox. Kinda complicated, huh? If nothing else, when you read my posts everyday there should be something interesting in them every day, because they are not all the same. I have cast my net pretty wide on this one.

But ever since I have been reading Sally Fallon’s Nourishing Traditions cookbook I feel that my blog project has taken a different turn. Not only is Fallon’s book largely new information to me, some of it goes directly against my conventional thinking. Being raised in the US, I am a product of the 1980s and 90s government attempts to sell us on a low fat diet. And while as an adult I have long believed that fat doesn’t really make us fat, I have long believed that saturated fat does clog our arteries and that animal foods are less healthy for us than vegetable foods. But in reading not only Fallon but some other sites that I have dug up recently, I am not so certain anymore.

First off, on my Notes on Perfection post last week I expressed some concerns for labeling foods as better than each other. I was speaking specifically about whole unprocessed foods, not about real foods versus processed foods. To choose between an apple and an orange as to which is healthier seems so foolish to me! And that is just a simple comparison. Imagine trying to decide between grass fed beef and say spinach. They are COMPLETELY different! It would really be pointless to decide between the two. But as Americans within our culture we do that every day without even realizing it. And there are plenty of Internet sites out there where people are doing just that, ANDI Scores anyone?

Recently in my digging under the tree of nutrition, I have recently discovered the Paleo people. The Paleo Diet assumes, much like I do, that modern food is well, too modern. That we have not evolved much beyond what our Paleolithic ancestors were eating, and so to attain optimal health we should eat like them. That means for the most part that we should be eating meats, vegetables, nuts and seeds. And some Paleo people feel strongly that you should not be eating anything that could not also be eaten raw. Fine if you want to cook it, but if you cannot digest it raw (i.e.-beans and legumes) then it would not have been in the diet of Paleolithic man. The Paleo Diet also means no grains, no added sweeteners beyond honey and no dairy. This is a very strict diet, but one that I could support because I do recognize after all my reading that you do not need grains and dairy for optimal health. Though I definitely believe that you need vegetables, and I am starting to believe that you need meat. But that is a different story for a different time. So all you vegetarians out there, no worries. I am not going to be slandering your lifestyle anytime soon.

But one thing is for sure, whenever you stand for something it means that you absolutely DO NOT stand for something else. As I was reading last week about the Paleo Diet, I stumbled across a post entitled Are Green Beans Primal or Paleo? To have a blog post come to the conclusion that green beans finally counted as food, from a writer and eater who had previously thought of them as a non-food, well that was enough to get my panties in a wad. Now granted, this writer was writing from a Paleo Diet perspective, and he was arguing that while legumes and beans are off limits in the Paleo diet because of their high lectin content, that green beans didn’t fit the mold because the bean was so small and really what we eat was the more vegetable like pod. My first reaction was to practically spit my coffee out. I have never considered beans or legumes to be unhealthy. In fact next to McDonald’s, HFCS and other even conventionally raised beef, I would have considered beans MORE healthy than most other foods processed or not. Where else in nature do you find protein AND fiber (okay—nuts, but there are some similarities).

Throughout my ‘studies’ since my blog began back in May, I have searched out some new concepts. And though I have been generally been open to them, some beliefs have been harder to topple. I truly believed that I didn’t have time to make my own broth. And I fought it for a while with one excuse after another. But now, I have finally crossed that bridge. I also had some trouble with the idea that saturated fat is important to a person’s diet. I never thought I would throw out my vegetable oils, but that is exactly what I have done. I think now that I have every application covered with lard, butter, olive oil and coconut oil. When I started this blog project I never expected to think of canola, soybean or corn oils as unhealthy, but I actually do now. But of course in hearing someone make a statement like this, I always bristle at first. “Is that person saying I am unhealthy or uneducated about my food?” I said the same thing after the green bean post. When I come across someone being particularly dogmatic about some fringe idea on the Internet I tend to dismiss it. But I try to keep an open mind. I don’t like dogma. Even sometime Sally Fallon is very black and white in her statements of what is healthy and unhealthy, and they don’t always jive with mine. She may be right, but delivery is the key. When speaking to a new audience that firmly believes in their long held conventional beliefs, addressing the reader’s apprehension is key. Fallon does a pretty good job of that in trying to persuade people to drop their conventional nutritional beliefs. But that green bean guy last week that I read on the Internet? Not so much.

In the reading and researching that I have recently been doing, some commonalities rise to the top of the endless sea of information. The Low-fat people are touting a low fat diet that is backed by the USDA and other government agencies and the majority of people in the US, but there is a lot of science that contradicts it. The Raw Food people, the Paleo people, the Atkins people, the Low Carb people and the Real Food people (I suppose if I fit in a group, this would be the one I fall into), all believe that fat is important, that processed foods are killing us, that animal fats in particular are important (except for some Raw people), and the more unadulterated a food source the better. There are so many connections between all of these that it can be said that they all belong in the same branch of nutritional evolution. What separates them are different bits of dogma.

I realized last week, that in this my second trimester at The Table of Promise, my blog project is becoming a tool for me to answer that very personal question, ‘what should I eat?’ And while I love Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, I am not willing to simply let him make all the decisions for me. My mother had a wonderful saying that I still use today “Take the good and leave the rest’. This saying has guided my life by helping me to find the good in anything and disregard the things I don’t like without judgement. The truth is I don’t have to fit into one of the preexisting nutritional groups. I can pick what I like from one or another and leave the rest without disregarding the group as a whole. I for one am trying to reconcile what I should eat with what is available to me, I am after all a modern eater. So perhaps that is the group I will be a part of, the Practical Real Food people. I think it has a nice ring to it.

Meet My Third Child....

Last weekend I finally met up with the darling of foodies everywhere....All Clad.

I had been admiring them for a while, but I didn't have the guts, the courage, I just couldn't handle it. But thanks to a credit card deal and a generous home sale and some coupon wheeling and dealing, last weekend was finally the day when we could bring these beauties home to stay.

And that, my friend, is the magic of Macy's.

Strong Legs Critical to Health

Strength, Endurance, Balance

NEW: February 2011 -
While traditional Chinese exercise for toning legs requires no weights or exercise equipment, there are many excellent Chinese-style exercises that can tone, firm and strengthen your legs from your thighs to your ankles. SOURCE

Cirque du Soleil
 
NEW: 24 September 2010 -
from Matthew Scott, Chinese Health Exercises

According to traditional Chinese medical wisdom you are only as old as your legs.

Chinese medical wisdom also says if you strengthen your legs you can slow down the affects of aging and stop certain health problems.

Naturally, there are many traditional Chinese exercises to strengthen your legs. These are done using your bodyweight only. Some are so easy anyone can do them, while others you may need to build up to.

The benefits of strong, flexible legs include:

1. Better support for your whole body

2. Better balance

3. Less chance of leg and lower back pain

Traditional Chinese leg exercises do more than this though. They stimulate important energy meridians in your legs and these meridians are linked to certain internal organs like your spleen, liver and kidneys.

Do the exercises and you benefit your legs AND your internal organs.

Exercise in the traditional Chinese sense also includes techniques like self-massage and acupressure. These techniques involve pressing and rubbing specific points and areas on your legs (and other body areas) to improve circulation, stop pain, increase flexibility and more. 

There are two programs on the site showing you on video traditional Chinese exercises for the legs. There is the Long Life Exercise Programfor overall better health and the Knee Exercises Program aimed specifically at the legs.

from January 2010 - Do You Have Strong Legs?

Lower-body strength translates into good balance, flexibility, and endurance.

As you get older, those attributes are key to reducing your risk of falls and injuries -- particularly hip fractures, which often quickly lead to declining health. Up to 20% of hip-fracture patients die within 1 year because of complications from the trauma.

"Having weak thigh muscles is the number one predictor of frailty in old age," says Robert Butler, MD, president of the International Longevity Center USA in New York City.

Here's one of many suggestions to strengthen them, I know this exercise as "wall sitting".

"Target your quads with the "phantom chair" move, says Joan Price, author of The Anytime, Anywhere Exercise Book. Here's how: Stand with back against wall. Slowly walk feet out and slide back down until you're in a seated position, ensuring knees aren't beyond toes and lower back is pressed against wall. Hold until your thighs tell you, Enough! Do this daily, increasing your hold by a few seconds each time."

I do some sort of leg strengthening exercise daily because, as a writer for most of my time, I do a lot of sitting.

One resource I like is http://www.chinese-holistic-health-exercises.com/

And there's more here.

Potato Leek Soup with Kale Chips

My mother used to make a Baked Potato Soup that was a bomb of pureed potato, sour cream, cheddar cheese, cream and bacon. I always thought of the soup as unhealthy because of how high it was in fat. But it was a special family soup. My mother loved making it and I loved eating it!

Fast forward 15 years and I have changed my views about what is healthy and nutritious. I embrace fats in my diet, especially butter fat from both butter and cream and whole milk (as long as it's a good pastured source). No longer do I think that such a soup should be slandered as unhealthy. There are some considerable alterations that one can make to make this soup more nutritious.

First off, my mother always peeled the potatoes. She was using russet potatoes, or your average Idaho Potatoes. Here in the Northeast, farmers do grow russets, but they are quite a bit smaller here. What I see everywhere are creamer potatoes or waxy potatoes. This time of year you can still find the little 'new' potatoes because the potato season is just beginning. I have gotten a couple pounds of potatoes from our CSA for the last three weeks and they have all been these creamer potatoes with very tender skins. Potatoes with their skins intact are far far more healthy. Potatoes in general I believe receive a bad rap. High in Vitamin C, Vitamin B6, copper, potassium, manganese, iron and protein to start, this tuber may have some carbohydrate calories, but it sure supports a nutritious diet. But skins are where alot of the nutrients lie, so keep them on and learn to love them. In this soup you won't even know that they are there. And I did scrub them very very very well.

Second of all (drum roll), I made my own stock for this soup. Last weekend I boiled a pot of chicken bones on low for four hours just like Sally Fallon told me to. Then I boiled it down to a very thick broth and froze them in my silicone muffin cups. I had forgotten where my ice cube trays were. But the muffin cups worked just fine! After all the bitching and moaning I did about making my own stocks, I overcame. Who here is proud of me??

Lastly, I cut back on the amount of bacon. I used about 4 ounces of true artisan bacon from Flying Pigs at the Union Square Green Market. They still use nitrates, but I am not as worried about them after a reader suggested that nitrates occur naturally and non-naturally. I really am trying to investigate all sources of information for a truly independent opinion. I have read that the non-natural sources have been found to be carcinogenic. I need to do more research there. I simply assumed that if I bought artisan bacon at the farmer's market (at $15 a pound no less) that they would not be using nitrates. Read your labels guys! I do know that the pork is pastured and humanely treated though.

Potato Leek Soup

About 2 pounds of potatoes

4 cups of chicken broth (or enough to almost cover the potatoes)

4 ounces of bacon, diced

3-4 small leeks, sliced

1 cup of heavy cream

In a 3 quart saucepan, place the potatoes and broth. Boil and then cover and reduce to a simmer to allow the potatoes to get nice and soft. In a large frying pan, cook the back on medium heat until crispy. Remove the bits and drain the grease, but leave 2-3 tbsp of fat. Fry the leeks in the remaining fat until soft, maybe 10 minutes. When the potatoes are soft, add the leeks into the potato pot. This next step is much easier with an immersion blender, but you can puree using a food processor too. Add the cream (substitute with milk if you wish, or just add milk if the soup is too thick) and puree the leeks and potatoes and their skins, everything all together. Stir in the bacon bits and enjoy. Like really really enjoy.

As far as the Kale chips go, did you know about this? Who's been holding out on me??? I got this recipe from the guy that was standing behind me in the line to pick up my CSA veggies. When he said it was the only way to eat kale I knew I had to give it a try. Thank goodness I stood next to him.

Kale Chips

1 Bunch of hearty kale, the flat kind (I am not sure you can do this with the curly kind, but I am sure a reader will tell me)

Drizzle of olive oil

Kosher or Sea Salt

Cut the very very woody stems off the kale, but leave an inch or so of stem in place as a 'handle'. Spread the kale in one even layer (no overlapping!) on a sheet pan. I had to use two pans for my bunch of kale, which was not all that big. Drizzle the kale with a little olive oil, sprinkle them with salt. Bake at 400 for about 15 minutes. But check on them. It went by really really fast for me. Then just remove from the oven and enjoy.

I didn't tell Thing 1 that it was kale. I just told him they were chips. He ate the first one (and crumbled it all over my nice clean couch), and then promptly handed me back the stem and said "I like chips, they are good. I am going to get another one." He must have eaten 10 of them when it was all said and done. Did I hear that right? Did both of my children eat dark leafy greens this week? Score two for Mommy.

Don't forget to check out Fight Back Fridays at Food Renegade! There are lots of real food articles to read!

Yes, Mammogram isn't as beneficial as you are told

Yet another new article supports what we have been stating for decades - and what Dr John Gofman and others have proven in excellent research!

THINK! Before You Pink

Mammogram offers modest benefit

Breast cancer screening policy

By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer  Sep 22

LOS ANGELES – Mammograms don't help women over 50 as much as has been believed, new research suggests.
Only a third of the reduced risk of death credited to breast cancer screening is actually deserved — the rest is due to better treatment and greater awareness of the disease, a large study in Norway found.
The research, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, is the latest to show that the benefits of mammography are limited.
"It's not the great lifesaver that people think it is. It's not a magic bullet," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt who was not involved in the study.
Mandelblatt headed six teams that helped shape the new mammogram guidelines issued last year by an influential government task force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that women at average risk for breast cancer don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one just every two years starting at 50.
The World Health Organization estimates that mammograms reduce the breast cancer death rate by 25 percent in women over 50. Other groups put the figure at 15 to 23 percent.
The latest study found that while mammograms cut the risk of dying, the benefit was disappointingly low. Women who were screened had a 10 percent lower risk of death from breast cancer, but only a third of that reduction was due to screening itself.
Some 2,500 women would have to be regularly screened over 10 years to save one life from breast cancer, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School noted in an accompanying editorial.
In the study, scientists were able to tease out the benefits of mammography by studying Norway's breast cancer screening program, which began as a pilot in 1996 and later expanded to the entire country. As part of the national screening program, teams of doctors were set up in every county to treat any breast cancer cases that did occur, whether they were found by mammograms or other ways.
Some 40,000 women with breast cancer were included in the study. Women ages 50 through 69 were offered screening every two years.
Researchers compared the breast cancer death rate in four groups: a screening group of women living in areas where mammograms were offered; a non-screening group in regions that did not have screening; and two comparison groups of women from the decade before the screening program began, from the same counties as the women in the other two groups.
This allowed researchers to separate the effects of mammography from other factors that may have an impact on survival such as improved treatment and increased awareness.
Among women in the screening group, the breast cancer death rate declined by 7.2 deaths per 100,000 people compared with women in the decade before the screening program started. The death rate in the non-screening group fell by 4.8 deaths per 100,000 people compared with its historical counterpart.
That means that mammography reduced mortality by only 2.4 deaths per 100,000 people — a third of the total risk of death.
A second part of the study bore this out: Women over 70, who weren't eligible for screening, had an 8 percent lower risk of dying from breast cancer compared to the previous decade, pointing to the benefit of better care.
The study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. It was led by Dr. Mette Kalager of Oslo University Hospital with collaboration from Harvard University and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
More than 1 million women worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and more than 500,000 die from it. In the United States last year, there were an estimated 194,280 new cases and 40,610 deaths from the disease.
The American Cancer Society has long advocated that women get annual breast cancer screenings starting at 40.
The small benefit of mammograms in the latest study may be because the women weren't followed long enough, suggested Otis Brawley, the cancer society's chief medical officer, in a statement.
"The total body of the science supports the fact that regular mammography is an important part of a woman's preventive health care," Brawley said. "Following the American Cancer Society's guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer improves the chances that breast cancer can be diagnosed at an early stage and treated successfully."

http://www.nejm.org

Some of the 30+ related articles from Natural Health News

Natural Health News: Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

May 21, 2010

"What I didn't know was that I have dense breast tissue and like two-thirds of pre-menopausal women and one quarter of post-menopausal women, I have a much lower chance of having breast cancer detected by a mammogram." ...

Natural Health News: Call For A Differing Viewpoint

Aug 04, 2010

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...

Docs Miss Cancer on Mammogram

Dec 12, 2007

Dec 12, 2007

A new three-state study led by Seattle's Group Health Cooperative shows that even the most skilled radiologists fail to detect 20 percent of breast-cancer cases in diagnostic mammograms — which are done when cancer is suspected and when ...

Better to Rethink Mammogram

Nov 17, 2009

As a person with an investigative mine I did look for all of the options and I will continue to support the science behind the dark side of mammogram that no one seems to want you to know. And I will encourage thermography. ...

Some Thoughts on Perfection

I have been thinking recently about the world's most perfect food.

Is it the pig? Yummy shoulder roasts or lean loin roasts, bacon and the well balanced fat, lard?

Is it broccoli? Firm texture, great raw and cooked. Kids love it as well as most adults, high in calcium, fiber and countless other nutrients. The things you can do with broccoli are endless.

Is it the coconut? Fleshy over sized nuts, pure white, good in sweet applications, but equally good in savory stews an curries. High in protein and fiber all with the healthy properties of coconut oil that you can use in so many different ways.

Is it dark leafy greens? Not much fat or protein, but tons of nutrients, vitamins and mineral, you literally do not have to ever limit your consumption. Go ahead and eat yourself silly, you probably cannot eat so many greens that they would do anything to you except give you a tummy ache from overeating.

Is it Salmon? Protein and Omega-3s, eaten cooked or raw or in between, it doesn't matter. There are fewer heart healthy proteins that also are high in fat that the real food people and the nutritionists both would tell you are good. Virtually impossible to screw up, and my kids will actually eat this?

The truth is, I haven't ever eaten a perfect food from a nutritional perspective. Though if you were talking about a taste perspective, there is this Belgian place downtown that double fries their french fries....

I have several health minded friends that when told about my blog always ask me, 'what is the healthiest thing I can eat, like the most bang for your buck'. And the answer is no answer at all. Every meal counts for eating healthful nutrient rich foods. But the nutrients we all need are supplied over a wide variety of items. I am fairly certain that biologically we have all evolved to eat meat, vegetables and nuts and seeds. But beyond that there are grains and dairy and all manner of other happiness inducing items.

Because our food is alive, all those plants and animals have had to compete against other plants and animals for their share of the earth's resources. When an ecosystem is in balance, there is not too much excess out there. There is enough sunlight for the plants, there are enough plants for the small herbivores to eat, there are enough small herbivores for the large animals to eat and so on. When an ecosystem is in balance one species doesn't get too over populated. It is natures way. Thus it make sense to me that all food sources are here for a reason. One species may be the only kind of their animal group to be able to live a certain place or eat a certain thing that is plentiful there...whatever that reason may be.

We evolved to eat more than one thing. The fact there is not one food to which we have unequivocally adapted should be the first evidence. Cows eat grass. They get insects from that grass for sure, but they have evolved to get what they need from grass and that works out well, because there is a lot of grass out there. But Humans and rats and pigs and possibly some others that we aren't aware of, have all evolved as omnivores. Able to adapt our eating habits to whatever nature throws at us.

So my friends, for your own happiness's sake, stop worrying so much about the perfect food. Apples aren't any better than oranges, there is room in our diets for beef and fish and chicken. Experiment with Olive Oil, lard, coconut oil and butter. We need so many things from different foods. Live your lives, share delicious foods with your families, indulge in the things you really love, eat fat and savor it. There really are only a couple big rules, eat real food, and enjoy yourselves.

HIPAA: Privacy Still at Risk

Most people have been led to believe that HIPAA is to protect your information, especially your health information.  That has never been the case and here is an item that calls this to your attention, even though we have been reporting on this for many years.

It is important to note that the HIPAA privacy rule permits public-health workers to use and disclose individually identifiable health data without patients' authorization. This is a major loophole that allows patients’ personal health information to be shared with many others—without their consent.  (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E—Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.512 “Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required.”)

Further, the information below should be an eye opener. 

Proposed Changes to Privacy Rule Won’t Ensure Privacy

The federal government once again is modifying the HIPAA privacy rule.  This time around it’s modifying the rule to incorporate legal requirements in the economic stimulus law passed in 2009.   But since that law doesnot require consent before health information is shared for most purposes (including treatment, payment, and health-care operations), the modifications will fail to truly protect health privacy rights.  IHF first reported on this in March 2009: http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/March2009.html#Article2  

IHF noted that while the stimulus law aimed to prohibit the sale of electronic health records, the exceptions are so broad that it fails to meet its purported objective.  In fact, the stimulus law actually permits the selling of Americans’ electronic health records for public-health and research purposes—without patients’ consent.  The stimulus law also limits insurers’ access to health data, but only if patients pay out-of-pocket and forgo insurance reimbursement. 

Additionally, the stimulus law expanded the number of people authorized to access patients’ personal health information without patients’ consent.  Previously HHS estimated that about 600,000 covered entities (and their employees) would have access to patients’ data for many purposes.  However, the stimulus law added some 1.5 million “business associates” who can legally access patients’ health records—without patients’ consent.  Now over 2 million health-related organizations and their business partners will have legal access to patients’ health data without consent in many circumstances (see table below).  

Number of Health-Care Entities and Business Associates With Access to

Patients’ Health Information under HIPAA Privacy Rule

Health-Care Entity	Number
Business Associates* (conduct business on behalf of entities listed below)	1,500,000
Office of MDs, DOs, Mental Health Practitioners, Dentists, PT, OT, ST, Audiologists	419,286
Durable Medical Equipment Suppliers	107,567
Pharmacies	88,396
Nursing Facilities**	34,400
Home Health Service Covered Entities	15,329
Outpatient Care Centers***	13,962
Medical Diagnostic, and Imaging Service Covered Entities	7,879
Other Ambulatory Care Service Covered Entities (Ambulance and Other)	5,879
Hospitals (General Medical and Surgical, Psychiatric, Substance Abuse, Other Specialty)	4,060
Third Party Administrators Working on Behalf of Covered Health Plans	3,522
Health Insurance Carriers	1,045
Total Entities and Business Associates	2,201,325
* According to HHS, examples of business associates include third-party administrators or pharmacy benefit managers for health plans, claims processing or billing companies, transcription companies, and persons who perform legal, actuarial, accounting, management, or administrative services for covered entities and who require access to protected health information.  ** Includes nursing care facilities, residential mental retardation facilities, residential mental health and substance abuse facilities, community care facilities for the elderly, and continuing care retirement communities.  *** Includes family planning centers, outpatient mental health and drug abuse centers, other outpatient health centers, HMO medical centers, kidney dialysis centers, freestanding ambulatory surgical and emergency centers,  and all other outpatient care centers. Source: “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act,” RIN: 0991–AB57, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010 (see pages 40872, 40906, 40907, 40911).

Thus, the stimulus law expanded the number of people who can access patients’ health information but stillfailed to give patients the final say in who may—and may not—see their most personal health records. Rather than tinkering around the edges modifying the weak HIPAA privacy rule (as required by the stimulus law), it’s time to call on Congress to change the law to ensure that patient consent is required before personal health information is shared for any purpose, including public health. 

What’s more, although the stimulus law doesn’t give patients the right to control the electronic flow of their health information, it does require the secretary of HHS to post a list of breaches of “unsecured protected” (HHS’s term!) health information affecting 500 or more individuals.  The breaches are posted here:http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/breachtool.html 

Sources:

• “HHS Releases Proposed HIPAA Rule Extending Mandate to Business Associates,” Kendra Casey Plank, BNA’s Health Care Policy Report, July 12, 2010.
• “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act,” RIN: 0991–AB57, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010.

“How the Economic Stimulus Law Affects Your Health Privacy Rights,” Health Freedom Watch newsletter published by the Institute for Health Freedom, March 2009:http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/March2009.html#Article2