Stop Breaking Their Bell's.

Many people have been outraged over Taco Bell's new Drive Thru Diet ad campaign, but I think they are heading in the right direction.

We have this vision of what we think is the right way to live in this country. We have this for exercise, for morals, for ethics, and for food.

When it comes to food we tend to demonize and shun. How many times have you said or heard someone say, 'I'm being sooo bad' in relation to food? We have a certain level of guilt over things we eat. A lot of us, myself included, eat too much. What many people do in response to that is to completely shun.

'I stopped drinking pop.'
'I don't eat meat.'
'I don't eat anything processed.'

People shun out of guilt and misinformation. These people DO lose weight in many cases, but may be misled as to why. Pop is 170 - 200 calories a can. Meat(protein) is 9kcal/gram while carbs are I think 4kcal/gram, so not eating meat cuts out a lot of calories. 'Processed' - which is a loaded term - tends to have high caloric values as well. When people lose weight, they lose sight of that and think that it's because those foods were bad and now they are on the good graces of the food gods. It isn't the MSG or HFCS that makes us overweight, it's the extra calories.

OK, so on to Taco Bell...

The ad basically states that by eating certain items on the menu instead of other items, they can lose weight. It really depends on how much you were going there before and what you were ordering. So they aren't lying, it just depends on a couple factors. I do think this is a reasonable and realistic approach to weight loss for many people.

Let's face it folks, many of you are out the door w/out breakfast in the morning, hit a Starbucks drive thru on the way to work, out to eat for lunch, and everybody in your family is scattered going to practices, and games, and working different shifts come dinner time. You probably eat out a lot or eat a lot of frozen dinners/hot pockets and whatnot. Most people preach diets that involve steady meals, mostly eaten at home with some thought and planning put into them. But is that realistic for your life? Ideally, I would suggest planning the weeks menu, using the last off day before the next week as a grocery/prep day so you can quickly and easily make a planned meal every day of that week. Who can honestly commit to that?

Let's think about Jared from Subway for a moment. Remeber when you first saw him holding up his trophy fat pants? What were you thinking?

'Holy shit, I've got to eat more Subway!'

Why did Jared's diet work? Three C's: cutting calories consistently. When he went to Subway, he got one of the same one or two different subs the same way and he walked more. The calories he started taking in were less and they were less consistently. So every day he was running a calorie deficit. Every time that deficit hit 3,500 calories, Jared deducted a pound.

Many diets start off by cutting calories but are too militant, too fast. People get crazy hungry(hungry like the wolf, I say...well, me and Duran Duran) and then go overboard because everything in there body is screaming EAT!!! Jared was consistent. He probably could have cut way more, and shunned everything, but then his diet would have crashed.

OK, back to Taco Bell again... seriously.
If eating a meal or two at Taco Bell interests your taste buds and if the things you would get on the menu are less calories than what you honestly would eat anyway, then you can lose weight. However you can do this with any food. As a matter of fact, Ozzy Osbourne did this on the first season of The Osbournes on MTV. During an episode, Ozzy mentions being on a Chipotle diet, where he'd stock up on his favorite burritos and eat them every day. He would only eat half a burrito at a time and he said he lost 10 pounds. Bam! Chipotle diet. Hell, you could do a Twinkie diet if you really wanted to: All the Twinkies you want as long as the total calories consumed at the end of the day is at a 400 calorie deficit. I guarantee you will lose 1 pound every 8-9 days.

Legit issues with the diet(Taco Bell, not Twinkie) is that it doesn't factor in total fat consumption or sodium. Here's the thing though, were you watching those things before? No? Then worry about the pounds first then fine-tune the diet to factor in nutrients and sodium/potassium.

Takeaway (take out?) Message.
So the diet isn't bullshit, it just depends on what you were eating to begin with. Ricky Gervais does a great joke about a man that weighed 1,000 pounds and was about to have gastric bypass surgery. By the way, if we can live even for a couple years at 1,000 lbs then can we really call 300+ lbs morbidly obese? Really? Anyway, the guy talked about how he ate 9 pie n chips a day. Ricky's line was (while raising his hand) 'Ooh, ooh, I have an idea... 8 pie n chips.'

So quit bustin' the Bell's balls, will ya?

p.s.
I predict a trend in the coming year will be reduced sodium. This is good, but as with calories, the goal is not zero. Calories are units of energy and you need a certain amount to keep the organs running. Don't believe me, ask Tracy Gold. Sodium plays a role cell fluid opposite of potassium. I would think that we may start seeing some functional foods promoted that contain elevated levels of potassium.

Debating an Etch n Sketch & Feeding a Mannequin...

Right off the bat, let me say this: I had the pleasure speaking to @follownathan on Twitter the last few days and today(Friday), I called him and did a recorded audio interview. The interview went well, aside from my rambling and my voice, which annoys even me. Also there was a feedback that, thankfully, didn't translate to the recorded audio but it did trip me up a couple times and caused me to lose my line of thinking. My blog title is the link to Nathan's website where you may hear the roughly 30 minutes of audio.

Just a note: my blog titles are usually clickable links relating to things that I'm talking about.

Normally, the people I talk to about food science and the food industry are receptive to what I have to say. Even when they disagree, they hear me out, ask follow up questions, and walk away with a better understanding of the subject at hand and more receptive to hear/reading/seeing more to educate themselves. That's how it should go, and most of the time, that's how it is... most of the time.

I've dealt with a couple people over this last week that approached the discourse with a certain amount of disrespect and immaturity. In both cases, they were convinced they were right and it seems like nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

This is completely at odds with how science works. It should start with a curiosity about something in the world that you can test...a hypothesis. This can be skeptical, but it's usually a scientists nature to be skeptical, so it shows in the design of the study, not in the hypothesis. We tests a hypothesis by eliminating all but one variable. We record all possible data in a consistant manner, report on that data, publish that report in a scientific journal, and other scientists (skeptics) try to duplicate the study and see if the results reproducable. If so, then until proven otherwise, this is accepted as fact. If not, then the experiment is tweaked to try to eliminate more variables, report more data, and tighten up the controls to reduce the chance of error.

That is science. When an idea survives the scientific method, a fact is born. At this point, it is the responsibility of any remaining skeptics to prove it's wrong , not for the scientists to prove it's right. Now imagine you are talking to someone less than mature about some study and it's outcomes. What do you do if they keep saying, 'No, that's wrong. Prove it. Prove it again.'?

We had #agchat on Tuesday and I hope it went well. I got a comment in before it was running too slow for me to follow. Many of you had a chance to interact with and I had an interaction with @culinaryhatchet.

My interaction was saying that on the whole, more people prefer grain fed beef to grass fed. This is a fact based on a test that Cornell did. I think it was a single blind forced preference taste test. I also mentioned that a grain diet offers a more complete nutrition, while grass fed is entirely dependent on the nutrient levels of the pasture land. Most of the time, some kind of supplements are necessary.

This person had a major fit and demanded to see proof. He's/she's right unless I can prove him/her wrong. I did as far as taste goes, but I never found an actual study for the remark about nutrition. My logic there was the fact that the roughage is sampled and tested with dairy cattle. You need to know the nutrient level of the silage so you can put what's missing in the feed you order. But anyway, the person never believed me. I also hit him/her with the fact that grass fed have a 50% larger carbon footprint. He/she wanted to know who I was working for. I guess in his/her mind, if you work for someone that supports the view you have... then your view doesn't count.

This is a fundamental fallacy in a scientific debate. Science has no employer. Just because a guy for the National Pork Council makes a statement about pork being safe, doesn't mean he's lying. He can be lying, but who he works for doesn't matter. There is this accepted idea that everything and everyone is in on some sort of fix. Somehow, everything is a conspiracy.

I'm getting off track here.

Many of you interacted with @culinaryhatchet in good faith that you were having an honest and helpful dialogue, that your views were respected and that person was listening to what you said as you were listening to them.

I found that @culinaryhatchet has a blog and posted excerpts from the #agchat discussion. Many of the remarks made were catty in nature and made me think that @culinaryhatchet is the type of person that reads those entertainment weekly's and makes catty comments about what the people in the pictures are wearing.

Here's some of what this person put in his blog:
'On to the players and their Tweets:

#agchat is hosted by Michele Payn-Knoper, principal of Cause Matters Corp.

#agchat is a “weekly moderated conversation on Twitter for people in the business of raising food, feed, fuel, fiber.”

Hmmm… distinct omission of “consumer.” And that’s how I felt on #agchat.

Last’s night’s topic was “Antibiotics and their use in food production.” A topic about which I am most passionate.

Question 1: Can someone explain why we use antibiotics in livestock?

Great question! Time for some honest answers…(NOTE: not in chronological order, well, except for the first one.)

First answer: AgriBlogger (Chuck Zimmerman is the professional agriblogger, farm podcaster and President of ZimmComm New Media): For the same reason we use them in people. Doesn't that make sense?

Pure genius. NOT.'

'Time for some honest answers' Classic conspiracy theory. Only the answer he/she wants to hear is good enough, all else is a lie in his/her mind.

Of course, even though I was unable to participate, I wasn't immune to his/her vitriol.
'This guy is easily the most annoying person in #agchat (other than me), plus you just have to love his explanation samvance (Sam Vance Cincinnati, OH; Edible Intelligence OSU degree Re: Food Science & Tech. Also sarcastic/smells of cookies): anti-bio's used for herd/farm/food safety. You can't process an animal that is already dead or sick.

I think his blog name, Intelligence is an oxy-moron. '

I'd like to point out that you need two things for an oxymoron, so no... Intelligence is not an oxymoron.

So what do rational, science minded, sane people do when confronted with such a person?
Take a deep breath, be patient, and don't give up.

Invite @culinaryhatchet to tour your farm.
We also need to share research studies.
Don't hide who you work for.
Admit when something you say is incorrect or where a company you work for has gone wrong.

Most of all, don't engage in debate when you are unsure of where it's going. Take a minute and be a little measured when you speak/tweet. Be professional. Keep links to studies that prove your point. Use tabbed browsing, it is your friend. If there isn't a study, explain the science and why something can't be the way someone is convinced it is. Don't lie.

We have to be at our best when engaged in conversation about food and ag issues.. Make sure you are drawing a distinction between an opinion and a fact.

And like I have been saying(borrowed from Al Franken):
We are entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

Food Rules For Idiots.

I was catching up on episodes of The Daily Show and Monday's guest was the infamous Micheal Pollan. He was on to promote his new book, "Food Rules". This book is a continuation of his other food related work, which is light on science/facts and heavy on oversimplified advice based on a false premise.

The book is meant to be a series of quirky do's and don'ts that will help you lead a healthier lifestyle. One example of a rule he gave to Jon Stewart was not to eat any cereal that colors your milk. It sounds very sage-like and quaint but is not based on science.

What is he saying? Is he saying that the food coloring used is harmful to your health? Is he saying that those foods tend to be higher in calories? Is this another high fructose corn syrup warning? He isn't clear, but to leave to be sure, allow me to settle each of these issues.

HFCS.
I've already been over this. it's the same as sugar. No worse.

Calories.
Too many calories are bad for anyone's health. The problem comes in demonizing a specific foods. It's not a specific food and it's not one meal, it's all meals over a long time. It takes 3500 calories to make a pound and many pound to cause health problems. An adult will burn at least 1800 calories in a day and up to several thousand more if they are very active or have high metabolism. A 3,000 calories Aussie Cheese Fries appetizer from Outback Steakhouse isn't something you should eat every day, but it isn't intrinsically bad. If you haven't had those, by the way, please do and be sure to share! It will have be a great source of fat, sodium, starch, protein, and other vital minerals/nutrients. A bowl of cereal, on the other hand, might have 200 calories including the milk. You have to eat a lot of cereal for it to make you fat. If I were trying to gain weight, it would be very low on my list of foods to eat.

Food coloring.
No credible studies link ailments to the use of food coloring, certainly not in the quantities used in production. This is one of my examples of the Illusion of Fact. it's said enough that people don't question the information, they just assume it's true because people are still saying it. 'Oh sure, everyone knows that.' is the response that you can get to these statements that aren't even true. Actually, Pollan's entire career of food writing can be attributed to this phenomenon.

This interesting exchange came up in the interview where Jon Stewart asked if there is going to be some big finding that shows food industry leaders lied and withheld info about how bad their food is just like with the tobacco industry. Part of Michael Pollan's response was to say that Food Science is very sophisticated.

I find this to be a very remarkable admission on his part. The context of the question was about proof of danger to the public health. He is either saying that food science is over his head or that 1,000's of food scientists the world over are involved in a vast conspiracy. He's making a ton of money doing this, folks. This isn't just a hobby for him.

He has the means to go to UC Davis in California, or to Cornell in New York, or even to my Alma Mater, Ohio State and learn from world class food science departments. He doesn't. Michael Pollan chooses to be willfully ignorant about food science. Think about it; what happens when he learns that what he's been telling people isn't true? He has now built a career on his claims about food and the food industry. He would be ruined. No more appearances on Good Morning America or The Daily Show, or Conan. His credibility would be shot.

And make no mistake, his credibility would be shot to hell because he is wrong about food. I think I should start an online petition for one of the schools I listed to give him a free ride scholarship so he can be a food science student. I'd love to see his face when they burst his bubble, and believe me, it will get busted early and often. I've seen it in students that have similar beliefs about food. Usually, they'll assert themselves and very matter-of-factly make some statement about food that they know to be true. The class pauses before the professor very calmly and patiently shows how that is false. And the instructors won't belittle them at all. They'll use math or draw pictures of chemical structures or refer to studies that they have been privy to and slowly the misinformation, like so much plaque on the brain is removed.

The Illusion of Facts.

Hello. It's been a while since I last posted on here. The things I write about aren't current events as much as it's science. Apples fall from trees just as they did in Newton's time. The same sort of thing is true of food science. So these musings can also serve as a reference. That also means that I don't really need to do one of these every day (unless web traffic increases 100x).

This isn't easy subject matter to be prolific about. I know what I know because I learned it. I sold my textbooks because I'm poor and it becomes difficult to cite things. Many studies are done every year, but then again, you have to pay to get these studies. I had access to these things at Ohio State in a huge database through OSU's great online library system, but I don't now. That hurts the food industry if you ask me. All studies should be put out for easy access. The other thing that hurts the food industry is that you train for it only after you've decided on it as a profession. It's kind of like pro wrestling in that respect. You only go to wrestling school if you want to be a wrestler.

Anyway... There is a lack of background knowledge in the area of food science. The only people that learn food science are academics who will go on to teach and people that go on to work in the food industry. So most industry people just chuckle when a Michael Pollan comes along with his theories about food. To the general public that doesn't have this general knowledge base, however, Pollan looks like the expert.

This is a situation I call the Illusion of Fact. This phenomena happens in many sciences where the general public has been starved of education about an industry. Any voice they hear will resonate and ring true, especially if you need a functional background in some other discipline to understand it. Jenny McCarthy goes on Oprah and talks about how vaccinations cause autism. It doesn't, but when this first came up, doctors ignored the low level rumblings because they seemed silly. Now we have parents refusing to vaccinate in the midst of a major flu outbreak.

I was listening to the Adam Carolla Podcast when he had on people affiliated with the Raw Food movement. At no point did anyone call in or did Adam question what they said, so I'm sure it was understood to be fact by many. They referred to cheese as being horrible for you and attributed what bordered on special powers for eating raw nuts and veggies. At one point one of the people, in talking about the time before he went raw, said that the lettuce was probably the only thing that was keeping him alive. Does anyone else realize how insane that is? He's making it up as he goes along!

Liz Vaccariello, editor in chief for Prevention magazine put out what is truly one of the most jaw-droppingly ignorant articles I think I have ever read. @LizVacc as she's known on twitter, put out an article called, 'The 7 foods experts won't eat'. She listed the bad food, then the 'expert' that knew better than eating that food. See if you can detect a pattern here...

Canned tomatoes
"The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people's body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. "You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that's a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young," says vom Saal. "I won't go near canned tomatoes.""

This seems somewhat legit until you start to wonder:

Is 50mcg the upper limit (theoretically possible)? If so, how much leaching actually occurs? Is it 50 mcg or is it 50mcg/kg bodyweight? Big difference.

This is from [ http://www.bisphenol-a.org/about/faq.html#i ]

'Government and industry researchers have reported that bisphenol A (BPA) is generally not detected in canned beverages and only extremely low levels (generally less than 37 parts per billion) of BPA have been reported to migrate into some canned foods. At these levels, a consumer would have to ingest more than 500 pounds of canned food and beverages every day for an entire lifetime to exceed the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consequently, human exposure to BPA from can coatings is minimal and poses no known health risk.'

Since that site is pro BPA, I'll site another source:
[ http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Industry-backs-bisphenol-A-safety-in-can-linings ]

'The Consumer Union published its report after tests on 19 canned foods - including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans – found almost all contained “measurable levels of BPA”. The levels of chemical detected ranged from 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) to 191ppb. This highest level was detected in canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake with the lowest finding for this product less than a fifth of that at 35.9 ppb. Progresso Vegetable Soup, made by General Mills, showed a BPA level ranging from 67 to 134 ppb, while Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels between 54.5- 102 ppb, said the study.

A spokesman from General Mills said the BPA levels of up to 134ppb reportedly found in its Progresso Soup were not consistent with the company’s own findings.

“However, even if that level was present, it would still be substantially below the advisory level of 600 parts per billion established by the European Union as a level of safe consumption for all ages – and below current U.S. guidelines that establish the daily upper limit of safe exposure as 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight,” he added. “A level of 60 or 90 parts per billion, if present in a product, is and would be safe.”'

I know this is true from how they phrased it. You see, all @LizVacc reported on was an out of context number - 50mcg, but that isn't how toxicity is displayed. Tox levels for any food additive is always listed as units per kilogram of bodyweight. The reason for this is because of lab testing on rats and they need to convert the number into a human equivalent. So when the biased bisphenol-a site said that you would need to ingest 500 lbs of it every day for a lifetime, I knew they weren't lying.

I did find something amusing when looking that up...

Check out this section of a story done by the Virginian-Pilot and reposted by [ http://www.ewg.org/node/27610 ]

'the best option is to look for tomato products in glass jars, such as those made by Bionaturae, or in aseptic packaging, such as Pomi brand.'

Now compare that with what Liz Vaccariello wrote:

'Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe's and Pomi.'

Plagiarize much, Editor in Chief?

More examples:

Nonorganic potatoes (her wording, not mine)

'The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board'

Really? You mean to tell me that the Chairman of the National Organics Standards Board is advocating for organic potatoes? You just blew my mind. Hey, I wonder if salt is good for me, maybe I'll ask the head of Morton Salt.

The Illusion of Fact.

Question what you are being told and why they are telling you. Use reason and logic. Autism is caused by vaccines and food dye? Wouldn't there by way more people with autism? I mean, everyone has had either an M&M or a shot?

I blame the food industry, and IFT, and our educational system. The industry should have seen this coming and should have reached out to educate. The Institute of Food Technologists could do more to educate our public so they don't turn to food hysterics and junk science. We eat every day, several times a day. Why isn't basic food science taught as real world examples of physics, agriculture, chemistry, and biology?

I have promised and I will do a thorough fact checking of Food Inc. I put it off because I know it's going to be a ton of work (not debunking, but a ton of writing because there is so much to debunk). I might break it down to a couple of fact checks per post. I dread doing it like I used to dread track conditioning in high school. I got so much anxiety that I would feel physically ill. I hated running and no amount of running gave me more stamina. I was a shot put and discus thrower, too, so running was extra pointless for me. Oh well, another story for a different blog all together.

Look for me on Twitter - @samvance

Comment on here as well. I get the comments in my gmail and approve them so I don't have crazies leave crazy comments. Plus it forces me to read the comments. Let me know if you like it and tell your friends/colleagues.

The Issue 2 of getting a job at KFC.

Hello world. It's been a while and now I'm back to deliver another passionate missive about the food industry as well as a thing or two about the restaurant industry.

I have no theme today, so it will be a hodgepodge of short topics. Be sure to comment if you have one and please spread the word. I know that some of you have read every post but just think of how many that haven't read one.

Visited the Boston Market at 9430 Fields Ertel Rd in Mason, OH yesterday. As a long time KFC employee, I'm disappointed to say that they not only have their act together, but they are running a better restaurant than KFC. This couldn't have been better evidenced than the $1 meal online coupon promotion they have out thru the 2nd of November. Lines formed to the door and nobody panicked...they were ready. Their hotwells were filled with hot food that looked appetizing and not all mashed to hell. Behind the employees were whole chickens roasting slowly in a series of rotisserie ovens. One cashier took every order, one person scooped sides, and one person added chicken and finished out the order. The manager kept the birds flying out of the oven and I'm sure there was one more prep person out of site, working the side dish prep in the back. It was fast, it was efficient, it was delicious. You have the choice of a quarter white meat chicken or 3 pieces of dark, one side, and cornbread.

This online coupon was a response to KFC's do-over of the failed Oprah Coupon several months back. The redo was less spectacular. This time you got one free piece of grilled chicken, which I later heard was a choice of either a leg or wing. A wing, really? Aren't you trying to win over some business, KFC? I'm sure there were some product outages all across the nation.

KFC has strayed a little bit from the things that made us such a strong growing chain in the late 90's - early 2000's. It should be all about the chicken, first of all. Focus on getting the basics right. That means more rounds of smaller batches being cooked. It means focusing on Original, Extra Crispy, Grilled, and Crispy Strips. I would cut out the new Original Strips as well as Popcorn chicken. Original Strips are a great idea, but carry over too much flavor of the trans fat free fry oil, which breaks down faster than hydrogenated shortening. So those strip will pick up the slightest bitter compunds released as the oil ages. Popcorn is popular but very labor intensive. It doesn't hold well, it fries too fast so the cook has to stop what he/she is doing and babysit it while it cooks, and it uses a lot of flour. The sides would be limited to Mashed Potatoes, Gravy, Green Beans, BBQ Baked Beans, Mac n' Cheese, and Cole Slaw. Bread choices would remain as biscuits and cornbread muffins. I would also lower prices and structure the labor so that the manager is free to...manage and not be a highly paid worker. The manager needs to be free to hop station to station to help out in quick spurts, monitor quality, and check food safety. Locations with management that does this will have lower food costs and lower waste. You also empower your employees by not bailing them out every time they seem to be lagging behind.

If KFC wants anymore ideas, they can email me with a job offer and salary.


Speaking of job offers, I am still trying to get my meat hooks on a great food industry career position. One of the reasons I started this blog was to stay sharp and current with the industry. I have a degree in this field and I can do anything from R&D to Management to Sales. I know that it can take time to find the right position but I will be out of college for 2 years this December. So if any of you industry leaders that quietly read this blog need anyone good...don't pass me up.

The job ads are as frustrating as the silence that follows my application. I saw one looking for a 3rd shift production supervisor in a remote part of the state. In the requirements, they ask for 5 years of manufacturing experience. Here is how my brain works: why would someone with 5 years of experience still be on 3rd shift? Aren't you immediately disregarding fresh talent while attracting candidates for supervisor that couldn't get promoted past 3rd shift? Food companies do this all the time in job ads. I saw one for sales and they wanted 10 years of experience and a working relationship with several grocers. Are you dead serious? If I'm being interviewed for a sales job and they ask where I see myself in just 5 years, the answer sure as hell isn't going to be, 'right here in the same position'.

Part of this problem stems from a lack of a formal training program. The large entities with such a program skim graduates with 3.0 GPA's and higher. My GPA was lower, but it had nothing to do with my area of expertise. It had everything to do with what we call, 'General Education Credits'. I had a few of those classes I had to repeat, which crucified my GPA. In food science classes that pertained to my degree it was nearly all A's and B's. Unfortunately, my resume won't even get considered by many companies because of GPA.

In the last couple months, I had a president of a food company personally refer me to someone in their HR dept for a management position that he believed needed to be filled and I was also referred by a sales exec for his food company that needed to replace an outgoing sales position and got paid for his referrals. I have heard back from neither.


I have finally gotten around to checking out Ohio's Issue 2. I didn't judge, because I hadn't done any research into it. I just pulled up some info from both sides and read. The pro side of the argument advocated for livestock raising standards, traceability programs, and the general well being of our protein supply. The against side claimed a hijacking of Ohio's constitution by big business and included several food hysteric's buzzwords such as, 'Sustainability' and 'Organic' and 'Factory Farms'.

I followed the hyperbole and deducted that the food hysterics have grown even more paranoid.

The truth:
Both sides want standards set in the raising of livestock. There are some bad seeds out there that give real herdsman a bad name. Whether it's hogs, steer, dairy cattle, or sheep, 99% plus of them care for their animals and their general well being.

The HSUS are not advocates, but rather, activists. Big difference. As activists they have an emotional attachment to the animals but lack the experience and education to make decisions on their behalf. The standards you would get from the HSUS side would go beyond overkill. Many animals are social and stick close together, while HSUS standards may result in in requiring more acreage per head than the animal will ever freely use.

If issue 2 is voted down then something may or may not happen. HSUS will try to get the regulation they, as activists, feel is necessary passed into law. If they don't succeed then things will stay the same except for any programs that the producers may put through to raise standards for animal care. If HSUS is successful in passing their own legislation, you could see a mass exodus of agriculture into neighboring states where it can be more profitable.

If Issues 2 passes, will we see a massive de-regulation of agribusiness? No. It's in the farmers best interest to keep standards at a level that keeps those bad seeds in check and presents a socially responsible attitude to the consumers. I think I'll vote Yes on Issue 2, and so should you.

If you like what you read or think other will, please pass the link to this blog along in emails, facebook status', and Tweets. Thanks.

Center for Misleading Lists in the Public Food Hysteria.

About 40 years ago, a couple things happened. First, people were convinced that end times were near as people were predicting major food shortages and famine. Second, people were becoming concerned with the environment.

Both things weren't at all baseless. India had a booming population as was Africa's. It was the work of Norman Borlaug and the green revolution that saved the day, and an estimated 1 - 2 billion people. Since the industrial revolution just 70 years prior, smog and industrial pollutants were also a genuine concern.

About this time, many watchdog groups were formed, as was the EPA. While the intent of most of these groups was to curb environmental abuses and encourage responsible regulation, most have now become institutions full of people that must justify their own existence. It was a perfect storm of junk science, political power, and a generally undereducated public that lead to groups such as The Center for Science in the Public Interest to take hold and grow.

In car sales, there is a saying; 'The person that talks the most, wins'. This could be their strategy as well.

'You don't know about this? Well, let me tell you all about it.'

By the time they are done pumping you full of 'information', they have one more voice in a grossly misinformed game of telephone.

'We don't know enough about irradiated meat, more studies are needed.'
'Did you hear about the studies done on irradiated meat?'
'Studies show irradiated meat to be bad.'
'Everyone knows that irradiated meat is bad.'

They make lists that I hate using very narrow criteria or flawed logic. They condemn certain foods that are high in calories as being bad for you, yet they never list the vitamin and mineral content or protein, just calories and sodium. Of course, nobody is going to publicly say that more calories and more sodium are good for you, so they get a pass. It takes too long to explain that calories and sodium aren't intrinsically bad or good. Both things are necessary, too much can lead to long term health issues, and one or two meals a week that are high in either aren't going to kill you. What looks better on Yahoo's front page? Of course, we now get flooded with these web stories of the worst foods, all based on calories alone. It's nonsense.

Here is The Center for Science in the Public Interest's latest list, based on food illness:
The 10 most dangerous foods.
1. Leafy Greens
2. Eggs
3. Tuna
4. Oysters
5. Potatoes
6. Cheese
7. Ice Cream
8. Tomatoes
9. Sprouts
10. Berries

These numbers are based on CDC reporting data from people believed to have been victims of food poisoning. There are several problems here that you'll hear nobody else address.

1. The data.
Did they only pull CDC's numbers that were a result of major outbreaks, or was this also when someone thought they had bad fish? Witness testimony isn't exactly reliable, either. Most people get what my animal science instructor called 'the 24 hour Montezuma's' and blame the last thing they ate. It seems logical until you realize that our digestive tracts take 8 - 12 hours or more to completely digest and excrete food. Diarrhea can't be caused by something you just ate. Also, people can be biased against certain foods or even certain restaurants where they may have gotten bad service.

2. Specific ingredients.
Only data from major outbreaks can be traced back to a specific food. An individual with the help of a whole team of doctors couldn't derive the poison food culprit unless they had a sample of every food they ate in the previous 2 days. For instance, I had chicken(no meat on this list...interesting), cheese, potatoes, and ranch dressing(contains eggs) today. According to this list, I died 4 hours ago.

3. An unloaded gun never killed anyone.
Preparation is a critical control point in safe food preparation. I'll use spinach as an example. Yes, deer, rabbits, and migrant farm workers without access to toilets have probably peed on at least some of the spinach. That spinach is not doomed to be contaminated when you pick it up at the store, however. The spinach is washed and rinsed in at least 2 steps, sealed in airtight packaging, stored in a temperature controlled warehouse, shipped in refrigerated trucks, shelved in a cold environment, and brought home for you to cross contaminate with the raw chicken you were just cutting. Good job. Even if the spinach was contaminated in the field, the wash/rinse steps should eliminate any pathogens. Dole cannot be responsible for your food prep techniques or your temperature abuse.

A fair list:
Instead of looking at food that went wrong, it is probably better to look at food that have the highest concentrations of micro organisms to begin with. Then we can build a list based on the worst case scenario of food safety and sanitation.

1. Sprouts.
Sorry hippies, but at around 7 - 9 log Colony forming units(cfu)/g(gram)/cc(cubic centimeter), sprouts are the most germ riddled produce out there. What makes this the most dangerous is the fact that there isn't much processing that can be done due to their fragility.
2. Greens

3. Berries

4. Onions

5. Potatoes


- a note about eggs. In the stories I read about this list, eggs are placed in there rather nonchalantly, as if we can all agree that eggs are nasty.

'What about salmonella?'

Assuming you eat cooked eggs, this shouldn't be an issue. Now, let's assume you are making a dressing or a meringue, now what? Salmonella occurs in eggs at a rate of about 1 in 20,000. Chances are, you'll be fine.

A final note about calories/sodium.

Sodium works opposite potassium to regulate inter and extracellular fluids. Too much sodium is as bad as no sodium. Yes, pay attention, but do not shoot for zero.

Calories should be looked at as a currency of the foods we eat. The amount of calories in our banks depends on the weight, musculature, and physical activity we are trying to support. If you weight train, run for distance, or have a high metabolism, then you will need more calories. For instance, Michael Phelps consumed 12,000 calories a day while at the height of his olympic training. On the other hand, a 185 lb man with normal musculature, living an inactive lifestyle, need only consume 2,220 calories per day.

Use calories like money. Go ahead pend 2,000 on those cheese fries(Outback's are fantastic), just short yourself some calories for the next couple days or so to stay within budget. Too many calories consumed - you blew your budget and you'll gain. Too few calories consumed - you are a tight wad and you'll lose weight.

Do not, I repeat, do not try to get to zero with calories. That will lead to eating disorders, body dimorphic disorder, and eventually organ failure.

Hooters - The C Student Of Restaurant Chains.

Oh, Hooters. The concept is pretty solid, use something guys love to sell them other things that they love. Hot girls in tight outfits and nice cleavage bringing you beer and wings while you watch sports.

This concept was red hot in the late 80's/early 90's. The news would often have a piece on how the community disapproves of the Hooter girls and woman's groups cried misogynist, saying the women were being objectified. What we see now is a place trying to cling to it's former glory while slipping in many key areas that leave the chain vulnerable to food safety, quality, and service issues. Hooters can make an A, but prefers to rest on it's laurels.

First off, let's get the uniforms out of the way. I hear an argument for the uniform, citing it's tackiness as a part of the concept. If tacky is what you aim for, why not hire sloppy, dejected Wal-Mart patrons and put them in high heels? No, you put them in the uniform because it was pretty hot and racy at the time and it turned heads and garnered press coverage. The trouble now is that our culture has caught up with Hooters in terms of sleaze. High school sophomores now wear more offensive outfits during the summer than what you see in Hooters. The Hooters uniform was a solid 8 or 9 on the skank meter, but through the passage of time, that same outfit is a 4 at best.

My solution goes in one of a couple different ways. First is to stop trying to be racy. Listen Hooters, men can now get porn instantly on their computer or text to their phones. We are no longer seeing anything special and we're desensitized to it. So one solution would be wearing Hooters t-shirts or polos and nice shorts. This would not only reduce the obvious fire hazard, but it will make the waitresses, 'the girls next door' you claim they are. The other solution would be to play to the sports theme. Make Hooters jerseys for football basketball, baseball, and hockey. Hell, you could even do a UFC style design. Make the color scheme highly customizable to the area. In Columbus, the 'OO' in Hooters could be OSU themed block O's and the colors could be scarlet and gray. In Cincinnati, the colors could be red/black.

OK, enough of the Project Runway crap.

Operations in the back of the house leave much to be desired. We have issues that make the food less appealing, less tasty, and less safe.

The food prep and plating is done in plain sight of the bar. I have no problem with this, but you really need your A-game to avoid looking dirty. That goes for both the employees and the actual kitchen. I see employees frequently wear their own personal hats that are cocked to the side, pants sagging, and a non work shirt. It isn't cool, and you can give a laid back vibe through chatter with the bar patrons without looking like total douche-bags.

The kitchen is rarely clean. Flour, sauce, shortening, and crumbs make their way all over the prep surfaces. Cross contamination is commonplace in any Hooters I have ever visited and sat at the bar. One time, I was in the Hooters on Dublin-Granville Rd in Columbus and saw a guy carrying raw wings in a tub. The cook lifted the tub to shoulder height and carried it over the prep table as juices from the wings dripped over people's plates. I have seen cooks wearing vinyl food prep gloves, but sweating to the point that the sweat from their arm ran down to the elbow or wrist and dripped onto the prep table. I've seen cooks working with just one glove because the other one had flour on it and they didn't stop and wash their hands. Then, I have seen flagrant cross contamination when people with floured arms and gloved hands takes off their gloves and handles plates of food with their sweaty hands and the arms were still full of flour. I've seen the cook with the sag in his pants stop, pull up his pants, text on his phone, and continue plating someone's food without ever taking off his gloves and washing his hands. I've also seen managers helping out, but without proper hair restraints which, by this point in the story, seems kinda unimportant.

It isn't just the way in which the employees interact with the food that causes food safety issues, but how the food is situated and prepped. The sauces that Hooters uses is poured into stainless steel round inset pans, ladled into mixing bowls with the chicken/shrimp, tossed together, then poured out onto the plate. The sauces are not refrigerated while being used, which isn't a big deal in and of itself because the sauce has a high enough acidity and low enough free water to keep out most micro organisms. The problem is the sauce that languishes in the mixing bowl with the breading from the wings, juices from the meat, and oil from the fryer. This is a potential breeding ground for a massive amount of M.O. All it takes is one under cooked shrimp or errant droplet of sweat and the bacteria will spread like wildfire.

The toppings and pickles used are not refrigerated either. Sandwich toppings are stored in pans, that are set in ice baths. This is ok for short periods, but is far from acceptable as a means to control the temperature. First off, the ice melts because it's 88 degrees in that kitchen area. Second, the ice water only cools the submerged part of the pan, and not very well. Many times I see plastic pans used for the lettuce/onions/tomatoes. Plastic is not a good conductor of heat, therefore not as much cold gets to the product.

Then there are the quality issues...

The food isn't that bad, but the cooks aren't doing it any favors. Wings routinely sit in the fry basket, above the fryer for several minutes, or they'll do the move where they re-fry it for 10 seconds to heat it up... just long enough for the shortening to soak through the breading. The other extreme is when they don't give the wings any time to drain off excess shortening and it gets tossed with, and emulsified into, the sauce. When the wings are sauced, they have the remains of whatever was tossed before, as we already discussed. When you get your wings, you have all of these tag along crumbs going for the ride. It makes the food seems heavy and oily. Also, stop acting like it's a big deal to not get fixins, beans or a pickle on my sandwich plate. The juice from the pickle soaks into the bun and it's all a waste anyway, all because the hooter girl didn't assert herself and makes sure the food is as ordered before bringing it over.

The service isn't great, but it's slightly better than the sanitation. Servers at Hooters are encouraged to entertain and mingle which my brain hears and converts to flirting. It's great if you are the one getting all the attention, but chances are, you're not. The people they are hanging out with are regulars that they probably give free fries to or refill a beer without charging. Meanwhile, new customers get to sit and wait till the girls are done before they get to order. This can lead to long waits to just order a drink. Plus, the girl just wasted all her spunk and mojo on the 48 yr old construction foreman that reminds her of daddy that ran off when she was 10 and thus, is very short with you.

So what to do...? I already put in my 2 cents on the uniforms, but here is the rest.

Cook staff:
Gloves are mandatory while handling raw food.
When going from raw to cooked/ready to eat, hands must be washed and dried thoroughly.
Hats. Hooters logo. Bill must be forward facing.
Any personnel working in the kitchen must wear a hat.
No sagging pants.
Hooters shirt only.
No cigarette behind the ear (yes, I really saw this).
Apron must be changed when soiled.
No cell use while handling food.

Kitchen:
There must be some degree of separation between the breading area/fryline and where cooked food is plated.
The kitchen must be cleaned, swept, and mopped after every rush.
Coldwells for fixins and maybe a closed off system for the sauce(squeeze bottle, pump) is mandatory.
Bowls must be swapped out for clean every 15 minutes, no exceptions.
All fryers must have timers with buttons programmed to add 30 seconds of drain time after the initial product timer goes off.
Fryed product must either be used immediately or transported to a 160 degree holding cabinet and marked with the appropriate hold time


Service:
Hooter girls must check food before taking it to the customer. Incorrect orders that reach the customer are complimentary.
No boyfriend/girlfriends hanging out without purchasing food.
Hooter girls have 1 minute to greet a sitting customer and 2 minutes after that to bring their drink order.
At least 2 call backs are required after the entree is served.
All customers deserve an equal amount of service and attention.

Implementing these changes would at least make Hooters relevant and an A student.

If anyone else wants me to tell them how to run their business... I'll listen to any reasonable job offers.

You're welcome.