Controversial Food Issues | Baselines for American Foods

The Emergence of Nutrient Density at the Retail Level

2010-01-16T07:10:00.001-08:00

The marketing of the nutrient density of foods seems to be underway. Reportedly now on display at the Whole Foods store in Santa Fe New Mexico, the ANDI Index for "healthier food choices" has made a more public debut and we wonder to what took so long?

The ANDI Index is short for the Aggregate Nutrient Data Index is being promoted by a Dr. Joel Fuhrman, MD. It is central to his business called "Eat Right America". Some of the foods--the top 30 super foods--are listed on a blog and at Fuhrman's web site. But there is not much else according to a few key word searches on google.

Even so the march toward making the foods we eat nutrient transparent at the retail level has begun. It is terribly interesting this is being done by someone appearing as a regular medical doctor--is he not part of the very profession maligned by the allopathic establishment for being un-educated in nutrition and nutrition practices? Of course.

But the point here is nutrient transparency through the promotion of nutrient density: once you know what's in the foods you buy you can begin to make better eating choices on the nutrient contribution they make to your life. Not a bad deal.

"The Good Things of the Earth"

2010-01-02T13:59:00.000-08:00

In the Baha'i Writings people are urged to eat "the good things of the Earth".

On the surface it is a clear, easy to understand statement. This, no matter what one's position on the statement. But just what are the good things of the Earth?

Today we have no simple, easy or clear idea of what those good things might be. In fact we have confusion over the very nature of goodness itself and eating most anything.

To discover and exploit the nature of what good things to eat will be our focus for this new year.

Are We Challenged by Nutrient Deficient Ingredients?

2008-10-04T10:44:00.000-07:00

Let's assume some of the ingredients in the foods we eat are nutrient deficient. Then how do you respond?

The Education of Eating

2008-08-31T12:03:00.000-07:00

We ask general questions here: Has eduction not failed us on learning what to eat and what not to eat? Does education not continue to fail us on how to get basic nutrition for life? Should education educate us on what to eat and what not to eat? Why has education failed us on what to eat and what not to eat? How ignorant has education made us of what to eat and what not to eat? What will be the outcome of your life, my life if we let our current educational practices to fail us on what to eat and what not to eat?

Is being fat and unhealthy a demonstration of the failure of education to educate us on what to eat and what not to eat?

Have we not evolved to a point where common sense cannot suffice and education is absolutely essential on what to eat and what not to eat--as it had for nearly all the past history of human life?

The Potassium-Sodium Baseline in Nutrition

2008-07-04T18:03:00.000-07:00

In what has to be one of the clearest articles I have read on the nutrition of the acid/alkaline balance, Jack Challem, the author, makes an interesting point on the evolution of the human acid-alkaline baseline: our evolutionary diets were potassium dependent and our current diets potassium depleted. This inbalance, he says, is causing wide-spread nutritionally related diseases.

From the work of the Paleo Diet scientist Loren Cordain, Ph.D., a professor and researcher in the department of health and exercise science at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, we are told that we have evolved a biological baseline of 10:1 in regards to potassium in ratio to sodium. Over the course of modern times that balance has drastically inverted to a 3:1 ratio with sodium way out front of a fast disappearing potassium.

Since "the human genome has changed only minimally since behaviorally modern humans appeared in East Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago", according to research done by S. Boyd Eaton of Emory University in Atlanta, Cordain's statement on our evolutionary dependence on potassium could be pointing to a source of wide-spread imbalance of the acid/alkaline balance in our diet.

A Simple Goal: Can You Eat Your Way To Health?

2008-02-16T14:36:00.000-08:00

The Chinese say we can eat our way to health. Who said it and when, exactly, I do not know. But it sounds good. The fellow in the link above is quite prescriptive of this simple goal and has some good this and bad things to say about the achievement of health through eating. There are many like him and he is cited because of the seeming limitless ways prescribed to eat one's way to health.

Even so, the results of following this simply stated goal would be obvious: either you are healthy because of what you eat or not. No if and or buts. Immediate.

Can you imagine?

So simple a goal. So simply defined the results. So elegantly prescribed the duties of the farmer, the processors, the grocers, the cooks; let alone the scientists and the politicians. Everyone would know what to do. There would be no weasel room because if what you did along the course of achieving this simple goal--it would not matter what part you play--if the results were not health you'd be out.

Either what you do leads to health or its out. Simple. Done deal. Transparent.

Just what kind of baseline is this simple goal? Of course it would be a prime policy baseline in that it argues the question "What should we do?" Answering this question is at the heart of any policy making process and no one would be an expert because we all would have a stake in seeking an answer to the question. And the results would always be the same: health.

But wait you say. Just what defines health? And the answer is, of course, what you eat.

Bear Baseline: A Contribution on the Nutrient Levels in Foods

2007-08-04T10:15:00.000-07:00

Sometimes finding a solid scientific baseline of the nutrient content of American foods is all too obvious. Take for example the much celebrated report by Firman E. Bear of Rutgers University, a fine scientist with a PhD in biochemistry and bacteriology, he was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Soils at Rutgers.

This particular report of Bear is often misquoted and misrepresented. Even so, the original purpose of the report and its findings remain true and useful: to compare the mineral composition of vegetables grown in soils over a wide geographical area in the United States.

Over a half century ago Bear set out to study variations of mineral content in 5 vegetables grown in numerous soil types. From his paper Bear writes, "Samples of cabbage, lettuce, snap beans, spinach, and tomatoes were obtained from commercial fields of these crops in Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York (Long Island), Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Colorado. The total number of samples examined was 204". His results demonstrated wide differences of mineral content of the vegetables he tested. He linked those results to soils, climate and fertilizer factors from which his vegetable samples grew.

This celebrated study, published in 1948, was documented with hundreds of samples collected from numerous soils types stretching from states in the north to the south and from east to as far west as Colorado.

The findings constitute one of the earliest baselines on the variation of nutrient content of vegetables in soils growing American foods. These variations were determined by one to one mineral content analysis of the soils from which the vegetables grew and the vegetables so produced: the mineral content of the soil reflected the mineral content of the vegetable.

We can easily say the results were widely different and be persuaded that the seeming truthiness of different soils growing different crops of varying nutrient content is actually true and verifiable. It is because of this study a solid baseline has been established from which we can scientifically measure changes in our foods over time.

From this contribution we now have the Bear Baseline of 1948 on the Variation of Mineral Composition in Vegetables.

Update on the Spinach Fiasco

2007-04-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

I don't want to say I told you so, but there is this news story going out, one of the first from the Charleston daily, dated 23 April 2007 , and stating "Documents show FDA aware of problems at peanut butter plant, spinach farms...". This YEARS before the e-coli infections emerged as a full blown disaster of food contamination.

Click the link above and read for yourself. I had hunched this would be the case when I first blogged about the spinach fiasco and food safety, logged below--in fact, how could they have not known: they are the experts who see with expert eyes these complicated issues of food contamination and on the farms and factories in question even someone with no eyes, we all know now, but only a nose, could tell there was something rotten in Denmark.

Starbucks Split Personality

2007-04-23T18:45:00.000-07:00

Starbucks seems to be becoming a split personality: it seeks to serve the coffee drinker with a endless array of high fructose sugared drinks that cost a bunch of bucks while playing up its corporate social responsibility role: the one, its primary role, is becoming fake the other seeks reality.
How much do I matter? Can't Schultz afford to flavor my drinks with as wholesome a flavor as real sugar--the kind with its natural vitamins and minerals. He wants me to buy-off on his social concerns--are they as doctored with fakery as his drinks are becoming?
The star of Starbucks seems to want to flavor my life with his so-called commitment to real social issues facing both his company and the rest of us while, at the same time, laying in cheaper ingredients and more unhealthy stuff in what bring home his bacon. Maybe it's the bacon--put that in your stock and see if it floats: I want the real stuff, nothing, NOTHING, fake. Or you don't get me. That's a fair trade wouldn't you say?

So, Just What Excuses This?

2007-01-14T17:49:00.000-08:00

My attitude toward food is guided by a sense of reverence. Simply put I respect food. So the foods I select to eat are chosen with this sense of reverence and it's prime attribute moderation.

What follows are two short, highly personal, stories on reverence and moderation of food.

A few days ago I stumbled onto a small discarded picture frame near the dumpster at work. It was turned upside-down, tossed by who knows and curious I picked it up to see what, if anything, it framed.

I discovered a profound statement.

In small pink needle point the statement declared "The Human Body Is Not A Garbage Can".

I took it home, cleaned it up and it now hangs on the wall of my office beside my desk--I see it and read every time I come in to work and I think about it often.

Like today. I thought about the framed declaration today when I read about Jennifer Strange, a 28 year old woman in Sacramento, California who drank herself to death with water. She had entered one of those truly irreverent contests where whoever drinks or eats the most wins.

She did not win.

According to the AP report in today's LA Times radio station KDND-FM (107.9) in Sacramento held a contest to see who could drink the most water without going to the bathroom. Like all of these contests it promoted an excessive, immoderate behaviour of dumping food into one's body as if it were a garbage can. This for the purposes of promoting the sponsor, in this case a radio station. The winner was to receive a Nintendo Wii. The contest was called "Hold Your Wee for a Wii".

The Sacramento County Coroner Ed Smith was quoted as saying death occurred by "water intoxication" know as "hyponatermia". She drank so much water it flushed out the sodium in her body and without sufficient levels of sodium you die.

It may sound trite but I wish the radio station promoters could have been so lucky as to have found my needle point declaration and set it with reverence on their office wall. Perhaps Jennifer Strange would have never been tempted to enter such a irreverent, immoderate and deadly contest because such a contest would have never happened.

How to clean Spinach

2006-10-09T18:19:00.000-07:00

Out here in the real world solving the spinach problem is very simple, to me: there is absolutely no substitute for cleanliness. For the spinach grower who packed E. coli into their product something was not very clean somewhere and I will bet the government regulators/inspectors will point fingers at everybody and every process along the spinach producing system that they are supposed to regulate but do not: I don't believe for one moment the regulators/inspectors were there when they should have been there doing their job.

My kitchen was just inspected by a branch of these same regulators/inspectors and I got a score of 98%--not bad if you eat food I cook. But just think of this, the inspectors--two of them--made three trips to my kitchen to make sure I posted my state of California food managers certificate and that I labeled my pasta bin pasta.

Just how many trips of what size contingent inspectors do you think this would represent when projected onto a spinach farm? Apparently the answer is an inverse correlation: the bigger you are the less you get inspected and the more you...

If the farmers don't care--and apparently some one down on some spinach farm does not care--and the regulators/inspectors only do there job after the fact then it does not matter if it's organic or factory farmed produce.

Spinach Regulators anyone?

2006-10-09T17:32:00.000-07:00

As a chef I am like any gigantic factory farmer or small time artisan producer in that none of us are required any special education, training and very little certification in food handling--even though there is more for us chefs today that a few years ago. The style and character I bring to my work colors and influences everything I do and the same can be said of farmer processors and the rest of the crew. However, there are so-called chefs into whose kitchens I would not venture because the style and character they bring to their food preparation is without question rank. Same thing with farmers, processors and the rest of the people in the food business. Most of us know who they are even if we cannot do anything about them.

Only our customers know for sure: If someone gets sick and dies from something I make--or is made by someone under my employ and you can trace it to me then I, like they, have a real big problem. Otherwise I skate, unknowingly. Same thing for the rest of the players in this imaginary scenario.

But since I may not be educated and trained then should someone who is keep a watchful eye on my work? That's the job of the expert inspectors/regulators. They bring their government approved education and training right into my kitchen and check on all the rest of the players in the food business and their equipment to see if they are playing by the rules--the rules, of course, are largely known to nutritionists and food scientists and some are written into law by our government, except for the rules of an up-right character and good will toward food and people. The rules are largely unknown and uncared for by the food processors--we, of course, just want to make money and are cheapskates.

Problem is the expert inspectors/regulators and the rest of us seem to be too distracted by misplace priorities to do the right thing in real time, as things happen. And if you have an employee who has a problem with this country then there is always the possibility of a deliberate act of sabotage--finger in the chile sort of thing or urinating--or worse--on the crop as it's harvested. That defies all efforts but must somehow be addressed as a real threat to each and everyone of us.

Some notes on Magnesium

2006-10-08T12:02:00.000-07:00

I wrote much of this post to a friend and decided I would post it here also.

Thank you for a copy of your work on magnesium, which I just stopped reading, so I could write you about a point I'm sure you will find interesting.

Thing is I have been researching on and/off for some twenty years the nutritional values of fruit and vegetables. One of the fundamental questions I have learned to pose (asking the right questions to frame an issue is the hardest part) is does a particular fruit or vegetable need (in this case) magnesium to grow? Because if it does not andor the soil is deficient in magnesium then the fruit or vegetable will be likewise. I have read a couple of farm reports recently where the rains have been so plentiful in Kansas and South Dakota that the grass grew at an exceptional rate and did not have time to take up enough magnesium and, therefore, cause severe symptoms and even death by magnesium deficiency in cattle! Our farmers want to grow our foods really fast?

But on the larger scale I do not trust that our basic foods have in them what is professed because I cannot find any sizable amount of particulars or a body of conclusive scientific evidence that proves otherwise. My hypothesis is that the baselines of the nutrients in our foods have shifted. The baselines of the USDA nutrient analysis are improvable, scientifically, in real time and may only relate to some averages taken long ago and no longer replicable in the soils of today.

So if the soil does not have it and the plant does not need it and we do and we think its in there and its not then we really have a problem.
But now I'll resume reading--with deep appreciation of you and your work.

Eat more veggies. Eat more fruit. Get healthy--really?

2006-04-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

While it is common to see scientific studies on how health can be improved by using certain, particular supplements of vitamins and minerals it is not the same for the real McCoy.

How true? Ask yourself and do a goggle search (or a PUB Med or any advanced search of scientific articles) about how many times you see a study--any study--on a particular fruit or vegetable that comes out proving some health improvement. Not a group, but a particular fruit or vegetable. And proof of health, not disease (this is an important distinction).

We are talking about real science here not just made up stuff from some science nut or health nut. And we are talking about real fruits and vegetables like a particular apple or broccoli as opposed to a group of fruits or vegetables. In other words we are talking about something very concrete and not at all abstract--this is where real scientific study comes in very handy: such study is not abstract or it is not science. And, importantly, if I can prove it and you cannot, it is not scientifically provable. Period.

How many? Which vegetable? Which fruit?

There are plenty of promoters of eating fresh fruits and vegetables and many of them provide solid credentials like the Harvard, Tufts, Eat 5 a day, and so on (for a really good goggle search try vegetables and health or fruits and health).

For example, the Harvard site cites the latest dietary guidelines that, "call for five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables a day, depending on one's caloric intake. For a person who needs 2,000 calories a day to maintain weight and health, this translates into nine servings, or 4Â½ cups per day." The citation for this is The USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a helpful abstraction but not a particular guide to particular fruits and vegetables and how they can promote your health.

But most of what these prestigious institutions promote is air--no scientific studies demonstrating the health effects of a single fruit or vegetable could be found on the Harvard site, not one. True, it's nice air, but air nevertheless.

Now we are not talking about the genuine research on fruits and vegetables like this one listed in Pub Med, "Electron beam and gamma irradiation effectively reduce Listeria monocytogenes populations on chopped romaine lettuce", (J Food Prot. 2006 Mar;69(3):570-4, for those who need to know) . This kind of research is not after the health promoting effects of eating, in this case, romaine lettuce. And it does not pretend to be anything other than what it is.

Of course sites promoting the health benefits of eating of fruits and vegetables could be hiding the scientific studies and don't want to bother their visitors with all those numbers and scientific names for turnips or plums. Or farmers who grow the really good stuff and how to buy them.

I remember a study concerning folate and green leafy vegetables and some kids on an island in the South Pacific. The study, a genuine scientific study, had to be halted because the scientists found that the children in the study could not get enough folate for their diets from the fresh vegetables because the vegetables themselves were deficient. So the study stopped because, ethically, depriving the children's diet of this essential ingredient could hurt them--especially when the science proved the children would be deficient on a natural diet. So much for the health promoting benefits of this entire group of vegetables--and I have not seen another study to refute this single isolated, particular controlled scientific study on green leafy vegetable and exactly how they promote health in humans.

So how do you know if the fruits or vegetables you eat can really promote better health? Simple answer is you don't. But then again, if you stopped eating fruits and vegetables what would happen? Could be all those diseases they write about in Pub Med and cited by the Tufts nutritionists and become the cover story about our fat nation for Time Magazine: eat your fruits and veggies and stay healthy or until we know, for sure, something different.

When there is no Controversy in American Food

2006-04-09T12:29:00.000-07:00

I was just watering my garden (with bare feet because that's just like me and because the Price-Pottenger Foundation has recently run a story about how chronic inflammation can be mediated by merely touching your feet to the earth!) when the thought occurred to me about the notion of no controversy in American food when there should be a controversy.

In fact there are so many American food issues that I track that are to me the essence of controversy and while you hear about them from time to time you really don't get engaged because they seem to be only blips. Take the distance food travels from so-called farms to your table--an average distance of some 1,350 miles according to those who measure such things. Now that may seem unimportant but speed from harvest to table is at the center of nutritional worth: get food to the table with minimal processing in the kitchen as fast as possible because every hour wasted in transit is wasted nutrients for yourself. Food may look good but is largely empty of nutrients because of the time it takes to travel 1,350 miles not to mention the mechanical/distribution issues of loading and off-loading etc.

You get the picture: this is a very controversial issue but where is the controversy?

In further fact when I pick up on a non-controversial controversial issue on American food and seek expert opinion and not only get the cold shoulder but also feel that others feel I must be contaminated or something to be mucking around in what must seem to them an off-beat issue that I get to feeling something must be the matter with me and the central point of the controversy is soundly distracted.

Ever happen to your food?

Reflecting About Controversy

2006-04-04T16:51:00.000-07:00

I have been reflecting a lot on the word controversy lately--reflecting and not writing a lot. I moved over the landscape and focused for a moment on the now gone president of Harvard. You may remember him as the all at once controversial president whose one issue controversy grew and grew in the media and those interviewed by the media until it got so big he had to quit his post and disappear. I guess that his quitting and disappearance took the controversy off the board and it was no longer, as he?
As part of my reflection on controversy I have wondered if we can be controversial and still work together with our "clash of differing opinions". Or is it that once something we are involved with becomes controversial then the issue--whatever it might be--becomes merely a point for opinionated and nothing more: we harden on this side or the other of a position. The discussion becomes moot and all is spin. Resolution of the controversy does not become the answer to the question raised by the issue only one hardened position attempting to triumph over the over. I do not know the past president at Harvard and can only speculate on how he felt about being drawn into a one-way controversy of his own creation. But I will speculate and do not believe he meant his views to become the end of his career at Harvard or that his opinion was anything other than that: an opinion. Not a harden opinion but a viewpoint, a controversial viewpoint. That his viewpoint became a defining factor of others who had a differing opinion is to tame a interpretation of what happened: he held an opinion that others would say had no place in someone who held his position; he should not have the opinion he had and because he did he had to go.

So the lesson from this one example of controversy? Don't be or else?

The Missing Ingredient

2006-01-03T20:50:00.000-08:00

You may not have noticed but there is a certain ingredient missing in the foods we eat which could wreck your life. Take asparagus for example. Now what could be missing? I am a chef, I can help you.

I know. I know. Vegetables that are purple are in and you buy your purple passion asparagus farm fresh. None of that stuff that’s transported 1250 miles on average from factory farms to reach the produce shelf, exhausted, at your market. Nope. You get the good stuff, organically grown, from the farmers market and cook it the only approved, right and correct way; you steam it (according to a recent study in the Journal of the Science of Food). Good.

Then you sample it and it tastes kina good. So, what’s missing? Maybe, your chef suggests, you add a little Meyers lemon butter, some French sea salt and imported, fresh ground black pepper. Now it tastes really good, you gourmet with a personal chef. But something’s still missing?

Now you read the fine print and find out most of the essential nutrient folate or vitamin B9 is just not all there and whatever was there was lost when you cooked it (according to the USDA). And to make matters worse, it doesn’t matter where you bought the asparagus or even if it is purple, white or green. Because the only thing The United States Department of Agriculture knows for sure it that it probably does not have an adequate amount of folate for you in the first place. Read on.

All right. So folate is colorless, something you cannot taste and it is something you cannot live without. In fact you and I and whatever colored asparagus you're eating have something in common: none of us can live without folate (Andrew D. Hanson, Horticulture Sciences Department, University of Florida, personal communication). By deduction we know that the asparagus made enough for itself, but maybe not enough for you. So how do you know enough of it there or not there?

You don’t, period. Science could tell you, but try and find that answer. Of course you could have a nutrient analysis done before cooking and after cooking and you would find out for sure. But that would set you back a lot of lettuce, if you get my drift. And the asparagus would not plate up very pretty and I would quit as your chef.

You say, so what? I knew that was coming. Your life without adequate folate or vitamin B9? If your primary source of folate was asparagus then you could end up putting yourself at risk for a host of devastating health problems. Here’s the short list: heart disease, birth defects, retardation of development (in children) and low levels can lead to anemia in adults along with added risk for colon cancer. Oh, your body absolutely needs folate to make new cells and genetic material. Darn details.

But don’t throw out the asparagus, yet.

As science built the story of this missing ingredient, study by study, and discovered what happens to us when it is not all there, the Federal Government stepped in to help fix the problem. But first science proved we were not getting enough folate from our natural foods. In fact about 50 or so years ago science proved that food richest in folate is (or was) asparagus, but it is also found in other green leafy vegetables, eggs and beans. All this has been published by the USDA and the FDA. However, in 1998 the Food and Drug Administration began requiring certain grain manufacturers to fortify their foods with folic acid, a synthetic form of folate.

And low and behold folate deficiencies are becoming rare, according to nutritionists (that’s what most every licensed nutritionist you can contact would most likely say—contact a few and see).

But the levels of folate in our naturally occurring foods are still to low to sustain our health and we must have our diet fortified or suffer the consequences. We know this for sure because science has established it beyond doubt and with agreement of the Federal Government. In addition, no less an authority than Harvard University (at Harvard’s Department of Public Health) says fresh fruits and vegetables alone cannot provide us with adequate nutrition—we need supplements to fill in the missing ingredients in our foods.

So we now know there are ingredients missing from our foods that were there but are not now and we do not know why: the baseline for getting adequate nutrition from our foods has shifted.

As your chef I recommend it is probably best to eat your asparagus, steamed and sauced along and pop a vitamin supplement rich in folate (a daily dose of 400 to 800 mcgs is recommended by the FDA—check it out with your doctor before you start).

Of course, if you do not like looking for missing ingredients in your foods you can eat some cereal fortified with folic acid and other yummy ingredients.

2005-10-13T20:26:00.000-07:00

I am re-reading my copy of The Taste of America, kind of by accident and kind of because I need to refresh myself with a dose of reality every once in a while. I came across this quote, written by John Hess no doubt, "...The history of American food is the history of the destruction of its taste." John and Karen Hess wrote The Taste of America back in 1972, my first year at Reed. I didn't read it or even hear of it until I picked up a copy from my friend Mike Justman's book store in Sacramento, California, about 1991--almost twenty years later.

When I read it then it was as fresh as it's first printing and now some fourteen years of mine later it remains as fresh as ever. To me the book represents the great divide in American food: those on the side of Taste, as it has become known, and those on some other side with the likes of Harry Levenstein. I still write to Karen Hess (John died earlier this year at age 86 after writing about his time as the New York Times Food Critic) and, for a while to Levenstein. But he wont write back anymore since he found out I know Karen Hess: the great divide.

The entire nexus of Controversial Food Issues draws its roots from this great divide and nearly every food issue I have since discovered begins its rosy dawn from that time: not before and certainly not since.

2005-09-25T10:29:00.000-07:00

I'm a chef, a cook of American foods, and simply put my job is to feed people. You can assume correctly that the better the food tastes and looks and is reasonably priced the more people I get to feed.

In this regard I am doing well and the people who eat the food I cook like it and continue buying meals I make--and we are all happy.

Even so, I have discovered that the nutritional quality of the foods I cook (and most likely you and everyone else) are declining. NOT because of some Tom-fool method of cooking that destroys the food, but because the food starts out with less of what it is supposed to have in it. I wanted to know why and found that this issue of the nutritional quality of foods in America and the world is a terribly confused, complicated mess with some very interesting consequences for all of us.

The first lesson I learned about this prime issue is profound: I have no idea ( nor likely do you)whether the good tasting, nice looking, economical foods I cook are worth eating. This assumes you want more for your life than fluff.

So the journey begins.

2005-09-05T13:05:00.000-07:00

The Biggest Issue: Overindulgence is now the number 1 food issue in the world having overtaken hunger for the first time in the history of mankind. REFERENCE: Food Fight ,by Brownell and Horgen, Contemporary Books, 2004.