Pendrago Apple

Pendragon Apple 800 year old variety - complete with mottled skin for hight phytonutrient content

A recent study published in the UK caused a big kafuffle in the organic industry when it claimed there was no nutritional benefit to organic produce over conventional. The researchers looked at studies conducted over the last 40 years, and while the organic foods often did contain a higher amount of vitamins and minerals, they decide the difference was not “nutritionally” significant. In a single piece of produce, a 17 % difference in beta carotene as one study found, may not be significant, just as they said. But what if that 17% were missing from everything you ate, day after day, year after year?  Would that make a difference? Probably, but that is the holistic nutrition perspective, not the conventional.

I put that concept out there because it needs to be said. Good health is easier to achieve if all the food consumed has the maximum amount of nutrients possible. However, the important aspect of the study to note is that the studies they looked at examined vitamin and mineral content. Unfortunately, they did not look at the phyto-nutrient content, the new superstars in the health world, linked to prevention of many diseases prevalent today.

Should a chef , who is probably 60 pounds overweight, be promoting the use of a “no- calorie” artificial sweetener as “healthy”  This was the question I asked myself as I was channel flipping the other night and I happened upon  the Food Network’s TV show “Unwrapped” with a promotion of Splenda as “healthy” with absolutely no discussion of any of the health problems surrounding it. l was incensed. I was angry. Their promotion of a commercial food product, and a controversial one, at that, was so blatant like it was actually a food. And then I realized their brilliance. This was not a sell-out. This was a very clever demonstration of subliminal anti-marketing: To the general public, oversaturated with information and the attention span of a gnat, all they will see is:  Overweight Chef  + No-calorie Artificial Sweetener = Does Not Work!

I was at the dentist today, and I mentioned my upcoming baking book. The dentisit asked me the name of the book and I said "A Pastry Queen Goes Green". He said to me "Oh, is it low carb?". Now, my dentist is a really cool guy, very alternative, eats organic foods and is very much part of the community I like to run around in. I left there thinking "How does he get low-carb from "green?". More importantly, it illustrates my on-going frustration with the world at large and the science community in particular. Our food, our bodies and everything else nature created has been dissected and analyzed in isiolation; the relationship all those parts have with each other is lost. Never has this been more true with food. To pick on the carbohydrates is silly. Whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are the healthiest foods we can consume and the only reason to limit them in anyway is because you were neglecting the other essential elements we need. We don't want too much carbohhdrate any more than we want too much fat or protein. The key words here are 'too much'. We should not have 'too much' of anything but 'too little' is just as problematic. There are no studies that show any issues with carbohydrates from whole foods. Just like the low-fat movement that preceeded this one is stupid and dangerous. The question eveyone should ask is "Does the food I am eating have nutrients my body needs in the form I need them?". Foods created by nature all have a place. Sometimes certain cooking techniques improve the availability of the nutrients and people who pick on a food group, or a specific food, are using selective science to make their case. This is usually to support an agenda that the public would have little interest in supporting; if they knew the facts.