It's Only Natural...and That Means Nothing!

The next time someone tells you something is "only natural," I suggest you say something like, "Do I look like the time of unthinking sheep that jumps on the 'me too' marketing bandwagon!? 'Natural' is a descriptor of parallel worth to 'fine,' 'new,' and 'fresh!' Heap your hype on the pyre, along with miracle cures, limited-time offers, and 'Now with Better Taste!'"

The above response is best suited to discussing "health food," as it is less versatile than you may expect. In the third installment of my Food Industry Information Battle Series (FIIBS), I want to look at what Natural means, why it's ubiquitous, and where we should go from here.

For the readership who enjoys moving pictures and sound, here's a clip which sums up the "Natural" marketing movement nicely:

A proper gander at the propaganda: This video is obviously a propaganda video. It's produced by onlyorganic.org. Who is that? It's a consortium of companies who produce organic products. The list includes Earthbound Farm, Rudi's Organic Bakery, Honest Tea, and many others. These are businesses who enjoy market share because they have gone through the proper channels to ensure their products are Certified Organic. It makes sense that they wouldn't want any old opportunistic company slapping a "Natural" label on its product and becoming a competitor. (Just like "real" doctors are so dismissive about the ones you find on Craigslist.) To their credit, many of these businesses are also run by the original owners and seem genuinely passionate about making food free of harmful additives, GMO, and pesticide. The above propaganda gets my seal of approval, sort of like smoke detector industry propaganda.

So, in the USA, "natural" has no enforceable, consistent definition:

The international Food and Agriculture Organization does not recognize the term "natural" as constituting anything specific in regard to food.

Nice try, SC. You're fooling no one.

The USDA and FDA have no enforceable guidelines for "natural" product labeling. In the USA, you can inject your chicken with lots of salt water, and this is not, by any meaningful definition, unnatural.

Since we know "natural" is a marketing ploy at best, it can't hold any weight over us as consumers, right? Of course not. American shoppers are smarter than that. It's not like pricing something at "$2.99" instead of "$3.00" is actually so effective that it is inescapable...  It's not like we "fall" for mail-in rebates, since we all mail them in, every time. We live in a postmodern, hyper-aware era of consumer agency, where we know every trick in the book. Now if I could just get hold of Kevin Trudeau to send that rebate he promised me...

Or maybe...there wouldn't need to be anti-"Natural" videos if "Natural" wasn't so effective.

We're not in a Kansas "all-natural" beef slaughterhouse anymore...

The resistance to over-processing and wanton additions to food has been going strong since the advent of the modern food industry, predating even the addition of synthetic pesticides to American agriculture in the 1940s. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides worried some folks in Europe, prompting the formation of such organizations as Demeter International of Germany in the 1920s. By the 1940s, there was a robust organization of farmers worldwide who were feeling Aggro about Big Agra's new practices.

20 years later, Silent Spring was published. The next decade saw the banning of DDT and the creation of Organic Certification in the US. Legitimate concerns were birthing an industry, as well as opening the door for marginally effective all-natural deodorant.

1979 gave us not only horror classic Alien, but also the first USDA-approved "natural" beef. One Mel Coleman of Coleman Natural Meat wanted to sell beef from cows raised without antibiotics, hormones, or a meat diet. The USDA said, "No problem, Mel." It is unknown whether Mel was provided with a certificate, or if the matter was resolved in a few minutes of chat over a rotary phone. Despite Coleman's good intentions, a precedent of meaninglessness was set.

A year later, the first Whole Foods opened with a staff of 19. It's hard to imagine WF as a team of anti-Big Agra guerrillas employing less people than the typical Whole Foods Deli. 

28 years later, Whole Foods is posting profits in the billions, with hundreds of stores nationwide, and a once niche industry is such a threat to mainstream grocery that they can't print the Natural labels fast enough.

A cliche about Newtonian physics goes here...

This Cheetah may soon be extinct.

That said, there is growing resistance to Naturalizing things willy-nilly. According to this article from the Wall Street Journal, many huge companies (such as PepsiCo) are jettisoning the Natural label. The resulting lawsuits and bad PR are simply too brand-damaging. Enough class action, action packed lawsuits alleging false advertising, and even the Matrix gets spooked.

"There's a boatload of litigation and that is going to continue until companies stop conning people,'' Stephen Gardner told the WSJ. Gardner is the litigation director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The same article tells us that the percentage of products launched using the "natural" label has fallen by 8% or 11% in the last 5 years for food and drink, respectively.

Looks like Natural Selection to me.

Natural Progression

So, as an average consumer, your preference for Certified Organic over Somewhat Natural is justified. Mother Natural is going to sort this whole thing out, Naturally. The Natural Bandwagon is a sinking ship, and the rats are accordingly jumping off. (Don't worry, they can still get a job as experiment "volunteers." Natch.) 

The War For Your Opinion on Sugar

Ah, the Internet: a forum for the free exchange of ideas. A place where you can learn that each year, Americans consume, per capita, the weight of boxer Sugar Ray Leonard in actual sugar. A place where a few keystrokes can bring you the straight dope on nearly anything. A place where many people have dedicated nine-to-five jobs writing technically and rhetorically erudite articles espousing mutually incompatible "truths." A place where some people will happily deceive you, because it is their job. A place where doctors, plumbers, and that guy from the cell phone kiosk at the mall all go after work to sift fact from fiction, for the pure pursuit of truth. A place where simply Googling "high fructose corn syrup" will expose you to kilos of "real truth" from one of three HFCS information camps: 1) The "HFCS is totally harmless" camp; 2) The "HFCS is the same as table sugar, which is not to say it's harmless" camp, or 3) The "HFCS is the main culprit in many health problems, and should be regulated, if not illegal" camp.

This should not be a metaphysical issue. We are not discussing what precisely would happen if Neo had put the red and blue pills into a smoothy and chugged it.

Meanwhile, Foods For Living does not carry any products which contain HFCS. I've never heard a customer question this decision, and I've heard many praise it. In the wake of reflecting on the Dr.Oz "scandal" and the role of a humble grocery store in a complex national dialogue, I thought it prudent to look a little closer at HFCS, and FFL's decision not to sell it. I mean, they sell alcohol, and that's literally poisonous, so what gives?

Jennifer K. Nelson is the Director of Clinical Nutrition/Dietetics at the Mayo Clinic. She has this to say on the Mayo Clinic website:

"Research has shown that high-fructose corn syrup is chemically similar to table sugar. Controversy exists, however, about whether or not the body handles high-fructose corn syrup differently than table sugar. At this time, there's insufficient evidence to say that high-fructose corn syrup is any less healthy than other types of sweeteners. We do know, however, that too much added sugar — not just high-fructose corn syrup — can contribute unwanted calories that are linked to health problems, such as weight gain, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and high triglyceride levels. All of these boost your risk of heart disease." Classic Camp 2.

I'd like to point out two things about the above statement. 1) Nelson clearly states the health dangers of a dietary sugar surplus. 2) Nelson is a scientist in high academic standing. This predisposes her to both couching her language in qualifiers—"At this time," "insufficient evidence"—and avoiding prematurely absolute proclamations that could later damage her reputation. This is in no way a criticism of Nelson—it's simply an examination of the tentative, evidence-based statements of presumably impartial health professionals. Having insufficient evidence is certainly not the same as stating that HFCS is simply dandy and nothing to worry about.

What's interesting about Nelson's statement is that it IS incompatible with any statement of certitude regarding HFCS' innocuousness or uniquely harmful effects. The only thing it asserts is that sugar, in excess, is bad.

So what's excessive?

Well, 160 pounds per year, per American is excessive. Since technology evolves much, much faster than biology, we have created a world where we can afford to do something pleasing (eat sugar all the time) that is metabolically destructive. Our bodies still closely resemble those of our ancestors for whom 20 teaspoons a year would have been typical.

But HFCS is delicious. That's why manufacturers put it not just in soda and candy, but bread, "juice," cereal, yogurt, salad dressing, "nutrition" bars, frozen pizza, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese... wait, what? That's right, even pizza and "pasta" aren't safe from the subsidized, sugary tentacles of HFCS.  

"But Greg," you might say,"lacing all those products with sugar in a transparent ploy to sidestep good

sense with deliciousness must be expensive!"
"Wrong, you poor sap!" I'd say. As a corn-derived product, HFCS enjoys the benefit federal subsidies for corn growers. What do the corn growers' associations do with all the that extra money?

Well, lobbying is always nice... though traditional sugar has lobbyists too.

But spiffy "informative" websites don't hurt either: Here's sweetsurprise.com.

If you like your corn info with a side of propaganda, that should do nicely. Meanwhile, here's an article from Princeton, espousing many ideas in radical opposition to the ideas at SweetSurprise.

But, you know, here's an article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, stating the opposite conclusion of the Princeton article. The AJCN is not a Big Agriculture mouthpiece to my knowledge, so I think we can at very least take their conclusions as being genuine.

But here's another doctor claiming the opposite thesis, again. His presentational style makes me suspicious, but his points sound, to the layperson, valid. Which is the precisely the problem with scientific inquiry in the sphere of media. All reasonably well-stated cases sound equally plausible to the uneducated, myself included.

So what's a local health food store to do?

As dozens of sources from all corners of industry and medicine will tell you, Americans are obese and dying unnecessary deaths, and sugar is a key offender. (Do you really even need to click any of these links to know that?)

Let's imagine your objective was to get out of shape, destroy your body from the inside out, and die as quickly as possible. The only rule is that you must stick to common grocery items and common rates of consumption. Would you go for the wine right away, hoping to induce liver failure with a glass or two an evening? Or would you remember the fine people of Europe, and despair at their long, skinny, wine-sodden lives? Obviously, your best bet would be to do as your countrymen do now. Eat sugary foods, AKA "nearly any foods," constantly. Hope for diabetes. Even "reducing your sugar intake" to a level that is still many times higher than our biology is equipped to deal with will be catastrophic eventually, so don't worry.

Whether or not HFCS doesn't truly require digestion and therefore gets a metabolic wave-on-through from security, or is simply run of the mill sugar, it's not a good idea to consume it endlessly, in great quantities. Since cane sugar is much more expensive and precludes liberal inclusion in every last grocery item, sticking to cane sugar makes it easy to stop killing yourself sweetly. And since the jury is still conspicuously out, even in reputable scientific circles, it just makes sense for Foods For Living to draw a glycemic line in the sand. Whatever your conclusions on HFCS, I suggest looking before you leap (in a huge sugar pile).

I should say now that I come at this as an armchair epistemologist, and not as a member of a specific camp. As always, I express only my own views, and not those of FFL as a whole.

Biting the Hand that Feeds

Dr. Oz has always been a complicated topic for the folks at Foods For Living, and at health stores generally. Now he's getting some public comeuppance, and I'm glad. There, I said it, and I speak only for myself in saying so. See below.

"Why?" one may ask. "Doesn't he drive customers to Foods For Living by the dozens?"
That he does. To understand why I'm experiencing some Dr. Oz schadenfreude, I'm going to let you witness a different conversation, through the magic of the printed word.

East Lansing: Foods For Living, 5 pm.

"Does it work?" It was no average hope in his eyes—it was the spinning, burning core of the placebo effect.

"Probably not," I said.

The shelf had been stocked earlier that day, and already it was picked nearly clean. Below the remaining few bottles of green coffee bean extract stood a few rows of last week's darling, raspberry ketones.

"But Dr. Oz," said the customer and I in perfect synchronicity.

"What do you think of him?" asked the customer, as so many had before, and would again.

"Dr. Oz forces me to choose between two classic American values: 1)Being a straight shooter, and 2) Doing what's best for my company. And I don't appreciate that," I said. Okay, I (probably) never said that on the sales floor, but I wanted to.

If I were too forward with my own opinions about Dr. Oz's eagerness to sell questionably effective fat-burning pills, this hypothetical customer may think I'm unprofessional, or uncommitted to my role as a supplement seller. I don't want him to think that.

But what's the alternative? I could tell this customer, who trusts me, that Dr. Oz's dozen or so "miracle" weight-loss pills are the answer to their long battle with dieting. I'm not really enthused about that option, either.

Like any polarizing public figure, DOZ has legions of detractors and supporters. I wouldn't say I fall neatly into either camp. The Doc is a charismatic guy with a big megaphone, and I appreciate that he often dispenses sound advice. He is a cultural force, and he gets people thinking about healthy living, diet, and exercise, who otherwise may not. Much like his pal Oprah has done for many authors, Dr. Oz brings health and safety to the daytime television forefront. In a country struggling with obesity, heart disease, and other preventable health issues, the value of Oz's influence is inestimable.

And that's precisely why his decision to hawk "miracle fat burners" between his better segments is troubling.

The people of FFL understand that the human body is indescribably complex, and it's to everyone's benefit to keep an open mind when approaching healing and nutrition. Vitamins, antioxidants, even the simplest exercises--like running--have gone in and out of fashion as our understanding of the body evolves. People of all perspectives can even agree on the healing power of the placebo effect and the immune benefits of positive thinking. Many of theses issues resist simple "thumbs up/thumbs down" judgement.

But there's a line between claiming that something may work for some people, some of the time, and claiming that something rare and expensive is "lightning in a bottle," a "secret weapon," or a "breakthrough." Ham-handed advertising jargon has no place in a real discussion of how to improve your life with better habits and better food.

I think trying garcinia cambogia in an effort to gain an edge in a battle with weight loss is a fine idea, and I'm happy to sell it under that premise. I simply can't get behind the bolder claims attached to some of these products.

While any business is happy to have a trusted public figure driving sales, the FFL staff has always taken the claims of the Great and Powerful Oz with a grain of sea salt. And really, so has everyone else. No customer ever asks if kale "works," or exercise "works." Much like anyone who loves the harmless thrill of the lottery, I don't think most people truly expect Oz's diet pill recommendations to make good on his miraculous claims. But still, they ask, usually rhetorically, simply needing permission to give a low-risk plan a try.

Part of the Oz Dilemma has to do with the fact that many people at Foods For Living assign great value to both integrity and business sense. But there's a larger concern at play, and it goes back to what fundamentally defines Foods For Living.

Foods For Living's mission, since its inception, has been to provide a curated selection of healthy and specialty foods and supplements, alongside staff knowledgeable and friendly enough to make shopping easy. Part of this staff's role is to stay on top of health trends, providing access to all, while separating hype from health, when called upon, to the best of the their ability. It's not always as easy as it sounds.

We'll continue to sell what people want to buy, and we'll continue to be honest about the science involved, to the limit of our knowledge. Inevitably, though, people will buy Oz's recommended products. They will call ahead to check availability, and they will order them specially. They will let us know their displeasure when stock is depleted by a demand usually reserved for new Star Wars movies.

So it is not with cynicism or condescension one may hear, on any given day in the supplement aisle: "Dr. Oz has some great tips and recommendations, but I really can't get behind this (week's) pill until there's more research on the effects." Mind you, I know this could interfere with a sale. But if we didn't say these things, we would be losing a lot more than a sale. We'd be losing integrity, and that's something that you can't simply restock.

The opinions expressed above are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of Foods For Living as a whole or any of its employees. 
 

5 Health Hazards That Are Right Under Your Nose

From my days on the force.

My headaches became more seldom after I stopped looking like a Chicago cop. Let me explain.
The mustache, a fine tradition in face grooming, is something I often sport. My mustache decision falls somewhere on a continuum with aesthetics on one end and apathy on the other. While its damage to my reputation or cuddliness are worth mentioning, I had never considered it a "health hazard." It was with the glee accompanying a real epiphany that I connected the following:

1) An unkempt mustache could, at its most wild, tickle the nose.
2) A tickled nose can trigger the body's natural response to nasal invaders, resulting in all sorts of sinus acrobatics, including headaches.
3) Most crucially, the mustache can be a repository of pollen and dust. As a seasonal allergy sufferer, the answer to reducing my sinus headaches was...here it comes... RIGHT UNDER MY NOSE.

This got me thinking-- what other health hazards, great and small, are lurking about the average domicile?  Or even on the average person? Or even in the average person's brain?

Brain Parasites that Make You Crazy

Toxoplasmosis—the sickness caused by a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii—is the reason why the old, infirm, and/or pregnant are sometimes counseled to avoid cat litter boxes. (Don't be fooled by Toxo gondii's name—it's anything but nonviolent.) Toxo is a protozoan that is little threat to those with a healthy immune system, with the small caveat that it remains in your brain even after it's defeated.

A Czech scientist named Jaroslav Flegr is one of the world's foremost authorities on toxoplasmosis. He contends, among other things, that the dormant parasite can actually change your brain's makeup in subtle ways, even affecting your personality. Read this article and join the list of prominent scientists who say he sounds crazy right before they say, "That actually sounds plausible." And change your cat litter. Often.

Licorice is Quicker...at Giving You a Cardiac Event

Heart attack pills?

Many people know this, but it bears repeating: those with heart issues would be well advised to avoid excessive licorice. To quote the University of Maryland Medical Center's website, "Licorice with glycyrrhizin may cause serious side effects. Too much glycyrrhizin causes a condition called pseudoaldosteronism, which can cause a person to become overly sensitive to a hormone in the adrenal cortex. This condition can lead to headaches, fatigue, high blood pressure, and even heart attacks. It may also cause water retention, which can lead to leg swelling and other problems."

"But!" you shriek, "I like licorice for its medicinal benefits, like easing peptic ulcers!" That's OK. Medicinal licorice drops, such as those found at Foods For Living, are deglycyrrhizinated. (That's why they're called "DGL.")

Sorbitol
Much like my mustache, sorbitol is mostly harmless. But (unlike my mustache), it can cause diarrhea and other GI distress in some people. Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol and common sweetener, popular in scores of products from chewing gum to cough syrup. It is not a synthetic product per se, as it's found in pears, apples, and some berries, though the version usually present in products is synthesized. Don't be alarmist—the chance of sorbitol intolerance is low. But if you are having digestive distress and can't determine the culprit, ask your doctor about sorbitol.

Rolling Out the Red Carpet... for Nastiness

This should not be how your carpet looks.

When it comes to secret repositories of nast, carpet is a culprit. As the International Association of House Inspectors will tell you, carpet mold is a problem. It can trigger allergic reactions, or even become toxic. Anti-mold-colonial advice includes the use of antimicrobial carpet padding and keeping carpet dry, especially after cleaning.

Pollen, my hated enemy, is as adept at hiding under my feet as it is under my nose. Pollen (and pet dander) in a carpet can exude a subtle miasma into the life of an allergic person until she's crying for mercy. Here are some quick tips on cleaning pollen out of carpet.

Between the Sheets

A potential crippling in the making.

There's nothing quite like the tidiness of a properly made bed. But quarter-bouncing bed tightness comes with a price—and it's a lot more than 25 cents. Too-tight sheets can constrict your feet and ankles, causing anything from mild discomfort to tendonitis. Impress your drill sergeant, but untuck the foot of your bed before sleeping.

Frankly, I had intended to include "germ hotspots" in this post, but the list of little-known germ danger zones from the kitchen alone would bloat this blog beyond acceptability. It looks like you'll be living in danger until text time.
 
     

Amazing Tricks With Shells, Peels, and Rinds

Using the whole animal was all the rage in American cooking (quite) awhile ago. But using the whole vegetable/fruit? That’s 21st century.

I’m not sure if Zack de la Rocha was referring to walnut shells when he entreated us to “rally ‘round the family... with a pocket full of shells” (on Rage Against the Machine's headbanging 1996 hit, "Bulls On Parade"). Regardless, that’s pretty sound advice. A pocket full of shells in the right hands is like a Swiss army knife, without all the danger.

Shells, rinds, husks, cocoons (maybe not), and other biopackaging can be a lot more than just compost. (Although it will eventually be compost.) Here are some suggestions for getting the most out of your pre-compost (Commost).

• Hollow out an avocado. I suggest doing this by consuming the consumable part. Just don't mash the outside. Soon, you'll have a super cute seedling planter that looks like an alien pod. When your seedling is ready, transplant it, and compost the shell. Your garden's benefit will be twofold. 
• Next time you go to vandalize your neighbor's house as part of a larger plot, set aside a couple of eggs. After you empty the yolks for your slingshot (or omelet), save the shells. Break up the shells and sprinkle them in your garden to prevent the passage of slugs. There's nothing a slug hates more than a jagged eggshell slicing into its slugflesh. 
• I like to give traveling French merchants my money as much as the next guy. But citrus rinds, dried and dusted with essential oils, can make a great potpourri alternative if you're short on cash.  
• Cucumbers, which are the MacGyver of vegetables, can discourage garden pests. Some cucumber slices in a tin—yes, a tin—will cause a phytochemical reaction which insects find unpleasant. Use in concert with eggshells to make your garden an impenetrable fortress.
• Speaking of traps, don't toss that banana peel from your car just yet. (Unless you're in a go kart race.) Running a banana peel over a clean shoe can revive that factory shine. Doing the opposite will result in a whimsical loss of balance.
• Shiny shoes making your house plants look dull? That banana peel will restore the factory shine of your favorite waxy green house plants as well. Rub the peel over the leaves. I know it sounds crazy. But seriously, just wait until you can see your reflection in a fern—it's magical.
• Speaking of magic, how about using onions to transform eggs into treasures? Boiling onions with eggs will dye the eggs a unique, golden, oniony color. This is good for creating a monochrome, weirdly anticlimactic Easter egg hunt. 
• If you're a dying-things-with-food enthusiast who is also getting on in years, or just really stressed out, you should hang on to your potato skins. Boil some potato skins, then lose the skins and rinse with the potato water if you'd like to darken your grey hair. Also great if you're in witness protection and shouldn't leave the house for proper dye.
• Use peach skins (the pulpy side) to scrub your face, along with a mild abrasive, like sugar. How you get it off is up to you. Peach skins are rich in potassium and Vitamin A, which are great for your skin.  
• As long as you're housebound and altering your appearance to escape your old life, why not make yourself some jewelry out of nutshells? Brazil nuts are especially good for making durable, adorable adornments. A drill, string, and a handful of nuts are all you need.
• You'll probably want to tie that cool bead necklace made of nuts together with a locket or some other such bauble. Reach for a citrus fruit rind and run the inside over any nonferrous metal to give the metal a new luster. 
• A walnut, carefully bisected and re-glued after, can be a great gift box. For something very small. 
• After you're done polishing your nonferrous metals with those lemon peels, why not throw them into your humidifier or garbage disposal? Either will add a pleasant freshness to your environs.
• You can also pickle your peels and rinds with any number of recipes to make great bite-sized snacks. 
• Even melon rinds and squash shells need not be wasted—scrape out the inside and dry to use as an adorable fruit salad or squash soup bowl. 
• If you're less of a soup person and more of a vodka person, you can always infuse your favorite spirits with citrus peels. Dropping in some orange or lemon peels will add a pleasant note to the nail polish taste. 
• Dropping citrus peels into old olive oil can revitalize it, as well.
• If you're into smoking meat, try putting corn cobs in the smoker. It adds a great savory flavor.
• Throwing some peanut shells into charcoal, or replacing the charcoal with peanut shells altogether, can add some variety to your grilling. 

All that, and I didn't once say "in a nutshell."

Last, but certainly not least: no list of alternative rind solutions and shell projects would be complete without some Amish instructions on how to make birdhouses out of gourds.

World's Most Controversial Food

So hungry you could eat a horse? You may be out of luck in the states, but your craving for equine cuisine would not be out of place in parts of Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America. Horses are plentiful, sustainable, and available in every state in the Union. And, for most people, eating them is unthinkable.

Horse

Concerns: cruelty, pet-category animal, health 

Thinking about horse meat may be somewhere between unpleasant and flat-out disgusting for you (as, frankly, it is for me). But horse meat has been in the news (and some beef) as of late. In February, a scandal involving the presence of horse meat in processed beef came to light. This came on the heels of federal legislation legalizing horse slaughter and meat for animal consumption in the states. (If all this seems like not-so-subtle propaganda for sticking to local, free-range meat, I'll concede it crossed my mind.)

Horses are a high profile addition to a growing history of controversial foods. If something is precious, rare, or taboo, the chance is that someone, somewhere, wants to eat it. (See edible gold for further proof.)

Foie Gras

Concerns: cruelty

Not known for their compassion, the ancient Egyptians weren't just slavery enthusiasts and adept architects—they knew how to force-feed a bird. They were the first on record to force-feed animals for sheerly culinary concerns. Since then, France has taken up the mantle of championing  the controversial practice of gavage, or tube-feeding.
Foie Gras ("fatty liver") is the fatty, buttery liver of a duck or goose who has been tube fed. The "delicate flavor and consistency" is a sought-after part of the French gastronomic tradition. That said, there is considerable controversy surrounding the production of foie gras.

Animal rights groups are uniformly against foie gras production. Less inevitably, many others have been vocally anti-foie gras, including then-NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and celebrity chefs Wolfgang Puck and Albert Roux.

Foie Gras production and product are illegal in California. Chicago passed a similar ban in 2006, during which year 46,000 pounds of the stuff was sold. The city overturned the ban in 2008.

Foie Gras is illegal in Israel, and Argentina. It is illegal to produce, but not to consume, in most European countries, with the exceptions of Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, France and Hungary.

Shark Fin

Concerns: cruelty, sustainability

Shark fin soup is a classic Chinese delicacy, with cultural connotations of wealth and success. Critics object to the use of shark fins in cooking due to both declining shark populations and the cruelty of obtaining the fins. (The fin is often removed and the shark released, finless, back into the ocean.)   

The fin is nearly tasteless; it is added to soup for its textural virtues. Much like snake oil, shark fins have a litany of fantastical medical benefits associated with them. None of these has been validated by science. Shark fin consumption is on the decline, but China still consumes literal boatloads every year. Suitable shark fin substitutes are gaining ground in many restaurants that still wish to offer the traditional dish. Regardless of how you feel about the practice of finning, try imagining "Jaws" without that iconic slice of terror protruding from the waves.
  
Dolphin meat

Concerns: cruelty, health, sustainability, intelligence

Dolphin can hardly be considered a controversial food any longer, as eating dolphins is decidedly not in vogue in the West these days. But a traditional dolphin-slaughtering event in Japan has brought the issue back into global visibility. As dolphin populations decline, and concerns about their intelligence mount (some studies equate dolphin intellect to that of a three-year old child), "tradition" seems to be the last line of defense for dolphin slaughter.

Ortolan

Concerns: sustainability, cruelty

"Ortolan." That's a moutful—literally! (Sorry.) The Ortolan Bunting is a small songbird, plentiful in France, that is traditionally consumed in a single bite. Another entry in fine French tradition of avian force-feeding, the Ortolan is usually kept in a dark box filled with millet, where it eats continuously in an attempt to escape.

The capture or killing of Ortolans has been illegal in any European Union state since 1999, with an unknown degree of enforcement.

Polar Bears

Concerns: sustainability, intelligence

As with many other foods on the list, polar bear hunting was a sustainable, natural practice of many peoples indigenous to the earth's coldest climes for thousands of years. Technology, poaching, and trophy hunting have taken their toll. Polar bears are in serious danger, and their habitats continue to melt beneath their paws. That said, you won't see polar bears on any menus, which makes them unique on this list.

 

Grilling Grass-fed Beef, Then, Now, and How

When it comes to grilling techniques, it's hard to beat a small white room, a bright light, and "good cop/bad cop." But it's not always practical. And it doesn't work very well for grass-fed beef.

Cooking grass-fed and free range animals was once the norm, and it's making a huge comeback. In fact, one cold represent humanity's tendency toward using grass-fed and free range meat as an inverse bell curve, beginning some 76,000 years ago, plummeting through the industrial farming craze of the twentieth century, and rising again with the advent of the health and cruelty-free movements of the last few years.

In fact, our "preference" for home-cooked, free range meat may go back much further than the commonly-understood ballpark of 76,000ish years ago. Observations about gut, brain, and face evolution in human ancestors lead Richard Wrangham, a Harvard evolutionary biologist, to assert that "we" may have been cooking as far back as 1.8 million years ago. In his book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, Wrangham explains how the evolutionary advances evidenced by the period's fossil record imply a leap in the energy we were deriving from our meals. He asserts that this is the kind of leap that only comes with the increased caloric yield that derived from cooking one's food. Cooking food also kills bacteria and neutralizes natural toxins, increasing the survivability of anyone eating it. This, of course, allows one to store meat in one's cave (a bit more) safely for (a bit) longer.

Wrangham has decades of chimpanzee observation under his belt. In that time, he observed that chimps' communal eating habits less resemble a family reunion than a prison cafeteria. For chimps, eating in groups can be a violent, tense affair, sharing little with humanity's tradition of passing cooked meat amongst our companions. While many associate food-sharing with the differentiation of labor that is the backbone of society, Wrangham asserts that it is cooking, specifically, that made it happen.

If you participate in the tradition of Memorial Day grilling this weekend, take a moment to expand your definition of "tradition" by a few hundred thousand years. What better time to honor both our veterans and those anonymous foragers who, according to Wrangham, may have had a hand in forming homo sapiens by having humanity's first BBQ?

If you aim to show solidarity with your prehistoric brothers and sisters by slapping meat over a semi-open flame this weekend, know that grilling "authentic" (grass-fed) meat comes with a few caveats. Here are some grilling tips for grass-fed beef and in general:

Grass-fed beef is made for medium to rare cooking. 
The lower fat content of the good stuff makes it more vulnerable to overcooking. If you're a well-done only beef eater, no problem—cook your beef at a low temperature and include a sauce to keep some necessary moisture in play.

Oil Slick
A coating of truffle oil can ensure your grass-fed beef, which is susceptible to dryness, stays nice and moist. You can use olive or other oils as well, but the truffle oil adds a unique note your guests are sure to appreciate.

Marinate on That
Marinating can make or break your steak. (Iambic pentameter grilling tips is a market I should corner.) An overbearing marinade does no one any favors, though. Grass-fed beef's delicate flavor is best served by a gentle, or subtle marinade. If you like to pour bourbon or beer onto your steak (or just spill some by accident), use less than you would normally. Since grass-fed beef will cook more quickly, you'll have less time to let the booze burn off.

Stove Tip 
I'm not a grill elitist. A stove top is a perfectly respectable way to grill a steak. As you wind down the cook, try adding some butter and garlic to the meat for a classic taste that coexists nicely with the natural flavor of the meat.

(Don't) Fork It Over
Use tongs or telekinesis to flip your beef. Piercing the beef during the cook is a silly risk. Valuable juice loss and depressurization(?) could occur.

Just Chill
Let your steak meditate on what it learned for just shy of ten minutes after you're done grilling. Just leave it alone for a minute, all right?! The juices will redistribute, ensuring more uniform flavor.

Bargain Basement Cooking Times
30% off! (Cooking times.) Grass-fed beef generally requires about 30% less cooking time. It also continues cooking after being removed from the heat source, like any hot meat. 

Settle In-or Don't!
Let your grass-fed beef come to room temperature—or don't! Don't throw it from the refrigerator into the fire—or do! The traditional wisdom on this has come into question recently. A greater scientific understanding of food-borne illness and bacteria reproduction rates (like doubling colony sizes in 20 minutes at room temperature) means that it might be worth skipping the room temperature phase. Still, many chefs simply can't abide it.

Hold the vegetables—then drop them on the meat!
Remember: grass-fed beef's main distinguishing characteristic (from a culinary standpoint) is its leanness. Adding moisture or fat is a necessary step. Caramelized onions, peppers, and olives are the synchronized swimming of grilling—they can add pizazz and moisture all at once.

So, Happy Memorial Day Weekend, and remember—grass-fed beef is lean, there's nothing more "paleo" that grilling, and honoring our brave fallen can extend back thousands of years!