Food | Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD

Another Distorted Reason to Avoid Fast Food

October 18, 2011 by

Today you can read Another Reason to Avoid Fast Food by Dr. Joseph Mercola. The subject is about toxic chemicals–specifically fluorocarbons– in our food, our water and measured in our body. His answer is to avoid fast food. What a distortion of the truth.

Fast food bashing is quite popular and an intensely emotional exercise today. Some people love to hate and revile fast food despite growing sales. I find the hysteria both misguided and disingenuous.

CONSULTING FOR A FAST FOOD LEADER

First, a disclaimer. I have consulted for the McDonald’s Owners and Operators of Southern California (MOASC) for over 18 years. Some people jump on that fact as proof of biased alliances. Rather than striking down my credibility, I think the close up view I get of the food at McDonald’s is a unique vantage point. It serves to amplify the distortion of those bent on framing fast food as the culprit of all that is wrong in our food supply. The elitism and lack of critical thinking from fast food critics is appalling.

I have learned much in my work with the McDonald’s entrepreneurs and the employees of their small businesses. Mostly I have learned that the food they serve is much the same as the food most people buy in their local supermarket. For those of us who choose to buy organic, grass fed, sustainably grown, or more locally produced food, those brands don’t quite fit the bill. But those brands feed America.

There is not enough organic, grass fed, unprocessed food to feed the masses today. It is important to keep a personal effort to eat “close to the earth” in perspective. We are cultivating a slow moving revolution. It takes time. Reviling every other food source in the meantime creates harm and distrust. What is everyone else supposed to eat?

FAST FOOD BASHING JUST NOT HONEST

I find the incessant harping about fast food just not honest. Dr. Mercola’s article is a case in point. A quick review leads the reader to believe fast food wrapping is the source of the fluorocarbons PFOS and PFOA while conveniently letting the reader assume that other food packaging is somehow not a problem. Not true.

REGULATION OF FLUOROCARBONS

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is belatedly tracking and regulating fluorocarbons and other chemical substances. Granted, maybe theses substances should have never been allowed to be manufactured in the first place, but that could be said about most plastics. Imagine everyone trying to turn back the clock to live in that world.

We are way past being able to recreate the past. In the meantime, more accurate data in EPA reports shows overall body burden of these fluorocarbons (the amount of the chemical that accumulates in our body and can be measured in our blood) is decreasing. The voluntary industry efforts to reduce usage are working. So what else can be done? Is cutting out fast food the answer?

WHERE ARE THE FLUOROCARBONS?

I have many questions. On top of the list is, “Which industries use the most fluorocarbons?” and “How do we get the most exposure?”

The Center for Disease Control tells us:

Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are a group of chemicals used to make fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. Fluoropolymer coatings can be used in such varied products as clothing, furniture, adhesives, food packaging, heat-resistant non-stick cooking surfaces, and the insulation of electrical wire.

Consumer products like Teflon coated pans and breathable synthetic outdoor wear are easy to identify, but fluorocarbons are found everywhere. Data from EPA tells us that PFOA fluorocarbons are employed in hundreds of products in almost all industry segments, including the aerospace, automotive, building/construction, chemical processing, electrical and electronics, semiconductor, and textile industries. They are used in surfactants and as surface treatment chemicals in many products, including fire fighting foams; personal care and cleaning products; and oil, stain, grease, and water repellent coatings on carpet, textiles, leather, and paper. Hmmm.

Nothing in these documents implies that fast food wrappings are a primary source nor is there indication that cutting out fast food would demonstrably make a difference in the total body burden of fluorocarbons.

FLUOROCARBON TOXICITY IS MORE THAN A FAST FOOD ISSUE

So why the disproportionate attention to fast food wrappings? What about all food wrapping materials? What about wrappings for take out food from sit down restaurants? Packaging for doggie bags? The majority of wrapped food products in grocery stores? If there is a problem, it would seem to be with with every source of food contact, not just one that is convenient to demonize.

Food wrapping and fluorocarbons are not a fast food issue. The presence of fluorocarbons in our environment is a food issue and much more than a food issue. It is important to appreciate the difference.

NOTE: This writing reflects the personal and professional position of Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD. All comments and opinions expressed in the blog are my own.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: body burdon, fast food, fluorocarbons, food, Huffington Post, Mercola, toxic

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

October 18, 2011 by

Evan Kleiman elegantly interviewed Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser at the Vision and Voices presentation at USC last week. The conversation was mostly a celebration of the current food movements that emphasize eating “close to the earth.” Mr. Pollan’s mantra: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” prevailed throughout the evening.

I celebrate so much of this message. The Omnivore’s Dilemma was a seminal read for me. I went on to read a half dozen related books and continue to step up my game. As a dietitian it was confronting to realize how little attention I paid to how food is raised.

Today I am mostly horrified at the deterioration of our food supply. Only the staunchest of USDA conformists clamor that we have the safest food supply in the world. The word safe in used in the narrowest of contexts, and we fall down even in the realm of minimizing food contamination and food born illness. Big agriculture and corporate food interests have created an abundant and adulterated food supply that no longer keeps us healthy, but is easily over consumed and contributes to poor health.

The quality and sheer quantity of highly processed foods that are subsidized by USDA Farm policy is a big part of the problem. This is the arena that Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser effectively argue for change.

CONSUMERS CAN FOCUS ON THREE IMPORTANT FACTORS TO DRIVE CHANGE IN OUR FOOD SUPPLY

1. Avoid human antibiotics in animals. Purchase meats that state no hormones or antibiotics used as growth enhancers. Let your dollars make a statement.

2. Press for better access for everyone. I am privileged to access farmer’s markets 4 days a week. Other regions have nothing close by. I visited a new farmer’s market in South Culver City last Saturday. It is a fabulous press into an under served neighborhood. I hope the community supports this effort.

3. Pay attention to next year’s farm bill. It will be time for all of us to speak up. It is not OK that a few farm states drive this bill. These states depend on federal subsidies to overproduce crops that contribute to our abundant and adulterated food supply.

Lastly, as we work to improve our food supply, it is important to not let proponents of the status quo distort the conversation. Pollan and Schlosser make some key points.

KEEP THE CONVERSATION FOCUSED

1. American farmers grow about 4000 calories per capita annually–twice as much as is needed

2. Hunger is about food access, not yield

3. Our current food supply does not prevent hunger. There are about 1 billion people hungry, and about 1 billion people obese.

4. We consume about 12.5% of what is grown. 12.5% is wasted. The rest feeds livestock. For many reasons it is time to let the animals eat their natural diet.

Each of us needs to ask ourselves, “What can I do to promote a more sustainable and nutrient dense food supply?” Please share what is your next step in Eating Close to the Earth?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: antibiotics, Culver City, Eric Schlosser, farm bill, farmer’s market, food, Food Inc, grass fed, hormones, hunger, Michael Pollan, sustainable, USDA

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

October 18, 2011 by

March is National Nutrition Month. Recently both the USDA and Weston Price Foundation published dueling dietary guidelines.

People are confused about food. Too many studies, too many experts, and all sorts of contrary ideas are floated as evidence of the right way to eat. Makes me wonder if there is a single “right” way to eat that works for everyone.

The Weston Price Foundation (WPF) threw down the gauntlet on February 14, 2011, introducing “Healthy 4 Life” in direct competition with the recently released USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Why are food recommendations so controversial?

WPF followers see significant harm in the current approach recommended by the committee who drafted the USDA guidelines. They are not the only ones heaping criticism on the latest rendition of the guidelines. Comments by Walter Willet and Marion Nestle charge that USDA guidelines are overly influenced by commercial and corporate interests. Both Drs. Nestle and Willet contend that food interests are very powerful in this country. They say it is all a matter of following the money.

USDA RECOMMENDATIONS FOCUS ON CALORIES AND NUTRIENT-DENSE FOODS

USDA opens with two over-arching concepts. The first is a statement about Calorie balance and sustaining a healthy weight, basically committee speak for too many Americans are fat and need to lose weight. WPF states that meeting energy needs with recommended whole foods eliminates the need to count calories and will naturally lead to a healthier weight.

Secondly USDA recommends focusing on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages. WPF also encourages eating nutrient dense food, but their Food 4 Health guide looks remarkably different than the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Both organizations herald experts in their respective disciplines. How do they come to such differing positions on something as basic as what we eat?

WHAT IS A NUTRIENT DENSE FOOD?

USDA tends to focus on nutrients and nutrition science. USDA is very quantitative and evidence based. The Weston Price Foundation hones in on the quality of the soil, methods of food production and food preparation.WPF reinforces the value of eating traditional foods in a traditional way, pointing out that the last 40 years of nutrient based science parallels alarming increases in lifestyle disease states and obesity in this country and the world.

Both groups encourage the consumption of fruits and vegetables. USDA presses for more fiber, WPF presses for eating whole foods, organically grown.

WPF encourages beans and legumes in the diet as a compliment to animal products. USDA Dietary Guidelines suggest eating beans and legumes as a healthy substitute for animal products, which they say contribute excessive fat, saturated fat and cholesterol to the diet.

WHAT ABOUT FAT AND SUGAR?

Beyond these basic concepts, the rest of the guidelines couldn’t be more disparate. The USDA Dietary Guidelines continue to admonish Americans to avoid saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt. WPF disagrees with most of these positions, encouraging healthy fats like butter and whole milk from grass fed animals. Ironically, WPF’s position is most aligned with current scientific thinking. Both of the groups agree trans fat is a problem. Interestingly, the FDA (a co-regulator of the food supply) continues to allow trans fats GRAS status. This means that in the world of food additives it is “generally regarded as safe”.

Both groups discuss the problem of excessive sugars and refined starches, but WPF definitely has the stronger voice. The USDA guidelines still allow for 10% of Calories from refined sugar. The USDA guidelines encourage Americans to eat more fiber, but not enough is said about eating less refined starch. Again, FDA’s position does not help. The FDA allows high fructose corn syrup along with a growing list of alternative sweeteners GRAS status, despite significant research linking these substances to metabolic issues and health problems.

FOCUS ON NUTRIENTS LITTLE MORE THAN BIOCHEMICAL MANIPULATION

I respect the science behind the USDA Dietary Guidelines, but the focus on nutrients often misses the point of eating. The science is easily manipulated into reductionist sound bites. The focus on nutrients distracts attention from critical aspects of soil ecology, farming, and food production.

Consumers have been taught to be preoccupied with the nutrient label. They often miss the big picture as they are eating mostly packaged foods. I have clients who eat berries for antioxidants, eat cottage cheese for leucine, avoid meat because of saturated fat and cholesterol, and drink sodium ladened sports drinks while telling me how they avoid salt in the diet. This is not eating. It is little more than biochemical manipulation.

CELEBRATING WHOLE FOODS

There is much to celebrate with the whole foods approach of Healthy 4 Life, as outlined by the Weston Price Foundation. Likewise, an argument can be made that there is value in learning about the role of individual nutrients in foods as encouraged by the USDA Dietary Guidelines. A problem occurs when preoccupation with individual nutrients trumps the value of eating whole foods.

Given the polarized nature of these two different sets of recommendations, the enduring challenge for consumers will be to determine an approach to food that works. This is the public health nightmare. It may be that there is no one right way to eat. The question remains, what approach to food works for you?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: calories, cholesterol, Dietary Guidelines, eating, farming, fat, FDA, fiber, food, food label, food nutrient, fruit, health, high fructose corn syrup, Marion Nestle, public health, satruated fat, sodium, soil, starch, sugar, trans fat, USDA, vegetable, Walter Willet, weight, Weston Price Foundation

Who’s Paying Attention to the Food Pyramid?

October 18, 2011 by

Not consumers.

Melissa Abbott, director of culinary insights for the Hartman Group, a market research company in Seattle, knows something about what consumers buy in stores and how they prepare and eat it at home. In a recent interview for Marketing Daily she explains the dilemma.

Very few consumers pay attention to the government directives. I know. I am one of them.

THE DIETARY GUIDELINES ARE NOT FOOD PRESCRIPTIONS

For starters, directives like the 2010 Dietary Guidelines were never meant to be prescriptive. They are not supposed to be static directions for everyone to eat the same way. I wonder how many people have that bit of knowledge? I wonder how many doctors, nurses, dietitians and public health officials realize that truth?

Last week I spoke with Roger Clemens, PhD. He was a member of the task force charged with preparing recommendations for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. He is very aware that there are huge holes in our understanding of nutrition and food and the human body. The scientists who draft the recommendations are working with less than perfect information.

THERE IS A LOT WE DON”T KNOW

The 2010 committee working on updating the Dietary Goals for Americans set forth 23 nutrient recommendations. At the same time they submitted over 70 recommendations to direct future scientific research. There is a lot we don’t know.

There is no one right way to eat for everyone. Instead of bickering about which diet is better, we should be much more interested in helping individuals figure out an approach to food that works for them.

It is important to remember that just because a certain diet works for one person, it will not work for everyone. It is important to remember that simplistic sound bites pretending to be the truth can cause more harm than good. It is critical to acknowledge that our food supply is more abundant and adulterated than ever. That alone does not make this easy.

FOOD IS COMPLEX, OUR LIVES ARE COMPLICATED

It is not surprising that people are tuning out messaging that pretends nutrition is a one size fits all arena. While the scientists who drafted the recommendations understand this, I’m not sure the folks writing and marketing the guidelines got the memo.

Food is more complex, our lives are more complicated, and information is more confusing than ever. Very little seems simple about good nutrition advice today, but it doesn’t have to be so noisy.

Eating well means paying attention to a few basics and then fine tuning the process until it works well enough. It may be helpful to note that this path doesn’t lead to perfection. We looking for “good enough”.

THE BASICS

1. Eat when you feel hungry. Stop when you are satisfied.

2. Eat a mix of foods so that there is enough carbohydrate for your muscles to work and your brain to focus, enough protein so you feel satisfied, and enough fat to feel satisfied until your next meal or snack.

3. Honor foods in their rightful place. Food is rich medium. Food is our fuel, but it is also social and cultural.

WHEN SIMPLE DOESN’T GET YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO GO

If the simple approach doesn’t work, professional support may be helpful. Look for someone who understands that a sheet of paper or pamphlet is not what you are looking for. Work with someone who is willing to hear your story and help you cultivate an approach that works for you.

This means nutrition counseling will be more challenging, take more time and feel messier for everyone.

MORE HONEST NUTRITION SUPPORT

Doctors won’t get away with simply telling patients to lose some weight or cut out the sugar. Nurses will not get away with handing out a pamphlet. Dietitians will not get away with a standard riff on any one dietary approach. Chiropractors will not get away with a list of supplements that they can sell.

Nutrition counseling will need to be focused and client centered. Effective counseling will probably best handled by referring patients to a professional, possibly a registered dietitian who has learned and is allowed to truly counsel clients, not just tell them what to eat.

MORE EFFECTIVE NUTRITION COUNSELING

Insurance companies will need to examine why they think four 15 minute sessions a year are supposed to be enough to help diabetics effectively navigate the process. They’ll also need to figure out how to pay for everyone who needs nutrition support, not just the diabetics and folks with renal disease. (Although preventing a few amputations or heart surgeries will pay for a bundle of nutrition counseling.)

Health care policy will need to adjust so that people get support as they are developing problems, not just after the disease is diagnosed.

Nutrition information and support needs to be more honest. Only then can it be more effective.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: 2010 Dietary Guidelines, balance, carbohydrate, chiropractors, cultural, diabetes, diet, dietitians, doctors, fat, food, food pyramid, government, hunger, insurance, Melissa Abbott, nurses, nutrition guidelines, protein, Roger Clemens, satiety, social

The Limitations of the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines

October 18, 2011 by

Last week I heard Dr. Roger Clemens speak at the California Dietetic Association meeting in Pasadena. Dr. Clemens is a member of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines scientific advisory committee.

I am grateful for the candid discussion. I would never know the limitations of the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines if I only read materials printed by the USDA. Dr. Clemens spoke with honesty and humility. We really don’t know much about human nutrition. We only think we do.

NUTRITION IS A YOUNG SCIENCE

Nutrition is a young science, studied for a bit over 100 years as a specific scientific entity. Vitamins were discovered in the early 19th century. We didn’t appreciate the role of fiber until the 1970′s.

We are still debating how carbohydrate, protein and fat influence metabolism and energy utilization. We want to believe calories count, but maybe not as much as the hormones and other regulators that determine what we do with those calories.

During Dr. Clemens talk, five key messages resonated with me.

1. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines are not prescriptive. The guidelines are developed as a public health policy tool. It is a recommendation for the population, but not necessarily for individuals. This means there is plenty of range for people to figure out what balance of carbohydrate, protein and fat works for them. We do not all need to be on a lower fat diet.

2. Calories count, but no one is looking at hunger and satiety. There is not enough data to tell us which diet is better. Research shows that if you restrict calories, every diet works well to help people lose weight.

The problem is that no one is asking the dieters what they think and how they feel. We really don’t know more than calories count. Knowledge is not the same as behavior. It is time we look at what behavior science can tell us.

3. Too much refined sugar and starch is a problem, but the research that was considered didn’t find any distinctions between the impact of high fructose corn syrup, sucrose in white table sugar or any other sweetener. This is a situation where the time lag is glaring.

The dietary guidelines were drawn from research that is about 5-10 years old. The guidelines are always looking backwards at what we know, not what we are finding out. The onerous time lag makes it very difficult for me as a practicing dietitian to support the static position of the guidelines–especially since the current ones will be around for another five years.

4. The 2010 Guidelines continue to tell us to eat less fat, less saturated fat and cholesterol even as more current research tells us that fat is not the problem .

This is exactly the kind of rear view mirror thinking that is inherently a part of public policy that relies on research that takes decades and longer to plan, fund, conduct, and then publish results. It takes even longer to understand. No one study is significant by itself, so we need additional research for corroboration.

One saturated fat, stearic acid, is already vindicated. Stearic acid is naturally found in ruminant animals (cattle, goats, sheep, bison), along with milk and milk products from the same animals. It is also found in cocoa and chocolate. Stearic acid is not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Milk, cheese, and red meat have been vilified for decades–and now we know better. In his talk, Dr. Clemens remarked that if you subtract the stearic acid component of saturated fat from beef and cows milk, there would no longer be enough saturated fat to be a problem, even by the old standards.

Interestingly, 8 of the top 16 sources of stearic acid in the American diet are high carbohydrate foods like grain desserts, mixed Mexican dishes, pizza, and candy. I’ve often wondered if it is the refined sugar and starch with added fats that are more of the problem, not the fat itself.

5. Sodium intake may be high, but it is not always a problem. It seems only people already predisposed to elevated blood pressure benefit from reduced sodium intake. In addition, whether someone actually develops hypertension due to the sodium in the diet depends on many other elements. Hypertension is not a single nutrient disease.

Total calorie intake, specifically overeating, is the biggest source of excessive sodium intake. If people started to eat just the energy they needed, sodium intake will drop right along with the excess poundage.

Highly processed and pre-prepared foods contribute 77% of all sodium in our diets. These foods are a major source of all sodium intake.

Just about 10% of our sodium comes from cooking and another 7-10% from the salt shaker. We don’t have to eat food that is less tasty or well prepared to reduce sodium content.

The best way to reduce sodium in the diet is to stop overeating. It is also helpful to purchase less highly processed and prepared foods. Lastly, we can learn how to season food for full flavor, not just to taste salty. By eating more fresh foods prepared at home, sodium intake will plummet even if we use the salt shaker.

GRATEFUL FOR A FLAWED BUT USEFUL TOOL

I am grateful for the impressive efforts of all the scientists, researchers, clinicians and academics who contribute to these Dietary Goals. They provide a framework for us to think about food, nutrition and health.

It is valuable to have the Dietary Goals as a reference, but it is equally important to remember the Dietary Guidelines are limited. We are still learning. The Guidelines can only tell us what was understood before 2010.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: calories, cholesterol, diet, dietary goals, fat, food, hunger, nutrition, public policy, Roger Clemens, satiety, saturated fat, sodium, stearic acid, sugar

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

October 18, 2011 by

McDonald’s announced it’s newest Happy Meal version yesterday. Media swarmed at the news and Michelle Obama added her words of encouragement.

The newest Happy Meal version includes 1/4 cup of apples and a smaller 100 calorie (1.1 oz) portion of French fries along with a choice of entree and beverage. McDonald’s estimates calorie savings up to 20% for any one Happy Meal. Most weight loss experts celebrate that kind of change. But not everyone has nice things to say.

A CRESCENDO OF CRITICS

There is a rising crescendo of voices that want to denigrate every food option that doesn’t meet their idea of acceptible or healthy. Andy Bellitti complains that there aren’t adequate nutrients in the Happy Meal. Mark Bittman tweets, “It is McD’s ‘job’ to make money, mostly by selling junk.” Yoni Freedhoff retweets Andy Bellitti’s assumptions and tells everyone, “we need to cook.” Marion Nestle says “I’m not impressed.”

The collective angst directed at McDonald’s no matter what they do is curious to me. I am a dietitian, seeing private patients for 25 years in Santa Monica. I taught at Santa Monica College for 15 years, 12 at UCLA Extension. I am no slouch when it comes to addressing nutrition science or working with real patients as they navigate food in their real world.

At the same time, I have consulted with McDonald’s Operators of Southern California (MOASC) for almost 20 years.(1) I see the food that they buy. I observe their crew cooking the same. This food is purchased from the same vendors supplying our neighborhood supermarkets.

I am left to wonder about all the angst and condemnation directed to fast food in general, and McDonald’s specifically.

DATA DISTORTION

Public health authorities tagged fast food as the culprit in the escalating incidence of obesity–especially for children– decades ago. We keep getting fatter despite it all. Has all their noise been ineffective? Could it be that the considerable amount of time and energy denigrating fast food is misdirected?

Part of the problem may be rooted in data distortion. Recently I was scouring the Report of the Dietary Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. I came across this statement:

“There is not enough evidence at this time to similarly evaluate eating out at other types of restaurants and risk of weight gain, overweight, and obesity.”

Does this mean that fast food has been the primary focus just because there was no other data to address eating at sit down restaurants?

I wonder what we will find out. Most sit down restaurants offer hamburgers topping 1000, 1200, 1500 calories and more. French fries are often served in only one size–a lot. For years one restaurant offered French fries in only one serving size, a one pound basket. Now they offer “endless fries”.

The largest hamburger at McDonald’s yields 770 calories, the smallest at 210 calories. McDonald’s offers small, medium and large fries–ranging from 2.5 oz. (230 cal) to 5.4 ounces (500 cal) per serving.

OBESITY IS A FOOD PROBLEM, NOT A FAST FOOD PROBLEM

In all the criticism about fast food, it is easy to miss the bigger picture. Our entire food supply is incredibly abundant and adulterated. The increasing incidence of obesity and disease is overwhelming to anyone who understands the trends.

Is the answer to continue to denigrate every effort by McDonald’s as not good enough? I don’t think so.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee, many researchers and clinicians agree. The obesity problem is too big for any of us to solve on our own. I hear the call for all sectors of society to step up:

individuals, families, physicians and allied health professionals, public health advocates, policy makers, scientists and small and large businesses, including farmers, agricultural producers, food scientists , food manufacturers and food retailers of all kinds.

EVERY FOOD VENUE NEEDS TO STEP UP, BUT SO DOES GOVERNMENT

We need to address the issues of abundance and adulteration of the food supply at every point of purchase: supermarkets, convenience stores, food marts at gas stations and snacks offered in pharmacies and drug stores. We need to look at every sector of catering and restaurant industry, from quick service restaurants to fine dining. Every entertainment venue, food cart, food truck and vending machine deserves the same scrutiny.

But mostly we need the government to step up, specifically the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. As long as problematic ingredients, additives, animal feed and husbandry practices, and farming practices are deemed safe and/or legal, the rest of the sectors are left to go it alone.

As for everyone wanting to believe that eliminating fast food is the answer, I would remind you that research colleagues in science labs tell us even the lab rats are getting bigger. What are they feeding the mice?

(1) The opinions expressed here are my own. This blog is not supported nor sponsored by any commercial interest.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Andy Bellatti, animal feed, animal husbandry, calories, children, EPA, farming, fast food, FDA, food, food additives, food science, French fries, Happy Meal, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman, McDonalds, Michelle Obama, obesity, restaurants, USDA, weight loss, Yoni Freedhoff

Another Distorted Reason to Avoid Fast Food

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

Who’s Paying Attention to the Food Pyramid?

The Limitations of the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

Search

Topics