Look at that ingredients list... good grief.

This is awesome. But now, I have to address something a little less than awesome. The FDA.

For those of us who are calorie counting, this is of interest to us. I, really, have no words for this just yet. But trust me.. they’re coming.

For those of you who may not be able to watch the video, the transcript (provided by The Today Show website) is pasted below. Just… wowzers.

Matt Lauer: This morning on TODAY INVESTIGATES, exposing the truth behind diet food labels. Can you really believe those fat and calorie numbers? NBC’s Jeff Rossen went to find out. And I have a feeling this is bad news, Jeff. Good morning.

JEFF ROSSEN reporting: No. And we brought them out to show you.

LAUER: All right.

ROSSEN: You know, a lot of us are on diets, including one of us on the couch right now. We’ll let you guess which one. And that’s why we buy these frozen meals. They make the hard sell right on the front. I’m sure you’ve seen it, with the low-calorie and the low-fat numbers. So we took them to a lab and did some testing of our own. This morning, we separate the fat from the fiction. IN the battle of the bulge these companies say they have the secret weapon.

ROSSEN: They brag about low fat and calories, knowing consumers eat this stuff up. How important are these numbers to you?

Unidentified Woman #1: They’re important.

Unidentified Man: And that’s all I look at. First thing, even before price.

Unidentified Woman #2: People don’t buy it because it tastes good. They buy it because the calories are there. And that’s what they’re looking for. And they’re like…

ROSSEN: So if the calories and the fat are off?

Woman #2: Yeah, then it’s what’s the point?

ROSSEN: Exactly. So we bought meals from the top diet brands: Lean Cuisine, Weight Watchers’ Smart Ones and Healthy Choice. We took the meals out of the packaging and put them into specially marked baggies, then sent them here to ESL, a top food laboratory. Scientists tested each sample for fat and calories. Would the numbers really match the labels? We found it was all over the map. Some were actually lower. Healthy Choice Roasted Beef Merlot, 17 percent less fat compared to the label. Lean Cuisine’s Grilled Chicken Primavera, 19 percent fewer calories than the label. And the rosemary Chicken, 60 percent less fat. But don’t start binging yet. Our tests showed many meals were packaged with higher numbers. Smart Ones Shrimp Marinara had ten percent more calories than the label. Healthy Choice Lobster Cheese Ravioli, 17 percent more fat than the label. And that Lean Cuisine Chicken Primavera? Twenty percent more fat. But the biggest gut busted of all? Smart Ones Sweet and Sour Chicken. It advertises 210 calories and two grams of fat. We found it really had 11 percent more calories and the whopping 350 percent more fat. While the company was “skeptical” at our results, they’ve now launched an internal audit.

Ms. SUSAN ROBERTS, PHD (Tufts University): It’s enough to make you cry. I mean, these – this is disgraceful.

ROSSEN: Susan Roberts should know. As a leading food scientist, she did similar testing in her lab and, like us, found lying labels.

Ms. ROBERTS: We hear all the time that people are not losing weight. They’re plateauing. They can’t understand why they’re eating almost nothing and not losing weight. Here’s one explanation.

ROSSEN: You may be outraged by this, but the government isn’t. In many cases, under the law it’s perfectly OK. Believe it or not, FDA regulations allow food companies to be as much as 20 percent off on their labels.

Unidentified Woman #3: That’s unfortunate, and especially at the same time when they’re preaching to us about obesity.

ROSSEN: The government allows these companies to be 20 percent off on their label.

Unidentified Woman #3: Why?

ROSSEN: Good question. The FDA declined our request for an interview, so we went to the group representing the food companies. Isn’t this deceptive?

Mr. ROBERT BRACKETT (Grocery Manufacturers Association): No, it’s not at all deceptive. It may be something that the consumers don’t necessarily understand. And this is a great to explain them.

ROSSEN: He says these labels are merely an average. Companies come up with the numbers by testing a dozen or so meals then taking the average. Portions vary so they say no one meal can be exact. Why not be more transparent on the label and say this isn’t necessarily 230 calories, it’s an average? It’s 230-ish calories.

Mr. BRACKETT: Well, you could but it really wouldn’t help consumers. The idea here is that if you see 230 calories, that that’s a food that you normally eat, some are going to be more and some are going to be less.

ROSSEN: So you’re saying it’s OK for one particular sample to be three times higher than it says, another sample to be three times lower, as long as it averages out?

Mr. BRACKETT: Well, it’s — a better way to say this is not it’s OK, is that it’s a fact of nature. It’s a matter of being practical.

ROSSEN: Tell that to the poor customer who ends up with our Sweet and Sour Chicken, packed with three and a half times more fat than the label claims.

Woman #2: That’s scary, actually, because I eat those a lot, like very often, and now I’m wondering maybe that’s why I am — my weight hasn’t budged.

ROSSEN: No, she still looks good. In fact, scientists say these variations could cause you to gain weight over time. We shared our results with the food companies. They told us their labels and their testing procedures follow all FDA regulations. And, Matt, the big question is if these are made on a production line, why can’t they be more exact? The food companies say we’re dealing with real food here…

Can We Really Trust Nutrition Labels? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Are The Fat Free Labels Lying To You?
2. How To Dine With Nutrition In Mind
3. Supermarket Swindle: Two Things To Avoid On Your Food Labels

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: calorie counting, FDA, government, healthy foods, myths, nutrition labels

Christine from Steen’s Cookies – yes, yes, I know – sent in these photos and, well… my face instantly frowned up. If this was what I had available to me at my nearest store, could I say that I’d buy that?

Ladies and gentlemen, we do have mold.

Considering the fact that veggies are usually wrapped in saran wrap and styrofoam to prevent the buyer from being able to inspect it for wear and withering… exactly how long were these sitting there?

Side note: Viva la farmer’s market, seriously.

Are there places near your home that sell veggies that look like this? What’s going on out there?

Do YOUR Grocery Store’s Vegetables Look Like This? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. How To Grocery Shop Like A Clean Eater
2. Take A Peek Inside My Grocery List
3. Video Vault: How Fresh Is Your Favorite Restaurant Or Grocery Store’s Food?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 28 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Surprise, surprise, no one was reading all that.

That’s okay. I’m breaking it up into a few parts that everyone will be able to digest slowly and properly (pun intended), and hopefully we can explore why healthier, cleaner, more chemical-free food choices are so important. It is critical that any person embarking on a clean eating journey have an understanding of why the journey is so vital to their success in losing weight.

Consider this part III of the series.

So, if the foods aren’t nutritionally deficient, why is this a problem?

Well, how much credit do you give food science? The rule is simply that the foods cannot be deficient in nutrients that science recognizes as valuable. What about what science hasn’t spotted yet? What about all these hyphenated chemicals that science hasn’t identified (or is prevented from identifying) as harmful to our health?

And before you call me a conspiracy theorist, consider this: it took science decades to recognize that trans-fats – once a massive part of margarine and other major foods – were hazardous to our health. Believe it or not, the government still allows trans-fats in foods, and actually allows food manufacturers to lie about how much trans-fats are in their foods. (More on that later.)

What else, in these foods, is doing us in? Science doesn’t know yet. And really, since most of our food science studies are funded by the very industry they affect… do you genuinely expect science to find out? I’m not telling you that they’d intentionally fudge numbers to present favorable results – trying to remain unbiased, here – but I am telling you it’s easy to divert funds elsewhere… as in, another study. Maybe even… a study attempting to debunk something claiming their products are harmful.

That’s not the conspiracy theorist in me. That’s just smart business on their part… regardless of what it does to the consumer. Keep the consumer far enough away from the research, and they’ll never know the downfall of buying my product. It just happens that way.

So since this is all cyclical, let’s go back to that availability of food thing. Now, all this food (food, mind you, that seeks to NOT be nutritionally deficient although it admits that it is) is available to our families. We, knowing what it’s like to have to worry about food not being available, begin to indulge. Factories – and factory jobs – are springing up because industries are blossoming. Longer work hours, both adults in the household are now working, and all this super convenient food at hand. We’re eating what we can, when we can, and eating a lot of it… since we’re enjoying the ability to eat at our discretion, not at the discretion of a ration.

Keep in mind, also, at this time… a new generation of children are being born under this new understanding of food. Family tradition might lend to certain dishes being made a certain way, but lots of dishes are being replaced by the magic elixir in the box. Some of us have that Grandma who insists on cooking everything from scratch. We tend to write her off as crazy or paranoid because “Times have changed” and “No one has time for all that cooking,” or maybe because “This is the [insert decade]s, Nana, we don’t live in the kitchen the way you used to!” Things that are all true, but come with consequences.

I asked you, dear reader, to keep in mind the point I made earlier about hyphenated chemical ingredients in our food, right? I hope you did. The interesting loophole in the FDA’s policy about imitation foods is that there’s very little limit to what can now be put INTO food. That’s an important point.

You know how, if you leave food sitting out, it will attract flies? Why? Because flies and rodents are attracted to the same things that our bodies are attracted to in food – nutrients. Ever notice that with ALL the food in a supermarket, there’s rarely any ants or bugs in the aisles, but you have to swat them away from the tomatoes or kiwi in the produce area? That’s not because every area in the grocery store – except the produce – is sprayed down. I can only offer theory as to why that is. For starters, the processed foods have to be processed to maintain shelf life. They have to be able to handle being transported to the facility. They have to be able to withstand sitting on a shelf until purchased. They have to be able to withstand sitting in your cabinets until you cook them.

Can you do that with your home made cooking? I doubt it.

Here’s another question: What do you think they’re putting in these processed foods to ward off insects and rodents?

Last question: Do you think it’s a good idea to ingest the same chemicals that are put in food… food that flies don’t even want? The same chemicals that prevent flies from desiring our food, are the same chemicals we’re ingesting when we eat this stuff anyway. How healthy can that be? Nothing in the world can debunk what feels like logic to me.

Stay tuned for the conclusion of “The Problem With Processed Food!”

The Problem With Processed Foods, Part III: Nutritional Deficiencies is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Problem With Processed Foods, Part I: What Is Processed Food?
2. The Problem With Processed Foods, Part IV: The Conclusion
3. The Problem With Processed Foods, Part II: The Change In Food Manufacturing

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

So, at last week’s FITNESS Magazine Meet & Tweet, I attended a panel discussion titled “The Real Deal on Carbs, Cleanses and Caffeine.” Believe it or not, the crowd was kind of sparse – I feel like people were far more interested in the swag than the dialogue – but y’all know me. I’m nerdly… and I don’t turn down the opportunity to gather more info for BGG2WL. Considering how they had June DeMelo, FITNESS magazine’s nutrition editor; as well as Keri Gans, RD and author of The Small Change Diet (grrr, there’s that word again); and Tanya Zuckerbrot, RD and author of The Miracle Carb Diet (…and again…), I figured there’d be some valuable information worthy of sharing, here.

So…I recorded the dialogue.

I separated out the portion on coffee because I think its worthy of its own separate post, since so many people ask me about it. I feel like, far too little, people differentiate between “coffee” and “instant” coffee, coffee that you brew yourself and “coffee” that you get from certain places, or are even unwilling to say “a little coffee” vs the “all or nothing” approach.

Considering what I knew about coffee before I attended, I was glad to see some of what I knew to be confirmed…but lots of things weren’t touched.

Quoting the participants:

“There’s actually research that shows that a little bit of coffee before your workout can help you work out harder, longer, not feel the kind of the pain or difficulty and just a lot of research in general saying it has health benefits and that you don’t need to feel guilty in drinking it.”

Hmmm….

“There are, actually, so many health benefits now associated with intake of coffee and, [applause] I’m with you on that. Coffee can lower your risk to everything from Alzheimer’s to depression. Of course coffee’s been linked to reducing your risk for cancer, so there are some amazing health benefits associated with drinking coffee. Of course, you don’t want to exceed what is recommended, which is approximately 3 cups (24oz) a day, which is what they say is a safe amount for women. As far as the benefits for exercise, some studies do correlate if you drink approximately one cup of coffee before a workout, that your intake will enhance performance and that’s because caffeine is a stimulant. You will have energy. What I will warn you about is, if your workouts are longer than an hour, you will come crashing down. If it’s just a quick burst of energy, studies have shown that a cup of coffee is effective and is no different from an energy drink some people would have… it’s just not a good supply of long term energy. But there are health benefits, you do not have to stop coffee… except in two cases: 1) if you’re trying to get pregnant, more than two cups of coffee a day have been shown to reduce fertility by a rate of 40%; and 2) if you are pregnant, you should not drink more than one cup of coffee per day because it may increase the risk of a miscarriage, but pregnant women, have your coffee. It’s been known to be a mood enhancer.”

Double hmmm….

“What you want to be careful of, though, is not letting your cup of joe become a dessert. I think one too many people think “Oh, I can drink coffee,” but they’re not thinking about what they’re putting in that coffee. So, if we’re telling someone “Oh, have a cup of coffee for exercise, we’re not talking about some mocha frappucino something or other with whipped cream that’s five hundred calories. That’d be pretty silly if you’re going to work out and try to be healthy. So I think that what people really need to look at, is what they’re putting in their coffee. It’s one thing to have a tall black coffee, you know, a few calories, but then you start to add things… the coffee really starts to become more like a dessert. I also know, that if someone’s not a coffee drinker, it’s just like wine – you don’t need to become a coffee drinker. And there’s benefits, yes, from the caffeine, but a lot of it is the antioxidants that are in the coffee and not the caffeine. So, for instance, lowering the risk of diabetes can come from drinking coffee but it has, really, nothing to do with the caffeine but possibly the antioxidants. What I recommend, as opposed to having that cup of coffee before working out, is having a healthy snack. Keeping your body fueled properly throughout the day, in my opinion, is much more beneficial that drinking coffee all day. I mean, I love my coffee. I am a coffee drinker. However, I’m not using that for my fuel. I’m using food for fuel. So, before a workout, I’d much prefer to see someone have a piece of fruit and maybe some string cheese or maybe a yogurt and some fruit works, again, replete with energy.”

All are great quotes. I just…need to contrast them with this:

Scientists agree that caffeine activates the pleasure centers of the brain by slowing down the rate of dopamine reabsorption, thus making us feel peppy and good (cocaine and heroin do the same thing, but obviouslyl to a much greater degree.) Caffeine also provides a shot of adrenaline, so we feel charged up, while blocking reception of adenosine, another neurotransmitter believed to play a part in promoting sleep, making us feel sharp and awake. Now, once the adrenaline wears off, what’s next? Well, as any coffee drinker knows, we feel tired, in the dumps, irritated, and jumpy, and our heads hurt, too, since caffeine restricts the blood vessels in our brains, and we need a coffee to get our adrenaline levels back to the levels to which our bodies have grown accustomed. [source]

Coffee, it seems, is one of those things people either go for or don’t really care for, and I’m totally fine with that. That being said, all coffee is not created equal. There’s a reason why, even though there’s “instant” “coffee” (it dissolves in your cup!…?!??) there’s still a “brew your own at home” market. And, even though there are brands that are out here with catchy commercials and epic marketing, there’s still a market for people who like to have their beans ground right in front of them. There’s a reason why, for all of that.

I think the infographic above, courtesy of Good.is, covers fair trade and its importance pretty thoroughly. There’s easily another thousand words I could throw in here about this, but I’ll save that for another day. Suffice it to say, when things come too cheaply, someone’s getting shortchanged in the end… and it’s usually the person with the fewest representatives and the smallest “voice” (read: least money.) You want to consume consciously not only for your health, but for the sustainability of our communities (yes, even the global community, as well).

As with all other things, the more manipulated it is by man, the less the benefit you can receive when it comes time to consume it. So instant coffee… that’s out. Nothing should be dissolving into your drink and creating “awesomey goodness.” That’s the height of hyper-processed food trickery. If it dissolves… it’s gotta go.

Processed coffees with branding, labels and other fancy schmanciness… let’s just say this. If you have a spot in your coffee section that allows you to portion out your own beans and grind them, then you should do that.The less the processing, the more of those antioxidants you’ll be receiving from your cup. There are different flavors available – they’re made in almost every way between “pouring ‘natural flavors’ on your beans” to “roasting the beans with fruits to give their flavor” – and often times, the flavors are good enough where you neither want nor need all the sugar and cream and goodness knows what else in your coffee. You can also add flavors to your own beans and roast them yourself. There are lots of coffee shops who will do that for you, as well.

That leads me to another point, that one of the RDs made above. What are you putting in your coffee? If it’s some form of artificial sweetener… let’s talk. Are you using raw sugar? Actual raw sugar? Unbleached? (No, not even those “bleached but coated in molasses after the fact” sugars will do.) Consider using something a little less…adulterated.

And what about those creamers? If you’re using a certain creamer brand, you can rest assured it’s not clean. In fact, it has trans fats in it. If you’re using a non-dairy creamer, again… rest assured, it uses trans fats. Coffee, though it may have antioxidants, is not essential enough to sacrifice “clean-liness” for it. If you’re in need of a pick-me-up that badly, a hearty piece of fruit does the job just as well as coffee… unless you’ve become addicted to it (which, considering how it has effects similar to other addictive substances, would make sense.) Try to stick with regular creamy substances to avoid the negative side effects of consuming mystery chemicals on a regular basis. Using creamer is, more often than not, a means of adding fat to the drink to make it more palpable – people can often be caught adding any member of the sugar/fat/salt trifecta to their food – so, I must say, coffee isn’t essential enough for the strife.

As a “clean” coffee habit can get kind of pricey – fair trade, flavorful beans, raw cane sugar, clean creamers – it’s easy to see why someone would simply tap out. To drink, or not to drink… that is the question.

That being said, I wish y’all could see the cup of coffee I have sitting beside me on my desk. Pardon me as I hug my island roast, complete with coconut milk. Swag my morning out.

I do it the el cheapo way because, quite frankly, I’m cheap. I invested in a french press. I use, maybe, one tablespoon of coffee each morning in the bottom of my french press and boil two hearty cups. Sometimes I use something to make it creamy, sometimes I don’t. I don’t add sugar, but I also don’t swallow my cup whole. It’s coffee, not kool-aid.

I also went to a coffee shop and paid outright for a full pound of coffee, ground especially for a french press. Because the press uses so much less coffee than a coffeemaker (and uses less electricity), I wind up saving money both ways. The pound of coffee has lasted me six weeks thus far, and I just got to the half-pound mark.

So…tell me. How do you do your coffee?

The Coffee Conundrum: To Drink Or Not To Drink? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Do YOU Drink 93 Packets Of Sugar A Day?
2. Weekend WTF: Can’t Eat Your Bacon? Drink It!
3. Why The Food Stamp Soft Drink Ban Is BS

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Why?

There are a few reasons. But first, I think it might be important to explain the process that the grain must go through (because rice starts out as a much larger grain) in order to become the white rices and pastas that we enjoy so much.

This diagram, from The Today Show, diagrams the grain when it’s first harvested. It goes through a rice husker to have the outermost shell removed, and you’re left wit brown rice. Ta-da! The bran part of the grain is where all the rich and chewy fiber is located. The germ is where the nutrient-rich portion of the grain is found. The endosperm is, well… we’ll get to that.

Take it a step further. To get white rice, the outer husk and bran (the fiber-packed part?) are stripped from the grain, as is the nutrient-filled germ. This, obviously, leaves only the starchy endosperm. From here, the endosperm is polished in sugars and/or powders to not only aid in taste, but reshape the grain. Sounds like all of the good stuff is stripped from the grain, right?

Well, that’s because it is.

This is where that “enriched” part comes in. Processing plants will “add” vitamin D and whatever else into the endosperm so that total nutritional value isn’t lost, but it pales in comparison to what originally was in the rice in the first place. As in, what it grew from the ground carrying. Riboflavin and thiamin (which helps your body in metabolizing fats), potassium (which helps your body balance out high sodium intake), vitamin e (a skin care essential that aids in anti-aging)? All are lost when rice makes the transition from brown to white.

I won’t go on my typical trademark rant, but I will say this: rice in it’s least processed form is three times as filling as enriched white rice.

Since you can see that white rice is brown rice with all the valuable stuff stripped of it with some other stuff injected in to “enrich” the endosperm, you can see why it’s so easy to cook white rice… or why it’s so difficult to cook brown rice. What would I suggest? Honestly, ditch the minute/microwaveable rices, and opt for something else.

What else is there?

I’m a big basmati and jasmine rice eater, as well as brown rice. Basmati rice might be a bit pricier – there’s no $0.99 bag of it available anywhere – but for those who love to eat enriched white rice, both are viable options. I eat brown rice, but because I was always so used to white rice, it was a hard switch for me. What do I do instead? After I cook my brown rice (for about 45 minutes – yes, that extra nutrition-y goodness means it takes much longer to cook), I use it in stir fry type dishes or I create a sauce with the leftover juices from cooking the other parts of my dish. A little lemon juice, orange peel, or even an oregano/sage/cranberry blend can go a long way.

In short, there is a benefit to taking the leap away from enriched white rice. Are you taking the leap? Have you already lept? Let me hear about it!

What’s Wrong With White Rice? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Are Brown Eggs Really Better Than White?
2. Pleasure and The Puritans: Why “If It Tastes Good, It MUST Be Bad” Is Wrong
3. The Myth of The Food Desert: Where The Root Went Wrong

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 26 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: processed foods

When I say that fruits and vegetables are naturally chock full of the nutrients that the body needs to heal and nourish itself, I know that for a fact.

When I say that fruits come naturally paired with both sugar – which energizes the body – as well as fiber – which forcefully tempers your intake of the sugar – in a way that protects the body from its brain, I know that for a fact.

When I say that nature pairs “the poison” with “the antidote” in our naturally occuring and naturally grown foods, I know that for a fact.

…but when it comes to genetically engineered foods, very little is for certain.

The nutritional value? Questionable. The damage to the environment? Questionable. The harm caused to the human body? Again, questionable.

Yet again, this stuff is everywhere. Don’t believe me? Here’s something to think about:

• 93% of all soybeans used in the United States? Genetically modified versions.
• 77% of all of the soybeans grown in the world… genetically modified.
• 86% of all the corn grown in the United States? Genetically modified.
• 93% of all of the cotton – think cottonseed oil, animal food – grown here is genetically modified.
• 93% of all of the US’s rapeseed/canola oil? GMOs.

If 93% of all of the soybeans grown in the US are of genetically modified origin and 60% of all processed foods contain soy, where the hell are they? Look at your processed food labels… it’s in the ingredients list. Soybean oil (partially hydrogenated, or otherwise). Soy lecithin. Soy infant formula. Soy meat replacements. Soy protein. Soy milk. Vegetable oil. For goodness sakes… tofu. It’s there. Soybean oil, in all its inexpensive prevalence, accounts for 10% of one’s caloric intake in the United States if they’re processed food eaters! The stuff is everywhere.

One of the original purposes of modifying the genetic code of our food was to increase the ability of the seeds to produce larger yields as well as minimizing the amount of pesticide use required to protect the yield. Making the food undesirable to pests means less of the crops that would be eaten up before the yield could be harvested.

First and foremost, I’ve written about this – both humans as well as those very bugs and rodents subsist on the very same vitamins and minerals. It doesn’t make sense for humans to be ingesting en masse something that they don’t want.

You know how, if you leave food sitting out, it will attract flies? Why? Because flies and rodents are attracted to the same things that our bodies are attracted to in food – nutrients. Ever notice that with ALL the food in a supermarket, there’s rarely any ants or bugs in the aisles, but you have to swat them away from the tomatoes or kiwi in the produce area? That’s not because every area in the grocery store – except the produce – is sprayed down. I can only offer theory as to why that is. For starters, the processed foods have to be processed to maintain shelf life. They have to be able to handle being transported to the facility. They have to be able to withstand sitting on a shelf until purchased. They have to be able to withstand sitting in your cabinets until you cook them.Can you do that with your home made cooking? I doubt it.

Excerpted from Food 101: The Problem With Processed Foods | A Black Girl’s Guide To Weight Loss

Secondly… even though GMOs set out with very ambitious goals, they’ve done more harm than good. Studies have shown that farmers have actually resorted to using far more pesticides in order to protect GMO crops, and they actually don’t, in fact, increase the size of the crop able to be harvested. So we’ve introduced double the original foreign chemical substance to our soils – the very soils that grow all of our crops – and the only thing it has done is provided us with nutritionally deficient foods that have oversaturated our food market as a whole. Even if you don’t cook processed foods at home, is your favorite restaurant frying or cooking your foods in canola, vegetable or soybean oils?

Thirdly – and this is of the utmost importance to me – can we talk about the cost of the foods that contain these products? Foods that are genetically modified with questionable nutritive value, made inexpensively and easily available, grown in excess thus making it cheap as hell, used for various reasons in processed foods – because, let’s face it… the best way to turn a profit is to take the cheapest items available and manipulate them into much more valuable resources (think of how a kernel of corn is turned into high fructose corn syrup) – and marketed prominently to turn a profit? These items are cheap as hell and are marketed to the working poor as a way of profiting off of those least likely to know better or have access to better…

…and then we wonder why an influx of diseases that are easily cured by regular naturally occurring foods are reappearing. Because the people least likely to have adequate (or any) health care are eating foods that are genetically modified to be less-than-appealing and less-than-nutritive, leaving them far more susceptible to illness… because they can’t afford the foods they need, and the foods they can afford are lacking severely.

All of this uncertainty… and food is always supposed to be a sure thing. Food should always be simple… a sure thing. You care for the Earth, treat the soil well, you get good and healthful food in response. Clean eating is, by definition… a sure thing. There’s very little that’s up for debate when you’re eating as cleanly as possible. Clean eating ensures sustainability – you eat close to the source, you eliminate waste, you cause minimal damage to the environment in which you/your children/their children live and love. It might feel like “too much” to care about the environment, but look at how that cycle starts – you care for the Earth by inadvertently caring for yourself.

I say all of this to say… clean eating is something very qualifiable. It’s quantifiable. Genetically engineered and modified foods are, in fact, not… and until they are? Consider leaving them out of your grocery cart.

More resources:

• The Truth About Soy Foods
• Genetically Modified Foods – The References List
• Genetically Modified Organisms Are A Looming Threat

The Problem With Genetically Modified Foods is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Genetically Modified Foods: The World According To Monsanto
2. Cows Genetically Modified To Produce Human Milk?
3. The Trouble With Genetically Engineered Foods, Revisited

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: clean eating, corn, cotton, genetically modified food, genetically modified foods, GMOs, soy

Full of tequila and triple sec from the first Lobsterita, I’d go in again! “One more for the road! I’m in there like swimwear!” Clearly drunk.

Let’s do some quick math, shall we? One Lobsterita – 890 calories. Guess who had two? Allow me to raise my hand.

1,780 calories went strictly to drinks. Stuff that couldn’t even substantially fill me up. Granted I enjoyed myself, but 1,700 is more than I eat in a single day now… if the mixed drink game is like that, then I’d rather do straight tequila shots. (Not advocating that at all, though. Just sayin’.)

Here’s my point. Calories are not to be wasted. Sure, there’s plenty of good food out there that people love to indulge in.. but how valuable is it to your body? People love a Twinkie all day but darn if they don’t notice that the stuff is so far removed from being food that it doesn’t perish. There are no nutrients in a twinkie to even cause it to mold or rot. How valuable could that possibly be to your body?

That brings me to drinks. If there are no nutrients in what you’re drinking, it is empty calories. A waste of an opportunity to nourish your body properly. You’re taking in something that simply isn’t beneficial to your body in any capacity.

Think about this. If I drink a single 20oz pepsi every day for 30 days, that’s what – about 250 calories (100cals per 8oz)? So that’s a total of 7,500 calories from drinking a single pepsi every day. Considering how 3,500 calories is the equivalent of a pound… you’d lose at least two pounds from dropping the pepsi habit. Look at it this way. Orange juice is about 100 calories per every 8oz serving. You’re going to get vitamin C, calcium, as well as vitamin b – in their natural origin (meaning those vitamins naturally exist in oranges, they’re not put there by scientists in a chem lab) – and because of those nutrients, it’s going to fill you up.Your body will have obtained what it needed in the form of vitamins, and will send the signal that you don’t need much more.

Which 100-calorie indulgence is going to be more beneficial to your body? 8oz of pepsi, or 8oz of orange juice? Especially since I can almost assure you that you won’t need to drink as much orange juice as you could drink in the soft drink. More on that later.

Every time you take in food, you should be taking advantage of the opportunity to nourish your body. Yes, the soft drink might give you sugar-originated energy, but wouldn’t some green tea do the same? Wouldn’t a regular cup of coffee do better for you than a [insert super long name] from Starbucks? And really, wouldn’t anything do better than the 860 calorie cup of egg nog? (Yes, 860 calories, and when I saw it, I started to cry. I love egg nog.)

What do I drink? I drink lots of water. I drink lots of teas. I occasionally indulge and serve myself a glass of rum. I gave up soft drinks a very long time ago, and I find it hard to take oranges in drink form. I use apple juice sparingly. I don’t drink anything that may have partially come from a powder, or anything that recreates the taste of a fruit (so all the strawberry, grape, watermelon and orange impersonators – yes, that means YOU, Sunny D – need to fall back!).

I ask you, take a good hard look at your daily eating habits. Is there an excess of useless calories in there? If so, why not swap it out for something a little more useful to your body? I promise, it’ll thank you for it in multiples!

Tell me… what drinks aregoing to be the most difficult for you to give up? Which ones are you going to try to give up? Let me know!

How Many Calories Are You Drinking? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Q&A Wednesday: Drinking Wine While Trying To Slim Down
2. KFC’s Double Down Reminds Us: All Calories Are Not Created Equal
3. Worldwide: A Day’s Worth Of Food In Calories

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 17 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: calorie counting, give it up!, junk food

How often do you snack?

It’s not how often you snack, it’s what you’re snacking on. You have to truly think about your day, and what you’re eating (and if you’re writing in a food diary, are you even including the little candies and cookies you snack on in your diary?) throughout the day. Every time you stick something in your mouth, you’re snacking. Is it candy? Is it office cookies? Are they empty calories – calories with neither nutrients nor real food (like cookies, cakes, candies)?

Consider how much time goes between your meals. Do you leave for work at 6am, with no lunch break until 1pm? Chances are, you might overeat at your 1pm meal because it’s been at least 7 hours since the last time you ate! We can’t have that!

If you know you’re goin to have a long day… plan! Prepare in advance. How?

Tools of the Trade

Let me tell you how I snack.

First of all, I keep food everywhere that I know I’d have a hard time convincing myself to not seek out a quicker, cheaper, less healthy option. Like… the car. Or… my desk. Perhaps, even, my kitchen. Yes.. the kitchen. If the name of the game is to avoid overeating, you head yourself off at the pass by providing little things that can quickly satiate an immediate hunger, and give you enough time to make sound decisions about what you want to eat. So for me, snacking helps curb that “hungry” feeling – if I avoid eating at the last minute (which is what causes that “hungry” feeling) and eat a little bit each time on a set schedule, I will never encounter that hungry feeling (or if I do, it’ll be rare) and I’ll never have a reason to overeat. I’ll never encounter that “Ohhh, I’m starving” feeling that usually propels me to overindulge.

What am I snacking on?

I keep a bag of grapes in the freezer. Why? Because they’re healthy, low-calorie, they take a while to eat and actually make me stop and think about whether or not I’m really hungry. I just grab a couple of frozen grapes, bite and chew them slowly (I’m quick to get brain freeze, so I’m careful and chew slowly) and before too long, I can assess just how hungry I am. Will I need only a few more grapes? Should I consider cooking? I get time to think about these things while I chew my grapes – slowly and carefully so as to avoid brain freeze! – and enjoy myself.

I keep a ziploc bag with half a cup (which is, essentially, two servings) of sunflower seeds in the bottom of my purse. Sunflower seeds are high in protein and fiber, so it doesn’t take a lot of ‘em to get you where you need to be. They won’t satisfy me if I’m having that “Grrr, I’m starving” feeling, but if I’m eating on my proper schedule, I should never encounter that feeling, right?

I keep a bag of freeze dried banana chips in the car. This is usually for both myself and my daughter, just in case I’m stuck in traffic. They’re naturally sweet, very nutritious, and very satisfying to me. I just eat them one at a time – even if it means I eat the entire little ziploc bag of ‘em.. I eat them one at a time. Remember, if I’m eating on my proper schedule, I should not have that ravenous “eat-six-at-a-time” feeling, right?

I keep cocoa powder in the house. Mix a little cocoa powder with water and confectioner’s sugar, and I’ve got chocolate sauce. Grab my strawberries, and ta-da! A nice light little strawberry and chocolate snack. Clearly, that’s a weekend thing. Not everyone has the time or means to make their own chocolate sauce during the week or after a long day!

The grocery sells sliced cantaloupe, so I keep some in the fridge. A slice or two usually tides me over for the next hour or two. In fact, if you don’t have time to tend to fruit yourself, those grocery store fruit salads might work pretty well altogether. A small one should help out pretty well!

What works for you?

These are a few things that, over time, have proven to work for me. I had to look at my routine. I had to check out my diary and see where I was the most vulnerable, and that’s when the answers started pouring out. Where do you find that you’re most vulnerable? What snacks tend to tide you over until your next meal?

The Ancient Art of Snack-Fu is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 18 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: snacking

Right?

Well, while I gave up everyone else’s pizza, I certainly didn’t swear off my own. But why are my own pizzas so much better than anything else I might find at the store?

1) My pizzas have less salt. I don’t need much more than a pinch of a pinch worth of salt across my entire pizza because it has more than enough flavor. It doesn’t need the salt to give me a reason to keep eating it.

2) My pizzas have less grease. Whereas many other pizza chains insist on dousing their dough in grease to the point where the crust is fried while cooking, I don’t need all that. My dough is flavorful and so are my toppings. I don’t need to cling to fat to give me that “Mmmmmm!” feeling. I’m over that.

3) My pizzas have real ingredients. Do YOU know why there’s trans-fats in Pizza Hut’s pizza dough? Trans fats, the same artery-hardening stuff that killed countless people when the tried to sell that garbage to us as margarine? You DON’T know why that’s in there? Funny. Me neither.

4) My pizzas don’t rely on goo gobs of sweet tomato sauce to make them enjoyable. In fact, the moment I realized that I had a tendency to lean toward making my tomato sauces a little on the sweeter side, I backed off of them completely.

That being said… here are the fruits of my labor, aaaaaaand a reader who shared with me her own pizza-making adventure!

Phyllo Parmesan Pizza

Spinach, chicken, tomato, oregano and parmesan pizza

White pepper pizza, with black pepper, red peppers, golden peppers, green peppers and zucchini hiding down under white chipotle cheddar.

Onion, tomato, cilantro, black pepper, mozzarella, and spinach.

Parsley, spinach, red onion, green onion, mushroom, moscarpone, basil and balsamic vinegar reduction. It was... heavenly.

And Nishay’s pizza started off like this:

And yes, that is HER giving the thumbs up!

and finished like this!

Yum!

If you’re looking to make one of the pizzas above, you’ll need a good dough. While I can’t recommend any pre-made doughs, I can share my recipe for regular dough. If you must go for pre-made dough, look for one with as few chemicals as possible in the ingredients list, and as little salt as you can get!

What’s your favorite kind of pizza? Shoot, give me some ideas!

The Pizza Gallery: Who Says You Can’t Have Pizza? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 21 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Wait – sweetbreads? $28? Pig’s feet? $17?

Then, to find “modern cuisine” restaurants serving up “shredded pork” dishes, “modern” restaurants offering up “hamhock” dishes for $19… apparently the only people who appear to have a problem with eating offal are the people who originated and popularized its use in America: Blacks. I’m a little frustrated by the people who turn their noses up at eating offal – the accurate term for the entrails, internal organs and leftover parts of an animal – because it was “slave food.” I mean, let’s be clear. Our connection to pork absolutely comes from being enslaved and our responsibilities as butcher to master, but I don’t know that it deserves the ire it receives.

Back then, whenever you referred to “meat,” you basically meant pork. Mind you, we ate other meats, but they weren’t as common as pork. Possum and turtles, as nocturnal animals, were able to be caught during the night hours – the hours when slaves weren’t responsible for, well, slaving away – but with pork, the head, ears, innards and hooves were “gifted” to the slave responsible for butchering master’s hog every time “hog killing day” came around.

This wasn’t a novel or even new idea, though – when you’re used to only having access to meat when you catch it, kill it, and butcher yourself, you learn the importance of using up every part you’ve got access to. It is here that you learn that every part of the animal – much like the human body – is covered in muscle, some parts with a little more fat interspersed than others, and that the only way to survive is to figure out the wisest way to use what you’ve got.

Early African slaves were pretty creative, though. Even though the early West African diet was predominately vegetarian, they learned the art of boiling the fatty parts of meats, essentially making a nice, velvety broth for stewing vegetables. They mastered the art of cooking the fat out of fat back (bacon) and using that to fry (not deep fry, there is a difference) their vegetables, sometimes after they were coated in ground up corn kernels (also known as corn meal.) The fat doesn’t only affect texture and taste, though – many vitamins are only readily available to the body if consumed with accompanying fat.

There’s also the issue of nutrition. Meat raised today couldn’t hold a candle to meat raised prior to the industrialization of food. While pigs are, in fact, an “eat anything and everything” kind of animal, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re supposed to eat that way. They, much like many other members of the animal kingdom, are actually made to be able to survive off of ingesting anything and that “anything” helps them create healthy muscle that another living being – in this case, humans – can use.

Now, if you want to talk about the quality of that “anything” that pigs can ingest, we can… we just have to, also, acknowledge that there are pigs being grown without as much (or any) of the chemical interference and that those, too, can be grown healthily. It’s also necessary to note that those animals raised healthily without that “chemical interference,” nowadays, cost considerably more than they did once upon a time.

And, I suppose, that brings me back full circle. In a day and age where getting a healthily raised, “popular” cut of meat (like shoulder, ribs or legs) will cost you a pretty penny, why would we turn away the cheapest parts of the animal? As Blacks who were in this country prior to the industrialization of food, our original desires to live “high on the hog” came from our desires to live like the free men, the men on top, the men who owned everything, the men who – seemingly – ruled everything. Our desires to live “high on the hog,” both a play on words and a literal statement, came from an optimistic hope that we, too, would not only be able to be free, but be able to eat and feed our families the best.

Ah, but talk about “affordability” is tricky. We claim we can’t afford healthily raised meats, so instead of simply abstaining from meat (because, y’know, we can’t afford it) we accept the fact that we’re buying the cheap, poorly raised stuff. The offal – that often-stigmatized middle zone – is off limits to us as people of color. Why? Why is it slave food for us, but not for those restaurants serving it for $27 a dish? Italian immigrants make sweetbread dishes, and have for a long time. Latin cuisine incorporates cow brains and has for a long time. You can still buy them in the stores, in cans. French – and European cuisine, as well – both use offal. Us, however? Still hiding and running from our culture.

I’ve been holding onto, and using, this quote for years now, because it’s that damned good:

It reminds me of the “bike to work” movement. That is also portrayed as white, but in my city more than half of the people on bike are not white. I was once talking to a white activist who was photographing “bike commuters” and had only pictures of white people with the occasional “black professional” I asked her why she didn’t photograph the delivery people, construction workers etc. … ie. the black and Hispanic and Asian people… and she mumbled something about trying to “improve the image of biking” then admitted that she didn’t really see them as part of the “green movement” since they “probably have no choice” –

I was so mad I wanted to quit working on the project she and I were collaborating on.

So, in the same way when people in a poor neighborhood grow food in their yards … it’s just being poor– but when white people do it they are saving the earth or something.[source]

I trot that quote out all the time, because I think it’s important to acknowledge. I’ll ask it again: If we are proclaiming that we “can’t afford” to live “high on the hog” and, instead of abstaining from meat altogether choose to buy lesser quality pork with potentially deleterious effects, why turn down the cheapest parts of the animal? Look back at that quote, then read it again with a different twist:

So, in the same way, when people in a poor neighborhood eat offal in their homes, it’s just being poor — but when white people do it [in a "modern restaurant"] they are saving the earth or [sustainable or] something.

To those of us who are upwardly mobile, we’re all familiar. Assimilation is key. If you’re not in an industry that allows for (or even demands) your own personal spin on life, assimilation is vital to your ability to be upwardly mobile. Running from things that might stigmatize you as “other” (“slave food” is a ginormous example of this) are a huge part of that.

In my post about slave food not making us fat, a reader gave me pause in questioning whether or not it can truly be considered self-hatred, and I gave it genuine thought. I no longer think it’s entirely self-hatred, but merely a casualty of assimilation. You have to turn your back on a lot in order to “make it.” I think we, however, do ourselves a disservice by not only turning our backs on it but demonizing it, as well. Even though I can defend pork, I don’t eat it and haven’t eaten it in over a decade. I’m still not going to shade the person whose mother still cooks her greens with a giant hamhock or pig’s foot. (That person, of course, would be me.)

My only hope is that we raise the quality of our consumption, and leave ourselves open to the less popular cuts of an animal (that is, if you insist upon eating it) regardless of stigma… especially when that stigma is manufactured. (“White meat,” “dark meat,” anyone?) If we are genuinely and legitimately concerned about the cost of our food, then it is, in fact, in our best interests to forego any stigma and take the same route as those far more knowledgeable about sustainable consumption than ourselves. Breathe…and make broth out Exhale… and eat the damn hamhock.

The only person I know who cooks with offal is my fiancé’s mother, who was all too giddy to snatch the feet from the heritage bird we’d brought home from the farmer’s market, yesterday. She’s easily the most frugal woman I know. After writing this and looking at it this way, she might have to give me my feet back.

Ham Hocks, Pig’s Feet & Chitlins: Offal And The Scraps is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 20 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: black cuisine, black history, blackness, chicken feet, cuisine, culture, hog maws, pig's feet, pork, race, slave food, slaves, soul food, tripe

You hit the frozen foods section at the grocery store, and you pass the waffles. You’re thinking “Man, I could eat these for a quick breakfast in the morning.” You skim the freezer, and it catches your eye.

“Blueberry Waffles — Made With REAL BLUEBERRIES!”

I don’t know about you, but the first thing that comes to my mind is, “Well, what kinda corny claim is that? It’s food, ain’t it? If it’s not blueberries, then what is it?” The second thing that comes to my mind is, “What kind of state is food in if you have to claim your food is made with real food to sell it?”

Interesting – and yet, confusing – issue.

Take this article from Alternet about some of the scariest processed foods out there right now. (Be advised – I’ve got several posts coming up about this single article.) You don’t have to feel compelled to read it, because the good stuff is quoted below:

Frozen waffles are fairly non-nutritious. Indeed, the only real way to get any sort of vitamins in your waffles each morning is to buy blueberry waffles that contain….

But, hang on! It turns out those aren’t blueberries at all! They’re more like…well, just what are they? An apt description would be “purple globs of sugary goo,” but they’re actually called “artificially flavored blueberry bits.” Their ingredients include sugar, dextrose, soybean oil, soy protein, salt, citric acid, cellulose gum, artificial flavor, malic acid, Red 40 Lake, Blue 2 Lake and…that’s it. Notice anything missing? Oh yeah: blueberries!

For a long time, companies such as Aunt Jemima parent Pinnacle Foods were able to get away with implying that these little unfruity lumps were actual blueberries, as the box for Aunt Jemima’s blueberry waffles had pictures of actual blueberries strewn across it. But the threat of a lawsuit from Center for Science in the Public Interest made Pinnacle decide to tell people that their waffles didn’t contain any actual blueberries.

What makes the development of fake blueberries so exciting is the number of possibilities it opens up for other fake fruits. Picture artificial strawberry strips, made mostly of bacon and high-fructose corn syrup. Or perhaps artificial melon mounds made of solidified vegetable oil and dextrose monohydrate. Or the coup de grace, artificial artificial blueberry bits, made with NutraSweet and artificial soy protein. Not one natural ingredient, baby!

The interesting thing about this is that I was asking myself, “What kind of state is food in if you have to claim your food is made with real food to sell it?” as if to question why the only claim a food would have to make is that it contains real food.

Alas, that is the issue. When we talk about the food industry, we talk about an industry that got the green light to “create” food instead of “cook” food back in 1973. What happened?

The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act imposed strict rules requiring that the word “imitation” appear on any food product that was, well, an imitation … [And] the food industry [argued over the word], strenuously for decades, and in 1973 it finally succeeded in getting the imitation rule tossed out, a little-notice but momentous step that helped speed America down the path of nutritionism.

… The American Heart Association, eager to get Americans off saturated fats and onto vegetable oils (including hydrogenated vegetable oils), was actively encouraging the food industry to “modify” various foods to get the saturated fats and cholesterol out of them, and in the early seventies the association urged that “any existing and regulatory barriers to the marketing of such foods be removed.”

And so they were when, in 1973, the FDA (not, note, the Congress that wrote the law) simply repealed the 1938 rule concerning imitation foods. It buried the change in a set of new, seemingly consumer-friendly rules about nutrient labeling so that news of the imitation rule’s appeal did not appear until the twenty-seventh paragraph of The New York Times’ account, published under the headline F.D.A. PROPOSES SWEEPING CHANGE IN FOOD LABELING: NEW RULES DESIGNED TO GIVE CONSUMERS A BETTER IDEA OF NUTRITIONAL VALUE. … The revised imitation rule held that as long as an imitation product was not “nutritionally inferior” to the natural food it sought to impersonate—as long as it had the same quantities of recongized nutrients—the imitation could be marketed without using the dreaded “i” word.

For those who skipped over that, here’s the brief understanding. Once upon a time, the food industry was forced to label any foods that weren’t foods as we know them as “imitation.” The food industry knew that labeling a food as “imitation” was pretty much a kiss of death on the shelves, when it had to sit next to some proud, prim, and proper food with real, home grown foods. So… they fought tooth-and-nail to change this policy. Once this law was repealed, this gave the food industry the green light to put whatever it wanted in food as long as it had the same amounts of identifiable nutrients as the food it was imitating.

So what happens as a result of this change in law? We get fake blueberries in waffles with boxes of real blueberries on the front, and words like “imitation blueberries” or “naturally flavored” in tiny print on the front of the box. Not real blueberries, not the nutritional value of the blueberries. Just, as Alternet put it, “purple globs of sugary goo.” Putting it mildly, a grocery store item that makes the claim of being made with “real food” does so because, looking at the other items on the shelf, the rest simply do not.

Taking a look back at my stroll in the frozen foods section… if I still probably shopped there, I think I might still ask “What kind of state is food in if you have to claim your food is made with real food to sell it?”

Just… y’know.. for different reasons.

Where have you seen that “it-should-be-obvious” kind of claim made on a box? I swear I saw a wrapper for cheese that said “Made with real cheese” on it… if you can top that, I wanna hear it!

Lies In Your Food: Made With REAL Blueberries? But I Thought… is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry Is Feeding You
2. Infographic: How To Find Real Food At The Supermarket
3. Neither Soul Food, Nor “Slave Food,” Made You Fat

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: processed foods

, Black Girl’s Guide To Weight Loss will be explaining calorie counting, and ways to win the war. This is post 3 of the series – post 1, Defining The Basics of Calorie Counting, can be found here. Comments are always welcomed, and questions will always be answered to the best of my ability.

Keeping in mind those constants that I listed in the first installment, head over to this page and enter your information. It’ll tell you your estimated Body Mass Index (or BMI) – I know, cringeworthy, right? – as well as an estimated value for how many calories your body burns in a 24 hour time period. Then head over to this page, and do the same. Compare the two values for your daily calorie expenses, and take the lower of the values. Hold on to that number. Now, do a food journal for one day. Don’t try to eat “better” than you usually do.. just write down a day’s worth of what you’re eating. No calorie values yet.. just merely what you’re eating. During the next day (’cause doing it the same day just might depress you), sit down and google the caloric values of the foods you’re eating. Make sure you’re sitting in a leveled chair when you do… because you might just tip over.

Compare the number of calories your body burns in a 24 hour period to the amount of calories you took in during a 24 hour period. Think about the days you’ve eaten more than you did the day you wrote everything down. Think about the foods you might’ve intentionally left off the list as a means of cushioning your ego. Think about how often you eat more than what you wrote down. Is it pretty darn often? Think about the days where you eat nothing but fast food. Is your calorie count up near the 3,000s? Is it IN the 3,000s?

Setting the goal

Going back to that calorie count… take a look at that number you came up with. Weight loss is about creating a deficit – more calories burned than taken in. If you’re maintaining the weight you’ve put on, it’s because this deficit doesn’t exist. You’re either nor burning enough calories, or you’re eating too many calories. Having said that, if you create a deficit of 500 calories a day (meaning, if you eat 500 calories less than you “usually” do), you will lose 1lb a week. Create a deficit of 1000 calories a day, you will lose 2lbs (1000 calories multiplied by 7 days a week: 1000 x 7 = 7000 divided by 3500 calories in one pound equals 2lbs.) If you create a deficit of 1000 calories, and burn 500 a day walking/running, you will lose 3lbs per week (1500 x 7 divided by 3500). I’m suuure you get my drift, right? The better you plan, the better you prepare, the more likely you are to succeed.

Be honest with yourself

I’ve read several books about scientific studies in relation to obesity and they tend to say, in short: “In efforts to attempt to track the eating habits of overweight and obese individuals, we gave them a journal to document their daily intake of food. Considering the number of methods used to monitor intake, it was easy to determine that overweight people were more likely to lie about not only what they’d eaten, but how much of it they’d eaten.”

I don’t mention that as a put down – I mention that because I know I did it, and didn’t even know it. It’s another method of consciousness. It’s also another reason to make SURE you’re being honest with yourself. It’s vital to know what you’re putting in your body, so that you know what kind of dragon you need to slay. Lying to yourself might save your ego, but it does nothing for the rest of you, especially your weight.

It’s ok to admit you have very little control over your eating habits – it’s ok to admit that your discipline might be lacking. There is an industry that makes billions off of your inability to control yourself, and they have millions invested in ensuring that you never get it. It’s ok to admit that this beast is on your back. This, here, will help you gain control… and it starts with being honest with yourself.

Looking for other posts in the Understanding Calorie Counting series? Check the links below!

• Understanding Calorie Counting: The Basics
• Understanding Calorie Counting: What is it? Calorie Counting Defined
• Understanding Calorie Counting: Creating Your Calorie Goal and Being Honest About It
• Understanding Calorie Counting: The Payoff – Why Am I Doing This To Myself?
• Understanding Calorie Counting: Preparing Yourself For Success
• Understanding Calorie Counting: A Final Word

Understanding Calorie Counting: Creating Your Calorie Goal and Being Honest About It is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Understanding Calorie Counting: What is it? Calorie Counting Defined
2. Understanding Calorie Counting: Preparing Yourself For Success
3. Understanding Calorie Counting: The Payoff – Why Am I Doing This To Myself?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: calorie counting, overeating

And just then, the record (or CD …or MP3) skipped.

I get it. People who believe that the primary concern is calories… will drink a diet pop because the calorie count is low. (In fact, in some cases, it’s literally zero calories.) But clean eaters know better. Clean eaters know a few things about this mentality:

First, if you’re going to enjoy a zero calorie drink, it had better be water.

Secondly, a drink that has color and sweet sugary taste, but zero calories? That’s a highly processed product. No bueno.

Next, if it has no vitamins or minerals in it, it’s not worth my time ingesting it. Getting the most bang for our nutritional buck, here.

Lastly, if it has high fruc–

Uh, not so fast, Erika! Diet soft drinks don’t have high fructose corn syrup in them!

No, you’re absolutely right. It doesn’t have HFCS in it. It has aspartame in it. Ooooh, that’s so much better.

I’m not even going to go in on this. Someone already did:

“When aspartame was put before the FDA for approval, it was denied eight times. G.D. Searle, founder of aspartame, tried to get FDA approval in 1973. Clearly, he wasn’t bothered by reports from neuroscientist Dr. John Olney and researcher Ann Reynolds (hired by Searle himself) that aspartame was dangerous. Dr. Martha Freeman, a scientist from the FDA division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products, declared, “The information submitted for review is inadequate to permit a scientific evaluation of clinical safety.” Freeman recommended that until the safety of aspartame was proven, marketing the product should not be permitted. Alas, her recommendations were ignored. Somehow, in 1974, Searle got approval to use aspartame in dry foods. However, it wasn’t smooth sailing from there. In 1975, the FDA put together a task force to review Searle’s testing methods. Task force team leader Phillip Brodsky said he “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing” and called the test’s results “manipulated.” Before aspartame actually made it into dry foods, Olney and attorney and consumer advocate Jim Turner filed objections against the approval.

“In 1977, the FDA asked the U.S. attorney’s office to start grand jury proceedings against Searle for “knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements in aspartame safety tests.” Shortly after, the U.S. attorney leading the investigation against Searle was offered a job by the law firm that was representing Searle. Later that same year, he resigned as U.S. attorney and withdrew from the case, delaying the grand jury’s investigation. This caused the statute of limitations on the charges to run out, and the investigation was dropped. And he accepted the job with Searle’s law firm. Stunning.

“In 1980, a review by the Public Board of Inquiry set up by the FDA determined that aspartame should not be approved. The board said it had not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.” In 1981, new FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed. Despite the fact that three out of six scientists advised against approval, Hayes decided to overrule the scientific review panel and allow aspartame into limited dry goods. In 1983, he got it approved for beverages, even though the National Soft Drink Association urged the FDA to delay approval until further testing could be done. That same year, Hayes left the FDA amid charges of impropriety. The Internal Department of Health and Human services was investigating Hayes for accepting gratuities from FDA-regulated companies. He went to work as a consultant for Searle’s public relations firm. Interesting. The FDA finally urged Congress to prosecute Searle for giving the government false or incomplete test results on aspartame. However, the two government attorneys assigned to the case decided not to prosecute. Later, they went to work for the law firm that represented Searle. Fascinating. Despite recognizing ninety-two different symptoms that result from ingesting aspartame, the FDA approved it for use, without restriction in 1996. Brilliant.

[...]

“Nutrasweet and Equal contain aspartame. When ingested, one of aspartame’s ingredients, methyl alcohol, converts into formaldehyde, a deadly neurotoxin. In addition to aspartame, Equal contains the amino acid phenylalanine. Phenylalanine occurs naturally in the brain. But high levels can increase the chance of seizures and lead to depression and schizophrenia. There is no lesser of the two evils. NutraSweet and Equal are both evil. Sweet and Low is no saint, either. It is an artificial sweetener that contains saccharin, a coal-tar compound.” [source]

I’m going to focus on three major issues, here.

For starters, this should lay to rest that philosophy of “If it were so bad for you, then the FDA wouldn’t have approved it.” The amount of trust we give our government officials would make sense if those positions weren’t held by people with their own humanity to contend with. Look at the instances of people who were bought off, paid off, pushed aside, ignored all to get this product approved.

Secondly, I’m a huge advocate of knowing what you’re eating – both the positive and negative information – before you eat it. If you didn’t know all of this about aspartame before you decided to make it a staple in your diet, is it time to reassess whether or not it belongs in your diet?

Thirdly, this is the issue with processed foods. They make use of chemicals used for other purposes in nature in order to create flavors and tastes in a fashion that would be much more costly if the actual foods themselves were used to make the product! You are introducing chemicals into your system… period.

“[Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener made by joining two amino acids with an alcohol. It is approximately 180 times sweeter than sugar.] Some researchers claim to have linked aspartame to brain tumors and lymphoma, but the FDA insists that the sweetener is safe for humans. A list of complaints submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services includes headaches, dizziness, diarrhea, memory loss and mood changes. The Center for Science in the Public Interest states that children should avoid drinks sweetened with aspartame.” [source]

Think about it – a chemical was created to cause the brain to react to it in the same way as sugar. Many people – many people - claim they experience withdrawals when they take a break from products containing aspartame. The only other instance I can think of where a person is willfully introducing a mind-altering chemical into their system… definitely causes withdrawal symptoms when people break from it. I’m sure you’re familiar with heroin… cocaine… meth… I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point.

And since I’m ticking everyone off? Let’s talk about Splenda.

Knowing what we know about the 40-some-odd years of aspartame’s existence, splenda (made of sucralose), has an equally young past. One more quote:

Because we’re having so much fun, lets bash the shit out of Splenda, one of the newer sweeteners. Splenda is made by chlorinated sugar, changing its molecular structure. The finished product is called sucralose. The makers of this poison tout its lack of calories and claim it’s safe for diabetics. The FDA calls sucralose 98 percent pure. The other 2 percent contains small amounts of heavy metals, methanol, and arsenic. Well gee, at least it doesn’t have any calories. So what if it has a little arsenic? Sucralose has been found to cause diarrhea; organ, genetic, immune system, and reproductive damage; swelling of the liver and kidneys: and a decrease in fetal body weight. What a splendid product! [source]

Really, I’m over it. All those little diet dishes that are “sweet” thanks to this stuff? I’m over those, too. I have a family history of cancer… what do I look like putting known cancer-causing agents (also known as carcinogens) in my body? No thanks.

These sweeteners are not food. They are chemicals meant to trick your body into thinking they are something they aren’t. I don’t know how many different times, in how many different ways I can say this, but it goes as follows:

I don’t care how many miles you run each day, how many pounds of weight you lift or how chiseled your muscles are. You cannot live a fully healthy life if you ingest chemicals to survive. You are cheating your insides – screw what you look like on the outside – if you don’t care for them as much as you care for your abs, your booty, your legs or whatever else you adore. Period.

Believe it or not, I don’t share this stuff with the intention of telling anyone to give it up. We all (hopefully) have reasons for making the decisions we make. My point in sharing this information is so that we can, again, make educated decisions about the food choices we make. Clean eating is simple. Easy. The foods are of the Earth, I’m of the Earth, this is a win. When we introduce outside substances to our diet, our bodies deserve the twenty minutes it might take to hit up your favorite wellness-promoting website and do a search. It’s seriously not that hard.

I will say this, though: I’m a firm believer in the philosophy that says “those who know better, constantly strive to do better.” Just a thought.

The Case Against Diet Soda (And Aspartame… And Splenda.. And….) is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Case Against Agave Nectar
2. No Food Stamps For Soft Drinks? Cracking Down On Soda Pop
3. The Case Against… Juice?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 48 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: aspartame, clean eating, dieting, equal, Fad Diets, FDA, government, Healthy Eating, high fructose corn syrup, nutrition, processed foods, soft drinks, splenda, sucralose, sugar, sweeteners, sweetnlow

Bacteria found in batches of Skippy peanut butter has prompted a recall in 16 states.

Unilever issued a press release stating that Skippy Reduced Fat Creamy Peanut Butter Spread and Skippy Reduced Fat Super Chunk Peanut Butter Spread are being recalled in several states because they may be contaminated with Salmonella.

No illnesses to date have been reported related to the recall, the release says.

The product was distributed in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The affected products are packaged in a 16.3 oz plastic jar and have UPCs 048001006812 and 048001006782, which can be found on the side of the jar’s label, below the bar code.

They also include ‘best-if-used-by-dates’ MAY1612LR1, MAY1712LR1, MAY1812LR1, MAY1912LR1, MAY2012LR1 and MAY2112LR1.

The limited recall is being conducted in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration.

If you’re in – or near – one of these states, and you’re still buying this stuff… consider tossing out your sandwich for today until you can verify that your peanut butter isn’t from one of these contaminated jars.

The company conducted its own tests and uncovered the contamination, but that leaves me to wonder – how often do they conduct these tests?

But seriously, how does salmonella contaminate peanut butter?

As I started digging to answer this question, I realized that Scientific American had already answered not only that question, but many more that I know y’all would have:

How does salmonella get into peanut butter?

Feces from some animal is a strong possibility. A leak in the roof, for example, caused one of the early outbreaks. How salmonella got into the water that was on the roof, no one knows for sure. Maybe birds, for instance, which accumulate around peanut butter processing plants.

The roasting of peanuts is the only step that will kill the salmonella. If contamination occurs after the roasting process, the game is over and salmonella is going to survive. Studies have shown that salmonella can survive for many months in peanut butter once it’s present. Fatty foods are also more protective of salmonella, so when it gets into the acid of the stomach — which is our first line of defense — it may not get destroyed.  Peanut butter, being a highly fatty food, could survive better.

I’m actually putting my money on rat feces in the peanut butter, especially since the FDA already makes allowances for insect and rat parts in your peanut butter.

If the FDA is allowing for rat hairs in your peanut butter, then that means the FDA is aware of the fact that rats are inhabiting the same places where our peanut butter is being made. It’s only obvious that these kinds of contaminations would keep happening so long as these kinds of allowances exist.

Why have these outbreaks only happened in the past 15 years?

Some of these processing plants are quite dated, and that may be part of the problem.  They just haven’t been maintained.  Thirty years ago when they were built, they didn’t have leaks like that.

Is there any way to destroy the bacteria once it’s in there?

Not by current procedures.

Theoretically, you could irradiate it. It’s not an approved process. And because it’s a high-fat product, you’d get a lot of off odors because of lipid oxidation.  I’m not sure radiation would be good approach.

We have done thermal inactivation studies on trying to kill salmonella in peanut butter. But even when you get up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit (90 degrees Celsius), it takes many minutes and might affect the integrity of the product.  Heating may not be an easy fix.

So, how can you keep salmonella out of peanut butter in the future?

The key is to have a rigid system in place that does not allow contamination by water or other vectors after the roasting process.  Water in a peanut butter processing plant is like putting gasoline on a fire.  It will not only spread the salmonella, but the salmonella will grow when water is present.  Salmonella is not likely to grow in a dry environment.

I’m going to add one more question.

How can we avoid salmonella in our peanut butter?

The peanut butter grinder at my store... grinding out my daughter's peanut butter!

Try to find a grocery store that grinds the peanut butter in-house and sells it individually packaged, or a store that has a grinder that you can use yourself. At least that way, you cut down on not only the potential exposure to salmonella, but the apparent prevalence of rodent fur and insect pieces in your peanut butter.

I’m… not even kidding, here.

Another Peanut Butter Recall: Why Does This Keep Happening? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Weekend WTF: I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: contamination, FDA, recall, salmonella, typhimurium

…and immediately, I think to myself… “…because the rush to approve and accept them came much faster than the rush to ensure that such unique technology was actually deemed safe, across the board, for human consumption.”

There’s also this:

The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act imposed strict rules requiring that the word “imitation” appear on any food product that was, well, an imitation … [And] the food industry [argued over the word], strenuously for decades, and in 1973 it finally succeeded in getting the imitation rule tossed out, a little-notice but momentous step that helped speed America down the path of nutritionism.

… The American Heart Association, eager to get Americans off saturated fats and onto vegetable oils (including hydrogenated vegetable oils), was actively encouraging the food industry to “modify” various foods to get the saturated fats and cholesterol out of them, and in the early seventies the association urged that “any existing and regulatory barriers to the marketing of such foods be removed.”

And so they were when, in 1973, the FDA (not, note, the Congress that wrote the law) simply repealed the 1938 rule concerning imitation foods. … The revised imitation rule held that as long as an imitation product was not “nutritionally inferior” to the natural food it sought to impersonate—as long as it had the same quantities of recongized nutrients—the imitation could be marketed without using the dreaded “i” word. — In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto

So… as long as the studies declare that the GMO products aren’t “nutritionally inferior,” we don’t really have to be told they’re fake food. How much do you want to bet it’ll be a long time before those studies are ever done?

The problem with genetically modified foods, really, is the uncertainty. And really, let’s be honest, here. In an industry where everyone is waiting for the next opportunity to turn a big profit, very little is left unchartered. Everything is studied to a fault because if there are benefits to tout for something, we’d be inundated with press releases, commercials and everything else. For any food – genetically modified or otherwise – to be covered in a cloud of uncertainty… tells me that that cloud is placed (and left) there intentionally. If you dug deeper than the cloud, you’d find all the reasons to not eat the stuff.

The article includes a lot of stuff that food nerds like me are interested in, but I’m going to parse it down to the stuff that I think should be noted and quoted here, at least:

In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol, and sugar beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last — may not be far behind.

It’s unlikely that these products’ potential  benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.” (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that’s another story.)They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them. Nearly an entire continent — it’s called Europe — is so wary that G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9 percent G.M.O.’s must be labeled.

Let’s not forget – Europe’s regulations? Far tougher than ours. And why?

Tom Vilsack, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, is now Secretary of the USDA.

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative.

Rajiv Shah former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama’s USDA Under-Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID.

Elena Kagan, who, as President Obama’s Solicitor General, took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court.

Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA. [source]

…but back to the article.

Also curious is that the salmon is being categorized as a “new animal drug” which means that the advisory committee in charge of evaluating it is composed mostly of veterinarians and animal scientists, instead of, say, fish ecologists or experts in food safety. Not surprisingly, the biotech industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods, was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. Numerous groups of consumers, farmers, environmental advocates, scientists, supporters of organic food and now even congressmen — last week, a bill was introduced to ban G.E. salmon — believe that the approval process demonstrated a bias towards the industry.

Understand what this means. It means that since the genetically modified animal isn’t actually being evaluated as an animal… or as, well, food. It’s being evaluated as a drug.

…but back to the article.

Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown, since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, U.S.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could you at least pretend to be consistent?)

The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.

The cross-breeding of alfalfa is a big deal because of the issue with the term “organic.” For instance, if you purchase organic cow’s milk, it means that your cow has eaten only organically grown food, as well. Since alfalfa makes up the hay fed to cows, its imperative that that alfalfa be organic, as well. If cross-breeding – in other words, when seeds of plants “blow over” to someone else’s land and grow there – happens that easily with alfalfa, then it alters the amount of organic alfalfa there is to feed organically raised cows… thus reducing the ability to organically raise cows… thus increasing the difficulty of raising cows organically as well as reducing the amount of organic milk… thus increasing the price of organic milk and cheeses.

That’s a big deal.

There’s a great clip – I’ll have to find it somewhere – of a court case where a food industry executive was asked why they didn’t want food labeled to reflect what it truly is, and the woman said “Oh, we don’t want to unnecessarily worry the public.”

That’s industry speak for – “We know they’ll pick up on something that’ll give them a reason to not give us their money.” Look at that number. 87%

Eighty-seven per cent of the public wants genetically modified foods labeled! Why can’t we get what we want? Because the industry doesn’t want to “unnecessarily worry” us. Oh, okay.

…but back to the last and, to me, most important part of the article:

Even more than questionable approvals, it’s the unwillingness to label these products as such — even the G.E. salmon will be sold without distinction — that is demeaning and undemocratic, and the real reason is clear: producers and producer-friendly agencies correctly suspect that consumers will steer clear of G.E. products if they can identify them. Which may make them unprofitable. Where is the free market when we need it?

A majority of our food already contains G.M.O.’s, and there’s little reason to think more isn’t on the way. It seems our “regulators” are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever.

We are, essentially, being turned into test subjects – unwittingly, even – but there’s one way to avoid it. Start doing what you can to avoid genetically modified foods and the things that feed from them.

The Trouble With Genetically Engineered Foods, Revisited is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Problem With Genetically Modified Foods
2. Genetically Modified Foods: The World According To Monsanto
3. Cows Genetically Modified To Produce Human Milk?

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: alfalfa, corn, FDA, frankenfood, genetically engineered foods, genetically modified food, genetically modified foods, government, monsanto, salmon, usda

A big part of this is… you guessed it – fast food. I have a gripe with eating places where I can’t entirely confirm everything in my dish. I have a gripe with eating places where most of what they serve on the menu is shipped there pre-made, only ready to be dropped in a deep fryer or tossed in an oven somewhere (and that’s fast food or regular restaurant.) I’m sure there are some much healthier fast food joints out there, but that’s neither here nor there. I’ll get on my soapbox about fast food another day, but I did want to share this video that was the start of my research into what the hell we’re eating at fast food joints. I really dig this guy and the info he has to share, so I hope you like it too. : )

Re-Thinking Fast Food: Reading What You’re Eating is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Can Fast Food Ever Be A Part Of Clean Eating?
2. Does Your State Allow Fast Food Purchases On Food Stamps?
3. Q&A Wednesday: I Work In Fast Food And Want To Lose Weight! Help!

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Fast Food, kfc

For the last 30 years, the citrus industry has used flavor packs to process what the Food and Drug Administration identifies as “pasteurized” orange juice. That includes top brands such as Tropicana, Minute Maid, Simply Orange and Florida Natural, among others.

Murakhver said the addition of the flavor packs long after orange juice is stored actually makes those premium juices more like a concentrate, and consumers need to know that.

Experts estimate two-thirds of all Americans drink Florida orange juice for breakfast, and companies spend millions on their marketing campaigns touting its health benefits.

The “not from concentrate” brands appeared on store shelves sometime in the 1980s to differentiate them from frozen juice and other bottled concentrates. Despite its high price tag — now up to $4 a carton — sales of the premium brands have soared.

But those juices don’t just jump from the grove to the breakfast table.

After oranges are picked, they are shipped off to be processed. They are squeezed and pasteurized and, if they are not bound for frozen concentrate, are kept in aseptic storage, which involves stripping the juice of oxygen in a process called “deaeration,” and kept in million-gallon tanks for up to a year.

Before packaging and shipping, the juice is then jazzed up with an added flavor pack, gleaned from orange byproducts such as the peel and pulp, to compensate for the loss of taste and aroma during the heating process.

Different brands use different flavor packs to give their product its unique and always consistent taste. Minute Maid, for example, has a distinctive candy-sweet flavor.

Kristen Gunter, executive director of the Florida Citrus Processors Association, confirmed that juices are blended and stored and that flavor packs are added to pasteurized juice before shipping to stores.

Flavor packs are created from the volatile compounds that escape from the orange during the pasteurization step.

But, she said, “It’s not made in a lab or made in a chemical process, but comes through the physical process of boiling and capturing the [orange essence].”

The pasteurization process not only makes the food safe, but stabilizes the juice, which in its fresh state separates. Adding the flavor packs ensures a consistent flavor.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require adding flavor packs to the labeling of pasteurized juice (which includes the from-concentrate as well as the not-from-concentrate versions), because, “it is the orange,” said Gunter.

Non-pasteurized juice must be labeled as such, with warnings about potential pathogens. These regulations have been in place since 1963, she said.

As for the New York City mothers, Gunter said, “I don’t think there has been a large outcry.”

“If consumers have the false impression that pasteurized orange juice is not heated or treated because they have a picture of an orange on the carton, then they are not informed,” said Gunter.

“There’s a lot of literature and movies taking the food manufacturers to task on food preparation,” she said. “We have left the farms and it’s just not possible to feed everybody. I love the raw-food crowd, but we cannot get that many oranges out to that many people before they go bad in refrigeration.”

But Alissa Hamilton, a former food and policy fellow at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade, said that modern technology is so “sophisticated” that these flavor pack mixtures “don’t exist in nature.”

“They break it down into individual chemicals,” she said. “The flavor of orange is one of the most complex and is made up of thousands of chemicals.”

“They are fine-tuned so each company has its trademark flavor,” said Hamilton, who is author of the 2009 book, “Squeezed: What You Don’t Know About Orange Juice.”.”

One that is used in a variety of foods, including alcoholic beverages, chewing gum and as a solvent in perfumes, is ethyl butyrate.

According to Doug Kara, a spokesman for the FDA’s food safety division, the chemical is “generally recognized as safe as a food additive for flavoring.”

I’m going to reiterate, here, because I’m sure that people are going to look for reasons why this is “okay,” what’s so annoying about this.

First, she says “If consumers have the false impression that pasteurized orange juice is not heated or treated because they have a picture of an orange on the carton, then they are not informed.” If that’s the case, then why isn’t the picture on the carton a picture of a vat of orange juice being pasteurized? Don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that I shouldn’t believe what you tell me. Because if that’s the case, then…

Secondly, why should I believe that the only thing in the “flavor pack” is “the orange?” We took a look at the inside of a lab that makes these “flavor chemicals.” We know damn well how easy it is to create a flavor like orange juice. I’m not supposed to believe you when you tell me your orange juice is “fresh,” but I’m supposed to believe you when you tell me what’s in the flavor pack? I’m, also, supposed to believe that the representative for the Florida Citrus Processors Association is going to tell us anything that might harm the organizations she represents?

Thirdly, if the reheating takes out “everything that makes an orange an orange,” what is that doing to the nutritive quality of the oranges involved? I know that whenever I’m feeling under the weather, I eat a few oranges or grapefruit to feel better… not drink orange juice. Now I know why my hunch was correct.

In the ABC article, you find this post from Civil Eats. I’m going to extract the important parts (sort of like the orange juice processors – extracting the important parts…zing! Anybody? Nobody? Okay.):

The leading orange juice companies such as Tropicana (owned by PepsiCo), Minute Maid and Simply Orange (owned by Coca-Cola), and Florida’s Natural tell us many stories about orange juice: it’s natural, it’s pure and simple, it’s squeezed from oranges grown on pristine looking trees in Florida. But they leave out the details about how most commercial orange juice is produced and processed. Considering roughly two thirds of US households buy orange juice, Americans have a right to the whole story. As Tropicana launches its $35 million marketing campaign “Squeeze, it’s a natural,” it’s time for a reality check. Tropicana orange juice is not “relatively straightforward,” as reported in a New York Times article about PepsiCo’s recent decision to calculate the carbon footprint of its Tropicana brand of juice.

In the 1980s Tropicana coined the phrase “not from concentrate” to distinguish its pasteurized orange juice from the cheaper reconstituted “from concentrate” juice that began appearing alongside it in the refrigerator section of supermarkets. The idea was to convince consumers that pasteurized orange juice is a fresher, overall better product and therefore worth the higher price. It worked. Over the next five years sales of Tropicana’s pasteurized juice doubled and profits almost tripled.

In fact, “not from concentrate,” a.k.a pasteurized orange juice, is not more expensive than “from concentrate” because it is closer to fresh squeezed. Rather, it is because storing full strength pasteurized orange juice is more costly and elaborate than storing the space saving concentrate from which “from concentrate” is made. The technology of choice at the moment is aseptic storage, which involves stripping the juice of oxygen, a process known as “deaeration,” so it doesn’t oxidize in the million gallon tanks in which it can be kept for upwards of a year.

When the juice is stripped of oxygen it is also stripped of flavor providing chemicals. Juice companies therefore hire flavor and fragrance companies, the same ones that formulate perfumes for Dior and Calvin Klein, to engineer flavor packs to add back to the juice to make it taste fresh. Flavor packs aren’t listed as an ingredient on the label because technically they are derived from orange essence and oil. Yet those in the industry will tell you that the flavor packs, whether made for reconstituted or pasteurized orange juice, resemble nothing found in nature. The packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh squeezed orange juice that, juice companies have discovered, Americans favor. Mexicans and Brazilians have a different palate. Flavor packs fabricated for juice geared to these markets therefore highlight different chemicals, the decanals say, or terpene compounds such as valencine.

The formulas vary to give a brand’s trademark taste. If you’re discerning you may have noticed Minute Maid has a candy like orange flavor. That’s largely due to the flavor pack Coca-Cola has chosen for it. Some companies have even been known to request a flavor pack that mimics the taste of a popular competitor, creating a “hall of mirrors” of flavor packs. Despite the multiple interpretations of a freshly squeezed orange on the market, most flavor packs have a shared source of inspiration: a Florida Valencia orange in spring.

If you like orange juice and want to buy American, now is the time. Only during this time of year can you pick up a carton that contains Florida Valencia juice that has not spent months in storage. The rest of the year, whether you buy Minute Maid’s “from concentrate,” or Tropicana’s “not from concentrate,” you’re drinking a mixture of Florida juice, some or all of which has been stored from previous seasons, and juice shipped from Brazil, which conveniently grows oranges when Florida doesn’t. Even the Florida based company Florida’s Natural, which is owned by a cooperative of Florida growers, imports Brazilian concentrate for its “from concentrate” juice line.

Or maybe you want to try something new for breakfast: a whole Florida Valencia orange. It’s higher in vitamin C than a glass of processed juice and the flavor is incomparable.

Thoughts?

What’s Going On With Your Orange Juice? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Case Against… Juice?
2. Dr. Oz, Apple Juice, Arsenic and “Fear-Mongering”
3. Hide and Seek: Sugar Hiding In Your Ingredients List

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

You heard right. This is my “Sexy Ranch” dressing.

I heard you askin’ already – why is it Sexy Ranch?!

Here’s why:

My ranch is sexy because this ranch… is not.

16tbsp = 1 cup. I paid about $2.50 for 1 cup of ranch dressing in a funny shaped supaskinny bottle with semi-modern package design.

Inside that $2.50 cup of ranch dressing, I get 16 tablespoons of dressing, with each tablespoon giving me 140 calories.

Inside that $2.50 cup of ranch dressing, I get ingredients like phosphoric acid, natamycin, disodium guanylate, and xanthan gum. Yeah. If you can tell me what any of that is, that’d be great.

I snatched up some stuff from my kitchen that definitely cost more than $2.50 altogether. I snatched up things like:

1/3 teaspoon of sea salt (maybe even less.. just a pinch worked for mine)

about 1/3 cup of parsley

2 tablespoons of finely chopped green onions (chopped however finely you’d prefer it in your dressing)

1/3 teaspoon of black pepper

1 cup of real mayonnaise (do us BOTH a favor and don’t use Miracle Whip) (~700 calories)

buttermilk (I used about 2 cups, you may use more or less) (about 100 calories per cup)

2 teaspoons of minced garlic

1 teaspoon of cream cheese (~10 calories)

1 tablespoon of finely chopped onion

I tossed everything in the bowl, except the buttermilk. Go on and mix that all up. Give it a taste and see how you like it.

Then, go ahead and pour in your buttermilk, one cup at a time. Stir it after each cup, and give it a little pinky-taste-test. You know, put a dollop on your pinky and taste it to see what kind of taste it leaves on your tongue. Add the second cup. At this point, decide whether or not you want it thinner (and if so, add more buttermilk.)

Want it more tangy? Go with squeezing a liiittle lemon over it. Want it spicy? Hit up the paprika and cayenne pepper. Want somethin’ different? Add a little flax seed to it, or grab the chili powder. Make this YOUR recipe. YOU are the one that has to enjoy it, and you need to convince yourself that this is the safer option for your ranch fetish. Is time an issue? Tell yourself that the only way you can enjoy ranch dressing is if you make it yourself.

I recommend making sure you have extra ingredients left over just so that you can personalize the recipe the way you want. Ranch is, essentially, about throwing the whole farm in the pot and putting it the way you like it – I put a little paprika in mine, I squeeze a little lime over mine… might even put a little lime zest (lime shavings) on top and stir it in.  Try anything – try everything! Make use of your kitchen. I can assure you, it’s totally fun… and takes all of 15 minutes. Grab a squeeze bottle from your nearest dollar store or grocery (or dump out your old ranch and rinse the bottle, LOL), and pow – you’re all set!

Now.. let’s compare. Even if you had to BUY all the ingredients for my ranch, you can still use them in other dishes. I had everything in my home already. It’s not a total loss on the investment.

I used 2 cups of buttermilk. This gave me a little more than 3 cups of ranch dressing. Let’s do the math:

3 cups of dressing = 700(calories from the mayo) + 200(calories from 2 cups of buttermilk) + 10(calories from the cream cheese)

Kraft’s 1 cup of dressing totals 2240 calories. 2080 of which are from fat.

My 3 cups of ranch total 910 calories. Putting it on par with the Kraft, that means that for every 1 cup, my dressing gives you about 303 calories. I didn’t calculate fat calories, but I can assure you it’s much less than 2080.

303…is much less than 2240. Seriously.

My ranch is Sexy Ranch because it’s not gonna prevent you from preserving your sexy. I’m serious.

Best of luck, and don’t forget to tell me how it turns out!

Make It At Home: Sexy Ranch Dressing is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. Weekend WTF: I’m Too Sexy For This Ham
2. Q&A Wednesday: Exercise Won’t Make You Thin?
3. Q&A Wednesday: I’m Not Gonna Make It Through Labor Day!

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 26 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: saving money

However, a commenter noted how much the pair were paying for a dozen eggs, as the two were buying a dozen brown eggs.

It completely slipped my mind, but let’s debunk this (and a few other myths along the way.) We’ll start with the transcript of a lovely interview from NPR’s All Things Considered:

DEBBIE ELLIOTT, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I’m Debbie Elliott. This is the week of the egg. Passover has begun, where a roasted egg sits on the Seder plate as a symbol of the cycle of life or of mourning, depending on who you ask. And of course tomorrow is Easter where eggs, dyed or chocolate, celebrate the Resurrection.

We thought it was as good a week as any to find out the answer to a question that’s been nagging us. Why are some eggs white and some eggs brown? And who better to pose that question to than Marie Simmons, author of cookbook The Good Egg. Ms. Simmons, chime right in.

Ms. MARIE SIMMONS (Author, The Good Egg): Well, brown eggs come from chickens who have brown feathers. It’s as simple as that, and white eggs come from chickens that have white feathers. Brown eggs are totally equal in nutritional value. It’s just a matter of regional preferences.

ELLIOTT: So once you open the egg…

Ms. SIMMONS: They’re all the same in the inside. Of course, there are beautiful blue and pale green and tan-shelled eggs, and they come from a rare breed called the Araucana, but those are a mostly what we would maybe call boutique chickens, and they’re not the kind of eggs you’re going to find everywhere, but…

ELLIOTT: So you don’t necessarily have to dye your eggs to get those pretty colors. You just have to find a rare chicken.

Ms. SIMMONS: That’s right.

ELLIOTT: So why is it that white eggs are the ones that we tend to think of and see in the grocery store most often?

Ms. SIMMONS: Our supermarkets have both. We have white and brown eggs, but I think it’s the consumer demand for the white egg, or the preference, that is the reason that we are supplied most likely in supermarkets with white eggs.

Let’s follow that up with this from The Straight Dope:

According to the Egg Nutrition Board (and who should know better?), “White shelled eggs are produced by hens with white feathers and ear lobes. Brown shelled eggs are produced by hens with red feathers and red ear lobes. There is no difference in taste or nutrition between white and brown eggs.” The people at Crisco (who may know even more than the egg nutritionists) go further to say, “They simply come from two different breeds of chickens. Brown eggs, however, are more expensive because the chickens that lay them eat more than those that lay white eggs.” Among the breeds that lay brown eggs are the Rhode Island Red, the New Hampshire and the Plymouth Rock–all larger birds that require more food.But Bill Finch of the Mobile Register suggests that brown eggs may have tasted better at one time. He says, “For years, the chickens preferred by commercial growers happened to lay white eggs. A few smart cooks sought out brown eggs because most of the home-reared American flocks, which had access to flavor-enhancing weeds and bugs, happened to lay brown eggs. Commercial egg producers eventually got wise to this. They started raising chickens that laid brown eggs, and charged a premium for them at the store.

“But because the white AND brown grocery-store eggs are the result of the same bland commercial diet, their eggs taste exactly the same. Many people still apparently don’t realize they’ve been duped at their own game.”

Another:

• In general, consumers in the Northeast of the US prefer brown eggs, so most hens there are Rhode Island Reds, which produce brown eggs. Consumers in other parts of the country prefer white eggs, so most hens used elsewhere are White Leghorns, which produce white eggs.

• Brown eggs generally are more expensive because the Rhode Island Reds are bigger birds and eat more, which means it is more expensive to maintain them.

• Free-range eggs are produced by hens that are not kept in cages but live on an open floor, and not necessarily outside. These eggs are produced on a seasonal basis.

• The overall size and weight of an egg is an indicator of the health, breed, and maturity of the hen that laid it. Healthier, larger, and older hens produce larger eggs. Poor nutrition, stress, heat, and overcrowding can make hens produce smaller eggs.

• Similarly, the thickness of the egg’s shell is determined by the age of the hen and the hen’s nutrition. The healthier the hen, the thicker the shell. At the same time, older hens produce larger eggs. Larger eggs have a thinner shell, just because there’s more area to cover. If a larger egg has a thinner shell, that may have more to do with the age of the hen rather than its health.

• So if the eggshell is thicker, it’s not because it’s a brown egg. It’s most likely because the hen is healthier, or older, or living under better conditions. [source]

Annnnnnd another:

Eggshell color does not affect an egg’s nutritional value, quality, flavor, cooking characteristics, or shell thickness, says Emily Cooper, media spokesperson for the American Egg Board.

The difference is that they are more expensive. At CHOW’s local Safeway, one dozen Grade AA, extra-large white eggs from Lucerne sell for $3.19. Their brown counterparts, same size and grade, go for $3.98 per dozen. So why the higher price?

Hens that produce brown eggs are larger than white-egg-producing hens, and require more feed and care; that extra expense is passed on to the consumer. Although it might be cheaper to raise white-egg-producing hens, brown eggs continue to sell well, so they’re still a smart business choice for farmers. [source]

Can we now lay the brown egg vs white egg game to rest? And furthermore, can we stop spnding all of our hard earned pennies on an unnecessary expense?

Are Brown Eggs Really Better Than White? is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. What’s Wrong With White Rice?
2. Q&A Wednesday: Salmonella, 500 Million Eggs, The FDA, & You
3. The Secret To Scrambled Eggs

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 14 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: brown eggs, cage-free eggs, white eggs

Surprise, surprise, no one was reading all that.

That’s okay. I’m breaking it up into a few parts that everyone will be able to digest slowly and properly (pun intended), and hopefully we can explore why healthier, cleaner, more chemical-free food choices are so important. It is critical that any person embarking on a clean eating journey have an understanding of why the journey is so vital to their success in losing weight.

Consider this part II of the series.

I’m a small business owner, so while I could interject right here about what it does to our local communities to not be able to buy our food locally and keep our money in our communities… I won’t. Just know that I could.

As I said, the larger food manufacturing grew, the more we were distanced from it’s production, and the less oversight we were granted to it’s creation and ingredients. Because (in my opinion) the government wanted to simply do what it could to ensure that the US had a consistent food supply, lots of leeway was given to big food factories to help ease them along their way in supplying our supermarkets with food – glorious food! Want an example? The food industry was able to get the FDA to change the law – imitation foods that weren’t nutritionally deficient in comparison to their whole counterparts didn’t have to be clearly marked as “imitation.” (You can skip the below quote if you like because I’ve quoted it before, but it’s valuable enough to read twice.)

The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act imposed strict rules requiring that the word “imitation” appear on any food product that was, well, an imitation … [And] the food industry [argued over the word], strenuously for decades, and in 1973 it finally succeeded in getting the imitation rule tossed out, a little-notice but momentous step that helped speed America down the path of nutritionism.

… The American Heart Association, eager to get Americans off saturated fats and onto vegetable oils (including hydrogenated vegetable oils), was actively encouraging the food industry to “modify” various foods to get the saturated fats and cholesterol out of them, and in the early seventies the association urged that “any existing and regulatory barriers to the marketing of such foods be removed.”

And so they were when, in 1973, the FDA (not, note, the Congress that wrote the law) simply repealed the 1938 rule concerning imitation foods. … The revised imitation rule held that as long as an imitation product was not “nutritionally inferior” to the natural food it sought to impersonate—as long as it had the same quantities of recongized nutrients—the imitation could be marketed without using the dreaded “i” word. — In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto

Families who survived the rationing and the famine were happy about this! No more struggling, breaking their backs to stretch food. They could eat like the rich folks! They could also gain weight like ‘em, too. Alas, the way men and women were employed in this era, they weren’t granted the same amount of time for leisurely activity like the rich. In other words, we were eating “like the rich,” but not burning the weight off like ‘em. This part of the story, can be evidenced by Katharine Flegel’s study of weight gain from the sixties to the present. This New Yorker article summarizes it briefly:

In the early nineteen-nineties, a researcher at the C.D.C. named Katherine Flegal was reviewing the results of the survey then under way when she came across figures that seemed incredible. According to the first National Health study, which was done in the early nineteen-sixties, 24.3 per cent of American adults were overweight—roughly defined as having a body-mass index greater than twenty-seven. (The metrics are slightly different for men and women; by the study’s definition, a woman who is five feet tall would count as overweight if she was more than a hundred and forty pounds, and a man who is six feet tall if he weighed more than two hundred and four pounds.) By the time of the second survey, conducted in the early nineteen-seventies, the proportion of overweight adults had increased by three-quarters of a per cent, to twenty-five per cent, and, by the third survey, in the late seventies, it had edged up to 25.4 per cent. The results that Flegal found so surprising came from the fourth survey. During the nineteen-eighties, the American gut, instead of expanding very gradually, had ballooned: 33.3 per cent of adults now qualified as overweight. Flegal began asking around at professional meetings. Had other researchers noticed a change in Americans’ waistlines? They had not. This left her feeling even more perplexed. She knew that errors could have sneaked into the data in a variety of ways, so she and her colleagues checked and rechecked the figures. There was no problem that they could identify. Finally, in 1994, they published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In just ten years, they showed, Americans had collectively gained more than a billion pounds. “If this was about tuberculosis, it would be called an epidemic,” another researcher wrote in an editorial accompanying the report.

Food was becoming way more accessible to us. I do want to go back to the point about the FDA’s law about imitation substances, though. It does a lot more to the food industry than you think it does. Take a loaf of bread, for example. Bread has maybe five ingredients in it – flour, water, sugar, salt, and yeast – but if you look on the label for the bread in your house right now? You see what – hyphenated chemicals. The food industry now has the ability to put anything in your food, so long as it is not deficient in the nutrients that science recognizes are valuable… in comparison to the food it imitates.  Remember this part. No, really – remember this part.

Stay tuned for part III, on the nutritional deficiencies of processed food!

The Problem With Processed Foods, Part II: The Change In Food Manufacturing is a post from: A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss. Thanks for reading!

Related posts:

1. The Problem With Processed Foods, Part I: What Is Processed Food?
2. The Problem With Processed Foods, Part III: Nutritional Deficiencies
3. The Problem With Processed Foods, Part IV: The Conclusion

The FULL list of meal plans is currently available. Check it out and get your copy today!

Get BGG2WL delivered wirelessly to your Kindle! Click here for more info!

© Erika for A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss, 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: