Green-Eyed Guide's Top 7 Thanksgiving TV Scenes

In my family, we're not allowed to mention Christmas until the day after Thanksgiving. My mom always stressed that we were to spend at least a month being thankful for what we already had before even considering what to add to our Christmas lists. It is in that spirit that I've decided to devote a blog to the Thanksgiving TV moments I'm most grateful for. Feel free to share your own favorites.

ONE -- Pardoning a Turkey

C.J.
They sent me two turkeys. The most photo-friendly of the two gets a 
Presidential pardon and a full life at a children’s zoo. The runner-up gets eaten.

BARTLET
If the Oscars were like that, I’d watch.

http://youtu.be/fcCgmjqDA7k

TWO -- Monica Dances with Turkey

http://youtu.be/hGQCcjp9aiA

THREE -- Look Behind You

http://westwing.wikia.com/wiki/The_Indians_in_the_Lobby

Honestly, the whole episode of "Indians in the Lobby" is hilarious, entertaining and insightful. The next one is another scene from that same episode.

 

FOUR -- The Butterball Hotline

BARTLET
Stuffing should be stuffed inside the turkey, am I correct?

WOMAN
It can also be baked in the casserole dish.

BARTLET
Well, then we'd have to call it something else, wouldn't we?

This scene is also funny to me because I remember studying the two microbes the Hotline Lady mentions. My response to when first learning about them was pretty much the same as President Bartlet's. 

http://youtu.be/4TcGEcKjSu4?t=1m20s

FIVE -- Pilgrim Detectives and Butchering the English Language

http://youtu.be/xsVkCz9MM-Q

This scene is also from the episode Shibboleth, and this scene lays the groundwork for the scene I've put at Number ONE. 

SIX -- Chandler in a Box

http://youtu.be/Y3mPy-pnYRU?t=1m36s

SEVEN-- Brad Pitt on Friends

Really I just like this because f the irony of Brad Pitt dissing his then-girlfriend-now-ex Jennifer Anniston. There's a little truth to every joke, right?

http://youtu.be/n8OTYXkHwWk

 Happy Thanksgiving!

Please Like on Facebook

Follow on Twitter

Energy Drink of the Month -- Nov 2014: The NO Edition

This month I thought I'd switch it up and talk about the products I DON'T recommend. What they are and what they stand for bothers me. Some of the following products may be outdated, their formulas revamped or phased out entirely. Yet, my concern over these products is still valid as their wannabe's still live among us.

4 Caffeinated Products That Put the NO in NOvember

Read more-->

Naturally Confusing: 2 Things You Need to Know from New York Times Natural Debate

What does "natural" mean to you?  The Food Babe is at it again, and this time she's joining the debate over what "natural" food should look like.



"Would you eat poison ivy or E. coli? Natural does NOT necessarily mean quality." - Food Advocates Communicating Through Science



Is the solution to ban this controversial word from all labels? Probably not, but we should be more concise with the word's implications. FoodInsight.org provides us with perspective:

Naturally Confusing: Two Things You Need to Know from New York Times Natural Debate

Food Science in the News - the INFORMATION edition

Do you believe "information is power" or "ignorance is bliss"? In my opinion, it depends on whether we're talking about accurate or misleading information. I bring you two news stories which both involve providing more information to the consumer, and let you decide whether this information helps you in any way.

Food Science in the News - Information is Power
Nutritional Outlook recently posted an article describing the results of a test on different Front of Pack label formats. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation conducted a study in which they gave consumers four different packages, quizzed them on the nutrient amounts, and asked them which labeling system they preferred. Here were the options, excerpted from the Nutritional Outlook article (full article here):

"The study asked participants to look at four different packages, each featuring a nutrition facts panel as well as a unique FOP label:
1) a control version without any nutrition information on the FOP,
2) an FOP listing calories only,
3) an FOP listing calories plus nutrients to limit, and
4) an FOP listing calories, nutrients to limit, as well as nutrients to encourage.
After looking at these labels, participants were asked to identify the nutrient amounts and percent daily values per serving in each product, rate the ease at which they were able to answer those questions, and pick which product was the best choice nutritionally."

*SPOILER ALERT* the fourth option won. The key here is not just providing the information, but also answering the question, "What am I supposed to do with this information?" Information is almost always useless without context.

Food Science in the News - Ignorance is Bliss
If you haven't heard this story yet, give it time. This is just the type of story that mass media loves to jump all over-- a new tool to help consumers with their food choices, combined with the right amount of fear-tactics.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG, not to be confused with Eric Will Gymnastics aka my second home) recently published a food database which contains a scoring system for nutrition, ingredients of concern, and degree of processing. Every product in the database has an overall score, which consumers can use to find "greener, healthier and cleaner food choices." A database like this is a phenomenal tool with the potential to help consumers identify smarter choices for themselves and their families.

How "healthy" is this?

HOWEVER, anytime a database involves a rating system, it must also have specific criteria to remove the gray areas for assigning a one score or another. Case in point, how would you rate a vegetable smoothie that has 47g of sugar and contains ingredients with inherently high heavy metal counts (think seaweed) and pathogenic bacterial contamination (think leafy greens and E coli)? What metrics do you use to weight the severity of the "ingredients of concern"? Any ingredient also found in a yoga mat is obviously toxic, but what about salt? Sugar? Caffeine? For the degree of processing ranking, what about raw milk and the dangers associated with it's lack of processing?
I urge you to read the short rebuttal to the EWG ratings system from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (available here). A few of their most crucial points are excerpted below:

“The Environmental Working Group’s food ratings are severely flawed and will only provide consumers with misinformation about the food and beverage products they trust and enjoy. The methodology employed by EWG to develop their new food ratings is void of the scientific rigor and objectivity that should be devoted to any effort to provide consumers with reliable nutrition and food safety information. Their ratings are based almost entirely on assumptions they made about the amount, value, and safety of ingredients in the products they rate. Adding insult to injury, EWG conducted no tests to confirm the validity of any of their assumptions. Not only will the EWG ratings provide consumers with inaccurate and misleading information, they will also falsely alarm and confuse consumers about their product choices. Embedded in the ratings are EWG’s extreme and scientifically unfounded views on everything from low-calorie sweeteners to the nutritional value of organic foods.”

BOTTOM LINE

Information can be empowering, when provided in the right context. Watch out for fear tactics and overly simplified assumptions as to what constitutes "healthy food." As I tell myself every time I do a Risk Assessment for a new ingredient, CONSIDER THE SOURCE. Also, "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

Related Posts and Links:
I Ate the Whole Thing - Food Label Renovation perspective
FACTS and Fear - how they influence consumer perception
The Dosage Makes the Difference - Lessons from the Father of Toxicology

Help us get to 50 Likes on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/energydrinkguide
Schedule a 1-on-1 with the GreenEyedGuide on Google Helpouts
 

Berkeley Passes first US Soda Tax - Food Science in the News

As reported by Nutritional Outlook, Berkeley has passed a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

While this could be a good pilot study for the rest of the country, what works for Berkeley may not work for other cities that aren't as notorious for being health-conscious.

Furthermore, it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted that Measure D does not apply to 100% fruit juices. I get that we want to encourage fruit (juice?) consumption, but I say if excess sugar consumption is bad for one's health, then all beverages with more than, say, 15g ADDED sugar per 8 ounces should be included in this tax. Note, this is where the Added Sugar Labeling format proposed by the FDA would come in handy.

This is just my opinion. I need to "pull a Hermione" and do some more research on this subject. More to come.

Read the full Nutritional Outlook article here.