Is coffee good for you? It depends on the kind of coffee and the quantity

We’ve come a long way from the cans of Folgers that filled our grandparents’ cupboards, with our oat milk lattes, cold brews and Frappuccinos. Some of us are still very utilitarian about the drink while others perform elaborate rituals. The fourth most popular beverage in the country, coffee is steeped into our culture. Just the right amount can improve our mood; too much may make us feel anxious and jittery.

A moderate amount of caffeine can wake you up, boost your mood, energy, alertness, concentration and even athletic performance. The way you prepare your cup of joe may influence your cholesterol levels, too.

IS COFFEE GOOD FOR ME?

Yes.

In moderation, coffee seems to be good for most people – that’s 3 to 5 cups, or up to 400 milligrams of caffeine.

“The evidence is pretty consistent that coffee is associated with a lower risk of mortality,” said Erikka Loftfield, a research fellow at the National Cancer Institute who has studied the beverage.

For years, coffee was believed to be a possible carcinogen, but the 2015 Dietary Guidelines helped to change perception. For the first time, moderate coffee drinking was included as part of a healthy diet. When researchers controlled for lifestyle factors, like how many heavy coffee drinkers also smoked, the data tipped in coffee’s favor.

A large 2017 review on coffee consumption and human health in the British Medical Journal also found that most of the time, coffee was associated with a benefit, rather than a harm. In examining more than 200 reviews of previous studies, the authors observed that moderate coffee drinkers had less cardiovascular disease, and premature death from all causes, including heart attacks and stroke, than those skipping the beverage.

For example, having about five cups of coffee a day, instead of none, is correlated with a 30 per cent decreased risk of Type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of 30 studies.

In addition, experts say some of the strongest protective effects may be with Type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and liver conditions such as cirrhosis, liver cancer and chronic liver disease. For example, having about five cups of coffee a day, instead of none, is correlated with a 30 per cent decreased risk of Type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of 30 studies.

The potential benefit from coffee might be from the polyphenols, which are plant compounds that have antioxidant properties, according to Dr. Giuseppe Grosso, an assistant professor in human nutrition at University of Catania in Italy and the lead author of an umbrella review in the Annual Review of Nutrition.

However, coffee isn’t for everyone. There are concerns about over consumption. This is especially true for expecting mothers because the safety of caffeine during pregnancy is unclear. While the research into coffee’s impact on health is ongoing, most of the work in this field is observational.

“We don’t know for sure if coffee is the cause of the health benefits,” said Jonathan Fallowfield, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, and co-author of the British Medical Journal review.“These findings could be due to other factors of behaviors present in coffee drinkers.”

DOES THE WAY COFFEE IS PREPARED MATTER?

Yes. Do you prefer a dark or light roast? Coarse grinding or fine? Arabica or robusta?

“All of these different aspects affect the taste, but also affect the compounds within the coffees,” said Neal Freedman, a senior investigator with the National Cancer Institute. “But it’s not clear at all how these different levels of compounds may be related to health.”

Roasting, for example, reduces the amount of chlorogenic acids, but other antioxidant compounds are formed. Espresso has the highest concentration of many compounds because it has less water than drip coffee.

The way you prepare your cup of joe may influence your cholesterol levels, too.

A study in JAMA Internal Medicine examined the coffee habits of nearly 500,000 people in the UK and found that it didn’t matter if they drank one cup or chain-drank eight – regular or decaf – or whether they were fast metabolisers of coffee or slow. They were linked to a lower risk of death from all causes, except with instant coffee, the evidence was weaker.

The way you prepare your cup of joe may influence your cholesterol levels, too. “The one coffee we know not suitable to be drinking is the boiled coffee,” said Marilyn C Cornelis, an assistant professor in preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and co-author of the JAMA Internal Medicine study.

Examples of this include the plunge-happy French press, Scandinavian coffee, or Greek and Turkish coffee – the kind commonly consumed in the Middle East. (When poured, the unfiltered grounds settle on the tiny cup’s bottom like sludge. To peek into the future, elders in the region have a tradition of reading the sediment of an overturned cup, like a crystal ball.)

However, the oil in boiled coffee has cafestol and kahweol, compounds called diterpenes. They are shown to raise LDL, the bad cholesterol, and slightly lower HDL, what’s known as the good kind.

“If you filter the coffee, then it’s no issue at all,” said Rob van Dam, a professor at Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health at National University of Singapore. “For people with cholesterol issues, it’s better to switch to other types of coffee.” He’s been studying coffee for two decades. (And, yes, he’s had a lot of coffee in that time.)

However, other researchers say not to throw out the boiled coffee just yet. The clinical significance of such small increases in cholesterol may be questionable, given that it’s not associated with an increase in cardiovascular deaths.

Many consumers have also swapped loose grounds for coffee pods. While there are environmental concerns with single use pods, researchers believe them to hold the same benefits as, say, drip coffee. The latter applies to cold brew, too, but more research is needed.

DO ALL KINDS OF COFFEE HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CAFFEINE?

No. Espresso has the highest concentration of caffeine, packing about 70 milligrams into a one-ounce shot, but is consumed in less quantities. By comparison, a typical 12-ounce serving of drip coffee has 200 milligrams of caffeine, more than instant’s 140. And, yes, brewed decaf has caffeine, too – 8 milligrams – which can add up.

When buying coffee, you never really know what you’re going to get. At one Florida coffee house, over a six-day period, the same 16-ounce breakfast blend fluctuated from 259 milligrams all the way up to 564 – which goes beyond federal recommendations.

A moderate amount of caffeine can wake you up, boost your mood, energy, alertness, concentration and even athletic performance. On average, it takes four to six hours to metabolise half the caffeine.

But for some of us, knowing how much caffeine is in our coffee can be especially important. You’ve probably noticed it before. How a friend can pound quadruple espresso shots at 10 pm and sleep afterward, while you can’t have any past noon, or you’ll be watching Seinfeld reruns until dawn. Some of us have a polymorphism, a genetic variant that slows our metabolism for caffeine. It’s these individuals that Dr Grosso recommends limit their refills. “They take a coffee, and then they have the second and the third, and they still have the caffeine of the first,” he said.

You can even find out whether you are a fast or slow metaboliser through a variety of direct-to-consumer testing services, including 23andMe.

IS COFFEE ADDICTIVE?

Evidence suggests there can be a reliance on the drink, and tolerance builds over time. Withdrawal symptoms include a headache, fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and depressed mood.

Indeed, caffeine is a psychoactive drug, and coffee is its biggest dietary source. About a half-hour after sipping a cup of joe, the caffeine kicks in, and is quickly absorbed. Blood vessels constrict. Blood pressure increases. A moderate amount of caffeine can wake you up, boost your mood, energy, alertness, concentration and even athletic performance. On average, it takes four to six hours to metabolise half the caffeine.

For those knocking back more than 400 milligrams of caffeine a day, there’s not enough evidence to assess the safety, according to the Dietary Guidelines. Higher doses can lead to caffeine intoxication, with its shakiness, nervousness, and irregular heartbeat. Caffeine is also linked with delaying the time it takes for you fall asleep, how long you stay there, and the reported quality of that shut eye.

“I think that caffeine is so common and so ingrained in our culture, and daily habits, that we often don’t think about it as a potential source of problems,” said Mary M Sweeney, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Extremely high doses of caffeine can be fatal. But researchers say that’s more likely to occur accidentally with caffeine powder or pills.

Cutting down coffee may help with gastroesophageal reflux, too. A new study found that women drinking caffeinated beverages – coffee, tea, or soda – were associated with a small but increased risk of symptoms, like heartburn. The study’s authors predicted fewer symptoms when substituting two servings of the drinks with water.

Current available research hasn’t determined what amount of caffeine can be safely consumed during pregnancy, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Caffeine does cross the placenta so some doctors may recommend pregnant women stay below 200 milligrams of coffee daily.

Extremely high doses of caffeine can be fatal. But researchers say that’s more likely to occur accidentally with caffeine powder or pills. “You don’t see a lot of people going into the emergency room because they accidentally drank too much coffee,” said Dr. van Dam.

WHAT IS A COFFEE BEAN?

Inside the red fruit of coffea lie two coffee beans. Green in color, the duo spoon together, the rich brown hue to appear only after roasting. In fact, they aren’t beans at all. “It’s like a cherry, you pick off the tree,” said Patrick Brown, a professor of plant sciences at University of California, Davis. Unlike the cherry, though, the seed is the prize, and the flesh is discarded.

Coffee is also a good dietary source of vitamin B3, magnesium and potassium.

In addition to caffeine, coffee is a dark brew of a thousand chemical compounds that could have potential therapeutic effects on the body. One key component, chlorogenic acid, is a polyphenol found in many fruits and vegetables. Coffee is also a good dietary source of vitamin B3, magnesium and potassium.

“People often see coffee just as a vehicle for caffeine, but, of course, it’s a very complex plant beverage,” said Dr. van Dam.

With coffea’s estimated 124 species, most of flavours remain untapped; and perhaps will be forever, with an estimated 60 per cent under threat of extinction, largely from climate change, disease, pests and deforestation. What fills our mugs at cafes, the office, and on road trips are from two species: Arabica and canephora, known as robusta. Arabica fills specialty cafes, and costs more than robusta, which fuels instant coffees and some espressos.

For all of the pomp swirling around arabica, the fact remains it is an extremely homogeneous little seed. Almost all of the world’s arabica coffee progeny traces itself back a few plants from Ethiopia, coffee’s birthplace, or Yemen.

DOES ADDING MILK OR SUGAR CANCEL OUT BENEFITS?

Doctors don’t know. One 2015 study found that those adding sugar, cream or milk had the same associated benefit as those who preferred it black. But the coffee industry has exploded since the ’90s when the older adults in the study filled out their dietary history. “It was only about a tablespoon of cream or milk, and a teaspoon of sugar,” said the study’s lead author, Dr Loftfield, with the National Cancer Institute. “This is very different, potentially, than some of these coffee beverages you see on the market today.”

Sweet coffee and tea are the fourth largest source of sugar in the diets of adults, according to the October survey from the USDA. That includes dessert-like beverages, like Dunkin’ Donuts’ 860-calorie creamy frozen coconut caramel coffee drink, with 17 grams of saturated fat, and 129 grams of total sugars. Experts say some of these drinks bear little relation to the 2-calorie cup of black coffee of the past, worrying health officials.

“When you talk about a drink that has that load of unhealthy fats and that much sugar, can’t possibly be a healthy beverage on balance,” Dr Jim Krieger, a clinical professor of medicine and health services at the University of Washington. “That amount of sugar alone is astronomical compared to the current recommendations of US Dietary Guidelines of 50 grams of sugar a day.”

The concern is heightened, experts say, especially because an estimated 43 percent of teens are now drinking coffee – nearly doubling since 2003 – according to the research firm Kantar, driven partly by sweet drinks.

“People should worry a lot about what they put in the coffee and what the food and beverage industry puts in it,” said Laura Schmidt, a professor at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. “And sweetened coffee is one of the things that the beverage industry is pushing on the public now that consumers have turned away from soda for health reasons.”

SHOULD I START POUNDING DOWN MORE COFFEE?

Depends on your goals in life.

If you are enjoying the drink in moderation, doctors say continue onward, and savour those sips. And for those patients with a sensitivity to the beverage, Dr Sophie Balzora, a gastroenterologist, weighs the benefits and risks very carefully. The clinical associate professor of medicine at N.Y.U. School of Medicine understands its cultural significance, and knows to tread lightly. As she put it: “Robbing people of their coffee seems cruel.”

By Dawn MacKeen © The New York Times


Taken from this article:
Is coffee good for you? It depends on the kind of coffee and the quantity

Are plant-based Impossible Burgers really more healthful than a meat-based burger?

The meat industry has a warning for consumers: Beware of plant-based meat.

That is the message behind a marketing campaign by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a public relations firm whose financial supporters have included meat producers and others in the food industry. In recent weeks the group has placed full-page ads in The New York Times and other newspapers raising health concerns about plant-based meat substitutes like the Impossible Burger and the Beyond Burger, which are designed to look, taste and even appear to bleed like real meat.

Millennials are gobbling down plant-based burgers, prompting meat producers to question the health benefits of "ultra-processed imitations."

The ads call them “ultra-processed imitations” with numerous ingredients. “What’s hiding in your plant-based meat?” asks one ad featuring a sad face made of two patties and sausage. Another directs readers to a site that compares plant-based burgers to dog food. In November, the group’s managing director, Will Coggin, wrote an opinion piece in USA Today that labeled fake meats as ultra-processed foods that can spur weight gain, although the research on processed foods has not included plant-based meats. A few days later, the center’s executive director, Rick Berman, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal criticizing plant-based meats as highly processed and no healthier than meat. Its headline: “‘Plant-based meat’ is all hat and no cattle.”

Impossible Foods, which makes a popular plant-based burger, said the campaign was misleading and fearmongering. The company says plant-based meat alternatives are better for consumers and better for the planet, requiring less land and water and producing fewer greenhouse gas emissions than meat from cattle. The new “disinformation” campaign, they say, is a sign that Impossible Foods’ mission – to disrupt the meat industry and replace animals in the food system – is working. “It’s a point of pride to have that organization come after us,” said Pat Brown, the company’s chief executive. “It’s hard to imagine a stronger endorsement.” (The Center for Consumer Freedom did not respond to requests for an interview.)

Replacing a hamburger with a plant burger is not an improvement in diet quality if you chase it with French fries and a sugar-laden soda.

Unlike other vegetarian meat substitutes, the new plant-based burgers are winning over meat lovers. The market research firm NPD Group says that 90 per cent of the customers purchasing them are meat-eaters who believe the products are more healthful and better for the environment, said Darren Seifer, an analyst at NPD, which recently predicted that plant-based meats will have staying power because of their popularity with millennials.

“The two big brands, Beyond and Impossible, have replicated the burger experience without having to sacrifice the taste of the burger,” he said. “So now a lot of consumers feel like they have a healthier option, they are reducing the amount of meat they consume, and they just feel better about that.”

But are plant-based meats really better for you than meat? It depends on how you eat them, said Dr. Frank Hu, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. Replacing a hamburger with a plant burger is not an improvement in diet quality if you chase it with French fries and a sugar-laden soda, Hu said.

For consumers trying to choose the healthiest option, Hu said studies comparing the metabolic effects of eating beef burgers versus plant burgers are currently underway. In the meantime, he considers the meat substitutes “transitional foods” for people who are trying to adopt more healthful diets.

In August, Hu, along with a group of health and climate experts, published a report in JAMA that explored whether plant-based meats can be part of a “healthy low-carbon diet.” Studies show that replacing red meat with nuts, legumes and other plant foods can lower mortality and chronic disease risk, but it’s not possible to extrapolate that processed burgers made with purified soy or pea protein will have the same health benefits, said Hu.

Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat say the building blocks of their burgers are plants. The Beyond Burger has about 18 ingredients, including purified pea protein, coconut and canola oils, rice protein, potato starch and beet juice extract for coloring. Beyond Meat says it uses no genetically modified or artificially produced ingredients.

The meat substitutes “transitional foods” for people who are trying to adopt more healthful diets.

The Impossible Burger is made with similar basic ingredients but it gets its protein largely from soy and potato, and it uses an iron-containing compound from soy called heme to enhance the burger’s meaty flavor. Both products use methyl cellulose, a plant derivative commonly used in sauces and ice cream, as a binder.

Compared to a beef patty, the Impossible and Beyond burgers have similar amounts of protein and calories, with less saturated fat and no cholesterol. They also contain fiber; real meat does not. But compared to real beef, the two plant-based burgers are considerably higher in sodium, containing about 16 per cent of the recommended daily value. An uncooked four-ounce beef patty has about 75 milligrams of sodium, compared to 370 milligrams of sodium in the Impossible Burger and 390 milligrams in the Beyond Burger.

This fall, Burger King said it had its most successful quarter in four years, driven by sales of its plant-based Impossible Whopper. Dunkin’ Donuts announced it was rolling out a breakfast sandwich made with Beyond Meat sausages in 9,000 of its stores after a successful trial run in New York City. More than 50,000 grocery stores and restaurants, including fast food chains like Subway, White Castle, KFC and Carl’s Jr., carry products from Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods.

Despite the popularity of plant-based burgers, beef burgers are still overwhelmingly the more popular choice at restaurants. Americans purchased 6.4 billion beef burgers at quick service restaurants during the 12 months that ended in May, compared to 228 million plant-based burgers in the same period.

An uncooked four-ounce beef patty has about 75 milligrams of sodium, compared to 370 milligrams of sodium in the Impossible Burger and 390 milligrams in the Beyond Burger.

While meat consumption in America is at an all-time high, many Americans have shifted from eating beef to poultry. In the past three decades, beef intake has fallen by about a third, while chicken intake has more than doubled and pork intake has remained fairly steady. Studies show that cost, convenience and health concerns are among the top reasons Americans have cut back on beef.

But the health messages about red meat have been confusing. Earlier this year, a group of scientists challenged decades of nutrition advice, saying that warnings linking red meat consumption to heart disease and cancer are not backed by strong scientific evidence, though it was later revealed that the study’s lead author had past research ties to an industry group whose members include fast food companies and a beef processor.

Meat producers are taking the fight against fake meat to lawmakers. At least 25 states have introduced bills making it illegal to use the words “beef” or “meat” on products made from plant ingredients or cultured meat that is grown in a lab. Missouri became the first state to pass such a law last year, which was initially proposed by the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association.

In October, Rep Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas and the top recipient of livestock industry donations in the House, introduced a federal bill that would require companies to put the word “imitation” on their plant-based meat products. The bill calls for the products to carry a statement on their packages “that clearly indicates the product is not derived from or does not contain meat.”

Marshall, an obstetrician, said he introduced the bill after hearing from constituents. Patients of his told him they were confused about the health benefits of plant-based beef substitutes, and beef producers told him they were frustrated that the products are sold in grocery stores next to ground beef. “Kansas has a very large beef industry and they said, ‘Why are we allowing this fake meat in the meat department?’” he said.

Brown, the chief executive of Impossible Foods, said his company’s mission is not to convince consumers that the Impossible Burger is the most nutritious food they can eat. It is simply to persuade people who want a “cow burger” to eat an Impossible Burger instead.

“The niche that this fills is not the same niche that a kale salad fills,” he said. “If you’re hungry for a burger and you want something that’s better for you and better for the planet that delivers everything you want from a burger, then this is a great product. But if you’re hungry for a salad, eat a salad.”

By Anahad O'Connor © 2018 The New York Times


Taken from this article:
Are plant-based Impossible Burgers really more healthful than a meat-based burger?

Red and processed meat increases heart risks, latest study concludes

Four months ago, the Annals Of Internal Medicine published a controversial report that encouraged people not to worry about the health risks of eating red and processed meat, contradicting decades of nutrition advice.

A new study found a meat-heavy diet carries a small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The report was widely criticised by public health experts, including leading health groups like the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. Some experts called for the paper to be retracted, while others celebrated its findings and used it to raise questions about long-standing dietary guidelines discouraging meat consumption.

On Feb 3 (Monday), a group of prominent researchers pushed back, publishing a large study in JAMA Internal Medicine that once again highlighted the potential harms of a meat-heavy diet. The researchers analysed data on a diverse group of thousands of people who were followed for an average of three decades.

They found that people who had the highest intakes of red meat, processed meat and poultry had a small but increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. People who regularly ate fish, however, did not see an increased cardiovascular risk.

The new findings are unlikely to settle the debate over red meat and its link to chronic disease. But they provide further evidence for experts who argue that red and processed meats contribute to the risk of heart disease, and they suggest that health authorities are unlikely to alter their recommendations to limit meat consumption.

One of the authors of the new study, Professor Linda Van Horn, is a member of the advisory panel that is currently helping the federal government update its influential Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which have long recommended that people limit their intake of red and processed meat. Prof Van Horn is a member of two advisory panel subcommittees, including one that is drafting recommendations on dietary fats and seafood.

The findings reinforce recommendations that people should prioritise foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds, and limit their intake of foods such as red and processed meats, refined grains, fried foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

In an interview, Prof Van Horn said that the new study relied on some of the highest quality data available. She said the findings reinforce recommendations that people should prioritise foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds, and limit their intake of foods such as red and processed meats, refined grains, fried foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

“When you eat a diet that is rich in processed and refined foods, it collectively contributes to increased risk of disease and denies you the benefits of the fibre, vitamins, minerals and plant-based proteins that contribute to health,” said Prof Van Horn, division chief of nutrition in the department of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The conclusions of the new study contrast with those of the report last fall in Annals, which found that reductions in red and processed meat intake resulted in fewer deaths from cancer and heart disease but concluded that the evidence was weak because much of the data came from observational studies that cannot show cause and effect. The authors said that any increased risk was too minimal to warrant telling people that they should cut back on meat.

Critics complained that the research was flawed. They argued that the authors evaluated the evidence against meat using a tool that was designed for clinical drug trials, not dietary studies. The lead author of the report came under fire for failing to disclose conflicts of interest, including taking money from a food industry group to publish a similar paper in the Annals three years earlier that used the same methods to discredit widespread guidelines urging people to eat less sugar.

In December, the Annals issued a correction on the meat paper acknowledging the lead author’s undisclosed conflicts.

The authors of the latest paper had a different interpretation of the evidence on meat consumption. Their analysis, initiated a year ago and funded in part by the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health, looked at data on 30,000 people who were followed for decades as part of six long-running studies on cardiovascular disease. Among the studies included in the analysis was the landmark Framingham Heart Study.

Begun in 1948, the Framingham study has helped scientists identify what are now recognised as some of the leading risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and physical inactivity.

The researchers examined the subjects’ diets and whether it impacted their heart disease and mortality rates. The study was observational, meaning the scientists could isolate links between diet and lifestyle behaviours and cardiovascular outcomes but they could not prove cause and effect. Ultimately, they concluded that eating two or more servings of red meat, processed meat or poultry per week was linked to a 4 per cent to 7 per cent higher risk of developing heart disease. They found that the higher the intake, the higher the risk.

While many people who eat meat do not develop heart disease, the findings reflect what other large studies and scientific reviews have consistently found as well, including the recent Annals report: Higher amounts of meat intake are associated with a small but increased risk of developing heart disease.

Ultimately, whether to eat meat is for individuals to decide. Animal welfare issues are a concern for many. Sustainability issues are also a consideration, as red meat in particular has a high environmental impact.

As far as health is concerned, red and processed meat consumption is one of many overall diet and lifestyle factors that play a role in cardiovascular health, said Associate Professor Norrina Allen, a senior author on the latest study and associate professor of preventive medicine at the Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. She said that while some people might consider it a minor factor, it is nonetheless important not to dismiss.

“I would say that even though it seems to be a small amount of risk, any excess risk for something as major as heart disease and mortality is worth considering,” she said.

By Anahad O'Connor © The New York Times


Taken from this article:
Red and processed meat increases heart risks, latest study concludes

A Sweet Challenge for Food Detectives

Honey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I will leave this news article un-muddled... Read on...
-----


BY PETER ANDREY SMITH


SAVANNAH, Georgia – There are three vials filled with a sticky, yellowish substance here at the United States Customs and Border Protection’s laboratory. Honey, or so an importer has claimed.

The task: Determine whether the samples are adulterated with sweeteners or syrups, and, if they really are mostly honey, figure out where it originated. If the honey comes from China, often the case, the entire shipment may be subject to additional taxes.

Honey has been a focal point for the lab and the source of a long-running international food scam –known as honey laundering – that has challenged even the existing forensic technology.

Some 70 percent of the honey consumed in America is imported. In 2001, the Commerce Department enacted a stiff tariff on Chinese honey after American producers complained that Chinese competitors were dumping their products on the market.

Then, honey imports from other countries spiked, including from nations not known for large bee populations. According to the American Honey Producers Association, Malaysian beekeepers, for example, have the capacity to make about 20,000 kilos of honey annually, but the country has exported as much as 17 million kilos of honey to the United States in a year.

In an effort to stanch the flow of illicit honey, chemists here have tested thousands of samples from ports across the Southeast. In 2008, the lab demonstrated with about 90 percent accuracy that honey imported from Thailand, the Philippines and Russia had originated in China.

Robert Redmond and Christopher Kana, two of the lab’s chemists, recently took a honey sample and added an acid to digest it. The result looked like muddy water.

Scientists recently have demonstrated that subtle chemical variations in many foods, including honey –undetectable to the tongue or the naked eye – can give a strong indication of where it originated. The lab’s analytic work depends on these geographic “tracers.”

Once a sample is diluted, the liquid is pumped into a device called a mass spectrometer. Inside, a nebulizer turns the sample into a fine mist over heated argon, a process that yields a distinct signature of trace elements.

The spectrometer can measure chromium, iron, copper and other elements to several parts per quadrillion. Each combination reflects the composition of soils: The elements were taken up by flowering plants and foraged by bees.

Soils vary by region, and by statistically comparing the presence of some 40 different elements to a reference database, the Customs agency scientist can ascertain the probable origins of samples.

At first, the detection of transshipped honey relied on a simple test for an unapproved antibiotic, chloramphenicol, discovered in Chinese honey. Carson watts, former director of the lab in Savannah, said the Chinese quit using it when “word got out.”

Around 2006, some importers appeared to be cutting honey with high-fructose rice syrup or disguising cheap, pure honey as an artificial blend. (At the time, the import duty applied to artificial blends that were more than 50 percent honey by weight.)

The problem? Reliably determining the ratio of rice syrup to honey is nearly impossible.

“An importer could present goods to Customs and say, ‘This is 90 percent rice syrup, 10 percent honey,’ and Customs really has no way of knowing,” said Michael J.Coursey, a lawyer who has represented American honey producers.

In 2011, the government accused three companies of importing millions of dollars’ worth of rice fructose blend that was mostly honey. The importers said the product was less than 50 percent honey. The scientists in Savannah produced evidence that pollen in the blends showed the substance to be mostly honey. But defense lawyers challenged the research on scientific grounds. The case was dismissed.

The most sophisticated chemical analysis may have its limits. But for the moment, the food detectives are undeterred. Mr. Redmond said, “If it’s honey from Malaysia, then we’re testing for China.”


Taken from TODAY Saturday Edition, The New York Times International Weekly, 31 January 2015

Related articles

• Honey Full Movie Watch Online Free
• 10 things you may not know about #honey.
• Xiaomi: A bluffer's guide
• I, The Lonely Bee
• How to Make Honey Butter Like Grandma Used to Make
• What Can I Make With Herb-Infused Honey? - Good Questions
• How Sweet It Is - Honey 101
• 3 Effective Honey Masks for Acne Treatment
• Nektar Naturals Honey Crystals Review
• Musselman's Honey Cinnamon Flavor Apple Sauce

We could always do with a KIT KAT

Cover via Amazon

Mars bar (UK style). Photo by sannse. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A US Mars bar (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mars Believe Bar Limited Edition Football World Cup 2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: A US Mars bar that has been split in half. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Loco over choco

The taste for chocolate is one of the most fundamental and ineradicable human urges



ROBERT COLVILE
features@mediacorp.com.sg


London – I once met a nutritionist – one of these irritatingly healthy, glowing-skin types – who swore that she could eliminate the craving for chocolate. If you adhered to her chosen diet plan, she insisted, your body would return to a state of such perfect balance, be so in tune with nature and all its wonderful goodness, that the mere thought of a Mars bar would be enough to prompt mild nausea.

This struck me then, and strikes me now, as arrant nonsense. As far as I can tell, the taste for chocolate is one of the most chocolate fundamental and ineradicable human urges. Lord knows, I’ve tried to eradicate it. In fact, I’ve spent much of this week testing my taste for chocolate to destruction, after being left (in the wake of a birthday picnic) with a pile of confectionery that included a plate of brownies, assorted chocolate fingers, mini-rolls, squares of millionaire’s shortbread, and two whole chocolate cakes. After a few days of profiteroles for breakfast and scattering goodies around the office, I just about got through the backlog. But I could still murder a Kit Kat.

MERE BRAIN CHEMISTRY?

You can, of course, explain all this in terms of brain chemistry. Journalist Damian Thompson has written powerfully about the addiction mechanisms built into our cravings for little sugary treats, about how we become hooked on the hit of pleasure delivered by a cupcake frosted with towering icing. Sugar, as we all know, is an incredible mood-lifter: Another co-worker confessed recently – and was there a hint of pride alongside the shame? – that he has taken, when feeling low, to devouring an entire block of mint Viennetta in a single sitting.

It’s true that when you’re tired, or stressed, the siren lure of chocolate becomes ever more difficult to resist. The latest sneaky innovation is “sharing bags”, a section of the market in some places that’s going gangbusters. The ads tend to depict thin, happy people passing them round with beaming smiles, yet I have yet to meet anyone who has actually shared one, save under duress. Most are guzzled through in a single sitting, delivering bite after bite of chocolately goodness. (In fact, I’m prepared to offer a bar of Green & Black’s Maya Gold to anyone who has ever had the willpower to use the “resealable” bags to defer the pleasure till later.)

MORE ELEMENTAL

But I don’t think we’re just going through the neurochemical motions. I think there’s something deeper, more elemental, at work. With other products – wine or beer, for example – we gradually drift away from the cheap stuff, our tastes moving upmarket with our income. Sure enough, many confectioners now dwell on their bars’ cocoa percentage and the beans’ origins in a remote Peruvian village, presenting their choccies as the artisanal equivalent of a particularly spectacular Pouilly-Fuisse.

But while I’ll happily devour a bar of 70 per cent Venezuelan, there are many more times when all I want is to get hold of a little brown square of Cadbury’s, and let it do its Proustian work. I’m hardly alone: Indeed, the new musical of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory has done such boffo box-office because Roald Dahl tapped in, with his peculiar genius, to exactly this sensation, setting up Wonka’s chocolate as the ultimate sweet, the Platonic ideal of chocolate.

Think of the almost pornographic way in which Dahl tantalises the reader with the thought of Wonka’s factory- first the view from outside, then the taste of that first bar of Whipple-Scrumptious Fudgemallow Delight, then (once the doors creak open) the smell from the great Chocolate Room wafting down the corridor, until finally Charlie and the other children are unleashed to eat their fill. The book is, in theory, a parable about the virtues of restraint over indulgence. But if you had a golden ticket, you’d be scoffing your face alongside Augustus Gloop in a heartbeat. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH


Taken from TODAY Saturday Edition, June 29, 2013

Related articles

• Library celebrating 50th anniversary of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'
• Willy Wonka in Winterport
• Read these facts about Chocolate in the City of York
• Tony Winner Mark Rylance to Star in Spielberg's Adaptation of Roald Dahl's THE BFG
• Album Review: Primus - Primus & the Chocolate Factory with the Fungi Ensemble
• Austin-area entrepreneur ups her game with new chocolate factory (Slideshow)

New cookbook reveals popes’ favoured dishes

Cover of The Bon Appetit Cookbook

VATICAN CITY


From an Argentinian dessert that translates as “milk candy” to Polish ravioli, a member of the Vatican’s famed Swiss Guard has unveiled a range of recipes of dishes favoured by popes.

David Geisser, 24, who joined the elite Vatican security corps a month ago, launched his cookbook Bon Appetit, Swiss Guard in Rome on Tuesday.

In includes recipes for dishes such as the Dulche de Leche, a milk-based dessert created in Argentina a century ago, which made its way to the Vatican’s tables last year with Pope Francis.

There is also the Polish pierogi, or dumplings of unleavened dough traditionally stuffed with potato filling, sauerkraut, meat, cheese or fruit – a nod to the late Pope John Paul II – and Bavarian delicacies favoured by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, a German.

“A soldier can fight and wage war only when he has eaten well, and enough,” said Daniel Anrig, the head of the Swiss Guards.


AFP

Taken from My Paper, Thursday, October 23, 2014

Related articles

• Culinary Institute of America
• Discount Mags FALL Discount Sale!
• The diner or the desk: can you do lunch for less than a fiver a week?
• Bridal Shower Brunch Ideas & Bridal Shower Brunch | Pottery Barn
• Tourist Stop | Levi Strauss
• New Recipe Book Sheds Light on Papal Favorites
• 5 Unique Pumpkin Recipes to Celebrate Fall!
• 10 Instagram Accounts for Foodies to Follow
• Discount Magazine Deals - 5 Magazines for $20
• How to Pickle Turnips (and just about any other Vegetable)

When cooking liver...

Lamb (sheep) liver (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

25-August-2014


How do you cook liver? Actually, I did not mean to ask that question. My point on this short article is how you prepare the liver before cooking.

So how do you clean pig liver or cow liver before you cook it? Or specifically, how do you lessen the liver-y smell or taste?

Some say soak in vinegar. Some say pre-cook for a short while, etc.

What we discovered is to simply cut and wash well, and then before cooking, about half an hour, soak in water that can be easily drained. So it could be in some deep bowl and the cut liver in some strainer, which can be easily lifted up and out and washed.

Do this every 5 minutes, and you would notice that the water will always be red, for why not? Liver is doing blood cleaning, so it is just naturally soaked in blood. And the blood in liver is what makes it taste and smell liver-y.

Once the blood in the liver is removed, or kept to the minimum, then the taste and smell will be very different.

So if you need to eat high-protein meat, which is usually liver, try this one. You'll like it!

Related articles

• Foods Of The World - India - Chicken Liver Pepper Fry

Does Scent Carry Olive Oil's Secret?

Oil tasting, BAIA October 2006 Wine Tasting, California, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A 1-liter glass bottle and bowl Bertolli brand Riserva Premium extra virgin olive oil. Olive oil from Italy, Greece, Spain, and Tunisia, and bottled and packed in Italy. Olive oil purchased in a Stow, Ohio store. Photographed in Kent, Ohio, United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Olive Oil (Photo credit: Smabs Sputzer)

23-July-2014


Well, it's been about 2 years since my last post, and since I stopped writing articles due to work constraints, I just decided to collect papers so one day (and that is now), I would be able to type in selections. This is one, and I have a whole stack of year-old papers but timeless and priceless artifacts. Read on....
-----


by Anahad O'Connor


Why is olive oil, the crown jewel of the Mediterranean diet, so good for your health?

Nutrinionists points to its abundance of antioxidants and oleic acid, a monounsaturated fat that protects the heart. But new research suggests that some of the benefits of olive oil might be contained in its aroma.

The research found that compared with other oils and fats, extra virgin olive oil was more likely to increase a person's feelings of satiety after a meal.

But another phase of the study showed that imparting the scent of olive oil to food -- by adding an aromatic extract -- reduced the amount of calories people in the study consumed and improved their blood sugar response.

The senses of smell and taste, it is well known, are two senses that are strongly tied together.

Previous research has shown that manipulating the aroma of certain foods can influence the amount of them that people choose to eat. Intensifying the smell and flavor of a dessert, for example, can prompt people to take smaller bites.

The goal of the new study was to look at the factors that make some foods more filling than others.

Many products in supermarkets attract buyers with labels saying "low-fat," but eating low-fat foods can cause people to compensate by overeating later, said Dr. Malte Rubach, a nutritional scientist who conducted research with colleagues at the German Research Center for Food Chemistry, a government-financed institute based outside of Munich that published the report.

"We wanted to see whether there was a way to reduce the fat content of food without losing its taste or aroma," he said.

The researchers, who received no funding from producers of olive oil, began the study by comparing the effects of four different fats on feelings of satiety: lard, butter, olive oil and canola oil. Canola oil has less monounsaturated fat than olive oil, but less saturated fat as well, and is often recommended along with olive oil as a healthy alternative to other cooking oils.

The researchers recruited 120 people and randomly split them into five groups. The participants were told to eat 500 grams of yogurt every day for three months. In four of the groups, the yogurt was enriched with one of the four fats. The fifth group, which served as the control, ate plain, zero-fat yogurt.

The subjects were followed closely and regularly given blood tests. They were not told specifically what was in their daily yogurt, though for ethical reasons they were informed that it might be enriched with animal or plant-derived fats, Dr. Rubach said.

After eating their yogurt, the olive oil group showed the greatest increases in blood levels of serotonin, a hormone associated with satiety. They also reduced their caloric intake most days to compensate for the extra yogurt, which prevented them from gaining weight, a pattern that was also seen in the butter and control groups.

The canola and lard groups, however, did gain weight during the study period. Instead of cutting back on other calories, they added the yogurt to what they were eating on a regular basis.

"You could see that those who felt satiated reduced their total energy intake," Dr. Rubach siad, "whereas the others didn't reduce their energy intake and they gained some weight."

The researchers were particularly surprised to see that weight and body fat increased in the group that was fed canola oil, despite health properties that are similar to olive oil's. So they designed the next phase of the study to see whether something other than the nutrients in the two oils accounted for their different impacts.

This time, subjects were split into two groups that were given zero-fat yogurt.

In one of the groups, the yogurt was mixed with an aroma extract that imparted the scent of olive oil without adding any fat.

Those who ate the plain yogurt showed a drop in serotonin levels and reported less satiation after eating it.

They also did not cut back on other calories to compensate; instead their intake increased an average of 176 calories a day.

The group eating the olive-oil scented yogurt, meanwhile, reduced their calories from other foods and showed better responses on glucose tolerance tests,which measure blood sugar control. Abrupt swings in blood sugar are part of what drives hunger and satiation.

The researchers attributed the impact of the olive oil scent to two compounds that are particularly abundant in Italian olive oils, including hexanal, which is said to resemble the scent of fresh cut grass.

Dr. Rubach siad that because the study was small, it would not be a good idea to draw any general recommendations from it.

But the findings suggest that consumers should be aware that the physiological impact of a meal is not limited to what they can see on the plate.

"This is the first time where we've really looked at the effects that things other than fatty acids, protein and carbohydrates have on satiety," he said. "Everything that completes our impression of a meal can have an impact."


-----
Taken from TODAY Saturday Edition, April 13, 2013

Related articles

• Well: Is the Secret to Olive Oil in Its Scent?
• Is the Secret to Olive Oil in Its Scent?
• The Very Smell of Olive Oil is Good for You!
• Oils And Fats Regulate Feeling Of Satiety, But Olive Oil Works Best
• Just Smelling Olive Oil Makes You Feel Full
• 7 Foods You Thought Were Bad for You But Aren't
• Women's Nutrition Through the Decades
• Scientists tap into the 'aromatherapeutic' potential of olive oil
• Are You Eating Enough Of These Vital Nutrients?
• 9 Signs You Need to Eat More Fat