Top Five Reasons Why I Won't be at the State Fair this Year: for Blog Action Day

By Marcie Barnes

Today is blog action day and also opening day for the North Carolina State Fair. Since the theme for blog action day 2009 is "climate change" and the theme for the state fair this year is "a whole lotta happy" - I would like to point out how climate change makes me a whole lotta sad, and how big agriculture in America, and at the state fair, has totally taken over, for the worse.

I wrote a post a couple years ago about the fair expressing my concern over the - unhealthiness of it all mostly for people - here I'll try to concentrate on how unhealthy it is for the planet.

#5: Lack of places to recycle: On the state fair's Green NC page, they admit that the fair "has some work to do before [it] can be a truly 'green' event." They then go on to boast about the four, yes, a whopping four recycling stations that appeared at the fair for the first time last year. By the way, throwing aluminum cans in the trash has been illegal in NC since 1991 and apparently 2008 was the first fair in more than ten years where recycling bins were available for the public to use. What in the world happened? In any case, there should be a place to recycle next to each and every trash can. This fair brochure (.pdf) says there are 500 trash cans, and only four recycle centers? People are waaay too lazy to seek out recycle centers, even if they do care, if you make it 125x easier to toss in the trash. How about retrofitting 250 of those trash cans into recycle cans?

#4: Deep fried, everything: It's even the name of the state fair's blog. OK, I know people love fried, but really, do you have to promote it? With heart disease and stroke being the biggest killers of Americans, isn't it about time to stop promoting foods that clearly play a role in such diseases? Just around the corner there are hundreds of local farmers showing off their livestock and produce, but where is the booth where I can buy some of their apples and pumpkin pie? (And I mean out in the open, not tucked away in a building or specialty tent. Why don't they get the prime spots?) According to the video on this page there are just shy of 500 "commercial vendors" at the fair, and they are looking for more "unique" vendors. How about inviting your farmers to provide us with local NC snacks, instead of looking for the next most unhealthy thing on a stick? Oh, and what does this have to do with climate change? A lot. Giving space to the big fair-traveling vendors from all over the country only adds to pollution, and the entire "big ag" food system is a huge contributor to global warming, especially meat production.

#3: Crowds: I have to admit, Iím a bit claustrophobic. In 2005 I literally had a panic attack when the crowd got extremely thick around sundown. I think it was probably a factor of the daytime people and the nighttime crowd all being there at the same time. I decided to look into the attendance figures over the years to see how much the fair has grown. Well, according to their own numbers...not very much.

Here is a chart I made plotting population growth numbers from 1980-present for NC, Wake County, and the state fair: (red line: NC blue line: fair green line: Wake County)

Then, I took the NC population data out so you could get a close-up look at an odd trend:

(blue line: fair green line: Wake County)

Apparently, the population of Wake County has nearly tripled, while the state fair attendance numbers have not even gotten close to doubling. In addition, the total "population" of the fair used to be double that of Wake County, and now they are about the same. At the same time, the total population of the state has increased by three million. Anyone else find that odd? In any case, I appreciate that the fairgrounds were recently expanded to help alleviate crowding, but I don't have any desire to get caught in another squishy and potentially dangerous situation. I spoke to someone at the Raleigh Fire Marshal's office to ask about the occupancy limits for the outdoor areas of the fair, and was told they have no jurisdiction because it's on state property. I am waiting to hear back from the NC Fire Marshal's office on this, and will update when I have more information. What does this have to do with climate change? Well, ok, it's mostly about safety but also the ramifications of an event so large, all the people driving to it, and the pollution and trash it creates.

#2: Rides / electricity usage: I didn't even bother to ask how much electricity the state fair uses each year, but it's got to be a huge amount. In an area where our power company gets a percentage of its power from coal sourced from mountain top removal, I just can't justify taking a joy ride powered by coal operations that have clogged and polluted towns in the mountains and also not so far away from Raleigh.

#1: Chickens, pigs, and cows - oh my: Another disclosure: I'm a vegetarian. But my husband and son still eat some meat. Not so much after seeing the documentary Food, Inc. You see, nearly all food in grocery stores, most restaurants, and foodservice trucks come from a giant food system designed to get your food to you as cheaply as possible, and in large part, due to the government subsidies on corn and fuel. What's wrong with that? When it comes to animals, including poultry, beef and pork (a huge polluting industry in NC) - you can rest assured that those animals were raised in very confined spaces, generally treated poorly, loaded with antibiotics to keep them from getting sick due to the poor nature of their diets (almost always corn to fatten them in the cheapest way possible), possibly suffering injury and physical mutilation by other animals or the farmer (in attempt to stop some behaviors going on due to the crowding), slaughtered and processed on a fast-moving assembly line manned by cheap (and yes, many illegal) workers. These kinds of operations cause all kinds of pollution in addition to all the air pollution from the transport of animals from 'farm' to slaughter to processing to distribution to store shelf.

Yes, the fair has a lot of "work to do before [it] can be a truly 'green' event." Getting local farmers into the vendor mix would be a huge step towards alleviating some of these problems, along with some serious energy conservation measures and movement towards clean energy sources.

I've been going to the state fair every year since I was a young girl. I'd really love to see it return to an event that truly is about NC farms, not big agriculture.

HFCS at WholeFoods? Say it Ain't So!

By Marcie Barnes

One of the things I really like about Whole Foods and other stores like it is the fact that I don't have to do so much label-reading.

I admit after some searching I find I am not the first person to make this discovery. But how many also had the general impression that there were no HFCS (High-fructose corn syrup) products at Whole Foods?

I knew that Earth Fare had a non-HFCS policy. Unfortunately, I assumed Whole Foods did as well. A huge benefit, for me at least, in shopping in these earth and health-friendly stores is the comfort in knowing they choose to sell products good for us, and the planet.

I could not find such a policy on Whole Foods' site, someone please point me there if there is one. I did find this tweet, however, that explains "none of our 365 products contain HFCS and only a small % of our branded products do, unlike in other stores."

Other tweets explain that "HFCS isn't on our unacceptable ingredient list, but you'll still find it's the exception, not the convention in our stores."

Here is what I found:



This is a shrimp tray, with cocktail sauce included. The HFCS (and more corn syrup later) is in the sauce. What baffles me, in part, is why it seems that the cocktail sauce was portioned out from a bottled shelf brand that has HFCS, when there is an organic 365 brand available without HFCS. Furthermore, I think it might be even simpler (and cheaper) for the kitchen to mix some 365 organic ketchup with a little grated horseradish, and voila! Cocktail sauce.

Don't get me wrong, I love Whole Foods (I was actually there a couple days ago because I was in a bad mood and being there cheers me up :)) I just find it odd that they (my local Cary, NC store, by the way) would package up some shrimp with HFCS sauce and showcase it in the seafood section.

I was actually curious about Whole Foods non-top ranking in Greenpeace's recent Seafood Scorecard report. More on that coming up. Stay tuned.

What do you think? Should HFCS be on the unacceptable list at Whole Foods? I think so, especially considering recent news regarding mercury in HFCS.

Main photo credit goes to boeke on Flicker. Shrimp photo is mine.

The Great Importance of Antioxidants & Detox

By Marcie Barnes

(photo credit goes to ~Dezz~ on Flickr -->)

Antioxidants – one of those buzzwords you hear in advertising a lot. I think we've heard it so much that it's one of those terms that sort of goes in one ear and out the other. Same with "detox".

The other night, my husband asked me exactly how (why) Cancer forms in our bodies, since we've recently discovered our 16-year old dog has tumors.

So, I started doing some research. I found a very interesting (albeit complicated) graphic from a study called "The role of phytochemicals in inhibition of cancer and inflammation":

(Click the image for larger version)

(By the way, phytochemicals are plant-based chemical compounds that contain antioxidants.)

Let's just concentrate on the blue "clearance" box at the top right. In order to "clear" our blood of carcinogens, there is only one path: detoxification. Another health buzzword that perhaps we should be paying more attention to: detox. There are, of course, many products on the market that promise to detox you, but the fact of the matter is, you can easily get the antioxidants you need for detox in everyday food – in particular fresh, local fruits and vegetables!

Some of the ones this study mentions are: prunes, raisins, blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, red bell pepper, plums, onion, brussels sprouts, broccoli, beets…the list goes on. That said, if you're one of those people who just can't stomach a lot of fruits and veggies, please do invest in a good supplement. And don't forget the antioxidant-rich teas such as green tea (not from a bottle) and my favorite, yerba maté, which I am finding available at more and more places including Kroger. (Note: maté may contain a small amount of carcinogens because the leaves are smoked, but the high antioxidant content far and away makes up for it, in my opinion.)

Now, on the more daunting bottom half of this graphic. I'm not even going to bother to try and explain all of this, other than to say there seem to be no good paths after the carcinogen turns into an "Ultimate Carcinogen". There is a place where Apoptosis, or cell death, occurs, which appears to be a good thing in this graphic, but it doesn't say how that happens. Anyway, All kinds of scary things are going on now that detox has not occurred – DNA Damage, Inflammation, and ultimately carcinogenesis – yes, the creation of cancer.

This graphic gave me and my family pause. Get your fresh fruits and veggies in your diet, please.

What's In That Food? Part Three: Locally-grown Strawberries & Pesticides - Lots of Them!

By Marcie Barnes

Strawberry season is in full-swing across the nation, and if you're like me, you love going out to the strawberry fields to pick some of that sweet, juicy, healthy goodness from the plants. And of course, you can't help but eat a few yourself….if you're a kid, probably more than a few. But there's a dark side to the local strawberry patch. Most strawberries are grown commercially. And that means they use nitrogen-based fertilizers and pesticides. Lots of pesticides.

This article gives lots of shocking tidbits, such as the fact that 371 pesticides are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use on strawberries. Recent data from foodnews.org shows that strawberries rank high on the list for produce found to have high levels of pesticides still on them once they arrive on the store shelf. Which makes me wonder how much they are washed. In any case, Dr. Green gives more scary detail on the types of pesticides found in this 'Report Card' on Pesticides in Strawberries. A little more research yielded another interesting factoid: a new hand lotion has been developed to protect workers picking in strawberry fields from absorbing pesticides into their skin "Arrangements were made to test urine samples of a small group of workers before, during and after picking strawberries in a field that had been sprayed with malathion 7-10 days earlier. Malathion is commonly used to control pests that can damage the fruit as it becomes ready for harvest."

Wikipedia states that "Malathion itself is not toxic; however, absorption or ingestion into the human body readily results in its metabolism to malaoxon, which is toxic in high amounts. Chronic exposure to low levels of malathion have been hypothesized to impair memory, but this is disputed. There is currently no reliable information on adverse health effects of chronic exposure to malathion". the list of pesticides found on strawberries here contains some additional really scary contenders in the pesticide arena. I want to know, what is being done to protect the consumers (mainly children) who go into these fields to pick and eat?

I don't think it's a huge deal that our son had quite a few of these likely pesticide-laden berries in the field, because he is very healthy, but I was sure to take the rest of our bounty home and wash them very thoroughly. Even then, because we do not peel strawberries, I bet there was a lot of residue left. I'm off to try and find a local, organic source for my produce. Unfortunately, as this article points out, the Farmer's Market probably is full of commercial growers as well…I guess I'll be growing my own garden and joining an organic CSA in the fall, because in addition to all this, "organic strawberries ripen more leisurely, with more time to soak up nutrients from sun and soil." This statement has been backed up (**finally**) by solid research showing that organic produce is indeed healthier for you.

----------

End of the series, for now. Would you like to see this as a regular feature? Leave a comment!

Photo credit goes to: me! That's our son holding a basket of likely pesticide-laden strawberries. They were yummy :) :P

What's In That Food? Part Two: Green Tea With More Sugar and Chemicals Than You Should Care For.

By Marcie Barnes

Borrowing again from a slide out of a gallery published by AOL, I wanted to alert you to something that bothers me - the new Green Tea product from Lipton. I saw a billboard for it recently that said something like "citrus + green tea antioxidants = yummy" - and I couldn't help but wonder how much corn syrup was going in along with that. Take a look at the ingredients, of course, HFCS is the second ingredient, after water:

Water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, green tea, sodium hexametaphosphate, ascorbic acid, honey, natural flavors, phosphoric acid, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, calcium disodium edta, caramel color, tallow 5, blue1.

Then, I heard someone make the claim that there was more sugar in this product than in a can of coke - so I decided to find out for myself. I had to do a little math because, of course, Coca-Cola claims the serving size on a 12 oz. can is actually 8 oz., as if you will drink 2/3 and stop. So, there are 27g of sugar in an 8 oz. serving which would equal 36g in a full can. The Lipton Green Tea has 21g of sugar in an 8oz serving which would equal 28g in a full can, so not exactly a true claim, however, I suppose if you drank a full 20 oz. bottle (I haven't seen many cans of this stuff around) you'd be closer to the range of a coke.

In any case, I applaud Lipton for getting more green tea antioxidants out there, but I have to wonder if the HFCS cancels out the benefits. In any case, what about all these other additives? Sodium hexametaphosphate, but it carries a scary warning in the Wikipedia entry: "Some individuals may experience an allergic reaction to the ingestion of sodium hexametaphosphate that may produce mild chest pain. One case of this allergic reaction was reported to have been due to trace amounts of sodium hexametaphosphate found in bottled water." - Eeek. And then we have phosphoric acid (also found in Coke) which is commonly used to remove rust. As with the lye in Cool Whip, I say no thanks!

And the list goes on, Wikipedia also says that sodium benzoate, when combined with ascorbic acid, "may form benzene, a known carcinogen" and also cites studies that link this chemical to ADHD. Next, we have calcium disodium EDTA - more scary stuff to read here - "EDTA has been found to be both cytotoxic and weakly genotoxic in laboratory animals. Oral exposures have been noted to cause reproductive and developmental effects."

And - oh no - tallow? That normally comes from beef and was the ingredient that got McDonald's sued over saying their french fries were vegetarian. Just another sneaky ingredient - I wonder how many vegetarians out there are drinking this?

And finally, Blue #1 - "It has previously been banned in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland among others but has been certified as a safe food additive in the EU and is today unbanned in most of the countries. In the United States production exceeds 1 million pounds annually, and daily consumption is around 16 mg per person. It has the capacity for inducing an allergic reaction. It is one of the colorants that the Hyperactive Children's Support Group and the Feingold Association recommend to be eliminated from the diet of children."

I understand these chemicals are probably added in very small quantities, but I think they should be completely avoided by children, pregnant women, and other people with sicknesses and the elderly. And just in case, I stay away from them too.

There are some kudos to Lipton (Unilever), for pledging "to transform the tea industry by making it sustainable, changing the lives of the workers for the better along the way...to have all of its Lipton Yellow Label and PG Tips bags sold in Western Europe certified by 2010, and all Lipton tea bags sold globally certified by 2015."

All said, I say brew your own green tea and add your own sweetener. If you are trying to get off of soda (or other bottled/canned drinks) brewing your own tea is a great way to wean yourself off. Simply make a batch to your taste and each time reduce the amount of sweetener. Adding a squeeze of lemon helps improve the taste. You can easily move yourself to just drinking plain water or tea with this method. Eating out? Ask for 1/2 sweet & 1/2 unsweet to start. Green tea is associated with lots of health benefits to include weight loss, so don't pick up the bottle full of corn syrup. You can do it!

Up Next: What's in those yummy in-season strawberries?

What's In That Food? Part One: Cool Whip: Transfat, Corn Syrup & Lye, Oh My!

By Marcie Barnes

I was recently reading one of my favorite blogs, www.thatsfit.com, and came across this reference to a gallery published by their parent company, AOL. I have issues with a few things about this gallery, but let's start with slide #6 - Cool Whip -"it includes questionable ingredients like hydrogenated vegetable oil a known trans fat --and high fructose corn syrup…" says the AOL piece. Indeed, a lot of scary ingredients in this. However, telling people to opt for the "fat-free" version isn't really the best advice.

There is still hydrogenated vegetable oil (trans fat) in the "fat-free" version, they probably just add only enough to get away with calling it "free" under government guidelines. Even then, I'm skeptical - because the ingredients listed on all three kinds - "free", "lite" and "regular" are virtually identical, with the exception of the use of sodium hydroxide in the "free" version - which, my friends, is lye. I see that there are some food applications for lye, but I prefer to stay away from ingredients also used to unclog drains...I don't know about you.

I would recommend buying a regular old can of whipped cream, organic would be better because it would not have corn syrup, and don't feel too bad about it - especially if you're putting it on fresh organic fruit. :)

I found another blogger who has also discovered the stark similarities in ingredients between all three versions of cool-whip. As usual, it's the job of those marketing people to make you feel like you are making an "informed" purchase by putting a bunch of (often misleading) information on the front label. Spend more time reading the back - and save yourself a lot of time by shopping organic products, because they don't contain chemical additives, preservatives or hormones.

Another ingredient found in all three varieties is sorbitan monostearate. I had to do a lot of research to try and figure out exactly what this is, and basically, it's an artificial wax. I say always air on the side of caution when ingesting anything artificial. In addition, I was a bit disturbed by research I kept finding (done in the 60s) where this substance was found to speed tumors in the skin of hamsters (if someone with a scientific background wants to read this and spell it out in layman's terms, that would be great). This page says it also "may increase the absorption of fat-soluble substances".

Again, a great substitute for cool whip would be to go out and buy some organic whipping cream, add a little stevia to sweeten it, and whip it yourself! It's easy, and homemade whipped cream is impressive to friends and family. :)

Up next: Green Tea that's bad for you.

Image Credit goes to: lowjumpingfrog on flickr, who aptly named the photo "Death by Variety".

Stop Recycling!?!?

By Marcie Barnes

I was inspired on Earth Day by this post I found while looking around which contains some great ways to have a greener kitchen. I am constantly trying to think of ways to reduce my "carbon footprint" and would love to help those of you out there reading do the same. Here is a summary of what 7 Steps to a Greener Kitchen tells us to do:

----------------------------------------------
1. Bring your own bags to the grocery store
2. Wean yourself off plastic and packaging (Rather than relying on plastic cling wrap and re-sealable baggies, store food in reusable, lidded containers)
3. Recycle (more on this below)
4. Greener cleaning (Use the natural power of household items like lemon juice and baking soda wherever possible.)
5. Buy environmentally friendly kitchen gadgets (products made of recycled materials)
6. Make it meatless (Raising livestock has a (far) more significant impact on the environment than cultivating plants and grains)
7. Buy local and organic (amen)
----------------------------------------------

So, I like most of what the post has to say, but, like I said, I've been doing a lot of thinking. When I start from the statement that we are in a "race to imminent extinction", - I then begin to ponder what we can do to slow down this race, and fast. I happen to firmly believe that global warming is very real and most definitely being caused by humans, as is the consensus of most scientists today, and there already have been a host of climate-related problems beginning to crop up that you wouldn't normally think of: health-related ones. Then, I did some research on what contributes the most to global warming, and the answer often was meat production (more here) and, well, largely the United States and all it's industrial activity in general. When you look at the figures from a per capita standpoint, the USA really is, well, the butthead of the environmental concerns globally. No wonder a lot of other cultures don't like us so much...

So, it got me thinking - when we recycle, there's usually a big truck that comes to pick up the recyclables, then it's probably sorted and trucked somewhere else, and taken to a recycling plant that uses a lot of water and emits more carbon dioxide into the air. Hm, something seems a little off here…it's been hard to find much data on this "theory" - but I have found plenty of other people (see this for an example) who seem to have the same concerns I do, and it appears that the only thing that should be recycled is metal, possibly also glass. Turns out plastic recycling in particular is complicated, and what you may think you are recycling may end up in the landfill anyway (!).

It seems to me that landfill space is a lot more prevalent than potable water, you can read here about countries that are starting to have major water concerns due to overpopulation. I am starting to think it's better to concentrate on the "reduce and reuse" part of the mantra, and recycle when it makes more sense.

So, thanks to startcooking.com for the great post, all of the items were wonderful tips for being more green in the kitchen and beyond, I'm just not so sure about #3 anymore…I say the mantra should be changed to "Reduce, reuse and recycle metal (maybe glass too)" :)

I think I am going to have a lot less guilt about throwing things in the trash from now on. Unless it's meat. We should be eating as little meat as possible and when we do eat it it should be local, grass-fed and cruelty-free (the way our "old school" farms used to do it). And it just doesn't seem right to throw away up to half of the food we produce - especially when it comes from an animal.

Hm, you know, the dinosaurs were kind enough to leave behind all that fossil fuel for us to use, perhaps we are just contributing (via our landfills) to a future energy source for a future generation to use to power their spaceships…space may very well be the "new frontier" when the Earth becomes uninhabitable. Maybe that sounds crazy. For now, let's try to not to have such a "disposable" disposition.

USDA Organic Seal - Killing hometown organic farms in America?

By Marcie Barnes

My mother is reading the book "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" for her book club and was telling about a discussion they were having about how the USDA Organic Seal many of us are familiar with is basically too expensive for small farmers to be able to acquire on their products. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification for specifics on this.) As a result, many farmers who have been proudly calling themselves "organic" for years, could be fined or even shut down for using that term today. This just makes my blood boil. Why, oh why, USDA to you all of the sudden get to define what is or is not "organic"?

Let's take a look at the USDA's Organic Labeling and Marketing Fact Sheet - my favorite quote from this resource is: "Products labeled 'organic' must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt)." (I'm still trying to figure out if this is by weight.) Basically, there is room for 5% of a product to be - whatever? That's kind of scary to me. Furthermore, I found the "list" that defines the kinds of things allowed in the 5% part here - and one of the "criteria" is: " The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes." So basically, they are allowing ingredients because there is no organic counterpart? Hellllllllooooooo?

One of my classmates asked me to write an article defining "organic" last semester. On top of my busy schedule, I have quite frankly been trying to formulate an appropriate definition in my head for months. I realize now that the government has taken over the role of "organic police," I quite frankly want to encourage the world to come up with a new word or phrase to describe food that, as I like to call it, was made the way God intended. Or, maybe it would be better to say "the way Mother Nature intended." A lot of formerly organic farmers are turning to words such as "natural" or "whole" to describe their products, which is unfortunate because of the rising popularity of "organic" products (and the increasing awareness of the word itself) in the public. Ah, the government steps in to try and clarify the definition of a word and causes further confusion. Classic.

I still think choosing a USDA labeled organic product is better than one that is not, but it has become clear to me that this label should signify to the consumer that the product was made by a large manufacturer with enough cash to be able to go through all of the paperwork (among other things) required for the certification, and that it's also likely the cost of the certification is worked into the price you are paying.

For a plethora of reasons, there is one word that is beginning to stand out as the best one to describe how you should eat: local. Find a local farm here and join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) program that allows you to buy a "share" of the farm and reap the health benefits of ultra-fresh, tasty, in-season locally-grown produce. There is nothing better in this world than a freshly-picked North Carolina strawberry in May. Well, maybe there is - where do you live and what are you missing out on?

More stories about small farms and their disgust with the USDA Organic program:

http://sugarmtnfarm.com/blog/2007/11/certified-naturally-grown-2007.html

http://www.woodcreekfarm.com/?page=CNG_L.htm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1016/p15s02-lifo.html

http://www.animalvegetablemiracle.com/News.html

Flaws in an International Nutrition Icon: The USDA Food Pyramid

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This is the abstract for and link to my final essay.)

By Marcie Barnes

Abstract

The familiar Food Guide Pyramid and the newer MyPyramid from the United States Department of Agriculture are widely used graphical representations of what the government agency deems to be appropriate proportions of different kinds of foods for the American public. These icons are used to educate people, including children, on what they should be eating. The International community and press also frequently reference this source. This paper examines the flaws in the old and new food pyramids by investigating scientific research, including that which the Pyramid’s critics use to back up their claims, and explores the reasons why the government agency is seemingly ignoring the science. In addition, this paper proposes a new “food continuum” as a better way to graphically represent the dietary needs of the human body in a way that is easy to understand for the unhealthiest segment of our population: the poor.

To read the paper in its entirety, click here.

Global Issues in Nutrition Communication: Focus on Food Labeling

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Below is an essay about the issues I've identified within the sphere of nutrition communication, followed by my fears, recommended solutions, and resources on the subject.)

By Marcie Barnes

Why are educated people - in even the most industrialized countries of the world - so ignorant and uninformed about nutrition? Cultural influence no doubt plays a huge role, but food product marketing and labeling also make it confusing for consumers to decipher what is truly healthy. The major problem I see with ignorance about nutrition, especially here in America, is confusing information and blatant misinformation in food marketing and on the products themselves. I am going to address the latter today: issues with food labeling.

The purpose of the nutrition label is to inform consumers about what is in the food they eat and offer an easy design format that gives a straightforward listing of the ingredients, vitamins, minerals, etc. But did you know that the FDA determines what should and should not appear on the label? For example, Vitamins A and C are the only ones required to be listed on the nutrition label, unless the manufacturer is making a claim about a particular vitamin. That’s right, according to the FDA's website, these are the only vitamins allowed on the label (unless a claim is made.)

As for marketing claims on the front of the package: there are a myriad of things that can be confusing or misleading about those. The most annoying claim to me is the use of phrases such as “made with whole grains”. Just about everyone has read and heard that whole grains are much healthier than refined ones, but did you know these claims can be made even if there is the tiniest amount of whole grain in the product? The product can be full of refined white flour and the marketers can make this claim by adding a smidge of whole grain. (For more information about this and other confusing marketing terms, see “The Loopholes of Food Labeling” by Tanya Jolliffe.)

Finally, I have become increasingly concerned about the dated nutrition information I keep finding. Just one example is that new (and old) research suggests that consuming saturated fats and cholesterol isn’t necessarily what causes high cholesterol and subsequent heart-related conditions (or obesity). However, sites like the Mayo Clinic and countless others constantly tell readers to avoid eating saturated fats and cholesterol. We know that saturated fats from fish are good, so why do they keep talking about saturated fats in a blanket sense?

Please keep reading below about my top five fears related to this issue, and a few of the things I suggest that could help solve the problem.

Five Fears:

- Growing consumer trust in companies that are selling to them and in government regulation and guidelines.
- Technically false and misleading marketing claims on packaging.
- Outdated labeling requirements and nutrition information coming from trusted sources.
- Missing information on labels.
- Consumer dependency on labels and packaged foods: a tendency to think it’s healthy because it is labeled, when it's likely that the opposite is true.

Possible Solutions:

- More consumer education about eating organically (and locally). The use of the term “conventional” in description of what I call “mainstream” food forces consumers to believe that organic is the odd way to eat. When in fact, humans evolved eating off of the land: free of pesticides, preservatives, artificial colors, additives, scientifically derived ingredients (ex: corn syrup), extra hormones, and possible genetic mutations, just to name a few. Shopping in the organic grocery store is much easier for me, because I know I’m not going to find things like corn syrup on the ingredient label. Also, as more people choose organic, the “mainstream” marketers are getting the message that savvy consumers don’t want their junk. For more on why to choose organic, read this.

- Educate yourself and your children not to take marketing claims at face value. Another example of this is the “zero trans fats” claim. There is a threshold at which manufacturers are allowed to make this claim (.5 grams or less), so, the product may not truly be free of trans-fats. Combine this with unrealistic serving/portion sizes, and it’s easy to trick the consumer into eating the trans-fats they are trying to avoid. A good example of this: sorry folks, Girl Scout cookies.

- More movement towards a more comprehensive nutrition label. I am sure that real estate could be a problem with the manufacturers, but I would like to see every component of a prepared food listed. At the least, manufacturers should be required to post that information on their web site, or even a on the USDA's website so it is centrally located. I often have a hard time find comprehensive nutrition information about products I am curious about, even online. The USDA Nutrition Database does contain comprehensive nutrition information on a lot of mainstream products, but unfortunately, only a handful of prepared organic products are included.

Web Resources:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/toce.shtml - The 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: The current Canadian food label is considered to be the gold standard across the globe. This is the guide that details what exactly should be on a food label. A great resource for excellence in food labeling.

http://www.ifama.org/conferences/2003Conference/papers/thorCOMM.pdf - Communicating Nutritional Information to the Global Consumer: Adapting to Shifting Consumer Attitudes toward Nutrition: This paper focuses mainly on problems with food labels in relation to serving size, but in the process gives a lot of helpful information about food labels and regulation in different parts of the world.

http://ific.org/foodinsight/2007/ja/globalfoodlabelfi407.cfm - Global Consumer Perceptions and Use of Nutrition Information on Food Labels - this is an excellent article that looks specifically about consumer use, understanding, and perceptions of food labels and claims in the US, Canada, and Europe.

http://www2.acnielsen.com/reports/documents/2005_eu_labeling.pdf - The Nutrition-Conscious Global Shopper / Consumer Attitudes Towards Nutritional Labels on Food Packaging in Europe: This market report from ACNielsen is another excellent resource for investigating the usage and understanding of food labels across the globe. Particularly of interest was the inclusion of cultural/geographical trends.

http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk/forum/ - Label My Food forum: this British message board is aimed at getting more people educated on exactly what they are eating through food labeling, caters to people in a "dietary minority" to include vegetarians and people with allergies.

http://www.consumersunion.org/blogs/nimf/ - Not in My Food Blog: This informative blog, part of the Consumer's Union affiliated with Consumer Reports, reports on what is going on with food-related legislation and asks readers to get involved by writing their local decision-maker (among other things.) An important one-stop source for news regarding what's going on in Washington when it's related to what we eat.

Best and Worst Nutrition Sites: Part Five

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be posting the best and worst websites I find on nutritional information related to my research project, as described here: http://feedingblackmail.blogspot.com/2007/09/cheap-food-or-expensive-organic-is.html.)

Today's Best

The Soil Association (UK)'s Get the Facts Page

After quite a lot of researching the topic of whether organic produce is more nutritious than conventional, I found a wonderful resource for the latest research on this subject. The page starts right in with the facts - organic produce is shown to have more minerals and more vitamin C as well as more protective antioxidants (phytonutrients). These statements are backed up with further explanation about the nutrients and links to the research itself. Great stuff!

Today's Worst

Health-and-Fitness Blog

Basically, I spent a lot of time on this blog trying to figure out how to navigate. There is only one post on the homepage and in order to find more I had to look in the archive or use a menu that seems to include the five most recent posts. I also was turned off by the Google ads being presented to me at the very top of the page. There is, however, a really cool tool in the navigation that translates the blog into different languages, I'll have to check that out!

Best and Worst Nutrition Sites: Part Four

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be posting the best and worst websites I find on nutritional information related to my research project, as described here http://feedingblackmail.blogspot.com/2007/09/cheap-food-or-expensive-organic-is.html.)

Today's Best

USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference

I have been using this very extensive database for years, since my pregnancy when I was obsessive about getting lots of good nutrition. I recently found out that this is the same resource used by the Department of Food Science at North Carolina State University - and therefore probably a lot of other higher education institutions around the country (and world.) This is a very large database which finely details the nutritional content of virtually any food, to include some brand name products and processed foods. I have never seen this site down, it has always been very responsive, and I trust that the data is accurate.

Today's Worst

MedJournal Watch Blog

All I can tell about this Blog's author is that he is a "free-lance medical writer." I was kind of hoping to give him a break because English is his second language, or something :/ I have been following this blog via an RSS feed for the past week, and there have been two headlines that I quite frankly did not understand at all: "Yet pregnant women target of weight loss hysteria" and "Painstaking characters less struck by Alzheimer's" - huh? After reading the articles themselves I was able to ascertain what he was trying to convey - but overall, confusion! I do like the overall content of the blog though.

Best and Worst Nutrition Sites : Part Three

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be posting the best and worst websites I find on nutritional information related to my research project, as described here http://feedingblackmail.blogspot.com/2007/09/cheap-food-or-expensive-organic-is.html.)

Today's Best

Wikipedia's Article on Organic Food

Although many Wikipedia entries are controversial in their objectivity, I find this one to be thorough, well thought out and concise. It gives a very well-rounded explanation of what organic food is, including how organic farming benefits the environment, legal definitions, and nutritional value. There are also criticisms of organic foods which are discussed in an intelligent way here, which is important to giving a well-rounded scope.

Today's Worst

Nubella.com's Balanced Eating Blog

This blog was disappointing to me because it was more of a diary of the author and the foods she ate from day to day, rather than a source of information (I was led to this blog by the title - Balanced Eating). There are lots of recipes and interesting experiences written about here, but not enough true information on healthy eating for me. I would like to see the author interject more of an opinion, balanced with other points of view on the subject of nutrition. The diary approach is fine, for a more limited readership.

Best and Worst Nutrition Sites: Part Two

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be posting the best and worst websites I find on nutritional information related to my research project, as described here: http://feedingblackmail.blogspot.com/2007/09/cheap-food-or-expensive-organic-is.html.)

Today's Best

Medical News Today's: Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts

This article is found on Medical News Today – described as “The number one ranked (Google and Yahoo!) website for medical news. Independent, authoritative and unbiased news from thousands of sources around the globe, divided into over 100 therapy areas (disease/condition categories).” - I had never heard of this resource before, even after doing a voluminous amount of 'medical research' during my pregnancy. If this article is representative of the rest of the site, I am very impressed. It spells out the nine reasons why organic food is more nutritious and healthy, and cites over 60 additional articles and studies to bolster the opinion.

Today's Worst

About.com's Nutrition Entry

Part of the about.com network, About's sitelet on Nutrition has a blog-style setup on the front page, which I was not expecting. In addition, many of the articles contain polls which are set up in a strange format - a bulleted list of choices for me to click on to vote. I had to click on one in order to confirm that it was truly a poll. Typically, about.com pages can be a useful source of information when looking for references, but this makes it appear to be just another place to read articles about the subject. I did find after a while that if I click through in the navigation, I was taken to the familiar bulleted lists of resources on different topics, as I was looking for. But I honestly had to visit the page twice to figure that out! As much as I like blogs, I don't like the confusing combination offered here.

Best and Worst Nutrition Sites: Part One

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be posting the best and worst websites I find on nutritional information related to my research project, as described here.)

Today's Best

Consumer Reports' Section on Organic

Titled When it pays to buy organic. This sitelet is extremely useful and objective, and comes from a very trusted source, Consumer Reports. I think because they are funded by their readerships and not by advertisers, they are easily the most unbiased source of reliable information for consumers. In the organic report, there is a plethora of useful information including why organic is better for your health (and the controversy surrounding that claim), how to pick and choose which organic foods to buy, how to educate yourself on food labeling in the organic arena, and an interactive quiz on Organic I.Q.

Today's Worst

Thatsfit.com

Part of the AOL network, That's Fit is a blog I still read almost on a daily basis - but I have to serve up some honest criticism of the disorder that is often apparent to me. This blog has a total of 18 authors contributing posts, and it seems to me that some of them could use some editorial assistance, or even a simple spell-check! Often, I notice that two different bloggers will blog about the same subject, and I've never seen one of the authors respond to any comments on any post. Not that this is a requirement, but it's annoying when the post ends with a question - doesn't that indicate a dialogue is forthcoming? In addition, one of the features I was following, Recipe Rehab was supposed to be a weekly feature that has not been updated since a Fourth of July post. Anyway, there are some great redeeming qualities to this blog, including my favorite feature, Life Fit With Laura Lewis.

The Great Com-Pear-ison Results!

By Marcie Barnes

(This is a follow up post to my research proposal, which is posted here.)

The results of my great compearison (sorry, couldn’t resist) are in – here’s a look at the nutritional differences between fresh pears and canned. For this study I used the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference to compare one cup of fresh pear cubes with one cup of canned pear halves (in light syrup). It’s worth mentioning here that the added syrup found in canned fruits makes a significant calorie difference. In this case, a cup of canned pears has nearly twice as much sugar and 65% more carbs than fresh.

Now, on to the nutrients. Most sources I found cited pears as a good source for potassium and vitamin C. It seems that all of the minerals found in pears (except fluoride) were still evident in the canned, with about an 8% reduction in quantity. (Potassium itself was reduced by 13% in the canning process). Another item of note is that you will consume over six times as much sodium by choosing canned pears.

Sadly, the vitamins did not fare so well. There are 6.8 milligrams of Vitamin C in a cup of fresh pears as opposed to only 1.8 mg in the canned equivalent – meaning you get over three and a half times more vitamin C by eating a fresh pear! Other items with a significant decrease are: Vitamin A (was completely destroyed by the canning process), Vitamin E, Vitamin K, total folate, and Beta Carotene. Overall, you get nearly five times more vitamins (in weight) by choosing a fresh pear!

Based on my findings, I am going to look into the other ingredients in traditional fruit cocktail as well so I can tell Del Monte exactly how inaccurate their marketing claim is…stay tuned!

Cheap Food or Expensive Organic: Is the Price Worth the Cost?

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is a Research Proposal and part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I hope you will join me as I investigate the nutritional differences between foods grown, distributed and processed in different ways.)

A few weeks ago, I found myself reaching for a can of Del Monte Fruit Cocktail in my pantry because I was out of fresh fruit for my son. As I opened the can, I noticed a new message on the label containing the words: “Same nutrients as fresh!” This claim startled me and then made me angry. As I’ve stated time and time again, I have become increasingly disheartened by what I perceive to be downright inaccurate and false marketing claims by companies who are trusted by the general public.

There has been a continuous debate in our household as to whether organic, fresh and unprocessed foods are worth their higher cost. On average, organic produce costs 50% more. I have every reason to believe that organic and less-processed foods, for a variety of reasons, deliver far greater health benefits than their commercially-grown, highly processed counterparts. My husband argues it is a waste of money to purchase organic products. So, the question has been lingering in my mind for quite some time: how can I prove to him (and others) that the nutritional differences in organic, unprocessed foods are significant enough to justify the increased cost of “going organic”?

A cursory search for nutrition information on fresh vs. canned pears confirmed my suspicions. A quick study of the numbers in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference showed that there is indeed a significant difference when you compare the nutrients found in fresh and canned pears. Quickly comparing the nutrients between organic and conventional foods has proven more difficult. I hope to find more information through my research and possibly utilize the Department of Food Science at North Carolina State University, where they perform nutrition information analysis.

With my results, I hope to end the debate once and for all and prove that you do get what you pay for when it comes to purchasing food. It is unfortunate that people (notably in low-income situations) often rely on highly processed foods because they are always the cheaper alternative. I believe we are sacrificing our health in order to save money, which ironically costs us dearly in the end with skyrocketing health care costs. What is the real price of cheap food?

Keywords:

organic produce nutrition, canned vs. fresh, produce quality, malnutrition processed foods, organic cost

Websites:

Title: Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts
Web Address: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.php
Brief Description: This article is found on Medical News Today – described as “The number one ranked (Google and Yahoo!) website for medical news. Independent, authoritative and unbiased news from thousands of sources around the globe, divided into over 100 therapy areas (disease/condition categories).” - it contains a lot of information and studies on this subject (cited) that I would like to read and research further.

Title: Wikipedia: Organic Food
Web Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
Brief Description: This entry on organic food contains additional (cited) studies and articles I would like to read, in particular the criticisms of organic food.

Title: When buying organic pays (and doesn't)
Web Address: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/diet-nutrition/organic-products/organic-products-206/when-buying-organic-pays-and-doesnt/index.htm
Brief Description: This is a collection of linked articles on this topic from Consumer Reports, a trusted independent testing & reporting venue. I am looking forward to reading about their findings on this topic.

Title: The Soil Association: “Get the facts” page
Web Address: http://www.soilassociation.org.uk/web/sa/saweb.nsf/4042794258a20f4280256a680046b77e/30f6f6ee0d6a3a4a802571bc00442a17!OpenDocument
Brief Description: This web site is “the UK's leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming.” The “Get the Facts” page lists reasons for buying organic, and links each reason to a plethora of information and research to back up each claim.

Title: Malnutrition Matters (Background Page)
Web Address: http://www.malnutrition.org/background.html
Brief Description: This website discusses global malnutrition issues and what types of foods/food improvements are needed to fight malnutrition. I would like to explore this topic further as it relates to food quality vs. cost.