Pushing Back on Big Food

The FDA’s proposed ban on trans fats is great news. But it doesn’t go far enough:

Who do you trust to regulate the safety of some of the most basic goods you consume every day: An independent expert, or the industry that makes billions of dollars selling those very goods?

When it comes to food, we are forced to trust the industry. This month, the federal government is trying to implement the food safety standards it passed in 2011 as part of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the first substantial piece of federal food safety regulation in decades. The new safety standards are modest; they do not address anything near the full range of food safety issues facing the American public. Yet, successfully implementing even these minor changes remains a challenge. And the food industry continues to have significant influence over basic safety and public health.

Even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not immune to this influence. It has finally recommended that artificial trans fats, an ingredient found in many processed foods, no longer be “generally recognized as safe,” despite serious health concerns about them that have been well-known for years. The FDA’s proposal is an important but much delayed step — so much so that the industry is responding to it with a mere shrug. The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that trans fats pose major health risks, and the FDA estimates that a ban could prevent 7,000 deaths and 20,000 heart attacks every year. But the food industry is not pushing back too hard on the proposed ban, because it has already had to adjust to a shift against trans fats, after local governments took steps (that the federal government did not) to promote the health of their citizens: New York City, California, Philadelphia, Cleveland and others banned the use of trans fats in restaurants years ago, stigmatizing them so much that consumers began largely avoiding their consumption.

Consumption of trans fats has significantly decreased over the past few years precisely because of local bans and the awareness they raised. But the FDA’s proposed ban is notable precisely because it is a disturbingly rare intervention on the part of a federal agency into food safety. An August 7 study co-authored by Pew Charitable Trusts and published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine revealed that Americans are almost entirely reliant on food companies to self-assess the safety of the additives they use to make food less perishable, look nicer and taste better. Those additives, including artificial sweeteners, coloring, salt and fats, also help food companies make their products cheaper and more appealing to consumers — and are not subject to outside scrutiny.

The degree to which the American food industry is unregulated should shock all of us. Now, our food safety standards are better than many places around the world, and government and industry regulation have made our food supply very safe — don’t listen to the DIY-obsessives who complain that things were so much better back in the day when everyone grew their own or traded with neighbors. Things were not better back in those days, because a lot of people got sick and died from the food they ate. Despite reports of salmonella outbreaks and various contaminations, food today is generally safer than ever, at least when it comes to stuff that will kill you immediately. What’s not safer is the sheer volume of chemicals, artificial ingredients, fat, sugar and salt in much of the food we eat — especially some of the most affordable and easily-accessible food. While many consumers could certainly be better at avoiding processed foods, it’s not so easy when the food industry has broad leeway to advertise their products with wildly misleading claims that imply health — “a good source of fiber,” “contains 8 necessary vitamins and minerals,” “made from real juice.” Giant money-making entities are not so good at regulating themselves, and it’s a shame that our government hasn’t stepped in more aggressively to make sure that consumers aren’t being sold a false bill of goods, along with plates of food that are slowly destroying our health.

Author: has written 5281 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

65 Responses

  1. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin November 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm |

    I agree. The past, regardless of how some might romanticize it, is no panacea.

    I think about cigarette smoking. It was so commonplace that when my father was in college, in the late ’60s, ashtrays were placed at the corners of each desk in a lecture hall. Now, some people still continue to smoke. I smoked for about ten years myself, until the habit began to take a toll on my health.

    We might be able to ban trans fat, but how will we regulate food products that are unhealthy? Until the early ’90s, the fries from Wendy’s were cooked in lard. They may have gone to vegetable oil, but I can still find lard for sale in the grocery store. Cultural diets are sometimes extremely unhealthy, while some may be more nutritious. It’s all so complicated.

    1. Canisse
      Canisse November 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

      how will we regulate food products that are unhealthy?

      With strong regulations? It works here in Europe, you know. We’re usually quite horrified by what companies are allowed to sell in the USA. Give strict guidelines that are actually inforced, and the problem is solved.
      Of course, the main difficulty here is how to actually pass those laws, but I know nothing of that, so I don’t really know what steps should be taken.

    2. Willemina
      Willemina November 18, 2013 at 12:47 pm |

      They went to partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, aka artificial trans fats. There’s no need to ban or regulate the consumption of foods that are just unhealthy but products that are fundamentally harmful should be taken off the market. Artificial trans fats are great from a logistics stand-point (shelf stability, cheaper than animal fats) but do awful things to cholesterol with a far greater impact than their natural counterparts.

    3. Fat Steve
      Fat Steve November 18, 2013 at 1:24 pm |

      Until the early ’90s, the fries from Wendy’s were cooked in lard. They may have gone to vegetable oil, but I can still find lard for sale in the grocery store.

      I still use lard in some things. It makes a better pie crust than vegetable shortening. Trans fats are a different thing, like high fructose corn syrup is a different thing than sugar. They are cost cutting measures, not a nutritional choice.

      1. Willemina
        Willemina November 18, 2013 at 2:01 pm |

        Trans fats occur naturally as well though, and if you’re buying the lard from a store in all likelihood it’s hydrogenated and therefore contains trans fat. They don’t usually push the process far enough to put the trans fat composition over the labeling requirement though. This is one of the places where I’m on board with the natural/artificial distinction, since naturally occurring trans fat is generally in trace quantities in animal based products while artificial trans fats have a completely different provenance and concentration.

      2. Lolagirl
        Lolagirl November 18, 2013 at 2:52 pm |

        Traditional lard is made from animal fat, and as it is solid at room temperature it not hydrogenated. Vegetable shortening, like Crisco, is hydrogenated. Some people also refer to Crisco like products as lard, which is I think causing some confusion.

        Some of the Latin markets here in Chicago still sell animal lard, usually from rendered pork fat, and is often used for making fresh tortillas. Is the lard you’re referring to rendered beef fat, Steve, or vegetable shortening?

        1. Willemina
          Willemina November 18, 2013 at 3:03 pm |

          Pork, lard. Beef, tallow!

          Retreats to kitchen-nerd cave. :D

        2. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve November 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm |

          Pork, lard. Beef, tallow!

          Retreats to kitchen-nerd cave. :D

          Agree on the Pork, lard. I have always referred to beef fat as suet, but I see tallow is regularly used, so I may be wrong.

        3. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve November 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

          Traditional lard is made from animal fat, and as it is solid at room temperature it not hydrogenated. Vegetable shortening, like Crisco, is hydrogenated. Some people also refer to Crisco like products as lard, which is I think causing some confusion.

          Some of the Latin markets here in Chicago still sell animal lard, usually from rendered pork fat, and is often used for making fresh tortillas. Is the lard you’re referring to rendered beef fat, Steve, or vegetable shortening?

          I always assumed that something labeled as lard would be rendered pork fat. Now that you mention the whole refrigeration/hydrogenated thing, I’m not so sure. This is the brand I get:
          http://barefootfts.com/assets/images/userPics/tinymce/lard.jpg
          It says “Lard and Hydrogenated Lard.”

        4. tinfoil hattie
          tinfoil hattie November 18, 2013 at 10:19 pm |

          Folks who know a lot more about this stuff than I do recommend using leaf lard, obtained from the areas around the loin and kidneys of the pig. Of course you can special-order it via the internet.

          Most grocery-store lard is hydrogenated, apparently.

        5. Willemina
          Willemina November 20, 2013 at 12:41 pm |

          Steve, did some more reading, talked to my dad a bit and I have some good news for you, or bad if food science makes you squick! The stuff out now usually contains a blend of lard and fully hydrogenated lard to improve texture at room temp and shelf life along with the BHA and/or BHT to prevent oxidation. Complete hydrogenation=saturated fat, partial hydrogenation=trans fat. So there isn’t likely any higher than trace but lower than labelling standards trans fat in your lard, but hydrogenation itself is a hellish process.

      3. Ledasmom
        Ledasmom November 19, 2013 at 7:43 am |

        How’s the taste on the lard-based pastry? I generally use butter (frozen and pounded) and a bit of Smart Balance, and get a very nice flaky pastry by doing that smearing-the-dough-on-the-side-of-the-bowl thing that has a French name I can’t remember right now.

        1. Angie unduplicated
          Angie unduplicated November 20, 2013 at 8:18 am |

          To me, lard has a nasty flavor. Butter is more expensive but it makes a better tasting pie crust. People swear by lard in biscuits but they can be made without any fat at all, just buttermilk.

        2. Ledasmom
          Ledasmom November 20, 2013 at 9:25 am |

          What sort of proportions and method do you use to make biscuits without fat? We’ve found that the usual recipes for hardtack, if baked at a higher temperature for a shorter time, make a very acceptable quick bread. The method for making authentic hardtack uses a low temp for a long time to properly dry it out, but it doesn’t taste as good and is hard to chew.

        3. Willemina
          Willemina November 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm |

          I’d be interested as well. I usually use buttermilk and oil as opposed to the heavier butter recipes because I like light and fluffy a lot more. That said, and even lower fat option would be nice so I could share with pets sans guilt about fat content.

        4. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve November 20, 2013 at 3:09 pm |

          How’s the taste on the lard-based pastry?

          I don’t notice a difference in taste from Crisco, but the texture is so much better.

      4. a lawyer
        a lawyer November 20, 2013 at 8:46 am |

        Suet IS beef fat–but it’s a very particular kind of beef fat: crumbly, mild, and with a high melting point, which is found around the kidneys of a cow.

        Tallow is a generic term for other rendered beef fat. If you rendered all the fat from a cow and included the suet you’d call it “tallow” generically, but you’d never do the reverse.

  2. Denise Winters
    Denise Winters November 18, 2013 at 5:29 pm |

    I think part of the problem is the amount of pull the big corporate food industry has in politics. Money buys a lot of power, including the kind of power that lets corn be considered a vegetable, gives subsidies to giant food corporations while school budgets are cut so low they can only afford the cheapest food possible prepared in the cheapest way possible (fried in huge batches or microwaved/warmed) and feel they need vending machines for income, allows really low percentages to be advertised as made from real juice or whole grain, etc. I think more regulation in terms of advertising would be great.

    1. Hugh
      Hugh November 19, 2013 at 1:44 am |

      Corn isn’t a vegetable?

      1. Willemina
        Willemina November 19, 2013 at 1:53 am |

        Grain.

        1. Hugh
          Hugh November 19, 2013 at 7:25 am |

          Oh, right

  3. Rob F
    Rob F November 18, 2013 at 9:33 pm |

    I’d also like to see restrictions on the amount of salt, sugar, and empty calories added to store bought processed / ready to cook/eat stuff (like packaged dinners, for example). By forcing people to add their own, it makes the amounts more obvious, and people will therefore have less, therefore being healthier.

    And one of the bigger problems is that, oftentimes, good food is more expensive than bad food.

    1. Ledasmom
      Ledasmom November 19, 2013 at 7:41 am |

      Eh. If I happen to buy a packaged dinner, I really don’t want to fart around adding stuff to it. That is kind of not the point of a packaged dinner.
      On the other hand, cutting salt and sugar by a small amount doesn’t usually change the taste enough for most people to notice. If companies could be encouraged to try that without making a big deal of it, that might work.
      My salty snacks, though, had better stay salty.

      1. Angie unduplicated
        Angie unduplicated November 20, 2013 at 8:24 am |

        Processors add salt to every food except turnip/collard/kale greens here. I cannot get low/no salt tomatoes in institutional sizes to make sugar/salt free ketchup. Low-sodium soy sauce and other such items replace the missing salt with ridiculous amounts of sugar. Everyday foods have no business being seasoned like “cheat” foods.

        1. Power of Choice
          Power of Choice November 20, 2013 at 10:16 am |

          This will continue until the public is less panicked about ‘artificial preservatives’ than they are about insane sodium levels.

          The sodium is used as a preservative.

  4. Kerandria
    Kerandria November 19, 2013 at 9:10 am |

    a good source of fiber

    FYI, if a food package makes a front-of-package claim with the words ‘good source’ or ‘excellent source’, that means that one serving will net you ten and twenty percent of x thing, respectively.

    Most front-of-package claims are ridic – did anyone see the Gerber+DEA formula packaging a few years ago? Ughhh propaganda and bad science.

    1. Kerandria
      Kerandria November 19, 2013 at 9:12 am |

      Oh, and good/excellent source terminology is what it is because of legislation regarding how those terms can be used.

  5. Sigh
    Sigh November 19, 2013 at 3:49 pm |

    This isn’t Europe. I don’t want the goddammned government telling me what to eat. I don’t want some enforced idiot vegan diet or somesuch.

    How about you just buy what you want, and let me buy what I want, and stop trying to push beyond that.

    1. tigtog
      tigtog November 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm | *

      LOL at your ridiculous notions of regimented vegan food choices in Europe.

    2. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune November 19, 2013 at 8:06 pm |

      Do Europeans often eat “idiot vegan” food? o_O

    3. PrettyAmiable
      PrettyAmiable November 19, 2013 at 8:10 pm |

      Yeah! And people should be able to drive without seat belts! What is this, France??

      1. Bagelsan
        Bagelsan November 19, 2013 at 9:46 pm |

        And car insurance, for that matter! Thanks for that, Stalin.

    4. Bagelsan
      Bagelsan November 19, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

      Honestly, this is less telling you “what to eat” and more telling you “what do you eat.” Asking for regulations and better labeling, etc., is hardly shoving a vegan feeding tube down your throat.

      1. foxy
        foxy November 20, 2013 at 12:47 am |

        Would you support regulations on abortions also?

        1. PrettyAmiable
          PrettyAmiable November 20, 2013 at 12:33 pm |

          I can’t be the only one who says yes to this, right?

          Here’s an example of an abortion regulation that’s analogous to the food regulation discussed in this article:

          I support a ban of performing abortions with unsterilized equipment.

          Amazing, right?

        2. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2013 at 8:30 pm |

          Yes! I do support regulations on abortion! I even support a ban on some abortions!

          For example, I support a ban on abortions on people who want to carry their pregnancy to term.

          I support a ban on abortions conducted on roller coasters.

        3. shfree
          shfree November 20, 2013 at 9:01 pm |

          I support a ban on abortions performed by people who haven’t been vetted by an appropriate agency, in order to prove that they are, indeed, qualified and able to safely perform an abortion. As in, I’m not going to think that the tattoo parlor down the street is a okay for offering terminations, no matter how sterile their equipment is.

        4. Andie
          Andie November 21, 2013 at 10:15 am |

          I support a ban on the use of abortion as an irrelevant non-sequitur in debates.

        5. ldouglas
          ldouglas November 21, 2013 at 10:23 am |

          Would you support regulations on abortions also?

          I actually am in favor of fairly strict regulations on abortions in the exact same way I am in favor of regulation on all medical procedure; that patients be informed of possible risks, that they give consent to all procedures, that the physicians attending to them be licensed and proficient in their field, that the facilities are inspected regularly, and so on.

        6. TimmyTwinkles
          TimmyTwinkles November 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm |

          I stand with PrettyAmiable in the name of intellectual honesty, but I also stand with Andie in protest against non-sequitization, especially when it’s also blatant abortion-baiting

        7. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve November 21, 2013 at 5:04 pm |

          I stand with PrettyAmiable in the name of intellectual honesty, but I also stand with Andie in protest against non-sequitization, especially when it’s also blatant abortion-baiting

          No, you must be Don Francisco’s sister.

        8. TimmyTwinkles
          TimmyTwinkles November 21, 2013 at 5:17 pm |

          I don’t know what you are referring to Fat Steve but I think I like it.

      2. Power of Choice
        Power of Choice November 20, 2013 at 10:12 am |

        No, this is exactly telling you what to eat. Or at least what not to. Foods with trans fats will no longer be approved for production.

        If this were simply a matter of labelling, it would be another matter entirely. I’m all for giving consumers the information to make an informed choice.

        But, unless I’m mistaken (certainly possible – please let me know if so – I have only seen this story on a few blogs whose credibilty I’m not sure of), this will ban foods with trans fats from being produced/sold.

        It seems this is all about other people telling me they know what’s best for me.

        1. EG
          EG November 20, 2013 at 10:38 am |

          Do you feel the same way about regulating drugs? What about laws forbidding diseased meat? Or regulations regarding hygiene in food preparation? Shouldn’t we all be allowed to take our chances if we want to?

        2. Willemina
          Willemina November 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

          Power of Choice, as a private citizen you can stick it to the man by manufacturing and consuming all the trans fat you want in the safety of your own home.

          Remember, for hydrogenation you’ll need oil, an industrial supply of hydrogen gas, some sort of metal catalyst slurry to add to the oil and few other odds and ends you can probably find around the house.

          Foods containing trans fats today will still be on the market after the ban, they just won’t have artificial trans fat above trace levels. If they go the Crisco route it’ll be some sort of arrangement of fully hydrogenated vegetable oil with a liquid oil to thin things out.

          This is all government regulation of industry, not government intrusion into your cookie jar. A cookie jar that is unlikely to contain lead or asbestos, not that you had a choice in the matter.

    5. Ledasmom
      Ledasmom November 20, 2013 at 9:28 am |

      As if an enforced vegan diet would ever fly in the land of the half-pound of beef, six strips of bacon, two types of cheese burger with a fried egg on top.
      Nice strawman, or is it a camel’s nose in the tent? Slippery slope?

    6. Power of Choice
      Power of Choice November 20, 2013 at 10:03 am |

      I agree with your sentiment, if not your hostility toward Europe.

      It is shocking to me that more people aren’t outraged by the implication that Americans are undeserving of being allowed to choose for ourselves the importance of healthy eating.

      Everybody knows trans fats are not healthy. But they do taste good. So it’s a tradeoff.

      Either I can indulge in some junk food now and then with full knowledge that doing so will shave off a few healthy years of my life, OR I can refrain and pass on some sensuous pleasures throughout life in exchange for maybe (no guarantees!) greater longevity.

      How dare our leaders decide they have the right to make such a personal life decision on my behalf. We have to weigh different priorities when making these lifestyle choices.

      Do those of you who support this ban really believe you are so superior to me that you have to protect me from myself?

      How many times a week must I go to the gym before I’m considered an adult again?Is there a particular ‘hot yoga’ class in which I’ll receive my card entitling me to exercising my own free will? Is it enough if I simply stop using lard in my own biscuits, or must I also point my finger and laugh at children whose BMI would have disqualified them from Hitler’s Youth?

      1. PrettyAmiable
        PrettyAmiable November 20, 2013 at 10:22 am |

        Points are always more clear when you invoke elements of the Holocaust. You’ve absolutely won me over.

      2. EG
        EG November 20, 2013 at 10:34 am |

        must I also point my finger and laugh at children whose BMI would have disqualified them from Hitler’s Youth?

        Yeah, regulating trans fats is totes like committing genocide against people like me. Thanks. Your respect for victims of such persecution is palpable.

      3. EG
        EG November 20, 2013 at 10:36 am |

        Americans are undeserving of being allowed to choose for ourselves the importance of healthy eating.

        Personally, I would like to choose for myself without the overwhelming influence of industrial advertising and lobbying. This will balance the scales a bit–or do you have another method of restraining the depredations of the industry?

        The point isn’t that trans fats are tasty. It’s that they’re cheap. Butter is tasty.

        1. Power of Choice
          Power of Choice November 20, 2013 at 12:02 pm |

          A good start to making healthy foods as cheap as processed junk would be to end subsidies which artificially decrease the prices of corn and red meat.

          Politically, farm subsidies are popular so I suppose I’m out-voted. But I don’t think anyone has the right to out-vote my right to make my own choices regarding healthy (or not) eating.

      4. Donna L
        Donna L November 20, 2013 at 11:56 am |

        I’m not a fan of invoking Godwin every time someone mentions Nazis — because sometimes it really is appropriate to bring them up — but this is a classic example. The Hitler Youth requirements were all about racial purity, not the purity and ingredients of food. Not the same thing.

        1. Power of Choice
          Power of Choice November 20, 2013 at 12:09 pm |

          For the record, no I wasn’t trying to call anyone a Nazi. Sorry if that wasn’t apparent.

          That doesn’t change the way I feel about ‘fat-shaming’. And yes, I think there is a strong undercurrent of that in this debate.

        2. Donna L
          Donna L November 20, 2013 at 12:24 pm |

          Nobody’s saying you were calling anyone a Nazi. What you were doing was making an absurd, monumentally stupid analogy to the Hitler Youth.

        3. PrettyAmiable
          PrettyAmiable November 20, 2013 at 12:42 pm |

          That doesn’t change the way I feel about ‘fat-shaming’. And yes, I think there is a strong undercurrent of that in this debate.

          Citations, please. You think any of us think there will be less fat/calories/whatever in food after the trans fat ban? When you’re the only one who mentions BMI on the thread, you end up looking like you’re hardcore projecting. Upthread, people are discussing which fat is best for pie crusts and biscuits. How is that not literally the opposite of what you’re claiming here?

        4. Power of Choice
          Power of Choice November 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm |

          Yes, it was absurd and stupid analogy.

          But its not absurd to be critical of the people who are so convinced their healthy living habits make them superior to people that they feel justified in negating my lifestyle choices.

        5. PrettyAmiable
          PrettyAmiable November 21, 2013 at 9:30 am |

          But its not absurd to be critical of the people who are so convinced their healthy living habits make them superior to people that they feel justified in negating my lifestyle choices.

          Soooo, no citations? Just straw arguments?

    7. Bunny
      Bunny November 20, 2013 at 2:37 pm |

      All those tasty foods existed and were cooked before artificial trans fats became as big a thing as they are now. Lard, butter, olive oil and other naturally-occurring fats worked just fine for making everything from pastry to cookies to creamy sauces and so on and so forth.

      Artificial trans fats aren’t widely used because they taste good. They’re widely used because they’re cheap. And the loss of quality of flavour is then made up for using added flavourings and extra doses of sugar (mostly corn syrup) and salt.

      There’s a reason that blocks of pastry and packs of cookies made with “all butter” cost more, and are sold with packaging making them out to be more of a luxury item.

      For comparison, buy a jar of mayonnaise. Make it a decent brand if you want, make it one that’s known to be good quality. Then in a separate jar make your own with fresh eggs and olive oil. Taste the difference.

      No one kind of food is going to disappear as the result of a ban on artificial trans fats. It’ll just mean the quality of the products you have access to will go up. And the food will be less harmful to your body.

      That said, one thing I am wondering is – with wages so low and living expenses so high – will doing this push the price of more food types beyond what poorer people can afford?

  6. Tim
    Tim November 20, 2013 at 6:57 pm |

    It’s true that not all things from the past are good, but if you want real change in our diet and food systems that would be positive, go back to all grass-fed meat. It is not only healthier to eat and more nutritious, but would be better for the environment, too. Grain is a completely unnatural food for cows, pigs, sheep and goats, our primary meat animals. Maybe not totally for poultry, but even they do better on less grain and more herbage. It’s pretty unnatural for humans, too. Getting rid of manufactured trans-fats is OK, but why think small?

    1. Donna L
      Donna L November 20, 2013 at 9:33 pm |

      I’ve stopped feeding grains to my Ziggy! Then again, he’s a carnivore.

    2. thinksnake
      thinksnake November 21, 2013 at 1:06 am |

      You know what, I’m going to need a citation for grains being unnatural for humans. Because that’s sounding rather like palaeo ideas, which somehow are okay with tomatoes and potatoes but not wheat.

      1. Tim
        Tim November 21, 2013 at 3:04 pm |

        Fair enough — I don’t have a specific citation, and my choice of wording may be off. Instead of saying “pretty unnatural,” I might have said “somewhat unnatural.” Grains are just the seeds of grasses, and hunter-gatherers probably ate small amounts of seeds from the ancestors of our various grains, along with their meat, berries, roots, greens and so forth. But it wasn’t until agriculture — selecting the tastiest ones and figuring out the growing could be planned and controlled to some extent and selecting for ever larger and more productive varieties — that humans really started chowing down on the cereals. And a whole bunch of social, economic, nutritional and environmental horrors flowed therefrom.

        1. samanthab
          samanthab November 23, 2013 at 8:03 pm |

          Really? People got fat when we domesticated agriculture? Yeah, that is unsupported paleo bullshit.

    3. ldouglas
      ldouglas November 21, 2013 at 10:19 am |

      Grass-fed meat also, to my sensibilities at least, is just way more delicious.

      As for people, read, please.

      1. Ismone
        Ismone November 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm |

        Whole grains being better than processed grains doesn’t mean they are better than no grains at all.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.