Boston Market, the casual chain with over 476 locations, is giving salt shakers the slip. Salt shakers disappeared from Boston Market locations across America last week, replaced by a small card explaining the chain’s decision to shed the seasoning. The card reads:

“Salt shakers are available at the beverage station, their new home. Boston Market focuses on reducing sodium while delivering the same great taste.”

Boston Market is not alone in ditching salt. Olive Garden, Subway, Red Lobster, Burger King, Taco Bell and Campbell’s soup have made public proposals to reduce the sodium in their food, for the sake of the customer’s health. But we come across the question we must always ask when food companies make a healthy initiative: earnest desire to improve customer health, or PR stunt?

No study has conclusively linked sodium intake to negative health effects in people without existing hypertension. For most Boston Market customer’s, the lack of table salt won’t change their health, or alter the nutritional content of the chain’s food. (Like the chicken pot pie, which tops off at 770 calories and contains 115% of the daily recommended saturated fat intake). And if a Boston Market customer does suffer from hypertension? Unless that customer eats every meal, every day, at Boston Market, they are free to shake all the salt they want at home or at other eateries.

A few years ago, I was watching an old MadTV rerun when I was struck by the accuracy (and hilarity) of a particular sketch. It’s viewable here, and it satirizes the type of late- night informercials that advertise cheap, easy, diet-free weight loss programs.

The main character in the sketch gripes that she’ll do anything to lose weight—but when
an informerical-style narrator steps in to offer a foolproof program called Eat Less, Move
More, the woman isn’t sold.

“Cant I just get a doctor to staple my stomach shut?” she asks, eager for a less labor-
intensive option.

The narrator replies with incredulity: “You’d rather have invasive surgery than lose
weight by eating less and moving around?”

“At least I’d be asleep!” she quips, and the studio audience laughs—acknowledging that
it probably would be nice to wake up from an anesthetic sleep, knowing that weight loss
would soon follow, and effortlessly so.

Now, bariatric surgery may have been given a scientific and evidential boost.

A few days ago, the New York Times reported on a Swedish study, which found that
bariatric surgery (including stomach stapling or banding procedures) was “markedly
more efficient” than traditional diet-and-exercise routines in the prevention of type 2
diabetes. The study monitored non-diabetic obese patients: 1,658 underwent bariatric
surgery, and a control group of 1,771 participants attempted weight loss with traditional
methods recommended by doctors (i.e., eating less and moving more).

By the end of the roughly-15-year study, the evidence was clear. 392 participants in the
control group had developed diabetes, compared with only 110 in the bariatric-surgery
group.

It seems the character from that MadTV sketch is in luck—why cut calories and spend
hours sweating at the gym when a simple surgical procedure can provide better results
with none of the effort? True, bariatric surgeries carry a number of risks, including
infection, leaks in the gastrointestinal system, gallstones, ulcers, bowel obstruction,
and malnutrition. But the allure of a one-step solution for both obesity and diabetes is
rightfully alluring.

Still, despite the study’s findings, I’m inclined to side with MadTV on this one. Losing
weight the old-fashioned way might require more time and sweat, but in the end, it’s
more cost-efficient, more natural, and (aside from the occasional sore muscle) brings
minimal risk to the table.

Plus, eating healthfully and exercising can do more than trim waistlines. They are
essential habits for long lives and lower risks for many preventable diseases—not just
diabetes, but heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and, according to some
research, even cancer.

As with most things—and, whether or not we’d like to believe it—the easiest way isn’t
often the best way of doing things. The cheaters are found out, the shoddy workmanship
begins to show, and the short cuts lead to dead ends. And when it comes to health and
longevity, why take any chances?

Today, with the help of the digital age, many Americans have evolved from
putting on a pair of tennis shoes and going on a run to grabbing a bag of potato chips and lounging on the couch. This incessant inactivity has become so common that doctors now have a name for it: deconditioning.

Inactivity comes with more problems than one might expect. The Lancet, a
general medicine journal, said that living a sedentary lifestyle can lead to health
problems such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, breast and colon
cancers, and a shorter life expectancy. The journal stressed that the trend is a
major public health issue, not only for America, but for the whole world.

This medical condition often frustrates doctors because of the obvious solution
to the problem: exercise. If people got off the couch and became more active,
deconditioning would cease to exist.

National Public Radio recently interviewed Michael Joyner, a physiologist at the
Mayo Clinic. He believes that deconditioning needs to become a “mainstream
medical diagnosis” in order to be treated successfully. He said he thinks doctors
need to take more responsibility for their patient’s inactivity and that they should
actually write prescriptions for exercise.

However, the medical community cannot solely fix this “inactivity epidemic.”
Individuals need to make active choices in their own lives for the sake of their
health. Start with simple changes like parking further away from the grocery
store and taking the stairs instead of the elevator. Short walks around your
neighborhood or throwing a ball around in a park with a friend can be good
ways to start getting used to activity. Make it your goal to exercise at least thirty
minutes five days of the week. Adding active time into your daily routine may be
difficult at first, but soon it will feel natural and your body will thank you for it.

I’ve spent this summer working behind the counter at a coffee shop in Brookline, Massachusetts, and I’ve heard my fair share of strange food requests. Adult customers ask for crusts cut off of sandwiches or for cappuccinos with specific foam-to steamed- milk ratios—no detail has proven too small for customer personalization.

But during a morning shift a few days ago, the odd specificity of breakfast requests reached a newer, even odder level. A woman in athletic clothing walked up to the register, ordered a whole-wheat bagel, and asked, quite calmly:

“Could you scoop out the inside of it for me? The bagel?”

I was silent and dumbfounded—this was something I’d never heard of, and I replied both
quickly and honestly.

“I’m sorry, but…I don’t know what that means.”

The woman seemed surprised at my arrogance.

“I just want to you to hollow out the inside of the bagel so I can fill it with peanut butter,
and…” She trailed off, and my eyebrows were still raised in confusion. “You know what?
I’ll just do it myself,” she finished. I made sure to walk by her table after she’d been
served—and I saw that the actually had scooped out the bagel’s insides, leaving them in
scattered, sad sort of pile at the edge of her plate.

My guess is that her butting of the breakfast bread was an attempt to reduce her calorie
consumption. And while I admired her commitment to the cause of maintaining a healthy
weight, I couldn’t help but be disturbed by her insistent refusal to just eat a bagel that,
made with healthful whole grains, wasn’t that bad after all.

At one end of the spectrum, there’s the harrowing fact that over one third of U.S. adults
are obese—35.7 percent, according to 2011 data from the Centers for Disease Control.
Even more concerning is that these dangerous statistics have trickled down from U.S.
adults to their children. The CDC’s official ruling is that 17 percent of American children
are obese—and that the number of overweight children across the country has almost
tripled in the past thirty years.

And, at the other end, there’s the scooped-out-bagel lady, so calorie-concerned that she’s
too afraid to just enjoy her breakfast.

This incident, to me, is personal proof that Americans are in need of some balance
between indulgence and extreme dieting. True, breakfast probably shouldn’t be a
chocolate-stuffed croissant, but it also shouldn’t be a serving of empty bagel crusts.

A healthy diet requires balance, awareness, and the ability to enjoy the occasional
indulgence—not a mutilation of food with plastic spoons.

Every item in the grocery store has it. The label that displays the serving size you accidentally overlooked, the dreaded amount of calories and sugar, and the long list of ingredients with at least three unpronounceable words in it.

Nutrition labels has been required on every food item since the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act passed in 1990. The fine print on the back of every food product helps consumers feel informed about what they buy at the supermarket, but most of the time, the text doesn’t tell the whole story.

Nutrition labels are known for having unrealistic serving sizes and hard to read text. Organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Institute for Medicine (IOM), have both advocated for a remodeling of the standard label on food products. CSPI believes a recommended daily limit on added sugar should be implemented on each label and that the amounts of key ingredients should be listed. IOM has rallied for smaller serving sizes and for the labels to be clearer.

However, the problems do not stop with the labels on the back of the package. The text on the front brings just as much confusion. Cereal boxes and bags of potato chips contain words like “smart” or “multigrain” to make the product look more appealing.

Many loopholes exist for food companies that allow them to make misinforming and even deceptive claims on their products, according to CSPI. Two examples that can easily mislead a customer are when a product reads in large print “natural” or “made from whole wheat.” Currently, no requirements exist to put “natural” on a package so companies do it quite liberally. And a company can throw out the words “whole wheat” without declaring how much whole grain is actually in their food.

These words mislead consumers, making them think that the positive words printed on the front of packages make the ingredients inside all the more healthy. Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab has conducted studies showing that people typically think an item has fewer calories if words such as “low-fat” or “organic” are on the label, often leading them to eat more of the product than they typically would have.

CSPI and IOM are two of many organizations working to try and revise nutrition label laws. But in the meantime, keep mindful of the items that fill grocery store shelves. Scrutinizing every product you pick up in the grocery store will alter your choices and, hopefully, benefit your health in the long run. Don’t assume that food companies have your best interest in mind. Analyze showy claims on the front and small print on the back closely and when in doubt about a product research it more closely. Take the time to truly know what is going into into your body and choose raw, whole foods over processed ones that come packaged in a box. Going with real foods always brings the best results. Strive for local or organic when possible and try to avoid big names with big claims.

A new school year approaches, and with it the changes brought on by Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (who would want to vote against a bill with that name?) pushed by Barack and Michelle Obama to make the first major changes to the federal school lunch program in 15 years.

The new federal guidelines will “increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat- free and low-fat fluid milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat and trans fat in meals; and meet the nutrition needs of school children within their calorie requirements,” according to a synopsis of the program.

Now that the guidelines are going into effect, it falls on school districts to face students. The Huntington Patch reports on the challenges Long Island school districts are facing implementing the law:

“Students will definitely notice a difference,” said Holly Von Seggern, vice president of marketing for Whitsons Culinary Group of Islandia, which serves about 20 school districts across Long Island.

Whitsons has been preparing for the changes for almost two years and providing a range of new options for its districts to get kids used to the changes, Von Seggern said. They’ve even recommended that parents offer whole grains and more fruits and bean dishes during the summer to prepare kids for the changes.

I believe that the fight against childhood obesity can best be waged at our school’s cafeterias. Its meals will feed millions of children, and for those from low-income families it may be their most complete meal of the day. And the fact that its served by the federal government means that it can be ethically and effectively tweaked by the government to promote better health, unlike the other, out of school meals the children will eat.

The showdown this fall will be between those districts, students dissatisfied by the changes, and the parents of those students. Expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the reduction of a beef patty’s size, a new scarcity of chicken nuggets, and (gasp!) the loss of chocolate milk. But this is the right direction for America’s children, and a gauntlet thrown at the feet of our national health crisis. It must be seen through the end.

And for those dissenters – you can always duck Uncle Sam with a bagged lunch.

Read the Huntington Patch’s entire article here:

http://huntington.patch.com/articles/healthier-school-lunches-causing-headaches-for-districts-d991393e

Last Sunday, on a weekend trip home, my parents and I decided to eat lunch at The Cheesecake Factory. We’d been shopping at the mall, and when noontime rolled around, we weighed our options for a midday meal. Faced with a Food Court full of lackluster pizza and over-greased Asian food, we opted instead for the nearby Cheesecake Factory, only a short walk across the mall parking lot. We knew, at the very least, that the national chain is famous for its extensive menu—one that was bound to have options for each of us.

We sat down and there was, as expected, the trademark tome of a menu: spiral bound
and filled with descriptions of over 200 dishes. But tucked inside each regular menu was
another, also spiral bound, with fewer pages and of a much slimmer rectangular shape
than the original. Its title? The SkinnyLicious Menu.

The Cheesecake Factory’s SkinnyLicious menu, though new to me, has actually been
around for a while. An August 2011 press release from the company announced its
arrival, stating:

“With nearly 50 mouthwatering lower calorie items, the SkinnyLicious ™ menu offers
a wide variety of new and signature favorites… ranging from appetizers to main entrées.
The Small Plates & Appetizers and fresh-baked Flatbreads categories feature dishes all
under 490 calories, while the entrée Salads and main courses are all served with 590
calories or less. Also featured are five Skinny Cocktails each with 150 calories or less.”

A year later, the reduced-calories offerings are still thriving in the restaurant’s 151
locations across the country. And a year later, during my first visit to the Cheesecake
Factory in three or so years, I encountered it for the first time.

My initial reaction was pleasant surprise. Chain restaurants in the United States are
often disparaged for their oversized portions, sky-high calories counts, and unhealthy
food preparation (case in point: the legendary but now-defunct Bloomin’ Onion from
the Outback Steakhouse). But here was one restaurant combating the trend by offering
alternatives that won’t break the healthy eater’s caloric bank if they choose to eat out.

That pleasant surprise, however, didn’t last very long.

The existence of the SkinnyLicious menu got me thinking, and before our appetizer of
chips and guacamole made contact with the tabletop, I’d figured out why it made me
uneasy.

Healthy options shouldn’t be relegated to separate menus, or called out for their
healthiness. Doing so brings unnecessary attention to the types of choices that we should
be making without any heraldry or back-patting. Diners should want to eat a salad
because it’s fresh, colorful, and nutrient-dense, and tasty—not because of its low calorie

count, or because it will make them look SkinnyLicious for the summer.

And most importantly, healthy meal options cannot be tagged with ludicrous monikers
like the Cheescake Factory’s word-hybrid SkinnyLicious. The title is an obvious
marketing ploy—and it cheapens the nutritional value of the foods under its umbrella.

Above all, the word-blend SkinnyLicious absolutely oozes lameness—a lameness I felt as
I sheepishly ordered from the lower-calorie menu. I didn’t want to order a SkinnyLicious
cheeseburger or chopped salad. I just wanted (and always want) to be healthy.

And that choice need not come from a separate menu.

As more research sheds light on the need for a healthy diet, the persistent demand from your mother to “eat your vegetables” rings truer than ever before.

 

The new nutrition guidelines published in 2010 by the US Department of Agriculture introduced a new kind of food pyramid. Instead of a vertical look, implying superiority for certain food groups, they introduced a plate where each group is shown to be essential. However, the new guidelines push fruits and vegetables more than ever before, suggesting that almost half of a meal be made of them. In other words, we should be consuming 1.5-2.5 cups of fruit and 2-3 cups of vegetables daily.

 

Despite the clear knowledge of the importance of fruits and vegetables in a daily diet, the Center for Disease Control said that the consumption of vegetables did not grow from 2001 to 2009. On average, kids and adults eat about a cup of vegetables a day, according to data from the NPD Group.

 

Fruits and vegetables have an irreplaceable role in our diets for many reasons. To start, they have tons of compounds and minerals in them that can help fight off disease. They have loads of fiber, which improves digestive health and helps to stabilize blood sugar levels. These foods can also help to reduce the risk of cancer and other chronic diseases if eaten regularly.

 

Fruits and vegetables can and should be eaten more liberally than any other food group. However, fruits contain a great deal of sugar and should not be eaten too excessively. A large pear has about 23 grams of sugar in it. True, it is filled with fructose, a naturally occurring substance, but three sweet servings daily will provide enough fruit intake.

 

We know that we need to eat more greens, we have since our moms’ told us years ago. Yet we still have trouble including them as a main ingredient in each of our meals. Make sure their presence is accounted for in the kitchen. If they are readily available than they are more likely to be used.

 

Fruits and vegetables can get expensive and don’t last long, two reasons they may be overlooked in meals. But those obstacles can be overcome. Many towns and cities have community supported agriculture subscriptions. This brings fresh, local food to your door once a month at a reasonable price. Once you have the items, storing them correctly can drastically increase their shelf life. Try not to store fruits and vegetables in the same area. The ethylene emitted from the ripening fruit can make the vegetables rot faster. Make sure everything has room to breath.  Enclosing anything in plastic bags will not help them stay fresh. Remove any rubber bands or ties from vegetables to help them keep.

 

Both fruits and vegetables hold the most nutrients when they are in their raw, unnatural state, but they don’t keep as well and aren’t nearly as exciting. Don’t be afraid to cook with them and mix them into favorite dishes. They don’t go old as fast if they have been cooked.

 

These are just a few tips that may help you increase your fruit and vegetable intake. But the best way to add more to your diet is to find different types you like and experiment with recipes that include them. The benefits won’t only make your mother happy, they will also aid in your overall health and mood.

With the start of the school year inching closer with each long summer day, hungry students will have one question on their minds: What’s for lunch?

And this year, thanks to Jamie Oliver’s School Lunch Photo Wall, the world will be
watching for an answer.

Jamie Oliver is a British chef-turned-food-activist, and the man behind Jamie Oliver’s
Food Revolution, which aims to change American eating habits with initiatives like
public cooking classes, easy, cook-at-home recipes for families, and, most importantly, a
push for healthy school lunches and compulsory nutrition education for students.

Oliver has employed many tactics to uphold the principles of the Revolution—including
television programming, restaurant development, and community cooking classes. But
perhaps the most striking (and potentially, most effective) is the School Lunch Photo
Wall.

The Photo Wall first ran during the 2011-2012 school year, during which students and
parents around the world were free to upload photos of lunches served at schools. The
photos were then rated by visitors to the site, using a five-star system—where more stars
stand for more healthful, colorful, fresh, and tasty food. During the first semester of that
school year, over 200 photos were uploaded, and rated by 34,000 viewers.

The site has compiled a list of that first semester’s best and worst Photo Wall meals—and
the nutritional range is dramatic. The top-rated lunch was served in Thousand Oaks, CA,
and included fruit salad, and a green salad with almonds, feta cheese, and pomegranate
seeds. Unsurprisingly, the worst was also served in the US—Rockand, ME, specifically.
The worst offender appears to be a chicken patty on a bun, accompanied by something
that looks like an attempt at bacon, and a chocolate cookie.

The best-and-worst compilation and the Photo Wall serve as a powerful visualization of
what’s served in cafeterias across the world. It showcases the potential—both healthy and
disastrous—of the meal that’s supposed to nourish and satisfy hungry students. And with
help from the Photo Wall, it’s the meal that’s inspired an ongoing Food Revolution.

Those interested in supporting Jamie Oliver’s mission can sign The Food Revolution’s
Global Petition. Or just follow Oliver’s own staggeringly simple food philosophy:

“Basically, as long as we all recognize that treats should be treats, not a daily occurrence,
we’ll be in a good place. So when I talk about having a ‘healthy’ approach to food…I’m
talking about achieving that sense of balance: lots of the good stuff, loads of variety, and
the odd indulgence every now and then.”

That’s what’s for lunch.

The hostility directed towards a recent online newsletter posting by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reveals the power food producers hold over the government agency. The message, posted online last Monday, read “One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the ‘Meatless Monday’ initiative.”

The reaction was immediate and harsh. A representative of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association declared it “a slap in the face of the people who every day are working to make sure we have food on the table to say ‘Don’t eat their product once a week.’ ”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association went as far to dispute claims that eating less meat is healthier for you, citing meat as “nutrient rich.”

By Tuesday the message was removed from the USDA’s website. Not content to simply remove the message, the USDA spokeswoman went as far as saying “USDA does not endorse Meatless Monday,” and claimed that the earlier promotion of the event was posted without proper clearance.

Personally, I’m not too big a fan of Meatless Mondays. While its aims are admirable, asking Americans to eat less meat to improve their diets and the environment, not eating meat one day a week at a cafeteria will do little to change meat production or the way that cafeteria obtains its meat. I feel that they should encourage Americans to eat less meat by their own choices each Monday, in home and out, rather than focusing on a certain place or institution. But the posting and its retraction are revealing of the USDA’s relationship with meat producers, and food lobbyists over all. One gets the sense that the USDA has little confidence in its mission or power, lacking the courage to confront food producers. If this was high school, the USDA would be the nervous, shy kid at the edge of the lunch table, desperate to prove itself to all the cool kids in the middle. How else do you explain the fawning way that the USDA not only pulled the article after the first criticism, but turned 360 to denounce Meatless Mondays altogether?

C’mon USDA. Let’s have some guts.