It just so happens that I have a wretched sweet tooth, I love to bake, and I have to watch my blood sugar—a challenging combination on the best of days. Many people are in the same boat, and there’s a lot of confusion out there about the different types of sugar and sweeteners available today, how to use them, and whether they are healthy and safe to use if you have blood sugar issues. 

Caveat Emptor

Whether from soda, snacks, cereal, pasta or other packaged foods, Americans each eat the equivalent of 22 teaspoons of sugar a day, adding up to about 156 pounds of sugar per person, per year. And teens can eat as much as 34 teaspoons of sugar a day!

Imagine it: 31 five-pound bags for each of us, every year.

According to Rachel K. Johnson, lead author of a paper published in the American Heart Association (AHA) journal Circulation, too much sugar not only makes Americans fat but also is a key culprit in diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke. Sugar raises blood sugar, reduces HDL cholesterol (the “good” kind), skyrockets triglycerides, triggers abnormal insulin surges, and makes us hungry. It also converts the less-harmful large LDL particles to the much more harmful small LDL particles.

So how much is enough? The Heart Association report goes on to recommend that most women should be getting no more than 6 teaspoons a day, or 100 calories, of added sugar—the sweeteners and syrups that are added to foods during processing, preparation or at the table. For most men, the recommended limit is 9 teaspoons, or 150 calories. A single glass of store-bought orange juice, with the equivalent of 10 teaspoons, would put you over.

So this summary of sweeteners comes with a warning:

Sugar in any form is not good for you, so please use it sparingly.

An Inside Look at Sugar

There are various types of sugar, chemically speaking. Sucrose comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, fructose, maltose and dextrose come from fruits and starchy plants, lactose comes from dairy products, etc.—basically, if it ends in -ose, its a type of sugar.

Sucrose, like all polysaccharides, breaks down during digestion into simple glucose and fructose. Glucose is transported by insulin to the cells for energy, which, unless burned, gets stored away as fat. Yep, you read that right: Sugar, unused, makes you fat.

Glucose is the foundation for the Glycemic Index (GI), which ranks foods on how they affect our blood glucose levels. This index measures how much your blood glucose increases in the two or three hours after eating certain foods. Table sugar, or sucrose, has a GI of 60. Eating low (below 50) on the glycemic index can help you control your blood sugar naturally.

People tend to think that fructose is a benign sugar because it is found naturally in fruit. But, despite the name “fructose,” whole fruit actually has a relatively low concentration of fructose compared to agave syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, or cane sugar. Fructose does not raise blood glucose levels immediately the way glucose does, and is therefore considered low on the glycemic index. But don’t be fooled.

Fructose travels to the liver where it gets converted to triglycerides—the fats in the blood that are associated with heart disease. Blood triglycerides made from fructose are stored as fat, which increases the size of your fat cells, contributing to weight gain and obesity. The excess triglycerides created when you eat fructose increase insulin resistance, thereby boosting insulin production to very high levels, which fosters the development of diabetes in a “back door” fashion. Fructose also interferes with the absorption of minerals and impairs the immune system. (See The Skinny on Fat, Part 2 for more information >>)

White Sugars

There are many different types of refined, granulated sugar derived from sugar cane or sugar beets. Cane and beet sugars are mainly made of sucrose and come in varying crystal sizes that provide unique functional characteristics appropriate for a specific food’s special need. Refined white sugar is highly processed using multiple fossil-fuel- and chemical-intensive processes. It provides empty calories and zero nutritional value. Additionally, the fact that a lot of commercial sugar is made from genetically engineered sugar beets makes white sugar something to be avoided at all costs.

“Regular” or white sugar, from coarse to powdered granulations
“Regular” or white sugar, as it is known to consumers, is the sugar most commonly used in home food preparation. White sugar is the sugar called for in most cookbook recipes. The food industry stipulates “regular” sugar to be “extra fine” or “fine” because small crystals are ideal for bulk handling and not susceptible to caking. You can find refined sugar in crystal sizes varying from coarse granules to powdery confectioner’s 10X, depending on the needs of your dish.

“Fruit Sugar” or Crystalline Fructose
Crystalline fructose is slightly finer than “regular” sugar and is used in dry mixes such as gelatin and pudding desserts, and powdered drinks. Crystalline fructose has a more uniform small crystal size than “regular” sugar which prevents separation or settling of larger crystals to the bottom of the box—an important quality in dry mixes.

Brown Sugars

Brown sugars range in the amount of processing they receive, but they are brown because, unlike white sugar, they have not had all of the molasses chemically and physically removed. The least processed of the brown sugars—Rapadura or panela—often still has the minerals and enzymes intact. Palm sugars differ in texture and taste from brown cane sugars, but are often minimally processed as to still contain trace minerals too. Brown sugars can be used in cup-for-cup substitution with white refined sugars.

Brown Sugar (common light and dark)
Common brown sugar is really highly processed and refined white sugar that has had the surface molasses syrup added back in, which imparts its characteristic flavor. Dark brown sugar has a deeper color and stronger molasses flavor than light brown sugar. Lighter types are generally used in baking and making butterscotch, condiments and glazes. The rich, full flavor of dark brown sugar makes it good for gingerbread, mincemeat, baked beans, and other full flavored foods.

Brown sugar tends to clump because it contains more moisture than white sugar, but putting a piece of bread in your sugar box is said to help prevent this. Common brown sugar is a refined pseudo-food best replaced by one of the naturally brown sugars below.

Evaporated Cane Juice and Sucanat™
Evaporated Cane Juice is the common name for the sugar produced directly from milled cane using a single-crystallization process. The filtered, clarified juice is simply heated and then allowed to cool, forming granular crystals of what is basically dried sugar cane juice. The crystals retain their molasses, creating a very distinctive and quite strong flavor, along with other impurities which may be present in the cane.

Unlike more refined sugar, Sucanat™ is grainy, rather than blocky and crystalline. It also contains less sucrose, because it is has not been purified; white sugar contains the most sucrose, and is in fact almost entirely sucrose.

Sucanat™ is a contraction of “Sugar Cane Natural.” It can be difficult to bake with, because it behaves very differently from more processed forms of sugar. The lower sucrose content makes Sucanat™ less sweet, which can be confusing for bakers who want to replace regular sugar with Sucanat™ on a cup for cup basis. The granular texture can also manifest in finished baked goods, causing a disappointing texture, and the strong flavor can be unpleasant, especially when mixed with other intense flavors like citrus or chocolate.

Turbinado, Muscovado, Demerara and Rapadura
Turbinado sugar is raw sugar which has been partially processed, where only the surface molasses has been washed off. It has a blond color and mild brown sugar flavor, and is often used in tea and other beverages.

Muscovado sugar, a British specialty brown sugar, is very dark brown and has a particularly strong molasses flavor. The minimally processed crystals are slightly coarser and stickier in texture than “regular” brown sugar.

Popular in England, Demerara sugar is a light brown sugar with large golden crystals, which are slightly sticky from the adhering molasses. It is often used in tea, coffee, or on top of hot cereals.

Rapadura is the Portuguese name for a form of sugarcane juice, used as a sweetener or as a candy, common in Latin American countries such as Brazil and Venezuela (where it is known as papelón or panela), and the Caribbean. Made from dried sugarcane juice, in the form of a brick, rapadura is largely produced on site at sugarcane plantations in the very warm tropical regions. In Venezuela it is an essential ingredient for many typical recipes, and in some parts of the country, it is used in place of refined sugar as a more accessible, cheaper and healthier sweetener. Rapadura is rich in dietary iron.

Palm Sugar
Palm sugar was originally made from the sugary sap of the Palmyra palm, as well as the date palm or Sugar date palm. Now it is also made from the sap of the sago and coconut palms and may be sold as “coconut sugar.” Date sugar can also be made with the fruit of the palm by pulverizing very dry dates, but note that sugar made this way will not dissolve well in liquid.

Palm sugar varies in color from a light golden color to a rich dark brown. It tends to be extremely grainy, with dried forms being highly crumbly, and it is typically minimally processed. Many people like to use palm sugar in cooking because it is so coarse and unprocessed, and many Southeast Asian recipes call specifically for palm sugar. The light processing leaves much of the flavor of the sugar intact, creating an almost molasses-like flavor. Palm sugar is lower on the glycemic index than cane or beet sugar.

You may also see palm sugar sold as “coconut sugar,” which can be a bit confusing, since coconut fruits themselves are not actually involved. It is also sometimes marketed as “palm honey” or jaggery. Asian markets are a good resource for palm sugar, and it can also be ordered through specialty retailers. Many companies sell palm sugar in jars or tins which make it easy to ship and store, and if you purchase a block or cone of palm sugar, be aware that blocks are often coated in wax for shipping. Check for wax before shaving off the desired amount of palm sugar.

Liquid Sugars

Molasses
Molasses is a thick, brown to deep black, honey-like substance made as a byproduct of processing cane or beet sugar. It is enjoyed as a sweetener in many countries, and most particularly in England where it is called treacle. Today, molasses is used primarily in baking. No gingerbread would be quite the same without the addition of molasses.

Molasses has somewhat more nutritional value than does white or brown sugar. The process by which it is extracted and treated with sulfur results in fortification of iron, calcium and magnesium. Calories in molasses are approximately the same as sugar, about 16 calories per teaspoon (5 ml), however it only contains about half the sucrose as sugar. It is also made up of both glucose and fructose. Though it is high in iron, it is also high in calcium, which tends to prevent iron from being absorbed by the body, thus its benefits as a mineral supplement may be a bit overrated.

Corn Syrup
There was a time when manufacturers of processed foods used common table sugar, or sucrose, as their default sweetener. In the 1970s, however, Japanese scientists discovered a process which could convert cornstarch into an alternative sweetener called high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose, which makes it virtually as sweet as sucrose or natural honey. When imported sugar became prohibitively expensive, many processed food and beverage manufacturers began using high fructose corn syrup exclusively.

Today, high fructose corn syrup has replaced pure sugar as the main sweetener in most carbonated beverages, including Coca Cola and Pepsi products. High fructose corn syrup is also hiding in products like salad dressing, spaghetti sauce, and whole wheat bread, and it is often one of the first ingredients in cake mixes, cookies, sauces, breakfast cereals and commercial baked goods.

High fructose corn syrup is made through a highly industrialized, chemical fermentation and distillation process that uses tremendous amounts of energy to produce. Many health experts and environmentalists are concerned over the level of genetic modification, environmental pollution and toxic processing used to create high fructose corn syrup. Others point out the association between processed foods containing high fructose corn syrup, diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. All around, high fructose corn syrup is nasty, industrially-made pseudo-food to be avoided at all costs.

Agave Syrup
Agave syrup is very high in fructose. Depending on the brand, agave can contain as much as 92% fructose. Nowhere in nature does this ratio of fructose to glucose occur naturally. The amount of fructose in agave is much, much higher than the 55% fructose in high-fructose corn syrup or the 50% fructose in refined table sugar. The fact that agave syrup is high in low-glycemic fructose is often hailed as a benefit of using it. What many people don’t realize is that concentrated fructose is probably worse for you than high amounts of glucose.

Agave is not naturally sweet like sugar cane, honey or fruit. Whether heavily processed with heat and chemicals or minimally processed with enzymes, agave syrup requires an intensive, patented process to extract its sweetness. As such, agave syrup is not a whole or traditional food. It is a factory-made, modern product, and like all processed foods, agave syrup is missing many of the enzymes and nutrients that the original plant had to begin with. And like many processed foods, it contains very high amounts of fructose that the human body simply wasn’t designed to handle. (See A Bittersweet Goodbye to Agave for more information.)

Yacon Syrup
Yacon syrup is a sugar substitute native to the Andean region of South America. It is glucose-free, and does not increase blood sugar levels. Because of this, yacon syrup is often recommended as a sweetener to those suffering from diabetes or at risk for becoming diabetic.

The syrup is derived from the roots of the yacon plant, and according to some studies is a good source of antioxidants. The syrup also contains up to 50% of FOS (fructooligosacharides). The consumption of FOS does not increase blood glucose. However, since any inulin-derived sweetener has large amounts of fructose, the same concerns about the health effects of fructose apply.

Yacon syrup is usually made with minimal processing in an evaporator, like the ones used to make maple syrup. Yacon syrup is often compared to molasses, caramel, or honey in taste, with a deep and rich, mildly sweet flavor. It easily substitutes for maple sugar or molasses in recipes, and can be used to sweeten beverages. It is typically sold in jars like honey, and can be purchased online or at specialty food stores.

Rice Syrup
Rice syrup is a natural sweetener which is made from cooked brown rice which is specially fermented to turn the starches in the rice into sugars. Along with other alternatives to sugar, rice syrup can usually be found in natural foods stores and in some large markets. Since rice syrup will cause an elevation in blood sugar, it is not suitable for diabetics.

Individuals with gluten intolerance should read rice syrup labels carefully. Many producers culture the enzymes needed to make rice syrup on grains which contain gluten. Unless the label clearly specifies that the product is gluten free, it should be assumed that the food contains gluten.

The thick, sweet syrup can be used one for one like honey, molasses, and other liquid sweeteners, and with some planning it can also replace granulated sugar. Rice syrup has a faintly nutty flavor which is not always appropriate for all foods. Cooks should taste it before using it extensively, and they may want to experiment with small batches before committing. Since rice syrup is less sweet, the end dish will obviously be less sweet as well.

Maple Syrup
Maple syrup is one of the many wonders of the world. This viscous amber liquid with its characteristic earthy sweet taste is made from the sap of the sugar, black or red maple tree. Maple syrup contains fewer calories and a higher concentration of minerals than honey, and is an excellent source of manganese and a good source of zinc.

The process of creating maple syrup begins with tapping (piercing) 40 year old trees, which allows the sap to run out freely. The sap is clear and almost tasteless and very low in sugar content when it is first tapped. It is then boiled to evaporate the water, producing syrup with a sugar content of 60%. This maple syrup may be further reduced to create thicker delicacies, such as maple butter, maple cream, and maple sugar.

Maple syrup is, by law, graded according to color in the United States and Canada—although the grading systems differ between the countries. In the US, there are Grade A and Grade B maple syrups, with three sub-divisions of Grade A: light amber, medium amber, and dark amber. Grade B is even darker than Grade A dark amber. Many people assume that the grading system is also indicative of quality, but in reality, it only helps to differentiate the color and taste of the maple syrup, which is a matter of personal preference. The tastes are different, but to say one is objectively “better” than another would be incorrect.

Honey
Honey is a mixture of sugars and other compounds, mainly fructose and glucose. Honey contains trace amounts of several vitamins and minerals. Honey also contains tiny amounts of several compounds thought to function as antioxidants. The specific composition of any batch of honey depends on the flowers available to the bees that produced the honey.

Pasteurized honey is honey that has been heated in a pasteurization process. Pasteurization in honey reduces the moisture level, destroys yeast cells, and liquefies crystals in the honey. While this process sterilizes the honey and improves shelf-life, it has some disadvantages. Excessive heat-exposure also deteriorates the honey and destroys enzymes. The heat also affects appearance, taste, and fragrance and can also darken the natural honey color.

Raw honey is honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat (although some honey that has been “minimally processed” is often labeled as raw honey). Raw honey contains some pollen and may contain small particles of wax. Local raw honey is sought after by allergy sufferers as the pollen impurities are thought to lessen the sensitivity to hay fever. Raw honey is mildly antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral, and can be used to treat small cuts. A spoonful of raw honey is also excellent for settling a nauseous stomach.

Sugar Alcohols

Xylitol, Erythritol, Mannitol and Sorbitol
Sugar alcohols (which end in -itol) occur naturally in plants. Some of them are chemically or biologically extracted from plants (sorbitol from corn syrup and mannitol from seaweed), but they are mostly manufactured from sugars and starches.

Sugar alcohols are like sugar in some ways, but they are not completely absorbed by the body. Because of this, they affect blood sugar levels less, and they provide fewer calories per gram. Additionally, sugar alcohols don’t promote tooth decay as sugars do, so are often used to sweeten “sugar-free” chewing gum.

Xylitol and erythritol can often be swapped one for one with sugar, but you will have to read the package and experiment with each type to see how it best substitutes for sugar in your recipes. Sugar alcohols do not brown or caramelize like sugars do. Though sugar alcohols have fewer calories than sugar, most of them aren’t as sweet, so more must be used to get the same sweetening effect. Still, there is a range of sweetness and impact on blood sugar among the sugar alcohols.

For example, Maltitol has 75% of the blood sugar impact of sugar, but also only 75% of the sweetness, so they end up being equal in the end.  Xylitol is just as sweet as cane sugar, but has a low glycemic index of 13, and also helps prevent tooth decay by inhibiting bacterial growth in the mouth. Erythritol is only 70% as sweet as cane sugar, but it has zero glycemic index, and is sometimes recommended for people fighting candida.

Because they are not completely absorbed, sugar alcohols like sorbitol and xylitol can ferment in the intestines and cause bloating, gas, or diarrhea. People can have different reactions to different sugar alcohols, so careful experimentation is advised. Sugar alcohols can be made from corn and other allergens, so always check the label or call the producer to make sure the product won’t give you a reaction. Sugar alcohols like xylitol are toxic to dogs.

Sugar-Free Sweeteners

Stevia
Stevia is a South American herb that has been used as a sweetener by the Guarani Indians of Paraguay for hundreds of years. The leaves of this small, green Stevia rebaudiana plant have a delicious and refreshing taste that can be 30 times sweeter than sugar. The word Stevia refers to both the plant and the sweetener extracted from the leaves of that plant.

In the 1930s, chemists in France isolated stevioside, the compound in the leaves which is responsible for their sweetness. This extremely sweet compound is often sold isolated from the leaves in a highly refined powder or liquid form, under names like Truvia. In contrast, stevia can also be made simply by crushing or distilling the leaves of the plant to form a powder or a syrup with an intensely sweet flavor.

Refined stevia can be 30-200 times sweeter than other sugars, meaning that only a small amount needs to be used. It is challenging to bake and cook with stevia for this reason. The body also processes stevia very slowly and so it won’t spike blood sugar levels like glucose or convert to triglycerides like fructose. In addition, stevia is calorie free and safe for diabetics. (See Stevia: Traditional Medicinal or Modern Pseudo-Food? for more information.)

Saccharin, Aspartame & Sucralose
Saccharin, most often known by the brand name Sweet ‘N Low®, is the oldest artificial sweetener. It comes in the pink packet, and is commonly used to sweeten diet soft drinks and candies or to improve the flavor of medicine and toothpaste.

Aspartame is sold under a number of different product names, including Equal® (in the blue packet), NutraSweet®, Tropicana Slim®, and Canderel®. Like saccharin, it is used to sweet diet soft drinks and candies. Although it is 180 times as sweet as sugar, it is not suitable for baking because it loses much of its sweetness when heated. Many people consider this aftertaste to be a significant drawback to using aspartame.

Sucralose, sold under the name Splenda® in the yellow packet, is an artificial sweetener that is heat stable. Splenda® is made from refined sugar which has a molecule of chlorine artificially added to it so it is not properly absorbed by the body.

All three are completely artificial, chemical sweeteners that have no calories nor glycemic index. Each has been linked to cancer, digestive distress, and chronic illnesses in multiple studies. None of them are Real Food and each should be avoided at all costs.

The Sweet Surrender

While no sugar or sweetener is without its health risks, in moderation, minimally processed, natural sweeteners like rapadura, palm sugar, maple syrup, raw honey, and stevia leaf can be delicious additions to a healthy, real food diet.

This post is part of Fight Back Fridays hosted by Food Renegade!

‘Tis the season for greens, greens, roots, and more greens. This week in our CSA box, we got a lovely bunch of beets, and I picked up several more pounds of them at the farm market too. There is something about the New Year that has me in the mood for pickled beets. 

Both beets and Swiss chard are different varieties within the same plant family (Amaranthaceae-Chenopodiaceae) and their edible leaves share a resemblance in both taste and texture. However, unlike chard, attached to the beet’s green leaves is a round or oblong root. Although typically a beautiful reddish-purple hue, beets also come in varieties that feature white or golden roots, as well as rings and stripes.

These colorful root vegetables contain powerful nutrient compounds that help protect against heart disease, birth defects and certain cancers, especially colon cancer. Beets are an excellent source of the B vitamin, folate, and a very good source of manganese and potassium. They are also a good source of dietary fiber, vitamin C, magnesium, iron, copper and phosphorus.

The main ingredient in the traditional eastern European soup, borscht, beets are delicious eaten raw, but are more typically cooked or pickled. Raw beet roots have a crunchy texture that turns soft and buttery when they are cooked. Beet leaves are delicious and can be prepared like spinach or Swiss chard. They are incredibly rich in nutrients, concentrated in vitamins and minerals as well as carotenoids such as beta-carotene and lutein/zeaxanthin.

History
The wild beet, the ancestor of the beet with which we are familiar today, is thought to have originated in prehistoric times in North Africa and grew wild along Asian and European seashores. In these earlier times, people exclusively ate the beet greens and not the roots. The ancient Romans were one of the first civilizations to cultivate beets to use their roots as food. The tribes that invaded Rome were responsible for spreading beets throughout northern Europe where they were first used for animal fodder and later for human consumption becoming more popular in the 16th century.

Beets’ value grew in the 19th century when it was discovered that they were a concentrated source of sugar, and the first sugar factory was built in Poland. When access to sugar cane was restricted by the British, Napoleon decreed that the beet be used as the primary source of sugar, catalyzing its popularity. Around this time, beets were also first brought to the United States, where they now flourish. Today the leading commercial producers of beets include the United States, the Russian Federation, France, Poland, France and Germany.

Today, farmers across the country are fighting the introduction of genetically modified beets into their local agricultural ecosystems. They are deeply concerned that pollen drift from the GMO beets will contaminate non-GMO and organic varieties of table beets, as well as chard and related weeds. Help support them by avoiding sugar and sugary products made from GMO sugar beets.

How to Select and Store
Choose small or medium-sized beets whose roots are firm, smooth-skinned and deep in color. Smaller, younger beets may be so tender that peeling won’t be needed after they are cooked.

Avoid beets that have spots, bruises or soft, wet areas, all of which indicate spoilage. Shriveled or flabby should also be avoided as these are signs that the roots are aged, tough and fibrous. While the quality of the greens does not reflect that of the roots, if you are going to eat them, look for greens that appear fresh, tender, and have a bright green color.

Store beets unwashed in the refrigerator crisper where they will keep for two to four weeks. Cut the majority of the greens and their stems from the roots, so they do not pull away moisture away from the root. Leave about two inches of the stem attached to prevent the roots from “bleeding.” Store the unwashed greens in a separate plastic bag where they will keep fresh for about four days.

Pickled or sour beets are a traditional fermented, probiotic food that improves digestion by stimulating stomach acid and replenishing the beneficial bacteria in your gut. They are easy to make and hard to keep around!

Pickled Beets (Makes 1/2 gallon or 2 liters)

• 5 pounds beets, peeled (red, golden or striped)
• 3 Tbsp. sea salt
• 1 Tbsp. caraway seeds
• 1  2-quart latch-lid or mason-type canning jar, OR large ceramic crock OR veggie culture air-lock jar
• 2 freezer bags (if using crock) OR 2 sandwich bags (if using canning jar)

1. Never use metal containers or utensils. Metal and fermentation don’t mix!
2. Thoroughly clean and scald the container and utensils you will be using.
3. Wash, drain and then cut your beets into halves or quarters.
4. Grate, shred or chop the beets into a non-metal bowl. You can do this by hand or with a food processor. Pieces should be about the size of a quarter, or smaller. I prefer a coarse shred.
5. With a wooden spoon, mix the grated beets with sea salt, to taste.
6. Add caraway seeds either whole or crushed. Crushed caraway seeds give a more intense flavor.
7. Pack the beets firmly and evenly into a clean crock, glass jar or enamel container until liquid comes out of the beets freely. Leave 2 inches of room at the top of a jar or 4-5 inches of room at the top of a crock.
8. Make sure juice covers the beets completely! Once beets are immersed, place a plate on top of the beets (if using a crock) and a large freezer bag filled with water on top of the plate. (I use 2 large bags, one inside the other so that if the bag breaks, it will not water down the beets into a tasteless mess.)
9. If you are using canning jars, place a couple small, heavy rocks (boil them first) into 2 doubled-up sandwich bags, and use that to weigh down the beets inside the jar. Latch or screw the lid down loosely.
10. The beets must be completely submerged so no air can get in and contaminate the them with unwanted yeasts or molds!
11. Put jar or crock in a cool area where the temperature will not be above 75 degrees. Fermentation will begin within a day, depending upon the room temperature. If temperature is above 75 or 76 degrees, the pickled beets may not ferment and could spoil!
12. Cover the container with a clean towel and check after 2 days, releasing some of the carbon dioxide that has built up inside. Scoop any scum off the top (it is harmless), and repack. Check every 3 days and repeat as necessary.
13. After 2 weeks, sample the beets to see if they taste ready to eat. The flavor will continue to mature for the next several weeks. Refrigerating the beets will extend their shelf life.
14. Enjoy!

This post is part of Real Food Wednesday hosted by Cheeseslave!

Happy Thanksgiving from the Small Footprint Family to yours!

—Dawn, Ivan and Babyzilla

The mainstream media has got news for you these days: Overweight? Try soy! Hot-flashes? Eat soy! Blotchy skin? Rub on some soy! Lactose intolerant? Soy!

With all the ads on TV and all the products popping up everywhere, you’d think soy foods were the answer to everything that ails you. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the well-crafted, expensive PR campaign, soy is not a health food, and people need to know the havoc it has wrought on both our bodies and the environment. 

A Brief History of Soy
It is only very recently in our history that humans have been eating processed soy foods and soybean oil. Grown on a large, commercial scale by U.S. agribusiness during the 50s and 60s, by the 70s and 80s, the soybean industry was troubled by emerging evidence that soybean oil consumption lowered immunity, increased susceptibility to infectious disease, and promoted cancer.

At this same time, the bigwigs in the soybean industry got the bright idea that if they could demonize the competition by making saturated fats like lard and coconut oil appear to be the cause of heart disease—the nation’s number one killer—people wouldn’t pay much attention to the negative findings coming out about soybean oil. Starting in the mid-1980s, the soybean oil industry began a multi-million dollar anti-saturated fat campaign. Saturated fats increased cholesterol, they said, and high cholesterol causes heart disease. The tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel oils) were singled out as being the worst offenders because of their high saturated fat content.

Some, but not all, saturated fats can raise total cholesterol, (coconut and palm oils do NOT) but there is no solid evidence that high cholesterol actually causes heart disease. That is why high cholesterol is only considered a “risk factor” rather than a cause. But that didn’t stop the soy industry. The soybean industry fed misleading information to gullible consumer advocate groups like The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which were persuaded to begin their own campaigns against saturated fats.

These high-profile organizations placed anti-saturated fat ads in the media, published newsletters, magazine articles, and books, and lobbied for political action against the use of tropical oils and other saturated fats. Since the bulk of the attack came from supposedly impartial third parties, their message had more impact. People were swayed against saturated fats and the tropical oils they had been using safely for hundreds of years.

Restaurants and food manufacturers, sensitive to customer fear, began removing these fats from their foods and replacing them with vegetable oils. Tropical oil consumption plummeted while soybean oil sales skyrocketed. In the United States, soybean oil soon accounted for about 80 percent of all the vegetable oil consumed.

During this time, one thing the soybean industry conveniently neglected to tell the public was that the saturated fats were not being replaced with ordinary vegetable oil, but rather by hydrogenated soybean oil! Hydrogenated soybean oil contains toxic trans fatty acids and is far more damaging to the heart than any other fat. Trans fats have also been linked to numerous other health problems including diabetes, cancer, and various autoimmune diseases. In terms of health, trans fat is absolutely the worse fat that could be used.

The soy industry was aware of many of the detrimental effects associated with hydrogenated vegetable oils and trans fats, but they succeeded in demonizing all saturated fats, including healthy coconut and palm oils, for the sake of profit. The plan was an overwhelming financial success. Over the next two decades hydrogenated vegetable oils found their way into over 40 percent of all the foods on supermarket shelves, amounting to about 40,000 different products. Hydrogenated soybean oil consumption dramatically increased, and so did numerous diseases now found to be associated with trans fats.

With the growing awareness of the dangers of trans fats in hydrogenated vegetable oils and the landmark announcement in 2002 from the U.S. Institute of Medicine stating that “no level of trans fats is safe in the diet,” tropical oils are returning. Careful review of previous research and more current medical studies have exonerated the tropical oils from the claim that they promote heart disease. In fact, they appear to help protect against heart disease as well as many of the other diseases now known to be linked to hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Many restaurants and food manufacturers are now replacing their hydrogenated soybean oil with palm oil. Consequently, soybean oil sales are declining. In an effort to protect their profits, the soy industry has resorted to two strategies: 1) diversifying their market with new soy products like margarine, soymilk, “nutrition” bars, protein powders, pseudo-meats, livestock feed, biofuel, and more, and 2) returning to demonizing the competition in order to make their products more acceptable.

Desperate to find an alternative means of attack, the soybean industry has found a new ally in highly vocal, politically active environmental groups. Fueled by financial support and misleading data from the soy industry, some environmental groups have now waged a war against palm oil on the grounds that palm cultivation is destroying the environment. They claim that rainforests are being leveled to make room for palm plantations, destroying the ecology and bringing endangered species, such as the orangutan, to the brink of extinction.

Anyone with any sense of responsibility for the environment would be swayed by this argument. The problem, however, is that while palm oil plantations are responsible for some deforestation, the soybean industry is causing more destruction to the environment than probably any other agricultural industry on the planet.

Soy and the Environment
In the time it takes to read this entire article, an area of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest larger than 200 football fields will have been destroyed, much of it for soybean cultivation.

Today, industrial-scale soybean producers are joining loggers and cattle ranchers in speeding up destruction and further fragmenting the great Brazilian wilderness. Between the years 2000 and 2005, Brazil lost more than 50,000 square miles of rainforest—a large portion of that for soybean farming.

Soybean production in the Brazilian Amazon soared after heat-tolerant varieties were introduced in 1997. In just ten years, exports of soybeans grown in the Amazon Basin have reached 42 million tons a year. Total annual soybean production in Brazil today is about 85 million tons, and Brazil will soon surpass the United States as the world’s leader in soybean production.

Brazil holds about 30 percent of the Earth’s remaining tropical rainforest. The Amazon Basin produces roughly 20 percent of the Earth’s oxygen, creates much of its own rainfall, and harbors hundreds of thousands of species, many yet to be discovered. The Brazilian rainforest is the world’s most biologically diverse habitat.

Close to 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has already been cut down. At the current rate of clearing, scientists predict that 40 percent of the Amazon will be destroyed and a further 20 percent degraded within two decades. If that happens, the forest’s ecology will begin to unravel. Intact, the Amazon produces half its own rainfall through the moisture it releases into the atmosphere. Eliminate enough of that rain through clearing, and the remaining trees dry out and die, the fragile rainforest soils blow away, and the forest becomes a desert. Currently trees are being wantonly burned to create open land for soybean cultivation. Consequently, Brazil has become one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

The decimation of the Amazon is, for the most part, done legally. Even the governor of the state of Mato Gross, on the edge of the Amazon Basin, is a part of it. Governor Blairo Maggi is the world’s largest single soybean producer, growing 350,000 acres. That’s about 547 square miles of Amazon rainforest that have been leveled for soybean production! He is just one of many industrial-sized soybean operations in the area. In 2005, Greenpeace awarded Maggi the Golden Chain Saw award for his role in leveling the rainforest.

But, clearing and tilling the land for soybean production is only part of the problem. Soybean cultivation destroys habitat for wildlife including endangered or unknown species, and increases greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming. Soybeans need large amounts of acid-neutralizing lime, as well as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, all of which are creating an environmental hazard. Toxic chemicals contaminate the forest, poison rivers, and destroy wildlife. And, in undeveloped countries, soy production disrupts the life of indigenous tribes who depend on the forest for food and shelter, replaces traditional crops, and transfers the value-added from processing from the local population to multinational corporations.

The environmental destruction caused by soybean farming isn’t limited to the Amazon; it occurs throughout the world wherever soybeans are produced. In the U.S. alone, over 80 million acres of land are covered in soybeans. That’s hundreds of thousands of acres of deforestation, habitat destruction, over-cultivation and destruction of soils, and billions of tons of toxic chemicals spewed into the environment year after year, contaminating our soils, water, and destroying wildlife and human health. And new, genetically modified soy was specifically developed to withstand the toxins so farmers could spray even more pesticides on them without diminishing yields.

Over 80% of all soybeans grown in the U.S. (and two-thirds worldwide) are genetically-modified to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, which is usually sold under the trade name Roundup. Because so much Roundup is used on these crops, the residue levels in the harvested crops greatly exceed what until very recently was the allowable legal limit. For the technology to be commercially viable, the FDA had to triple the limit on residues of glyphosate that can remain on the crop. Many scientists have protested that permitting increased residues shows that corporate interests are given higher priority than public safety at the FDA, but the increased levels have remained in force.

Soybeans are arguably the most environmentally offensive agricultural crop in the world. Replacing soybean oil with coconut, sunflower or olive oil is not only a healthier option, but each is a relatively low-impact crop that would save countless acres of land from untold environmental damage.

Soybeans and Health
Many people believe that soy is good for you—a superfood even. After all, Asians eat soy, and they are some of the healthiest people in the world, right? Claims that soybeans have been a major part of the Asian diet for more than 3,000 years are simply not true.

In fact, the people of China, Japan, and other countries in Asia eat very little soy, and they typically only eat it after it has been fermented for long periods of time, which destroys the toxins inherent in it. The soy industry’s own figures show that soy consumption in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan ranges from 9.3 to 36 grams per day. That’s equivalent to a few, small blocks of tofu floating in a bowl of miso soup. Soy has never been considered a substitute for animal protein in Asia.

In contrast, many Americans today think nothing of consuming a cup of tofu, a couple glasses of soy milk, handfuls of soy nuts, soy “energy bars,” and soy “veggie” burgers, even all in one day! Infants on soy formula receive the most of all, both in quantity and in proportion to body weight. Soy is also the key ingredient in faux-meat and dairy products with names like Silk, Soysage, Not Dogs, Fakin Bakin and Tofurkey. Then you have to consider the “hidden” soy in the form of vegetable oil, protein isolate, and soy lecithin found in over 70% of all packaged foods and just about everything you’d find in a fast food restaurant. It’s used as filler in hamburgers, as vegetable oil and an emulsifier. It’s in salad dressing, macaroni and cheese, and chicken nuggets.

“Even if you read every label and avoid cardboard boxes, you are likely to find soy in your supplements and vitamins (look out for vitamin E derived from soy oil), in foods such as canned tuna, soups, sauces, breads, meats (injected under poultry skin), and chocolate, and in pet food and body-care products,” wrote Mary Vance for Terrain Magazing. “It hides in tofu dogs under aliases such as textured vegetable protein, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and lecithin—which is troubling, since the processing required to hydrolyze soy protein into vegetable protein produces excitotoxins such as glutamate (think MSG) and aspartate (a component of aspartame), which cause brain-cell death.”

In short, there is no historical precedent for eating the large amounts of soy food now being consumed, and we are all participating in an experiment whose outcome is still unclear.

Since we Americans eat so much of it, it’s important to understand how soy can affect us. What we do know about soy is a bit alarming:

• Soy contains very high levels of phytic acid, which reduces your body’s assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
• Two senior U.S. government scientists, Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, have revealed that chemicals in soy could increase the risk of brain damage in both men and women, and abnormalities in infants.
• Protease inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and have caused malnutrition, poor growth, digestive distress, and pancreatitis.
• Lectins and saponins in soy can cause leaky gut and other gastrointestinal and immune problems.
• Scientists have known since the mid-1940s that soy phytoestrogens are powerful enough to affect fertility and even promote estrogen-positive breast cancer. Although scientists discovered only recently that soy lowers testosterone levels, soy phytoestrogens are known to disrupt endocrine function and are so potent, they are marketed to older women for relief of hot-flashes and other menopausal symptoms.
  
• According to a British toxicologist’s calculations, a baby fed exclusively on soy formula would be consuming the estrogen equivalent of five birth-control pills a day. Thirty to 40% of babies in the United States are fed soy formula. If the hormones in soy are strong enough to relieve hot flashes, why would we feed it to children?
• Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that can cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
• Vitamin B-12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B-12.
• Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D.
• Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
• Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.
• Processed soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys and strongly implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
• Archer Daniels Midland recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy.

Soy Processing
Before soybeans get to your table, they undergo a rigorous process to strip them of their oil. Hexane or other volatile, petroleum-based solvents are first applied to help separate the oil from the beans, leaving trace amounts of these toxins in the commercial product. After the oil is extracted, the defatted flakes are used to form soy protein products. With the exception of full-fat soy flour, almost all soybean products contain trace amounts of carcinogenic solvents.

There’s nothing natural about today’s modern soy protein products; they are very much factory-made pseudo-foods. Textured soy protein, for example, is made by forcing defatted soy flour through a machine called an extruder under conditions of such extreme heat and pressure that the very structure of the soy protein is changed. Production differs little from the extrusion technology used to produce starch-based packing “peanuts,” fiber-based industrial products, and plastic toy parts, bowls, and plates.

The process of making soy protein isolate (SPI) begins with defatted soybean meal, which is mixed with a caustic alkaline solution to remove the fiber, then washed in an acid solution to precipitate out the protein. The protein curds are then dipped into another alkaline chemical solution and spray-dried at extremely high temperatures. SPI is then often spun into protein fibers using technology borrowed from the textile industry. These refining processes improve taste and digestibility, but destroy the vitamin, mineral, and protein quality, and increase levels of carcinogens such as nitrosamines. Soy protein isolate appears in so many products that consumers would never guess that the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) decreed in 1979 that the only safe use for SPIs was for sealers for cardboard packages.

Soy and Allergies
Many people don’t know that soy is one of the top eight allergens that cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions such as coughing, sneezing, runny nose, hives, diarrhea, difficulty swallowing, and anaphylactic shock. Delayed allergic responses are even more common and occur anywhere from several hours to several days after the food is eaten. These have been linked to sleep disturbances, bedwetting, sinus and ear infections, crankiness, joint pain, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal woes, and other mysterious symptoms. Although severe reactions to soy are rare compared to reactions to peanuts, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish, soy has been underestimated as a cause of food anaphylaxis.

Soy allergies are on the rise for three reasons: the growing use of soy infant formula, the increase in soy-containing foods in grocery stores, and the possibility of the greater allergenicity of genetically modified soybeans.

According to Monsanto’s own tests, Roundup Ready genetically-engineered soybeans contain 29 percent less of the brain nutrient choline, and 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor—the potential allergen that interferes with protein digestion—than normal soybeans. Soy products are often prescribed and consumed for their phytoestrogen content, but according to the company’s tests, the genetically altered soybeans have lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid that affects levels of phytoestrogens. And levels of lectins, which are most likely the culprit in soy allergies, are nearly double in the genetically-engineered variety.

Soy and Hormones
Humans and animals appear to be the most vulnerable to the effects of soy estrogens prenatally, during infancy and puberty, during pregnancy and lactation, and during the hormonal shifts of menopause. Of all these groups, infants on soy formula are at the highest risk because of their small size and developmental phase, and because formula is their main source of nutrition.

In the years since soy formula has been in the marketplace, parents and pediatricians have reported growing numbers of boys whose physical maturation is either delayed or does not occur at all. Breasts, underdeveloped gonads, undescended testicles (cryptorchidism), and steroid insufficiencies are increasingly common. Sperm counts are also falling. Because of the estrogens in soy, men and boys, in particular, should eat little to no soy.

Soy formula is bad news for girls as well. With increased estrogens in the environment and the diet, an alarming number of girls are entering puberty much earlier than normal. One percent of girls now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the age of three. By the age of eight, 14.7 percent of Caucasian girls and 48.3 percent of African American girls had one or both of these characteristics. The fact that blacks experience earlier puberty than whites is not a racial difference but a recent phenomenon.

Most experts blame this epidemic of “precocious puberty” on environmental estrogens from plastics, pesticides, commercial meats, etc., but some pediatric endocrinologists believe that soy is a significant contributor. Of all the estrogens found in the environment, soy is the likeliest explanation of why African American girls are reaching puberty so early. Since its establishment in 1974, the federal government’s Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program has provided free infant formula to teenage and other low-income mothers while failing to encourage breastfeeding. Because of perceived or real lactose intolerance, black babies are much more likely to receive soy formula than white babies.

Most of the fears concerning soy formula have focused on estrogens. There are other problems as well, notably much higher levels of aluminum, fluoride, and manganese than are found in either breastmilk or dairy formulas. These metals are byproducts of soy processing and all three have the potential to adversely affect brain development. Although trace amounts of manganese are vital to the development of the brain, toxic levels accrued from ingestion of soy formula during infancy have been found in children suffering from attention-deficit disorders, dyslexia, and other learning problems.

Yet the belief persists that soy hormones are “safe” because they are “weak” and “natural.” Although the soy industry has claimed that soy estrogens are anywhere from 10,000 to 1,000,000 times weaker than the human estrogen estradiol, the correct figure is only 1,200 times as weak. Though this still sounds quite weak, it is not—because of the quantity of these estrogens ingested by infants on soy formula, and by children and adults who eat soy every day.

Americans consume far more soy phytoestrogens (called isoflavones) than were ever part of a traditional diet in Asia. The average isoflavone intake in China is 3 milligrams, or 0.05 mg per kilogram of body weight. In Japan, the figures range from 10 to 28 mg, or 0.17 to 0.47 mg isoflavones per kg of body weight. In contrast, infants receiving soy formula average 38 mg of isoflavones, which comes to a shocking 6.25 mg/kg of body weight.

The Right Soy
It is not true that if a little soy is good, a lot must be better. For soy, the dose makes the poison. The Chinese learned hundreds of years ago that the only way to safely eat soy is to ferment it, which removes the phytates and reduces the trypsin inhibitors. (Unlike other beans, soaking, and even cooking, will not do this.) So, if you choose to eat soy foods, you will find the most benefit from eating small quantities of organically-grown, whole-food, fermented soy, like soy sauce, miso, tempeh, tofu, or natto, the way Asian people have safely enjoyed soy for millennia.

The bottom line is when it comes to soy, we are all participating in what Daniel M. Sheehan, former senior toxicologist with the FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research, has called a “large, uncontrolled and basically unmonitored human experiment.” And soy cultivation—particularly genetically engineered soy—is one of the most devastating things we can do to the environment.

For more information about soy:

• The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food
• Soy: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite “Health” Food
• A Word About Soy
• Genetically Modified Soy and Food Allergies
• The Hazards of Feeding Soy to Children
• Warnings on danger of soy formula milk; Edinburgh study highlights
• Soy May Fuel Estrogen Positive Breast Cancers
• Component in Soy Products Causes Reproductive Problems in Laboratory Mice
• Deforestation in the Amazon
• Soybean Cultivation as a Threat to the Environment in Brazil
• The Soy Juggernaut – Deforestation and Land Grabs in Brazil

This post is part of Fight Back Fridays hosted by Food Renegade!

If you haven’t heard yet, sugar is bad for you: it converts to fat in your liver, it severely compromises your immune system, it contributes to both insulin resistance and high levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol in your blood, and it fosters nutrient deficiencies and the demineralization of your bones and teeth. This is why you should never eat refined, white sugar and only eat sweetened foods and beverages in extreme moderation.

But the truth is, I have a wicked, almost insatiable sweet tooth. I have been making luscious, gourmet desserts vocationally and, at times, professionally, for most of my life. Not a day goes by that I don’t want to enjoy something sweet after a meal—be it a sliced, ripe pear or a spiced pear-hazelnut tart with a Cabernet and dark chocolate glazing. 

Dessert is my thing… 

However despite (or perhaps because of) my love of sugary satiation, I have also recently been diagnosed as “pre-diabetic.” To reverse this condition means I must eat no sugar, no juice, almost no honey or maple syrup, and very limited quantities of fruit. For this reason, I’ve become very intrigued with Stevia, since it’s supposed to be a natural alternative to sugar that doesn’t spike your blood glucose or contain highly-suspicious chemicals like sucralose (the yellow packet) or aspartame (the blue packet). In other words, Stevia might make it possible for me to cheat!

What is Stevia?
Stevia is a relatively easy-to-grow, tender herb in the chrysanthemum family called Stevia rebaudiana. Originally native to South America, stevia’s leaves have been used for centuries by native peoples in Paraguay and Brazil to sweeten their yerba mate and other stimulant beverages. Stevia is now cultivated in Asia, and North and South America. Stevioside, the main ingredient in stevia (the two terms are often used interchangeably), is virtually calorie-free and hundreds of times sweeter than table sugar.

In addition to its use as a sweetener, Stevia has been used medicinally for over 1,500 years as a traditional remedy for diabetes and gum disease. Independent researchers’ preliminary scientific studies of stevia show that it may indeed improve the function of cells required for insulin production in the pancreas. It may also improve glucose tolerance in people with diabetes. Stevia is not a carbohydrate, therefore it is safe for diabetics, and unlike other sweeteners, it does not promote the growth of candida or other intestinal parasites.

Also unlike other sweeteners, stevia has been reported to possess anti-viral properties. Preliminary evidence suggests stevia also possesses blood pressure lowering properties and may be a useful treatment for hypertension.

So far, so good, but it doesn’t get a pass yet…

Stevia Controversy
Because stevia has a negligible effect on blood glucose, it is attractive as a natural sweetener to people on carbohydrate-controlled diets. However, health and political controversies have limited stevia’s availability in many countries; for example, the United States banned it in the early 1990s unless labeled as a supplement.

To stevia’s boosters, there’s no debate. The herb has been consumed without apparent harm in different parts of the world for many years, they argue. No reports of any adverse reactions have surfaced after 30 years of use in Japan, for instance.

“But the Japanese don’t consume large amounts of stevia,” notes Douglas Kinghorn, professor of pharmacognosy (the study of drugs from plants) at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“In the U.S., we like to go to extremes,” adds toxicologist Ryan Huxtable of the University of Arizona in Tucson. “So a significant number of people here might consume much greater amounts.”

Here’s what troubles toxicologists:

Reproductive problems. Stevioside “seems to affect the male reproductive organ system,” European scientists concluded last year. When male rats were fed high doses of stevioside for 22 months, sperm production was reduced, the weight of seminal vesicles (which produce seminal fluid) declined, and there was an increase in cell proliferation in their testicles, which could cause infertility or other problems.¹ And when female hamsters were fed large amounts of a derivative of stevioside called steviol, they had fewer and smaller offspring.² Would small amounts of stevia also cause reproductive problems? Do these effects also happen in humans? No one knows.

Cancer. In the laboratory, steviol can be converted into a mutagenic compound, which may promote cancer by causing mutations in the cells’ genetic material (DNA). “We don’t know if the conversion of stevioside to steviol to a mutagen happens in humans,” says Huxtable. “It’s probably a minor issue, but it clearly needs to be resolved.”

Energy metabolism. Very large amounts of stevioside can interfere with the absorption of carbohydrates in animals and disrupt the conversion of food into energy within cells. While this may help adults with diabetes, such an effect “may be of particular concern for children,” says Huxtable.

In spite of these preliminary studies, stevia has made a recent breakthrough. Some 180 new products including teas, potato snacks, dressing and beverages sweetened with it have been introduced around the world during the past year.

But not all stevia is created equal…

Stevia and Her Chemical Cousin, “Rebiana”
Rebiana is the trade name for a zero-calorie, stevia-based sweetener containing mainly a patented, chemical extract of stevia called rebaudioside A (Reb-A). In 2007, The Coca-Cola Company announced plans to obtain approval for its new product, rebiana, for use as a food additive within the United States, as well as plans to market rebiana-sweetened products in 12 countries that allow stevia’s use as a food additive. In May 2008, Coke and Cargill announced the availability of Truvia, a consumer brand stevia sweetener containing erythritol, Rebiana, and natural flavors, which the FDA permitted as a food additive in December 2008 .

Shortly afterward, PepsiCo and Pure Circle announced PureVia, their brand of stevia-based sweetener, which contains erythritol, isomaltulose, Reb-A, cellulose powder and natural flavors. Since the FDA permitted Truvia and PureVia, both Coca Cola and PepsiCo have announced products that will contain their new sweetener.

Critics (like myself) note that, even today, the FDA has not actually permitted the stevia plant itself to be used as a food additive, but only the patented Reb-A extract. Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it, which makes it a tough competitor in the sugar substitute business. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure, and even violated its own standards for approving traditional plant foods to keep it off the market.

Personally, I am very suspicious of people who try to sell me patented, chemical extracts of what were natural, whole plant substances, even (and perhaps especially) when approved by the FDA. And I don’t think sugar alcohols like erythritol, “natural flavors,” and other factory-made, food-like chemicals are compatible with eating a whole food diet. So I’ll be skipping the Truvia and PureVia in favor of whole stevia leaf or minimally-processed stevia liquids and powders that are easily found at most health food stores. You can even order stevia online from Mountain Rose Herbs or Wilderness Family Naturals.

How to Use Stevia
Stevia is available in both a whole, leaf form and as Stevioside, the extracted sweet principle, sold as a granular white powder or liquid. The crude Stevia leaves and herbal powder (green) are reported to be 10-15 times sweeter than table sugar. The refined extracts of Stevia called steviosides (a white powder, 85-95% Steviosides) claim to be 200-300 times sweeter than table sugar.

My experience is that the herbal powder is very sweet, whereas the refined liquid or white powder extract is over-the-top, tongue-numbingly sweet, and needs to be diluted to be properly used. Most stevia products have a slight bitter aftertaste, also characteristic of licorice. Some brands and formulations have more bitterness than others, so some people just can’t get past the aftertaste the first time they try stevia. If you are one of those people, you might want to experiment with a few brands and formulations to find the type of stevia you like.

Make a Liquid Extract. While commercial stevia extracts are widely available, you can easily and cheaply make your own liquid extract from whole stevia leaves or from the green herbal stevia powder. Simply combine a measured portion of stevia leaves or herbal powder with pure USP grain alcohol (Brandy or Scotch will also do) and let the mixture sit for 24 hours.

Filter the liquid from the leaves or powder residue and dilute to taste using pure water. The alcohol content can be reduced by very slowly heating (not boiling) the extract and allowing the alcohol to evaporate off.

A pure water extract can be similarly prepared, but will not extract quite as much of the sweet glycosides as will the alcohol. Either liquid extract can be cooked down and concentrated into a syrup.

Stevia for Baking. For baking, a teaspoon of stevia liquid, or 1/3 to 1/2 tsp. stevia extract powder, is equivalent in sweetness to a whole cup of sugar. This makes stevia tricky to bake with.

Since stevia lacks the same properties as granulated sugar, some bulk must be added to serve the same function as sugar. For example, stevia alone cannot soften cake batter, caramelize, enhance browning, or facilitate the fermentation of yeast. There are stevia products on the market that add maltodextrin (corn-derived, usually) and other industrial starches and fibers to create a 1-to-1 substitute for sugar, but these additives are not suitable for all people, especially those eating Paleo-style, raw or according to the SCD / GAPS diet.

To bulk up the stevia naturally, you will need to replace 1 cup of sugar with 1/3 cup of bulk. Bulk can be yogurt, apple sauce, fruit juice, fruit purée, egg whites, or water. Let’s say you plan to use apple sauce as your bulking agent. In this instance, you would use 1 tsp. liquid stevia plus 1/3 cup apple sauce to equal 1 cup of sugar. Or if you’re already making something that contains a bulking agent, for instance banana bread, you would use 1 tsp. liquid stevia plus an extra 1/3 cup banana puree to account for a cup of sugar in the recipe.

However, if your recipe contains sour ingredients, such as lemons or tart cranberries, you may need to add a bit more stevia. Just be cautious in adding more stevia by starting with ½ tsp. of the liquid and add gradually to suit your taste.

If you plan to use stevia by the teaspoon, you can, of course, use the liquid stevia concentrate, but bear in mind that it is very sweet. You may want to start by putting a bit on the end of your finger and tasting the sweetness to gauge how much to use. Another way to use stevia for your beverages by the cup is by using a solution made by dissolving 1 tsp of powdered stevia in 3 tbs of filtered water in a dropper style bottle.

The Bottom Line
If you use whole leaf and minimally processed stevia in moderation as Paraguayans traditionally do (once or twice a day in a cup of tea, or once a week in a dessert, for example), it isn’t likely to harm you. But if stevia were marketed widely and used in diet sodas, its chemical extract Reb-A would be consumed in large quantities by millions of people, and that might pose a public health threat. We just don’t know.

However, as far as zero-calorie sugar substitutes go, stevia–and even rebiana–is far safer and more natural than other sweetening chemicals like aspartame (the blue one), saccharine (the pink one) or sucralose (the yellow one).

So at Small Footprint Family, we think liquid stevia makes the ultimate sugar-free, homemade lemonade, and powdered stevia leaf is a great way to sweeten up Babyzilla’s homemade coconut milk yogurt. But as much as I had hoped to find a “sneaky” way to be healthy and eat dessert every day, stevia just isn’t quite the miracle food it has been claimed to be.

Everything in moderation…

For your further edutainment, here is a video from Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness talking about how to use stevia.

This post is part of the Blog Action Day for Climate Change
and Fight Back Friday hosted by FoodRenegade!

150 years ago, much of the Great Midwest was still covered with prairie grassland, providing valuable grazing land and habitat for thousands of plant and animal species, including millions of elk, bison and deer. These lands also supported natural environmental processes like carbon sequestration and seasonal flood control.

When Americans first settled the Midwestern prairies, they killed off the natural ruminants that lived there and began to farm highly fertile, virgin soil that was 10 percent organic matter. However 150 years of converting our grasslands to farms has cut that vital organic matter by more than half and released more carbon dioxide—the leading driver of global warming—into the air than any other source, including transportation or coal-fired power plants.

In the spring of 2008, the upper Midwest experienced catastrophic flooding which caused dislocations, massive erosion of precious topsoil, and billions of dollars in property damage. This is mostly due to the fact that plowed fields shed rainwater almost as fast as a parking lot does; the soil can only absorb, at most, about 1 1/2 inches of rain in an hour. A permanent pasture however can absorb as much as 7 inches of rain in an hour.

That’s the difference between flooding and no flooding.

Today nearly all of America’s original grasslands have been converted to genetically engineered corn and soybeans, two crops that are enormously destructive to the environment because they require massive amounts of fresh water, pesticides and petroleum-based fertilizers to grow. And sadly, these crops are mostly used to feed livestock; it takes 15 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

Most U.S. beef is produced from cows living in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where grain-fed cows become sick from eating a diet unnatural to them, and emit large amounts of toxic methane into the air—further contributing to global warming. The concentrated lagoons of manure that these feedlots produce pollute rivers, streams and other fresh water sources, not to mention the horrid stench destroying quality of life for every person who lives near them. Additionally, the conditions in these feedlots are so poor that cows have to be treated with antibiotics and hormones simply in order to survive, which inadvertently creates the conditions whereby E. coli outbreaks, antibiotic-resistant superbugs, and other health problems more easily emerge.

Vegetarians have their environmental argument against today’s beef right: the highly industrialized way in which we raise cattle is both unhealthy and extremely unsustainable. The irony of all of this is that the very prairie we destroyed to grow grains to feed cattle was already the perfect, natural habitat for raising healthy, happy cows.

A conventionally farmed corn or soybean field is a major source of greenhouse gases, but a permanent pasture is a pump that pushes carbon back into the soil where it increases fertility and builds topsoil. According to a recent Scientific American article “Future Farming: A Return to Roots?” production of high-input, annual crops such as corn and soybeans release carbon at a rate of about 1,000 pounds per acre, while perennial grasslands can store carbon at roughly the same rate. Therefore, converting half the U.S. corn and soy acreage to pasture might cut carbon emissions by as much as 144 trillion pounds—and that’s not even counting the reduced use of fossil fuels for vehicles, machinery, fertilizers and pesticides that would also result.

That’s enough carbon sequestration to offset the emissions from all the cars, trucks and other vehicles on the planet!

Carbon Farming

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be the most cost-effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2. Scientists agree that organic matter in topsoil is on average 50 percent carbon up to one foot in depth, and bumping that upward by as little as 1.6 percent across all the world’s agricultural land could potentially reverse the problem of global warming.

In other words, if we were to restore the soil fertility of the Great Plains that we destroyed in the last 150 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be reduced to pre-industrial levels within 10-15 years.

Whether it’s cows, elephants, bison or antelope, grass requires regular destruction of its top leaves to promote root growth. It requires grazers to chomp down trees and shrubs so it won’t be overshaded, and it further requires significant amounts of their waste to fertilize the soil. This system, which evolved over millions of years, is what sequesters carbon naturally.

The central idea of carbon farming is to move the animals frequently—as once happened with wild herds chased by predators—so grasses are not gnawed beyond the point of natural recovery and plant cover remains to fertilize the land and sequester carbon. The sequestration process works like this: The grasses, forbs and herbs in a field take in carbon from the atmosphere; the animals eat, fertilize and trample them into the soil, where the carbon is absorbed, feeding the roots of the plants; new plants sprout, and the process is repeated over and over again, absorbing more and more carbon.

Carbon farming is, simply put, an attempt to recreate the natural, evolutionary conditions of a commons even under the structure of private property and modern life, in order to reverse the effects of global climate disruption.

But what about the argument that meat-eating is a major cause of global warming due to massive emissions of nitrous oxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from livestock operations? What may be true of feedlots is absolutely wrong about grass-fed livestock. Raising cattle (or other ruminants) on polycultural, permanent pasture mimics a natural system wherein the methane and other gas emissions are mitigated by the carbon sequestration in the soil, just as occurred across grasslands and savannahs for thousands of years before human interference.

The elimination of grazing animals from the Earth’s grassland ecosystems is in part what got us into this global warming mess in the first place. Grazing animals provide fertilizer, root stimulation, pest control, organic matter improvements and nutrient capture services to soils and plants in grassland ecosystems—they’re supposed to be there by the billions. If humans had better control over our own emissions, or were managing the planet’s plant cover better, the animals wouldn’t be a problem.

Scientists and ranchers alike, including the Nobel Prize-winning  U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), see carbon farming through managed intensive grazing as a way to phase out feedlots and all of the environmental and health problems they cause.

Crafting Carbon Sinks

It’s very simple: If we convert from grain-fed back to grass-fed cattle, and use managed intensive rotational grazing methods to maintain healthy, high-quality prairie, we can turn millions of acres of genetically engineered, heavily sprayed row crops into carbon sinks, and use permanent pasture to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and slow global warming, as well as conserve water.

By converting corn and soybean fields to permanent pasture—permaculture modeled on the tallgrass prairie species that were the native cover a century ago, grassfed beef producers have found they can make more profit than the corn and soybeans yielded before. Part of this is a result of lower or no costs for inputs such as fertilizer, fuel, GMO seeds, pesticides, tractors and machinery. Additionally, farmers that create successful carbon sinks through their grazing operations can also qualify for payments under “cap and trade” programs and other offset and conservation subsidies.

And on properly recovered land, most graziers can finish about two steers per acre. That is almost precisely the acreage it takes to grow the grain to finish those same steers in a feedlot. This whole system makes economic sense, acre by acre. More than half of our total grain crop goes to feed livestock, so it follows that we can convert the same percentage of the 150 million acres used to grow corn and soy back into permanent pasture and lose not one ounce of meat production. At the same time, we can produce healthier meat and shift the massive federal subsidies for corn and soybean production to a better use.

Humans Working With Nature

Sequestration is not a marginal idea but rather a central effort keep the planet from tipping over into ecological uncertainty. One reason why carbon farming and other sequestration methods have gotten little attention in the fight against global warming is because they represent a new idea in environmental policy—the idea that solving our ecological crisis means not just stopping human interference with nature, but also on humans taking positive steps to undo the damage already here.

We are slowly learning that human enterprises work best when they imitate and participate in enhancing Nature’s diversity—a basic tenet of Permaculture. Early in the rise of organic farming, we mistakenly assumed we could sustain ecological diversity by raising a dozen or so different tilled crops on a small farm—forgetting that an acre of prairie contains hundreds of species of plants and animals that work cooperatively to sustain the local ecosystem. Many organic farmers learned from these early mistakes and brought animals back into the equation. Managed properly, ruminants and fowl help control weeds and insects, cycle nutrients, build soil, and provide a use for waste and failed crops. Healthy ecosystems—both wild and cultivated—must include these animals.

We now understand that honoring this principle is vital to the very life of our planet. Humans are part of nature, we are part of ecosystems. We can be part of the solution. If the solution to global warming involves large herds of hoofed animals moving through landscape in natural ways that take carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil, then it would behoove us to start right away.

Even if you don’t eat meat, returning ruminants like buffalo, cows, goats, sheep and fowl to a restored natural grassland habitat could effectively SOLVE our global warming problem.

Models and Markets Can Move Us Forward

The good news is that many pioneering farmers and ranchers (like Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms or African environmentalist Allan Savory) are already healing the earth by successfully raising bison, cattle and dairy cows on polycultural grassland—an enterprise that can scale up quickly because the prototypes prove the model works. According to Mother Earth News, “…it is not unrealistic to think that we could convert millions of acres of ravaged industrial grain fields to permanent pastures and see no decline in beef and dairy production in the process.”

Doing so would give us:

• a more humane livestock system,
• a healthier human diet,
• less deadly E. coli,
• elimination of feedlots and the manure lagoons they produce,
• a bonanza of wildlife habitat nationwide,
• enormous savings in energy,
• virtual elimination of pesticides and chemical fertilizers on grazing lands,
• elimination of the catastrophic flooding that periodically plagues the Mississippi Basin,
• more vibrant rural communities where farmers and ranchers can earn a decent living with less work and fewer expensive inputs, and
• a dramatic reduction in global warming gases, possibly reducing our carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions to pre-industrial levels.

The American Grassfed Association, a network of almost 400 graziers, is behind this effort. Their label certifies that their beef came from cattle that ate only grass from pastures, not feedlots, received no hormones or antibiotics in their feed, and were humanely raised and handled. This emerging marketing network has already placed grass-fed animal products in co-ops, health food stores and supermarkets across the nation.

This quiet revolution against industrial farming practices has been fueled by growing consumer demand. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for grass-fed beef, dairy and poultry simply because we know it’s significantly healthier than its conventional grain-fed counterpart, and because we don’t like the pollution, cruelty and antibiotics inherent in the concentrated feedlots that dominate the industry currently.

In a market economy driven by consumer demand, purchasing pasture-raised meat, dairy and eggs in lieu of their grain-fed counterparts is the only way we are going to attain the many environmental benefits of carbon farming and reduce global warming.

A Return to Roots

It is no coincidence that in the past 75 years as our diets modulated to include large quantities of industrial meat and refined carbohydrates, diseases like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer have reached epidemic levels. Pasture-raised animal products are substantially cleaner, leaner and lower in the omega-6 fats that are linked to obesity and heart disease. Pasture-raised animal products also are much higher in Vitamins A, E and D as well as beneficial omega-3 fats and conjugated linoleic acids (CLA), both of which reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease and promote weight loss. And, perhaps most importantly, grass-fed beef just tastes better.

While it is true that a lot of environmental good would come from reducing the world’s consumption of industrially produced meat, the reality is that the number of people who eat meat is only growing. When living on grasslands and savannahs as they were meant to, animal foods are healthful and traditional parts of the human diet that we have relied on and enjoyed for our entire existence on this planet. So if we hope to avert climate change and enjoy a good hamburger in the future, it is incumbent upon us to restore our prairies and raise our animals in the most humane and environmentally beneficial way possible, which, it turns out, is they way nature had designed all along.

For more information on solving global warming through restoring grassland ecosystems:

• “The Amazing Benefits of Grassfed Meat” – Mother Earth News
• “Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming?” – OnTheCommons.org
• Holistic Management International – Great PBS preview on how holistically managed grasslands can return our planet to health
• The Carbon Coaltion
• Managing Wholes
• The Stockman Grass Farmer
• Carbon Farmers of America
• Rewilding the West: Restoration in a Prairie Landscape
• Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization

Free Delivery and 15% off with code AFF15 through this link!

Many wild plants and “weeds” are some of the most nutrient-dense greens you can eat. It is only in the past 100 or so years, as our food system became more and more industrialized, that wild superfoods dropped out of our diet. So I try to include them in mine when I can.

This past spring I enjoyed Stinging Nettle Paté, made from the weeds in my garden. Last month, some wild arugula graced my salad bowl—another delicious and nutritious garden weed. This month my CSA box had two bunches of dandelion greens which are very easy to grow, medicinal, and very, very good for you. 

The dandelion is so much more than a bothersome weed in your lawn. Throughout history, it has been known as food, medicine and drink. Once known in France as Dent de Lion (lion’s tooth), the dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) is mostly now known as a weed. Yet, at one time, the dandelion was so prized as a medicinal plant that it was brought to America by settlers looking to tame the new world.

Dandelions are rich in calcium, iron, magnesium, and essential B vitamins. For the forager, there is not a part of the dandelion that will go to waste. In the very early spring, before the flower buds have begun pushing up from the crown, dandelion greens make a very special addition to meals, either raw in a salad or cooked, like spinach.

Once the flowers begin to bloom and the leaves become bitter, you can pick the flowers for eating or winemaking (recipe below). The flowers can be added fresh to salads and sautéed or steamed with other vegetables.

It is important to harvest wild dandelions in a natural setting, such as a field, in order to avoid pesticide and lawn fertilizer exposure. Alternatively, you can sow seeds in your garden. There are many gourmet varieties of dandelion seed available through heirloom and specialty seed catalogs.

It’s best to pick dandelion greens (and all greens) in the morning when the sun is not strong. Greens tend to wilt if the sun is too intense. Select a clump with new leaves and make sure to harvest before there are flower buds. Tender spring (and fall in warm states) green leaves are sweet; older leaves and leaves growing with flowers are bitter.

Dandelion is also a medicinal plant. The modern French name for dandelion is pissenlit, which pretty much means “wet the bed.” That is because the leaves can be a mild diuretic, helping your body remove excess water. Don’t over do it and you will be fine.

Dandelion Salad with Warm Pecan Vinaigrette
Adapted from The Gourmet Cookbook by Reichl, et. al.

• 2 bunches dandelion greens, tough stems discarded
• 3 Tbsp. extra virgin olive oil
• 4 stalks green garlic or 3 cloves garlic, finely chopped
• 1/4 cup pecans, coarsely chopped
• 1.5 Tbsp. balsamic vinegar
• 1 tsp. sea salt
• 1/4 tsp. pepper

1. Cut top 5 inches from greens and transfer to a large heatproof serving bowl.
2. Cut remaining greens into 3/4 inch slices and add to bowl.
3. Heat oil in a small heavy skillet over moderate heat. Add garlic and nuts and cook, stirring, until garlic is golden.
4. Stir in vinegar, salt, and pepper.
5. Pour hot vinaigrette over greens and toss to combine.
6. Enjoy!

Dandelion Wine
Makes about 4 quarts
Dandelion wine does not require any special equipment to make. Just dandelions, some sugar and yeast, oranges and lemons, and pots to boil water in. This recipe uses cloves, which I think give it a nice touch. If you have lots of dandelions around, give it a try!

• 1 package dried wine or brewer’s yeast
• 1/4 cup warm water
• 2 quarts dandelion blossoms
• 4 quarts water
• 1 cup orange juice
• 3 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
• 3 tablespoons fresh lime juice
• 8 whole cloves
• 1/2 tsp. powdered ginger
• 3 Tbsp. coarsely chopped orange peel
• 1 Tbsp. coarsely chopped lemon peel
• 6 cups Rapadura or whole cane sugar

1. Dissolve the yeast in the warm water. Set aside.
2. Wash the dandelion blossoms well, making sure to separate the flower petals from the base of the blooms (sepals).
3. Put the flowers in the water with the orange, lemon and lime juices.
4. Add the cloves, ginger, orange and lemon peel, and sugar.
5. Bring to a boil and continue to boil for an hour, stirring occasionally.
6. Strain through filter paper (coffee filters work great). Cool.
7. While still warm (but not hot to touch), stir in the yeast.
8. Let stand overnight and pour into bottles.
9. Allow uncorked bottles to set in a darkened place for three weeks. Then cork and store bottles in a cool place.
10. Best if allowed to age the wine at least 3 months, longer is better.
11. Enjoy on a warm summer night or anytime you need a taste of summer.

This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays hosted by Cheeseslave!

According to the mainstream media, Canola oil is “heart healthy” and a good source of monounsaturated fats similar to olive oil. Unfortunately, much of what you hear in the mainstream media has been influenced by the heavy-handed marketing tactics of big food companies. Canola oil is cheap to produce, so they’ve spent a lot of money trying to convince you to think Canola is a “health oil” so that consumers, restaurants, institutions, etc. will buy it up as their main oil of choice. Here is the inconvenient truth about Canola oil. 

History of Canola
Canola oil is made from something called rapeseed. The word Canola was coined in 1978 to describe a new type of oil that was developed from a genetic manipulation of rapeseed. This new oil was first developed in Canada and the name Canola actually comes from the term, Canadian oil, low acid. In nature, there is no such thing as a “Canola plant” that produces “Canola oil.” Most Canola oil today is an artificially created, genetically modified food whose seed is so far deviated from natural rapeseed that it can be patented.

The more interesting part of the history of Canola oil is why such an oil was developed in the first place. By the late 1970s, the oil industry in North America realized it had a problem. In collusion with the American Heart Association, numerous government agencies and departments of nutrition at major universities, the industry had been promoting polyunsaturated oils as a heart-healthy alternative to “artery-clogging” saturated fats. Unfortunately, it had become increasingly clear that polyunsaturated oils, particularly corn oil and soybean oil, cause numerous health problems, including and especially cancer.

The industry was in a bind. It could not continue using large amounts of liquid polyunsaturated oils and make health claims about them in the face of mounting evidence of their dangers. Nor could manufacturers return to using traditional healthy saturates—butter, lard, tallow, palm oil and coconut oil—without causing an uproar. Besides, these fats cost too much for the cut-throat profit margins in the industry.

According to “The Great Con-ola,” the solution was to embrace the use of monounsaturated oils, such as olive oil. Studies had shown that olive oil has a “better” effect than polyunsaturated oils on cholesterol levels and other blood parameters. Besides, Ancel Keys and other promoters of the diet-heart idea had popularized the notion that the Mediterranean diet rich in olive oil protected against heart disease and ensured a long and healthy life. But, olives require special growing conditions that make it impossible for olive oil to be used widely, plus olive oil is costly, especially for commercial products like margarine, biscuits, salad dressings, etc.

Traditional rapeseed oil was a monounsaturated oil that had been used extensively in many parts of the world, notably in China, Japan and India. It contains almost 60 percent monounsaturated fatty acids (compared to about 70 percent in olive oil). Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the monounsaturated fatty acids in rapeseed oil are erucic acid, a 22-carbon monounsaturated fatty acid that had been associated with Keshan’s disease, characterized by fibrotic lesions of the heart.

In the late 1970s, using a technique of plant breeding called seed splitting, Canadian plant breeders came up with a variety of rapeseed that produced a monounsaturated oil low in 22-carbon erucic acid and high in 18-carbon oleic acid, like olive oil. It was originally called LEAR, which stands for Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed. However, neither the name Rape (which came from the Latin word, Rapum, meaning “turnip”) nor LEAR were suitable for marketing. From a marketing standpoint, the new name, Canola, was great!

In the 1980s, Canola oil began to be marketed in the United States. For that to happen, it had to be granted GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status by the US Food and Drug Administration. GRAS status is typically awarded to foods and herbal products that have been traditionally used, for hundreds or even thousands of years, without known adverse effects. Canola oil was a new product without any track record. And it was developed from a product known to have toxic effects. So how did it obtain GRAS status? No one knows for sure, but it has been rumored that the Canadian government spent US$50 million to get it approved.

While the original Canola was created through laboratory seed splitting techniques, a major modification in 1995 introduced Canola that was genetically-engineered with foreign bacteria DNA to be resistant to the toxic herbicide, Roundup. Today, about 82 percent of the world’s Canola crop is genetically engineered to resist Roundup. The Roundup Ready Canola seed is patented by Monsanto, and farmers can be sued for saving the seed or for having “unauthorized” Canola plants on their fields. Since pollen drift is impossible to stop, it is very, very difficult for organic Canola farmers to keep these patented contaminants out of their crops.

Bogus Health Claims for Canola
It is true that Canola oil is high in monounsaturates, but Canola oil is anything but “healthy.” Canola oil typically ranges between 55-65% monounsaturated fat and between 28-35% polyunsaturated fat, with just a small amount of saturated fat. While we’ve been led to believe that high monounsaturated fat oils are good for us (which they are in the case of virgin olive oil or from unprocessed nuts or seeds), the fact is that Canola oil has more detriments than it does benefits.

One of the biggest problems with highly processed and refined vegetable oils such as corn oil, soybean oil and Canola oil is that the polyunsaturated component of the oil is highly unstable under heat, light, and pressure, which heavily oxidize the polyunsaturates, increasing free radicals in your body. The end result of all of this refining and processing are oils that are highly inflammatory in your body when you ingest them, potentially contributing to heart disease, weight gain, and other degenerative diseases. (See The Skinny on Fat, Part 1 for more information on processed oils and disease.)

The reason that extra virgin olive oil is good for you is that it is usually cold pressed without the use of heat and solvents to aid extraction. Canola oil, on the other hand, is typically extracted and refined using high heat, pressure, and toxic petroleum solvents such as hexane. Most Canola oil undergoes a process of caustic refining, degumming, bleaching, and deodorization, all using high heat and questionable chemicals.

Even worse, all of this high heat, high pressure processing with solvents actually forces some of the omega-3 content of Canola oil to be transformed into trans fats. According to Dr. Mary Enig, Nutritional Biochemist, “Although the Canadian government lists the trans fat content of Canola at a minimal 0.2 percent, research at the University of Florida at Gainesville, found trans fat levels as high as 4.6 percent in commercial liquid Canola oil.” And this is the crap that they are marketing to you as a “heart-healthy” oil!

Possibly the greatest danger of Canola oil is that even though Canola oil now has Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status, no long-term studies on humans have been done. Animal studies on Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed oil were performed when the oil was first developed and have continued to the present. The results challenge not only the health claims made for canola oil, but also the theoretical underpinnings of the diet-heart hypothesis.

In 1996, Japanese scientists announced a study wherein a special Canola oil diet had actually killed laboratory animals. Reacting to this unpublished, but verified and startling information, a duplicate study was conducted by Canadian scientists, using piglets and a Canola oil-based milk-replacer diet. In this second study, published in Nutrition Research, 1997, the researchers verified that Canola oil somehow depleted the piglets of vitamin E to a dangerously low level.

Any “food” substance that depletes vitamin E rapidly is extremely dangerous. Vitamin E is absolutely essential to human health. It is critically necessary in the body when processed fats are eaten because Vitamin E controls the lipid peroxidation that results in dangerous free-radical activity, which in turn causes lesions in your arteries and other problems. Canola oil now has been shown to be a very heavy abuser of Vitamin E, with the potential for rapidly depleting the body of this important vitamin.

The bottom line is that Canola is an inflammatory oil in your body and should be avoided. Healthier, traditional alternatives include:

• Extra virgin olive oil – for low temperature cooking or as a healthy salad dressing oil
• Virgin coconut oil - great for all temperatures of cooking due to it’s high stability under heat. A great source of healthy saturated fats in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), one of which is Lauric Acid, which helps support the immune system and is lacking in most western diets.
• Organic grass-fed butter - a great source of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), which has even been shown in studies to help prevent cancer, and help muscle building and fat burning.
• Lard, tallow and other animal fats from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals – also a source of CLA, Vitamin D, and saturated fats that help with hormone balance, brain function and vitamin absorption.

This post is part of Fight Back Fridays hosted by Food Renegade!

Before I had Babyzilla, I was a regular Cookie Monster. I loved cookies in all their permutations, chewy, crunchy, chocolately, nutty and spicy. However, now that we eat grain and dairy-free, I have to find other ways to satisfy my cookie craving. If you’re senstive to gluten, on a raw food or GAPS/SCD diet, or vegan, then these tasty treats will appeal to your neglected inner Cookie Monster too. As an added bonus, butternut squash is good for you! 

Winter squash, unlike its summer equivalent, provides an outstanding variety of conventional nutrients. Winter squash is an excellent source of vitamin A (in the form of beta-carotene), a very good source of vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber and manganese. In addition, winter squash is a good source of folate, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B1, copper, vitamin B6, niacin-vitamin B3 and pantothenic acid.

Modern day squash developed from the wild squash that originated in an area between Guatemala and Mexico. While squash has been consumed for over 10,000 years, they were first cultivated specifically for their seeds since earlier squash did not contain much flesh, and what little they did contain was very bitter and unpalatable. As time progressed, squash cultivation spread throughout the Americas, and varieties with a greater quantity of sweeter-tasting flesh were developed. Christopher Columbus brought squash back to Europe from the New World, and like other native American foods, their cultivation was introduced throughout the world by Portuguese and Spanish explorers. Today, the largest commercial producers of squash include China, Japan, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Egypt, and Argentina.

Winter squash are at their best from late September to November when they are in season. Winter squash, relatives of both the melon and the cucumber, come in many different varieties. While each type varies in shape, color, size and flavor, they all have hard protective skins that are difficult to pierce that give them a long storage life of up to six months.

Winter squash are prone to decay, so it is important to inspect them carefully before purchase. Choose ones that are firm, heavy for their size and have dull, not glossy, rinds. The rind should be hard as soft rinds may indicate that the squash is watery and lacking in flavor. Avoid those with any signs of decay, which manifest as areas that are water-soaked areas or moldy.

Depending upon the variety, winter squash can be kept for up to six months. They should be kept away from direct exposure to light and should not be subject to extreme heat or extreme cold. The ideal temperature for storing winter squash is between 50-60°F. Once it is cut, cover the pieces of winter squash in plastic wrap and store them in the refrigerator, where they will keep for one or two days. The best way to freeze winter squash is to first cut it into pieces of suitable size for individual recipes.

With a bounty of nutrition, butternut squash cookies are both delicious and good for you. (And making them gives me yet another delicious excuse to use my Excalibur dehydrator, which is one of my very favorite kitchen tools.)

Raw Butternut Squash Cookies
Adapted from RawFamily.com

• 4 cups peeled butternut squash, chopped into medium sized chunks
• 1 cup raisins
• Juice of 1 orange
• 3 Tbsp. raw honey, date paste or maple syrup, OR use 10-12 drops of liquid Stevia, to taste
• 1 tsp. cinnamon
• 1/2 tsp. nutmeg
• dash of cardamom (optional)
• 1/2 cup pumpkin seeds, soaked for 6 hours (optional)

1. In a food processor, blend the chopped butternut squash and transfer to a bowl.
2. In a food processor, blend raisins and juice from 1 orange. Transfer to the butternut squash mixture.
3. Add the sweetener, cinnamon, nutmeg, cardamom (optional) and soaked pumpkin seeds (optional) to the butternut squash mixture.
4. Mix everything thoroughly.
5. Place wax paper or a Teflex silicone sheet on your food dehydrator tray.
6. Using a scoop or spoon, place balls of the cookie mixture onto the tray until it’s gone.
7. Flatten each cookie to about 1/2 inch thick.
8. Set the dehydrator to 105 degrees, and leave for 10-12 hours.
9. Enjoy with an ice cold glass of almond, hemp or raw cow’s milk!

This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays hosted by Cheeseslave!

Melons are ready for harvest and this week I found a yellow watermelon and a cantaloupe in my CSA box. Seems like as good a time as any to make an old-fashioned Southern treat: Watermelon rind pickles. 

Watermelon rind is a great source of Vitamin C, Vitamin B6, Vitamin A, magnesium, and potassium. You can get even more vitamins and minerals in your watermelon by simply selecting the yellow flesh variety. The more yellow, the more nutritious it is. Watermelon has higher concentrations of lycopene—an antioxidant that protects against cancer and cardiovascular disease—than any other fresh fruit or vegetable, and it also boosts the immune system.

For pregnant women, the benefits of watermelon rind go beyond just vitamins and minerals. The rind has also been proven to reduce heart burn or acid reflux, reduce swelling, and its natural sugars can even alleviate morning sickness and dehydration. For pregnant women in their third trimester, consuming watermelon rind can also reduce muscle cramps, as the amino acids citrulline and arginine contained in the fruit will help relax your blood vessels. So if you are pregnant, make sure you eat some watermelon rind from time to time.

Watermelon rind pickles have a sweet, sour, spicy, chutney flavor. All that soaking and boiling and soaking and boiling softens the rind to the consistency of a ripe pear. The sugary syrup is, of course, pretty sweet, but the vinegar gives it a great tang, like a sweet Gherkin pickle. The cinnamon, pepper, allspice, and cloves add a lovely, autumn harvest flavor.

Normally, I like to lacto-ferment pickles, but traditional watermelon rind pickles need to be softened first by cooking, which unfortunately kills any bacteria that might do the pickling for you. Traditional watermelon pickles are also sweet, and I’m not sure how to get the sweet and sour, chutney-type flavor any other way than by using vinegar and sugar. (If you know another way that doesn’t involve whey, please let me know!!)

Watermelon Rind Pickles

• 2 quarts watermelon rind (equal to one medium-sized melon)
• 3/4 cup sea salt
• 3 quarts pure water
• 3 cups unrefined cane or coconut sugar
• 3 cups apple cider vinegar
• 3 cups pure water
• 1 Tbsp. (about 48) whole cloves
• 1 Tbsp. whole black peppercorns
• 6 cinnamon sticks, broken into 1-inch pieces
• 1 Tbsp. Allspice
• 1 lemon, thinly sliced, with seeds removed

1. Trim the pink flesh and the green outer skin from the rind.
2. Cut rind into small strips, about 1″ x 2″.
3. Cover with brine made by combining 3 quarts water and 3/4 cup salt.
4. Refrigerate overnight. Drain and rinse in the morning.
5. Cover the watermelon with water and bring to a boil; continue cooking until fork-tender, about another 15 minutes. (Overcooking will cause the rinds to become rubbery.) Drain.
6. Combine sugar, vinegar, 3 cups water and spices. Boil 5 minutes and then pour over watermelon; add lemon slices. Refrigerate overnight.
7. Heat watermelon in syrup to boiling; reduce heat to medium and simmer for one hour to reduce a bit.
8. Pack the hot watermelon pickles loosely into clean, hot pint jars.
9. Cover with boiling syrup, leaving 1/2 inch headspace. Remove air bubbles and adjust headspace if needed.
10. Wipe rims of jars with a dampened clean paper towel; apply two-piece metal lids.
11. Without sealing, these pickles will last 2 weeks in the refrigerator.
12. To can and seal, submerge the full jars in boiling water (enough water so the jars are 1-2″ below the surface); boil for 15 minutes (or slightly longer at higher altitudes).
13. Remove jars and let them sit undisturbed at room temperature for 24 hours. Check seals.

Photo credit: Cantaloupe Alone

This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays hosted by Kelly the Kitchen Kop!