Naturally Yours

Naturally Yours finally opened in B-N after months of being an empty building with a coming soon sign in the window. We were really excited to go because we've been trying to eat more organic and less processed food. Here are my initial thoughts:

• It's smaller than I expected. Initially, I thought they were going to have the entire buidling that was an old grocery store, but right before they opened it became clear that the space had been subdivided and was going to be much smaller. On top of that, within the small space, there's not a ton there. There are wide aisles and lots of open space at the back, but it's definitiely not a full size grocery store.
• Who ever organized the store needs to be fired. I understand that they just opened and they may not have had a chance to put up aisle numbers or section markers, but it's nearly impossible to find anything. There is an aisle that places dog food next to salad dressing. It appears that it is partially organized by type of item (produce, grains, etc) and partially organized by dietary needs (vegan, gluten free, etc). Since there are no signs and some items appear in multiple places, you literally have to comb the entire store to determine your options.
• Once you have located what you need, however, I think that the store will be really useful for people looking for non-mainstream ingredients. They have tons of bulk bins with granola, beans, dried fruits, grains, herbs, and other items. We bought quinoa for about $3.00 a pound instead of the $7-10/lb commercially packaged version that we have to drive across town to get (if we'd ever bought it that is). We also bought some pumpkin spice granola out of the bin that was wonderful (and cheap).
• It terms of allergy friendly stores, they are amazing. Organic products in general tend to be better about clearly labeling major allergens, but if you are allergic to gluten, dairy, eggs, etc and want to find non-allergy containing versions of popular foods (such as pizza crust, salad dressing, etc) this is a great store. Of course, carrots don't qualify as a major allergen, so other than clear ingredient lists, this doesn't help me out too much.
• The prices are high. With the exception of the bulk bins I mentioned above, I was very disappointed in the prices. Schnucks has a lot of organic prodcuts as well and while Naturally Yours may be a little more local many mainstream organic brands (Seventh Generation, etc) were considerablly higher. Organic chicken at Schnucks runs about $7.99/lb, the same product here was $10 or $12. Organic apples at Schnucks $2.99/lb, at Naturally Yours $4.99. If they were differences of a few cents, then I might be able to justify it, but for commonly available items, this is not the place to shop. I will say that they had organic versions of produce that Schnucks doesn't carry, so if I ever want organic nectarines, I know where to shop.

Overall, I hate to say that I'm really not impressed. I was really looking forward to Naturally Yours opening and had envisioned it to be something like Whole Foods. It's not. I will probably use it for bulk bin items, but that's about it. I'm looking forward to making a lovely trail mix, but in terms of actual shopping, I don't think it's going to be part of my regular routine.

"Big Brother" Counts Calories?

I participate in a couple of message boards that have been discussing New York's recent push to require calorie content on menus of chain restaurants and have been shocked to see how many people are passionately objecting to the law. At least one of the boards is comprised of people who are there because they have an interest in healthy cooking, there is resistance to the law. To be fair, there's not a ton of resistance, but there is still resistance. On more general message boards, however, people are quite outraged.

Since weight loss and nutrition are both very personal issues for me, I've been thinking about this a lot. More than one study has shown that the United States has an obesity problem and more than one study has shown that knowledge is a key component to weight loss. Food Diaries have also recently been shown to be a key to weight loss as well. I have to admit that this is an area I struggle with because my mental diary often turns out to be faulty, but part of my resistance to an actual diary is that the nutritional info and the food are not simultaneously together. While that is no excuse for my own slip-ups, I find the objections to this law very interesting:

• The Big Brother objection: a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a similar use of Orwell's term in a letter to the editor about car insurance. Personally, I think that people are throwing around this term a little too much and not really thinking about what they are saying. In the case of nutritional info, the objection here seems to be that requiring restaurants to publish the info infringes on the consumers right to choose for him/herself. I don't see the issue here. Would the fact that a Cheese Danish at Starbucks has 430 calories and 23 grams of fat make me feel guilty about eating it? Yes, in fact, it would probably cause me to choose something else, but would secret govt agents swoop in a physically prevent me from consuming the item? No. True Big Brother is not generally a fan of providing individuals with information.
• The Cost objection: These people claim that New York's law is going to cost restaurants so much money in reprinting menus that the restaurants will be forced to pass the cost on to consumers everywhere. This nice thing about this objection is that with the current economy and inflation, these people automatically can claim they were right. Prices will go up, but given the fact that our local Chili's has already changed it's menu twice this year, I don't think that the cost will be tied to nutrition info. While Chili's may keep many of the same items on their menu, their physical menu does not stick around for years. I do hate to think of the trees that will be killed in the name of telling people that very little at Olive Garden can be considered "healthy," but I'm pretty sure that Olive Garden was going to kill those trees anyway. So if we are revamping menus on a regular basis and were given a head's up about the law (which they were) this really shouldn't be an issue.
• The People Don't Need to Be Saved from Themselves Objection: This camp's position is pretty self explanatory. I guess these people have a point; we would hope that every American is blessed with common sense and the ability to make the best choices, but does anybody actually trust that that is reality. I would love to say that people who eat unhealthy foods are choosing to do so and are aware of the consequences, but I know that in my own experience it's just not true. I have more than one family member who will order a fried chicken salad with creamy dressing and cheese when he/she wants something "light" or "healthy." Even as a person who considers myself label conscious, I'm much more likely to eat something "bad" if I don't have the info on it (the whole fat grams I don't know about don't count issue). Let's also not forget that at one point a non-smoking section in a restaurant was scandalous and smoking during pregnancy was not considered dangerous. My biggest objection to this argument is that it implies that giving people information is a bad thing. Giving people bad information is a bad thing, but I'm not sure how that applies here.
  
• The "public humiliation" objection: I can see that the information may be problematic for some people with eating disorders. I can also see myself making a choice to not eat something because everyone in the room will know how "healthy" the item is, but mostly I can see myself not ordering something because I don't want to "spend" that many calories on that particular object. I can't see a public stoning of the person who sees the calories and then decides they still want the item, but at least they will making an informed choice. Judgemental people are going to be judgement with or without evidence.
  
• The "we're killing small business owners" objection: This is the objection of someone who likes to object without reading first. Every major news article that I can find clearly states

  The rule applies only to restaurants that have standardized recipes and that have made nutrition information publicly available on the Internet, printed brochures or other methods as of March 2007.

  Incidentally the way the current law reads, the NYT claims that it will only apply to about 10% of NY restaurants. While in theory, they could pass a law that makes this apply to all restaurants, let's save the "evils of captialism" argument for things actually do penalize small bussiness owners.
  

In general, I don't see how this law is worth of all the objections. I don't live in NY and I am pretty informed about nutrition, so the law doesn't really have a huge impact on my life, but if it caused me to think twice before ordering a menu item which subsequently led me to lose weight, I would not be upset. I find it odd that we require companies who sell food in grocery stores to provide this information without objection, but the thought of requiring the same of restaurants, sends people screaming "Big Brother."

If you want to read the full NYT article click here: New York Gets Ready to Count Calories - New York Times

Cyclical Thinking

Green Daily published an article about current research regarding Vitamin D this morning. This seems to be a relatively hot topic lately. Oprah talks about it. The morning news shows talk about. Google News lists more than 2,400 articles published on the subject so far this year. Every time I read or hear one of these reports, I'm struck by how cyclical our "panaceas" are.

In the early 20th century, researchers were pushing vitamins in much the same way. This is not say that vitamins are bad or we should or should not take them, but since I have stacks of old advertisements on the subject from an earlier project, I thought I would post some of the interesting ways vitamins were used/talked about when we had this conversation in the early to mid 20th century.

Mid 1920's: Companies like Squibbs published article advertisements touting cod liver oil as "bottled sunshine." Since marketing vitamins to mothers was the current marketing trend of the time, regardless of the content of the article children often appeared pictured. In the 1929 article pictured below, Squibbs announces that it now as a mint flavored cod liver oil that "will appeal to older children."



1930: Sun Wheat develops a vitamin cookie and takes out a full page ad in the Chicago Tribune to promote it. While still aimed at mother's, the companies creation of a "cookie" reveals the shift in advertising toward children. The article blames poor health of the children on mother's who fail at "coaxing" children to eat healthy foods and suggests that children will no longer be denied good health because the children naturally love them.



In May 1940: A New York Times article titled "Nazis Guard Soldier's Diets" reported on the Third Reich's attention to diet and employment of vitamins and careful meal planning for soldiers, pointing to the army's long marches as evidence of the success of the program. Vitamins were described as a modern type of "warfare."

Feb 1942: NYT reports on a meeting the Women's Federation at the Hotel Astor. During the meeting, the invited speaker claimed that the Japan's understanding of vitamins lead to it's imperialism. He told the crowd,

women are asleep in thier kitchens just as we were asleep at Pearly Harbor...The war lords of Japan can smile sardonically at our carelessness [in overcooking vegetables], for they know what this food chemical can do.

In addition to nutrition being responsible for Japan's recent successes, lack of proper nutrition is claimed to drive prostitution and venereal disease. A reprsentative of the State Department told the women that "a bomb can be no more devistating than the slow undermining of a child's health and nervous system by malnutrition, poor home conditions, and inadequate care."

May 1942: The New York Times published an article called "Foods that Build Courage." The article tells of the British governments requirement that breads be fortified a year earlier and the recent interest by the US government in a similar program. In addition to the very oddly placed cartoon of Uncle Sam in a food lab (adjacent to a menu that suggests lamb kidneys and bacon for dinner), the article suggests that it is the "housewives" job to do with the government has not been able to accomplish in order to make sure that their families "have sufficient stamina for whatever the new year may bring." Since the diet being suggested is encouraging B1, with the exception of it's promotion of small amounts of newly enriched flour, it sounds more like the South Beach Diet.



Around the same time, the Chicago Tribune published an article about the correct way to toast bread (I'm not kidding). Apparently there was a widespread fear that all of these new "vitamin" foods were chemically unstable. This is not really surprising since a train derailment in 1910 had revealed that cereal companies where "adulterating" their products with items such as crushed peanut shells and numerous other products were using fraudulent claims in marketing.

In 1944: The Florida Citrus Commission dubbed grapefruits "the commando fruit" and used images of soldiers and young children. The company noted that "Uncle Same has set aside the entire supply of canned grapefruit sections and most of the canned orange juice, blended juice and concentrates" and implied that consuming the civilian juices every day would keep people healthy and strong when and if "danger" struck at home.



My favorite part of this ad, has to be the line at the bottom that declares:

under skies alive with screaming dive bombers--over seas infested with treacherous wolf packs--millions of cans of Florida Grapefruit juice have followed our boys to the ends of the earth--to supply them with precious vitamin C.

I'm picturing bottle of juice with little uniforms, but I don't think that was the effect they were going for.

Wild Rice and Barley Salad

Based on a recipe from Cooking Light.

1 3/4 cups fat-free, less-sodium chicken broth
1/2 cup uncooked brown and wild rice
1/2 cup uncooked pearl barley
1 can chickpeas (garbanzo beans)
1/2 cup golden raisins
1/4 cup sliced green onions
2 tablespoons balsamic vinegar
1 1/2 teaspoons extravirgin olive oil
1 teaspoon Dijon mustard
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
2 tablespoons chopped fresh basil

Bring chicken broth to boil, add rice and barley and simmer for 30 minutes or until liquid is absorbed. In small bowl combine vinegar, oil, mustard, salt and pepper and whisk until mixed. Poor over rice and barley mixture. Add raisins and onions and toss. Top with basil and chill.

Smokey Sloppy Joes

Sloppy Joes are somewhat of a comfort food for me and somewhat of a back-up plan. When I have planned to make hamburgers and it rains, I make sloppy joes, but I ALWAYS lose the recipe and start from scratch. Tonight I wrote down one version.

1Tbsp olive oil
1 lb lean ground beef or ground turkey
1 bell pepper (red if in season) chopped (optional)
1 small onion chopped
1 can tomato paste
1 1/2 cups water
1 Tbsp whole wheat flour
1 1/2-2 tsp Worcestershire sauce
1 tsp cumin
1 tsp paprika
1 chipotle pepper in adobo sauce (optional)
1 tsp chili powder
1/4 tsp salt

Heat oil in large skillet. Add onion, bell pepper, and meat and saute until browned. Add other ingredients and simmer for 15-20 minutes or until desired thickness.

Revamped Mac and Cheese

I cook A LOT. It's relaxing for me, not to mention that at the end of the semester it is generally a productive means of procrastination as well. Lately I've spent a lot of time trying to recreate healthy versions of dishes I love and homemade versions of things I can't eat because of allergies. My problem is that I write recipes down on napkins and grocery receipts and other pieces of paper that end up getting lost. So, I'm going to start posting recipes here--mostly so I can find them again.

Healthy Mac and Cheese that Doesn't Taste Like Plastic:

The Basics:
1 Tbs Country Crock Light
1 Tbs flour
6 oz shredded Colby-Jack Cheese*
1 1/2 cups skim milk
2 Tbs Parmesan topping
7 oz whole wheat elbow macaroni

The Flavor:
1 tsp Worcestershire Sauce
1/2 tsp dried mustard or 1 Tbs Dijon mustard**
1/2 tsp paprika
dash cayenne pepper or hot sauce (optional)
pepper to taste

Melt margarine in large sauce pan. Whisk in flour and cook one minute. Add milk and bring to boil stirring constantly. Let cook one minute, still stirring. Add cheeses and spices and stir until all of the cheese is melted. Add to cooked macaroni. (I added steamed broccoli and a little grilled chicken as well).

For those of you interested in points, a comparison:
This recipe: 8 points/serving (makes 4 servings)
Boxed mac and cheese (prepared as directed): 10 points
Small Mac and Cheese from Noodles: 10 points

It's not as low as some of the Weight Watchers recipes, but it actually tastes like Mac and Cheese. I have not been impressed by the taste that comes from losing two more points.

*This is really important: DON'T use reduced fat cheese. It takes twice as much to get something that tastes like cheese, which doesn't really save on points. In addition, it doesn't melt the same and generally makes the sauce separate.
**I know that this is really tempting to leave out because it sounds gross, but it's the key to the flavor. Don't ask me how it works, but after skipping it several times, I gave it a try and I'm sold.

Things that oinked, lived in water, are on bones, or are generally orange

These are all things I don't eat. The last category is slightly misleading because it really just refers to my carrot allergy, but I really don't eat seafood or pork or anything still on a bone. I know that my reasoning is purely psychological (I had traumatic experiences with pork and seafood), but those feelings are so strong and I have not eaten either in so long that I almost can't eat them anymore.

When I was very young we went to Florida on vacation and a friend of the family introduced me to seafood by giving my a raw oyster. The result was not pretty. I've tried to add seafood back in the last several years, but it really upsets my stomach.

My aversion to pork is more psychologically traumatizing than texture/taste related. When I was in second grade, I was at a pork roast (a tradition in the south) and sitting quietly reading a book. An introvert and avid reader, the book happened to be Charlotte's Web. Enough said. Long story short, someone offered to show me Wilbur, and I've not eaten pork since.


Tonight Greg made pork steak, and I tasted it. It's not my first choice, but I didn't totally freak out. This is an improvement. I'm not ready to add it to my regular menu, but I am proud of myself for trying. I'm quite happy with my diet of veggies and boneless, skinnless chicken breast, but twenty years later, I think I may finally be ready to move on from a very bad joke. Although, I do much better, if you simply refrain from telling me it's pork.