What can you do in 100 miles?

Ever since I first read about the 100 Mile diet, I was quite taken with the prospect of subsisting off only local food. The environmentalist in me was all riled up just thinking about the enormous amount of resources that could and would be saved on such a diet. In my mind, I had created this idyllic situation where fresh food appeared every day, and somehow cooked itself and served itself. My dreams were somewhat shattered when I happened to watch a documentary on the Food Network about the challenges a few families had to go through during a year on the 100 Mile diet. It was eye-opening because it really brought home to me the concept that local food, although it sounds simple enough (I mean, it’s closer than Florida!), our society has changed by such a large extent that we must work doubly hard to get our hands (and stomachs) on local food as compared to foods brought in from all over the world. I remember learning in a food security course I took last semester, that in Toronto (and similarly in many other metropolitan cities), there is ever only enough food to last 24 hours. This statistic to me is quite frightening; that there would be a cap placed on the amount of food available. This also opens up a whole can of other worms; accessibility? If the flow is being controlled, so must be the distribution. If there is only 1 day’s worth of food, who mandates where this food should go, and how much it should be priced? I think as a by product of our society’s continual requirement to get as much as we can (in terms of foods that cannot be grown here, in season), we have wasted the great gift that is local food.

Local food in my opinion is good for two reasons:

1. Economy: simply put, it puts money back into the economy in which it belongs. If money made in Toronto is not spent on things made in Toronto, but rather on those imported from foreign countries, we’re doing our local farmers a disservice. By purchasing foods that have traveled great distances and which have HUGE ecological footprints, we’re sending a message unknowingly to food purchasers and distributors that we prefer international produce. This is unfortunate because it negatively affects local farmers; suddenly no one wants their produce and their prices consequently suffer. We as consumers are similarly hurt because we forgo the main advantage of eating local food: freshness and quality.

2. Freshness and Quality: I think that this is something that is often overlooked because it is taken for granted. Sure, if it’s local it must be fresh. I think this is an understanding most people have of local foods, ‘local’ and ‘fresh’ are synonymous. However, I don’t think people really understand the concept of ‘freshness’ and how it is a benefit to them, to the environment, and to the economy. Local food generally means that there is less of a chance of any tampering, be it GMO type adaptations or the use of harmful pesticides ( I acknowledge that this is not always true; it depends on the size of the farm). So I think freshness in terms of local food generally means that what you put on your plate is fresh in the sense that it’s more natural, and fresh in the sense of time because guaranteed it’s taken less time to get here than an orange from Florida. I also think one must consider freshness in the context of our ecological footprint. If we’re paying for the food to travel a gazillion miles to get to us, we’re taking away from the ‘freshness’ of the environment as a result of transportation-related pollution. And finally, economically I think freshness is key because it allows local money to stay locally and benefit the farmers who are providing us with the produce.

I understand that eating locally is very difficult to do, and I’m under no illusions that it would be a utopian experience. However I feel given how far we’ve removed ourselves from the local scene, we as a community need to start putting back into it. It would be impossible to mandate that everyone be put on a 100 mile diet, but I think small steps are important. Visiting and local food market once a week would be a step in the right direction, I would think. I don’t go to farmer’s markets as often as I should, but I remember when I do go, my love of food is rekindled just by looking at the bounty that is laid out before me. What I’m trying to say, is that if every person made a conscious decision to be conscious of how their simple everyday choices affect their local community and the world in general, we’d have a much more cohesive and aware society.
I’m very tempted to attempt something similar to the 100 Mile diet this summer, we’ll see if I can actually survive without such essentials as chocolate and pop for a whole year.

http://100milediet.org/

What about now?

Toronto food banks have recently been negatively affected by the recession, notes an article in the Toronto Star. Not only has usage increased, but there has been a simultaneous drop in donations and volunteer efforts. Combined, this has created an unfortunate situation where there is an extreme shortage in the supplies needed to feed those in need. The article goes on to suggest that the remedy for this influx of individuals and a decrease in donations is to implement long-term plans and policy. I understand that in the long-run, well thought out and detailed policies will be beneficial to future generations of food bank users. However, whenever I hear people proposing ‘policy’ as a fix for a situation, I’m likely to roll my eyes. I feel that no one really considers the impact of situations on the ‘now’. Long term policies will benefit those in the future; who will look after the ones in need today? I think the answer lies in the community. While we wait for the Government to bring about long-term change, the community needs to come together to really make a difference in the lives of people who are suffering at this moment.

In FNN 400, we discussed community assets, and how these can be a boon to communities and community building. In particular, I believe community coalitions are the key to the success of food banks especially now in their time of crisis. In coming together as a united group of people, all working towards the same goal (in this case, improving the state of Toronto’s hungry) there will be a synergy created that will undoubtedly positively affect not only the food insecure, but also those who are part of the coalition. I think the three main benefits of creating community coalitions are:

1. Assets: I think assets can be both tangible and intangible. By coming together and brainstorming ideas, groups of people can really bring about some effective change. The bonus in having a variety of people working together is that each brings a fresh perspective (asset) to the table; something that is missing in the current handling and treatment of food banks. I feel as though further development and refinement of the food bank system will require some creative problem solving; something which I strongly believe cannot be achieved by the work of one. In addition, assets in the form of monetary value are also integral to aiding food banks. Community initiatives are well known for their ability to garner public interest, and raise funds for a certain cause. Be it a sponsored car wash, or a fundraiser dinner, groups of people working together are notorious for coming up with unique ideas for raising much needed funds.

2. Financial resources: I think this is where community efforts can really be seen at their zenith. I remember in high school and even as far back as elementary school; come Christmas time, boxes and bins were ready for the collection of donations and generally, a specific monetary target was set. It was a yearly tradition, just the same as the year-end Christmas party. I think that by harnessing this ability to come together and serve a common purpose, we as a community can make a tangible difference to the problem of Toronto’s food security.

3. Social support: community by definition is a gathering of people who share a common goal. I think the greatest gift a community coalition can provide is not just in the money or food donations it gathers, but that of compassion and moral and social support. Just the simple act of a sympathetic ear may make the difference between a good day and a bad day. Although we may not necessarily be able to put ourselves in another’s shoes, we most certainly can call forth our ability to sympathize and make a tremendous difference in the lives of many.

http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/2009/11/toronto-star-food-banks-feel-effect-of-job-losses/

Would you like that with a side of crack?

In searching food related articles online, I came across one written just recently regarding the effects that fat-rich foods have on our psychological reactions to food. Entitled ‘Bacon and cheesecake have an effect on the brain similar to heroin and cocaine: study’, it immediately caught my attention. The study this article cites has found that eating bacon and cheesecake alters brain chemistry in such a way that it rewires it to crave more of the same high-fat foods. The study was conducted on rats and the findings indicate that when the rats were given a large proportion of high-fat foods in their diet, they binged on these foods while the control group of rats maintained usual eating patterns. When testing levels of the dopamine D2 receptor in their brains, scientists found there to be much lower levels in the experiment group as compared to the control group. The dopamine D2 receptor is linked with feelings of reward and satisfaction. The scientists believe that when the experiment group of rats became obese, they entered a ‘reward deficit’. Because they were binge eating, their reward centres in the brain became overwhelmed, thus essentially causing a crash of the whole system. At this stage, the rats were in a constant state of reward search, or fix, thus causing them to continue to consume excessive amounts of the high fat food. This is why scientists believe that high fat foods may have similar consequences on brain and body function as drug addictions; the same concept applies: the ever-present, uncontrollable need to find that ‘reward’ or ‘fix’. Now, we must take into account that while rats are often used in experiments in place of humans, there is no certainty that this chemical response is the same in humans. I’m not entirely sure whether or not to believe the claims made by this study as a lot of times articles vilifying junk and fatty foods are meant to be sensational and shocking; this one definitely fits the bill. However, I think it brings up some interesting points.

One of the researchers in the study was quoted as saying:
["What this is telling you is that, if you persist in eating food that you know is bad for you, there is a chance that you will develop a habit, and you will keep on going back to that food unless you make a really strong, conscious effort to stop it," Dr. Kenny said.
"It's incumbent upon people to make sure that they're more respectful and aware of what they're eating. Just be aware that there are dangers and risks associated. Enjoy (high-fat) food but make sure it's occasionally and very-well controlled. Don't overindulge repeatedly, because there could be repercussions.]
I think this is really the crux of the matter. In targeting obesity, it is not simply enough to lay blame at the hands of fast-food producers and dopamine D2. In curing the effects of obesity, efforts must be target towards helping individuals build their self-esteem and morale to the extent that they can on their own bring themselves out the addictive behaviour. Control is what needs to be stressed. Granted, in this world of excess this is a tall order, but I see no way other than premeditative action.


I will admit that even I am addicted to McDonald’s. A friend and I sometimes have ‘lard sessions’ as we fondly refer to them, when we’ve had an especially long week. This article’s main insinuation is that high-fat foods, such as the sandwich pictured to the left, are not just superficially addictive (in the sense that they taste good, hence we want to eat them more often), but that there is an actual chemical response; eating excessive junk food causes a dependence on it for satisfaction and feelings of reward. In my own personal experience, I can attest to this somewhat. I know, for instance, that in a week when I have high-fat foods, such as chips, or fast food, I’m much more predisposed to having more in quick succession in the same day or week; it becomes much harder to resist the tempting smells at Union station on my way home on Friday if I’ve already cracked and bought something on Monday. I’m not sure whether this corroborates in entirety the findings of the above mentioned study, however I think there is some merit in considering that our predilection for high-fat foods may not be simply our own fault. I think however, that there is a fear in completely attributing addictions to high-fat foods to an uncontrollable, chemical reaction. It runs the risk of condoning such addictive behaviours, and may serve to increase obesity rates by way of this ‘chemical reaction theory’ being used as an excuse for the continuation of these addictive behaviours.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2737117

Nutrition labels at restaurants?

The other day I went to High Tea with my mom and sister. It was a pleasant experience, however as I was eating my large blueberry scone and my assortment of crust-less sandwiches, I got to thinking about what was actually ‘in’ my food. And then I realized that there was really no way for me to find out. Aside from large fast-food chains, I can’t recall a single restaurant that I’ve been to that lists the nutritional content of their menu items on their menus. I can’t even be sure as to what ingredients are included in the products I eat. Some restaurants such as Pickle Barrel have options on their menus for calorie and fat-conscious individuals, but that is the extent of nutrition information that is given to customers. Although the major ingredient contributions to the meal are generally listed, specifics about products are rarely provided. While I understand that this is necessary to preserve the restaurant’s claim to certain recipes, I often wonder how there hasn’t been a more concerted effort on the part of concerned parties (ex. people with certain allergies) to advocate for more transparent restaurant menus. I know personally, if I was a concerned parent of a child with a certain allergy, I’d be very interested to know what was in the food I ordered. For instance, Celiac disease which has such far reaching implications regarding diet, would impeded many people from enjoying restaurant meals if proper nutrition and ingredient information was not provided. I think another important consideration is that while some menu items may ‘appear’ healthy, in reality their composition may be the complete opposite. A salad for instance, may seem appealing but upon further reflection, it ma y appear to be loaded with fats, sugars, or have a high sodium content. I think that restaurants are capable of misleading their patrons simply because they are not required to be as thorough in reporting nutrition information as their fast-food counterparts. I think that transparency is important in restaurant menus simply because patrons have the right to know what it is they’re eating.

When I came home that day and decided to do some research to find out what others’ opinions were on this issue; I imagined it had come to the attention of many other before me. When I tried to search restaurants who listed nutritional information on their menus online, I had absolutely no luck. The more I thought about it, I realized that it’s become second nature for me to gauge the nutritional quality and content of a menu item at a sit-down restaurant based on the ingredients listed on the menu. But really that gets me nowhere because I don’t know the quantities of specific ingredients or additional ingredients not listed on the menu. My question is: why are restaurants exempt from providing nutritional information on their menus? In a society where there is an emphasis placed on health and wellness, I think it is important for restaurants to join the trend.

I found a study relating to this topic that was conducted in October of 2009, so it’s still relatively recent. Its findings were interesting to me because they bolstered my own opinions, but also surprised me at the same time. The study pooled the opinions of 402 respondents who had watched a news clip of restaurants that provided nutrition information. 84% of those questioned were of the opinion that restaurants should include nutrition information on their menus. This to me was unsurprising because I feel that in our society today, we’ve become very used to having access to in-depth information on a range of topics; nutrition information included. Hence, this majority number served only to strengthen my own assumptions that most individuals would feel more comfortable knowing the contents of their meals. In addition, 54% of individuals felt that having nutrition information on menus would influence their purchasing behaviour. Again, this statistic seemed straightforward to me. What I found particularly interesting was that only 51% of respondents felt that there would be no change in their decision to eat out/not eat out if nutrition information was provided on the menu. Given the previous statistic stating that nutrition information would influence the buying decisions of a majority of respondents, I found this finding to be surprising; the findings seem to contradict each other.

In doing further research, I came across an article about potential legislation in New Jersey mandating that nutrition information be displayed on menus in restaurants. What I found interesting here was that although restaurant owners were agreed that disclosing information to customers was a step in the right direction, their main concern was that they would have to overhaul their menus in order to incorporate the necessary information. Seriously? You’re concerned with printing new menus when what hangs in the balance is more disclosure and ensuring that your customers have the basic information that they’re entitled to when they dine out? I know that when making the choice to dine outside the home, you’re consciously giving up the right to mandate what is put in your food. However, given current social trends, I think it is restaurants’ social responsibility to be accountable for themselves. I know that although I won’t stop dining at restaurants because they don’t offer any nutritional info (I love my spinach dip waaayyy too much), I know I’d feel much more at ease if they did.

http://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCare/J7577-CalorieCounting/Index.cfm

The greatest thing since sliced bread!

I never did understand the big hoo-ha about sliced bread. I mean sure, I understand that by having it pre-sliced one saves considerable time and energy; a huge BONUS for any working parent. I can understand the uses and need for pre-sliced bread in our current society. I cannot however, really understand how it became such a huge success as quickly as it did in the 20s when it was first introduced. At this time, I find it hard to believe that housewives were particularly interested in convenience items. I may be wrong, I don’t really know anyone who was a housewife in that time period, so I’ve never asked. But this does make me think about the part that marketing has to play in the peddling of foods in the marketplace. It’s such a huge influence; it clearly succeeded in making people believe that they should shell out money to purchase bread that was sliced when they could purchase a loaf for much cheaper and slice it at home for free.

I think an understanding of marketing is essential for anyone in the nutrition field even if we’re not dealing with food marketing directly. I’m taking marketing courses to fulfill my marketing minor, and so I pick up a few tid bits of information here and there. One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that for marketers, it’s not about marketing a product that people need, rather it’s the other way around: creating a need for a product so that consumers will feel that it’s vital and imperative that they purchase it. And, in this society, marketers seem to be succeeding quite well. I always love to use the example of Listerine and other similar mouth wash products. Marketers, when pushing this product banked on the knowledge that the general public seem to put their trust in anything that claims to be a cure or remedy for a disease or medical condition. For this reason, they invented ‘halitosis’; sure, it sounds like a real condition. In reality, it’s just a fancy name for bad breath. Saying ‘Listerine cures Halitosis’ is much more impressive than ‘Listerine cures bad breath’.

I think health professionals need to be aware of the effect that marketers have on influencing society’s tastes, trends, needs and wants. Currently, society is very health conscious; I think a large part of this has to do with marketing. I understand the relationship is 2-way also; marketers will follow trends in the marketplace and use them to their benefit. But, the point I’m trying to make here is that it’s all good and well when marketers are following the ideals that health care professionals have. But, this was not always the case; vitamin water and antioxidants are all the rage now, what happens when marketers decide that fried chicken is the new Nutragrain bar? This is a little far fetched, but in case you haven’t already noticed, I’m sometimes prone to exaggeration when I’m trying to prove a point. Marketers and health professionals can have a very fruitful relationship if they work together towards the same goal. I strongly believe that there can be harmony between making a profit and giving the public what they need. We, as dietitians, need marketers to convince consumers that what they ‘need’ is in fact more nutritious and healthy foods that will in the end benefit them in the long term. I think with some work, a happy co-existence is not impossible.

If you’re interested in some history on sliced bread, see:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/qt/slicedbread.htm

Festivi-Teas

I’m sitting here with a full belly (god bless mothers), and all I want now is a nice cup of tea. But the problem is which to choose? There are so many varieties of teas available on the market these days it’s hard to really narrow it down to one. Not to mention, the tea drinks you can get at places like Starbucks and Timothy’s. Although coffee is possibly a more popular drink than tea, it’s nevertheless true that tea has made a name for itself in the world of hot and cold beverages. I think over the past 2-3 years we’ve really seen an outcropping of teas and their popularity has really soared. I think this trend is a positive one because if the choice comes down to it, tea is a much ‘healthier’ option than coffee. I feel a little hypocritical saying this because I love my coffee too. Of particular interest to me is the increase in the interest of green tea. Because of its health benefits, people seem to have taken a huge interest in this particular brand of tea lately; it’s nice to see. I think in this current society of health conscious individuals, it’s not just food that’s being reassessed for its nutritious qualities, but also drinks. I think the same holds true for carbonated beverage alternatives. Although things like V8 have been around for quite some time, I have noticed a greater emphasis being placed on juices, flavoured waters and things of that nature over the last 5 years or so.

I remember a few years ago a friend and I had gone downtown to have High Tea. It was quite the experience; the room was decorated very elegantly, and everything from the tea cups to the finger sandwiches to the scones couldn’t have been called anything but dainty. Although I quite enjoyed the experience, it dawned on me that I had no idea about the origins of the high tea, or afternoon tea ceremony. So I did some research, and thought I’d share my findings with you:

High Tea History:

The concept of ‘tea’ as a meal originated in Britain where it was made popular by the Duchess of Bedford, Ann. To put it simply, the reason for its conception: Ann got hungry. Apparently at that time in Britain, meals were spaced far apart from one another. Sources indicate that Ann had a ‘sinking feeling’ in the afternoon. To remedy this, she would have her servants sneak her up some tea during the afternoon. I guess she must have enjoyed this so much that she began to have them bring up little finger sandwiches and scones along with her tea. This was known as ‘afternoon tea’. Eventually, she began to invite her friends over for tea, and it became a regular occasion that spread throughout Britain over a period of time. The name ‘high tea’ originates more from the working class although now mostly both ‘after noon tea and high tea’ are used synonymously. Afternoon tea began to be called ‘High Tea’ by the working class when they would return home from a day’s work and enjoy tea with leftovers, such as pieces of meat, sandwiches and scones at a the traditional high dinner tables as opposed to the lower, smaller tea tables.

Can I interest you in some fishberries?

RAHHH!! At least, that’s what I’d imagine my strawberry would yell at me if it had a mouth, fangs, and fins in which case it would have to be renamed the ‘fishberry’. I’m a fan of trying new foods in moderation, but there are certain lines that I will draw; a fish-fruit hybrid thing is one of these lines.

The reason that the fishberry was conceptualized was because scientists wanted to make strawberries more resistant to the weather. They attempted this by transplanting fish glycoproteins which lower the freezing points of the organisms in which they’re found, into strawberries. Fear not, the ‘fishberry’ doesn’t actually exist. But, other food products like it (albeit much less sensational), where scientists take a naturally occurring product and combine it with genes from other products to make it hardier, larger, and/or tastier, do exist. These products are grouped together under the general umbrella of Genetically Modified Foods or Organisms (GMOs). Now, I understand the need for humans to constantly outdo themselves, and improve upon what nature has already given them; it’s within our very nature to discover and learn, but I always question: How do we know when we’ve gone too far, and will it be too late to turn back?

I’ve been interested in GMOs since my middle-school days. There’s just something about them that’s at the same time supremely fascinating, and utterly revolting. Having taken a food insecurity course just last semester, I’ve gained new respect for GMOs and the part they play in aiding food insecurity around the world. Creating stronger, more weather resistant plants will obviously be beneficial to farmers whose livelihoods depend on the crops they produce each year. The saying, ‘give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and feed him for a lifetime’ fits this situation well. Giving farmers seeds which are modified increase the crop’s chances of survival, thereby increasing the chances of sustainability for these farmers. Now, while this may seem like an idyllic situation for all - the good, prosperous West provides the impoverished with genetically modified ‘super’ seeds, and it’s happily ever after for everyone – in reality there are many layers to the debate about GMOs.

The first issue that springs to mind is that of environmental integrity. Since GMO foods are scientifically altered so that they contain ‘alien’ genes, this increases the chances of cross-contamination tenfold. There are no ways currently to control cross-pollination in open fields. That being said, what is to stop the hypothetical fishberry from ‘mating’ with a neighbouring crop of wheat, and creating the Whishberry? Although this is purely fictional, there are many implications of cross-pollination. The main one being allergies. Since we know that proteins are the major cause of allergies, genetic modification could have disastrous effects if people with allergies unknowingly ate food they thought was ‘allowed’, but which actually contained proteins from another organism. What concerns me is that these genetically modified crops also have the potential to be introduced into the wild and thereby interact with ‘natural’ populations of the same crop. This is worrisome because we’d be essentially messing with the integrity of nature.

Canada’s current labeling policy does not require food products to be labeled as genetically modified. Consumers have no idea if they’re eating food that’s been tampered with. I don’t recall the exact number off hand, but I remember being flabbergasted when I found out that the majority of food products currently available in the Canadian food market are genetically modified or contain genetically modified ingredients (ever find yourself wondering why strawberries get bigger and redder each year? I know I do). What really irritates me about GMO foods is not that they’re in our food system, but more so the fact that we, the public, were not aware of their introduction. I have not currently made up my mind about whether I think GMOs are a positive or negative (so addition (currently, I’m leaning towards negative) to our food system, but what I ask for, is the choice to make my own decision. Similar to the labeling of organic foods, I strongly believe that with their initial introduction, there should have been concurrent rules developed regarding appropriate labeling. I realize now, after my research that GMOs are a much more complex issue than organic foods. Some products will contain certain genetically modified ingredients, but in such small quantities that it may be inappropriate to label them as ‘genetically modified’. Or, that they may be processed in plants where other GMOs were processed; what are we to do in this situation, when a product may or may not have come into contact with GMOs? I think what bothers me the most is the uncertainty I feel. There really aren’t enough longitudinal studies done on the long term effects of GMO foods for me to feel safe and reassured. When on the WHO website I came across this:

“ … individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. ”

Er…so, what you’re basically telling me is that the food I’m eating may or may not be harmful to me? And, to add insult to injury, there’s a high likelihood that I won’t even know that I’m eating it. These are odds that I’m not comfortable with. Are you?


I think the WHO have a done a good job of summarizing some of the main information on GMOs. If you want more information, check out this link:

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html