I should probably start by letting you know that I was raised Protestant. Lent is a season of reflection, but for the most part this is done at Church every Sunday; therefore, it was never a part of my Easter tradition to give something up or do something extra for the season of Lent. As a child, I was particularly happy to not keep Lent; as all my friends gave up chocolate, swearing, or what have you, I casually cussed and indulged without a thought otherwise. However this year I decided that I wanted to give something up for the 40 days of Lent.
I didn’t shoot for the moon. I knew giving up “sex, drugs, and rock roll” were all off the table, so I decided to go for sweets. I had originally thought I would just give up chocolate, as it really is the only sweet I love, but I decided to do it up and give up desserts. I gave myself one small tiny loophole: I didn’t give up sugar completely, so things like breakfast food did not qualify as sweets and were therefore fair game (not donuts and danishes, but breads or muffins were OK). Also cocktails, mixed drinks, and diet soda were considered strictly as beverages rather than sweets, in my mind. (Despite the fact I knew each Margarita I drank was probably loaded with more sugar than some cookies.)
I wanted to mix up the norm, give up the habit of the after dinner treats, and not give in to every craving or spur of the moment instinct to mindlessly eat a piece of candy while sitting at my desk. It was about putting the focus on one thing, even if to avoid it, so I would think about it. I wanted to practice that conscious eating that I always go on about.
Wolfing down a quick snack on-the-go is one thing when we are all in a hurry. (Although I do try not to do that.) But taking the candy from bowl, unnecessarily and then not even taking the time to enjoy it, is a habit that I want to break. Not the habit of eating junk — mind you, I think junk food can certainly have a time and place, i.e. comfort food — but rather the habit of senseless snacking on junk.
Now that I am on Day Two of post-Lent glee and my body is protesting the sudden intake of sugar. While heightened sugar consumption is a health issue, it is also a mental issue of treating food as something different then what it actually is: nourishment and energy. I didn’t give up sweets because I think there is anything bad about them, though moderation is still a good thing to practice, rather I think sweets are something to be appreciated, enjoyed and limited.
30 April 2011
26 April 2011
A New Light for Modern Day Hunters and Gatherers
I heard a story on NPR one recent morning about foraging. It jolted me out of my slumber once I heard the words “edible plants in Washington D.C.” Apparently, this guy, Sam Thayer, is the modern day – urban, no less – hunter-and-gatherer. Though he hails from Portland, Oregon, he can even find a meal, quite literally, on the streets of D.C. As I set out for my morning run, passing all of the (finally!) Spring foliage, I thought about it: “So, how many of these plants are actually edible?” More importantly, what if they all were edible?
As Spring approaches, I have wondered about the green we see around the city. Do we pass by a tree everyday that would actually make a great addition to my sandwich for lunch? Or is it just a pretty tree? But, then I began to wonder, if they are not edible, why couldn’t they be? The urban environment is not known for their food production, but rather their food imports. Urban gardens are beginning to pop up around the city, neighborhood gardens, school gardens, and even rooftop gardens are a more common occurrence. However, I began to think, what kind of opportunity do we find to discover some kind of “organically” grown food in this city? DC is a rather green city compared to others, so what if it was actually an edible city, too?
Apparently, I was somewhat correct in my musings. There is organically grown produce in the District. We are just not aware of it and perhaps it’s not exactly what we were all expecting. No, we do not have fruit trees on the corner of Penn Ave, and no, root vegetables do not grow on the National Mall. (Wouldn’t that be crazy though!) But, according to this story on NPR, Mr. Thayer has managed to find leafy greens in our very own city. And though the station’s website provides a nice recipe idea for a wild-greens frittata, the idea of finding food growing on the city streets does seem a little strange to we yuppies.
But why not? What if cities were planned around producing our own food? Rather than a couple of trees here or there, plant a few trees that produce edible fruits and vegetables; rather than bushes lining the sidewalks, line hedges of edible plants. I am sure that there is some sort of law to prohibit this in D.C., obstruction of the peace, or the concern that homeless people would have the option of finding food growing on the streets rather than digging through trashcans. However, it’s something to consider. If the purpose of a tree is to create a nice atmosphere, isn’t a tree that provides atmosphere and nutrition even more valuable?
As Spring approaches, I have wondered about the green we see around the city. Do we pass by a tree everyday that would actually make a great addition to my sandwich for lunch? Or is it just a pretty tree? But, then I began to wonder, if they are not edible, why couldn’t they be? The urban environment is not known for their food production, but rather their food imports. Urban gardens are beginning to pop up around the city, neighborhood gardens, school gardens, and even rooftop gardens are a more common occurrence. However, I began to think, what kind of opportunity do we find to discover some kind of “organically” grown food in this city? DC is a rather green city compared to others, so what if it was actually an edible city, too?
Apparently, I was somewhat correct in my musings. There is organically grown produce in the District. We are just not aware of it and perhaps it’s not exactly what we were all expecting. No, we do not have fruit trees on the corner of Penn Ave, and no, root vegetables do not grow on the National Mall. (Wouldn’t that be crazy though!) But, according to this story on NPR, Mr. Thayer has managed to find leafy greens in our very own city. And though the station’s website provides a nice recipe idea for a wild-greens frittata, the idea of finding food growing on the city streets does seem a little strange to we yuppies.
But why not? What if cities were planned around producing our own food? Rather than a couple of trees here or there, plant a few trees that produce edible fruits and vegetables; rather than bushes lining the sidewalks, line hedges of edible plants. I am sure that there is some sort of law to prohibit this in D.C., obstruction of the peace, or the concern that homeless people would have the option of finding food growing on the streets rather than digging through trashcans. However, it’s something to consider. If the purpose of a tree is to create a nice atmosphere, isn’t a tree that provides atmosphere and nutrition even more valuable?
13 April 2011
The Non-Essential Form of Nutrient
Recently, I am reminded of the importance of nutrients. It’s not enough to count calories people, but now we have to ensure we are getting the right nutrients as well. Yes, those vitamins and minerals dutifully listed on the back of each package. I worry because I think that like calorie counting, people can get carried away with counting and striving for the perfect percentage of nutrients without the calories.
Focusing on more numbers and equations when it comes to food, rather than focus on the food the natural energy and nutrients it offers, is some what bothersome to me. Not it mention that it opens the market up, as essential nutrients are sold in supplemental form because everyone is convinced they must meet their 100% for the day. Ensuring that the essential nutrients are consumed one way or the other, often in supplemental form, seems to lead the idea that those pills, teas, or otherwise can replace food.
I went through a nutrient supplement phase in college as food tends to be more available in large quantities of greasy snacks, so took make up for the lack of healthy food, supplements had to be taken. But once I left school property I was able to shop on my own, spend more time thinking about choosing food, and led to more time preparing food, and finally more time eating the food; rather than every night make the quick decision at the dinning hall for a side of tater tots for that pizza. So I stopped worrying about if I had met the quota for the day, and I just bought more foods that I knew already had the needed nutrients. Vitamin supplement I think can be very helpful in some cases, but taken out of hand in others when one falls into that, more often than not, phase of self-diagnosing oneself with supplements.
So these days, when I read in the paper on the way to work that Mothers lack the essential nutrients, and see the ads telling us to “just take a multivitamin,” I try to keep in mine that I food is often the best way to consume the essential nutrients. I think that often ensure that we meet our daily quota we need, it can be done on a more general scale rather than worry about meeting percentage for the day. These days how can you not get the right nutrients, it’s all over the packaging, not to mention enhanced in certain foods.
It is important to understand which foods have what nutrients and base your diet around that information; to know what foods carry the essential nutrients and to eat that balanced meal in order to consume a substantial amount. I tend to believe that if one pays attention to what your body needs (not to be confused with what your mind thinks it wants), it will give them a better picture of what they should eat rather than a calculated formula. There are foods that are okay to eat a few extra bites, and there are those that you maybe should keep at bay. However, I feel that a lot of knowing which foods to eat is intuitive and without getting bogged down with the details of more numbers. Eating a balanced meal in terms of those old food groups we learned about in school, but even a more basic rule of thumb is to eat different foods, different colors, and different origins.
Focusing on more numbers and equations when it comes to food, rather than focus on the food the natural energy and nutrients it offers, is some what bothersome to me. Not it mention that it opens the market up, as essential nutrients are sold in supplemental form because everyone is convinced they must meet their 100% for the day. Ensuring that the essential nutrients are consumed one way or the other, often in supplemental form, seems to lead the idea that those pills, teas, or otherwise can replace food.
I went through a nutrient supplement phase in college as food tends to be more available in large quantities of greasy snacks, so took make up for the lack of healthy food, supplements had to be taken. But once I left school property I was able to shop on my own, spend more time thinking about choosing food, and led to more time preparing food, and finally more time eating the food; rather than every night make the quick decision at the dinning hall for a side of tater tots for that pizza. So I stopped worrying about if I had met the quota for the day, and I just bought more foods that I knew already had the needed nutrients. Vitamin supplement I think can be very helpful in some cases, but taken out of hand in others when one falls into that, more often than not, phase of self-diagnosing oneself with supplements.
So these days, when I read in the paper on the way to work that Mothers lack the essential nutrients, and see the ads telling us to “just take a multivitamin,” I try to keep in mine that I food is often the best way to consume the essential nutrients. I think that often ensure that we meet our daily quota we need, it can be done on a more general scale rather than worry about meeting percentage for the day. These days how can you not get the right nutrients, it’s all over the packaging, not to mention enhanced in certain foods.
It is important to understand which foods have what nutrients and base your diet around that information; to know what foods carry the essential nutrients and to eat that balanced meal in order to consume a substantial amount. I tend to believe that if one pays attention to what your body needs (not to be confused with what your mind thinks it wants), it will give them a better picture of what they should eat rather than a calculated formula. There are foods that are okay to eat a few extra bites, and there are those that you maybe should keep at bay. However, I feel that a lot of knowing which foods to eat is intuitive and without getting bogged down with the details of more numbers. Eating a balanced meal in terms of those old food groups we learned about in school, but even a more basic rule of thumb is to eat different foods, different colors, and different origins.
08 April 2011
The (Un)Appetizing Side of Meat
I have continued to question the American reaction to meat. As perhaps, avid reader, you may recall, I am not a vegetarian, nor am I averse to trying the slightly strange dish of animal parts on the table. Even with all this said, I am still curious as to why, in the American culture, we generally find it appalling to associate meat with the living animal. It is a status symbol, to be sure, but we prefer that is hidden away. We prefer to say, “I’ll take the Filet Mignon,” rather than “Just bring me a hunk-o-cow-meat.”
Recently, I received a text from a friend who was traveling in the Middle East this past week, asking me if I was “ready for a food idea?” He messaged me a photo he had taken at a market of a hanging animal carcass. (Being on the small screen of my phone, I still am unsure which animal it actually was, but my first guess would be lamb.) It was not the first time I had seen this, in picture or in person. In fact while I was traveling abroad, it was a very common occurrence.
Out at dinner the other night, my friend and I were exploring the Pizza menu, a little perplexed at some of the ingredients; we questioned the waiter, “What is Lomo?” He answered a bit vaguely, “Uh, it’s a cut of pork … I’m not sure exactly where from on the animal.” With that description we both slightly cringed and immediately agreed on the three-cheese pizza option.
My first thought about our waiter was that he wasn’t very good. I mean if you want to sell something, then sell it! (I’m thinking something like: “Well, it’s similar to bacon,” is a good start!) My second thought was why we were both so turned off by his description of the pork, he didn’t say anything inherently unpleasant about it, but rather simply attempted to describe it for exactly what it was – a part of an animal, and for some reason we found that rather unappetizing.
I got to thinking about the animal carcass text message on my phone, which also airs on the side of unappetizing. It does not bother me to think about or even see meat in, how shall we say this, it’s animal form; however, it does not strike that appetizing note for me either.
Perhaps because we are so accustomed to our food coming in packaging that screams, “Eat me, buy me,” that when it is not presented in that obvious manner, we immediately assume that it is not any good. I am left to question whether the culprit is in fact the marketing of the product. Marketing tactics have taught us that meat comes in clean, bright packing rather than a living animal. Furthermore we have become so reliant on the market to direct us in the way we need to go, that when it is not an obvious direction, we are thrown off and left to question the legitimacy of the product itself. But, we can’t give all the credit to the market; perhaps the market is simply feeding off the consumer preference. So, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Recently, I received a text from a friend who was traveling in the Middle East this past week, asking me if I was “ready for a food idea?” He messaged me a photo he had taken at a market of a hanging animal carcass. (Being on the small screen of my phone, I still am unsure which animal it actually was, but my first guess would be lamb.) It was not the first time I had seen this, in picture or in person. In fact while I was traveling abroad, it was a very common occurrence.
Out at dinner the other night, my friend and I were exploring the Pizza menu, a little perplexed at some of the ingredients; we questioned the waiter, “What is Lomo?” He answered a bit vaguely, “Uh, it’s a cut of pork … I’m not sure exactly where from on the animal.” With that description we both slightly cringed and immediately agreed on the three-cheese pizza option.
My first thought about our waiter was that he wasn’t very good. I mean if you want to sell something, then sell it! (I’m thinking something like: “Well, it’s similar to bacon,” is a good start!) My second thought was why we were both so turned off by his description of the pork, he didn’t say anything inherently unpleasant about it, but rather simply attempted to describe it for exactly what it was – a part of an animal, and for some reason we found that rather unappetizing.
I got to thinking about the animal carcass text message on my phone, which also airs on the side of unappetizing. It does not bother me to think about or even see meat in, how shall we say this, it’s animal form; however, it does not strike that appetizing note for me either.
Perhaps because we are so accustomed to our food coming in packaging that screams, “Eat me, buy me,” that when it is not presented in that obvious manner, we immediately assume that it is not any good. I am left to question whether the culprit is in fact the marketing of the product. Marketing tactics have taught us that meat comes in clean, bright packing rather than a living animal. Furthermore we have become so reliant on the market to direct us in the way we need to go, that when it is not an obvious direction, we are thrown off and left to question the legitimacy of the product itself. But, we can’t give all the credit to the market; perhaps the market is simply feeding off the consumer preference. So, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
31 March 2011
Greener Rules and Regulations
My roommate told me the other day, “You are a selective recycler.” My gut reaction was to be immediately offended by this comment. What do you mean I am selective! I have always considered myself to be such a friend to the environment. (I mean, come on, my favorite color is even green!) “Well, you choose to recycle when it is convenient, and you don’t always completely grasp what can and cannot be recycled.” Okay, I suppose she had a point.
I tend to assume that everything can be recycled, so, I throw it all in there. I place blame on my upbringing for this one. First of all, where I grew up, we didn’t have trash pick-up, rather we had to take the truck full of trash to the dump every week. This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill trash dump, it was a transfer station, so it was much more environmentally friendly where nearly anything could be recycled. In our pick-up truckload, we usually had one trashcan and the rest could be separated out and recycled. Consequently, I grew up with the mentality that anything could be recycled.
Furthermore, when I moved away to go to university I learned that while the school had recycle bins on campus, everything was actually combined and then re-separated. (Apparently, university students cannot be trusted to sort their own waste.) Sure enough, if you are treated like you’re an incompetent child, we all start to fall into that assumption. I stopped worrying about which bin my empty bottles fell, because hey, someone else would take care of it anyway.
That leads us to present day. I find myself falling back into the old habit of either trying to recycle everything or dumping it all in one place, with the assumption that it is sorted again. I am, of course, sadly mistaken, and my roommate is correct.
As I toss my milk caps into the recycling bin, I knew the next step for me was to fill in my knowledge gaps and actually learn about recycling laws in DC. After all, I know that I can’t be the only one who can’t recite the rules of recycling on command. After a quick Google search, I quickly learned that all commercial buildings (including residential apartments) are in fact required to recycle, and are subject to fines up to $1000 if they are note compliant. On the District’s government website all facts are listed out in a nice PDF document, with all required recycled items are clearly listed: all paper products, aluminum, steel, tin, brown, green and clear glass. But, get this, plastic food containers and bottles are recommended recycled product, but are still optional. This last point seems odd to me, as I feel that plastic bottles are some of the more common recycled products after paper products. It is also noted that all containers must be cleaned without waste: food, paint, or chemicals, etc before recycling. Yes, it specifically notes that pizza boxes are not recyclable due to the food residue.
Now that I have my facts straight, the next step here is to follow those guidelines. And, if I choose not to, well that’s where the fines come in—so perhaps the city will start enforcing those, and if people don’t start (looking at myself here!) following the rules, at least the city could make some cash off of our laziness and ignorance.
If you live in the DC area, check it out for yourself: http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/Services+on+Your+Block/Recycling.
I tend to assume that everything can be recycled, so, I throw it all in there. I place blame on my upbringing for this one. First of all, where I grew up, we didn’t have trash pick-up, rather we had to take the truck full of trash to the dump every week. This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill trash dump, it was a transfer station, so it was much more environmentally friendly where nearly anything could be recycled. In our pick-up truckload, we usually had one trashcan and the rest could be separated out and recycled. Consequently, I grew up with the mentality that anything could be recycled.
Furthermore, when I moved away to go to university I learned that while the school had recycle bins on campus, everything was actually combined and then re-separated. (Apparently, university students cannot be trusted to sort their own waste.) Sure enough, if you are treated like you’re an incompetent child, we all start to fall into that assumption. I stopped worrying about which bin my empty bottles fell, because hey, someone else would take care of it anyway.
That leads us to present day. I find myself falling back into the old habit of either trying to recycle everything or dumping it all in one place, with the assumption that it is sorted again. I am, of course, sadly mistaken, and my roommate is correct.
As I toss my milk caps into the recycling bin, I knew the next step for me was to fill in my knowledge gaps and actually learn about recycling laws in DC. After all, I know that I can’t be the only one who can’t recite the rules of recycling on command. After a quick Google search, I quickly learned that all commercial buildings (including residential apartments) are in fact required to recycle, and are subject to fines up to $1000 if they are note compliant. On the District’s government website all facts are listed out in a nice PDF document, with all required recycled items are clearly listed: all paper products, aluminum, steel, tin, brown, green and clear glass. But, get this, plastic food containers and bottles are recommended recycled product, but are still optional. This last point seems odd to me, as I feel that plastic bottles are some of the more common recycled products after paper products. It is also noted that all containers must be cleaned without waste: food, paint, or chemicals, etc before recycling. Yes, it specifically notes that pizza boxes are not recyclable due to the food residue.
Now that I have my facts straight, the next step here is to follow those guidelines. And, if I choose not to, well that’s where the fines come in—so perhaps the city will start enforcing those, and if people don’t start (looking at myself here!) following the rules, at least the city could make some cash off of our laziness and ignorance.
If you live in the DC area, check it out for yourself: http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/Services+on+Your+Block/Recycling.
24 March 2011
A Glance at the Global Food Crisis's Impact
As I have watched the news lately and sifted through the Middle East turmoil and Japan’s tragedy, more articles and news stores have surfaced on the current and future food crisis. Worldwide we are looking toward a food shortage, with limited access, rising prices, and falling incomes as a result.
Staple crops have nearly doubled in cost due to diminishing harvests, including grains such as wheat, corn, and soy. Though the rice crop has managed to stay steady in both yield and cost, other "less essential" crops have also suffered, including vegetables, fruits, and coffee. In the United States, we have experienced a 4 percent increase in food prices, which is the highest jump in price in 36 years, according to the Associated Press.
Much of this failure is due to irregular weather caused by climate change: flooding in Australia, droughts in Russia and China, and even abnormal cold temperatures in the United States, according to the Washington Post. Beyond the effects of climate change, we can look toward the change in the product end use of the common crops. Many of these stable crops are used not only for human consumption, but also for livestock consumption with the demand for meat rises globally in both developed and developing country. Corn, for example, is more commonly used for energy consumption as well, in the form of bio-fuel or ethanol.
The effect of the rise in food prices, and gas prices for that matter, is beginning to be seen as catastrophic on some levels. In developing countries, the food shortage has pushed more than 44 million people to extreme poverty, living on less than $1.25 per day. Beyond that, many are linking the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East to the instability of food prices and uncertainty of food availability, according to the World Bank.
While the effects in the United States are not as extreme as seen on the other side of the globe, we can still feel the change from out home as well. The interconnected global markets prove to make more of a difference today, as we run into shortages of crops in not only on our own land, but on our international trading partners land too.
Interestingly, Americans on average spend less than 15 percent of their expendable income on food, while globally the average settles around 40 percent or 50 percent of the household income, according to the Associated Press. So while we will likely see an increase in food prices in our grocery stores, we also have more breathing room than others around the globe to manage our funds and continue to have the ability and luxury to choose where we spend our money. Though perhaps with the increase in food costs paired with the rising gas prices, the global crisis will have more of an impact on our wallets than expected.
If you're interested in reading more, check out some of these fantastic pieces:
“Gas, Food Prices Double Whammy For Rural Families.” 21 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13472683
Shneider, Howard. “Higher food prices may be here to stay.” 14 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/higher-food-prices-may-be-here-to-stay/2011/03/10/AByYO3V_story.html
Shneider, Howard. “Food prices push millions into poverty.” 15 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/food-prices-push-millions-into-poverty/2011/02/15/ABwHkoQ_story.html
“Wholesalers paying more for food, suggesting higher prices to come at the grocery store.” 16 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/wholesalers-paying-more-for-food-suggesting-higher-prices-to-come-at-the-grocery-store/2011/03/16/ABpLKcd_story.html
Parker, John. “The 9 billion-people question: A special report on feeding the world.” Feb 24th 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18200618
Staple crops have nearly doubled in cost due to diminishing harvests, including grains such as wheat, corn, and soy. Though the rice crop has managed to stay steady in both yield and cost, other "less essential" crops have also suffered, including vegetables, fruits, and coffee. In the United States, we have experienced a 4 percent increase in food prices, which is the highest jump in price in 36 years, according to the Associated Press.
Much of this failure is due to irregular weather caused by climate change: flooding in Australia, droughts in Russia and China, and even abnormal cold temperatures in the United States, according to the Washington Post. Beyond the effects of climate change, we can look toward the change in the product end use of the common crops. Many of these stable crops are used not only for human consumption, but also for livestock consumption with the demand for meat rises globally in both developed and developing country. Corn, for example, is more commonly used for energy consumption as well, in the form of bio-fuel or ethanol.
The effect of the rise in food prices, and gas prices for that matter, is beginning to be seen as catastrophic on some levels. In developing countries, the food shortage has pushed more than 44 million people to extreme poverty, living on less than $1.25 per day. Beyond that, many are linking the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East to the instability of food prices and uncertainty of food availability, according to the World Bank.
While the effects in the United States are not as extreme as seen on the other side of the globe, we can still feel the change from out home as well. The interconnected global markets prove to make more of a difference today, as we run into shortages of crops in not only on our own land, but on our international trading partners land too.
Interestingly, Americans on average spend less than 15 percent of their expendable income on food, while globally the average settles around 40 percent or 50 percent of the household income, according to the Associated Press. So while we will likely see an increase in food prices in our grocery stores, we also have more breathing room than others around the globe to manage our funds and continue to have the ability and luxury to choose where we spend our money. Though perhaps with the increase in food costs paired with the rising gas prices, the global crisis will have more of an impact on our wallets than expected.
If you're interested in reading more, check out some of these fantastic pieces:
“Gas, Food Prices Double Whammy For Rural Families.” 21 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13472683
Shneider, Howard. “Higher food prices may be here to stay.” 14 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/higher-food-prices-may-be-here-to-stay/2011/03/10/AByYO3V_story.html
Shneider, Howard. “Food prices push millions into poverty.” 15 March 2011. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/food-prices-push-millions-into-poverty/2011/02/15/ABwHkoQ_story.html
“Wholesalers paying more for food, suggesting higher prices to come at the grocery store.” 16 March 2011. The Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/wholesalers-paying-more-for-food-suggesting-higher-prices-to-come-at-the-grocery-store/2011/03/16/ABpLKcd_story.html
Parker, John. “The 9 billion-people question: A special report on feeding the world.” Feb 24th 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18200618
17 March 2011
The Futility of Calories Counting
I have never been very good at calories. I never cared to learn to be honest, as I thought it would be a lot better for my potential OCD tendencies not to know. What does 1,000 calories mean to the average consumer anyway? Do we look at calories as a calculation of energy or as just a number? Every morning I hear one of NPR’s sponsors advocating for calorie labels on the front of drink bottles, which got me thinking.
My first thought is: “It’s already on there and we all know where to look to find it, so why do we need it twice? Are we really that lazy? Or dumb?” My second thought: “Wait a minute! What’s so bad about calories anyway?”
Our culture continues to obsess over calories and the counts are everywhere—packaging, restaurant menus, even fast food restaurants. I am 100 percent on-board with the consumer’s right to know, but I can’t help but wonder: do we know what that number even means?
A calorie is a measure of energy, or: “a quantity of food capable of producing such an amount of energy,” according to Dictionary.com We learn this in Junior High science class, but for some reason that connection doesn’t always seem to stick with us when we look at the calorie count displayed on a large burrito. The term “calories,” has become nearly a dirty word. It doesn’t have to be the case, in other countries, Mexico for example; nutrition labels say energy (“Energia”), rather than a calorie count. For me, (as an American) it sounds less offensive and frightening, not to mention offers a truer definition of what that number actually means.
When it comes to food, drinks, and calorie labels, we have exceptions. We fight to have calories on certain things, fast food joints, for instance. However, there are other foods that we are quite happy not knowing that calorie count. For example, did you know that there are no labels on alcohol bottles? Check it out – wine, hard alcohol, and a lot of beer (unless advertised as “only 90 calories”) do not have nutrition labels with a calorie count. In fact, they are not required to carry nutrition facts, only a warning label of the immediate affects of alcohol, but not the long term health affects of consuming various amounts of unknown elements. Recently, there has been more talk of changing this, but for the time being it seems that we would rather not know. Ignorance is bliss, as Plato’s cave (or the Matrix!) has taught us. We only spend the time caring and fighting for the certain things: matters that will benefit us, such as knowing the calories count at restaurants, or that we can use a scapegoat for our problems – the fight against high calorie foods to fight the high obesity levels. But I find it funny that we tend to shy away from matters that could take away something we like, or shine a negative light on a common and enjoyable habit – putting a calorie count on a happy hour is something that no one seems to want.
That calorie number is important, certainly, though just as with any study, the results should be both quantitative and qualitative. Simply going with one number is not going to offer the whole story behind the product, hence why the nutrition labels display not only the calorie count, but also the vitamin percentages, and ingredient list, among other thing. My concern with the fight to put a spotlight on only the calorie count, we will lose focus on the important nutritional value of some foods. Once we balk at a single number, we will be less likely to consider any other redeeming quality. Understanding the calorie count needs to be looked at as a whole. The entire nutrition label is important.
Sources and Further Reading:
Locke, Michelle. “Alcohol industry struggles with nutrition labels.” Courier-Journal. 23 Feb 2011. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110224/FEATURES03/302240022/Alcohol-industry-struggles-nutrition-labels
“How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
http://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/consumerinformation/ucm078889.htm
Burros, Marion. “Nutrition Labels Proposed for Alcohol.” 07 Aug 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/dining/01label.html
My first thought is: “It’s already on there and we all know where to look to find it, so why do we need it twice? Are we really that lazy? Or dumb?” My second thought: “Wait a minute! What’s so bad about calories anyway?”
Our culture continues to obsess over calories and the counts are everywhere—packaging, restaurant menus, even fast food restaurants. I am 100 percent on-board with the consumer’s right to know, but I can’t help but wonder: do we know what that number even means?
A calorie is a measure of energy, or: “a quantity of food capable of producing such an amount of energy,” according to Dictionary.com We learn this in Junior High science class, but for some reason that connection doesn’t always seem to stick with us when we look at the calorie count displayed on a large burrito. The term “calories,” has become nearly a dirty word. It doesn’t have to be the case, in other countries, Mexico for example; nutrition labels say energy (“Energia”), rather than a calorie count. For me, (as an American) it sounds less offensive and frightening, not to mention offers a truer definition of what that number actually means.
When it comes to food, drinks, and calorie labels, we have exceptions. We fight to have calories on certain things, fast food joints, for instance. However, there are other foods that we are quite happy not knowing that calorie count. For example, did you know that there are no labels on alcohol bottles? Check it out – wine, hard alcohol, and a lot of beer (unless advertised as “only 90 calories”) do not have nutrition labels with a calorie count. In fact, they are not required to carry nutrition facts, only a warning label of the immediate affects of alcohol, but not the long term health affects of consuming various amounts of unknown elements. Recently, there has been more talk of changing this, but for the time being it seems that we would rather not know. Ignorance is bliss, as Plato’s cave (or the Matrix!) has taught us. We only spend the time caring and fighting for the certain things: matters that will benefit us, such as knowing the calories count at restaurants, or that we can use a scapegoat for our problems – the fight against high calorie foods to fight the high obesity levels. But I find it funny that we tend to shy away from matters that could take away something we like, or shine a negative light on a common and enjoyable habit – putting a calorie count on a happy hour is something that no one seems to want.
That calorie number is important, certainly, though just as with any study, the results should be both quantitative and qualitative. Simply going with one number is not going to offer the whole story behind the product, hence why the nutrition labels display not only the calorie count, but also the vitamin percentages, and ingredient list, among other thing. My concern with the fight to put a spotlight on only the calorie count, we will lose focus on the important nutritional value of some foods. Once we balk at a single number, we will be less likely to consider any other redeeming quality. Understanding the calorie count needs to be looked at as a whole. The entire nutrition label is important.
Sources and Further Reading:
Locke, Michelle. “Alcohol industry struggles with nutrition labels.” Courier-Journal. 23 Feb 2011. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110224/FEATURES03/302240022/Alcohol-industry-struggles-nutrition-labels
“How to Understand and Use the Nutrition Facts Label.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
http://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/consumerinformation/ucm078889.htm
Burros, Marion. “Nutrition Labels Proposed for Alcohol.” 07 Aug 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/dining/01label.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)