Organic Food Not Healthier

NPR ran a story yesterday about the lack of evidence for organic foods healthfulness. Not much to my surprise, scientific studies have failed to show that organic foods have greater mineral or vitamin content, or any other nutritional properties often attributed to them. What the story misses is the environmental health issues surrounding the production of conventional agriculture-particularly the health risks for migrant farm laborers and the issues of fertilizer and pesticide run-off. The story mentions that the pesticide levels on organic produce have been found not to be harmful or toxic. But the long term effects of pesticide/herbicide/fungicide/hormone ingestion from conventional products is inconclusive, the story notes.

The angle taken by NPR regarding organics and health fits well into the "Not In My Body" ethos of many organic devotees. Many consumers buy organic as a health preventive measure and think little beyond that. What's missing  in their analysis are the threats to workers and the environment which are certainly about health, just not about the organic shopper's bodily safety.

And anyway, this is old news. There has never really been any evidence for the nutritional superiority of organics. That was just one of the desires of advocates and marketers subtly peddled that bit in organic advertising campaigns.

Maybe it is time to start thinking less about organics and more about reforming the conventional foods system- the whole big monster for the benefit of all eaters!

Questioning the Obesity Epidemic: A Review of Weighing In

Julie Guthman is my new hero, at least when it comes to deflating the so-called “obesity epidemic”. Her book, Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism (2011), really hits my skeptical foodie itch. That said, this ain’t light reading. It is d-e-n-s-e! I will try to summarize her main points; if you’re still interested, get the book and slog through it.

To Be An Epidemic, or Not to Be An Epidemic.

Guthman begins by picking apart the very idea that America is experiencing an “obesity epidemic”. She does not deny the documented weight gain trend. But is this phenomenon an epidemic?   Studies that set this epidemic talk in motion, point to BMI (Body Mass Index) increases since the 1980s, as prime evidence. Guthman’s got a whole bunch of issues with the BMI as an analytical tool.  Most particularly, she thinks the cutoffs between overweight and normal, normal and underweight are all pretty arbitrary. In 1998 the NIH moved the bottom overweight BMI from 27 down to 25. With that simple move, a slew of Americans became overweight overnight. Guthman suggests that we are seeing a trend of weight increase, particularly for those on the top end of the scale. But many folks remained in the normal and overweight range, both of which are not correlated with health issues or early death. So where is the crisis, she asks?   This emergency rhetoric has real consequences for those on the higher end of the scale. “The epidemic language", Guthman argues,  "is somewhat cruel, simultaneously minimizing the violence of serious plagues and overstating the association between corpulence with death” (32).

Fatness and Social Censure

Guthman  wants us to think hard about how we (the media and individuals) discuss fatness. We are disgusted by weight. We behead the overweight in news stories about obesity. We berate people on reality television—and later honor them with money and admiration for becoming thinner.  We have pathologized and stigmatized fatness.  And we have made thinness magical beauty. The thin and fit are idealized for just that being thin and fit, even if they are idiots or  assholes. And the thin and the fit get to make their body type the medical and social ideal.  With thinness set as the sought-after norm, it is no coincidence that doctors and medical scientists have made overweight and obesity a national health crisis. Guthman doesn’t give scientists and doctors a free pass; she thinks they are just as susceptible to culture cues as the rest of us. They have done much to make overweight and obesity abnormal and sick. 

Here's an excellent example of how the anti-fat, personal responsibility rule finds its way into the collective consciousness. And how we have given thin, wealthy, and famous folks the right to publicly humiliate the overweight.

The Energy Balance Model: The Answer
Guthman goes after the much touted remedy for overweight and obesity- that is the “stop shoving crap into your cakehole and go to the gym” thesis .  Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman,  Marion Nestle and others routinely point to this "calories in, calories out" formula as the solution to America's weight crisis. Guthman, on the other hand, argues that  1) Weight loss ain't easy and the food reduction, exercise increase remedy has been show not to work for many, many well-intentioned, good people. 2) She also, more controversially, suggests that this decades long weight increase may have nothing to do with eating too much and moving too little. She wonders how the energy balance model applies to the 73.5% increase, from 1980-2001,  of overweight babies. Robert Lustig, from UCal San Fran., humorously notes that that this is a “segment that doesn’t go to the movies, can’t chew and was never that much into exercise” (99). These babies certainly aren't eating too much and slacking off, so what's up with their weight increase?

Why are we fat, then?
Obesogen or EDCs (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals). What are obesogens, you ask? They are Guthman's word for chemicals that work to disrupt normal hormonal functioning and cause weight gain. We've been swimming in a pool of  food additives and agricultural chemicals with hormone disrupting properties; they are responsible for our nation's spare tire. In light of obesogens, the obsession with individual consumption and fitness is energy poorly spent from Guthman's perspective.  Instead we should dial down the obesity hysteria and scolding and start the hard work of reform and regulation of our food system

Guthman's obesogens proposal got heated responses from readers of  her New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle articles. Everyone wanted to testify to how they lost weight by eating less and exercising, that it was a matter of settled physics, that Americans were fatsos and they needed to get off their lazy butts and... Anecdotal evidence and ad hominems.  The ferocity of the comments indicates how loyal we are to the idea that weight gain is a personal problem and a failure of will power. 

The Limits of Capitalism 
For Guthman, Capitalism, not lazy Americans, created this food crisis by making and selling cheap food  packed with chemical fillers and additives. And capitalism made these cheap foods necessary by decreasing the average American income since the 1960s. Adjusted for inflation, weekly wages have gone from $302.52 in 1964 to $277.57 in 2004. Moreover our consumer debt has risen precipitously in this same period. Cheap food and other goods keep underpaid Americans consuming (169). 

In the hands-off, de-regulatory context of the 1980s, 90s and 00s, food producers have poured pollution into the air, water, and our bodies with reckless abandon.We imbibed all this and got fat. And now capitalism is offering a solution through more consumption. The overweight can buy their way out of fatness through Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers or follow the more ascetic and aesthetic local-organic path.   

My Take-Away
I am enthralled by Guthman's no-holds-barred attack on America's obesity fixations. I am right with her for most of the book. But I need more evidence for the obesogens theory. She builds this argument on too few studies, while she simultaneously critiques obesity epidemic advocates for relying on limited  science. Until there is more proof for obesogens, I will hold my breath. I did not cover the very compelling parts of Weighing In that look at the class and racial implications of the obesity epidemic and the alternative food movement's role in bolstering obesity mania.  I encourage you to get the book and read these parts OR stay tuned for future posts that take on these issues. 

Eating Amidst a Welter of Information

About a month ago, I was watching the comedy-documentary "Fat Head". I found the film irritating but the anti-carb argument provocative. So I followed the film's research trail back to Gary Taubes-a NY Times science writer. I already had Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories and had read bits of it but not the work in its entirety. After watching a 1.5 hour long video of Taubes and some lipidologist discussing how the body uses carbs vs. how it uses fat, I suddenly became more convinced by their radical pro-fat, pro-protein dietary theory.

Let me just say that Taubes, because he is an iconoclast, can sometimes be quite egomaniacal. That is, everyone else, a century of dietary science, doctors, dietitians, the USDA, everyone is wrong and he, because he is some kind of dietary seer, is correct. But since I am reflexive doubter, I found his certainty and anti-establishmentarianism pretty seductive. In particular I found his argument that America's shunning of cholesterol and fat has caused us to consume loads of compensatory carbohydrates. We're filling up on whatever breads, cereals, pastas, rice, potatoes and corn we can get our hands on, because we've abandoned the more filling and satiating--butter, bacon, eggs and well-marbled meats. According to Taubes and the lipidologist, carbs, of all kinds (whole and refined) turn into sugar in our bloodstream and this sugar causes a rise in cholesterol. This carb-sugar also takes a toll on our pancreas, liver, kidneys and heart. Fat, on the other hand, the body uses and needs. Fat does not solidify in our arteries, they claim. So the whole idea that when we consume a pat of butter that is clings to and hardens in our arteries is really just imaginary land.

Imagine if Taubes and this lipidologist are correct, that these decades of whole grain, low fat, high veg. devotion are actually the cause of America's dietary based diseases--that this dietary truth could possible be deconstructed, if, and that is a big if, the other possibility were actually addressed and scientifically studied. Now some folks would say that there is plenty of proof out there to verify the low fat, whole grain diet. The great thing about Taubes though is that he rejects the idea that the science is settled. Moreover, he brings to the forefront how normalized certain science becomes, it becomes common sense because it is established as common sense. But ultimately, nothing is ever fully settled, any historian of science could show you that the common sense of a century ago- the truly believed and assumed dietary rules-are now laughed at, seen as quaint and "old-timey" foolishness.

I like Taubes' skepticism, for as you know, I am a skeptical sort. And I like to imagine 100 years out that folks will look back at the veg-whole grain-low fat dogma and say wasn't that odd, how everyone stopped eating juicy delicious steaks blanketed in luxurious pats of butter. How silly and sad that eating era was. Poor them.

Food For Thought or Thinking About Food

Hey if anyone is interested the Mid-Atlantic Popular/American Culture Association has its annual meeting in Philadelphia next Thurs.-Sat.

I am talking about Anti-Feminism in the current and past natural foods movements. My talk is called "Food Revolution Anti-Feminism: From Laurel's Kitchen to Michael Pollan."

Come on down. MAPACA is a quirky org. Friendly to lay-folk and academics as well. Here is a link: http://www.mapaca.net/confer/conferHome.html

Peace out food folks.

Seven Fishes and The Ethics of Vegetarianism

Every Christmas Eve a friend of mine has a "seven fishes" dinner. This year was no different, but with one change. Since last Christmas the mate and I have been off meat and fish. We are not fanatical or self-advertising about it. We eat meat if it is served to us or if we have a craving. But overall, for about a year, we have eaten little meat. Since last December, I haven't cooked meat (maybe once this summer for a cookout or something).

Why no meat? Like all other white American women of a certain class and culture, I have dabbled in vegetarianism throughout my adult life. Much of this vegetarianism was driven by a desire for peer inclusion or for silly body-thin ambitions.

But, when I became the foodie that makes up one half of my Skeptical Foodie moniker, I went to meat in a big way. At first, since my foodism was born out of research on the 1970s natural food movement, my explorations were vegetable based. But later when I dug deeply into contemporary food culture, I went the way of meat--really for the first time since my childhood when meat was regular family fare. This is not to say that I was roasting big hunks of animal or eating chops on any kind of regular basis. But my culinary experimentations took me to braising chicken and lamb shanks, stewing up Beouf Bourguignon, and making fish tacos.

Unfortunately my expansion coincided with my mate's recoil from carnivorism. He had tried for a couple of years to get me to fully abandon animal flesh, but not with a lot of success, until last year when he laid out the details of his troubles. He teaches an ethics course every spring semester and devotes one segment of the course to the consideration of vegetarianism via Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. So every spring he has to confront his own relationship with the ethics of meat eating. Many of his students turned vegetarian or vegan after taking this course. But he remained on the borderland of meat and veg.



His achilles heel was me. I am the cook in our house, very much by choice. And he is not, very much by choice. If I wouldn't give up the meat, he couldn't give up the meat. Sure I hear folks thinking, well if it was so important to him, why didn't he learn to cook. But really, the food I make is generally pretty good. I like to do this work. So why would he rock that excellent boat. Hot interesting food made regularly, if I had that deal, I wouldn't screw with it.



Somehow last December, he turned me. We went over the fine details of Singer's argument, much of which I knew but hadn't honestly considered. And I came to the realization that I had no grounds on which to continue meat-eating, except for desire and taste. Taking into account the conditions under which most meat is produced, I couldn't continue to justify my meat eatings. So I gave it up, reluctanlty, sadly, but I gave it up.


Like I, before this new food regime, most people do not like to be challenged about their meat eating. I found this out when teaching Singer's work in a food history course last spring. People like to say that meating eating is in human nature, or it is evolutionarily justified (humans have been eating this way forever, that's why they survived several millenia or why they have meat eating teeth) or that health necessitates it.

A recent end-round argument, forwarded by Michael Pollan and others, states that if one kills an animal with one's own hands or gets meat from an upstanding local farmer, one is not implicated in ethical crimes inherent to mass meat production and consumption. I am not satisfied with these new outs. In the end, one is killing another being not for survival, but for taste and for pleasure. I am all for pleasurable tastes, by gosh I spend most of my waking hours considering tastes and the pleasures of the palate. But I can't sit comfortably with the idea of killing another being because I like and miss the taste of meat.

Folks also like to go to "what if" scenarios, when arguing for meat eating. "So you're saying that Nepalese shepards who only have access to lamb meat and wild greens should only eat the greens, and die!" Viola! Isn't ethical vegetarianism rigid and goofy and elitist? But in reality, my vegetable convictions are only based on the choices that are before me, in 21st century, ex-urban America. And holy shit, do I have some choices, lots of food options. So, again, why choose meat?

Oh yea, folks also like to argue that animals don't have consciousness or don't feel pain in the same manner as humans. That they don't have a concept of self or of the future, so they don't have the same dread of death or plans for the future. Or they don't know what's coming, so it's okay because they are oblivious to their impending demise and then they're dead. So what's the big deal? That one doesn't fly for me for obvious reasons. Does a being have to be exactly human to be warranted the right to be alive?

Don't get me wrong, I know humans use animals for their purposes, they always have. If I eat eggs and cheese, which I most adamantly do, that animal is being forced to produce for my benefit only. Thus veganism is really the only valid position for an animal rights advocate. I'm not there yet. I'm still imperfect. And anyway, I feel there is a difference between killing, ending a life, and using a life. Hmm... that's starting to sound a bit flimsy, I know it. Ok let's move on.

Back to the Seven Fishes dinner. I originally assumed that I would not be eating fish at this dinner or maybe only a little. But my husband reminded me of his, what I will call, "manners and community before ethical purity" rule. The rule goes like this. When someone makes you food, you eat it. If you are a vegetarian eat your mother's meatballs, eat a burger at your friend's bar-b-que. If there aren't other options, just eat, don't make a fuss. And when this happens, enjoy the free ride away from vegetable world.

I like this rule and I like my husband for having it. It does not put my private decision, based on very private and thoughtful considerations, in the face of my host. It doesn't require that he/she recognize my food quirks and curiosities. It makes me a gracious visitor, not a proselytizer or a bore.

I don't love being a vegetarian. I wish I could think my way back to meat. But I don't think I can. And fish, forget about it, the state of fish life is a mess.

I don't feel like joining any vegetarian clubs or cliches. I don't subscribe to vegetarian food mags, cause I don't trust vegetarian cooks. Any surprise that the Skeptical Foodie is a Skeptical Vegetarian?

The Seven Fishes feast was delicious: Crab Dip, Shrimp and Mango salad, Fish Stew Crawfish Etoufee. Holy Moly. I can't wait until next year.

Son of a Beep!

I think I should know two things by now in my baking career.

1. My bundt pan skills are subpar, amateurish, well, just plain stupid.

2. Don't rush a cake.

I spent most of one night about two weeks ago looking through cookbooks trying to chose a baked good for my holiday work party. I settled on a coffee, milk chocolate chip bundt cake from Lisa Yockelson's Baking By Flavor. Her stuff is pretty rich and often unnecessarily complicated, but I thought I'd give it a try. I am trying to follow my new rule of "if you want cake, bake cake, eat cake, don't worry about fat content". I got up pretty early the morn of the party to bake said cake. I wanted to go to a spinning class at my new (not entirely loved) exercise club. And I wanted to get some work done pre-party.

So I baked this cake. It smelled fantabulous. Looked fine coming out of the oven. But I decided to get it out of the pan before I left for the stupid spin class.

Ok now you should turn your head away, this is going to get ugly.

The sucker came out fast and fine, but when I pulled the bundt pan away, huge craters of bakedness were clinging to the pan and not the cake. I had to get to the spin class, so I did emergency pasting surgery and ran out the door (can ya tell?).

And guess what, when I got to the gym, the fancy Thurs. morning ladies had taken every bleepin' last bike. God damn!! Some crazy looking dude came and pushed his way ahead of me into the instructor's bike: I left pretty hot and bothered. That morning did not work out in anyway whatsoever.

I tried to pretty her up with a sugar powdering, so sad. But hey, it tasted as good as it smelled.

Respect the cake! Respect the Bundt pan!

Healthy Banana Chocolate Chip Nut Muffins

I like to make muffins, because, well, I like cake.

And what else is a muffin but a round little, hand holdable cake. For years I used Mollie Katzen's Sunlight Cafe for all my muffin recipes. She offers multiple versions: fruit and grain and chocolate and ricotta. And she adds all kinds of protein and nutrient boosters. This makes me feel better about making myself 12-14 small cakes (the husband usually only eats 1-2 muffins and is through with them). The only issue with Sunlight's muffins is that they tend to be a bit heavy and short as all whole grain baked goods are want to do.


Anyway, as I peruse my cooking magazines (I get about 3 a month and I read them cover to cover immediately, sometimes on the way from the mailbox to my house), I will always stop to consider a muffin recipe.

This week, with three bananas ripening towards liquification, I searched out a muffin recipe for these tropical babies. I remembered a quick bread section in an old Eating Well issue.

The results were just fine. I would say on the rather bland side. They needed a tad more salt and maybe more sugar?? The other problem is that healthful muffins usually call for considerable amount of leavening to get those whole flours off the ground. And alas, they taste like it, a bit chemically. I wonder why I don't just make a full on fat and sugar muffin. I mean I'm looking to eat cake right? Why the hell not bake cake and eat cake, rather than live with some ersatz cakesque health bun? Oh postmodern life, how you taunt me.