Growing up I had the fine opportunity to eat fruit right from the tree. One of my favorite parts of citris fruit was the peel. As I grew older I succumbed to the habit of Americans to throw away the peel and just eat the fruit. This was mostly due to the advice from some to avoid the pesticides and harmful wax/polish chemicals used in industrial growing, but also to avoid being teased as a peel-eater. Kumquats were one of the few things I could get away with.

Well, lo and behold, mom was right and the nutrients are really best consumed in the peel:

Salvestrol Q40 is found at higher concentrations in tangerine peel, than in the flesh of the fruit.

The researchers suggest the modern trend to throw away peel may have contributed to a rise in some cancers.

The center is probably designed, very intelligently, to make the peel more palatable. The idea that there should be something that is “garbage” or something to dispose for everything good may be a completely artificial notion. When you think about it, the food industry has been isolating and focusing on the wrong success factors. Industry has been completely mistaken in their race to harness sweet and succulent products, without regard to complex nutrients, and create a disposable wrapper for everything they sell.

This reminds me of companies that ask if they can be made more secure, even more compliant, without actually doing anything that would cost them money. I tell them they might as well ask me if they can be fit without exercise, healthy without eating food.

Security is sometimes described as a harsh pill, but if more business leaders learned to raise their companies on a better diet they would have far fewer emergencies later in life.

I love peel.

Researchers continue to find beneficial evidence of antioxidants. The latest BBC story, and one I particularly enjoy, suggests that Guinness is actually good for you, or at least good for your dogs:

The Wisconsin team tested the health-giving properties of stout against lager by giving it to dogs who had narrowed arteries similar to those in heart disease.

They found that those given the Guinness had reduced clotting activity in their blood, but not those given lager.

Lucky dogs.

The researchers told a meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida, that the most benefit they saw was from 24 fluid ounces of Guinness – just over a pint – taken at mealtimes.

They believe that “antioxidant compounds” in the Guinness, similar to those found in certain fruits and vegetables, are responsible for the health benefits because they slow down the deposit of harmful cholesterol on the artery walls.

Makes sense to me. Wait, how many mealtimes are there in a day for a dog?

I love the fact that Guinness has changed their slogan from “is good for you” to “responsible drinking”. Perhaps they can modify their slogan only slightly now to “drink what is good for you” to avoid running afoul of EU laws on marketing. Or not.

But I guess my point is that the race to find the best or top antioxidant is a bit confusing. For example, here is an excerpt from a list of the hits on Yahoo! for “top antioxidant“:

1. Mushrooms beat wheatgerm to top antioxidant slot
2. Acai Berry Ranked Top Antioxidant SuperFood
3. Honeydew honeys top antioxidant ratings
4. Coffee Buzz: Drink Is Top Antioxidant Source in U.S.
5. Cranberries, the top antioxidant source
6. Beans, artichokes top antioxidant list, according to new analysis
7. Top Antioxidants: Beans At Top, With Berries To Follow

See what I mean. Even if Guinness did say “drink what’s good for you”, how would one actually figure it out any better than self-observation and study?

The BBC article makes a sly point to this effect, cleverly buried in their report:

The original campaign in the 1920s stemmed from market research – when people told the company that they felt good after their pint, the slogan was born.

“Feeling” good might be a bit too qualitative for some, but is it any worse than quantitative measures that contradict? And what about side-effects. Coffee? Beans?

Doctors in America often say one drink a day is too many, whereas some older European cultures seem to propose a higher bar and even go so far as to dispell common myths about harm:

Dr Martin Bobak from University College London and colleagues at the Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine in Prague questioned 891 Czech men and 1,098 women between the ages of 25 and 64 as part of their study.

[…]

The survey showed the men consumed on average 3.1 litres of beer each week with women drinking on average 0.3 litres per week.

There were few heavy drinkers. Just 3% of men drank more than 14 litres of beer in a week and just five women regularly consumed more than 7 litres in a week.

The scientists found no link between beer consumption and obesity.

14 litres (4 US gallons, 3 UK gallons) of beer in a week?!

So until someone can explain how to achieve the “top” status of foods, here’s to Guinness and to drinking what is good for you.

It turns out that diacetyl is not the same as butter, although advertising for Orville Redenbacher “Butter” and Act II popcorn might have confused some.

USA Today reports:

The nation’s largest microwave popcorn maker, ConAgra Foods, says it will change the recipe for its Orville Redenbacher and Act II brands over the next year to remove a flavoring chemical linked to a lung ailment in popcorn plant workers.

The decision comes a day after a doctor at a leading lung research hospital said in a warning letter to federal regulators that consumers, not just factory workers, may be in danger from fumes from buttery flavoring in microwave popcorn.

ConAgra’s spokesperson goes on about concern for the safety of their workers, but clearly this latest move comes as a result of the link to consumer safety. The NYT provides a more telling story about worker safety:

Kenneth B. McClain, a lawyer at the Missouri firm that has represented Mr. Peoples [a worker in Missouri] and Mr. Campbell, said he had tried or settled more than 100 cases involving diacetyl and other flavorings and that more than 500 were still awaiting resolution in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri and Ohio.

At a two-week trial in March 2004, lawyers for the makers of diacetyl products — International Flavors and Fragrances and its subsidiary, Bush Boake Allen — maintained that the additive did not cause Mr. Peoples’s illness and that, in any event, the popcorn company had mishandled the substance. Jurors awarded Mr. Peoples $20 million. His case, like Mr. Campbell’s, was later settled for an undisclosed amount.

Melissa I. Sachs, a spokeswoman at International Flavors and Fragrances, based in New York, declined to comment on the cases. According to its latest annual report, the company has been sued by more than 150 workers in four states.

Who said butter was bad for you? Leave it to the threat of consumer action, long after people have shown unmistakable signs of suffering or even death, for the companies to start to consider changing their formula. Where is the so-called public servant in this story?

Since George W. Bush became president, [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history, public health experts say. It has imposed only one major safety rule. The only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court.

[…]

Instead of regulations, [head of OSHA] Mr. Foulke and top officials at other agencies favor a “voluntary compliance strategy,” reaching agreements with industry associations and companies to police themselves.

National security in decline. Mr. Bush said Iraq’s voluntary compliance strategy was a failure, without any harm linked to Americans, and yet the real deaths of Americans at home caused by unregulated chemicals seem to go unnoticed…except by those suffering and the lawyers who remain independent of the Bush administration.

Speaking of lawyers and popcorn, you might want to take a look at the ConAgra Foods Legal Policy before you browse their website. For a company producing chemicals that cause harm to their workers and consumers, they sure have a lot of regulatory emphasis around access to a simple website:

Users are prohibited from violating or attempting to violate the security of the Site, including without limitation, (a) accessing data not intended for such user or logging onto a server or an account which the user is not authorized to access; (b) attempting to probe, scan or test the vulnerability of a system or network or to breach security or authentication measures without proper authorization; (c) attempting to interfere with service to any user, host or network, including, without limitation, via means of submitting a virus to the Site, overloading, flooding, spamming, mailbombing or crashing; (d) sending unsolicited e-mail, including promotions and/or advertising of products or services; (e) forging any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any e-mail or newsgroup posting; (f) by using any device, software or routine to interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Site or any activity being conducted on the Site; or (g) by using or attempting to use any engine, software, tool, agent or other device or mechanism (including, without limitation browsers, spiders, robots, avatars or intelligent agents) to navigate or search the Site other than the search engine and search agents available from ConAgra Foods on this Site and other than generally available third party web browsers (e.g., Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Explorer). Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability. ConAgra Foods may investigate occurrences that potentially involve such violations and may involve, and cooperate with, law enforcement authorities in prosecuting users who are involved in such violations.

Forging packets bad and strictly prohibited by ConAgra. Producing poisonous chemicals for consumption that violate the security of a person…not prohibited?

MSN takes a stab at the FDA in their “10 Best Foods” article:

Purslane

Although the FDA classifies purslane as a broad-leaved weed, it’s a popular vegetable and herb in many other countries, including China, Mexico, and Greece.

Why it’s healthy: Purslane has the highest amount of heart-healthy omega-3 fats of any edible plant, according to researchers at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The scientists also report that this herb has 10 to 20 times more melatonin – an antioxidant that may inhibit cancer growth – than any other fruit or vegetable tested.

What makes a weed a weed? Or what makes it a “pervasive weed (the 7th worst, worldwide)” when it also is a nutritious food source?