Thursday, December 23, 2010
Christmas Caramel Corn
8 cups of popped plain (unbuttered) popcorn
4 cups pecans
2 cups sugar (brown or white - your call. I like one cup of each.)
1/2 cup corn syrup (or honey or agave if you're not fans of Big Corn.)
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup butter or margerine
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon cardamom
1 bag of red and green M&Ms
Preheat oven to 250 degrees. Grease two large pans; cake pans work best. Spread popcorn and nuts in pans.
In a small pot, combine sugar, corn syrup and butter. Heat over medium until boiling; put a lid on it and let it boil for five minutes. Remove from heat and add baking soda and spices; mix quickly. The misture should be light and foamy. Pour over popcorn and nuts, stirring to coat.
Bake at 250 for one hour, stirring every 15 minutes. While it's in the oven, cover a large area of your counter with wax paper or tin foil. Turn the finished caramel corn out onto the covered area and break it up into bite-sized chunks - be sure to give it a second before you go in there bare-handed, because hot sugar can seriously burn. Once it is completely cooled, mix in the red and green M&Ms. Package in pretty bags or airtight boxes.
Serves: 16
Nutritional Info: Really, really bad for you. That's why you only make it at Christmas and give most of it away.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Why I Blog
Right before the end of school, one of my roommates called me obsessed with food, at all stages: not just eating, but growing and preparing it as well. Since then, I’ve been trying to put into words why I find food so interesting. Why am I obsessed, not just with blogging about cooking, but with where food comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there? The obvious part is what everyone shares: I need it to stay alive. But yesterday, I finally realized that it fascinates me because it’s an easily understandable way to model the production economy – it works just like any other production model. The difference is that with food, only a minuscule percentage of the population is engaged in just consuming. At some point, almost everyone has experience growing or preparing their own food. Not so with a laptop or a t-shirt or a tube of lip gloss.
What’s more, I see the food grow-make-eat cycle, and the rich interplays therein, as a way to model bigger problems in our society and to look for solutions in a way that is essential and engaging to everyone. As much as the appearance of abundance in suburban supermarkets gives the impression that the food model we’re using works, it isn’t, and there are problems at every step of the way.
- Grow – Industrialized agriculture is a problem because it encourages the use of non-native plants, monoculture farming, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and crops dependent on petrochemical (oil-based) fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Organic is more expensive to the consumer, but industrialized agriculture is deeply expensive in terms of our planet’s health.
- Make – Except for a few high-profile executive chef positions, the vast majority people who handle food between the field and your plate are not working desirable jobs, and as such, they tend to be socioeconomic minorities, paid a pittance for thankless and sometimes dangerous labor. The spectrum covers a lot of complicated problems, but the worst are in places the average consumer will never see, like harvesting vegetables or processing meat.
- Eat – Another complicated problem, but for America, we spend the least on food – 10% of our income – of any industrialized nation, and we’re leading industrialized nations in a trend of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, gout, and other “diseases of civilization” that belie a food culture in shambles. We are what we eat, and we’re eating crap.
But the really interesting part is the greater implications of this model. The problems we face in the production, preparation and consumption of our food present a microcosm of the system of problems faced by America and the world at large in terms of our environment, socioeconomic inequalities, and overall health. I say “system of problems” because, in the words of great conservationist John Muir, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” Those three big problem areas are deeply interrelated, and that’s why connecting them to the grow-make-eat food model works. Each step of the food model is richly interrelated to the other steps. You can’t fix one without needing to make changes to the others.
For example, let’s say we get rid of corn and soy subsidies, something I would love to see happen. The first effect is in growing – now it’s much less profitable to grow corn and soybeans, so drastically fewer people do it. Downstream in the “make” stage, there’s a shortage of corn and soy for snack food producers, so further downstream at the “eat” stage, snack foods become much more scarce and expensive, and people ease off eating them. That’s a good thing. But corn and soy are also used to feed livestock on CAFOs. What do CAFO owners and operators feed them instead? How does this change the health of the livestock? How does the change the supply of meat for processing? Are workers laid off of hand-to-mouth jobs? And how does this change the quality and availability of meat for consumers? And next year, how many farmers who switched to new crops will still be in business? Because of their previous dependence on big corporations like Monsanto for seed, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, the remaining small farmers of America are in large part on the brink of bankruptcy. One bad year could put them under. For every action we take to fix part of this broken system, there infinite repercussions downstream.
And that’s the key to why I’m fascinated by food. My boyfriend likes to call me a tweaker because I can never take a recipe for what it is. I have to change something about it to see if it makes things better or worse pretty much every time I make it. He calls it tweaking, but it doesn’t just apply to food. It’s part of my greater way of thinking, and when you look at the big picture you realize that I’m not a tweaker, I’m a fixer. Whenever I’m presented with a problem, no matter what I will start looking, evaluating and trying out solutions.
I look at the world, and I see a bunch of broken systems, infinite problems begging to be solved. I look at the grow-make-eat model and I see a smaller, more manageable version of those same broken systems, interrelated in the same way. It’s still a very complex system of problems, and I still don’t have the answers, but I keep working at it, trying to figure out a way to solve the system. I know that the solutions for the food model will make great strides towards solutions in the environmental-socioeconomic-health system of problems, and if those food model solutions will give us important clues for how to solve the entire system of problems. So I guess I love food because I’m a human, a fixer, and an optimist.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Simple Summer Slaw
Monday, May 17, 2010
Dinner Tonight: Tandoori Gyros
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Whatatta?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Food, Inc on POV
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Lunch Today: Focaccia Bites
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Dinner Tonight: Not-sta
Friday, February 26, 2010
Try This: Understand Size Distortion
Weight is a difficult subject for me. I have always been a wide girl, even though I'm petite. I've struggled with weight all my life, and I feel able to talk about it now because, strangely enough, I have lost ten pounds since I started this blog in October. I'm bringing this up because I had a recent reality check about sizing distortion in women's clothing, and while not a foodie topic, I feel like I should discuss it here. Size distortion and portion distortion are the twin devils of American culture - as the "size to be" gets smaller, restaraunts push bigger and bigger portions to eat. They might be different issues, but they are inextricably linked. What you eat determines what you weigh. It took me 20 years to really grasp that concept, and now that I've got it, I'm getting healthy - but there are still a lot of people out there who don't get it.
One of my favorite things to do when there's nothing to do is browse dresses online and pick them out for my "after" photo. I mean, cute dresses exist for the big girl, but supercute is a bit beyond our reach. One of my favorite sites is ModCloth.com, and now that I'm finally seeing real progress (yay, double-digit losses!) I started looking at their sizes. And wow. They are tiny.
After a bad run-in with their customer service team - it's always a joy to be implicitly called fat by a stranger who wouldn't know you from Eve - I channeled my snow day and seething energy into a little research. Because as much as we know about Barbie's unnaturally distorted figure, what do we know about real women and their natural figures?
According to the CDC's 2009 summary of data collected between 2003 and 2006, the average American woman (AW) is 5'4" tall, weighs 169 pounds, and has a 37" waist. According to American lingerie manufacturers, she wears a 36C bra. And based on her BMI (29, the borderline between overweight and obese) and research about the relationship between the waist-to-hip ratio and weight-related health risks, she has 43.5" hips. That's about a Misses size 18.
That's what "normal" looks like, but normal is overweight. What does healthy look like?
The one thing that won't change is her height. So the hypothetical ideal average (HI) is stil 5'4". Since she's average, let's put her at 125 pounds, right in the middle of her ideal weight range, 110-140 pounds.
The AW has 37% body fat. The ideal is 20-25%; too much lower and hormones and reproductive organs are disrupted. Let's say that at 125, HI has 23.5% body fat. Based on the reversal of a fitness calculation system developed by the US Navy, she would probably have a 28" waist. Since she's healthy, she probably has 38-40" hips. And since she's no longer overweight, like the AW, her bust is likely in line with the old average of a B-cup bust. That's more like a Misses size 8.
Now what about ModCloth? Since the data I've used this far is for the "average" woman, it makes sense to reference their medium size. To create the average for the ModCloth medium, I took a random sampling of 20 dresses from the "Under $50" section and averaged their bust, waist, and hip measurements. Only half of these dresses had any stretch, including smocking, stretch material or elastic. Most of the dresses that had stretch had it only in the waist. Not all of these dresses listed a hip measurement.
Another ModCloth problem is how they do their sizing. Rather than testing the garment on a dress form to see what sizes it can fit, they lay the garment flat and measure the bust, waist and hip size across the front of the garment. I have enough problems with this method, but what it comes down to is that the measurements listed are approximately half of the measurement the garment will fit. The average I came up with was 16"-14"-18.5" - that would fit roughly a 32" bust, a 28" waist, and a 37" hip. That's a Juniors size 5. Juniors sizes are meant for girls just starting puberty, so the bust and hips are slightly smaller. A full-grown, curvy woman would have to decide between a garment with a too-big waist or a two-small bust/hip.
So let's compare:
- The average American woman is 42-37-43.5, a Misses 18.
- The healthy ideal for the average American woman is, hypothetically, 34-38-39, a Misses 8 or 10.
- And the Modcloth average medium is 32-28-37, a Juniors 5.
Even if the average woman was perfectly healthy, she couldn't fit into the average ModCloth medium. Her waist would fit, but her bust and hips would not. If she noticed this and decided to try and lose more weight in order to fit into her dress, she would probably be unsuccessful, because hips, as you know, are bones, and when you're fit, they are probably as small as they will get. Breasts, too, are hard to reduce without surgery, or extreme malnutrition.
Two inches may not seem like a huge difference, but consider this: one pound of body fat has a volume of roughly two cups, or 29 cubic inches. Even assuming that HI can lose those two inches on her bust and hips to fit into that supercute dress, it would equal a total volume of 116 cubic inches off the waist and hips alone, equal to four pounds. You can't lose weight in just one area, so she would probably lose eight pounds total trying to lose those two inches.
That would put her at 117 pounds, which is so light, it's the bare minimum for giving blood. One nasty stomach bug could be very dangerous to her health, and one restaraunt meal would blow almost all her calories for the day. She will have shifted away from a healthy medium, towards an unhealthy extreme that may encourage further size distortion and lead to eating disorders and a whole host of other psychological problems. Let me be clear: this is bad. And while my encounter with ModCloth's distain for the upper sizes left one bad taste in my mouth, this information leaves another that is far worse. Discriminating against curvy girls is one thing, but discriminating against healthy girls is far worse, and the slim margin is so enticing as a means to lose "just a little more" that I find it sickeningly insidious.
So the question is: where do we go from here? How do we tackle the difficult issue of size distortion? How do we affect change?