A Sweeter Name

The Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the U.S. FDA to rename "high-fructose corn syrup." The new image-enhancing name, if the FDA approves, will be "corn sugar."

As if sugar doesn't have its own image problem. You'd think the corn refiners would be a little more savvy. They should go for a name like "awesome veggie sweetener" or something.

However, while the FDA is open for suggestions, I'd like to propose "subsidized addictive corn syrup."

I'm going to stop short of jumping on the bandwagon proclaiming "if only we could rid ourselves of the evil HFCS then our obesity problems would be gone!" I'm not that simple-minded, and I'm not that good at chemistry either. I can't really sort through the science behind the whole HFCS-vs-sugar debate. There are too many junk studies with inconsistent results.

The politics though are another thing. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical in the U.S. because corn production is heavily subsidized. The FDA recognized HFCS as safe in 1976. Soft drink makers in the U.S. switched to using HFCS in 1984.

I remember it was around 1985 that I saw the first bucket-sized serving of cola. I naively thought it was family size and honestly wondered how difficult it would be to pour it into smaller cups for serving. Oh well.

It's common now. Any kid can pick up a 64oz serving of liquid candy before school, gulp down 800 calories before the final bell rings, and then stop on the way home for a refill costing less than $1.

It's cheap and full of calories, and the numbers show we're consuming more glucose-fructose mixtures.

(Image via Wikipedia.)

The little downward dip at the end there is promising. Are we wising up? Learning moderation is the key? Is this why the corn refiners want an image change? I don't think the new name is going to change anything.

Unhappy Meals

"It's a great country, but it's a strange culture. ... This has got to be the only country in the world that could ever come up with a disease like bulimia; gotta be the only country in the world where some people have no food at all, and other people eat a nourishing meal and puke it up intentionally. This is a country where tobacco kills four hundred thousand people a year, so they ban artificial sweeteners! Because a rat died! You know what I mean? This is a place where gun store owners are given a list of stolen credit cards, but not a list of criminals and maniacs! And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!" — George Carlin.

I wonder what Carlin would think about this: in Santa Clara County, California, my home-sweet-home, officials recently voted to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children's meals.

So we ban the toys and keep the high-calorie meals? I've watched my nephew eat a Happy Meal, and the toy actually distracts him from eating the crap! Keep the toys!

Anyway, it's not the toys that bring the kids to the fast-food restaurants -- it's the parents. Of course, I don't think parents are irresponsible for getting their kid the occasional treat or quick, hassle-free meal. But we all know it shouldn't be a regular indulgence. It will make you fat.

Maybe a little truth in advertising is needed. Or better yet, no advertising directed at children at all. Apparently, it's psychological warfare with the psychologists on the side of the advertisers. Some psychologists actually lend a hand to marketers by revealing such tidbits as why 3- to 7-year-olds gravitate toward toys that transform themselves into something else and why 8- to 12-year-olds love to collect things.

Maybe parents do need an ally in this battle, but this new law treats one tiny symptom. Kids will still see the advertisements, scream for the toys, and their parents will drive outside the county to get them. Or they'll finally learn to say "no."

Super Size Me

A new "study" claims that over the past 1000 years the size of food portions depicted in "Last Supper" paintings has steadily grown. A computer analysis used 52 images from the 2000 coffee table book "Last Supper." The researchers compared the size of the plates and the food servings on those plates using the apostles' head sizes to calibrate the measurements. Let's hope none of the painters were going through a Caricature Art phase... I'm not being completely facetious here.

As the Got Medieval blog points out, there's plenty of proportional wonkiness in medieval art. Realism wasn't the goal back then. In fact, the size of objects usually conveyed their symbolic importance. Furniture and architecture weren't considered interesting enough, and hands were disproportionately large because they needed to show gestures in order to tell a story.

Anyway, I'm not even sure what we were supposed to conclude from this study, but plenty of reporters have used it as another opportunity to remind us how fat we are.

Welfare Queens and Cadillacs

This is not what I think of when I think of hunger in America:

"At first, I thought, 'Why should I be on food stamps?'" said Magida, digging into her dinner. "Here I am, this educated person who went to art school..."

Yeah, art school. Part of me wants to be snarky -- I thought art school grads lived off their parents? But I do realize that young, educated, single people are among the poor, and of course, we shouldn't starve the poor.

The American food stamp program has had a few overhauls since it began in 1962. For example, the program no longer uses stamps. Instead it uses a specialized debit-card system. The eligibility requirements have also changed recently. As part of last year's stimulus package, more able-bodied adults without dependents qualify for the program.

And they're using it... maybe not as sustenance but as a supplement. The hipsters are buying Japanese eggplant, mint chutney, fresh turmeric... suddenly I don't feel like much of an elitist. I survive on macaroni and cheese (but the really good kind of macaroni and cheese).

I think this is the type of news story that's going to outrage many talk radio hosts for hour upon bloviating hour. But here's the dilemma I see: If recipients buy gourmet ingredients, the food is viewed as a luxury. If they spend their allotment on Hot Pockets and Pringles, they're part of the obesity epidemic and will likely contribute to higher health care costs down the road. It's a catch-22 for the Millennial generation.

But it might just replace the old Republican story of the Cadillac driving welfare queen.

Starve the Poor

Dear Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer,

When your grandma told you to quit feeding stray animals, she meant dogs and cats, not schoolchildren, you dumbass.

Sincerely,
The Daily Dorkmonger

(YouTube video)

The South Carolina Republican didn't sound any less ridiculous in his "apology."

So now that Andre Bauer has admitted that starving the poor is the new Republican strategy, maybe we should take a moment to remember why The National School Lunch Program was created in the first place:

The depression of the 1930's brought on widespread unemployment. Millions of people in the cities lost their jobs and were without means of support for themselves and their families. They were obliged to seek help through public assistance programs.

Much of the production of the farm went begging for a market, surpluses of farm products continued to mount, prices of farm products declined to a point where farm income provided only a meager subsistence. Millions of school children were unable to pay for their school lunches, and with but limited family resources to provide meals at home, the danger of malnutrition among children became a national concern. Federal assistance became essential, and Congressional action was taken in 1935 to aid both agriculture and the school lunch program.

I'm glad that 70-something years ago people understood that poverty could lead to malnutrition which could hamper a child's ability to learn. Bauer, in his backwards logic, blames food for hungry children on low test scores. Oh, but he adamantly supports religious license plates. Go figure. Maybe he's a little malnourished himself?

And as far as this "culture of dependence" goes, I'm sure it's possible to compile a long list of people who benefited from The National School Lunch Program and later escaped the cycle of poverty.

The bigger question is this: will our banks ever get out of this culture of dependence? Or how about the beneficiary state of South Carolina?

Nutrition Check

This is how I learned to be cynical. Every Saturday morning of my childhood was spent in front of the TV watching cartoons and, of course, commercials. I remember the commercials more vividly than the cartoons. And if the commercial was itself a cartoon, even better... especially the cereal ads.

But every single cereal ad ended the same. A friendly voice announced "part of a balanced breakfast," and the still-frame image showed a tiny bowl of the product, a glass of orange juice, a glass of milk, a slice of whole wheat toast, two eggs, and a fruit parfait. I knew exactly what it meant -- the cereal wasn't good for shit.

And I also knew that although Kellogg's thought kids were idiots, I could spell "fruit" and Kellogg's could not. Now I'm older and realize the misspelling was a brilliant move. They could never be found guilty of false advertising with a nonsensical name like "froot loops."

But labeling is about to get a little crazier. For a $100,000 fee, Kellogg's and other food manufacturers can add more nonsensical words to their packaging. Smart Choices is a new food-labeling campaign ostensibly designed to help shoppers identify smarter food and beverage choices. You'll soon be noticing these bright green check marks on products such as sugar-laden cereals and fudgsicals. Are you cynical yet?

The nutritionists running the program are woefully unconvincing in their propaganda:

“The checkmark means the food item is a ‘better for you’ product, as opposed to having an x on it saying ‘Don’t eat this,’ ” Dr. Kennedy said. “Consumers are smart enough to deduce that if it doesn’t have the checkmark, by implication it’s not a ‘better for you’ product. They want to have a choice. They don’t want to be told ‘You must do this.’ ”

Dr. Kennedy, who is not paid for her work on the program, defended the products endorsed by the program, including sweet cereals. She said Froot Loops was better than other things parents could choose for their children.

“You’re rushing around, you’re trying to think about healthy eating for your kids and you have a choice between a doughnut and a cereal,” Dr. Kennedy said, evoking a hypothetical parent in the supermarket. “So Froot Loops is a better choice.”

Froot Loops or doughnuts? As if those are our only two choices!

I honestly hope there are no parents trying to decide between Froot Loops and doughnuts while passing over non-processed foods like oranges and bananas which will not carry the confusing check mark.

And it is confusing because the check mark does not indicate any kind of government approval. The Smart Choices system is designed by and paid for by the nation's major food manufacturers and managed by the American Society of Nutrition. They're not concerned with what's good for you and your family. They're concerned with their image and profits.

But now you know that little green check mark isn't good for shit.

The Pizza Party

Back in the early 90's, when I was deeply enmeshed in the Bay Area BBS scene, we used to have pizza parties just like the Republican Party:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Republicans: The Lost Party
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

After watching that last guy babble on about whatever, all I can think is "mmm... turtle cheesecake!"

Come to think of it, our BBS parties were much more fun.

Hot Dog Surprise

This bit of culinary genius comes from a blog I can't pronounce. Apparently they poke the dry spaghetti through the hot dogs and then boil the concoction. They call it art, but I'll call it poor man's calamari.

A Working Kitchen

I discovered the joy of cooking this year when I started taking a weekly class at the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) -- a nonprofit agency that serves people with disabilities. I took the class so I wouldn't have to rely on frozen microwavable meals my entire life. However, the benefits of the class have been more than just culinary. I've also made some wonderful friends which is a salubrious side effect.

But the SVILC operates on a tight budget and the kitchen appliances are broken and inadequate. The organization is seeking donations this holiday season, and the class will be featured in the San Jose Mercury News Holiday Wish Book. You can read all about the class and make donations on the SJ Mercury web site.

Don't look for me in those pictures though. I wasn't there that week! I'm camera-shy anyway!

Cooking Robot

I've been taking cooking classes this year, but why am I bothering? Nobody told me there is a robot that can do it! This YouTube video shows a humanoid robot progressively learning to cook by generalizing skills to various situations. I notice it doesn't break eggs, so I doubt it can separate egg yolks... a task that I am miserable at.

Food Fight

From The Wall Street Journal today:

World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned in a recent speech that 33 countries are at risk of social upheaval because of rising food prices. Those could include Indonesia, Yemen, Ghana, Uzbekistan and the Philippines. In countries where buying food requires half to three-quarters of a poor person's income, "there is no margin for survival," he said.

Global food prices have increased 83% in the last three years. Recently, riots over soaring food prices have broken out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Haiti, Senegal and Ethiopia. Last week's food riots in Haiti quickly segued into a political mine field.

The diversion of food to biofuels is one source of the rising prices. I touched on this in my previous blog post Black Gold, but it's worth repeating how these renewable fuels will result in higher food prices around the world:

When the production of corn intended for human or animal consumption decreases, prices go up. Why does this local shift in policy affect food prices around the world? The diversion of American corn into energy has a ripple effect for two reasons: First, the United States is the world's largest corn exporter, accounting for about 40 percent of global trade, so when corn-as-food production decreases here, costs go up everywhere. Second, when the price of corn increases, farmers in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere who use the crop to feed livestock look for cheaper alternatives, like wheat or sorghum. These alternatives, in turn, become more expensive.

Another source of rising food prices is global warming. From The Toronto Star: "Climate change is also making its toxic contribution. Major droughts have hit wheat-producing nations such as Australia and Ukraine, leading to a 30-year low in the world's wheat inventories."

A third reason for higher food prices is that fast-developing nations in Asia are demanding more and better food.

The U.S. is not immune to rising food costs. In the last year, milk prices are up by 26%, eggs by 24%, and bread by 13%. And yes, there is hunger in America. Our government estimates that 28 million people will be using food stamps this year. This is the highest level since the program began in the 1960's. Meanwhile, our federal farm program pays $1.3 billion to people who don't farm.

I predict we'll be hearing less and less about the so-called obesity epidemic.

Black Gold

Black gold in a white plight
Wont you fill up the tank, let's go for a ride
--Soul Asylum

What would you think if you woke up early one suburban morning to the rumble of an oil rig outside your window? This is happening all around Los Angeles, and many homeowners are shocked and angry about the revitalization of urban oil wells:

With oil prices at $110 a barrel, producers nationwide are suddenly taking a second look at decades-old wells that were considered tapped out and unprofitable when oil sold for one-fifth the price or less. Independent producers and major conglomerates alike are reinvesting millions in these mature wells, using expensive new technology and drilling techniques to eke every last drop out of fields long past their prime - and often in the middle of suburbia.

Expansion of the North American oil refining capacity might be one answer to our ailing economy. Besides siphoning out these old wells, there is also an estimated 174 billion barrels of crude oil in Canadian tar sands.

But extracting heavy oil from tar sands and transporting it by pipeline for refining is a difficult and costly process. Producers are developing new drilling techniques to reduce the large volumes of natural gas and water needed to separate the oil from sand. And the oil companies, which have pledged to reduce greenhouse emissions in their operations, are making the needed investments to meet environmental regulations.

And let's not forget about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). According to American cartographer Ian Thomas, we may already be drilling there.

These are epic battles. Naively, I'd like to believe that these battles are fought between people who are concerned about the environment and global warming and people who are concerned about our fuel costs and energy independence. I want to believe that both sides have noble goals. However, defending profits of a subsidized industry does not fit my definition of noble.

The oil companies can keep drilling, and get every last drop of oil, but with the world petroleum consumption over 80 million barrels a day, we will eventually run dry. We need to work on a sustainable plan now.

I hear a lot of talk lately about biofuels. By 2010, 30% of US corn crop will be used for biofuel, but this renewable fuel will result in higher food prices around the world:

When the production of corn intended for human or animal consumption decreases, prices go up. Why does this local shift in policy affect food prices around the world? The diversion of American corn into energy has a ripple effect for two reasons: First, the United States is the world's largest corn exporter, accounting for about 40 percent of global trade, so when corn-as-food production decreases here, costs go up everywhere. Second, when the price of corn increases, farmers in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere who use the crop to feed livestock look for cheaper alternatives, like wheat or sorghum. These alternatives, in turn, become more expensive.

Americans need to remember that it's not all about us. The rest of the world likes to eat too.

Saying this oil crisis is complicated is an understatement. It is urgent, it is real, it is moral, it is global, it is challenging, but it is not black and white.