Cooking Subversive

“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please.” Chemicals in our Food (part 4)

#GeekingOutSeries/Safety101/ChemicalsinFood/4This post is part of the Geeking Out series which presents data-driven information on food and farming, safety in the kitchen, practical science for cooks, cooking techniques and processes and other relevant nerdy stuff that every cook should know.  This post is from the chapter, Safety 101 and the final episode of a four part series. How sugar insinuated itself into the American diet is a fascinating tale that begins with the scientific community’s colossal error in choosing personality over substance, and how we’re all living with the ramifications of this onerous mistake.The Charm Offensive: Sugar vs. FatIn the 1950’s, two competing theories were being floated on what caused heart disease. A physiologist from the University of Minnesota, Ancel Keys, posited that fat (cholesterol) was the enemy. On the other side of the Atlantic, John Yudkin, a British professor of Nutrition, had a hypothesis that sugar was the culprit.  Ancel Keys was also the inventor of K ration, the packaged food America’s soldiers relied on. When US President Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1955, his doctor gave a press conference instructing Americans to stop smoking and cut down fat and cholesterol to avoid heart disease, citing Ancel Keys’s theory.  Meanwhile, to buttress his hypothesis, Keys collected what seemed to be inarguable evidence that a diet low in saturated fat was key to a healthy heart.  What came to be known as the Seven Countries Study (which included countries like Greece and Italy), introduced Mediterranean diet into the gastronomic lexicon and became the foundation for vilifying fat.  Never mind that Keys may have cherry picked his data, having excluded France and West Germany which had high-fat diets and low rates of cardiovascular disease. What followed was a bloody battle where fact-based data was not the winner.  In The Sugar Conspiracy, published by The Guardian, writer Ian Leslie describes how the scientific community gravitated towards Keys’s Fat hypothesis despite inconsistencies in data, attributing personality as a key determinant. He writes:“Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public.”Don’t forget he was also the inventor of the all-American K-ration.  Yudkin, on the other hand, was of the quiet sort.  We all know who won that war. John Yudkin was ridiculed by the scientific community and when he published his book, “Pure, White, Deadly” in 1972 to warn the public that it was indeed sugar that was the enemy of good health, his reputation had tanked and his book, though popular at the time, languished into near obscurity.So “Fat is Bad” won, now what?Here’s where it gets dicey.  In 1980, the US government released dietary guidelines to cut back on saturated fats and cholesterol. The UK followed suit in 1983.  The verdict was loud and clear and resounded beyond the borders of North America.  FAT IS BAD AND CAUSES HEART DISEASE.  A surge of Low-fat and Fat-free food products began lining supermarket shelves and refrigerated sections.  Eggs were shunned, margarine replaced butter; skim milk was substituted for whole milk.  In Manila, I was using non-dairy creamers in coffee and avoiding avocados.  The thing is, besides physiological benefits like helping you feel fuller, fat is responsible for other positive culinary traits such as a smooth and creamy texture, delightful mouthfeel, moisture  and most importantly,  flavor.  Someone at one of my cooking classes told me that FAT stands for flavor and taste, and while I haven’t found any evidence of its veracity, I thought it was rather cute, and on point.  So while food manufacturers scrambled to remove or reduce fat in their products, they had to find a way to compensate for the loss in flavor.“Knock, knock, who’s there?”  Enter, Sugar Additives.Here’s where the bump in sugar additives begins.  A sugar additive is basically sugar added to food in the processing stage.  As it turns out, sugar doesn’t just make food sweet.  In its web page (which includes a photo of colorful, healthy fruits), The Sugar Association uses candy-colored graphics and dots to depict sugar’s functional roles beyond sweetness to include: flavor enhancer/balancer/aroma, bulk, texture/mouthfeel, shelf-life/microbial stability, fermentation, freezing point depression, color and moisture retention.  Sugar is quite the multi-tasker, and it’s no surprise it goes by different names.  What’s surprising to most of us is how many--a whopping sixty one, according to the Sugar Science page of the University of California San Francisco’s website. You might be familiar with some that we use at home: cane sugar, coconut palm sugar, maple syrup, honey.  And then there are those ubiquitous in most commercial food items like high fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, dextrose, dehydrated cane juice (see end notes for full list). Added sugar is everywhere.  They’re hidden in whole-grain cereals and granola, fruit juice, yogurt and baby food.  They’re also in savory food items like canned soups, pasta sauce, bread and salad dressing. The Nutritional Gamble that’s Sickened MillionsAfter forty years betting on Fat as the enemy, we find out that the scientific community, government and health organizations were absolutely wrong.  When the US government released dietary guidelines minimizing fat in 1980, obesity rates in adults were at 15%.  By 2016, 4 out of 10 adults in the country were obese.   In youth, it’s worse. Childhood obesity tripled since the 1970’s and now affects 1of 5 school-aged children.To understand what had happened, new research finally uncovered what John Yudkin had known all along: Sugar is the real enemy.  It’s been implicated in cardiovascular disease deaths. What’s more, the old villain, Fat, has now proven to be not only beneficial, but critical to good health.  For the first time in 2015, the Food and Drug Administration recommended a cap on sugar. More and more Americans are becoming aware of the harmful effects of sugar.  Yet it is still misunderstood, especially in conjunction with the corollary benefits of fat.  Going against an established belief that was imposed on nearly two generations is an uphill climb. Those who stand to benefit from the status quo of sugar-filled and fat-free products will fight.  There will be mixed messaging, further perplexing consumers.  Proof of that is that supermarkets are still full of zero-fat products, but to add to the confusion, new labels have appeared: sugar-free, zero sugar, no added sugar, etc.The sugar industry is feeling the onslaught. On their website, The Sugar Association takes a defiant stance: “There is no substitute for sugar.   With all these valuable functions, sugar can’t simply be replaced by another single ingredient. Its versatility is unmatched—and that’s just one of the reasons why we love sugar.”Actually, there is a substitute for sugar. It’s called real food.Ultra-Processed, The Unreal FoodProcessed food by definition is any food that has been altered in any way, including freezing, canning, or simply cutting into pieces.  It refers to a broad spectrum that ranges from minimally processed items like roasted nuts, frozen vegetables, vinegar, to ultra-processed food and beverages like sodas, potato chips and breakfast cereals.  So as not to get caught up with technical definitions, let me make a distinction that what I will refer to as poison will be ultra-processed food and beverages. Ultra-processed means food and beverages are manipulated to enhance flavor, texture, aesthetics, and nutritional profiles as well as to prolong shelf life. We already know there’s way too much sugar in ultra-processed food.  Besides sugar in its many forms, commercial food is also a toxic cocktail of sodium, artificial preservatives, coloring, flavor enhancers, and a host of other food additives.  You can check out the rap sheet yourself, but here are a few examples from the Environmental Working Group:  Nitrates and nitrites, coloring and flavor agents often found in cured meats (WHO declared these as probably human carcinogens), Potassium bromate to strengthen bread  (known carcinogen in California), Butylated hydroxyanisole (endocrine disruptor).   The list goes on, but you get the drift.  Ditch unreal food. Read ingredient labels.  Here’s how you’ll spot them.Ultra-processed food and beverages  have:*      an ultra-lengthy list of ingredients, i.e., probably more than five*      unidentifiable ingredients that sound like something out of chemistry class*      added sugars.  Remember, they masquerade under different names like fruit juice concentrate, high fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, sucroseThe Reality CheckTo commit to healthy eating, it’s important to build a habit of reading ingredient labels.  Start by making your next grocery shopping experience one that avoids all ultra-processed food and beverages. Second,  check ingredients of all food items in your refrigerator and pantry and make a plan to toss out most if not all ultra-processed food and beverages.   It might seem daunting at first because you’ll find most every kind of item---condiments like ketchup, salad dressings, juices, sodas, supposedly heart-healthy breakfast cereals and snack bars, peanut butter, potato chips and canned goods, will have one or more of the offending ingredients we mention.  Though I’m very much anti-waste, if you come to believe, as I have, that we are slowly poisoning ourselves with sugar and chemicals that are hidden in food, you’ll find you can manage a steely resolve towards the project.  It might seem expensive in the beginning to replace ultra-processed with real food, but when you consider the expensive medical bills and poorer quality of life that you have avoided, you’ll find it was a bargain after all.Summary: “I’ll Have The Poison on the Side please.”  Toxic chemicals are hidden in most of our commercial food supply and are a leading cause of disease and ailments in the world ranging from gluten-intolerance to type 2 diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. For a healthier diet:* Buy fresh organic or chemical-free fruits and vegetables starting with those in the Dirty Dozen list which have the most chemicals* To avoid the very toxic glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, buy organic or glyphosate-free flour and wheat products, oats, barley and beans* Choose eggs, poultry and meats that are free-range,  grass-fed, organic, sustainably-raised, which have minimal or no chemicals added to them or their feed.* Avoid Ultra processed food and beverages.  It’s ultra-processed if there are added sugars, generally more than five ingredients, or if ingredients sound like they are from your chemistry class.**********************************************************************************The 61 Names for Sugar Agave nectarBarbados sugarBarley maltBarley malt syrupBeet sugarBrown sugarButtered syrupCane juiceCane juice crystalsCane sugarCaramelCarob syrupCastor sugarCoconut palm sugarCoconut sugarConfectioner's sugarCorn sweetenerCorn syrupCorn syrup solidsDate sugarDehydrated cane juiceDemerara sugarDextrinDextroseEvaporated cane juiceFree-flowing brown sugarsFructoseFruit juiceFruit juice concentrateGlucoseGlucose solidsGolden sugarGolden syrupGrape sugarHFCS (High-Fructose Corn Syrup)HoneyIcing sugarInvert sugarMalt syrupMaltodextrinMaltolMaltoseMannoseMaple syrupMolassesMuscovadoPalm sugarPanochaPowdered sugarRaw sugarRefiner's syrupRice syrupSaccharoseSorghum SyrupSucroseSugar (granulated)Sweet SorghumSyrupTreacleTurbinado sugarYellow sugarInterested to learn more? Check out companion posts on Cooking Subversive:“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please” : Chemicals in our Foodpart 1: Chemical Fertilizers, Herbicides and Pesticidespart 2: And Then There’s Rounduppart 3: Steroids, Antibiotics and other Chemicals in Meat and Poultrypart 4: Sugar Additives and Ultra-Processed FoodsI Cook to Reclaim My Health Get full access to Cooking Subversive at cookingsubversive.substack.com/subscribe

“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please.” Chemicals in our Food (part 3)

#GeekingOutSeries/Safety101/ChemicalsinFood/3This post is part of the Geeking Out series which presents data-driven information on food and farming, safety in the kitchen, practical science for cooks, cooking techniques and processes and other relevant nerdy stuff that every cook should know.  For the next few weeks, we will be covering topics from the chapter, Safety 101. This is the third of a four part series.Picture this: an expanse of lush green as far as the eye can see where cows graze in idle harmony. Nearby, chickens cheerfully pick at blades of grass and cow dung for their bug buffet, fertilizing their patch of pasture as they break up the bovine manure and deposit a bit of their own little black gold. The contented lowing and clucking of cattle and poultry accompanied by a gentle breeze completes the sensory experience for this bucolic paradise. Hogwash.This is the sort of fantasy Big Agri wants us to believe when we pick up their neatly-packaged chunks of meat in Styrofoam containers.  And while there are some farms that pasture animals free range like the one above, they are few and far between. Most meat and poultry found in supermarkets never had lifestyles this lavish. Here’s the reality check.Remember that BigAgri is all about the bottom line, which means maximizing efficiency and lowering costs. That translates to beef manipulation that begins prior to conception with cows treated with hormones that regulate the timing of conception so that calves are born within days of each other. The calves spend the first seven to nine months grazing on grass and then are taken to a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), which can be feedlots or windowless buildings housing hundreds to millions of animals.Jo Robinson described in a 2008 article from Mother Earth News:“Upon arrival at the feedlot, the stressed, thirsty and hungry calves are herded down chutes and subjected to a number of procedures, which can include dehorning, castration, branding and tagging. Then they are dewormed and vaccinated against various diseases. A common practice is to mix antibiotics with the feed, whether the now-stressed animals show signs of illness or not. Tetracycline, an antibiotic important for humans, is one of the most commonly used medications.Lastly, the calves are implanted with pellets that contain growth-promoting steroid hormones that lose their effectiveness in a matter of months. Many animals are given new implants of higher potency to replace them. The aggressive use of hormone implants can add 110 pounds of lean meat or more to a calf. Every dollar invested in implants returns five to 10 dollars in added gain for each animal in the six to 12 months they spend in the feedlot.”Meanwhile, the calves are shifted from grass to a high- grain diet to fatten them further.  Remember our earlier discussion on Roundup’s glyphosate being used on GMO produce like corn and soybeans?   GMO crops are principally grown for livestock feed, so everything we said that was bad about Roundup, including glyphosate, will be present in industrialized meat.  Besides GMO crops, animal waste (blood, offal, dead animals) are recycled in a process called rendering and is part of livestock feed. The (barely) good news is, as of 1997, the FDA regulated against feeding cattle euthanized dogs and cats (as well as other mammals) as a preventive measure against mad cow’s disease and other diseases transferred from sick animals. However, the rule doesn’t apply to poultry.  Speaking of which, in a 2012 study on rendered poultry feather meal sold as fertilizers and animal feed, multiple pharmaceuticals were found including Prozac, Benadryl, acetaminophen and personal care products. Grain (not to mention all the other offending ingredients) is not a natural diet for ruminants like cattle, which makes them sick. The stress of being tightly confined in pens hooves-deep in pathogen-rich manure makes them sick.  What to do with sick animals?  Give them antibiotics.  The prevalence of antibiotics in food we consume is partly to blame for the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that plague us today.  In 2017, the FDA banned the use of antibiotics used purely for growth promotion, but using it for “disease prevention” is allowed. Where money is concerned, and that’s $111 billion-strong in 2017, the livestock industry is going to find a way.There are other chemicals that are routinely part of Big Agri meat and poultry besides those already mentioned.  This is but the tip of the iceberg.  Europe banned US beef in 1989 due to the use of growth hormones and it’s only recently that they’re allowing exports of hormone-free beef.  However, chickens are still banned due to the use of chlorine baths (used for disinfection) which may hide unsanitary practices.With that said, nothing is written in stone.  In a capitalist economy where profit rules, it’s important to understand how Big Agri can be persuaded to make salutary changes.  It’s rarely because of altruistic reasons.  Consider these recent developments in the porcine world.Until recently, US pork was banned in China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of pork. Why? 60-80% of US pigs are given ractopamine, a feed additive that builds muscle instead of fat, which means bigger pigs, which means extra dollars.  Ractopamine is banned in 160 countries, including in Europe due to concerns over adverse effects in humans.  With the exception of Smithfield which phased out ractopamine in its pig production soon after it was acquired by China’s WH Group in 2013, most hog producers use this drug which “has resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market.”  So even when China lost more than half of its favorite meat to the African swine fever of 2018-19 (about a quarter of the world’s pigs), it still refused to import US pork.  But the vast demand for pork that just opened up-- more than double the total US production, has proved too tempting for producers now scrambling to fill it.  Food giant, JBS USA which holds the Swift and Swift Premium brands was first to blink and announced in the latter part of 2019 that it will ban ractopamine in its pork.  Tyson followed suit with a similar announcement made within weeks.  I thought it interesting the company tried to put an altruistic spin on economic motives with its news release title, “Tyson to Help Meet Growing Demand for U.S. Pork by Prohibiting Ractopamine Use.” But you can read between the lines--- Tyson will ban ractopamine so it can sell to China and make more money. Early in 2020, Spam producer Hormel joined in the fray, announcing it will eliminate ractopamine from their supply chain by April of the year. To be continued…Coming up next in part 4: Sugar Additives and Ultra-Processed Foods      Interested to learn more? Read my companion posts on Cooking Subversive:“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please” : Chemicals in our Foodpart 1: Chemical Fertilizers, Herbicides and Pesticidespart 2: And Then There’s RoundupI Cook to Reclaim My Health Get full access to Cooking Subversive at cookingsubversive.substack.com/subscribe

“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please.” Chemicals in our Food (part 2)

#GeekingOutSeries/Safety101/ChemicalsinFood/2This post is part of the Geeking Out series which presents data-driven information on food and farming, safety in the kitchen, practical science for cooks, cooking techniques and processes and other relevant nerdy stuff that every cook should know.  For the next few weeks, we will be covering topics from the chapter, Safety 101. This is the second of a four part series.In part 1 of  “I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please,” we gave an overview on how and why American agriculture had devolved into a monoculture landscape of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. We continue the discussion by introducing a poison used not only in commercial farms, but in home gardens.Have you wondered why “gluten-free” is all the rage these days?  In North America and Europe, an estimated 5% are either diagnosed with Celiac disease or are gluten-intolerant.  Symptoms include “nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression,” and is “associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure and cancer,” according to a study published by the US National Library of Medicine. Guess what it’s largely attributed to?  Glyphosate, the active ingredient in a product we all know: Roundup.Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto and recently acquired by Bayer, is the largest selling herbicide in the world.  Many home gardeners use it to kill weeds unaware that its main ingredient, glyphosate, has been linked to cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma, currently the subject of several lawsuits. But that’s not all. A team of French scientists from the University of Caen found that an inert ingredient in Roundup, specifically polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA was “more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself,” according to an article published by the Scientific American.  They concluded that the formulation itself-- the combination of various ingredients in Roundup, “could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels.”In the US, many farm products have an inordinately high amount of Roundup.  According to an article published by the Environmental Working Group:“Most glyphosate is sprayed on “Roundup ready” corn and soybeans genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. Increasingly, glyphosate is also sprayed just before harvest on wheat, barley, oats and beans that are not genetically engineered. Glyphosate kills the crop, drying it out so it can be harvested sooner than if the plant were allowed to die naturally.”The use of Roundup as a pre-harvest dessicant increases the chances of residuals, making wheat, barley, oats and beans particularly noxious.  Fortunately, there is some good news.  At the end of 2019, Kellogg’s, the ubiquitous cereals manufacturer, made a commitment to phase out oats and wheat treated with glyphosate by 2025.  Second only to General Mills, Kellogg’s holds enormous sway over farms and suppliers and one can only hope that this will have a positive ripple effect across the industry.  Even if a disingenuous marketing move (would you serve your child a bowl of poisoned cereal when you have an option that isn’t?), it is still a step in the right direction.  However, it does beg the question of how many children and adults were and are still being slowly poisoned by common food items containing glyphosate?     In tests commissioned by several groups including the Environmental Working Group, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Friends of the Earth and even the FDA, glyphosate was detected in most wheat-based products such as pizza, crackers, pasta and cereals.   So yes, your typical American commercial food is pretty toxic and we’re all getting slowly poisoned every day.Herbicides with glyphosate, are already banned or restricted in many parts of the world including France, Germany, Argentina, India, Australia, and in some US cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Austin and Portland, ME.  Why isn’t it banned everywhere?  Capitalism, baby.  The same reason the EPA under the previous administration allowed  corporations to make our air and water dirtier by scrapping or relaxing regulations that limit pollution.After around 30,000 legal claims from customers who believed they developed cancer from glyphosate, there’s a bit of environmental good news:  Bayer announced last year that it would no longer sell glyphosate-containing products, including Roundup, to home gardeners starting 2023.  That’s a start. But unless it is banned completely, there’s still 280 million pounds applied annually to crop lands.  You can bet a lot of that is making its way into our food system. While the sad reality is that we can’t currently rely on government or big business to safeguard our interests, specifically our health, we are not entirely helpless. How we choose to spend our dollar makes a difference and can influence how food is produced in the US.  Buying organic or from local, sustainable farms is not just a hipster trend, it’s a commitment to consume healthy food, limit the impact on the environment and support farms and companies that are doing the right thing.  If money were no object, everything we buy should be organic and/or local. But it’s expensive, initially. Over time, it’s much cheaper if you consider how much you’d be spending on outrageous medical bills and a reduced quality of life caused by a toxic diet.  But for most of us, our brains don’t work this way.  When you see organic bell peppers at nearly twice the price of conventionally grown ones, it’s easy to chuck good intentions aside and reach for the conventional ones.  I’ve been there.  And, it’s still an ongoing battle with my husband who has a difficult time resisting deals and sales.  Thankfully, there’s the Dirty Dozen list.The Dirty DozenFruits, vegetables and other crops have varying degrees of pesticide, herbicide and other chemical residues based on their particular farming practices. Chemical residues, including petroleum-based wax applied to some produce for cosmetic purposes or to retain freshness, are mostly found on the outer layer of produce.  So eating conventional spinach would be more toxic than a conventional banana where most of the chemical residues are on the discarded peel.Making sense of all this and recognizing that most of us can’t afford to buy everything organic, the Environmental Working Group  releases an annual list of the twelve fruits and vegetables that have the most chemicals in them, and therefore are the produce that we should buy organic.The Dirty Dozen List (aka What You Should Buy Organic)(2021 list according to most toxic)1. Strawberries2. Spinach3. Kale4. Nectarines5.Apples6. Grapes7. Cherries8. Peaches9.  Pears10. Bell Peppers11. Celery12. TomatoesYou can check their website for the full list at : https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/The list above pertains to fresh produce. But given what we now know of the high levels of Roundup in our wheat, barley, oats and beans, buying organic, including organic flour (pasta, cereals and other derivatives) and avoiding GMO products is also highly recommended.Then there’s the Clean Fifteen. The Environmental Working Group also releases an annual list of produce that don’t have as much chemicals in them. The Clean Fifteen (aka What You Don’t Have To Buy Organic)(2021 list according to cleanest/least toxic)1.Avocados2. Sweet Corn3. Pineapples4. Onions5. Papayas6. Sweet Peas Frozen7. Eggplants8. Asparagus9.  Broccoli 10. Cabbages11. Kiwi12. Cauliflower13. Mushrooms14. Honeydew Melons15. CantaloupesComing up next in part 3: Steroids, Antibiotics  and other Chemicals in Meat and Poultry      Interested to learn more? Check out companion posts on Cooking Subversive:“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please” : Chemicals in our Foodpart 1: Chemical Fertilizers, Herbicides and PesticidesI Cook to Reclaim My Health Get full access to Cooking Subversive at cookingsubversive.substack.com/subscribe

“I’ll Have The Poison on the Side Please.” Chemicals in our Food (part 1)

#GeekingOutSeries/Safety101/ChemicalsinFood/1This post is part of the Geeking Out series which presents data-driven information on food and farming, safety in the kitchen, practical science for cooks, cooking techniques and processes and other relevant nerdy stuff that every cook should know.  For the next few weeks, we will be covering topics from the chapter, Safety 101. This is the first of four parts.While the idea of pathogens posing a danger to our health is established knowledge-- we’ve all learned about it in elementary science for one, my reference to many chemicals that are in our food system as “poison” may raise some eyebrows.  I’m referring to three kinds: toxic chemicals that go on our crops such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides; are present in our meat and poultry like steroids and antibiotics, and are in ultra processed foods like sugar additives and preservatives. While there’s a growing body of woke citizens, health professionals, scientists, environmental groups and even government agencies like the CDC that acknowledge the toxicity in our food production system, most Americans don’t realize the gravity of the situation for a number of reasons.* It’s fairly new. Widespread chemical use in agribusiness is relatively recent, gaining traction only in the mid twentieth century.  The adverse effects caused by chemical fertilizers and additives in our food were not easily identified or immediately apparent, sometimes taking years to diagnose. It’s only in the last decade there’s been broad consensus that sugars, particularly high fructose corn syrup, are linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.      * Corporate greed.  The main reason for the use of chemicals in our food system is to increase efficiency and lower production costs (but not environmental and public health costs), which means bigger profits for companies. Big Business loves its bottom line and will do anything to protect it. Large amounts of money are spent trying to convince the public their products are great or that studies showing harmful effects are conflated. Sound familiar?  We’ve been down this road before with the tobacco industry denying for decades that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. * Human nature.  Our tendency towards the path of least resistance means it’s easier not to change old habits or question previously established beliefs, despite growing available data that should convince us otherwise.  Plus, it’s not easy keeping up with food trends --margarine was in, now it’s out; wine was out, now in; coffee is…what now? It doesn’t help we’re bombarded with billions of dollars in unhealthy food advertising, brainwashing us since we were children. Sorting through the muck of false or misleading information is overwhelming.  To top it all, we’re not hardwired to be on red alert if we think the danger posed is far away.  Unlike e coli which could make you sick right away, toxic chemicals in our food system are a slow poison and it’s easy to believe we’re okay until we’re not.  Just like a lobster unaware it’s slowly boiling to death (also a good metaphor for why we’re not all panicking about global warming).Knowledge is key.  Stories can put things in perspective and convince us to take action. I hope that understanding how and why America’s food system is in crisis might be the nudge we all need to make food choices that benefit the planet and ourselves, and not just Big Business.Chemical Fertilizers, Herbicides and PesticidesIt’s impossible to overemphasize the danger posed by many chemicals in our food system.  They are not only toxic to us, but to other animals, the soil, the environment. Why the US is able to legally serve its populace harmful food comes down to corporate greed, how big money can influence government regulations, and insidious marketing that’s shaped culture and tastes predisposed to unhealthy food that keeps corporate coffers full.  For a detailed understanding of America’s food system from production to consumption,  I will defer to a few books that have strongly influenced me over the years:  Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, Third Plate by Dan Barber and Micheal Pollan’s  Omnivore’s Dilemma and Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation.Monoculture America:  An OverviewMost commercial farming practices monoculture, the cultivation of a single crop in an area.  Think of those sweeping fields of Idaho corn or row after row of potatoes.  It’s ubiquitous and you could be forgiven for thinking this is how farming always was.  But that’s not right.  American Indians and other farmers practiced polyculture, planting diverse crops which were mutually beneficial not only to each other, but to maintaining and building soil health. The Three Sisters of Native American agriculture is one such well-known companion planting of corn, beans and squash. Jo Robinson in her book, Eating on the Wild Side describes:‘The Wyandot people, renamed Hurons by the French were masters of this art.  Each spring, the Wyandot women would walk to a cleared field and spread a mound of fish waste every three or four feet.  They covered the fish with dirt and then planted a few corn seeds in the center of each mound. When the corn leaves reached hand height, they planted beans next to the corn, then sprinkled pumpkin seeds between the mounds. The corn stalks grew tall and sturdy, providing support for the limply twining beans.  The beans made their contribution by drawing nitrogen dioxide out of the air and converting it to a stable form of nitrogen that could be used by all three plants, but especially by the nitrogen-hungry corn.  The broad squash leaves fanned out beneath the corn and beans, preventing weeds from growing, cooling the soil, and slowing the evaporation of water.”The function of the beans to draw out nitrogen dioxide from the air and convert it into a kind of nitrogen plants can use (ammonia and nitrate) is what’s called nitrogen-fixing.  Legumes, clover, lupines are some of the nitrogen-fixers commonly used to replenish the soil.  Another popular companion planting example is the home gardener’s tomatoes-basil combination.  According to the Farmer’s Almanac, not only do they taste good together, but the basil helps increase tomato yield and repels pests like mosquitoes, flies and aphids.In companion planting, not only is there a symbiotic relationship between plants, but the diversity provides insurance of crop survival. Blight might take down corn, but maybe the squash will survive. And when planting is diverse, it’s harder for pests to home in on their favorite food. Vast swaths of single crops are an all-you-can eat buffet waiting to happen.But in the 20th century, a confluence of events propelled America and much of the world’s agriculture into a monoculture landscape dependent on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.     In 1909, A German chemist named Fritz Haber discovered a chemical way of “fixing” nitrogen, which is to produce liquid ammonia, the raw material for making nitrogen fertilizer. By 1913, the Haber-Bosch process was used to produce liquid fertilizers in greater quantities and by the time World War II was over, munitions factories which used ammonium nitrate for explosives, could find a new lease in life producing chemical fertilizers, thereby increasing supply and lowering costs to farmers.In the mid-50’s, another scientist, Norman Borlaug bred a variety of dwarf wheat that tripled yield with the use of fertilizers.  The wheat variety, regimen of fertilizers and single crop cultivation (monoculture) were tested in Mexico and then later in India, which was on the brink of a famine. With the template for breeding high-yield crops dependent on fertilizers a huge success, The Green Revolution of the 60’s was born and exported to many parts of the world, including the Philippines, where “miracle” rice, another fast yielding crop, was developed. And this is how monoculture agriculture dependent on chemicals became the norm in American Agriculture.The Ravages of Monoculture AgricultureThe Green Revolution had noble intentions and was a miracle with its bountiful yields, earning Borlaug the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize.  But decades later, we’ve learned what it has cost us. Forcing land to produce more than nature intended with chemical fertilizers is like me having to put in 70 hour work weeks on uppers.  Eventually, both the land and I are going to self-destruct, affecting everything in our wake.  Artificially propped up by speed, I may be able to function temporarily on this mad schedule. But besides the adverse effects on body and mind (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you need a refresher on Breaking Bad), I’d probably be an insufferable maniac to co-workers and family. It’s a vicious cycle.  An organism builds tolerance over time, so after the initial productivity, more chemicals are required.Land stripped of nutrients and toxic with chemicals becomes sick and unable to protect itself;  plants that grow in this environment are stressed and susceptible to diseases like blight.  Pollinators that feed on the toxic plants become sick and die. Declining bee population is largely linked to pesticides and habitat loss and in the US, winter losses commonly reach 30-50%. And drift-prone weed-killers like dicamba kill valuable food sources for bees—weeds.  Bees have been in serious decline over the last decade.  Pollinators, especially honeybees, are responsible for one in every three bites of food we take, according to the USDA.  You get the picture.  All these fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are killing our pollinators.But they’re also killing us.  200,000 people die every year of acute pesticide poisoning worldwide, according to a UN report released in 2017.  That doesn’t include chronic illnesses and other diseases attributed to indirect exposure such as in contaminated food. And then there’s Roundup.To be continued…Interested to learn more? Read my companion posts on Cooking Subversive:I Cook to Reclaim My Health Superpowers of the Garden Get full access to Cooking Subversive at cookingsubversive.substack.com/subscribe

How to Act Like You Know What You're Doing at a Wine Event

Happy New Year everyone! So a few days ago, I was super psyched to learn that my jazz ensemble was booked for the 2022 Boston Food and Wine Festival jazz brunches, to be held at one of my favorite locations, The Boston Harbor Hotel. With wine on my mind, I thought I’d do a post on it, especially since a lot of folks are curious.  As it so happens, I’m married to a wine and whisky aficionado, Jeff Hunter.Now this isn’t a proper interview at all.  We were about to settle down for the season finale of Mandalorian when it occurred to me I should see if Jeff was up for an impromptu interview, something he is more predisposed to do with a glass in hand.  He was.  So while he prepared for us to sample 2018 vintage Cabernet Sauvignon from two very different locales, one from Alexander Valley Vineyards California, the other from Penley Estate Phoenix Australia , I grabbed a mic. I know wine events can be daunting.  There’s the odd swish and sniff of glasses; the confident gargle, and the spit.  And what about the knowing look you get when you opt to swallow your sip ‘coz goodness knows you’ve paid good money for this!   And then there’s the jargon—  “structured,” “hint of oak,”  “tannic,” that defines moments of deliberation.It’s easy to forget that a wine palate is cultivated.  Unless vinification is a family business or inherent in your culture, there’s a big chance your first sip of wine was disappointing and far from how you imagined it to be.  My parents let us have a sip or two when we were kids and I did not understand what the big to-do was.  Even in my college days it wasn’t something I enjoyed though I learned to tolerate it because I badly wanted to travel to Europe and I thought wine was something everyone had with their meals.  In the 70’s and 80’s in Manila, I remember drinking Blue Nun Riesling and Cold Duck champagne in our family events. Paul Masson Chablis was the main wine served at my 18th birthday party debut, an important milestone in Filipino society.   At the time, and in a nation of beer and whisky drinkers, any wine at a party was impressive, even if they all tasted like tart juice or downright vinegary. In a hot tropical country like the Philippines where houses don’t have basements, cellars, cool pantries,  nor any concept of proper storage, it’s highly likely we’d been blissfully toasting with turned wines and thinking that was cool.So we all start somewhere and my first point is, wherever you are in your wine journey is okay.  Second, over time and as you explore a breadth of varieties, your palate will evolve.  What you find pleasant today may not be so tomorrow, and the opposite could also be true. Third, what is considered “good,” even by experts, need not be expensive.  Though price point can be indicative of quality, it is also affected by supply (limited production usually is pricier), brand name, popularity and other factors that have nothing to do with quality.  Wine regions like Bordeaux (France) or Napa Valley (US) have more cachet with some people than Australian or Argentinian wines, hence my earlier example of two 2018 Cabernet Sauvignon wines we were comparing, both very good and under $20, with the Penley Estate Phoenix Australia rated #69 in the Wine Enthusiast top 100 wines.Learning about wines is fun and a lifetime activity. While I can barely remember vineyard names, I know what I like, am confident about food pairing , and am more articulate about my descriptions, which means, I can pretty much fake my way in an event.  I’m fortunate to have learned from others and most especially Jeff, who often cooks dishes with particular libations in mind, such as this evening’s Seafood Cioppino paired with 2006 Constanti Brunello di Montalcino, which means, a lot of our dinners are mini wine tasting events.  Since I have a resident (literally) wine expert on board, and he now has the mic, let’s see what he has to say.  Bear in mind, we’ve had a few glasses at this point.Marlene:  So I’m here with Jeff, an avid wine and whisky collector, purveyor in auctions and former wine consultant.  So Jeff, tell us a bit more about your passion for wine.Jeff: Oh, good evening. Thanks, Marlene. Thanks for the nice introduction. My name is Jeff, Jeff Hunter, and I've enjoyed wine for many years.  I can recall the first case I got of an older Bordeaux that I kept in my parents’ basement. And that was kind of the beginning to my desire to collect. I just love the smell of the case of wine, the wood, the ability to taste that wine over the course of many dinners, as it evolved, and how long it would age and trying to correctly predict when I would drink it.Marlene:  What kind of wines should we be looking at?Jeff: Okay, we're gonna talk about popular wines or those that are less discovered at Wine Festivals. So if you're a curious person, and you would be interested in trying different regions, Lebanon, has some interesting things that are coming out. Israel as well has some fabulous Cabs. So explore. I'm not too familiar with Greece and Italy was always a mystery to me. But the more I've tried and the more I've looked at the maps of the different landscapes and wine producing regions of the various countries, the more I've gotten to appreciate all the things that make up the different wines of Italy, let's say,  France, as well, obviously, with many different wine producing regions, so great to be an explorer. And there's a lot of great wines being produced today around the world.Marlene: Any favorites?Jeff: Personally, I've been really enjoying something that's not as popular as it used to be. That's the Australian Cabernets and Shiraz. I just love those big, jammy, bomb-y types of wines and the concentration and the freshness of fruit that I find in some of them. So it's been kind of fun enjoying those, otherwise I go to, for sure, vintage Bordeaux.  Always buy the good years, sit on them, give them time, 5-10 years to come around. So get them early and be patient. Marlene: What about unusual wines? Jeff: I think that as esoteric wines go, the Tokaj of Hungary can be quite fascinating. And I was able to purchase six bottles of the Essencia of Pajzos from Tokaj, and that's the best of the best. It's a 1993 Vintage Robert Parker who's the wine critic gave it an O M G 100 points. Said it tasted like heaven. Amazing wine. Residual sugar is sky high but yet there's still some crisp snap through all the apricot flavor. Amazing wine.  I think I paid $125 a bottle with a discount should be about $300 to 500 at this point in 2022.Marlene:   Lots of people are curious about wine events.  For those who’ve never been to one, can you perhaps give an idea on what they can expect?Jeff: Going to wine festivals has always been a fun thing. I've always enjoyed the opportunity to taste many wines and a big gathering. And my favorite way of doing this is to have a friend who works in the wine industry and then have him get you in for free as his roadie; you can help him bring his wines in, and then maybe even help pour some of his wines, and then get to go in and check everything out for free. That's my favorite way to go into wine festivals.Marlene: Ok, ok, let’s be serious.  If it was for like, you know, just a regular Joe, how would it be?Jeff:  Of course yeah. You know I do love wine festivals and my approach to attending a wine festival based on the limited amount of time I have with so much to taste. And so I would recommend getting in doing your research. Look at the listing, see who's attending, see who's pouring, see who's pouring what. Stay away from the pedestrian wines, focus on your whites first. So you don't ruin your palate. Get around, it doesn't matter if the table has red or white just stay with the whites. You can always come back for the Reds later. And then just keep moving through the festival. Don't get bogged down. And as the more you taste and don't forget to spit because the more you taste, the more you can become a little bit more friendly with all the participants and lose valuable time-- tasting time. Focus on the big boys at the end, the big reds, and make sure you get them before they run out because the popular ones do go fast. Marlene: Thank you, Jeff.  So let me clarify. Jeff’s point is to maximize time at a wine event, and he’s just outlined an efficient way to go about it, if that’s your goal. 1.     Do a bit of homework so you can home in on what you really want to try, to avoid palate fatigue and being too inebriated to appreciate what you’re consuming.2.     Spit.  You can’t taste a whole lot of wines and be sober otherwise.  In other words, though ruthless: Not spitting = inebriation= friendliness=waste of tasting time3.     Start with whites and end with reds.  The reverse will ruin your palate for whites.Now most of us don’t approach wine events with Jeff’s single-minded efficiency, nor should you, unless you are a collector.  For everyone else, I’d say, go where you will, listen to the wine curators, ask questions (they love this) and meet people.  Have fun. And if you’re worried about looking gauche, here are a few tips:1.     Hold wine glasses by the stem, not the glass, so you don’t warm the wine (or get fingerprints on glass)2.     Swish the wine in the glass to aerate and release the bouquet; sniff to appreciate.  Note what you’re smelling—apricots, raspberries, etc.3.     Sip together with a slight breath in, and swish around the back of your mouth for aeration.  It looks and sounds a bit like a gargle, but isn’t. It’s not a pretentious action.  Retronasal olfaction is smelling and tasting from the back of your mouth, and better perceived when wine is aerated.4.     Spit.  In bucket.5.     Describe what you smell and taste with fellow participants and wine curators so you can build your wine vocabulary.6.     And finally, if like my sister, Manischewitz is your favorite wine, never admit it. Get full access to Cooking Subversive at cookingsubversive.substack.com/subscribe