Taco Bell, Where’s the Beef?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVmY8VFklEE

           

We have all heard that Taco Bell is known for their lower quality “beef” over the years.  Yet, millions of Americans each week continue to go and buy tacos, burritos, and nachos from Taco Bell.  In their commercials, Taco Bell claims that their seasoned beef is delicious and that their prices are low.  But what makes their prices so low?  A closer look at what their “beef” really is may show why. 

The USDA has set a standard on what can legally be called beef in the United States.  It is federally regulated that beef must be made of at least 70% beef to be legally called beef.  An Alabama law firm has filed a lawsuit against Taco Bell in California, saying that they advertise their product as beef.  The law firm says that they have done tests that have determined the Taco Bell beef to be only 35% beef and 65% filler.  Taco Bell refutes this lawsuit, claiming that their meat is 88% beef and 12% filler

Throughout this lawsuit, Taco Bell has stood by the quality of their meat. Workers state that some of the more displeasing ingredients used in their recipe seem that way only because of the name given to them by the producers, the actual content is completely harmless and can be found in most grocery stores. Finally, Taco Bell has never hidden what ingredients go into their recipe.  That information has always been available to the public; this is just the first time that the meat has been tested to reveal the actual levels of each ingredient.

We have all heard the rumors about Taco Bell, but these tests are putting actual numbers to these rumors.  After reading the article, would you still eat at Taco Bell?  Has this changed your opinion about Taco Bell and possibly other fast food restaurants?  Should Taco Bell advertise more about the types of fillers they use?  And should Taco Bell be obligated to improve the quality of their beef?   

This article may help answer the discussion questions.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031147_Taco_Bell_beef.html

Sloppy Seconds

No matter how, when or where you were raised, you learned if you picked food off the floor within 3 seconds, it would still be okay to eat. Some people edit this rule to 5 seconds, and some to however long it takes for them to pick it up. Wikipedia claims the five-second rule is a common superstition that food dropped on the ground will not be contaminated with bacteria if it is picked up within five seconds of being dropped. Is there scientific basis to this assumption? Manchester Metropolitan University tested this rule to determine how much bacteria certain foods picked up from being on the floor for several seconds. Here is the video containing their results:

The Three Second Rule

The researchers at MMU tested a variety of foods based on commonality: cooked pasta, ham, a biscuit, bread with jam and dried fruit. They also were chosen because each contains a different level of water which scientist Harold McGee of Clemson University says is “a key factor in whether items will sustain bacterial growth in the three seconds before they are picked up from the floor.” After testing each food for bacteria when being on the floor in three, five, and ten second intervals, they found that the amount of water, salt and sugar in each food was the biggest instigator to bacteria.

The dried biscuit remained the safest to eat, showing little signs of bacteria even after ten seconds of being on the ground. The ham contained lots of preserved salt and nitrates, which prevented much bacteria growth, just as the sugar did in the jam. The cooked pasta and dried fruit, however, picked up harmful bacteria that could lead to pneumonia and urinary track infections.

            Did you grow up following the three or five second rule? How does this experiment change your thoughts on the rule, if at all? How long would you let food sit on the ground before still picking it up? Are there foods you would consider picking up now that you never would have before?

To Subsidize or Not to Subsidize?

Here is the link to the video discussing farm subsidies. You can watch the whole thing, or just from 3-3:50, 4:25-5:40, and 6:47-7:20. You will get a better understanding if you watch the whole thing, and we think that it is a very interesting subject that you all will enjoy to watch and develop an opinion on. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8G1HIlRppo

Farm subsidies began in the 1930s from the New Deal during the depression and they are still in effect today. Subsidies are government supplements from taxpayers to ensure that farmers make a steady income and are able to continue their business. The amount a farm gets from subsidies depends on what they raise and how the weather was that year. In the following video, John Stossel goes onto discuss the problems within the legislation of farm subsidies. Some people think that the subsidies should be continued or reformed while others think they should be completely wiped out.

At 3-3:50 in the video, Stossel talks about Maurice Wilder who is a half billion-dollar farmer but still receives subsidies from the government. Stossel goes on to mention that only the multimillion-dollar farms are the ones to receive the large subsidy payments. However, small farms are usually neglected of these subsidies or just paid a small fraction of them when they are the ones who really need the money to continue their business. This section of the video shows that the farm bill has many loopholes that rich farmers can jump through to take advantage of taxpayers and the government. 

From 4:25-5:40 Stossel lists some of the crops that do not get any subsidies. He also states that food costs more because of the government handouts, but he doesn't clarify whether the subsidized food or unsubsidized food costs more. However, either way this still shows that the subsidies are taking taxpayers money and making their food cost more than it would without government intervention.  The rest of this clip discusses how the government pays farm subsidies to people who don't farm. One man in the video was paid $26,000 just for not farming his land. It is interesting that these people are being paid for nothing, while small farms that are actually working do not get any or much money at all. This shows that the government system for assisting farmers is flawed.

From 6:47-7:20 Stossel speaks of New Zealand abolishing farm subsidies. At the beginning there were many riots and protests, but in time farm production increased five-fold. This just goes to show that farm subsidies aren't necessary and countries are even better off without them. Farmers have come to rely on government money to maximize profit instead of improving their farming practices.

From the video, do you think farm subsidies should be completely abolished or more regulated? Can farmers thrive without these government policies? What if there was a huge drought or flood that caused major damage to the years crops, how would we survive or eat without them? How would the farm still thrive and stay in business without the subsidies? 

Is Pizza a Vegetable?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/#.T5rGuqtYupA

This article, written by Mary Clare Jalonick of the Associated Press, talks about how the USDA wanted to change current regulations for school lunches. Essentially, they wanted to limit the amount of fries and pizza children were eating at school. How it was, and still is now, is schools are allowed to serve an eight of a cup of tomato paste and count it as a serving of vegetables. Through lobbying, food companies prevented the new bill from passing in order to produce food at a lower cost.  This will allow low budget schools to afford the food they need.  

People have accepted this bill as saying pizza is a vegetable, despite the small amount of tomato paste on the pizza.  On top of that, there are debates claiming that the nutrients found in potatoes, and starchy vegetables are being overlooked.  However, there is a specific group of activists who go as far as calling this whole ordeal a matter of "national security" based upon the facts that obesity is the leading cause of medical issues.  One specific woman, Amy Dawson Taggart addressed  Congress in a letter stating, "It doesn't take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this national disgrace." 

The idea of tomato paste being considered a vegetable is outrageous. It is almost a form of a loop hole, where putting something healthy in something unhealthy, now becomes a healthy option for the students to eat.  The assumption that pizza becomes a vegetable is a possible idea, if drawn out the right way.  For instance, using the right ingredients, like a whole wheat or multi-grain crust and a low fat cheese, can make for a healthy meal. However, promoting the healthiness of tomato paste as it is now is not helping students make better choices in their eating habits. Tomato paste might be just one of many revisions needed in school lunches. 

What is your opinion of tomato paste being considered a vegetable?  Can pizza be considered a vegetable if tomato paste is on it?  Does this idea seem like deception or a revolutionary idea meaning that unhealthy foods can be perceived as healthy with a change of ingredients?

Goodbye Pyramid, Hello MyPlate

Here are the sources we looked at!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/usda-replaces-food-pyramid-with-myplate-in-hopes-to-promote-healthier-eating/2011/06/02/AGRE16HH_story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/food-pyramid-food-plate/story?id=13743137#.T5Se747nyKw

For almost 20 years now, Americans have based their eating habits on a food pyramid, which consisted of six different food groups: dairy, sweets/fats, grain, meat, vegetables, and fruits. With each category of the pyramid, there are serving portions listed to show people how much of each food group they should be eating. This is done to enforce a healthy eating lifestyle, yet according to USDA officials the food pyramid seemed too complex and did not portray a clear idea of meals in relation to a good balance. Later, a new food pyramid was created and a person is shown walking up the side of it to relay this message of exercise. Just last year, the USDA introduced the new food pyramid, named "MyPlate".

MyPlate is designed as an actual plate divided into fourths with categories like grain, protein, fruits, and vegetables. There is also a cup on the side which stands for dairy. Essentially, this new model made it easier for people to actually visualize how much of each food group you should be consuming based on the plate. Also, half of the plate is devoted to fruits and vegetables, considering they are the healthiest foods one can eat. The "fats" group was completely eliminated simply because fatty foods should never be encouraged in a diet; they will never be considered healthy. 

An interesting visual implication made by MyPlate is that a healthy diet includes drinking milk. While this is certainly inline with the removal of the fats and sugars group in that it discourages the drinking of soda and other sugary drinks, it may cause some confusion over what is healthy to drink besides milk and what other dairy products are healthy to eat. For example, is drinking water and eating eggs instead of drinking milk necessarily unhealthy? Many health specialists would argue no.

With the new MyPlate, the USDA is trying to cut down on the rising obesity rate.  Because now fatty foods have been completely eliminated, people are encouraged to stay away from sugary and fatty foods that contribute to obesity. Also, the plate now doesn't specifically show meat in one of the sections and has been switched to protein, which could include beans or soy products to limit the fat content that comes from meat. With the help of the new MyPlate, America can take one more step to being healthier and less obese.

The reason for this change is because USDA officials claimed that the old Pyramid was too complicated and did not give people a clear way to adjust their diets to the diet recommended by the Pyramid. The new MyPlate was designed to be more artistic and attractive to consumers, in addition to be easier to understand. The old pyramid used to tell people how many servings of food types people should be eating every day. However, the new MyPlate contains none of that information so it is much simpler to read and comprehend. 

A food diagram is obviously important to have for people to refer to, but so many things have changed on it, which can really have people questioning it and its healthfulness. How do Americans really view the food pyramid or the new and improved "MyPlate" and is it actually beneficial? Is MyPlate actually easier to understand and does removing the desserts group help you to refrain from eating sugary and fatty foods? How misleading is listing the dairy section in the shape and position of a drinking glass? Does the new MyPlate effect your current diet?

Hi everyone...Sorry we didn't make this clear enough, but if you go to the red links on our blog (located in the second paragraph) titled "American nutritional facts" and "Australian nutritional facts"- those are our primary sources. Please be sure to read/look at the primary sources, read our post, then comment..Thanks guys and sorry again for not being clearer earlier.

Why is Fast Food Healthier in Other Countries?

Why is fast food healthier in other countries? Fast food chain such as McDonalds exist in many other countries with very similar menus items all featuring all the same ingredients, the only difference is that most countries' meals contain much less calories for a nearly identical meal. Compared to the United States even the most common menu items such as the Big Mac have drastic changes in nutritional value with the American version of the burger containing 540 calories while the Australian equivalent only weighs in at 493 calories. Where do the extra 47 calories in the American version of the burger come from?

While typically in America food proportions are larger than most countries this may provide a simple solution to why there are more calories in a meal, but fast food chains tend not to vary there portion much if at all. The likely cause of an increased calorie count per item in most likely from the way the food is prepared or the additives that go into the perishable products to keep them fresh longer or to help retain flavor. Burger patties cooked in American McDonalds are cooked in presses to increase efficiency which doesn't allow any fats to escape opposed to other countries where the patties are prepared on open grills making the final product different in taste and nutrition. The differences can be found by looking over the American nutritional facts and comparing them to the Australian nutritional facts.

There are many other possible reasons that could explain the poor nutritional value of McDonald's in America. In the US, fast food restaurants are extremely common and can be found anywhere. This causes a high amount of competition between different restaurant chains that lead to one place trying to undercut the other. The companies then, settle for low quality food supplies to increase their profits. However, in other countries, fast food places aren't nearly as common. This makes competition between the companies in other countries less of an issue which allows the restaurant to purchase higher quality meat products without as much added hormone.

The McDonald's menu caters to the cuisine of their locations, thus making individual culture and standards a factor in the discrepancy between McDonald's in the U.S. and McDonald's in other countries around the world. For example, a few years back you could order a pizza at McDonald's in Canada, or even purchase a beer with your meal in Germany. McDonald's in China and Japan use a variety of different meats in their food; there are less beef options available while chicken, fish and sushi are more readily served. The cuisine eaten by other countries definitely has a huge influence on what is served at McDonald's around the world to make it more appealing to their consumers.

McDonalds has adjusted their meals to suit the American market but at the cost of nutritional value despite the fact that they still try to advertise healthy meal choices. What do you think is the cause of this substantial calorie difference? Does this change in nutritional value bother you, how about the average American? Is it McDonald's fault or the consumers fault for demanding rapidly prepared food at low prices? Does this change your opinion on McDonalds knowing that you can eat the same food but with lower calories but are simply not given the choice?

Weekday Vegetarian

http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_weekday_vegetarian.html

For my first example blog post, I chose a TED Lecture by Graham Hill called "Why I'm a Weekday Vegetarian." To give a bit of background, TED is a non-profit organization that's dedicated to bringing together the best minds in the country to give short talks on important subjects such as education, the environment, war and foreign policy, technology, etc, etc. In this video, Graham Hill, creator of treehugger.com - a website to promote all things sustainable - gives a short, four minute talk on the topic of meat consumption and vegetarianism.

One of the effective strategies I noticed in Hill's talk is the use of rhetorical questions; that is, questions directed at the audience to bring them into the conversation and relate to their experience. Toward the beginning of the video, he confesses that, even given all he knows about the harmful impact of meat eating, he has had trouble taking the plunge and becoming a vegetarian. He asks the audience, "why was I stalling?". This question allows the audience to consider the reasons that they themselves may or may not be stalling when it comes to the question of vegetarianism. Later, he talks about vowing that each meal of meat would be his last, but continuing to eat it regardless and asks, "sound familiar?". Again, with this question, he tries to help the audience relate to his experience. Maybe they've felt like this before.

Another effective strategy is the symmetry of his talk. Two times at the beginning, he lists the drawbacks of meat consumption to our health, the animals, and greenhouse gas emissions. Then, once he poses his solution of weekday vegetarianism, he lists the benefits of this choice a couple of times as well ("health, pocketbook, environment, animals"). This technique of listing and recapitulating his reasons for going weekday veg, as he says, works very effectively to help the audience remember all of the benefits to be gained from reducing meat consumption.

I also enjoy the humor in his talk, for example, when he says "Imagine your last hamburger." Another quotable line that seemed significant was his final statement that, "if all of us ate half as much meat, it would be like half of us are vegetarians." His position makes a lot of sense to me because it does seem like vegetarianism and meat eating are presented to society as extreme, opposing choices, while in reality, we could all do a lot more good by simply picking a more mindful place in the middle.

Questions for discussion:

1) Which parts of the talk did you connect with most? Did the talk relate at all to your personal experiences?

2) Which parts of the talk seemed most convincing to you? What kind of evidence does Hill use to support his points and does it seem valid to you?

3) What are your impressions of vegetarianism - does it seem like a radical position? Does this more middle of the road option seem appealing?

4) What kind of persona does Hill present? Is he likable? Trustworthy? Encouraging? How does he create this persona throughout the talk?