Food Babe and the Pumpkin Spice Latte

Time for some real talk about a really annoying issue: the Pumpkin Spice Latte, more commonly known as the PSL, from Starbucks.

Last year, the Food Babe and her fan girls caused a big ruckus because there wasn't any pumpkin in the PSL and there were two doses of caramel coloring which contains the chemical 4-Methylimidazole (4-MEI). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has found that 4-MEI is a level 2B carcinogenic which means that this chemical is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Do you know what else is a level 2B carcinogen? Freaking coffee. So let's not split hairs over which possible carcinogens we may be guzzling. 

Well, instead of deciding to purchase coffee elsewhere and leave the rest of the world alone, the Food Babe decides she has to fix the problem for EVERYONE, regardless of the fact that really no one else gave a flying flip about the ingredients in the PSL. To sum it up, I'm sick of this woman and the effects her fear-based marketing and ignorance have on society. Here are four truth bombs about the sigil of fall, the Pumpkin Spice Latte.

Disclaimer: I have never tried a PSL however, I don’t believe that I have to try something to determine that the marketing behind it is ridiculous or that the Food Babe is not a reliable source for food information. Furthermore, the nearest Starbucks is about a half hour away and I don't drink coffee. This post is not about coffee, it's about common sense and how restaurants have started a very bad habit of catering to a vocal, uneducated minority.

1 – There is no pumpkin in pumpkin spice, more commonly known as “pumpkin pie spice” (I will use these interchangeably for the rest of the post). Don't believe me? Look on the back of your pumpkin pie spice canister. Don't have one? Here's a recipe, endorsed by The Pioneer Woman, for pumpkin pie spice. Thinking that pumpkin is actually in pumpkin pie spice is a common misconception and I have called out several trolls on a recently revived Facebook post that the only ingredients in pumpkin spice are cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves etc. Things that taste like fall. No pumpkin whatsoever. Get off that horse.

How do they get the pumpkin in there?!

Answer: They don't. There is zero pumpkin in pumpkin spice

2 – Building off of the first bullet, Starbucks never claimed to have pumpkin in the PSL. Never. Food Babe just assumed that because the word pumpkin was in the product, it should have that ingredient in it. False. Another example: fly spray for livestock. There are no flies in fly spray. Yet another example: key lime pie yogurt? Is there actually key lime pie in a Yoplait key lime pie yogurt. Nope. Grapes in grape soda? Nein. C'mon folks, common sense.

3 – Lattes and other drinks should not contain solids that are not easily converted into a melty-ish liquid. Example: whipped cream on hot chocolate is acceptable because that melts and contributes to the flavor of the drink. Pumpkin doesn’t melt, to my knowledge, and therefore the PSL now contains a random floater of pumpkin. Mmmmm, appetizing.

4 – Plain pumpkin* is not delicious to eat by itself. Anyone who has ever eaten plain ole pumpkin will tell you that it’s not the most flavorful food and that in order to make it palatable for a pie, cookies, cake, bread etc. you need pumpkin pie spice. Reminder, we have already ascertained that there is precisely zero pumpkin in a pumpkin spice container. Adding straight pumpkin does nothing to the flavor of the drink but only momentarily satisfies ignorant food activists such as the Food Babe. A PSL without the pumpkin spice but with pumpkin would taste quite bland, I imagine.

Real product review from my Starbucks loving (anti-Food Babe) PhD friend: "The difference in flavor is hard to describe. The PSL is still good but not as good."

I am sure there are a lot of folks that are wondering why I care so much about a latte that I have never tried however, the action taken by Starbucks due to fear-based promotion by the Food Babe is a very sad example of the "I don't like it and neither should you" transition our food supply is experiencing. There is a new wave of activists who have the elitist attitude that if a product doesn't fit their picture-perfect ideals, then it should be changed or snuffed out of the market. The simple solution to that problem is to buy something else or make your own. However, food elitists like Food Babe feel as though it's their duty to drag restaurants through the mud and force them to abandon science and FDA-approved ingredients in order to calm a spastic, screaming minority.

Use your heads, my friends!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

* For my non-US readers, I am referring to the big orange squash that is associated with fall, Thanksgiving and Halloween over here in the U.S. I realize that "pumpkin" means any type of squash in many other countries, but over here in the good ole USA it is specifically reserved for this.

The Importance of GMO's and Writing Letters to the Editor

image from here

Usually, I jam out to 106.9 Country Legends on the radio in my truck but in the mornings, on my way to work, I listen to the highly syndicated Kidd Kraddick in the Morning Show. Every week or so they have a segment titled "Consumer Watch" and they talk about a few topics that consumers should be interested in - previous topics include cigarettes, a cell-phone in the car law etc. One morning the topic was GMO's (genetically modified organisms) -- this was around the time of Prop 37 in California -- and I developed a stomach ache listening to the false information they were saying. They were basically giving their opinions but not backing them up with any fact and it was so frustrating.

So I did what any active advocate would do and I wrote them a letter.  I have never heard back from them and if they addressed my concern during another Consumer Watch segment, I missed it. But here is my letter, because I believe that everyone should fully understand the capabilities that GMO provides us with in terms of food production and also the importance they play in the world's hunger problems.

-----

I have been listening to the Kidd Kraddick show for some time now and I am always laughing and truly enjoy the show. I donate to Kidd’s Kids and have signed up for Friends with Benefits – in short, I’m a big fan.

However, every time you guys have a consumer watch I get so frustrated with your analysis of anything to do with food that I have to change the station. The latest incident happened just this morning when you were discussing Prop 37 in California and how, if passed, all genetically modified food (GM) would need to be labeled. You are right, this would be a huge hindrance to food production companies, would increase every family’s grocery bill and would put negative connotation on most food products at the grocery store.

What you failed to do was provide actual facts regarding GMO food.  Genetically modified organisms revolutionized food production and agriculture in the 60’s and 70’s. Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the “green revolution” which had a tremendous impact on food production in underdeveloped countries in Asia and Latin America. The green revolution (and Mr. Borlaug’s work) was focused on the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains like wheat and aiding farmers in better management and use of technological advancements. Without the work of Mr. Borlaug and other scientists of the green revolution, over a billion people would have starved. 

Genetically modified doesn’t necessarily mean that the product was radiated or anything like that, it could be as simple as cross breeding or using a gene mutation in a strain of corn to make the plant more productive. For example, some variations of papayas have been genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus – this was done by developing a breed that is resistant to them. Hawaii, a big producer of papaya, almost had their industry devastated by the virus however, since the new genetics were discovered, their industry is successful. It’s important to point out that there is still no method of production other than the genetically engineered papayas that is resistant to the virus. Organic papayas (which are ridiculously expensive, like every other kind of organic food), are not resistant to the virus. Other GM foods are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and squash. GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes and rice have been created and approved by the government but aren’t commercially available yet. 

Modifying plants allows farmers to be more productive which is essential with a population that is growing exponentially. If we don’t accept and employ technology like GMO’s, it’s going to be pretty dang impossible to feed 9 billion people in 2050.

Regarding obesity – I can’t believe that you guys just blamed the obesity epidemic on genetically modified food. Americans are overwhelmingly overweight because we have become increasingly lazy and restaurants have increased their portion sizes dramatically. The fast food industry is booming – it’s easier (and often, cheaper) to buy a meal off the dollar menu than it is to buy fresh food or whole grains. America is one of the few countries in the world where it is more expensive to buy fresh food than it is to buy processed food. Add into the mix that low-income families can buy more food if they buy Cheetos and Pepsi than they can if they buy juice and apples and you can see why so many Americans are overweight. 

Hundreds of thousands of folks listen to your show every day – you have the opportunity to set the record straight on controversial issues like this and hopefully you will be more responsible with the facts you are representing. It would be nice if as much research went into Consumer Watch and food issues as does the Showbiz Top 5.

Thank you for reading and please keep up the hilarious antics.

Respectfully,

Brandi

---

So that's my letter. Again, I've never gotten a reply but hopefully they are aware of the influence they have and will take steps to make sure that future broadcasts are more fact filled rather than flashy and entertaining. Fear sells but isn't always the truth.

Have any of you ever written a similar letter to the editor? Did you get a reply? My only other experience has been this and it's been a rollercoaster ride since then.

Until next time,

~ Buzzard ~

What's in That Chicken McNugget?

 photo from here

I've been asked this question before on the blog - most recently in a comment from this post. And I've always forgotten to answer it; sorry, I'm not perfect and sometimes I forget. But McDonald's of Canada has stepped up to the plate and become completely transparent in regards to what is in their products. They have recently invited their customers to pose their questions online at Our Food. Your Questions. and boy are the inquiries rolling in.

Some of the more popular questions are - my synopsis is in italics, but to read the word-for-word detailed answers, visit the website.

-- How is it that a McDonald's burger does not rot? Too dry; not enough moisture for bacteria/mold.
-- Does Canada use pink slime? (which I hate saying but that is verbatim - the actual term is lean, finely textured beef) No.
-- Does your egg McMuffin use real eggs? Yes - a freshly cracked egg for every sandwich.
-- Inside the McNugget, is it actually the meat of the chicken or cut offs that nobody would actually want to eat? Answer (verbatim): It's definitely chicken inside our McNuggets. We use seasoned chicken breast and a few seasonings, along with a natural proportion of skin for flavour and as a binder.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions about random chicken parts.

 One of my faves is, "Would you live in the life of one of your cows for even a week?" That'll make you take a deep breath! McDonald's has yet to answer that one but you can see the answers to the above questions and more by following the link to the Your Questions website.

I applaud McDonald's for taking this approach to helping consumers make connections between their food and the way it's produced/prepared. You should definitely go over and look at some of the other questions being posed and maybe even ask one of your own.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Consumer is a word

That I really don't like.

To me, it carries the same connotation as 'educate'. We don't need to 'educate' consumers, we need to engage, interact, talk to - anything but educate. And now I feel 'consumer' has joined the group of words that make me cringe when I hear them used during agvocate-speak. I don't even like to hear myself say it because I'm sure it inadvertently comes out as demeaning or degrading.

"I am a producer and you are a consumer - allow me to impress you with my agriculture knowledge." Bleh. If I was a 'consumer', I'd smack me.

Do I have a solution? No. I don't get paid to find solutions. Actually, I don't get paid at all. Anyhow, I'm not the only ag blogger/speaker/representative who feels this way. I've spoken with a few others who recognize the problem, but like me don't really have a solution.

What do you think aggies? Anyone else feel this way? What are your thoughts? I feel we could eventually alienate our employers i.e. 'consumers', to the point that they don't want to hear what we have to say. At that point, they'll turn to other sources for ag and food info - Mark Bittman, Oprah, Kathy Freston, Wayne Pacelle, Ingrid Newkirk; folks who will likely not represent ag truthfully or positively.

For those of you reading this who aren't agvocates, producers etc - what do you think? Am I just imagining that using the word 'consumer' in this setting comes across as hoity-toity? Maybe so - actually, I hope so.

Would love to hear some feedback on this. And since Google images didn't have an overly impressive selection of photos for this topic here is a picture of the wheat fields near my house that are nearly completely turned.

Amber waves of grain

Picture from my Instagram feed (@brandibuzzard)

Until next time,

~Buzzard~