Smithsonian.com

The 2005 food pyramid design, to be retired this Thursday. Image courtesy of the USDA.

Some of the information I learned in school isn’t holding up so well. Pluto is no longer a planet; the basics of CPR have been heavily revised, so I am now the absolute last person you want around in the event of an emergency (though I will be more than happy to dial 911 on your behalf). And now the USDA is razing the food pyramid to make way for a new visual model intended to help Americans figure out how to plan a balanced diet. Set to be unveiled on June 2, the new graphic will be circular in shape. Science 2.0 compared the yet-to-be-released model to a pie, which is a counterintuitive visual given the Obama administration’s devotion to fighting obesity. But officially, we are to consider the new graphic as a dinner plate—which is a little more intuitive and hits closer to home than those monuments of Giza.

Introduced in 1992, the pyramid model had a good run. But it has come under fire for being oversimplified: it visually communicates that people should eat more carbs because they’re good and eat less fat because it’s bad, sidestepping the issue that there are good and bad carbs and fats. Furthermore, with the USDA promoting American food products, lobby groups—notably cattle and dairy special interest groups—complained about how their goods were placed toward the top of the chart, nearer to the foodstuffs one is supposed to use sparingly. The pyramid was revamped in 2005 to a more politically correct graphic that tried to communicate the proportion of each food group people should have in their diet. Furthermore, the color-coded horizontal bands didn’t try to subliminally indicate that some foods are inherently better than others. This redesign drew fire from potato lobbyists since spuds were de-emphasized in the new graphic. Furthermore, you needed to use the USDA website to get any concrete nutrition advice since the image itself didn’t offer any specific advice regarding servings and portion sizes.

A Daily Food Guide. This graphic illustrates the four food group system that preceded the food pyramid model.

The USDA began offering nutritional guides in 1894, which have been tinkered with and updated over the years. We had 12 food groups in the 1930s, and when that system was deemed overly complicated, it was reduced to seven in the 1940s, and for the first time the government suggested how many servings from each group a person should have. This was succeeded by the basic four food group system—milk, veggies and fruits, meats and bread—in 1956, which endured until the pyramid model was introduced in 1992. And of course there are lots of fun posters and other visuals the USDA used to attractively package nutrition information and grab public attention.

The grand unveiling of the new plate-shaped food guide will take place on tomorrow, June 2, at 10:30 A.M. EST and the event will be streamed live.

Pulp wood (but not the kind that may appear in your cheese or bread). Image courtesy of Flickr user rbglasson.

Ardent label readers out there know to scan nutritional labels for ingredients that they don’t want in their diet. But most people probably don’t keep an eye out for “wood pulp.” Well, chances are you won’t see that in print. Phrases you are more likely to encounter are innocuous-sounding terms such as “cellulose,” “cellulose gel,” or “dietary fiber.” The Wall Street Journal came out recently with a story on cellulose as a food additive, and some bloggers have been contributing their concerns about what’s being dumped into our food.

So, what exactly is cellulose? On the molecular level, it’s a string of sugar molecules. It’s the stuff that makes up the cell walls of plant matter. Cotton is an excellent source of cellulose in its purest form. Cellulose is a major component of wood, giving that material its signature strength. In the food industry, cellulose is used as a filler. Since humans don’t have enzymes that allow us to digest the stuff, it just passes through our digestive system, making it a go-to additive for diet products because it provides bulk without the caloric content. Cellulose is also used to make ice cream and cheeses smoother in consistency, and to keep strands of shredded cheese from sticking together. There are no known health risks and the FDA has limits on how much cellulose can be used in food products. It’s a natural additive, but the cellulose source might just gross out consumers.

The use of cellulose in food products is nothing new. Experiments in finding nutritionally neutral food sources date back to the early 20th century and the experiments of Frederick Hoelzel. An adventurous eater, he found that chopped surgical cotton doused with fruit juice could satisfy his appetite for a few days and in 1919, he developed cellulose-based flour. These early ventures didn’t fly with the American public. It wasn’t until 1955 that chemist Dr. O.A. Battista accidentally discovered edible cellulose by leaving a solution of cellulose and water in the blender a little too long. Expecting a gritty, sandy substance to end up at the bottom of the blender, he got a “noncaloric custard.” He used the flavorless gel to make a batch of cookies and, under the name Avicel, the product was quickly marketed to the food industry.

With the rising costs of raw materials like flour, oil and sugar, cellulose is going to be more attractive to manufacturers as a way to extend foodstuffs. For some people, this is cause to pinpoint the products that use the stuff. Personally, while I too prefer food that has been adulterated as little as possible, I think I might be more concerned about melatonin in my prefab brownies.

Screenshot of the Food Desert Locator home page.

Traditionally, the United States is portrayed as a land of plenty, yet many people live in areas without ready access to fruits, vegetables, whole grains and the other foods that compose a healthy, well-balanced diet. These areas are known as food deserts, and living in one can have serious ramifications on one’s health; it’s a risk factor for obesity and cardiovascular disease induced by junk food-heavy diets. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is a close correlation between income level and ethnic background and the likelihood of living in a food desert, with poor, non-white populations being at a higher risk.

In 2008, 2009, as a part of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! initiative, the USDA’s Economic Research Service began gathering data about areas of the United States with limited access to healthy food, resulting in the Food Desert Locator, which launched last week. Here, food deserts are defined as census tracts with a high poverty rate that are more than one mile away (in an urban setting) or 10 miles away (in a rural setting) from a supermarket or large grocery store. You can also look at other statistics such as how many people within a census tract do not have a car. (If you own a car, making a mile-long trip to the store isn’t so bad; but if you can’t afford one, hoofing a mile carrying bags full of groceries is task most people would just as soon avoid.) This tool allows users to search a map of the United States to look at food desert statistics for a given area—and there are a lot of red patches on the map. Approximately 23.5 13.5 million Americans are living in food deserts, most of whom live in urban areas. With major supermarket chains keeping away from low income urban areas, the price of healthy options such as fresh produce are beyond people’s means since corner convenience store-type establishments sell those items at much higher prices.

The tool might spur local efforts to eradicate food deserts with solutions such as urban farming or Detroit’s Green Grocer Project, which provides grocers with funding to establish a sustainable, successful business.

Preschool Bento #211: July 9, 2009. Image courtesy of Flickr user Wendy Copley.

For students at Little Village Academy in Chicago, bringing lunch to school is verboten. Principals of Chicago’s public schools are allowed to implement a “no bag lunch” policy if they say it serves the needs of their students. Principal Elsa Carmona began the ban at Little Village Academy six years ago in response to seeing students eating chips and soda during school field trips. ”Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona told the Chicago Tribune. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke.” Exceptions are made for students with food allergies or other medical issues that would prevent them from being able to eat the school’s offerings.

Home-packed lunches have raised issues well before the Tribune‘s story lit up the Internet Monday morning. Because some children have life-threatenng allergies, public schools have been known to ban specific foods—such as nuts and nut-based products—to try to create a safe environment for those students with special needs. (Schools have also restricted milk and egg products, but these instances are comparatively rare.) Some schools also implement “no trading” policies, prohibiting students from exchanging food so that allergic reactions aren’t accidentally triggered. While some parents argue that asking an entire school population to adjust its behavior to accommodate the few, others rise to the challenge of working within the school’s parameters.

I started packing lunch in response to appalling food options offered at school. My high school cafeteria was littered with vending machines–soda, ice cream, snack foods, and one that offered every flavor of milk except plain—and your choice of Taco Bell and Subway fare for a main course. I had nutritionally balanced lunches by way of the federally subsidized lunch program in elementary and middle school—as well as eagle-eyed cafeteria staffers who would send you back in line if you came to the register without a fruit or vegetable on your tray. I still have no idea why school food became so poor once I got into high school, but I’m glad it got me into the habit of bringing my own food. And I still pack lunch on a daily basis. Knowing I have to fill the lunchbox in the morning has been a big incentive to cook for myself and to pack fruit to snack on throughout the day. And as others will attest, brown bagging it has some serious advantages—notably when it comes to saving money.

However, food from home and good nutrition are not necessarily one in the same. With childhood obesity levels staggeringly high, public schools are a venue where kids can be guaranteed access to healthy food, especially with the recent expansion of the federal school lunch program. And hopefully, those changes will indeed bring about positive nutritional changes. The blogger known only as Mrs. Q documented a year of eating public school lunches and the quality of the meals really ran the gamut. And who here remembers the state of school lunches served in Huntington, West Virginia before Jamie Oliver mounted an intervention?

Is this a nanny state policy or a step in the right direction? Continue the discussion in the comments area below.

Energy gels, courtesy of Flickr user nicholaslaughlin

Thirty percent of New Year’s resolutions made by Americans this year relate to weight, diet and health, according to a recent survey by the Barna Group, a Ventura, California-based research firm focused on the intersection between faith and culture. Unfortunately, a rather grim statistic glares those resolute Americans in the eye: nearly half of those who made commitments last year reported that they had experienced “no change” in their behaviors.

Inevitably, every January, I watch this saga play out around me in my office gym. There is a noticeable bump in traffic early in the month, but it gradually dwindles. As a runner, I try to maintain a level of fitness throughout the year, but I am certainly not impervious to the challenges of staying motivated. Things definitely shake my resolve. I always struggle when Daylight Savings Time ends in the fall. With it getting dark earlier, I opt to work out over my lunch hour instead of after work. But even that presents its problems. It’s often hard to tear away from work, and when I do, I usually run on a hungry stomach. The predicament has gotten me more and more interested in finding the perfect workout snack—something that gives me a needed boost but doesn’t slosh around in my stomach.

A couple of years ago, while training for a marathon, I experimented with stashing an oatmeal chocolate chip cookie in the pocket of a fuel belt I wore around my waist during long runs. While it, and other snacks, I’ve since read, such as Fig Newtons, Sweet Tarts, graham crackers, dried fruit, orange slices and, if it’s not too hot out, fun-size candy bars, can tide you over, there is a pretty wide selection of energy snacks tailored specifically to an athlete’s needs. (Note: Re-fueling is usually recommended after running or biking 45 minutes.)

At first, I’ll admit, they seem about as appealing, and foreign, as astronaut food (hence, my cookie), but they are worth a try. There seem to be two categories of energy snacks, and the difference takes me back to my pediatrician and the question she’d ask: liquid or chewable?

The first is energy gel. Gu Energy Gel, PowerBar Energy Gel and Clif Shot are three popular brands, and each comes in at least a one-ounce, 100-calorie packet, shaped much like a sample of lotion. They are easy to carry, and, with sugars, electrolytes and, occasionally, caffeine, they pack a punch. The products’ makers recommend consuming one to three packets (with a few gulps of water each packet) every hour of exercise to help maintain energy levels.

The second type comes in the form of fruit chews and, believe it or not, jelly beans. Clif Bar Shot Bloks, Gu Chomps, Power Bar Blasts and Honey Stinger Energy Chews contain about the same amount of calories per serving (from three to 10 pieces) as half of a gel packet. They re-supply the body with carbohydrates, usually antioxidants and sometimes amino acids and caffeine. It is recommended that they be eaten in different intervals, depending on the brand, starting after 45 minutes of exercise. Jelly Belly has even come out with sport beans to nosh on while running.

People seem to discover something they like, in a flavor they like, and then stick with it. Personally, I think the pudding-like gels are a bit messy and sit funny in my stomach, and the jelly beans, 20 miles into a marathon, can be exhausting to chew. But for me, the Cran-Raz Shot Bloks are just right.

What energy snacks do you prefer?