(Photo, left to right: Seth Kugel/The New York Times, Leah Nash for The New York Times, Peter DaSilva for The New York Times) Fruit juice, sugar and arugula. Foods go in and out of fashion. Sugar, a dietary pariah not too long ago, is making a comeback as a natural food — in large part as a backlash against high-fructose corn syrup, which has been subject to widespread criticism as a cause of rising obesity because it’s inexpensive and ubiquitous.
But in fact, many nutrition and obesity experts say sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are equally bad in excess, and the new view of sugar is largely marketing-driven.
What are some common misconceptions about what and how we eat?
- Barry M. Popkin, economist and nutrition epidemiologist
- Larry Bain, co-founder of Let’s Be Frank
- Cathy Erway, food blogger
- Brian Wansink, director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab
- Josh Ozersky, restaurant editor for Citysearch
- David Kamp, author and editor
The Perils of Fruity Drinks
Barry M. Popkin, an economist and nutrition epidemiologist, directs the Interdisciplinary Center for Obesity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is author of the “The World Is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies and Products That Are Fattening the Human Race.”
One big myth is that fruit juice is a healthy part of our diet. Wrong. Drinking a glass of fruit juice a day — which is the equivalent of one soft drink of 110 to 180 calories — has been linked in the U.S., Australia and Spain to increased calorie intake and higher risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Fruit juices contribute to weight gain and increased health risks, and antioxidant water is a marketing ploy.
Eating a piece of fruit provides vitamins, fiber and, best of all, tends to reduce intake of other food. Most fruit juices are just sugary beverages, providing extra calories — all from refined carbohydrates — without sating appetite. And this is true whether you drink apple or orange juice or one of the fancy new juices like acai berry or pomegranate juice. The added calories can contribute to weight gain and increased risk of both diabetes and heart disease.
A second myth surrounds foods and waters, which are heavily marketed for their antioxidant properties. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is linked with decreased risk of coronary heart disease and stroke and some benefits for various cancers. Some foods, like dark chocolate, which has antioxidants, are also linked in careful scientific research to reduced risk of heart disease.
But none of the antioxidant waters, which are very popular, have shown any health benefits, despite their indirect marketing pitches. Essentially, what one is buying is expensive water with sweeteners and some flavorings and supplements added. However, just as almost all studies of antioxidants provided as supplements have found no benefits, we would not expect to find them added to water to produce any benefits, either.
What Kosher Guarantees
Larry Bain is co-founder of Let’s Be Frank, a company that produces and serves grass-fed beef hot dogs and family–farmed pork sausages.
“Are your hot dogs kosher?” is a question asked many times at our cart. The question is rarely asked by folks who are Jewish and following the prescribed dietary laws of kashruth, but by folks who believe that kosher is a guarantee of quality.
It’s a belief — and while they may not be religious there is an element of faith here — that “kosher” means that the meat is of a higher quality. A trust that only the best cuts are used to make the hot dog (as one marketer of kosher food says: “no ifs, ands or butts”). It’s a prayer that the producers are respectful about the environment, humane animal practices and the health and well-being of the consumer.
The kosher label does not always mean a quality food product.
And why wouldn’t consumers believe that? One producer of kosher dogs states “We answer to a higher authority” which implies their standards are more stringent than just sustainable, organic and humane.
But the sad fact is that today, “kosher” in many cases merely means there is no pork or lobster in the food, maybe. One only has to look at what was once the largest processor of kosher meat, Agriprocessors, which was outed by PETA for outrageously inhumane treatment of their animals (some of the executives were later arrested for treating their workers inhumanely, too).
There is a movement afoot to redefine kosher so that it includes standards for humane animal treatment, for good environmental practices and for fair labor practices. Until that new kosher comes along, when you see a kosher label, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the food was produced in a better, more healthful way, so be vigilant for the butts.
Packed With Nutrients, Despite Their Color
Cathy Erway writes the blog Not Eating Out in New York, about all things home-cooked in the city that seldom eats in.
People always say that foods with the most vibrant colors are the ones that are most healthy for you. While this is certainly true to an extent (dark green leafy vegetables contain high concentrations of Vitamin K and other nutrients), some of our dullest-colored fruits and vegetables are commonly misunderstood as nutritionally bereft.
I’ll blame it on iceberg lettuce, the cheap underdog of salad greens. In any case, white cabbage happens to be one of the most nutritious foods for you, packed with Vitamins K, C, A, B and even calcium, iron and fiber. White beans? They’ve got as much protein and fiber as red or pink pinto beans. The oft-overlooked celery, with its greenish pallor has some calcium and protein in addition to Vitamins A, C and K, and is pretty low in calories to boot. Perhaps the palest produce of them all, white cauliflower is a dense nugget of antioxidant power (and don’t forget to eat the stems, too).
The list goes on, but the point’s clear (or off-white), don’t judge a plant by its color alone.
The Eyes Have It
Brian Wansink is the John S. Dyson Endowed Chair in the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, and director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.
They say that we know when we are full. But actually, we eat with our eyes, not with our stomach. In one study, we blindfolded adults and asked them to rate “strawberry” yogurt, which was actually chocolate yogurt. Without the visual cue people accepted what they were told.
Research shows that people will eat regardless of whether they are hungry; it all depends on what they see.
Time and time again, our research found that people will eat regardless of whether they’re hungry: the bottomless soup bowl study (people ate more when the bowl remained full), the chicken wing study (people eat more when the chicken bones are removed from sight) and the buffet studies (people ate more simply because the food was there).
Another myth is that our stomach will take about 20 minutes to tell our brain that we’re full. But that only applies when we are consciously aware of what we are eating, not when we are mindlessly eating cheesy nachos while watching March Madness.
Here’s My Beef
Josh Ozersky is the national restaurant editor for Citysearch. He is the editor of The Feedbag, Citysearch’s daily restaurant blog and the author of “The Hamburger: A History.”
As a student and admirer of meat, nothing drives me crazier than the universal praise given grass-fed beef by various chefs and slow-food types.
Most grass-fed beef tastes worse than its corn-fed rivals. It tends to be dry, chewy, flavorless and has no more marbling than a block of tofu.
Moreover, the majority of grass-fed animals are raised in South America, where they are one of the culprits behind rain-forest erosion. Every year, vast tracts of forest are turned into grasslands to feed these “hooved locusts.” Depending on where it comes from, grass-fed beef may not be better for the environment than corn-fed.
A Misunderstood Salad Green
David Kamp is the author of “The United States of Arugula: The Sun-Dried, Cold-Pressed, Dark-Roasted, Extra Virgin Story of the American Food Revolution” and a contributing editor for Vanity Fair.
Readers, I come to defend arugula, the libeled salad green of the supposedly clueless, head-in-the-clouds cultural elite. Barack Obama took a lot flak for mentioning the high price of arugula at Whole Foods on the campaign trail — from Hillary Clinton’s campaign as much as John McCain’s.
But really, there’s nothing fancy about arugula. In Mediterranean countries it has long grown wild, as a weed; during and between the World Wars, it was often subsistence food for an impoverished, foraging citizenry. Secondly, arugula is today as common in America as minivans; you can find it in every supermarket and in the “spring mix” of McDonald’s premium salads.
There’s nothing fancy about arugula; in Mediterranean countries it has long grown wild, as a weed.
Putting all that aside, what, in the end, is wrong with having food elites in this country? I’ve always been troubled by the misbegotten conflation of elitism with being “out of touch.” The story of American food is rife with great ideas that were developed by elites and then embraced wholeheartedly by millions of people — whether we’re talking about the fresh-food evangelism that expanded outward from Alice Waters’s Berkeley circle, the anyone-can-do-it approach to French cookery that began with Julia Child, or the culinary adventurism popularized by The Times’s own Craig Claiborne and Pierre Franey in the 1960s and 1970s.
In 2009, it’s more out of touch to smear arugula than to know what it is. Unless you’re smearing it with olive oil and sea salt; it’s really good sauteed.
Comments are no longer being accepted.