Recipe: Zucchini Mock Apple Pie

Zucchini Mock Apple Pie

6 cups zucchini (peel, cut lengthwise, remove seeds, slice 1/4-inch thick)
1 1/4 cup granulated sugar
1/4 cup brown sugar
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1 1/2 teaspoons cream of tartar
2 Tablespoons cornstarch
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon vinegar
Butter (about 1 Tablespoon)
Pastry for two-crust pie
Cook zucchini slices in boiling water until barely tender, about 2
minutes. Remove from stove and drain well. (Make sure the zucchini is
well-drained and cooled before adding to sugar mixture.)

Preheat oven to 475-degree.

In
a bowl, toss zucchini with sugars, cinnamon, cream of tartar,
cornstarch and salt until well coated. Place pastry in a 9-inch,
greased pie pan. Fill with zucchini mix. Dot with butter, drizzle with
vinegar. Top with crust. Bake for 12 minutes at 475. Reduce heat to 350
and bake about 1 hour 15 minutes.

Submitted by Mike Swineford

Junk Food Nation

AlterNet
Our Junk Food Nation
By Juliet B. Schor and Gary Ruskin, The Nation
Posted on August 18, 2005, Printed on August 19, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/24157/

In recent months the major food companies have been trying hard to
convince Americans that they feel the pain of our expanding waistlines,
especially when it comes to kids. Kraft announced it would no longer
market Oreos to younger children, McDonald’s promoted itself as a salad
producer and Coca-Cola said it won’t advertise to kids under 12.

But behind the scenes it’s hardball as usual, with the junk food giants
pushing the Bush Administration to defend their interests. The recent
conflict over what America eats, and the way the government promotes
food, is a disturbing example of how in Bush’s America corporate
interests trump public health, public opinion and plain old common
sense.

The latest salvo in the war on added sugar and fat came July 14- 15,
when the Federal Trade Commission held hearings on childhood obesity
and food marketing. Despite the fanfare, industry had no cause for
concern; FTC chair Deborah Majoras had declared beforehand that the
commission will do absolutely nothing to stop the rising flood of junk
food advertising to children.

In June the Department of Agriculture denied a request from our group
Commercial Alert to enforce existing rules forbidding mealtime sales in
school cafeterias of "foods of minimal nutritional value" — i.e., junk
foods and soda pop. The department admitted that it didn’t know whether
schools are complying with the rules, but, frankly, it doesn’t give a
damn. "At this time, we do not intend to undertake the activities or
measures recommended in your petition," wrote Stanley Garnett, head of
the USDA’s Child Nutrition Division.

Conflict about junk food has intensified since late 2001, when a
Surgeon General’s report called obesity an "epidemic." Since that time,
the White House has repeatedly weighed in on the side of Big Food. It
worked hard to weaken the World Health Organization’s global
anti-obesity strategy and went so far as to question the scientific
basis for "the linking of fruit and vegetable consumption to decreased
risk of obesity and diabetes." Former Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson — then our nation’s top public-health officer
– even told members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association to "’go
on the offensive’ against critics blaming the food industry for
obesity," according to a November 12, 2002, GMA news release.

Last year, during the reauthorization of the children’s nutrition
programs, Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois attempted to
insulate the government’s nutrition guidelines from the intense
industry pressure that has warped the process to date. He proposed a
modest amendment to move the guidelines from the USDA to the
comparatively more independent Institute of Medicine. The food
industry, alarmed about the switch, secured a number of meetings at the
White House to get it to exert pressure on Fitzgerald. One irony of
this fight was that the key industry lobbying came from the American
Dietetic Association, described by one Congressional staffer as a
"front for the food groups." Fitzgerald held firm but didn’t succeed in
enacting his amendment before he left Congress last year.

By that time the industry’s lobbying effort had borne fruit, or perhaps
more accurately, unhealthy alternatives to fruit. The new federal
guidelines no longer contain a recommendation for sugar intake,
although they do tell people to eat foods with few added sugars. The
redesigned icon for the guidelines, created by a company that does
extensive work for the junk food industry, shows no food, only a person
climbing stairs.

Growing industry influence is also apparent at the President’s Council
on Physical Fitness. What companies has the government invited to be
partners with the council’s Challenge program? Coca-Cola, Burger King,
General Mills, Pepsico and other blue chip members of the "obesity
lobby."

In January the council’s chair, former NFL star Lynn Swann, took money
to appear at a public relations event for the National Automatic
Merchandising Association, a vending machine trade group activists have
been battling on in-school sales of junk food.

Not a lot of subtlety is required to understand what’s driving
Administration policy. It’s large infusions of cash. In 2004 "Rangers,"
who bundled at least $200,000 each to the Bush/Cheney campaign,
included Barclay Resler, vice president for government and public
affairs at Coca-Cola; Robert Leebern Jr., president of federal affairs
at Troutman Sanders PAG, lobbyist for Coca-Cola; Richard Hohlt of Hohlt
& Co., lobbyist for Altria, which owns about 85 percent of Kraft
foods; and José "Pepe" Fanjul, president, vice chairman and COO of
Florida Crystals Corp., one of the nation’s major sugar producers.

Hundred-thousand-dollar men include Kirk Blalock and Marc Lampkin, both
Coke lobbyists, and Joe Weller, chairman and CEO, Nestle USA. Altria
also gave $250,000 to Bush’s inauguration this year, and Coke and Pepsi
gave $100,000 each. These gifts are in addition to substantial sums
given during the 2000 campaign.

For their money, the industry has been able to buy into a strategy on
obesity and food marketing that mirrors the approach taken by Big
Tobacco. That’s hardly a surprise, given that some of the same
companies and personnel are involved: Junk food giants Kraft and
Nabisco are both majority-owned by tobacco producer Philip Morris, now
renamed Altria. Similarity number one is the denial that the problem
(obesity) is caused by the product (junk food). Instead, lack of
exercise is fingered as the culprit, which is why McDonald’s, Pepsi,
Coke and others have been handing out pedometers, funding fitness
centers and prodding kids to move around.

When the childhood obesity issue first burst on the scene, HHS and the
Centers for Disease Control funded a bizarre ad campaign called Verb,
whose ostensible purpose was to get kids moving. This strategy has been
evident in the halls of Congress as well. During child nutrition
reauthorization hearings, the man some have called the Senator from
Coca-Cola, Georgia’s Zell Miller, parroted industry talking points when
he claimed that children are "obese not because of what they eat at
lunchrooms in schools but because, frankly, they sit around on their
duffs watching Eminem on MTV and playing video games." And that, of
course, is the fault not of food marketers but of parents. Miller’s
office shut down a Senate Agriculture Committee staff discussion of a
ban on soda pop in high schools by refreshing their memories that Coke
is based in Georgia.

A related ploy is to deny the nutritional status of individual food
groups, claiming that there are no "good" or "bad" foods, and that all
that matters is balance. So, for example, when the Administration
attacked the WHO’s global anti-obesity initiative, it criticized what
it called the "unsubstantiated focus on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods." Of
course, if fruits and vegetables aren’t healthy, then Coke and chips
aren’t unhealthy. While such a strategy is so preposterous as to be
laughable, it is already having real effects.

Less than a month after Cadbury Schweppes, the candy and soda company,
gave a multimillion-dollar grant to the American Diabetes Association,
the association’s chief medical and scientific officer claimed that
sugar has nothing to do with diabetes, or with weight. Industry has
also bankrolled front groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom, an
increasingly influential Washington outfit that demonizes public-health
advocates as the "food police" and promotes the industry point of view.

Meanwhile, public opinion is solidly behind more restrictions on junk
food marketing aimed at children, especially in schools. A February
Wall Street Journal poll found that 83 percent of American adults
believe "public schools need to do a better job of limiting children’s
access to unhealthy foods like snack foods, sugary soft drinks and fast
food." Two bills recently introduced in Congress, Massachusetts Senator
Ted Kennedy’s Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act and Iowa Senator Tom
Harkin’s Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention (HeLP) America Act, both
place significant restrictions on the ability of junk food producers to
market in schools.

Interestingly, this is a crossover issue between red and blue states.
Concern about obesity and excessive junk food marketing to kids is
shared by people across the political spectrum, and some conservatives,
such as Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs and the Eagle
Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, as well as California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, have argued for restricting junk food marketing to
children. This may be one of the reasons New York Senator Hillary
Clinton has once again become vocal on the topic of marketing to
children, although Senator Clinton has called not for government
intervention but merely for industry self-regulation, requesting that
the companies "be more responsible about the effect they are having" –
exactly the policy the industry wants.

A vigorous government response would clearly garner the sympathy of the
majority of Americans. The growing chasm between what the public wants
and the Administration’s protection of the profits of Big Food is a
powerful example of the decline of democracy in this country. Let them
eat chips!

Gary Ruskin is executive director of Commercial Alert. Juliet Schor is
a professor of sociology at Boston College and the author of Born to
Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture.
——————————————————————–
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/24157/
——————————————————————–
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Go Vegetarian

Going Vegetarian?
June 4, 2003 CHICAGO (American Dietetic Association) –

Think that vegetarian diets are risky or just a passing phase? Not so!
According to the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of
Canada, a well-planned vegetarian diet can be a healthy alternative to
standard meat-based eating styles for all age groups.

In a
joint statement, published in the June issue of the Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, ADA and DC say: It is the position of
the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that
appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally
adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of
certain diseases. The statement reaffirms and updates ADA’s position on
vegetarian diets. It details the most current science regarding key
nutrients and how to obtain them through a vegetarian diet. Numerous
health benefits are also cited such as lower intakes of saturated fat
and cholesterol and higher intakes of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium,
potassium, folate and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E.
Approximately 4 percent of Canadian adults and nearly 3 percent of
adults in the United States follow vegetarian diets and interest is on
the rise, according to the ADA/DC statement.

Many restaurants
and caterers routinely offer vegetarian meals. Substantial growth in
sales of foods attractive to vegetarians has occurred in recent years.
"Vegetarians have been reported to have healthier body weight than
non-vegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from heart disease,
lower blood cholesterol levels and lower rates of high blood pressure,
type 2 diabetes and prostate and colon cancer," says registered
dietitian and ADA spokesperson Cynthia Sass. "Planning a healthy
vegetarian diet doesn’t need to be complicated, but steps should be
taken to ensure the diet is nutrient-dense," Sass says. "Just as with a
meat-based diet, the key to ensuring the body meets all its nutritional
needs is to choose a wide variety of foods."

Sass says the
best way to ensure a healthy vegetarian diet is to obtain advice from a
nutrition expert, a dietetics professional. "A dietetics professional,
such as a registered dietitian, is skilled in educating vegetarian
clients about food sources of specific nutrients, menu planning, food
purchasing and preparation, and any dietary modifications that may be
necessary to meet individual health and lifestyle needs," Sass says. To
locate a registered dietitian in your area, log on to http://www.eatright.org
and search "Find a Dietitian."

The complete position paper is
available on the Journal of the American Dietetic Association’s Web
site at http://www.adajournal.org and on the Dietitians of Canada Web site at
http://www.dietitians.ca/news/highlights_positions.html. The authors of
the joint position statement have developed a Vegetarian Food Guide
modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Guide
Pyramid and the Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating. The guide is
also published in the June issue of the Journal of the American
Dietetic Association. It is not a part of the official position
statement.

It’s official: Eat Less, Get More Exercise

MSNBC.com

It’s official: Eat Less, Get More Exercise

New dietary guidelines stress healthy options



By Jon Bonné

MSNBC

Updated: 12:10 p.m. ET Jan. 13, 2005

The federal government on Wednesday outlined how Americans should eat
and exercise, backing a broad approach that stresses weight loss and a
balanced, moderate diet.

There were few surprises in its new dietary guidelines: endorsements of
nutritious foods, and limits on bad fats, cholesterol, sugar, salt and
alcohol.

As never before, the guidelines stressed the need for Americans to manage their weight and get fit.

"Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, and more than 50
percent of us Americans do not get the recommended amount of physical
activity," said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. "So
the 2005 guidelines emphasize physical activity and calorie control
more than ever before."

The guidelines, revised every five years, largely follow mainstream
advice: eat a mix of foods, watch your fats and sugars. They stress the
importance of calories in managing weight, directly tying weight loss
to consuming fewer calories.

This is good news to nutritionists who have been fighting the
popularity of fad diets, and bad news to dieters who have focused on
cutting one nutrient — carbs or fats, for example — out of their daily
routines.

Fruits and vegetables got a strong boost. Nine servings of produce are
recommended for the average 2,000-calorie diet, the upper limit of
prior recommendations. That translates to 2 cups of fruit and 2 1/2
cups of vegetables each day.

Thompson and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman portrayed the guidelines
as an "important tool" in fighting the nation’s weight epidemic.

Also recommended:

Half of all grains consumed should be whole grains, at least three servings per day.
Less than 10 percent of calories should come from saturated fats, and
fat should make up no more than 25 to 30 percent of total calories. No
firm guideline was set for trans fats, only a recommendation to keep
them "as low as possible."
Whole foods are generally preferred over processed: fresh fruit, for example, rather than juice.

Protein sources should be lean and low-fat.

Foods should be fiber-rich and contain "little added sugars or caloric sweeteners."
Recommended daily sodium intake was lowered to 2,300 mg or less, about 1 teaspoon of salt.
Everyone should get a minimum of 30 to 60 minutes each day of moderate
exercise — brisk walking or bicycling, for example. Losing weight will
require 60 to 90 minutes of more intense daily exercise.
"They look to me like they’re the strongest dietary guidelines yet
produced," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for
Science in the Public Interest.

The new guidelines will not replace the government’s well-known — and
often maligned — food pyramid. As soon as next month, federal agencies
will release an updated version of what is now known as the "food
guidance tool." Its shape and function may change significantly.

‘Important tool’
The government and industry groups face an ongoing challenge in
communicating their recommendations to Americans. The latest
guidelines, while condensed into a 12-page brochure, require the
determined dieter to parse pages of advice and charts to get specifics
on many recommendations.

But in some cases, the language in the new guidelines was clearer than
in 2000. Most portions are described in ounces and measures, rather
than servings.

Thompson insisted that healthy choices are simple to include in daily
activities: "Everybody in this room, tonight, eat half their dessert,
and get up and take a walk around the block."

This final effort was based on nine proposed recommendations released
last August by a 13-member advisory panel. Janet King, a nutrition
researcher at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and the
panel’s chairwoman, said the agencies did "a superb job" of translating
scientific advice into practical standards.

Panel member Dr. Carlos Camargo of Harvard University noted that,
unlike the 2000 version, the new guidelines don’t direct people toward
the food pyramid, which many experts found confusing and often
detrimental.

"You could think of this as a major advance that we have abandoned the food pyramid," Camargo said.

‘Total confusion-land’

But some nutrition experts feel the latest effort falls short of clear,
specific recommendations in many areas — such as sugar intake.

"It’s gone from something that used to be a simple set of guidelines in
just a few words to something that looks like a nutrition textbook,"
said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public
health at New York University and author of "Food Politics." "I think
we’re now in total confusion-land."

The latest effort includes 41 key recommendations; the original version
in 1980 had seven. And Nestle noted the recommendation on sugar intake,
which directs people to consult detailed food charts deep in the
guidelines, is now 27 words. In 1980, it was four: "Avoid too much
sugar."

Others were left wondering how the average American will fit 60 minutes
or more of exercise each day into already frenzied schedules.

And questions lingered as to why some recommendations offered by the
advisory panel didn’t make the final cut, including a specific call to
limit trans fats to 1 percent of calories or less.

Left in, taken out

After an exhaustive review of existing science, the panel largely ended up endorsing mainstream dietary approaches.

They specifically recommended two servings of fish per week for most
Americans, along with more leafy vegetables, unprocessed foods, whole
grains and low-fat dairy products.

Many doctors and nutritionists praised its broad, calorie-focused
messages. But the advisors were also criticized for shortfalls, notably
a first-ever departure from straightforward advice to limit sugar
intake.

Panel members acknowledged the sugar change in their report, saying
that sugar should be considered as part of an overall balance of carbs.
But some critics tied the change to business groups’ challenges of U.N.
agencies’ recommendations to limit sugars to 10 percent of a diet.

Language about limiting sugar returned in the final version.

Some industry groups also criticized the panel’s focus on commodities
and unprocessed foods. The American Bakers Association, for instance,
complained about "how enriched grains have been portrayed and for the
most part have been ignored."

Calls for action

Thompson insisted corporate influence had little impact on the
final guidelines. But the guidelines include no specific guidance to
food manufacturers about making products healthier. King acknowledged
that changes in salt and fat intake are "very difficult if there isn’t
action by the food industry."

Another element of the advisory panel’s report that got little
discussion in the final version, King said: that proper eating and
exercise are part of larger needed changes in Americans’ daily habits,
and that companies and public agencies should play an active role in
shaping more healthy lifestyles.

"Our committee recognized that it’s very difficult for individuals in
the United States to implement the dietary guidelines given the
environment we live in," King told MSNBC.com. "This is not a little
thing were talking about here. There need to be some major changes."

The Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents food companies,
said in a statement that its members are already working on products
that meet the guidelines, "increasing the use of whole grains, reducing
saturated and trans fats, offering reduced-sugar products and providing
consumers with the food and nutrients they need in convenient
packaging."

Last fall, General Mills announced its entire cereal line — from
Wheaties to Lucky Charms — would use whole grains. In another sign the
industry is facing up to its role in improving nutrition, Kraft said
Wednesday it would cut back on advertising to kids and expand labeling.

The Produce for Better Health Foundation, which previously devised the
popular "5 a Day" campaign, has already conducted focus groups to find
a slogan that can best telegraph the new recommendations. "’Half your
plate at every meal should be fruits and vegetables’ resonates the
best," said foundation president Elizabeth Pavonka.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6816952/

Another Olive Oil Benefit

Headache? Try some olive oil…

By Julie Wheldon, Daily Mail

1 September 2005



It has long been regarded as an essential part of the Mediterranean diet for
healthy living.
   Look here too!



Now scientists believe they have discovered exactly what it is that makes
extra virgin olive oil so
good for us.



A study suggests the oil can prevent inflammation in the same way as
common headache pills. In




doing so, it helps stave off long-term health problems such as cancer and
heart disease.




The researchers, based at the University of Pennsylvania, found the main
 compound in the oil,  
oleocanthal, contained the same properties as the
painkiller ibuprofen.




Ibuprofen has been linked to a lower risk of cancer and heart problems,
as has aspirin, which 
belongs to the same class of antiinflammatory drugs,
called COX inhibitors.




The study concluded that extra virgin olive oil – made from the first pressing
 of the olive – may 
offer similar long-term advantages.



The extra virgin oil costs around twice as much as the standard version. While
 the ordinary oil 
offers some health benefits, these are less pronounced.



Dr Paul Breslin, who led the research, said extra virgin could not actually be
used to cure




headaches because a daily dose of 50g would only be equivalent to 10 per cent
of a normal dose of 
ibuprofen.



He added, however, that a longterm Mediterranean diet which included the oil
could help build the 
body’s natural defences to conditions such as cancer and
heart problems.




‘Our findings raise the possibility that long-term consumption of oleocanthal
may help to protect 
against some disease by virtue of its ibuprofen-like activity,’
he explained.




‘It is known that regular low doses of aspirin for instance, another COX inhibitor, confer  cardiovascular health benefits.



‘Ibuprofen is associated with a reduction in the risk of developing some cancers
and of platelet 
aggregation (which indicates clotting) in the blood.



‘A Mediterranean diet, which is rich in olive oil, is believed to confer various
health benefits, some 
of which seem to overlap with those attributed to
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.’




The study, published in the journal Nature, adds to the growing evidence of
the health benefits of




a Mediterranean diet typically rich in fish, unsaturated fats and vegetables.



The diet also includes an occasional glass of wine.



In April, researchers at Athens University concluded that a healthy man of 60
who followed a 
Mediterranean diet could expect to live a year longer than
one of the same age who ate differently.




The team looked at more than 74,000 people in nine European countries.



They found that the Greeks adhered most closely to the recommended diet,
followed by the 
Spanish, Italians and French.



The British were fifth – ahead of the Danes, the Germans, the Swedes and
the Dutch.




Last year, a study found that eating a Mediterranean diet can be especially
beneficial for the
elderly.



For the study, Dutch researchers looked at the eating habits of healthy men
 and women aged 70 to
90 in 11 European countries.



They discovered that, along with exercise, moderate drinking and not smoking,
a Mediterranean
diet reduced death rates among this age group by 65 per cent.



As a result of its reported health benefits and inspired by foreign holidays, more
 and more Britons
now use olive oil, with sales rising by around 10 per cent a year, according to analysts.



A year ago its sales here overtook those of other cooking oils for the first time.



###





Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers