Can You "Engineer" a Food To Be Healthier?

CK readers know all about my dislike of branded boxed cereal, one of the food industry's most heavily engineered products. It costs too much, it's usually loaded with sugar (often hidden in plain sight on the ingredients list), and it's packaged in tall, skinny boxes that seem bigger than they really are.

Worse, thanks to stealth price hikes, those tall, skinny boxes contain less and less cereal each year. Which reminds me of the famous joke from Annie Hall: "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." "Yeah, I know. And such small portions!"

Which is why news that General Mills has been re-engineering some of their breakfast cereals is both timely and fascinating. A Wall Street Journal article* recently chronicled General Mills' efforts to reduce the sugar in Lucky Charms, a cereal I practically grew up on.

What's more interesting, however, are the problems that pop up when you try to tweak the ingredients list of a manufactured food. For example, when you cut a cereal's sugar content, it doesn't float in milk. It gets soggy too quickly and loses that satisfying crunch. And, hey, if that soggy, unsatisfying crunch isn't sweet enough, kids won't eat your cereal at all. Which means the parents of those kids won't buy your cereal.

Another example--one that's borderline nasty: When General Mills attempted to reduce the sodium content in their low-fat crescent rolls, the rolls became moldy. Mmm-mmmmm.

Stuff like this makes me wish I were a sanctimonious food pundit, because it's so laughably easy to explain away these issues using the prism of corporate greed. Think about it. General Mills is greedy if they leave the salt in--that's because they're feeding us hyperpalatable salt-laden rolls that give us hypertension. And they're greedier still if they take the salt out and our food gets moldy--that's because they're trying to kill us with unsafe food. And if they put the salt back in, they're even greedier still for making their food unhealthy all over again on purpose. Clearly, all they care about is putting profits before people. QED.

And yet it's another thing entirely to try to figure out a incredibly complex problem like how to get safe, shelf-stable food out the door that tastes good enough for people to buy. A fat lot of good it does General Mills or consumers to make healthier food if it sits moldy and unbought on store shelves.

Which is why I want my readers to be knowledgeable, empowered consumers who can grasp several sides of an issue. Look, food companies want us to buy their foods and they want to make a profit. Duh. They also want to sell us what we want, which means if we demand healthier food they will make it for us. So far, so good.

But can we consumers expect these foods to taste exactly the same, have the same shelf life and perform exactly like the prior unhealthy versions? It's that last step in the argument that exposes the often inconsistent expectations we consumers have for our food. As we saw with the sad, quiet death of Campbell's low-sodium soup, sometimes food company's can't win no matter what they do.

Frankly, there aren't that many examples of a food company re-engineering an engineered food--and doing it flawlessly. One that comes to mind: when Crisco removed all of the trans fats from their vegetable shortening in 2007 (readers: if you can think of others, please share them in the comments).

And yet here's an irony. Any food pundit worth his salt could still criticize Crisco! Heck, the soundbite practically writes itself: "Why did they wait so long? Why did they sell trans fat-laden vegetable shortening for years to unsuspecting customers? We all know the answer: greed. They simply put profits before people, and they only made the change after the pressure over health concerns became overwhelming."

Gosh, it's awesome to have all the answers, isn't it? But the truth is, approaching this subject from this kind of predetermined, "corporations are greedy" prism doesn't give you answers, it merely gives you the illusion of answers. Here at CK, we obviously don't want to mindlessly defend food companies--but we also aren't interested using prisms that encourage consumers to give away their power either. If you think food companies are too powerful for you, and that they can persuade you to eat food you wouldn't otherwise eat, you've already willingly given away all your power.

But there's at least one conclusion that I take away from this debate: Processed, second-order foods like boxed cereal aren't really food--they are solutions to complex engineering problems. They are designed not to feed us per se, but to float in milk, to dissolve at a certain rate, to release sweetness in certain amounts, to decompose at a certain rate, and so on. All of which takes us to what is the most fascinating quote in the entire WSJ article:

"If we just took the sugar out, you wouldn't want to eat the product left behind, independent of sweetness."

Now we're getting somewhere. After reading that quote, there's a question that practically sits up and begs to be asked: Why would you pay your hard-earned money for a food product made up of things you wouldn't want to eat?

Now that's a prism that empowers consumers.

What's your take? Share your thoughts in the comments!

* PS: Readers, to get past the WSJ paywall, just Google the title "Success Is Only So Sweet in Remaking Cereals" and you should be able to access the article.


How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!

Anticipated Reproach, And Why Vegetarians Are Such Jerks

I've never in my life met a vegetarian who was a jerk.

But whenever the subject of vegetarianism comes up--even highly flexible and inclusive versions like CK's Part-Time Vegetarianism--there's usually at least one or two vehement responses from meat-eating readers who presume that some jerk vegetarian wants to take their meat away.

Why is that? I mean, anyone spending five minutes at Casual Kitchen would quickly figure out that we're not vegetarians. We're not a threat to the meat-eating world at all. We're just trying to eat a little healthier and save some dough.

Here's the thing. When a meat-lover responds in an aggressive way to a post on vegetarianism, they expect to be pilloried for their food choices. They think a "reproach" is coming from a pack of tie-dyed vegetarian kooks, so they act accordingly.

That, in a nutshell, is Anticipated Reproach. Essentially, people are expecting missiles to be fired at them, so they fire their biggest missiles first--in a pre-emptive strike to protect themselves.

Anticipated Reproach explains how arguments spontaneously appear out of thin air. All you need is to have one person fire a defensive verbal missile, another person to react, and it's on.

I don't mean to pick on meat-eaters (although admittedly, I'm using them as a rhetorical device in this post). And obviously, the veggie/vegan/meat debate is just one of a million places where you can see anticipated reproach in action. It shows up in all kinds of discussions: in political debates, in debates on taxes and entitlements, in debates on corporate power, about the level of government involvement in our daily lives, and in every other hot-button issue we face as a society today.

It helps explain why otherwise well-behaved people start up insane arguments on Facebook, and why people will waste hours attempting to correct the views of people they don't even know.

And if you think it's only other people who do this, think again. All of us are guilty of anticipated reproach from time to time.

But here's the thing: when you anticipate a reproach that hasn't yet been made... well, you're actually imagining something that doesn't exist. You are making it up. And of course it goes without saying, you haven't furthered the discussion by one millimeter, you've taken it backwards into name-calling and defensiveness.

There's a couple of takeaways here. First, for fellow bloggers: try not to take reader comments personally, particularly the nasty ones. Those comments are almost always about the commenter, not about you. Most likely they are thinking of other times when they've been reproached for their views, and they're simply anticipating still more reproach from you.

Second, don't fall unwittingly into the various anticipated reproach traps. Don't pre-emptively escalate your language. Try to use humor, but avoid sarcastic humor (this is a particularly tough challenge for me). Don't make declarative and pontificatory statements. Instead, ask questions, and try, sincerely, to learn the thought process of the people who don't agree with you. Hey, you never know, you might even learn you were wrong!

Nahhh, probably not. :)

In any event, here at CK, you won't find yourself reproached. Ever. This is my solemn promise to you, dear readers.

I created this blog so that we could all have a "no-reproach zone" to talk about cooking, our diets and the food industry. Yes, you will find your assumptions questioned here, and yes, you'll be challenged here to think differently--sometimes very differently--about things.

But don't anticipate a reproach... because that reproach ain't coming.

Readers! What are your thoughts?


Related Posts:In Defense of Big Farms
Food Militancy, and Food Moderation
The Top Lame-Ass Excuses Between You and Better Health

Egg on Tata

This is a frequent breakfast I make for myself and Laura. It's cheap, it's healthy, it's hilariously easy, and it provides our bodies with hours of healthy energy.

I often write about thinking about your meals and your diet as tools. I want my readers to make their food work for them, so that what you eat helps you accomplish your goals.

In our case, this is the kind of breakfast I'll eat after a hard morning run, or on the morning after a day of heavy physical activity. It combines carbs, protein and fat in just the right amounts, and it's a good example of why big breakfasts are phenomenal tools for managing your weight and your food intake.

Furthermore, when I eat a high-satiety-factor breakfast like this, I'll be a lot less likely to succumb to hunger pangs later in the day--and eat something I might regret.

Finally, I'd be lax if I didn't use this breakfast an yet another example that contradicts the ludicrous but commonly held view that healthy food has to be expensive. This ginormous plate of food, which was enough to feed two, can be made in its entirety for less than a dollar.
*********************************
Egg On Tata

Ingredients:
2 Tablespoons olive oil
1 uncooked potato, unpeeled and thinly sliced
1, 2 or 3 eggs
Spices of your choosing

Directions:
1) Place potato slices onto the olive oil in a large non-stick skillet. Add some seasonings, then cover and fry at medium high heat for 5-7 minutes, until potatoes are becoming tender and starting to brown nicely on one side.

2) Flip over potatoes, and then crack your eggs over the top of them. Add some more seasonings on top of the eggs. Cover again, and cook another 4-6 minutes, until eggs are done to your liking.
*********************************
A few recipe notes:
1) I strongly recommend not peeling the potato. Not only will you save yourself 3-4 minutes of prep time, you'll also add to the nutritional completeness of this meal.

2) Spices: normally we use cayenne pepper as our primary spice, with an occasional splash of Tabasco. But feel free to experiment here by trying other spices: garlic powder, sage, black pepper, etc., or even fresh herbs like parsley or basil if you have them handy.

3) This post is gratefully dedicated to my father, Clayton Koontz, who continues to teach me how to cook easy, nutritious and delicious breakfasts for hilariously little money. My father is still making the most out of the fact that he grew up in the Depression--and I'm all the luckier for it.

Related Posts:
A Tale of Two Breakfasts
The 911 Frittata
The 80-Second Latte
How to Make Creole-Style Coffee


How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!

Ask CK: Butter Or Margarine? What's a Girl To Do?

If you have a question you'd like to ask Casual Kitchen, send it in!!
**********************************
Eleni asks:

I wonder if you could help settle a family debate. Do you use real butter, half-butter-half-vegetable-fat spreads, or olive oil-based spreads...or what? My mum will only buy real butter, and she slaps it on pretty thick. Subsequently, she has high cholesterol. She's not anywhere near overweight, and otherwise her diet's not bad - plenty of fruit and veggies and hardly any pre-packaged convenience foods. So...I blame the butter.

My sister came to visit me and was horrified when I produced a tub of half-butter-half-vegetable-fat "spreadable butter" for our toast. "Don't you know they're full of crap?" she cried! So what's a girl to do? What do you do in the Casual Kitchen?

This is a provocative question, mainly because so much of the science and health conclusions out there simply aren't clear. In fact, do readers remember (I think it was back in the late 80s/early 90s) a widely publicized study that claimed margarine was healthier for you than butter--and then shortly thereafter a different and equally well-publicized study came out and claimed the exact opposite?

Thanks for nothing guys.

In recent years, health experts have shifted the debate somewhat. Rather than helping us make a Morton's fork of a choice between butter or margarine, they now caution us from consuming excess trans fats. Of course, trans fats tend to show up more in margarine and other hydrogenated vegetable oils. Thus that's a strike against manufactured vegetable oil based spreads.

Then again, now that limiting your intake of trans fats is standard health advice, many manufacturers have reformulated their spreads to reduce--and in some cases eliminate--trans fats.

Once again, thanks for nothing. I still don't know which is better.

Now, with butter, we have a different problem. Butter contains very small amounts of trans fats, but there is some (mixed) evidence that the specific types of trans fats in butter are actually good for you. However, butter also contains cholesterol, which isn't in hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Confused yet? I'll confuse you more--because there isn't always a connection between the cholesterol you ingest and cholesterol levels in your blood. All of us have that annoying friend or family member who eats all the butter and egg yolks she wants and yet still has great cholesterol numbers. And my wife, despite her steady diet of oatmeal, exercise and red wine, has always had borderline bad cholesterol numbers.

What do we do here at Casual Kitchen? Well, as readers well know, we are true omnivores: we eat everything, but we eat nothing to excess (uh, with the exception of dark chocolate). Thus, we try to keep our fat intake at reasonable levels, and we try to keep our intake of hydrogenated oils at a very bare minimum.

And I'll confess in the interests of full disclosure, I have a bit of a personal bias against manufactured fats. The idea of a fat that's been deliberately modified so that it remains solid at room temperature, and the idea of putting something like that in my body--and later having it possibly floating around in my arteries... I mean, if I think about this too much I kind of lose my appetite.

Therefore, when we cook, we use olive oil. When we bake, we try to bias our ingredients towards butter. When it comes to "butter-like" spreads, we pretty much never use them. Instead, we try to cook and eat foods that taste great by themselves, and those kinds of foods ideally shouldn't need butter or butter-like spreads to taste better.

Last, my biggest confession of all--and proof that there's not an ounce of food absolutism here at Casual Kitchen, ever. On occasion, we will happily use hydrogenated oils--a textbook example being Laura's brilliantly perfect apple pie crust, which simply handles best with Crisco. Then again, in 2007, Crisco reformulated their shortening too, and they've now eliminated almost all of the trans fats from their product.

Hmmm... one more slice of pie for me!

So how do you know whether butter is better or manufactured spreads are better? Well, the short answer is, neither is good for you if eaten to excess. But likewise, neither will kill you if eaten in moderation.

And that, I think, is the real answer. Eat what you like, but please do so in moderation.

Readers, what is your take on the butter vs butter-like spread debate? How do you balance health concerns with taste? Share your thoughts!


Resources:
Trans Fat Fight Claims Butter as a Victim (New York Times)
Trans Fat is Double Trouble For Your Heart Health (Mayo Clinic)
Natural Trans Fats Have Health Benefits, New Study Shows (Science Daily)
Consumer Reports Weighs In On New Crisco (Consumer Reports)
Trans fat (Wikipedia)


How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!

What's "In" And "Out" For The New Recession

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past year or two, you're well aware that the economy's in the tank. Unemployment is close to 10%. People are protesting on Wall Street while our entire banking system is still limping out of the last credit crisis. And our elected officials can't seem to stop themselves from spending money on boondoggles and benefits that we can't afford.

And yet serious recessions aren't entirely bad things. For one thing, they help put life back into perspective. Have you noticed that nobody talks about their wine cellars anymore? That nobody seems to be buying luxury goods anymore, and even those who still are finally know enough not to brag about it?

Everybody I know--everybody--has cut back on meaningless frivolities. And those status-related and aspirational purchases that we thought were important... well, they suddenly don't see quite so important after all. And, by the way, long-time CK readers know that thanks to my former career picking stocks on Wall Street, I know people across the entire socio-economic spectrum. Believe me, this phenomenon is occurring at every level of society. Every level.

Heck, even advertisers on TV and in the media are starting to tone down all the images of luxury and consumerism.

The era of conspicuous consumption that enveloped our culture in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s is over. I repeat: it's over.

Okay. In today's post, I'm going to walk a fine line between irony and seriousness by writing the rest of this article in a style that you'd typically see in Cosmopolitan magazine. In other words, the rest of this post is for the few remaining tone-deaf consumerists out there who never got the memo telling them they're totally out of style.

This is what's "in" and what's "out" in The New Recession:

Out. Dinner out five or six times a week.
In. Cooking at home, eating better and saving boatloads of money.

Out. Cooking with aspirational ingredients like truffles, designer olive oils, or artisanal cheeses airlifted in from across the planet.
In. Cooking with simple, easy-to-find and affordable ingredients.

Out. Heavily advertised, processed foods, when the consumer ends up paying for both the advertising and the processing.
In. Diets based on unbranded, affordable and healthy food items like lentils, potatoes, rice, whole grains, beans and other staples.

Out. High-priced restaurant meals and $12 appletinis.
In. Inviting your friends over for a casual dinner party and great conversation at a fraction of the cost.

Out. Obscure grains that are simple fare in the rest of the world, but are marketed here as high-priced aspirational goods.
In. Shopping at locally-owned ethnic food shops and finding absolute steals on bulk grains, spices and other staples.

Out. Ridiculously priced, out-of-season organic produce.
In. Reasonably priced, in-season produce.

Out. Second-order foods.
In. First-order foods.

Out. High-end, organic pet food.
In. Pet food.

Out. Driving to your grocery store in a brand new Hummer or ginormous SUV.
In. Hanging on to your five- or seven-year-old reliable car.

Out. Running out to buy the latest overpriced celebrity-endorsed cookbooks and cookware.
In. Relying on the foundation cookbooks and kitchen gear you already own.

Readers, this list is far from complete. What are you doing differently now in your diet, your home life and your consumption habits? Share your thoughts!


How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!

A Slaughterhouse Catch-22 for Food Regulations

One of my favorite readers left a great comment about food regulations on my Interview With FDA Commissioner David Kessler post. Here's the portion that struck me as particularly provocative:

I have no patience with the "nanny state" objection. All the governmental regulations that have been put in place to protect citizens are there in response to citizen demand. The government doesn't do a single.blessed.thing that citizens haven't asked for.

If someone is smart and responsible and capable of figuring out, e.g., how to read a food label and why it's desirable to wear a seat belt, well yippee for them. The regulations don't impinge on their rights at all.

Double true. With extra truth sauce.

However, if we're going to be intellectually honest here, we owe it to ourselves to at least try to think up the contra-case: an instance where food regulation goes too far, becomes a clearly bad thing and does impinge on peoples' rights. Fortunately, we have one. Actually two.

One is happening right now. It's the new slaughterhouse regulations recently enacted by the US Department of Agriculture, in response to a spate of high-profile e. coli outbreaks that shook the meat industry over the past few years. This article in The Atlantic addresses the subject better than I ever could, but suffice it to say that our government's new meat processing regulations have become so complex, so onerous and so expensive that only the largest mega-regional slaughterhouses can afford to meet them.

So what happens next? Well, for starters, the small-scale meat processing industry is now likely to die off or get consolidated away.

Which leaves us with a problem. Let's say you're a local, small-scale rancher or beef farmer, and you want to send your ethically grown cattle to a small, local, ethically-managed abattoir. Unfortunately--and in an ironic example of unintended consequences--you can't. You'll soon have to send your cattle hundreds of miles away to the same gigantic industrial slaughterhouse everybody else is stuck using, because your small-scale abattoir became unprofitable under the new regulatory framework.

Here's the thing: As regulations increase, the economics of a given industry inevitably change. Big players can handle the incremental costs of new regulations--but the little guy can't always. If regulations become too costly, the big guys become the only players left. Sadly, our government, while trying to protect us, may have inadvertantly regulated away an entire segment of the meat industry, leaving behind an entrenched and far less competitive oligopoly of a few huge market players.

Bonus question: what do you think happens to meat prices as the slaughterhouse industry consolidates? Will farmers get paid more per head of cattle? Will consumers end up paying less for meat? It only takes vestigial critical thinking skills to figure out the answer to both questions is no.

Another irony. Talk to the ethical meat consumers you know. Ask them if they're in favor of more government regulation of our food supply. After they say yes, explain this scenario of the slaughterhouse industry, and see what happens to their once decisively-held opinions. Careful what you wish for.

And if you think the snowball stops there, think again. Consider any onerously regulated industry with a small number of large players. What's the primary barrier to entry for new competitors in such an industry? The primary barrier to entry is, sadly, the ability to meet onerous regulations. The secondary barrier is the ability to exercise political power by lobbying political leaders to impact future regulations in your favor.

You'd think being successful in the meat processing industry meant being good at processing meat. Not for long.

Okay, admittedly, this is just one example. But it's an exceptionally clear and depressing example of how increasing regulations can destroy competition, hurt suppliers and consumers, and worst of all, force perfectly ethical market participants right out of an industry. The question is, where exactly is that point where regulations become too onerous? How do we know when we've crossed it?

I don't know the answer. But I suspect it tends to happen to already-regulated industries that happen to be deeply out of favor with the public. Think about it: Our politicians can easily generate maximum electoral capital by regulating, punishing, assailing, railing, grandstanding and moralizing against these out-of-favor industries, all the while appearing as if they care about their voters. And in a few years, when the industry consolidates down to a few powerful mega-players, you can quietly start collecting political contributions in exchange for softening future regs. This to me is one of the darkest aspects of nanny state politics.

There's one more point I'd like to make: We consumers often think big, greedy companies are anti-regulation. This is far less true than you'd think.

And since I'm trafficking in so much irony today, let me share possibly the most ironic regulatory event of the last one hundred years: The cigarette industry, which is essentially a duopoly here in the USA, actually wanted the FDA to extend its authority and regulate tobacco products. Why? Because the FDA was likely to pass onerous regs that--if strict enough--would prevent another major cigarette company from ever being created in the USA. Bam! You've earned yourself permanent protection from new competition.

Why am I talking about this? Am I trying to say I hate all government regulations, I love contaminated meat, and I think we should return to an Upton Sinclair-esque era with no rules?

Don't be silly. My point is far more limited: regulations don't always protect people. Sometimes they actually hurt consumers, prevent competition, and annihilate small businesses. And all that does is make life easier for the large, politically-connected businesses that remain--and the politicians who represent them. What I want CK readers to understand is that there's no black and white here: you cannot assume that more government regulation is always a good thing. Again, be careful what you wish for.


For Further Reading (investment and industry analysis geeks only):
Competitive Strategy by Michael Porter
Innovation and Enrepreneurship by Peter Drucker
Wikipedia on Porter's Five Forces
Prophet of Innovation by Thomas K. McCraw (a great biography of economist Joseph Schumpeter)


Related Posts:
The Problem with Government Food Safety Regulation
How to Give Away Your Power By Being a Biased Consumer
Survivor Bias: Why "Big Food" Isn't Quite As Evil As You Think It Is
Let Them Eat Cake! Thoughts About Wealth, Power and the Food Industry
Understanding the Consumer Products Industry


How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!

A Quick Update For Readers

Readers! A quick update: I'll be in Santiago, Chile for most of January, working on my Spanish. As an experiment to help my Spanish immersion, and to reduce to an absolute minimum the amount of time I spend thinking in English, I'm going to take a short one-month break from publishing Retro Sundays and Friday Links posts.

Don't worry though, you'll still get your regular dose of CK each week. January's regular weekly articles are already queued up and ready to go, and as always I'll be moderating and responding to your comments and your emails. I'm really proud of the posts I've got coming up this month--and particularly happy with this week's post--so stay tuned!

I'll return to my regular publishing schedule in February. As always, thank you for your support and attention.