Why Is Pastured Meat So Expensive?

Choosing pastured meats is essential to a healthy diet, but the price of pastured meats can be a little bit of a shock for people. People are always asking me: "Why are pastured meats so expensive?" In today's video, I break down the main factors that influence the price difference between pastured meats and industrial, factory farmed meats and highlight some hidden costs of industrial meat. [x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed='' no_container="true"]

Why This Dietitian Buys Whole Milk

Everyone knows that they should be choosing low-fat and non-fat dairy options, but is this really what's best for our health? In today's video, I share the reasons why I choose whole milk for myself and the one instance you should never buy whole milk. [x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed='' no_container="true"]

Nutritionist? Dietitian? What's the Difference?

That's the number one question I get from people when they first find out what I do. In today's video, I explain the basic difference between RDs and nutritionists and give a little overview of exactly what it takes to become a Registered Dietitian. [x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed=')' no_container="true"]

My Thoughts on Rachel at the Biggest Loser Season 15 Finale

I've seen a lot concerning this topic and wanted to give you guys my thoughts in a quick, informal video. Please remember to be respectful with your comments and remember that we don't know the whole story as far as this issue is concerned. Love you guys! [x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed='' no_container="true"]

Should You Try A Juice Cleanse?

Juice cleanses and juicing in general are all the rage right now. But are they really healthy? In this video, I break down the truths and myths that surround juicing and give my thoughts on whether or not we should all be running out to buy a juicer.

[x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed='' no_container="true"]

Should We All Be Going Paleo? Part 2

Note: This is Part 2 of my Should You Go Paleo series. If you missed  Should You Go Paleo? Part 1, be sure to read that too! Also, if you're more of a watcher than a reader, I've recorded videos for Part 1 and Part 2 as well.

Now that we've addressed what Paleo is and some of the incorrect info that's out there in Part 1, it's time to get into the nitty gritty: my thoughts on the diet itself.

All or nothing mentality.

You'll often hear Paleo people (and strict dieters in general) talk about their "cheat day." This refers to a day set aside where non-Paleo foods are permitted. It's not something that everyone does, but I think it's common enough to address it here. The term "cheat day" is a little extreme to me and pretty much misses the whole point when it comes to healthy living. There are no perfect diets and no perfect people. Sometimes we eat well and other times we don't. It's finding the balance that's key. I eat well at home and am conscious about bringing healthy food through my door, but that doesn't mean my hand didn't end up in the candy jar during our various holiday gatherings. It wasn't cheating, it was just life. Having "cheat days" sets up the idea that you're somehow being naughty and can also lead to binging. Plus, the "on the diet, off the diet" mentality means you're not really learning how to live a healthy lifestyle.

It assumes we're all the same.

It is true that the majority of the world's population does not have the ability to fully digest dairy. It's also true that many people out there have at least some sensitivity to grains (particularly the gluten-containing ones), if not a full on intolerance or allergy. However, this does not make it true for everyone. If you find that dairy or grains or even legumes give you trouble, don't eat them. But, if you find that you can tolerate them just fine, there's no reason to cut them out. We're all different and come from different genetic backgrounds that developed according to the foods that were available in a particular part of the world.

Is it even possible to eat like our Paleolithic ancestors?

If you look at a Paleo diet plan, you'll see familiar foods that you can pick up at your local grocery store. The problem is, theses aren't the foods that were available to our Paleolithic ancestors, they are the result of agriculture. Human nurturing and breeding have given us plants that have the qualities we favor, such as larger fruits or more palatable flavor profiles. How many Paleo followers are hunting and gathering all of their food? I'd venture to say, not many.

The Bottom Line.

When it comes down to it, I'm neither pro- nor anti-Paleo. I think it has a lot of great principles, such as limiting highly processed foods and emphasizing real, whole foods like veggies, fruits, and pastured meat. But, I just can't get down with the idea that every person on this planet is intolerant to grains, legumes, and dairy.  Plus, we can't really replicate what our Paleolithic ancestors ate because nearly all of the food available to us comes from agriculture. I think eating the way the Paleo diet recommends is ONE way to eat healthy, but it isn't the ONLY way to eat healthy. Stick to real, whole foods and find what works best for you.

[x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed='' no_container="true"]

What are you thoughts on the Paleo diet? Have you ever tried it yourself? What was your experience? Share in the comments below!

Should You Go Paleo? Part 1

First, let me start off by saying that this post is way overdue. I have had a lot of thoughts about the Paleo diet for a while now, but it can frustrate me so much that it's hard for me to sit down and get it all out in writing. There are several issues concerning the Paleo diet that irritate me, and I bet it's not what you're thinking. In Part 1, I'll explain what the Paleo diet is and talk about some of the incorrect information that's floating around.

 Note: I made a video to accompany this post as well since I think it's an important enough topic to address both here and on YouTube. If you're the type who would rather watch than read, scroll down to the bottom of this post for the video.

What is Paleo?

The Paleo diet is based on the premise that the healthiest way for us to eat is the way our ancestors ate thousands of years ago, before the advent of modern agriculture. This means no to processed foods, sugar, grains, legumes (aka beans), or dairy and yes to wild and pastured meats, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fruits. This is all according to Robb Wolf, a leader in the Paleo community. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I think he gives a good breakdown of Paleo from the perspective of the Paleo enthusiast.

Comments from the uneducated.

I am sick and tired of listening to and reading criticism from people who don't even know what the Paleo diet is! Maybe it's that fact that there are so many diets out there, nutrition and health professionals can't keep up with it. Or, maybe it's the fact that it's assumed that every dietitian is an expert on every nutrition topic or issue. Either way, there are tons of quotes out there from people who simply don't know what they're talking about. I read one just yesterday that said the Paleo diet included whole grains, which is just plain wrong!

The main criticism I see is that it's just too hard to follow and that this is reason enough to discount it. Difficulty is relative and should not be the sole reason to agree or not agree with a particular style of eating. A diet that doesn't include a McDonalds hamburger twice a day might be "too hard to follow" for some people out there, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recommend that they break the habit.

Followers who don't understand it.

I see lots of people who are supposedly following the Paleo diet, but then their food choices show that they don't have all the details. For example, the meats eaten are supposed to be wild (like our ancestors would have had) or grass-fed. This is one point that many people seem to miss. Every time I see a picture of someone gorging on factory-farm, highly processed, nitrate laden bacon with #paleo in the caption, I cringe. Quality matters and you should choose meat that comes from properly raised animals and not from a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). Also, have your bacon, but have it in a reasonable portion. The pig is only partly bacon, and our ancestors would have eaten all of the other parts as well.

[x_video type="16:9, 5:3, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2" m4v="" ogv="" poster="" hide_controls="" autoplay="" embed='' no_container="true"]

Stay tuned for Part 2 for my thoughts on the diet itself and whether or not it's something we should all consider.

What have you heard about the Paleo diet? Do you think it's explained well in the media? Share in the comments below!

5 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Go On The "McDonalds Diet"

You've probably seen a story recently about a man who ate only from McDonalds for 90 days and lost weight. The Iowa teacher came up with the idea as a project for his students. They had the job of creating meal plans that came in at 2,000 calories per day and he took on the task of eating the food and walking for 45 minutes 4-5 days a week.  In the process he lost 37 lbs. He says it's a testament to how you can make healthy choices anywhere, but I think this is oversimplifying things a bit. He are my top reasons why you shouldn't go on the "McDonalds Diet."

1. Weight loss does not equal healthy. With so much focus on rising levels of overweight and obesity, most have come to associate weight with health. Now, while weight is a component of health, it is not the whole story. Someone who exercises regularly and maintains a balanced, whole foods diet is far healthier than a sedentary junk-food addict who happens to be 15 pounds lighter. If you restrict your intake of ANY food you can lose weight. However, I think we can all agree that eating 1200 calories of doughnuts each day isn't  a smart weight loss strategy.
2. It's not real food. The offerings at McDonalds are highly processed. Even the "healthier" options contain additives that you would never use at home. If you want a burger, make it yourself or get a one from a restaurant that offers a high quality grass-fed burger with no gross extras.
3. It doesn't taste that great. Eating takes up a big part of our day and what you eat should be enjoyable. Any reformed fast-food frequenter will tell you that, if they ever find themselves going through the drive-thru, it never tastes as good as they remember. When you're eating real food, the flavors are far more complex and enjoyable. Any item on the McDonalds menu can be made at home and taste much better.
4. Limited choices. While the menu at a fast food restaurant may look big at first, when you're eating there all the time, you can get tired of it pretty quickly. Add in trying to choose the "healthier" options and fitting it all into a calorie goal and things are going to get boring fast. Plus, eating a variety of foods is key to being satisfied and getting a variety of nutrients.
5. It's expensive! While many think of fast-food as a cheap option, I would argue it's just the opposite. You can make a tastier and healthier meal for the same or cheaper any day of the week.

What do you think about the "McDonalds Diet?" Do you think this kind of thing appeals to people, or do most understand that quality matters just as much as quantity when it comes to food? Share in the comments below!

No More GMOs in Your Cheerios!

You may have heard last week that General Mills announced that Cheerios will no longer contain GMO ingredients. With so much pro- and anti-GMO frenzy, it can be hard to tell what some of this stuff really means, so let me break it down.

What Changed?

Previously, Cheerios were made with corn starch and beet sugar. These two ingredients frequently come from sources that are genetically modified. This sort of thing is common in most prepared and convenience foods because corn, soy, and sugar beets, which are largely genetically modified, are used to make a multitude of food additives. To remove GMOs from Cheerios, General Mills has switched to cane sugar and is now sourcing non-GMO corn starch. It's important to note that all other types of Cheerios in the line are not included in this change and will continue to contain GMOs.

Does This Have A Nutritional Impact?

I've seen some coverage of this story that  says this change doesn't really matter at all because it doesn't impact the nutritional value of the product. Yes, it's true, this won't change things like calories, grams of sugar, or any other nutritional measure, but that's hardly the point. People who think numbers are the bottom line when it comes to nutrition are missing a big piece of the puzzle. The make-up of our food extends far beyond calories, carbs, fat, protein, vitamins an minerals. There is still so much we don't understand about all of the other components of food and their synergy in regards to the way they are presented in nature. Also, many incorrectly think that the GMO issue is solely about the safety of human consumption. While that is a concern, I think everyone can agree that if you eat a GMO you aren't going to drop dead immediately. If that was the case, we wouldn't be here. The GMO debate is equally, if not more, about the impact they have on environments and ecosystems which we need to survive.

Isn't This Just A Marketing Ploy?

I've also read some criticism of General Mills saying that this is all a marketing ploy. Pro-GMO groups also throw in something about being anti-science to appease crazy, uneducated customers and anti-GMO groups add in a line about how terrible General Mills is because they don't genuinely care about this cause and they are only doing this to make money. My response to this is, what's the problem? The basic premise of our economic system is that products and services are improved by meeting the needs and wants of customers. If a company wants to make money, they listen to what the customer is asking for. Yes, General Mills is doing this to make their customers happy (which in turn makes them money) and I don't see anything wrong with that. Marketing isn't a bad word, it's just a tool to create awareness about a product or idea. I think this development is great because it shows how the internet has re-connected companies with their consumers by giving them a more visible platform to express their thoughts and concerns.

Bottom Line

A lot of people eat Cheerios, so this could have a widespread impact. Also, this may encourage other brands to do the same. Changes that come about like this without legislation are a win in my book because it means we don't have to suffer the unintended consequences that can come with new laws. Despite all of these positives, I also challenge you to consider the idea of breakfast cereal in general. Even the organic varieties and still a processed food that most of us probably can't make at home. Plus, it's something many people eat every single day. Why not opt for whole food options like plain yogurt with fruit, oatmeal, homemade granola, or eggs? I don't buy cereal and I'm doing perfectly fine. :)

What do you think about General Mills taking GMOs out of Cheerios? Do you think we should be skipping out on processed cereals all together? Share in the comments below!

Possible Ban On Trans Fat? My Thoughts

In case you didn't hear, the FDA has proposed regulations on trans fats in foods. If this idea becomes a reality, partially hydrogenated oils will no longer be on the list of food additives that are "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS. While this is still in the works, I thought it would be good to do a little review on trans fats and share my thoughts on this move by the FDA. There are two different variations of trans fats. Some are naturally occurring in small quantities and aren't harmful to humans.  The other kind are man-made and incredibly damaging to human health. We're talking about the man-made ones here. In my opinion, artificial trans fats are the worst additive in processed foods. Even a few grams can drastically impact cardiovascular health. Trans fats have come under fire in recent years for this reason, leading to labeling on food packaging and many producers finding alternative fats to use at the public's urging.

If you'd like more info, be sure to check out my previous post on trans fats.

Unfortunately, trans fats haven't totally been removed from our food supply and that is what this proposed regulation would do. Now, I'm generally cautious about any type of legislation or regulation. Often times, laws and regs can have unintended consequences or become outdated as more information becomes available. Also, they can inhibit innovation. We see this happen all the time in meat production when the same regulations are applied to factory farms and processing centers, where no consumer can enter or investigate, and small family farms that welcome their customers to visit at any time and are completely transparent to the consumer. It's foolish to impose the same rules on both factory farms and small, sustainable operations because the risks associated with each are completely different. Additionally, public pressure can create a lot of the changes we desire. Trans fats have been removed from a great deal of foods already because consumer spoke up and companies listened.

Despite all this, I am totally on board with this possible trans fat regulation. For one, the current labeling is weak. If a food has less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, it can be listed as 0 grams on the label. If consumers aren't savvy enough to read ingredients, they can be making what they think is a healthier choice and totally be tricked. If people choose not to be healthy, that is their right, but, when someone is trying so hard and their efforts are squandered by dubious labeling, it's a whole different issue. Also, industrially produced foods should have more oversight for the same reason such laws were put into action in the first place: when buying food that is produced in an industrial environment that is totally closed off and separated from the public, the consumer is unable to make educated decisions about the safety of that food. We would not want any other poison in our food and that is what this change is all about. Trans fats aren't safe and they shouldn't be allowed.

However, in the end, this legislation speaks to a bigger problem. People are eating way too many processed foods and not enough real, whole foods. This bandage may help public health, but there is still a lot of work to do to get people to spend more time cooking and less time worrying about food labeling and regulations.

Are You Being Tricked? Deceptive Meat Marketing

[youtube=http://youtu.be/YPmrOZ8TikQ]  

Like this video? Have any video or blog post requests? Let me know in the comments below!

Does Chipotle's New Thought Provoking Ad Have an Impact?

A new Chipotle ad, "The Scarecrow," has gotten some buzz recently. It's also brought about some interesting conversations in the comments sections of YouTube and articles discussing the 3-minute mini movie. Watch it below and then read on.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE]

Really, watch it. No skipping!

I don't think there is any question that the ad is eerie. However, the message, the messenger, the intent, and the over-all impact have become big points for discussion.

1. Does this ad give the impression that Chipotle is vegetarian? If so, is this a cop-out on their part? Should they have included images of sustainable, humane meat production? This didn't even occur to me until I saw some comments from people who were not familiar with Chipotle. They said the ad gave them the impression that it was a vegetarian establishment. While I do see their point, I don't think the intention was to gloss over the fact that Chipotle uses meat. Their position has never been that meat is bad, just that there are better ways to raise meat animals. Also, you can purchase a vegetarian meal at Chipotle and you get free guac. :) Lastly, Chipotle put another moving ad out 2 years ago that does depict sustainable animal agriculture.
2. Why is this an ad for a game app? Does it cheapen the message? I wasn't quite sure why there was a game associated with this advertisement. It just didn't really make sense to me. To get more info, I watched the behind the scenes video for the ad. According to the makers, the intent of the game is to provide a fun and engaging way to educate people about the food system. I did my research for you guys and downloaded and played the game (ya know, hard hitting investigation) and it was pretty good. I don't know that I'll play it all the time or anything, but it was cute. It doesn't delve too deep into the issues, but it might be educational for someone who is younger or has no knowledge of these issues.
3. Should it take a glossy ad from a company like Chipotle to bring this message to the greater public's attention? While it sometimes seems unfair that marketing plays such a big role in our decision making, the truth is, it does. Just because an idea is important doesn't mean that it will necessarily reach the public or attract attention. At the same time, an idea that is unhelpful or even damaging can get the spotlight and support with a little glitter and glam. Rather than fight marketing's power, I think it's right to embrace it. Plus, a company like Chipotle has an audience that is ready to listen to what they have to say. Chipotle shows that sustainble ag can taste great, be accessible to the masses, and, most importantly, that lots of people are willing to pay for it. While they aren't perfect (hint: no one is), they are transparent concerning their areas for improvement and vocal about the changes they are constantly trying to make.
4. Does this ad have any lasting impact? Is Chipotle using it's visibility to start a real conversation about the broken food system or do people simply watch it, think "that's awful," and then run through the drive-thru on their way home from work? As far as this is concerned, I have no idea. The video has over 5 million views at the time of this post (6 days after it was released), so it is obviously reaching lots of people. Many of my Facebook friends have shared, commented, and liked the video. But, does that translate to action? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I don't know if there is a "right" answer to each of these questions, but they sure are thought provoking. I'd love to hear what y'all think.

What are your thoughts on the issues surrounding "The Scarecrow?" Share in the comments below!

Should You Be Eating Gluten Free?

Recently, a reader requested some gluten-free recipes and I thought this would be a good opportunity to talk a little bit about gluten and gluten-free eating. Start by watching the video below. :) [youtube=http://youtu.be/KOWE8MP_erk]

Now, while there are a lot of foods you can eat if you're gluten-free, it's still not easy to change up your diet. Here are some links to people and resources to help you out.

1. InspiredRD. This Registered Dietitian blogs about many topics, including her own diagnosis with Celiac disease. She also posts plenty of gluten-free recipes.
2. Gluten Dude. A man with Celiac disease blogs about Celiac issues and frustrations.
3. National Foundation for Celiac Awareness. A one stop shop for info and resources, including a list a gluten-free bloggers.
4. Celiac Chicks. Kelley (who is also allergic to dairy and corn) shares gluten free recipes, as well as info on gluten-free restaurants and bakeries around the world.
5. Gluten Free Goddess. Gluten-free and vegan recipes plus info on how to go gluten-free. I love her photos and the option to sort recipes by season.

There are a ton of gluten-free blogs and websites out there, but these are just a few to get you started. If you have Celiac disease, it may also be helpful to look for a support group in your area.

Do you eat gluten-free? If so, why and what has been your experience? Let me know in the comments below!

Taking Another Look at Laboratory Beef

Since my last post on this issue, lab grown meat has moved from the laboratory to the plate for its first public tasting. While it's still going to be a while before we have to worry about this technology in the general food supply, it's important to look at the facts on this issue and examine whether or not this is a viable option. I'm sure it isn't difficult for you to guess where I stand on this. Beyond the ick factor, the arguments used to support this technology, while they sound noble at first, crumble upon closer inspection. It's time to take this thing point by point and discuss what the real and current solutions are. And, believe it or not, none of them require lab experiments.

We simply don't have enough food to feed the world. With a growing population and so many going hungry, this type of meat is the answer to ending world hunger.

This feed the world argument gets thrown around all the time when discussing any controversial food technology. However, hunger is largely an issue of food waste, distribution, and having the means to acquire it. Creating more food doesn't solve these intrinsic problems. While there are many people in the world who go hungry, there are even more who are overweight or obese. The extra food we already have isn't getting to the people who need it. Focusing on local food systems and strengthening food economies can help in this area. Also, ensuring that excess foods from restaurants and catering can be donated to those in need keeps a lot of edible food out of the landfill. As an individual, planning meals and shopping with a list can reduce the purchase of extra food that we simply can't eat. Lastly, saving excess food by freezing, drying, or canning can decrease waste as well. That leftover soup could make a quick dinner in a pinch a couple months down the road if you freeze it before it goes bad. Have extra basil lying around? Make some pesto and freeze it for later!

Feeding cows requires pounds of grain that could be used to feed people directly, rather than going towards meat production.

This argument assumes that we continue with the unnatural and dangerous practice of feeding cattle with grain, rather than the grass they are meant to eat. Cows are part of a group of animals called ruminants who have the ability to transform grass, which is inedible for humans, into a viable food source in the form of meat. They need no grain to survive and the inclusion of grain is actually harmful to them. Cows shouldn't take away food from humans. They should be creating food from something we cannot eat. Getting more cows out on pasture and out the feed lot eliminates this problem and is a method that is well established and working for many farmers. No research required, just getting the education out to the farms.

Cows harm the environment. Between the fossil fuels that go into their production and run-off from feed lots they are a large contributor to the pollution of our planet.

Again, an argument that hinges upon the continuation of the industrial feed lot system for raising cattle. Industrial meat production requires so much fossil fuel because the cows are eating corn which is sprayed with petrochemical pesticides and shipped from hundreds of miles away. Then the meat is shipped to the consumer from centralized slaughter and packing facilities. The run-off mentioned above comes from cows in CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) where they live in a combination of mud and their own excrement with no grass to be found to absorb their free fertilizer. When cows are raised on pasture, they eat the grass under their feet and their waste goes back into the earth to fertilize future grassy meals. Also, grass sequesters carbon like no other. According to Joel Salatin, everyone trying to save trees should stop and switch to grass. As the cows cut the grass with their teeth, new grass grows. This life and death cycle, when the grass is managed properly, helps build the soil and increases the grass's capacity to pull more carbon out of the atmosphere. Cows are meant to save the environment, not destroy it.

Would you eat laboratory meat? Let me know in the comments below!

Where's the Fruit? A Look at Processed Foods

This morning I saw a tease on the Today Show for a segment about misleading food labels (for some basics on label reading click here). You know me. I live for this stuff. I had to head out the door before the segment aired, but I watched it online when I got home tonight. You can watch the clip yourself here. The gist of the segment is that many processed foods including cereals, frozen waffles, yogurt, and bars come in packages that are covered with images of beautiful berries with claims like "made with real fruit." Some consumers may buy these products because they think it's a more nutritious option. Well, in fact, the amount of fruit in most of these products often ranges from none to might as well be none. The truth is, these bits of "fruit" are actually sugar, oil, flavoring, coloring, and maybe a little bit of the actual fruit. Many contain no fruit at all. To me, this was no surprise, but, from watching the segment, I began to realize just how surprising it was for many people. In fact, some of the people interviewed seemed to feel victimized.  With all of this in mind, I thought it would be a good idea to discuss the matter.

1. What do the labels really mean?

It's important to know how to navigate these labels. The most essential piece of advice I have on this is flip the box over and read the nutrition label. Ingredients are key. Don't rely on the company's claims on the front of the package. They're obviously going to present their product in a positive light. Also, think about wording and don't assume. "Made with real fruit" means just what it says. It doesn't mean there is a substantial amount and it doesn't make the product healthy. Would you drink bleach if I told you it was made with real broccoli? I sure hope not.

2. Who's responsibility is it?

Food companies argue that their packaging isn't misleading. If a consumer reads all of the information provided, there should be no question about what a product contains. While you may think their behavior is unethical, it is, in most cases, legal. For some reason, consumers seem to trust a lot of the jargon on food products. This doesn't seem to apply to other industries though. You don't expect Barbie's Dream House to come with her twelve friends complete with wardrobes, even though they are pictured on the box. In the end, it's on the consumer to be savvy. No matter how many regulations we may have, there are always technicalities. And I would argue that this trust in the all-powerful FDA is the core problem. When consumers feel someone else is supposed to be checking up on these things for them, they stop thinking about it themselves. Read a label. Make your own decisions.

3. What can you do?

My answer probably won't surprise you. The key is choosing whole, real foods and skipping the processed junk. Make your own blueberry pancakes. Buy plain yogurt and mix fruit in. I know the convenience of some of these products can be tempting, but it comes down to priorities. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" or "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" marathon as much as the next person (I watch the news too, don't judge). However, this is time that can be put to better use cooking up a large pot of soup or making a double batch of waffles and freezing the leftovers for quick weekday breakfasts. Rather than feeling victimized or hopeless, be empowered by your knowledge and take control of your health!

Did this news report surprise you? Have you ever felt duped by a misleading food label? Sound off in the comments! :)

My Thoughts On The "Organic Study"

Last week, news broke on a study out of Stanford University comparing organic foods to their conventionally grown counterparts. The main message I heard in the media was something along the lines of "study finds organic food not any healthier than conventional food." Reporters would then go into a few specifics of the study and move on to the next story. I was on the fence on posting about this since I haven't read the full study, but since I've gotten quite a few questions about it in the last week, I thought I could at least discuss some of the details we do know from what has been released in the media. While this may not be the most complete analysis, I do think there are some important points that got brushed over in the media for the sake of a good headline. Here are my top takeaways. 1. What Kind of Study Was It?

Let's start with the basics. We can only interpret the results if we know what kind of results we're working with. This was a meta-analysis of 237 studies comparing conventional and organic food, meaning the researchers compared the results of these studies using statistical methods. While studies such as this are helpful, it is important to know that this was not a study spanning 50 years with thousands of subjects who ate identical diets with one being conventional and the other organic (ideal, but impractical).

2. Nutritional Content is Similar

The study concluded that, on average, organic produce has the same nutrient content as conventional produce. The only exception to this was phosphorus, which was higher in organic produce. Considering this, I do want to point out that shipping produce plays a big role in this area. If you pick an apple from a tree in your back yard and eat it that day, the nutrient content will likely be much higher than an apple grown and shipped across the county, or across the world. Lesson learned, grown your own and hit up the farmer's market.

3. Conventional Produce Has Higher Pesticide Residue

This should come as a no-brainer. One of the major reasons people purchase organic produce is to reduce their exposure to pesticides and other similar chemicals. However, this point been spun in the media to be unimportant with many articles and reports noting that the levels of pesticides found on conventional produce was still far below the levels deemed safe by the FDA. Really? Do they think people buy organic because conventional produce is somehow not adhering to FDA regulations? No! They buy it because they disagree with FDA regulations that say these chemicals are safe in the first place.

4. Conventional Meat Has Higher Levels of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

This makes perfect sense considering animals raised conventionally are pumped with antibiotics to encourage growth (yes, really) and also to fight the infections and diseases that run rampant in the deplorable conditions in which these animals are raised. But what does this really mean? Antibiotic resistant bacteria are a serious issue because, as their name suggests, they cannot be killed with antibiotics. If these kinds of bacteria continue to proliferate, more and more often we will find ourselves with bacterial infections that simply can't be treated.

Overall, the findings of this study (assuming they are valid) largely point to the benefits of organics. Yet, somehow, the media message became "organic food not healthier." Amazing.

What are your thoughts on the organic study? What do you think about the way it was portrayed in the media? Sound off in the comments below. :)

How To Build a Vegetarian Meal

While I myself am not vegetarian, I am picky about where my meat comes from and I eat vegetarian meals more often than not. With this said, as I see more people switch over to a meat-free lifestyle (whatever their reasons may be), many do not know how to build a meal on this new eating plan. Most often, I see people continue to plan meals that are centered around meat, even though that is exactly what they are giving up. For example, they may eat frozen "chicken" nuggets that are made from plant-based proteins or subsist solely on frozen veggie burgers. These foods are highly processed, often unappetizing, and expensive. I saw this very sort of thing promoted on a recent show on the Cooking Channel. The episode was all about cooking using the Morning Star veggie burgers and the hosts kept talking about getting healthy with a vegetarian diet. I think they were doing exactly the opposite. The key to being meat-free is to think of food in a new way, and get the focus off of meat. The first step is to think of all the foods you are eating, rather than the few that you aren't. Vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, dairy products, and eggs are all fair game for vegetarians and can be combined in many different ways to create a delicious meal. Make spiced black beans served over brown rice with grilled veggies and a fruit salsa on the side. Another option is to roast your favorite vegetables in the oven and make them the star. Then  serve with quinoa or over whole wheat pasta with a tomato sauce. Think outside of your normal confines and get a little creative. A good place to start is with a vegetarian cookbook. Make sure it's one based on whole real foods and not the franken-foods I mentioned above. Deborah Madison is a great cookbook author as well as Heidi Swanson. Start with their titles, and use them as a jumping off point for your own creativity.

Whether you are vegetarian or not, meatless meals can be a delicious and filling option. Learning to cook this way may take a little practice, but, once you drop the fake meat and embrace the yummy plant foods at your finger tips, you'll see that vegetarian does not have to mean cardboard.

How do you feel about vegetarian cuisine? Like it or hate it, I'm all ears!

Do you have a favorite vegetarian cookbook author?

Let me know in the comments below! : )

FDA Says "No" to Corn Sugar, A Win for Real Food

This past Wednesday there was a great victory in the world of real food and nutrition labeling: the FDA denied the Corn Refiner's Association's request to rename high fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar" on food labels. The application for a name change was submitted in 2010 due to the bad press that high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, has received in recent years. HFCS is a highly processed sweetener made from corn. The reason it is so predominant in the food supply is that government subsidies (your taxes dollars) encourages the overproduction of corn, making it prevalent and cheap at the market place. This corn is then used to feed livestock that are not designed to eat it and altered to be made into various "ingredients" found in processed food. Oh, and it's GMO to boot. No matter what your thoughts are on the safety of high fructose corn syrup (I never eat the stuff), this goes beyond its safety. The larger issue I see here is the consumer's right to know what is in the food they are eating. Ultimately, the name change was designed to confuse and deceive consumers by labeling the offensive ingredient as something that seems much more wholesome. If the name change had gone through, unaware consumers would have essentially had some of their power taken away in the market place. In a world where food and nutrition are often far more confusing that they should be, the last thing we need is a move such as this one.

Beyond that, it's still true that too much sugar in any form is a problem and processed foods should be limited. Stick to fresh, whole foods and you will be much better off.

How do you feel about the attempt to relabel HFCS as "corn sugar?" Sound off in the comments below.

Nutella Lawsuit: What It Really Means

It seems like there has been a lot of food in the headlines here recently.  From mad cow disease in California to pizzas with a cheeseburger crust, the food industry has been showing itself (in more ways than one). One story that struck a nerve with me was this one from the Huffington Post about a $3 million class-action lawsuit settled against Ferrero, the maker of Nutella. The reason? A California mother claims that she was deceived by advertisements for the product, as well as the language on the label, to believe that Nutella was a healthy option to feed her child. To rectify this issue, Ferrero is paying out to consumers and will also have to change advertisements and other media messages (website, packaging, etc.) so they are no longer deceptive in this way. While some may be shouting for joy for a victory over the industry, I think a more important issue is at hand. While I agree that companies should not be making false claims or taking advantage of consumers, the answer goes far beyond policing suggestions or implications made by advertisements. The real problem at hand is the fact that consumers are vulnerable to such ploys because they are unable to analyze corporation claims and nutrition information to decide for themselves whether or not a product is healthy and appropriate for the needs of their families.

It seems to me, in this case, one of two things happened. This mother either read the nutrition information and ingredients and  could not interpret it or, more likely, simply trusted the message she received from advertisers as true, rather than investigating further. This is perfect example of how much education is truly needed, as Nutella is not by any means one of the more confusing products on the market.  After all, it has 8 ingredients (much fewer than many processed foods) and the first ingredient is sugar. The fact that a consumer cannot come to the conclusion that such a product is not a health food shows that there is a serious disconnect.

Have you ever felt deceived by a food advertisement or marketing scheme? What about nutrition do you find confusing?

Lab-Grown Hamburger: Smart or Scary?

In the news today, there was an update on efforts to create lab-grown beef by scientists in the Netherlands (for the article, click here). Basically, they are using bovine stem cells to grow thin layers of muscle cells and will then combine that muscle with lab-grown animal fat to create "hamburger." Despite the initial "yuck" reaction that some may have, it's important to look deeper at both sides of the argument.

Supporters of this new technology tout its potential for alleviating environmental strains as well as feeding the world. Meat production in its current incarnation uses a considerable amount of land space. Between the feed lots where the animals are raised to the acres of GMO corn that are grown to feed them, the impact is undeniable. In addition, the run-off from the farms and feed-lots  pollutes the surrounding areas. Also important to consider is the inhumane treatment that these animals are subjected to and unnatural conditions that encourage the growth of E.coli and other potentially harmful bugs. In addition, with an ever-growing population, could this be a solution to feeding hungry mouths?

On the other hand, many question the nutritional value of this new product, as well as flavor and texture. How will it measure up to the real thing? Another concern is its safety. Are there unforseen health implications to consuming this new product?

In my opinion, lab-grown meat is not something we should be eating. While I agree with the concerns about the environmental implications of raising meat on factory farms, the solution is not lab-grown meat. Rather, it is to return to the most physiological method: pasture-raised beef. Cows are designed to eat grass, not corn. It's when we feed these animals corn that dangers such as E. coli begin to flourish. When cows are fed grass (what they're supposed to eat), these issues are practically non-existent. This method also grows the soil, rather than degrading it, eliminating the problem of toxic run-off. As far as "feeding the world" is concerned, it is important to note that individuals in developed nations generally consume far more meat that is necessary and have a propensity towards obesity. The issue isn't a lack of calories, but the distribution and quality of those calories. Food waste is another problem which results in much of the edible food on our planet spoiling before it can be consumed.

In short, many of the problems that lab-grown meat is proposed to solve already have a viable, well researched solution without the problem of unknown product quality or, even worse, negative health implications.

Tell me, what are your feelings about lab-grown beef?