And Scariest Movie of the Year goes to...

Back to the Food Inc. post. Yes, I have seen the movie; actually I saw it earlier this fall at a lecture I had to attend for my global studies class, and never posted about it because I wanted to develop my opinions fully first (like most propaganda-doc's, such as Super-size Me or anything Michael Moore, it's a bit much to take in) so I wouldn't end up just rambling. Which.... I guess is sort of not in tune with the rhetoric of blogging... but... crap.

So now, as a punishment, I'm going to have to rely on my sub-par memory and what info I can glean from the Interwebs in order to talk about this.

In essence, the movie showcases the industrial, mechanized food industry, which is basically America's entire food industry. Wrapped up in this are several themes: the firm grasp corporate head haunchos have not just on what we eat, but on the federal regulatory commissions (FDA, USDA) in which we are supposed to place our trust, the ways in which farmers are being undermined and subjugated by laws and patents, the abominable health and safety regulations at these factory farms, the lack of worker's rights in meat factories, how much cheaper it is to buy unhealthy vs. healthy, devastating health effects of diseases like E.coli.... maybe now you realize why I was wary to write about it. I could spend a year. And wind up with a book. (And there already is one, so that's pointless.)

The movie is eye-opening, truly. It's honestly terrifying to realize how warped our food industry is, how far removed we as consumers are from the production of our food (do you know EXACTLY where a single thing in your fridge came from? What about the state? Or even the country?) and, perhaps most terrifying, that this is not a simple mistake. People in this industry are not sitting at their desks, eyes popping out of their skulls, hands glued to cheeks in an Edvard Munchian pose, screaming "WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!" Nah, they are just counting their bucks.

Looking back, I remember now that it was also the emotional impact that kept me from writing. I saw it only a couple weeks after I started this blog, and the effect of the movie was somewhat PETA-esque, in that it made me feel really really bad, but instead of just abstractly feeling bad for little baby chicks, I felt bad for my life. It was like someone ramming down my throat EVERYTHING YOU EAT IS BAD FOR YOU EVEN IF YOU THINK IT'S NOT and I was like, Jesus, I am not doing nearly enough. I mean I eat meat! And meat that is not from a tiny farm where I know for sure how the animal was raised! This was also before I started going to farmer's markets regularly, so I was like Okay so now simply buying fruits and vegetables is not enough, I have to track down where they came from. These feelings of inadequacy irked me. And I suppose that was the point of the movie: to scare you into eating healthier, or just being more conscious of what you're eating. And I totally support the latter part of that equation. I'm just not so sure about the path to it.

The one point in the film where I really remember being like Oh COME ON, was the beginning of a scene in which the words "Lifting the Veil" appeared on the screen. BUT, (and my memory may fail me a bit on the exact details of this one) right before "Veil" appeared the "e" and the "v" were switched so it said for a brief nanosecond, yes: evil. I don't think everyone noticed this, and I probably only did because I pay a lot of attention to words. And it doesn't really matter, I guess, in the larger context of the more important issues discussed, but I just sort of feel like, to me, this stuff is scary enough on its own; the facts alone are enough to make me change my lifestyle. Why do you need to insult our intelligence with the scare tactics?

So this pseudo-review ended up being more negative than I intended... most likely because the details of the movie have slipped from my consciousness but, like most things, the emotional impact has stuck with me. But in all honesty, I do encourage everyone to see it. Seriously. Just don't get hung up on negative feelings like I did. Focus on what they are actually, beyond the rhetoric, showing and telling you. Because it's really important for anyone who eats food in this country, and, unlike Super-size Me, it's not just about McDonalds--it's ALL food.

If you want to read reviews written by people who didn't wait three months, I found a list of them here. And check out Food Inc.'s website for more information. Photo from the review by the NYTimes.

Ezra Klein and Mark Bittman, chattin' away

Wow, since that post a few weeks ago in which I expressed concern that my blog was getting a bit too self-absorbed (due to laziness), I now realize it's getting a bit NYTimes-absorbed (due to laziness.) This is because I subscribed to Bitten and Well (both NYTimes blogs) and they show up on my Blogger dashboard every day. So now it's way easier to go, "Ooo that looks interesting, let me read it and post a short synopsis/opinion on it. Done and done."

Whatever, maybe I'll expand my blog horizon beyond the New York Times (even though they are probably the most fantastic, expertise- and quality-wise) but right now, I'm going to talk about them. Again. Because today Mark Bittman posted a couple of awesome video clips of him and Ezra Klein (economic columnist for the Washington Post... if you're a classmate and the name rings a bell, it's because Joel assigned something by him, though I can't remember what--but I bet it was something about the financial conundrum of mainstream media! Yeah, I know: get outta here!)



If you're not enticed already by the fact that it's just them, talking to each other via headsets and webcams, well then you apparently are not as easily amused as I am. I encourage you to watch it if you have the time. (It's delightfully casual and entertaining--especially when Mark's phone rings and he moves out of the shot for a moment to see who it is, leaving poor Ezra to look around and say something awkward.) But just in case, I will highlight what I think were the most interesting parts.

This first clip--which, slightly annoyingly, is not labeled or identified in any manner in the blog post--is mainly about Mark's beef (pun, yes) with vegetarianism. He says that if a vegetarian is so because he thinks meat is murder, but still eats eggs and dairy, then he is slightly "hypocritical" (I rather think of it as ill-informed) because male chicks and calves born on dairy farms are killed. Which I totally did not know.

Ezra then recounts a visit to a goat cheese farm, where they treated their animals very humanely, and how, when asked what happens to the male goats, the woman who ran the farm replied, 'Well, they go into the meat industry.' He laughs and says, "I love the way she put that ... as if they turn 18 and they get a suit and a tie and a briefcase.. they get sent to learn the meat business."

Although I of course chuckled along with them, there is a sinister truth behind this. And their criticism of vegetarianism is precisely what I meant the other day when I referred to the trendiness and almost elitism behind it, that is often lacking substantial reasoning. As Mark says, if your problem is really moral, go vegan.



This one is a debate on the plausibility of launching an assault reminiscent of the tobacco industry on the processed food industry, whereby junk food would be taxed, and those tax dollars would be used for education about healthy eating. Mark wants this, but Ezra argues that more efficient results might be wrought from simply removing the convenience of junk food. Once again, he gives a brilliant example: a vending machine that used to be down the hall from his office was moved, and now he no longer gets Diet Cokes everyday because he's not willing to go down the street to get one. So it wasn't a dying urge for soda that caused him to grab them before, it was "because it was easy."

I think this is so, so true, and I can give one glaring example in the college world (that may make a few of my friends squirm in their seats): meal plans. Having seemingly free money on your school ID, for the sake of convenience, can be an open invitation to indulge in Chik-Fil-A in the Cathedral Cafe everyday (although I am by no means saying you guys do this, so please don't shun me.) Now that I live off-campus and don't have a meal plan, I usually pack, or wait until I get home to eat, or go somewhere healthier, because no longer do I have the excuse of "Well, I have so many Dining Dollars left that I need to get rid of, so it's okay if I get it." It may take me a few extra minutes in the morning (literally, like only five) to pack, but I save both money and my waistline by doing it. A sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.

Food Inc. Trailer

Funny--I posted about contaminated chicken today before I read Lukas's comment on my post about buying locally, in which he talked about health risks from eating overly processed foods.

This is definitely, definitely a concern for the conscious organic/local buyer, and one I meant to address more explicitly by now, instead of just in ambiguous references to the chemicals that are put in our food. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go into it, but will leave you with this: a trailer to a documentary that came out this past summer called Food Inc. While very propaganda-y and one-sided, it is eye-opening as to the present grip corporate agribusiness has on America and all the different ways it affects us: economically as buyers, as workers in these slaughterhouses, our relationship with animals, our health and weight, our relationship with farmers.... I could go on. And will, later, I promise.

Unsafe Chicken Trends

Lovely. Found out via a post on Well that two out of three broiler chickens (which are pretty much any chicken raised for consumption) are contaminated with either salmonella or campylobacter bacteria, which can both cause food poisoning, but the latter can lead to "meningitis, arthritis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, a severe neurological condition." (Read the rest of the post here.)

Argh. This is pretty much why I've cut back on meat in the past year or so. I mean not just bacteria; there are other factors too, particularly that raising animals for human consumption requires so much more energy--both in feed and fossil fuels--than just growing plants. But I haven't become a vegetarian yet because... well I guess because I don't believe in diets (and vegetarianism or veganism is a form of a restrictive diet.) Because I know myself too well: if I want to eat meat, I will. And anyway, it's not the meat itself I disagree with--it's the way it's raised, butchered, transported, etc. (If, years after declaring vegetarianism, I was at a small farm and they butchered a chicken that they raised from an egg--you'd better believe I'd want some.)

And it doesn't matter to me to be able to say "Oooo I'm a vegetarian/vegan," like it's some sort of a badge to wear. And I know it's not to everyone; to some it is a deeply personal and value-laden commitment. But I can't help thinking that to some, the trendy aspect is a bit too alluring....

sleight of hand by the FDA

Thanks to Ben for pointing out that I didn't list foods that contain maltodextrin in my original post. While I alluded to vague categories of both sugar-free and energy-boosting foods, I didn't mention concrete examples.

This is partly because I didn't find any lists of this sort online--another missing piece of the maltodextrin puzzle on the World Wide Web.

But from my research I can give you some examples that I found or know from my own brain (my OWN, not Google's; imagine):

Pretty much, anything from a box. Or can. Processed foods. It can be in cereals, chips, fruit snacks, powdered drinks, granola bars. It's a filler and an additive, so it's in snacks, especially ones that are considered lower-calorie or sugar-free. If I listed every food, my eyes would cross.

Following that sugar-free thing, maltodextrin is also the main ingredient in Splenda. So, this little sneaky sugar-free sweetener is not, in fact, devoid of calories, because, as I mentioned previously, maltodextrin has 4 calories per gram. And one packet of Splenda is one gram, so they have around 3 or 4 calories each. From their website:

[T]he bulking agents provide so few calories per serving that the FDA allows the SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener Products to be called no-calorie sweeteners, because they provide less than five calories per serving.

No wonder all these "diet" drinks haven't made a dent in the obesity epidemic. In fact, I know we've all heard that they actually make you fat--a statement that has been backed up by research--but do we listen? I don't keep soda in my apartment or drink it that often, but I know that at my sister's house I find myself reaching for diet over regular. Are we now so conditioned to associate "diet" with "healthier" even when we know that's not the case? Who's to blame for this?

Well, if you noticed the subtle acronym in the quote from Splenda, it's the Food and Drug Administraion that allows them to claim that they are calorie-free.

So maybe those girls who tried to sue McDonald's for making them fat a few years ago were aiming at the wrong target.

Decoding the Jargon, pt. i

I'm a label-reader. I stand in grocery stores and hold two similar-looking packages in my hands and study and compare and critique. And I always run into something, no matter how "natural" the product claims to be: ingredients that may as well be written in Chinese. Or gibberish. Because they are, to about 99 percent of the public.

Words that inspire mental images of lab coats and Bunsen burners in chemistry class my junior year of high school, words that I don't want to ingest.

But I do. We all do.

What are these?

So begins a series in my blog, a perhaps and hopefully coherent and followable trail through this mess of personal and journalistic anecdotes. Because I cannot be the only person who wonders what these things are. And wants to know, in layman's (lame-man's?) terms.

To begin, simply because it is the first one I have found on this bag of (organic baked) tortilla chips:

Maltodextrin*

Merriam-Webster, that nice motherly book of definitions, says that it is:

any of various carbohydrates derived from the partial hydrolysis of starch (as of corn or potatoes) and used in prepared foods especially as a filler and to enhance texture and flavor

Ah, yes. Right. Abstract, thank you.

More digging.

Looks like, you cook a starchy plant (usually corn because we live in the United States and corn invades everything), throw in some enzymes and/or acid (like they pre-digest it for you), and you get a very processed, white powdery substance.

Corn --> Cornstarch --> Maltodextrin

It is just a long chain of glucose (simple sugar) molecules, which makes it technically classifiable as a complex carbohydrate (i.e. the carbs found in fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, etc.) But, those chains are broken down into single glucose molecules in the body. So it is pretty much sugar once our bodies digest it, and has the same amount of calories (4 per gram), but it is not sweet.

And even though our body processes it as sugar, it is not listed under "sugar" on nutrition labels because it is "complex".  It will just show up under the general carbohydrate listing.

For this devious reason, maltodextrin is used a lot as a filler in foods looking to lower its sugar content and also in energy supplements looking to raise caloric levels without adding taste.

Whew, okay, let me just take a deep breath and cool down my brain, because I had to trudge through a lot of suspicious bullshit just to come up with that simple analysis. Curiously, there is not a lot of good info on the web about maltodextrin, at least that seems trustworthy. (I wondered, Should I go get a *gasp* book?) And a lot of it is contradictory.

For example, one article on a website for vitamin supplements says, "During the cooking process, ... natural enzymes and acids help to break down the starch even further." By not mentioning where those enzymes or acids come from, this gives the impression that they just appear, that they come from the food itself. But, I found on other sites words such as applied and used in reference to enzymes.

My intuition is that, much like its representation on the Internet, maltodextrin is a sneaky thing. It is natural in that it comes from a plant. But it only comes about from manipulation of that plant. And it tricks our bodies into thinking it's something it's not... or maybe it's the food industry that tricks us, by labeling it as "complex" when it really is more "simple."

My advice, especially if you are diabetic: watch out, treat it like sugar. Better yet, just use unrefined versions of sugar. At least those are sweet.



*Ironically, maltodextrin does not show up as a recognized word in Blogger's spellcheck. Go... figure.

somebody please reign in that senile old man

Um, okay, while looking for an image to put on that KFC post (yes, a post-post edit), I inadvertently threw up:

In honor of the 60 million (and growing) citizens of Grilled Nation who have tried KFC's new Kentucky Grilled Chicken, KFC issued a letter to the United Nations Secretary General requesting that Grilled Nation "earn a seat" at the international organization's table. The letter also requested that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon call a special one-hour lunch break so that members of the UN can "UNThink" their usual lunch routine and try new Kentucky Grilled Chicken (KGC).

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? I thought this was a joke at first but I'm pretty sure this is the actual press release so, unfortunately, guess not.

Yes, in a world where people kill each other, kill their neighbors and loved ones, over food, religion, politics, freedom, equality, rights, etc., THIS is the issue the UN needs to be worrying about. Absolutely. Nail on the head, KFC, thanks for  making America once again look AWESOME and totally in tune with reality.

kentucky fried crap

My first real job was at the Subway in my hometown, where my bosses hated me because I defied their very scientific and mechanical approaches to sub preparation ("Sandwich Artist", the official title of Subway slaves, is a clever misnomer.) Skill-wise, I don't know if I learned much other than How to Be Corporate's Bitch. But at least I can give an insider's account of the behind-the-scenes action at Subway--the fact that the roast beef acquires a rainbow-like sheen when exposed to oxygen, and that a little-followed policy is to charge 25 cents when a customer exceeds his 6 olive slices max--all of which, I found out today, are nothing compared to the skeletons in the closet of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

My co-worker Julius worked at KFC when he was 16, and he let me in on how the crispy little chicken parts get from point A to point B:

The raw chicken breasts, thighs and wings come in a plastic bag that, once thawed, becomes filled with blood. Company procedure dictates that employees must drain the blood  and remove certain gushy excesses before tossing the chicken parts in the fryer, but Julius said that if things got too busy, those inconsequential steps were skipped, and the whole bag was dumped in, blood and guts and all.

(Now, this is one KFC out of 70 zillion, and adherence to policies and procedures may not be uniform, so please don't sue me, scary Colonel man.)

There was no raw meat at Subway, thank god, but there was meat, and it had to be raw at some point. And who knows where the hell it came from. A chicken, presumably, somewhere....

Maybe we should start stamping our foods with "Made in" labels.

Take your jetpack and leave

When I was a kid, watching the same cartoons my mom watched when she was a kid (and probably in the same position: on floor, on stomach, head in hands), she told me that she had thought the world would be like this by now. (The Jetsons really fucked with the minds of impressionable young baby-boomers, giving them false expectations of flying cars and the ability to steal money from the wallet of your dad without repercussions.)

But it's worth pondering, with all the technological advances we've had in computers and music and movies and telephones and the like, why not in other arenas? Like food? Why can't we press a button and out pops a pill that dissolves into the perfect little army of nutrients that our bodies need? Where the hell are you, science?!

But then again, maybe we do have these new forms of non-natural foods; they're just not in the neat little plastic package we expected. Take for example: energy drinks! energy bars! virtually anything energy related that isn't coffee or tea! I also found an article about food pills (and other futuristic follies) that mentioned food for soldiers, namely MRE's (meals-ready-to-eat) and CM's (compressed meals). Seems one of the only ways to partake in futuristic cuisine is to enlist yourself in mano-a-mano combat.

But really, obviously, if you know me or my blog at all, you will know that I am relieved that pill food did not take off, and, thus, worried about the products out there that are inching towards it. My reasons are many, from scientific to social. First of all, there are aspects of food that just can't be manipulated into a compact package. An article I found about "nutraceuticals", another ploy to present healthful aspects of food in a pill form, states:

The problem, it seems, is that food is too complicated to be stripped down to its chemical components, and that the whole is far greater than its parts. Most nutraceutical studies are done in vitro, not in humans, and a free chemical in a Petri dish behaves far differently than when it is bound to food and sent through the body.

Chemistry aside, there are also capitalist pressures that should make one wary about any food product touting  a plethora of health benefits. As this witty writer for the New York Times Magazine says:

Humans deciding what to eat without expert help — something they have been doing with notable success since coming down out of the trees — is seriously unprofitable if you’re a food company, distinctly risky if you’re a nutritionist and just plain boring if you’re a newspaper editor or journalist. (Or, for that matter, an eater. Who wants to hear, yet again, “Eat more fruits and vegetables”?) And so, like a large gray fog, a great Conspiracy of Confusion has gathered around the simplest questions of nutrition — much to the advantage of everybody involved. Except perhaps the ostensible beneficiary of all this nutritional expertise and advice: us, and our health and happiness as eaters.

 Finally, although the Jetsons are misleadingly posed around a kitchen table, forks in hand, if food really did come in pill form, imagine the loss of the aesthetic pleasures of eating. I mean, what do we all do, whether one is a vegan or lives on a McDiet, when we meet up with friends in the afternoon, a date on Saturday night, extended family on the holidays, Mom or Dad or Son or Daughter or Wife or Husband at home every evening? We eat. Snack. Feast. Nibble. Nosh. Taking a pill makes hunger and nutrition seems like a medical malady, something that needs to be cured. It's not; it needs to be satisfied, with real, whole foods.

musings on the popcorn industry

Writing a paper and eating popcorn and should be thinking about Las Casas' views on colonialism but instead wondering what exactly Pop-Secret's secret is. Why would you choose a product name that implies that you are not being honest with your customers? I guess it has worked for them but it seems like a fishy business maneuver to me.
There must be a CEO somewhere in in a big building stroking his big mustache, cackling: "Oh, by the way, those things exploding in the microwave that you never see in their pre-poofed state? Not corn. BABIES. Yep. Take that, vegetarians. You are now cannibals."



Really must stop watching weird cartoons on Adult Swim.