"How to Eat Now" by Mark Bittman in 10/20 Time

Hi- There is an interesting cover story in the latest issue of Time magazine by Mark Bittman entitled "How to Eat Now." He points out that it is rather ironic that there are four times as many farmer's markets as there were 20 years ago, and many cooking shows on TV, but the majority of the people in this country still eat tons of over processed food. 79% of Americans say they enjoy cooking, and 30% of Americans love it, but only 52% of Americans over the age of 65, cook at home at least five times a week, and considerably less younger families do.

He points out that when he was growing up most mothers cooked dinner every night, instead of relying on frozen dinners and fast food. to feed their family. Now according to the USDA 16% of men, and 13% of women between the ages of 20 to 39 eat pizza every single day. Mark also points out that less than 50% of Americans consider themselves intermediate cooks, and less than 20% consider themselves advanced. In order to decrease the number of people in this country dealing with obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, he says that more people are going to have to start cooking from scratch, and shift away from eating primarily junk food. Anybody else read this article?

I know that it is kind of ironic when I go to the farmer's market, I see a family of four walking to their car, carrying two bunches of flowers and a bag of peaches, and that is it. It is a little better than it was ten years ago, and partly because there are probably twice as many customers at the Evanston market than there were 10 years ago. Hope this helps, Nancy

Hi- Here is the first page of the Time article. The rest of the article you have to be a subscriber to read it.

https://time.com/3483888/the-truth-about-home-cooking/

This should give you a general idea of what he is saying.

Here's a counter-article from food historian Rachel Lauden, who suggests that Bittman and others are not reflecting the whole story. Interesting to read another perspective. http://www.rachellaudan.com/2014/10/the ... oking.html

Hi- Rachael has an interesting point, but how does she explain the rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes, and the rise in the number of people having gastric bypass surgery? Even children are being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes now. She claims that families did not sit around the dinner table every night fifty years ago, but they did in my family. Yes we did go out to eat occasionally, but the restaurant we were most likely to eat at, was only open about six months out of the year, and we usually went to eat there about once a month. I do remember my father taking me to A&W root beer for a root beer and a hot dog in the summertime in Benton Harbor after we went to the Benton Harbor wholesale market to sell a load of fruit. That restaurant probably has not been open for 45 years at least though.

Increased stress, lack of activity, chronic sleep deprivation, lack of exposure to sunlight, altering microbiomes with antibiotics/antibacterials, lower innoculation of vital bacteria due to surgical births and fear of letting kids play in dirt, low breastfeeding rates/durations, altering the immune system with vaccines... there are many potential causes besides food choice that can trigger the inflammation that leads to obesity and autoimmune disorders like asthma, allergies, arthritis, eczema/psoriasis, diabetes, Crohn's/celiac, autism, cancer, etc. (all of which are currently on the rise among America's children).

And just between you, me, and the KitchenAid, I confess to being more than a little irked at how the term "home cooking" is equated with opening a can of cream of mushroom soup. I've stopped using AllRecipes so much because so many of their preparations include a can of biscuit dough or box of cake mix. There needs to be a word for this kind of preparation; it's a step up from take-out but I don't think it's cooking!

^ There are also non-crazy explanations:

Hi- In Bittman's article he says that people who eat out consume an average of 200 calories a day more than people who don't. Concerning cooking, most people who open up a box of Kraft mac and cheese, consider that a home cooked meal. I make peach jam, which contains only about a third of the amount of sugar as regular jam, and my friends are always surprised that I know how to make jam. Unfortunately I did not make it back to Michigan during peach season though this summer, so I could get some free peaches. There was a smaller crop of peaches this summer though, even though my sister had 90% of a crop, and she had no problems selling her peaches.

I think especially because I live alone, people wonder why I cook from scratch. Why don't I just eat frozen dinners? I tell them I love to cook. The problem I encounter when cooking for one though is that there are some dishes such as tabouli salad that taste a whole lot better the first day than they do the third day. I know I could sign up for the small family food exchange, but I am busy on Tuesday evenings.

I don't have a subscription, and can't read the entire piece, but I hope he looks at the decrease in home cooking as part of larger issues with people's lives, and doesn't just hector people to start cooking more because it's really easy to do. For instance, I would hope that if "He points out that when he was growing up most mothers cooked dinner every night" he then also looks at the massive increase in dual income households since the late 60's.

This is the best study I've seen on the subject, and it differs from many articles written on the subject. There are a couple important things to note:

- Decreases in home cooking stopped in the mid-90's, and have remained relatively stable for 20 years
- Decreases in home cooking were greatest among people living in poverty, and markedly lower among higher income groups

Increased work hours and a shift from 9-5 manufacturing jobs to service jobs with odd hours are certainly one of the main drivers of the trend, as noted in the study:

Indeed, previous studies have shown that time is a main barrier for cooking healthy foods amongst low-income individuals [59] and may prohibit beneficiaries of food assistance programs such as SNAP from meeting healthy meal targets [60-62]. Low-income adults may especially feel the burden of time scarcity and reduce food preparation time [63,64]. Constraints of lower status jobs such as working multiple jobs, long hours, shift scheduling, and overtime pose barriers for low-income adults to prepare meals at home [65].

The decrease in people cooking at home is just a symptom of problems in the US with poverty and work/life balance. It's also exacerbated by other things, like the fact that Home Ec classes have been eliminated at many schools. While it would be great if they were reintroduced, I doubt they will as long as schools continue to be judged solely by reading and math scores. Hell, even science and history classes have been reduced in order to increase class time on tested subjects.

Anyways, I fully support any attempts to get people to cook more at home. It is one of my favorite parts of the day, and something I'm passing onto my daughter. But most of the articles I see about the subject tend to be clueless about the causes of the decline and rarely offer any constructive suggestion.

mamagotcha wrote:And just between you, me, and the KitchenAid, I confess to being more than a little irked at how the term "home cooking" is equated with opening a can of cream of mushroom soup. I've stopped using AllRecipes so much because so many of their preparations include a can of biscuit dough or box of cake mix. There needs to be a word for this kind of preparation; it's a step up from take-out but I don't think it's cooking!

It's "Semi Homemade". Blame Sandra Lee.

Hi- Bittman knows that he has gotten some flack about people not having the time, but he suggests that they place a tv in their kitchen, so they can watch tv while they are cooking, My problem with that is that I do not have cable right now, and if I put a tv in the kitchen, I probably would not be able to get in any channels. He says that lower income people are more likely to cook at home. The problem I see at the couponing boards that I visit is that people say they can't afford fresh broccoli, but they can afford Kraft macaroni and cheese, which was on sale last month for $.29 a box at Jewel. I am constantly amassed by people that post of those boards that say that they won't spend over $2 a pound for boneless, skinless chicken breast, but for that price all you get is crap factory farmed chicken that I won't eat. They should just try eating less chicken, and spending $5 a pound for humanely raised stuff.

Concerning the use of processed food in cooking, I believe that people are looking for ways to get a meal on the table in 20 minutes, and that is why they are taking those shortcuts. I don't think Bittman understands how time pressed mothers are who work full time and have a family to take care of to. He is right though that families are not sitting down together at the dinner table every night like they used to when I was growing up. The kids are overbooked and the parents often times have to work different shifts. Hope this helps, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Hi- Bittman knows that he has gotten some flack about people not having the time, but he suggests that they place a tv in their kitchen, so they can watch tv while they are cooking

I have no idea if he actually said this but I sincerely hope not. First of all, television execs only WISH that people were spending that much time watching TV--the decline in television viewership is greater than the decline in people cooking I think. Secondly, I think it's a pretty asshat comment to make, insinuating that people are sitting on their asses watching TV instead of making food for themselves and their families. More likely that they're sitting on their asses in front of the computer instead of making food for themselves and their families.

"Time, I realize, is the biggest obstacle to cooking for most people. I get some flak for my position, but I stick by it.You must adjust your priorities to find time to cook. Look at your activities and then do some juggling. Move a TV to the kitchen and watch your favorite programs while you're standing at the sink. Get up 20 minutes earlier so you can get dinner into a slow cooker or pack last night's leftovers for today's lunch. Keep the death grip on your devices if you must; they're smartest when called upon to help you find recipes and learn new techniques. No one is asking you to give up activities you like, but if you're watching food shows on TV, try cooking instead (or at the very least, do both at the same time)"

Apparently he realizes that computers and tablets are consuming some of your time, but he suggests that you just walk away and go into the kitchen. I know personally the internet is way more distracting for me than TV is. Bittman says it is kind of ironic that we are fixated on the food network, but we don't want to spend the time instead in the kitchen. Most people here love to cook, but a lot of my friends don't, and when I have excess produce in my garden, I have no problems getting rid of excess lettuce and tomatoes, but when it comes to zucchini or eggplant, they tell me they don't know what to do with it.

NFriday wrote:Most people here love to cook, but a lot of my friends don't, and when I have excess produce in my garden, I have no problems getting rid of excess lettuce and tomatoes, but when it comes to zucchini or eggplant, they tell me they don't know what to do with it.

Get better friends.

I'll always take excess zucchini and/or eggplant.

NFriday wrote:"Time, I realize, is the biggest obstacle to cooking for most people. I get some flak for my position, but I stick by it.You must adjust your priorities to find time to cook...

And that is why he takes so much flak - he is ignoring major changes in demands on people's time now compared to the mid-60's. A large number of people don't have the ability to adjust their priorities. A few things to consider:

- 25% of families are single parent families, more than three times as many as the 60's
- 1/3 of all families are working poor, and work an average of 1.25 full time jobs
- Service sector jobs (more likely to have odd hours) now account for almost 80% of jobs (was less than 60% in 1970)
- Manufacturing jobs (more likely to be 9-5) have decreased from 40% to about 20% of jobs

When you look at statistics like that it's surprising there hasn't been a greater drop in home cooking. If Mark Bittman was only talking about upper middle class people working 9-5 jobs I wouldn't have any problems with what he says. But he isn't doing that, he's using data for the country as a whole, while completely ignoring major shifts in employment, family structures, and demands on people's time. His unwillingness to consider the fact that many people don't have the freedom to structure their time is incredibly naive and ignorant. It is also directly contradicted by scores of studies and statistics.

IMO - time is not an excuse. Regardless of the household situation, there's no excuse not to get your family, especially children to eat properly.

By a coincidence, Bittman's recent article from the NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/magaz ... ref=dining - deals with getting kids to eat properly.

Something about this subject gave me a sense of déjà vu, and this morning I remembered why: Michael Pollan's 2009 New York Times article and the controversy that stirred up. It seems to me Mark Bittman is just trying to stir the same pot (ha ha).

Yeah, nothing starts a foodie fight faster than the words "Bittman" and "Pollan". Throw in "Bourdain" and "soup dumplings" and the food blog Ouroboros will feast on itself like it was an umami-laden bowl of Hokkaido-style ramen.

cilantro wrote:^ There are also non-crazy explanations:

I could be mistaken, but I think that chart is misleading. According to this USDA report, 3900 calories per day corresponds to the "total food supply available for consumption" per capita. The line in the chart above is quite similar to the upper line in Fig 2-1 of the USDA report for the period from 1960 to 2000.

As the lower line in the USDA chart shows, after adjusting for "spoilage, cooking losses, plate waste, and other losses," the actual daily per capita food supply is closer to 2700. The difference between the two (total food supply available - food waste) appears to have remained fairly constant since 1970, the first year estimates of the latter were made.

You're right that the absolute numbers for caloric intake should be adjusted downward, as shown in the graph you link to. But the substantial increase over time is still there in the adjusted numbers (over 500 calories/day since 1970) and any attempt at explaining the rise in obesity has to first reckon with that, I think.

Hi- I just read the article that Bittman wrote about getting kids to eat properly. A big part of the problem is that the parents don't eat a balanced diet. It is hard to get the children turned on to broccoli, when the parents never eat it. Bittman's oldest daughter wanted lobster for her 7th birthday, and I don't know of any other kids that request lobster at such a young age. Apparently Bittman and his wife did not allow junk food in the house, and that would not fly in most homes today. Children are being bombarded with commercials on Saturday mornings promoting sugary cereal and other junk food too, which does not help matters.

Another interesting facet of the obesity issue is TV. Research has shown that young kids (ages 6 to 13) who are just plunked in front of the TV have a metabolic rate on average 17 percent lower than if they were lying down in a dark room. They go into a trance state that suppresses all functions. It's okay to watch TV as long as other people are there, talking, interacting, asking questions -- anything to avoid the trance. But that 17 percent reduction, combined with the fact that they are often on auto-pilot with snack foods, accounts for a considerable amount of the problem.

Also, video games are not nearly as healthful as running around outside. I think physical activity is the best antidote to many health problems. I have a friend who controls his diabetes entirely with exercise -- and acknowledges that if he'd done it before, he likely would not have gotten diabetes. A sedentary life plus that being mesmerized by electronics is a deadly combo.

NFriday wrote:Bittman's oldest daughter wanted lobster for her 7th birthday, and I don't know of any other kids that request lobster at such a young age.

She didn't want lobster, she wanted butter. If she had been regularly given tofu and butter as a kid she would have wanted tofu instead of lobster.

I get the idea that kids eat what they're exposed to. It is an important thing. For my daughter's seventh birthday she wanted to go to Publican and have pork rinds and some pickles. While I love the fact that she is an adventurous eater, I don't think that that request makes her any healthier than most kids. Is lobster slathered in butter exceptionally healthy?

Our daughter's favorite vegetable is brussel sprouts. But they need to be shredded, doused in balsamic and EVOO, charred, and then sprinkled with fresh grated parmesan cheese and roasted walnuts. It tastes great! We make it all the time at home. The sprouts usually come from our garden, or are at least organic.

While it is a food I love, and it's homemade, I'm not sure how healthy it really is compared to other foods. It certainly has loads of vitamins, but also a good amount of fat from the cheese, a good dose of sodium, and supposedly charred foods are supposed to raise your cancer risks now. So how healthy is that really? We eat these things because they taste good. We also eat radishes and carrots straight out of the garden for 8 months of the year, and things like cucumbers, tomatoes, and pea pods when they're in season. I think that's a great thing, because a varied diet is a good diet, but I don't see any of it making us exceptionally healthy.

NFriday wrote: Children are being bombarded with commercials on Saturday mornings promoting sugary cereal and other junk food too, which does not help matters.

No - there is no "bombardment" of ads anymore. Saturday morning network television for kids has been gone for nearly 20 years. It was killed by VCRs and then DVDs. Netflix, Amazon, and Youtube have buried it even further. Most kids only see brief glimses of ads, if they see them at all. The only ads my 8 year old daughter sees are the first 3 seconds of Bruce Rauner ads before she watches Stampy videos on Youtube.

Cynthia wrote:I think physical activity is the best antidote to many health problems.

This is important, but since the 70's there has been an actual increase in sports participation among kids in the middle to upper middle class bracket. There has also been a drop in activity among kids in lower income groups, who attend schools that have cut back on Phys Ed to focus more on boosting test scores.

Attrill wrote:

NFriday wrote:Bittman's oldest daughter wanted lobster for her 7th birthday, and I don't know of any other kids that request lobster at such a young age.

She didn't want lobster, she wanted butter. If she had been regularly given tofu and butter as a kid she would have wanted tofu instead of lobster.

I get the idea that kids eat what they're exposed to. It is an important thing. For my daughter's seventh birthday she wanted to go to Publican and have pork rinds and some pickles. While I love the fact that she is an adventurous eater, I don't think that that request makes her any healthier than most kids. Is lobster slathered in butter exceptionally healthy?

.

lol. actually sounds like my daughter & i think thats great - sure she also asked for a party a Chuck E Cheese in the same breath but its all good... - her 7th b-day request was her typicalt . steak, crabs and shrimp. -

I agree with Chris - kids mostly eat what their exposed to- or at least thats my experience.


Biggest thing I have tried to work on with Shay and myself is to not "yuck another persons yum" Hoping that will help her with the peer pressure that comes with school lunch time and help me be keep growing.

Hi- I just did some online research, and I found out that Disney banned commercials for junk food on their shows two years ago, although I am sure that they still allow commercials for semi junk food, but apparently the number of commercials for sugary cereals has increased on hispanic stations, and I believe that 25% of the people in Chicago are not on line, and so the kids can't watch youtube at home. The lower income children are the ones that are being bombarded with the ads, and as somebody pointed out on another site that I just visited, the manufacturers of the healthier food cannot afford to purchase commercials. You are not going to see any commercials for organic apples, because the growers do not have the money to purchase the ads. I know that apple growers have to pay money for a marketing program for every bushel of apples they sell, but the amount of money collected is not enough to buy commercial time at the Super Bowl. I can just see how much apple consumption would pick up right after a unforgettable ad promoting apples appeared during the super bowl, but the marketing groups just don't have that kind of money. The only healthy commercials appearing right now on tv are for Walmart, and I just want to scream when I see them. All they ever interview for those ads are factory farmers in California.

Hi- I just found out that there is a produce mobile that comes to Robert Crown center in Evanston on the second Tuesday of the month. Somebody that I know has been volunteering there, and she told me that last month they had 305 people show up to pick up produce, but yesterday morning because the weather was so crappy, only 250 people showed up. I asked her how much produce the Chicago food depository delivers, and she said that they deliver an 18 wheeler full of produce, and it sounds like the produce that does not get distributed there, is given to some food pantries in the area. BTW-They can always use more volunteers to help bag and distribute the produce. Apparently they picked Evanston as one of their distribution locations because 14% of the residents of the city don't have access to enough food.

The peice reads like an opinion. I get it. I think he wants to remind us that we have choices to make with how we spend our time.

Some will find validation and try to cook more frequently. Interestingly, he used to work for Christopher Kimball. And Kimball's approach is vastly different. "Cooking isn't creative, and it isn't easy. It's serious, and it's hard to do well, just as everything worth doing is damn hard."

I find a lot of validation in Kimball's quote. I still cook and realize it is a skill. Just like drawing, or hitting balls, or knitting, or sewing. -- Peace