Ketchup can get healthier, and under 5 minutes!

Ketchup is the mother of all condiments. It’s sweet and salty and pairs with just about anything,  even when the combo seems intuitively odd. I, for instance, have long praised the healing powers of ketchup and white rice, and a friend of mine can’t bear to eat scrambled eggs without it. Ketchup has carved an indelible spot in our food psyches – it’s a classic that some estimates claim can be found in 97% of U.S. households.

Tracing its origins to China, Ketchup was first introduced in the U.S. in 1837. By 1900, ketchup was sold by more than 100 manufacturers. In 1872, HJ Heinz introduced his version of the condiment at the Philadelphia Fair, and to this day, the recipe has remained unchanged. Over the years, first for sanitary reasons and later for marketing’s sake, the FDA has developed strict guidelines concerning the consistency of ketchup and ingredients in it.

Behind the classic lies not so uplifting stats. Ingredients in Heinz Ketchup include tomato concentrate, distilled vinegar, high-fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, salt, spice, onion powder, and natural flavoring. While the list is relatively simple, high-fructose corn syrup is a known culprit, so much to the point that many are beginning to backfire, claiming it is “unfairly maligned.” Truth is, it deserves the flack!

In a 2010 Princeton University study, researchers found that high-fructose corn syrup leads to considerable weight gain, at a rate higher than other sweeteners. According to the study, which was administered on rats, those fed high-fructose corn syrup gained much more weight than those fed table sugar, even with the same caloric intake. The lab animals on a long-term high-fructose corn syrup diet experience abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the belly. Researchers noted that even rats on a high-fat diet don’t gain weight to that extent.

In 1 tablespoon of Heinz Ketchup, there are 20 calories, 160 milligrams of sodium, 6 grams carbohydrates, and 4 grams of sugar. The benefits deriving from the plum tomatoes are outweighed by the compounding calorie, sodium, and sugar dosages. Whoever just stops at 1 tablespoon? A few tablespoons in, and you’ve got yourself a condiment that threatens meal-status.

A condiment should never derail a diet, but many of us don’t know when to stop dipping, because serving sizes are never that clean cut. That’s why I’ve put together this simple homemade ketchup that you can whip up without laboring over the stove, risking your fries going frigid.

Using the same elements – tomatoes, sweetener, and vinegar – I’ve upped the ante on their health benefits. Maple syrup is one of the healthiest sweeteners on the market, with a lower glycemic index than other mainstream sugars. Apple cider vinegar, especially one that is indicated as “raw,” is full of vitamins, minerals, pectin, and beta-carotene. It also boasts many benefits – treats sunburn, helps weight loss, removes teeth stains, cures severe acne, treats digestive ailments, fights allergies, and reduces cholesterol.

Enjoy!

2-minute Homemade Ketchup

Makes just over 1 cup

Ingredients:

• 1 cup tomato paste
• 1 tbsp maple syrup (or agave)
• 1/4 tsp mustard
• 1 tbsp apple cider vinegar
• 1/2 tsp sea salt
• 1/4 cup water

Directions:

Combine all ingredients and mix until smooth. No cooking required!

Add lukewarm water by the teaspoon to reach the consistency you crave.

Serve aside sweet potato French fries or lather on top of a vegan chickpea burger!

Bon Appetit!

Aylin Erman currently resides in Istanbul and is creator of plant-based recipe website GlowKitchen.

Images: Overthinking Me, Aylin Erman

The post Nutritional Breakdown: Revamping America’s Favorite Condiment: Ketchup [Recipe] appeared first on EcoSalon.

Everything in moderation.

Most articles about the recent class action lawsuit against Nutella start with fond recollections of the author’s first encounter with the addicting hazelnut spread. My own experience is similar; I think Nutella and instantly conjure up memories of childhood summers in Umbria, hiking trips, and continental breakfasts on European train cars.

So when news that a California mom had accused parent company Ferrero of misleading advertising that characterized Nutella as “nutritious” and “healthy,” food writers with similar associations came to the company’s defense. The general consensus was that the plaintiff had to be, in some sense, kidding.

“Not withstanding my own youthful Nutella experience, how could a mom mistake the spread for health food?” wrote one NPR blogger. “I mean, the stuff tastes like chocolate.”

To be fair, the ads in question are a bit of a stretch. The television spot features a fresh-faced soccer mom espousing on the difficulties of feeding her children a balanced breakfast they’ll “want to eat.” According to the commercials, Nutella is a good option, with its simple quality ingredients like “hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of cocoa.” The spread’s top two ingredients – sugar and palm oil – are notably absent from the list.

Is the Nutella case just another example of a big sugary corporation trying to fatten up the American public through misleading advertising? Or is there more to the story? This week’s Behind the Label takes a look.

The Good

The Ferrero company was founded in the 1940s by an Italian pastry maker named Pietro Ferrero, who, facing a shortage of cocoa because of World War II rationing, turned instead to the hazelnuts that grew in abundance in the Piedmont region of Italy. Italian children embraced Ferrero’s hazelnut spread, and supercrema gianduja, as it was then called, was promoted as a democratic “product for the people” during Italy’s scarce post-war years. According to the company’s history:

From the start, Nutella spread was well received, since it was a less expensive way for people to enjoy something that tasted so good… a kilo of chocolate at the time was 6 times the cost of a kilo of pasta gianduja. So Nutella was a product that everyone could, and did, enjoy. The product became so popular that Italian food stores started a service called “The Smearing.” Children could go to their local food store with a slice of bread for a “smear” of supercrema gianduja.

In 1983, Nutella entered the American market, backed by a 40-year history as a European breakfast staple. However, Ferrero is careful about its marketing, both in the United States and abroad. The company applies the “Framework for Responsible Food and Beverage Communication” adopted by the International Chamber of Commerce, as well as self-regulatory codes developed locally. In addition, in early 2012, all Ferrero companies adopted a set of “Principles on Advertising and Marketing,” which governs marketing decisions according to the company’s values. Of particular note is Ferrero’s policy on marketing to children:

Ferrero has always believed in the crucial role played by parents in educating their children to a balanced diet and a healthy and active lifestyle. Therefore, advertising & marketing communications concerning our food products are directed primarily to the adults who make the household purchasing decisions and to young people 12 years and older, in terms of content as well as of media purchasing. Ferrero believes that particular care should be exercised when commercial communications are directed primarily to children, especially when children are most likely exposed to such communications without parental supervision.

As a result of these policies, Ferrero companies don’t advertise to audiences with more than 50 percent children under age 12. Rather than cultivate an early desire for products like Nutella through Saturday morning cartoon commercials and child-targeted promotions (hat tip, Frosted Flakes and Happy Meals) Ferrero aims to place the responsibility for food choice and education on the adults. In other words, Ferrero markets to the people who will (hopefully) read the labels at the supermarket and make an informed purchasing decision, rather than the ones that will throw fits when mommy won’t buy the bright sugary cereal they saw on TV.

The Bad

As much as I’ve always wanted to believe that Nutella was roughly the European equivalent of peanut butter – peanuts, hazelnuts, same thing… right? – I quickly learned the falsity of that myth after my first semester of college and the requisite 10 pounds that accompanied it. I stopped keeping Nutella on hand to prevent myself from the inevitable overindulgences (just one more pita-Nutella wrap before class) and late-night finger dollops (don’t act like you don’t know what I’m talking about).

So if it isn’t just raw hazelnuts, what does go into a jar of Nutella?

Unsurprisingly, ingredient numero uno is sugar, nearly five teaspoons per serving of it. You didn’t really think that taste came from a “hint of cocoa,” did you? Thankfully, it isn’t high-fructose corn syrup. The second ingredient on the list is palm oil, an ingredient that is known for being high in saturated fat. Though palm oil has lately been linked with rainforest deforestation. Ferrero is a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, a consortium dedicated to responsible palm use, and its palm oil is extracted from certified growers in Malaysia.

Nutrition-wise, a two-tablespoon serving of Nutella contains 200 calories, 11 grams of total fat, and 3.5 grams of saturated fat, along with 3 grams of protein, 1 gram of dietary fiber, and small percentages of calcium and iron.

The basis of the recent lawsuits were a marketing campaign and series of advertisements that failed to mention these facts, instead focusing on Nutella’s role as part of a balanced breakfast. This led the plaintiff, Athena Hohenberg, to purchase the product and feed it to her four-year-old daughter. According to court documents:

At various times during the Class Period, Ms. Hohenberg purchased Nutella spread after being exposed to and relying upon advertisements and representations by Defendant that Nutella is a “healthy breakfast” and is “nutritious.” Ms. Hohenberg was searching for healthy foods to serve her family for breakfast or as a snack because she is aware that healthy nutrition is important for maintaining the overall health of her family. Ms. Hohenberg trusted the representations made by Ferrero in its labeling Nutella, “An example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast,” in association with a picture showing fresh fruits, whole wheat bread, and orange juice.

Though Ferrero denied any wrongdoing, the company agreed to a class action settlement and will pay out more than $3 million to consumers who purchased Nutella between January 1, 2008, and February 3, 2012 (August 1, 2009, and January 23, 2012, in California), according to the New York Daily News. Ferrero also agreed to make changes to its marketing materials in order to make clearer that Nutella is not, in fact, a health food.

The Questionable

Now, I wouldn’t compare the nutritional content of Nutella with that of flaxseed or quinoa. But I do think that when consumed in moderation, Nutella can find a place within a balanced diet, particularly when it’s an accompaniment to more nutritious foods like whole wheat toast and fruit. A light-handed smear of Nutella, even with its sugar and palm oil, is preferable to a bowl of traditional children’s breakfast cereals like Froot Loops and Lucky Charms, with their loads of preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, and artificial coloring.

The trick is to view Nutella as what it is: a spread whose primary ingredients are sugar and palm oil. In the European countries where Nutella is a breakfast staple, portions are often smaller and people rarely overeat. If we adopt those principles, there’s no reason we can’t also enjoy a bit of Nutella with our morning toast… so long as we have the willpower to avoid those finger dollops.

Image: Janine

The post Behind The Label: Nutella appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Corn Refiners Association has applied to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar” – gee, I wonder why?! According to a NY Times article, proponents of the change believe that this name more accurately reflects the nature of the syrup noting that the substance contains the same components as table sugar. The industry is worried that people have been misled by the name high fructose corn syrup and because of the current stigma now attached to the it, many food manufacturers are removing the syrup entirely from their products.

Granted, this is basically a PR stunt. While the term “high fructose corn syrup” may be misleading when comparing the substance to sugar, the public’s awareness of the prevalence of sweeteners in processed food products in general is a good thing. Changing the name to “corn sugar” does not alter the fact that a vast amount of food products sold in this country contain large quantities of sugar, whatever its form. If the basic chemistry of the sweeteners is the same, then perhaps the name change could help consumers’ overall awareness of sugar in their diet – regardless of where it comes from.

Still, the controversy over high fructose corn syrup remains, whether considering the health of individuals or of the planet as a whole.

“We do what we must, and call it by the best names.”-  Ralph Waldo Emerson

Image: normalityrelief

The post High Fructose Corn Syrup to Get a ‘Corn Sugar’ Name Makeover? appeared first on EcoSalon.

This is Part 1 of 2 posts of in-depth analysis into the breakthrough work on high-fructose corn syrup and weight gain by Princeton researchers.

I have to admit that I was fascinated to watch the fallout over the Princeton HFCS study. What I thought would generate a “oh, look, another great reason to avoid HFCS!” reaction swiftly turned into “that study doesn’t prove a thing!” – a sentiment that nutritionists, food business columnists and the Corn Refiners Association all, remarkably, shared.

Still, several questions raised by critics are worth addressing. We contacted the lead author of the Princeton study, Bart Hoebel, to see if he could shed some light on general questions surrounding the work as well as particular objections raised by physiologist Karen Teff, Ph.D, of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in a blog post by Nicci Micco on Eating Well‘s website.

The full email transcript appears below. One clarification in particular that I found interesting has to do with claims that the researchers didn’t directly compare HFCS consumption to table sugar consumption in a key experiment and thus are not able to conclude that HFCS causes more and worse weight gain over table sugar. In the experiment in question, researchers gave rats access to a 10% HFCS “drink” in addition to their normal feed. The rats gained excess weight in their abdomens (which is associated with metabolic disorders) and their triglyceride levels increased (also a symptom of metabolic disorders).

Dr. Hoebel points out that previous research has firmly established that if you give rats access to a 10% table sugar “drink” in addition to their normal feed, they do not gain additional fat. In other words, their bodies are able to metabolize the extra calories without creating more weight. This previous research is referenced in the study–but was apparently overlooked by critics. In other words, while the researchers didn’t compare HFCS to sugar directly in that particular experiment, we already know what happens to rats when you feed them small amounts of additional table sugar.

I understand that his answers to this and other criticisms won’t convince everyone, but I hope people will read the commentary below and think about just what level of “proof” we need before questioning the wisdom of making HFCS ubiquitous in our food system. For more thoughts on why the debate over HFCS has become so contentious, see Part 2 of this analysis.

The first two questions we had for Dr. Hoebel came from Grist Food Editor Tom Philpott:

Q: Do you have any particular comments on the issue of “statistical significance”? Is it true that the results in experiments 1 and 3 both lacked statistical significance, as some have claimed?

Hoebel: No, this is not true as a general statement. We reported results that are statistically significant as stated in the article. In Experiment 1, rats with 12-or 24-hour access to HFCS gained significantly more weight than the group with 12-hour access to sucrose. In Experiment 3, the main finding is that females rats with 24-hour access to HFCS weighed the most after 7 months , and this was overall (Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance) statistically different than the sucrose and chow fed controls.

This is important and meaningful because the 24-hour HFCS females had significantly heavier fat pads in the abdominal and uterine areas. They also had higher blood triglyceride levels than the other groups, which may have contributed to the body weight and body fat.

Q: Why did “Experiment 2” in your study, which compared rats’ access to HFCS over 12 and 24 hour time periods, not include sucrose? What are the clearest conclusions that can be drawn from its results as constructed? [Note to reader: this question is also addressed above–the bit about access to table sugar solution not seeming to show weight gain in rats.]

Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.

The vision of the paper was to study the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesity, not just to pit it against sucrose. The clearest conclusions that can be drawn from Experiment 2 are that, in male rats, long term consumption of HFCS increases triglyceride levels and fat accrual. To us, this is an important finding. It shows that not only will HFCS increase body fat, but it will also increase these obesogenic parameters

Next, we asked Dr. Hoebel to respond to criticisms of his work leveled by Dr. Karen Teff of the Monell Chemical Senses Center:

Comment #1: The solutions of HFCS and sucrose used in all the studies-there were a few-in the Princeton report provided different levels of calories. (The HFCS, in fact, was lower in calories.)

Hoebel: It is true that the solutions of HFCS and sucrose were not offered as calorically equivalent. We note this in the Methods section of the paper. However, it is important to note that the HFCS consuming rats in Experiment 1, the short-term (2-month) study, showed greater gains in body weight while taking in fewer calories of sugar compared to the groups consuming sucrose. This led us to hypothesize that there might be something different about the way HFCS affects the body. Thus, we conducted Experiment 2, the long-term (6 month) study, and measurements showed that increased triglyceride levels and increased body fat were seen in the rats will access to HCFS, but not sucrose.

Comment #2: In one of the studies, the authors reported that male rats had a higher body weight after being exposed to 12 hours of access to the HFCS plus their typical rat chow compared to 1) standard chow alone, 2) 12 hours of access to sucrose with chow, and 3) 24 hours of access to sucrose with chow. However, they did not report or do the statistics on the change in weight. Thus, this is meaningless and poorly controlled.

Hoebel: One of the groups listed above is cited incorrectly; group 3 had 24 hours of HFCS and chow access (no sucrose access). As stated in the Methods section, the males in the three groups of Experiment 1 were “weight-matched”. That means the average (mean) weight of the rats in each group started out the same. Therefore the end-point body weights reported are in fact accurate representations of the mean body weight change. Ergo, the statistics were done on the appropriate measure. The result is meaningful and well controlled, given the use of not one but three comparison groups.

Comment #3: In a second experiment, they compared chow to chow-plus-HFCS for 24 hours and chow-plus-HFCS for 12 hours and found that access to the HFCS increased body weight. So what? Again, meaningless. This is like taking two groups of people, giving them the same diet but allowing one group to drink sweetened soda whenever they liked. Of course, they will gain weight because they are ingesting more calories. These findings have nothing to do with the controversy between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup.

Hoebel: The result is, in fact, meaningful. As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight. Therefore, we thought it was interesting and important to report that long-term access to HFCS causes rats to become overweight, whereas access to 10% sucrose does not. While comparisons were made to sucrose in some of the studies, this was not the sole focus of the paper. Rather, we were interested in seeing the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic characteristics, and there were other variables of interest that were studied (as described in the response to the next comment).

Comment #4: Finally, in a third study, they show body weight as a percent of baseline (this is appropriate) and show that rats who had free access to both chow and HFCS gained a tiny bit more weight than chow alone, 12 hours of HFCS or 12 hours of sucrose. They did not compare it to the control of 24 hours of access to sucrose.

Hoebel: The statistical test (Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance) did show an overall significant difference between female rats with HFCS to drink 24-hr per day and the groups with chow alone or 12-hr access to sucrose, as described in the Results section. We did not compare 24-hr HFCS vs. 24-hr sucrose in this study because 1) in our previous studies (with both male and female rats) we have noted that rats with 24-hr access to 10% sucrose do not gain significantly more weight than chow-fed controls, and 2) in addition to comparing HFCS to sucrose, we were interested in the effects of limited (12-h) access to HFCS to see if it would cause binging that might enhance HFCS intake or body weight. Further, we chose to focus on assessing 12-h access as a variable because we did not know the effect of 12-hr vs. 24-hr HFCS access in female rats. This was of interest to us in light of the findings in Experiment 1 in males where we made that comparison, and because our laboratory has a long-standing interest in the effects of binge eating of palatable food. We explain and give the rationale for the choice of these variables in the Methods section.

So yes, the females drinking 24-hr HFCS showed a statistically significant increase in body weight. It is important and meaningful because these females had significantly heavier fat pads in the abdominal and uterine areas. They also had higher blood triglyceride levels than the other groups, which may have contributed to the body weight and body fat characteristics of obesity.

Our study in laboratory rats complements the growing body of literature suggesting that HFCS affects body weight and some obesogenic parameters. We cite in our paper additional evidence reported by other groups that supports our findings, and also acknowledge studies that suggest that HFCS does not affect body weight in ways different than that of sucrose. We acknowledge in the paper that at higher concentrations (e.g. 32%) sucrose has been shown to increase body weight. We are claiming, however, that at the concentrations we compared in this study, HFCS causes characteristics of obesity. The data show that both male and female rats are (1) overweight, (2) have heavier fat pads, particularly in the abdominal area and (3) have elevated circulating triglyceride levels.

For more information and references on this topic, as studied in both animals and humans, see a review published this year by George Bray, Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010 Feb; 21(1):51-7. “Soft drink consumption and obesity: it is all about fructose”.

Editor’s note: Article by Tom Laskawy. Originally published by our friends at Grist.org. Grist is a media organization that has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a humorous twist since 1999. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Grist on Twitter, too!

Image: JonathanCohen

The post A High-Fructose Corn Syrup Researcher Answers His Critics appeared first on EcoSalon.

Remember those commercials aired by the Corn Refiners Association that tried to convince us that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) isn’t bad for you? It turns out, they may be wrong. It’s all over the blogosphere this week: in the national fight against obesity, high fructose corn syrup is one food ingredient we should possibly be avoiding altogether. The nutrition controversy has raged for years, with one side claiming HFCS contributes to obesity in a way that plain old sugar does not, and the HFCS camp countering that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. But several recent studies have indicated that this may not be true.

And while you know to pass on the candy bars, even meals like sandwiches and salads may be hiding a serving of high fructose corn syrup behind their healthy image. Check the labels of these typically nutritious foods to play it safe.

Bread

Nothing goes together better than whole grain and high fructose corn syrup. Wait a minute. That’s not right! You mean well, but when you buy a loaf of whole grain bread, you may be getting duped by the manufacturers. While whole grain is stamped on the front in big, bold letters, high fructose corn syrup may be hiding in fine print on the ingredients list. This is a common marketing move, but at least you’ll never fall for it again.

Flavored Yogurt

Key lime pie, blueberry crumble, chocolate raspberry, lemon meringue”¦ It’s hard it is to resist a 100-calorie snack of these mouth-watering flavors, but flavored yogurt is often a source of high fructose corn syrup. According to a carton of Yoplait Blackberry Pomegranate yogurt (that I just threw in the trash), it ranks fourth out of fourteen on the list of ingredients. Just opt for plain yogurt and add some flavor with sliced fruit and cereal…Oops, I spoke too soon.

Cereal

When you decided to take the Special K challenge, you had no idea you were upping your dose of high fructose corn syrup in an attempt to shed a couple extra pounds. This and other seemingly wholesome cereals entice you with nutritious claims that are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Opt for simple, home made granola instead.

Condiments

Backyard BBQ season is just around the corner, so beware of this year’s infamous party crasher: high fructose corn syrup. Ketchup, barbeque sauce and Worcester sauce, just to name a few, contain large amounts of this unhealthy ingredient.

Canned Vegetables

Would it surprise you to know that a can of sliced peaches is chocked full of high fructose corn syrup? Probably not. What if I said the same thing about canned tomatoes, beans or pickles? I, for one, was shocked to learn that this all-too-common processed substance is a leading ingredient in many types of canned vegetables. Opt for fresh and seasonal, or frozen, and when buying canned veggies check the labels.

Salad Dressing

High fructose corn syrup even manages to find its way into your nutritious salads via the dressing. Read the labels to steer clear of this ingredient or concoct your own tasty salad dressing from oil, vinegar and spices to ensure you know exactly what you’re consuming.

Granola Bars

Not only are they packed with sugar, many different kinds of granola bars also contain surprising amounts of high fructose corn syrup.

For more foods with high fructose corn syrup, visit Divine Caroline.

Images: Flickr; Emiline220, Dalboz17, ohdearbarb, atomicShed, LollyKnit, The Gifted Photographer, Stef Noble

The post 7 Surprising Sources of High Fructose Corn Syrup appeared first on EcoSalon.