For The Love of Food

by | Mar 5, 2010
For The Love of Food

For The Love of Food

Welcome to Friday’s For The Love of Food, Summer Tomato’s weekly link roundup.

Informative bunch of articles this week on the web. I’m particularly excited by TreeHugger‘s list of canned products that don’t contain BPA and the FDA clamping down on health claims. There’s also an interesting glimpse of the possible future of healthstyle: genetic testing to find the best diet for your body.

I read many more wonderful articles than I post here each week. If you’d like to see more or just don’t want to wait until Friday, be sure to follow me on Twitter (@summertomato) or the Summer Tomato Facebook fan page. For complete reading lists join me on the social bookmarking sites StumbleUpon and Delicious. I’m very active on all these sites and would love to connect with you there. (Note: If you want a follow back on Twitter introduce yourself with an @ message).

Links of the week

What inspired you this week?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
You deserve to feel great, look great and LOVE your body
Let me show you how with my FREE starter kit for getting healthy
and losing weight without dieting.

Where should I send your free information?
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

6 Responses to “For The Love of Food”

  1. I’m really conflicted on the FDA story. On the one hand, of course it’s good to stop the bogus claims. And the Juicy Juice one you mention is one of the best. If it’s not actually 100% juice they shouldn’t be allowed to say so.

    But the first five items are all cases where saturated fat levels are not disclosed. Saturated fat is not unhealthy. To require it be “disclosed” is perpetuating fear of something that is actually a vital part of a healthy diet. (And I’ll ignore any vegan who disagrees with that one. I know their arguments. I disagree.)

    This is the same FDA that won’t allow companies to say that their milk comes from cows not treaded with bovine growth hormone, even though it’s not. Because making that claim would imply that there’s something wrong with BGH.

    Then there’s the huge list — about half of what’s on that chart — where you effectively can’t claim anything for baby food, “because appropriate dietary levels have not been established for children in this age range”. Well then how about establishing some guidelines? I may not agree with all your guidelines (see saturated fat claims) but apparently no one is able to tell me what’s in their product until after you decide what “should” be in it.

    So the two problems are 1) The FDA has some really wrong-headed guidelines, based more on corporate preferences than science, and 2) They haven’t been enforcing those guidelines anyway. I’m worried about the precedent of increasing enforcement before getting the guidelines fixed.

    I would much prefer guidelines that increase disclosure of what’s in products. I would even like to be able to choose to buy products that don’t meet FDA recommendations. Things like raw milk.

    • Darya Pino says:

      Wow, excellent point Drew. I agree, though I am just happy to see them taking a stance at all in a direction indicating they care about the consumers.

      But I agree with you completely and this is one of the main reasons I avoid foods with labels and packages at all!

  2. thomas says:

    “Physically fit students do better academically too: study”

    Don’t you find their claims to be bogus? They found young people who are fit and do well in school. How did they find a correlation between the two measurements? Worse, now they probably want another grant to find the ‘why’ although they haven’t even proven the correlation. wicked.

  3. Adam | SEE says:

    *Thanks for the links!
    *Last weekend, I made the chick peas w/spinach. Looks like carrots this Sunday.


    *I am not sure that labels do anything, but serve as a strange form of advertising (which kind of fits with your two points). I explore this idea a little more in this post.

  4. Maureen says:

    I think you took the Time Magazine story (10 Most Dangerous Foods) out of context. The caption to the story reads, “The American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement on Feb. 22, recommending the labeling and possible redesign of hot dogs to prevent choking deaths among children. Here’s a look at 10 risky foods.” It appears this is a list of foods that could cause choking or allergic reactions in young children, and I definitely can see how leafy greens, if cooked but not chopped appropriately, could be a choking hazard for a small child.

What do you think?

Want a picture next to your comment? Click here to register your email address for a Gravatar you can use on most websites.

Please be respectful. Thoughtful critiques are welcome, but rudeness is not. Please help keep this community awesome.