The Life Ledger

Fitness is a way of life.

photo credit: M J M

According to a recent article on Food Navigator, a USDA study found the increased rate of obesity in US adults is matched by an increased rate of fat and oil consumption. This follows the generic advice you find almost anywhere - cut fats and sugars, lose weight. The study identifies processed foods as the culprit for the fat consumption trend.

American consumption of added fats and oils has increased dramatically over the past 35 years, exceeding government recommendations and affording a need for healthier processed foods.
The findings form part of Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in the US Food Consumption, 1970-2005 - a report by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that shows Americans are failing to meet the Federal dietary recommendations.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, two-thirds of US adults were either overweight or obese between 2003-2004, compared with 47 percent between 1976 and 1980.

The report shows this correlates with a swell in added fats consumption of 63 percent between 1970 and 2005 and a 19 percent increase in added sugar and sweeteners.

I wonder if anyone has conducted a study on the obesity trend of communities before and after fast-food restaurants move in? If not, they’ll have to act fast - I bet it’s getting hard to find one-horse towns without a McDonalds.

Thank you for visiting The Life Ledger. If you enjoyed this article, check out the related posts below and subscribe to our feed.

photo credit: valessio_brito

I know it’s naive, but when I buy “organic” foods, I have the image I’m supporting family-owned businesses who farm using sustainable methods and give back to the local economy. Singing cows from California, sustainable farming raising my grass-fed beef - I buy into the image hoook, line and sinker. Seeing as how the USDA’s National Organic Program defines “organic” as “produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations”, I don’t think I’m being entirely unreasonable.

Imagine my surprise when I read an article at Diet Blog (which in turn cites FitSugar) about organic and natural food labels and the big companies that own them. Among the organic brands I recognize are Dagoba (owned by Hershey), Seeds of Change (owned by M&M Mars), my favorite Odwalla bars (owned by Coca-Cola), Cascadian Farms (owned by General Mills), Kashi (owned by Kellogg), and Silk (owned by Dean Foods). See the entire chart here.

Disease Proof and the New York Times followed up with further information, pointing to an article assembled by Dr. Phillip H. Howard which illustrates, among other things, numerous organic and natural brands that have been purchased or created by big companies. Among the brands I recognize that aren’t mentioned above is Green & Black’s (owned by Cadbury Schweppes), my only other brand of choice for organic chocolate besides Seeds of Change.

Why is all this a big deal? The New York Times says it best:

Obviously, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a big company buying an organic brand. But Dr. Howard notes that many consumers seek out organic foods, in part, because they don’t want to buy foods from multinational food companies.

“Often organic consumers are interested in supporting smaller scale farms and food processors,’’ Dr. Howard said. “In the marketing of a lot of these organic brands the firms try to evoke that image of a small pastoral farm.’’

I personally buy organic and natural foods for two reasons: health and supporting small businesses that practice environmental stewardship. The fact that Coke owns Odwalla doesn’t affect the bars’ nutrition, it does shatter the image I’m supporting small, “good” businesses. I don’t think I can give up my Odwalla bars, but I will definitely be looking for another brand of organic chocolate. Anyone have a suggestion?

I had no idea what kind of horrors awaited this month’s issue of Consumer Reports. An article discussing E.coli-related beef recalls discussed the difference in number between 2006 and 2007. In ‘06, there were less than 200,000 recalled. Can you guess how many in pounds in ‘07? I couldn’t either:

Over 25 MILLION pounds.

It gets better - according to the article:

If meat tests positive for the bacteria, companies are allowed to cook it for sale in other products such as pizza or tacos. While thorough cooking should kill E.coli, diverting tainted meat creates an opening for cross-contamination.

Think about all the places you obtain pre-cooked beef from: fast-food tacos and hamburgers, tubs of pre-cooked beef at the supermarket, restaurants probably use quite a bit in their salads and dishes. I hate to sound like a cynic, but I can’t say that I trust a slaughterhouse who maintains sub-standard working environments and a swinging-door work-force to properly cook tainted beef and protect other carcasses from becoming contaminated. Apparently, with over 25 million pounds of beef recalled, the system isn’t working.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t quickly find a chart that shows the yearly recall amount for the past few years - you would think this kind of information would be made available. In any event, 25 million pounds recalled for E.coli in one year is a phenomenal amount. Consumer Reports listed a few circumstances that may have contributed to the problem:

…Rising oil prices have encouraged greater production of ethanol, which creates a corn byproduct that increasingly is being used as cattle feed. This feed appears to make the animals’ digestive tracts even more hospitable breeding grounds for the toxic strain of E.coli bacteria, [according to USDA officials]. [Ed - By the way, as Michael Pollan points out in ‘Omnivore’s Dilemma’, since cows cannot digest corn naturally, their stomachs will explode unless treated with antibiotics - corn-based cattle feed is also a main contributor to the rise in antibiotics and hormones in beef.]

…Carcasses can move through slaughter-houses at a rate of up to 390 per hour, making inspection difficult.

This article reminded me of something I read recently about a slaughterhouse in California who supplies the local schools being caught on tape processing “downer,” or obviously ill, cows by chaining them to forklifts when they were not capable of walking. Most articles like this one concentrated on the animal cruelty angle, but there’s more to it - sick cows are more likely to harbor contamination, since their immune system is obviously impaired and they wallow in feces (which, by the way, is how E.coli spreads in slaugterhouses - feces from the cow’s stomach or skin).

I have bought local beef, chicken and pork for a couple of years now, and can definitely taste a difference. Now I have a new reason for buying local and carefully selecting what I eat at restaurants.

I know properly cooking and preparing beef destroys E.coli contamination, but I don’t control the preparation of my food when I consume pre-cooked or restaurant food - with so many people now eating in restaurants, this seems like a pretty serious problem. Or am I over-reacting? What do you think?