Bites

Consumers like the taste and tendernes of grass-fed beef, according to a study by Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences researchers.

“There are some important human health benefits related to components of grass-finished beef,” said John Comerford, who oversees the University’s beef research and extension programs. “While there is no difference in the cholesterol content of grass-and grain-finished beef, and the limited amount of conjugated linoleic acid in cooked steaks is too small to do much for human health, there is still an advantage in the increased omega-3 fat content in grass-fed beef.”

He recommends that producers look for ways to interest more potential customers in grass-fed beef.

In blind taste tests of cooked grass-fed beef steaks, researchers found that the sizes of the cattle, weight at harvest, range of grazing period, and final fat composition of the carcass had no impact on the consumer evaluations.

“Not surprisingly, we found finishing productive. Healthy cattle on good pastures is far more important to consumer acceptance of the product than cattle’s frame size or how fat the animals are,” Comerford pointed out.

“In fact, we found cattle that had the fattest final carcasses actually had lower scores from the consumer panels because of the influence of fat on beef flavor.”

Source: Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences

Low storage temperatures are essential to minimizing bacterial growth a inside sealed, bagged salads, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists have found.

Bacteria inside the low-oxygen bags have proved hardier than normal and more dangerous to consumers, the researchers discovered while studying the safety of new technologies that extend the shelf life of bagged salad greens.

The research was conducted by microbiologist Arvind Bhagwat with the ARS Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory in Beltsville, Md. He first investigated differences in bacterial growth levels on cut lettuce leaves that had been bagged under very low oxygen levels — an atmosphere known to extend the time that bagged salad appears fresh.

Bhagwat investigated whether the lack of oxygen would make it harder for the bacteria to survive a synthetic gastric juice shock, which mimics the challenge of exposure to human stomach acids. It turns out that the bacteria sitting on vegetables packed in low-oxygen atmospheres were more likely to survive such a shock.
In response to the challenge of being in an air-starved environment, together with the added nutrients provided by the cut leaves, the bacteria became hardier during storage. This increased hardiness only took place when the bagged fresh-cut salad was left at room temperature or unrefrigerated for extended periods of time.

Bhagwat next tested different temperatures. Bacteria were applied to fresh-cut lettuce and stored in sealed bags under different atmospheric conditions for eight days. When stored under very low-oxygen conditions — and warmer temperatures — bacteria showed more resistance towards synthetic gastric juice.

The findings underscore a danger involved in inadvertently leaving fresh-cut produce at temperatures of 59 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, particularly when low oxygen levels are used to extend the shelf life of fresh bagged lettuce, according to Bhagwat. Consumers are advised to keep refrigerator temperatures at 40 degrees F or below, according to experts.

The study was published in the April 2008 issue of the Journal of Food Science.

Supermarkets is Britain have resorted to putting electronic security tags — like those used on DVDs, software and other expensive items — on organic cuts of meat to prevent theft.

“With food prices soaring, high-quality meat is now on the shopping list of thieves who would once have targeted DVDs and perfume. A Tesco organic chicken can cost as much as £11.33,” the London Daily Mail reports.

The recent economic downturn has also inspired a surge in shoplifting and a massive increase in fuel thefts from cars and filling stations.

A 21-year study of vegetarians by the German Cancer Research Center (Deutsche Krebsforschungszentrum) has found that vegetarian men cut their risk of early death in hald and Women showed a 30% reduction in early mortality.

Participants in the German study included 60 vegans (no animal products), 1,165 vegetarians (eggs, milk but no meat) and 679 “moderate” vegetarians who occasionally ate fish or meat. Their health and longevity was compared with the average German population.

The results for “moderate” vegetarians was not statistically different from those with the vegan or vegetarian diets.

Sources:

Die Welt
German Cancer Research Center

In recent years a less reductive method of doing nutritional science has emerged, based on the idea of studying whole di­etary patterns instead of individual foods or nutrients. The early results have tended to support the idea that traditional diets do indeed protect us from chronic disease and that these diets can be transferred from one place and population to an­other. Even some of the researchers associated with the Nurses’ Health Study have begun doing dietary pattern analysis, in one case comparing a prudent diet modeled on Mediterranean and Asian patterns-high in fruits, vegetables, and fish and low in red meat and dairy products-with a typical Western diet fea­turing lots of meat (and processed meat), refined grains, sug­ary foods, french fries, and dairy products. (The study found “strong evidence” that the prudent dietary pattern may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.) * Another recent study of a traditional plant-based diet found that even when you tested it against a low-fat Western diet that contained the same propor­tions of total fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, and cho­lesterol, the people on the traditional diet did much better by an important measure of cardiovascular health. What this suggests is that the addition of certain foods to the diet (Vegetables and fruits? Whole grains? Garlic?) may be more important than the subtraction of the usual nutritional suspects.

- from In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto by Michael Pollan
Kindle Edition

Almonds, as well as being high in vitamin E and other minerals, are also thought to have other health benefits, such as reducing cholesterol.

A new study by the Institute of Food Research, published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, has found that finely ground almonds significantly increase the levels of certain beneficial gut bacteria crucial to digestive health. The increase was not seen when the fat content was removed from the almond preparation, suggesting that the beneficial bacteria use the almond lipid for growth.

Previous studies have shown that the amount of available lipid is reduced if the almonds are not processed, by grinding or by chewing. The length of time the almond spends in the digestive system also affects the amount of available lipids and proteins.

This suggests that almonds are especially beneficial to the digestive system when ground into a flour or chewed well and consumed slowly.

Source: Norwich BioScience Institutes

• Almonds
• Nuts and Grains

Eating chocolate is said to be good for you. Results of a new study by researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center suggests one reason why this is could be true.

Published online in Cell Cycle, the researchers describe how four different human tumor cells lines out of 16 tested were sensitive to a synthetic chemical based on a compound found in cocoa beans, known as GECGC. In two different colon cancers growth was cut in half and most of the tumor cells were damaged.

Normal cells were not affected by GECGC, which makes the chemical a candidate for cancer chemoprevention.

“This chemical seems to be safe, which makes sense because it has a structure similar to a natural product in cocoa beans - the same beans that are used to make chocolate,” said the study’s lead author Min Kim, Ph.D., a research scientist in the Department of Oncology at Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Source: Georgetown University Medical Center

Farmers are always looking for ways to fatten their livestock because bigger animals bring bigger profits. Fats and oils are used as additive in animal feed to quickly pack on weight in preparing them for market. Saturated fat seems like a good choice to fatten up livestock so pig farmers tired to feed coconut products to their animals for this purpose, but when it was added to the animal feed, the pigs lost weight!

Farmers found that the high polyunsaturated oil content of corn and soybeans quickly did what the coconut oil couldn’t. Animals fed corn and soybeans packed on pounds quickly and easily. The reason these oils worked so well is that their oils suppressed thyroid function, decreasing the animal’s metabolic rate. Soybeans are particularly bad because of the goitrogens (anti-thyroid chemicals) they contain.

They could eat less food and gain more weight! Many people are in a similar situation. Every time we eat polyunsaturated oils, our thyroid gland is assaulted and loses its ability to function normally. Weight gain is one of the consequences.

– from The Coconut Oil Miracle (Previously published as The Healing Miracle of Coconut Oil) by Bruce Fife

Kindle Edition

originally posted in Out of the Past

“The bad news is what’s for dinner. The good news is there’s lots of it.”

Take a seat at the dining table and open the menu. Order anything you please; it’s on the house.

Sound too good to be true? Well, you’re right. There is a catch.

Like the old good news/bad news vaudeville gag suggests, the menu often makes the dinner. What’s on the menu is largely determined by where you are dining and when.

If you’re in a U.S. city in the 1940s you’ll be as likely to order chop suey as meatloaf. If the war is over, you’ll pass up the soybean casserole for a Swiss steak or maybe a rib roast. For dessert, there’s pudding cakes and chiffon pies. On your way out, pocket a bag of that new candy, M&Ms.

As Sylvia Lovegren points out in her book Fashionable Food, diets are closely linked to history. Wars, inventions, politics and Wall Street have more influence on what Americans eat than any chef, cookbook or diet guru.

The 1950s were a time of prosperity in the U.S.. Everyone had a barbecue, it seemed, and Shish kebabs were popular. “South Pacific” was the top movie and hula hoops were the fad. Televisions were showing up in homes along with TV dinners, Party Mix and condensed soup.

Protein built strong bodies back then and real men ate well-marbled steaks and pot roasts. Sophisticated gourmets cooked with coq au vin, prepared smorgasbords, and served Baked Alaska for dessert.

Then came the 1960s, a time of cultural revolutions, the Vietnam War and social unrest. Julia Child and The Galloping Gourmet taught us how to make green beans amandine, paella and chocolate mousse. We discovered Twinkies, fondue and McDonald’s.

In the 70s Nixon opened the door to China and Chinese cuisine, Californians wore mood rings and Earth Shoes, and group encounters were popular. We started eating quiches and crepes and main dish salads. White spirits became the drinks of choice and granola appeared at the breakfast table.

The 80s were epitomized by a booming stock market, BMWs, Nancy Reagan’s red dresses, aerobics and Ralph Lauren. It was a time when Americans were eating out, having power lunches in corner bistros, taking afternoon tea, ordering Cajun and buying organic in the supermarket.

It was only 10 years ago, or so, that eggs and butter turned bad and pesticides were accused of causing cancer in children. That’s about when we started becoming concerned about red meat, nitrates, artificial dyes, additives, hydrogenated fats and cholesterol.

Lately, the economy has dulled and fat consumption is down. Salsas, Thai cuisine, and beans are trendy. Microwave foods are much improved.

Are we going to enjoy fat-free potato chips, beefalo burgers or plantain salads in the late 90s? That may depend less on taste than what happens in Bosnia, how the Presidential election turns out, who wins next year’s Oscars, or the price of Wrigley’s spearmint gum.

by Michael Hofferber. Copyright © 1996. All rights reserved.

Results of a University of Illinois study suggest that eating two CocoaVia® dark chocolate bars a day not only lowers cholesterol, but it can also lower systolic blood pressure. The study was published in the April, 2008, issue of Journal of Nutrition.

John Erdman, a U of I professor of food science and human nutrition, attributes the drop in cholesterol numbers (total cholesterol by 2 percent and LDL or “bad” cholesterol by 5.3 percent) to the plant sterols that have been added to the CocoaVia® bar and the drop in blood pressure to the flavanols found in dark chocolate.

Forty-nine persons with slightly elevated cholesterol and normal blood pressure were recruited for the double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Blood cholesterol levels, blood pressure, body weight, and other cardiovascular measures were measured throughout the eight-week study.

“After starting the CocoaVia® bars, we saw a marked differential effect on blood cholesterol,” said Ellen Evans, co-author of the study. According to Evans, a CocoaVia® bar contains 100 calories, so adding two to your daily diet means you have to cut out 200 calories elsewhere.

“But, if you’re already having a chocolate snack each day, why not pick one that’s going to have a beneficial effect on your health? I think one of the reasons so many people wanted to be in the study is that they’re looking for something they can reasonably do, and this fits into that category,” she said.

And, if you eat the chocolate bars in combination with a lifestyle change, such as adopting a heart-healthy diet or adding 30 minutes of moderate physical activity each day, you might have a 10- or 12-point reduction in cholesterol, she said.

According to Erdman, who chairs the Mars Scientific Advisory Council, the Mars Company has spent millions of dollars studying the biological impact of the flavanols found in cocoa beans and learning how to retain their benefits during the refining process.

“And we know that flavanols are still present in dark chocolate after processing. But milk chocolate is processed differently, and most flavanols are lost,” he said.

Source: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign