Things Consumed

visit the latest entry in things consumed | visit the things consumed archives | return to | subscribe to the feed

Friday, December 11, 2009

Bloated, like a colossal lizard

  Exercise and food journals are a good idea. Some are just more interesting than others. McSweeney's Internet Tendency: Godzilla's Food, Exercise, and Dream Diary by Kate Hahn (, 11/17/09) is a great example.
11:50 AM: Exercise: Breathe fire at attacking airplanes. Calories burned: 5,342,000

11:55 AM: Snack: Pilots and parachutes. (27) Calories: 5,342,000. (Why bother to exercise?) Feeling: defensive, misunderstood, freakishly colossal.
After lunch yesterday, I also felt freakishly colossal: I'll have to work on that breathing fire thing.

Labels: ,

posted by Arlene (Beth)2:59 PM

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Tempest in an overpriced organic tea pot

  I think I know what Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's actual, failed evil plan was for his recent, wacky editorial John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - ( I'm surprised it didn't work, because it generally does.

If you are unaware, the CEO of Whole Foods has inspired boycotts and barrages of thoroughly entertaining counter-commentary by slamming not just Obama's health proposals, but the very idea than any living person should feel entitled to health care, food, or shelter in a classic conservative opinion piece that is even now, somewhere in this country, being used to deny orphans in some backwater child-warehouse a hot lunch.

He argues for some hilarious right-wing positions, such as that only charity should provide care for the uninsured (recently laid off executives and 40-years-of-service machinists, this means you!), and that what is covered by insurance should be based on what is profitable and popular. Popular likely is intended to mean profitable, as there is no mechanism for "popular choice" voting on your coverage when you are diabetic or have cancer.

I, personally, am convinced that Mr. Mackey thought no one would actually absorb the details of his position, that it would be impossible for anyone to take a stand against his positions, because he put in some information that is guaranteed to wipe the minds of all American readers. I'm going to quote him here, at risk of having you find yourself wandering aimlessly beside a freeway, unsure of how you arrived there. Here are his words:
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
We all know it: Americans ignore science-based diet and health advice of all kinds with amazing mental skill. You can literally watch people's eyes roll back into their heads as they experience a terrible, brief struggle to justify the chicken-fried steak with French fries in front of them, knowing that every major scientific institution has repeatedly announced that, moderation be damned, that crap will kill you. As a culture, Americans block this kind of data out so eagerly, so quickly, that they are temporarily disoriented and lose their place in conversation before realizing where they are, erasing all information recently absorbed, and dipping the next bite of fried batter into melted butter.

I believe this: Mr. Mackey was so convinced that our minds would be wiped clear by our panic to justify our alarming way of eating that the rest of his editorial would seem nearly sane. It failed, which shocks me: this may be a first in this country. A variety of incredibly powerful forces had to work in concert for this brain-wiping not to work. I'm currently crediting several things: the dissatisfaction of the lucky insured with their coverage (if this is the best we have to offer, we should reboot and try again); the masses of the newly uninsured who realize that they still have physical bodies, despite not having jobs; Obama's popularity; and the fact that Mackey didn't drop the mind-wipe-bomb until people were already feeling outraged.


The best part of the timing of this editorial: it is during the Obama Administration. If this we were still under the previous Administration, Mr. Mackey would be assigned to be the first responder to all flu pandemics, anthrax scares, and other health menaces. He would be the first to say that if the free market hadn't already developed a cure for pig/deer/cow/hamster flu, we aren't rich enough to deserve to survive it anyway. That would be awesome.


P.S. To Mackey: it's not "other people's money" we're going to spend on health care, it is MINE. I want my taxes spent on health care (among other things), like millions of other people. That's called popular choice, and you mention it often enough that you might know what it means.

Labels: , ,

posted by Arlene (Beth)7:00 AM

Sunday, August 03, 2008


Places to Eat in Emeryville.

This isn't a list of every place in Emeryville: it's just the places I like. Which all happen to be veg-friendly. (Go figure.)

Veg Friendly Eville Dining.

Labels: ,

posted by Arlene (Beth)6:03 PM

Sunday, February 11, 2007

  Another not-quite-right dietary guideline for Americans. Anyone who has read Food Politics by Marion Nestle knows that what the U.S. Department of Agriculture tells Americans to eat is frought with politics, influence, lobbying, and - somewhere - a bit of actual health-based information. This is true with the latest (2005) iconic guildeine from the USDA,, a new, pro-dairy industry version of the 1992 food pyramid, which has just reached a product packaging saturation level that I can no longer avoid seeing it.

The weirdest thing about it, to me, is that it's no longer a structural pyramid, with one food serving as the healthy 'foundation' of a diet, and the others holding lesser functions in smaller proportions. This is a feel-good industry tool, with all the foods - including extra bonus calories that are purely discretionary, exactly what an increasingly obese population doesn't need - are beside each other and equal. There is no heirarchy between a heart healthy apple and a highly sweetened milkshake.


Food guidelines have changed gradually over the years. (See The Origin of U.S. Dietary Guidelines ( for a history of the changes that have appeared over the years through the 1992 pyramid.) This makes sense: our understanding of nutrition has grown, we lead more sedentary lifestyles than our foreparents, and processed foods have come to dominate retail food purchases. The "four food groups" that I grew up with - milk, meat, fruits/veggies, and grains - suggested a sort of equality between agricultural product categories that was at odds with basic health information, and though it was easy to remember, it wasn't actually good for you. The 1992 food pyramid shown here at Wikipedia ( seemed to be approaching something more sensible: the pyramid showed that the foundation of a healthy diet was based on fruits, veggies, and grains, with smaller amounts of other foods topping it off - it looked something like what medical studies had been saying for years. Something like, but not quite: as the Wikipedia article notes, the diet permitted adults at risk of heart disease (most omnivorous adult Americans) to consume whole-fat, high cholesterol meat and dairy products, and made no qualitative distinctions that could have helped people make wiser choices within those groups. But it still gave me some hope that things were moving in the right direction.

I feel naieve about that now. The panel's odd recommendations in the cholesterol area were soon explained. Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry by Ché Green (originally posted inLiP Magazine, posted to Alternet July 9, 2002) revealed:
In December 1999, the PCRM [Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine] filed suit against the USDA, claiming the department unfairly promotes the special interests of the meat and dairy industries through its official dietary guidelines and the Food Pyramid. Six of the eleven members assigned to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee were demonstrated to have financial ties to meat, dairy, and egg interests. Prior to the suit, which the PCRM won in December 2000, the USDA had refused to disclose such conflicts of interest to the general public.
PBS also had some interesting comments about the quantity-over-quality, approach. Frontline: Diet Wars (, 4/8/04) took a retrospective look, asking if the food pyramid was doing more harm than good. They interviewed a variety of people who talked about how it made no qualitative distinctions between good or bad fats, or good or bad carbs. I like this comment from Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture:
Interviewer: Still, the USDA, in giving advice, had to deal with, for example, saturated fats, which have consequences for health, but also for people who produce animal protein.

Glickman: Yeah. USDA basically was in an unusual role of not wanting to say that there were any good foods or any bad foods; that all foods were okay, [presumably] eaten in some degree of moderation or discretion. So USDA was always very careful at not defining evil as part of any particular food category.

Part of that was the multiplicity of missions in the Department of Agriculture, because politically, the heart of the Department of Agriculture was food producers, was making sure that there were enough farmers alive and they could continue to produce food. So farmers produce all sorts of things, from fats to carbohydrates to proteins and everything in between. USDA has always had this little bit of conflicting mission between the producers of food and the consumers of food, and how to bridge that gap between the two of them hasn't been all that easy.
There is also this interesting article, A Fatally Flawed Food Guide, by Luise Light, Ed.D (, 11/2004) who notes that the draft pyramid she worked on was heavily modified to please the ag industry:
For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products; it also hugely increased the servings of wheat and other grains to make the wheat growers happy. . .

Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour — including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats — at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base.
If you read the rest of her article, you see that there is abundant cause for concern about the new pyramid for all the same reasons - including the close ties to the ag industries held by 7 of the 13 advisors on the panel...

Despite extensive testimony on the dangers of the unhealthy biases, USDA's joint mission of promoting industry products with telling people what to eat creates a conflict of interest which the USDA can't seem to overcome.


I went to and put in some information about myself to get a dietary profile. My weight is up significantly (due to some boring circumstances, which I'll describe some other time) and I'm exercising more than an hour a day, so I put in the highest weight I've had over the past six months, and plugged in my basic information to get advice. The site accurately observed that the weight I plugged in is a bit high, which is quite true. To maintain my weight (my first option!!), I am advised to have about 2800 calories each day (!), broken down as follows:

10 ounces of grains
3.5 cups of veggies
2.5 cups of fruits
3 cups of milk
7 ounces of meat and beans

If I'd like to decrease my weight, I'm advised to have 2400 calories, broken down as follows:

8 ounces of grains
3 cups of veggies
2 cups of fruit
3 cups of milk
6.5 ounces of meat and beans

My family happens to have problems with high cholesterol, heart disease, high blood pressure, and other conditions which are all controlled by diet. Yet, under the weight loss plans, I'm supposed to have milk and veggies in equal proportions, and cut back on (whole) grains. Wow.

To help me increase my milk consumption, there is a special page on the site Tips for making wise choices, which includes advice on how I should include milk as a beverage with meals, and how I should top casseroles with shredded low-fat cheese.

Fat is discussed, cholesterol is not.

Wow again.

I'm not the only one who is stunned. This is a comment from the Harvard School of Public Health's Food Pyramids: What Should You Really Eat?", which I'll discuss in more detail below:
The recommendation to drink three glasses of low-fat milk or eat three servings of other dairy products per day to prevent osteoporosis is another step in the wrong direction. Of all the recommendations, this one represents the most radical change from current dietary patterns. Three glasses of low-fat milk add more than 300 calories a day. This is a real issue for the millions of Americans who are trying to control their weight. What's more, millions of Americans are lactose intolerant, and even small amounts of milk or dairy products give them stomachaches, gas, or other problems. This recommendation ignores the lack of evidence for a link between consumption of dairy products and prevention of osteoporosis. It also ignores the possible increases in risk of ovarian cancer and prostate cancer associated with dairy products.


The USDA is a government agency that serves several purposes: their mission ( includes both keeping America's farmers in business, and providing nutrition information. And those farmers, many of whom are massive agribusiness conglomerates, happen to have lobbyists. You'd think those two particular missions would be separated out, so that people in medicine would promote their advice through a health organization, rather than through the Department of Agriculture. But no.

The Food Pyramid is More About Politics than Personal Health, by Dr. T. Colin Campbell (, 9/2005) discusses the impact of politics on the guidelines:
When funding from M&M Mars candy company, a consortium of soft drink companies, a behemoth dairy industry conglomerate (the Dannon Institute), and a collection of pharmaceutical companies helps to make this report user-friendly (for them, that is) and when industry-conflicted academics organize and populate the panels, can we expect anything better? ... When a contemporary UN panel, for example, was examining much of the same evidence and was opting for a lower cap of 10% added sugar, the sugar industry threatened them to persuade Congress to withhold funding of the UN study unless it adopted the US cap of 25%.
Funny how that happens.

Food Pyramid Gets New Look, by Sally Squires (, 4/20/05) has two commentators remarking on the USDA's inability to tell us NOT to eat things. Elizabeth Pivonka, president of the Produce for Better Health Foundation, is quoted as saying:
It's designed to not call any attention to any negative food group. I hate to say it, but what else would we expect from the USDA?
Margo G. Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, remarks:
They're based on the latest science and they provide very strong advice, but it seems like the USDA dodged the difficult political advice once again and didn't clearly communicate what to eat less of. Given that obesity is the biggest health problem facing the country, that is what is most needed to be communicated.
This seems obvious, doesn't it?


Arlene, you've made me lose faith in the nutrition-by-lobbyist structure of the USDA food pyramid. But you haven't told me what I should eat. Well? If you're putting this kind of pressure on me, I hope you know me! You shouldn't go taking advice from just any stranger on the web. You should take advice from the strangers at Harvard. :-) the Harvard School of Public Health's Food Pyramids: What Should You Really Eat?" provides a pyramid which is quite sensible, and which IS willing to say that there are good and bad foods.

The Harvard Healthy Eating Pyramid emphasizes whole grain foods, plant oils (filled with good, heart-healthy fats), veggies, nuts/legumes, and dairy OR calcium supplements. It tells you that all the other things you may be eating you should be eating less of, including red meat, and all those white-flour items that should never have even been included as grains in that other food pyramid. And it provides a link to Oldways, a think tank that offers some additional, healthier food pyramid models which also leave the USDA version in the dust.

You KNOW what you should be eating: whole, minimally processed, natural foods whose ingredients come from your own region and which you can pronounce, most of which are plant-based. Read the Harvard article, reaffirm this for yourself, tape it to your refrigerator, and enjoy eating well - and eating right.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Arlene (Beth)5:51 PM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

comments Return Home