First, A DISCLAIMER:
Chef is not now, has never been, and probably never will be a vegetarian. However, some of my best friends are. I'm even friendly with a vegan or two. So this is not about ME. If you're one of those who is absolutely clueless about what a vegetarian is or why any sane person would want to be one, read on.
Meatless Like Me
I may be a vegetarian, but I still love the smell of bacon.
By Taylor Clark
Every vegetarian remembers his first time. Not the unremarkable event of his first meal without meat, mind you. No, I mean the first time he casually lets slip that he's turned herbivore, prompting everyone in earshot to stare at him as if he just revealed plans to sail his carrot-powered plasma yacht to Neptune. For me, this first time came at an Elks scholarship luncheon in rural Oregon when I was 18. All day, I'd succeeded at seeming a promising and responsible young man, until that fateful moment when someone asked why I hadn't taken any meat from the buffet. After I offered my reluctant explanation—and the guy announced it to the entire room—30 people went eerily quiet, undoubtedly expecting me to launch into a speech on the virtues of hemp. In the corner, an elderly, suited man glared at me as he slowly raised a slice of bologna and executed the most menacing bite of cold cut in recorded history. I didn't get the scholarship.
I tell this story not to win your pity but to illustrate a point: I've been vegetarian for a decade, and when it comes up, I still get a look of confused horror that says, "But you seemed so … normal." The U.S. boasts more than 10 million herbivores today, yet most Americans assume that every last one is a loopy, self-satisfied health fanatic, hellbent on draining all the joy out of life. Those of us who want to avoid the social nightmare have to hide our vegetarianism like an Oxycontin addiction, because admit it, omnivores: You know nothing about us. Do we eat fish? Will we panic if confronted with a hamburger? Are we dying of malnutrition? You have no clue. So read on, my flesh-eating friends—I believe it's high time we cleared a few things up.
To demonstrate what a vegetarian really is, let's begin with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a completely normal person with completely normal food cravings, someone who has a broad range of friends, enjoys a good time, is carbon-based, and so on. Now remove from this person's diet anything that once had eyes, and, wham!, you have yourself a vegetarian. Normal person, no previously ocular food, end of story. Some people call themselves vegetarians and still eat chicken or fish, but unless we're talking about the kind of salmon that comes freshly plucked from the vine, this makes you an omnivore. A select few herbivores go one step further and avoid all animal products—milk, eggs, honey, leather—and they call themselves vegan, which rhymes with "tree men." These people are intense.
Vegetarians give up meat for a variety of ethical, environmental, and health reasons that are secondary to this essay's goal of increasing brotherly understanding, so I'll mostly set them aside. Suffice it to say that one day, I suddenly realized that I could never look a cow in the eyes, press a knocking gun to her temple, and pull the trigger without feeling I'd done something cruel and unnecessary. (Sure, if it's kill the cow or starve, then say your prayers, my bovine friend—but for now, it's not quite a mortal struggle to subsist on the other five food groups.) I am well-aware that even telling you this makes me seem like the kind of person who wants to break into your house and liberate your pet hamster—that is, like a PETA activist. Most vegetarians, though, would tell you that they appreciate the intentions of groups like PETA but not the obnoxious tactics. It's like this: We're all rooting for the same team, but they're the ones in face paint, bellowing obscenities at the umpire and flipping over every car with a Yankees bumper sticker. I have no designs on your Camry or your hamster.
Now, when I say that vegetarians are normal people with normal food cravings, many omnivores will hoist a lamb shank in triumph and point out that you can hardly call yourself normal if the aroma of, say, sizzling bacon doesn't fill you with deepest yearning. To which I reply: We're not insane. We know meat tastes good; it's why there's a freezer case at your supermarket full of woefully inadequate meat substitutes. Believe me, if obtaining bacon didn't require slaughtering a pig, I'd have a BLT in each hand right now with a bacon layer cake waiting in the fridge for dessert. But, that said, I can also tell you that with some time away from the butcher's section, many meat products start to seem gross. Ground beef in particular now strikes me as absolutely revolting; I have a vague memory that hamburgers taste good, but the idea of taking a cow's leg, mulching it into a fatty pulp, and forming it into a pancake makes me gag. And hot dogs … I mean, hot dogs? You do know what that is, right?
As a consolation prize we get tofu, a treasure most omnivores are more than happy to do without. Well, this may stun you, but I'm not any more excited about a steaming heap of unseasoned tofu blobs than you are. Tofu is like fugu blowfish sushi: Prepared correctly, it's delicious; prepared incorrectly, it's lethal. Very early in my vegetarian career, I found myself famished and stuck in a mall, so I wandered over to the food court's Asian counter. When I asked the teenage chief culinary artisan what was in the tofu stir-fry, he snorted and replied, "Shit." Desperation made me order it anyway, and I can tell you that promises have rarely been more loyally kept than this guy's pledge that the tofu would taste like shit. So here's a tip: Unless you know you're in expert hands (Thai restaurants are a good bet), don't even try tofu. Otherwise, it's your funeral.
As long as we're discussing restaurants, allow me a quick word with the hardworking chefs at America's dining establishments. We really appreciate that you included a vegetarian option on your menu (and if you didn't, is our money not green?), but it may interest you to know that most of us are not salad freaks on a grim slog for nourishment. We actually enjoy food, especially the kind that tastes good. So enough with the bland vegetable dishes, and, for God's sake, please make the Gardenburgers stop; it's stunning how many restaurants lavish unending care on their meat dishes yet are content to throw a flavorless hockey puck from Costco into the microwave and call it cuisine. Every vegetarian is used to slim pickings when dining out, so we're not asking for much—just for something you'd like to eat. I'll even offer a handy trick. Pretend you're trapped in a kitchen stocked with every ingredient imaginable, from asiago to zucchini, but with zero meat. With no flesh available, picture what you'd make for yourself; this is what we want, too.
For those kind-hearted omnivores who willingly invite feral vegetarians into their homes for dinner parties and barbecues (really! we do that, too!), the same rule applies—but also know that unless you're dealing with an herbivore who is a prick for unrelated reasons, we don't expect you to bend over backward for us.
In fact, if we get the sense that you cooked for three extra hours to accommodate our dietary preferences, we will marvel at your considerate nature, but we will also feel insanely guilty. Similarly, it's very thoughtful of you to ask whether it'll bother me if I see you eat meat, but don't worry: I'm not going to compose an epic poem about your club sandwich.
Which leads me to a vital point for friendly omnivore-herbivore relations. As you're enjoying that pork loin next to me, I am not silently judging you. I realize that anyone who has encountered the breed of smug vegetarian who says things like, "I can hear your lunch screaming," will find this tough to believe, but I'm honestly not out to convert you. My girlfriend and my closest pals all eat meat, and they'll affirm that I've never even raised an eyebrow about it. Now, do I think it strange that the same people who dress their dogs in berets and send them to day spas are often unfazed that an equally smart pig suffered and died to become their McMuffin? Yes, I do. (Or, to use a more pressing example, how many Americans will bemoan Eight Belles' fatal Kentucky Derby injury tonight at the dinner table between bites of beef?) Would I prefer it if we at least raised these animals humanely? Yes, I would.
Let's be honest, though: I'm not exactly St. Francis of Assisi over here, tenderly ministering to every chipmunk that crosses my path. I try to represent for the animal kingdom, but take a look at my shoes—they're made of leather, which, I am told by those with expert knowledge of the tanning process, comes from dead cows. This is the sort of revelation that prompts meat boosters to pick up the triumphant lamb shank once again and accuse us of hypocrisy. Well, sort of. (Hey, you try to find a pair of nonleather dress shoes.) My dedication to the cause might be incomplete, but I'd still say that doing something beats doing nothing. It's kind of like driving a hybrid: not a solution to the global-warming dilemma but a decent start. Let's just say that at the dinner table, I roll in a Prius.
Finally, grant me one more cordial request: Please don't try to convince us that being vegetarian is somehow wrong. If you're concerned for my health, that's very nice, though you can rest assured that I'm in shipshape. If you want to have an amiable tête-à-tête about vegetarianism, that's great. But if you insist on being the aggressive blowhard who takes meatlessness as a personal insult and rails about what fools we all are, you're only going to persuade me that you're a dickhead. When someone says he's Catholic, you probably don't start the stump speech about how God is a lie created to enslave the ignorant masses, and it's equally offensive to berate an herbivore. I know you think we're crazy. That's neat. But seeing as I've endured the hassle of being a vegetarian for several years now, perhaps I've given this a little thought. So let's just agree to disagree and get on with making fun of Hillary Clinton's inability to operate a coffee machine.
Because, really, peace and understanding are what it's all about: your porterhouse and my portobello coexisting in perfect harmony—though preferably not touching. We're actually not so different, after all, my omnivorous chums. In fact, I like to think that when an omnivore looks in the mirror, he just sees a vegetarian who happens to eat meat. Or, no, wait, maybe the mirror sees the omnivore through the prism of flesh and realizes we all have a crystalline animal soul, you know?
This is excellent weed, by the way, if you want a hit. Hey, while you're here: Have I ever told you about hemp?
Taylor Clark is a writer based in Portland. His first book, Starbucked: A Double Tall Tale of Caffeine, Commerce, and Culture,was published in November.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Chicago Lifts Ban On Foie Gras
CHICAGO (AFP) — For nearly two years, foie gras fans in Hogtown slipped into "duckeasies" to indulge in a banned delight.
That all changed Wednesday when Chicago's city council repealed a prohibition on the sale of the fatty duck and goose liver dish.
"It's fabulous!" said chef Didier Durand. "Break out the champagne!"
Durand has been a vocal opponent of the ban on the French delicacy and, like a handful of other renegade restaurateurs, got around the ordinance by serving it for free.
"Yes, I was a duckeasy," he admitted furtively, nervous about potential problems with a pending liquor license.
The word is a play on Chicago's famed 'speakeasies,' which secretly sold spirits during the 1920-1933 Prohibition era when alcohol sales were banned in the United States.
"We also had a club called Turtle Soup where people were handing (us) turtle business cards and that meant they wanted foie gras," Didier told AFP.
The French delicacy, which is made by force-feeding ducks and geese so their livers become enlarged, has been the focus of an intense international campaign against animal cruelty.
Force-feeding birds has been banned in 15 countries, including Germany, Italy, Israel and Britain, according to animal rights activists Farm Sanctuary which runs the nofoiegras.org website.
But Chicago -- which garnered the nickname Hogtown because of its once sprawling slaughter houses -- was the only governmental body in the world to impose a ban on the actual sale of foie gras.
Chicago's ban followed a bill introduced in California in 2004 that bans the sale and production of foie gras by 2012.
While the ban was passed by a vote of 48-to-1 after animal rights activists won over a city council committee, few fines were imposed on the defiant restaurants which continued to serve a dish that has been granted cultural heritage status by the French parliament.
The ban became a cause celebre among those who opposed government intervention in culinary decisions. One hot dog joint even named a wiener after the alderman who sponsored the bill and topped it with foie gras. It was among the few fined.
Mayor Richard Daley has repeatedly called the ban "silly" and said it made Chicago "the laughingstock of the nation" but was, until now, unable to convince council members to repeal the ban.
The Illinois Restaurant Association also failed to have the ban overturned in court.
The repeal passed Wednesday over the shouted objections of the ordinance's original sponsor by a vote of 37 to six after a council member forced it out of committee.
Alderman Joe Moore said he objected to the fact that the repeal was passed without debate and said he continues to support the ban despite the ridicule.
"It's a form of abject cruelty," he told AFP. "I felt and I still feel it is important to speak out against such forms of cruelty. Chicago's ordinance did just that. Unfortunately it was a step back for civilization."
Animal rights activists were equally dismayed.
"To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in our society - animals raised for food," said Julie Janovsky, director of campaigns for animal rights group Farm Sanctuary.
The ban will be stricken from the municipal code on June 10, city officials said.
That all changed Wednesday when Chicago's city council repealed a prohibition on the sale of the fatty duck and goose liver dish.
"It's fabulous!" said chef Didier Durand. "Break out the champagne!"
Durand has been a vocal opponent of the ban on the French delicacy and, like a handful of other renegade restaurateurs, got around the ordinance by serving it for free.
"Yes, I was a duckeasy," he admitted furtively, nervous about potential problems with a pending liquor license.
The word is a play on Chicago's famed 'speakeasies,' which secretly sold spirits during the 1920-1933 Prohibition era when alcohol sales were banned in the United States.
"We also had a club called Turtle Soup where people were handing (us) turtle business cards and that meant they wanted foie gras," Didier told AFP.
The French delicacy, which is made by force-feeding ducks and geese so their livers become enlarged, has been the focus of an intense international campaign against animal cruelty.
Force-feeding birds has been banned in 15 countries, including Germany, Italy, Israel and Britain, according to animal rights activists Farm Sanctuary which runs the nofoiegras.org website.
But Chicago -- which garnered the nickname Hogtown because of its once sprawling slaughter houses -- was the only governmental body in the world to impose a ban on the actual sale of foie gras.
Chicago's ban followed a bill introduced in California in 2004 that bans the sale and production of foie gras by 2012.
While the ban was passed by a vote of 48-to-1 after animal rights activists won over a city council committee, few fines were imposed on the defiant restaurants which continued to serve a dish that has been granted cultural heritage status by the French parliament.
The ban became a cause celebre among those who opposed government intervention in culinary decisions. One hot dog joint even named a wiener after the alderman who sponsored the bill and topped it with foie gras. It was among the few fined.
Mayor Richard Daley has repeatedly called the ban "silly" and said it made Chicago "the laughingstock of the nation" but was, until now, unable to convince council members to repeal the ban.
The Illinois Restaurant Association also failed to have the ban overturned in court.
The repeal passed Wednesday over the shouted objections of the ordinance's original sponsor by a vote of 37 to six after a council member forced it out of committee.
Alderman Joe Moore said he objected to the fact that the repeal was passed without debate and said he continues to support the ban despite the ridicule.
"It's a form of abject cruelty," he told AFP. "I felt and I still feel it is important to speak out against such forms of cruelty. Chicago's ordinance did just that. Unfortunately it was a step back for civilization."
Animal rights activists were equally dismayed.
"To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in our society - animals raised for food," said Julie Janovsky, director of campaigns for animal rights group Farm Sanctuary.
The ban will be stricken from the municipal code on June 10, city officials said.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sharing In The Office: How Much Is Too Much?
Posted on Forbes.com
Tara Weiss, 05.06.08, 5:00 PM ET:
The Monday morning ritual of asking co-workers what they did over the weekend isn't as ubiquitous as it used to be. If you're a Facebook user, you likely already know from reading their status updates and seeing photos posted throughout the weekend.
Not everyone is a Facebook user, but that same spirit of over-sharing is infecting the workplace. Thanks to Facebook, reality TV and personal blogs, it seems that a life not publicized isn't worth living.
Remember to think before you speak, or, er, post. Sure, sharing personal stories is vital to forming bonds at the office. But sharing too much, particularly inappropriate details of your life, can affect how you're viewed professionally.
The same goes for not sharing at all.
"Your colleagues are your professional family," says Barbara Pachter, co-author of New Rules @ Work and a business etiquette expert. "You want that connection, but ultimately you're also there for your career. That's where the balance needs to come in."
It also helps people understand who you are and where you come from. "It provides co-workers with insights and helps others deal with you," says Beverly Langford, author of The Etiquette Edge: The Unspoken Rules for Business Success. "If I know things about you it helps me know how to treat you. It also helps people form bonds because of commonalities. You realize that someone is more than just the person in finance or he's the marketing guy."
Pachter recalls working with a company where the sales manager rarely shared any personal details. He likely thought he was keeping a professional veneer, but when he left for a long weekend to get married and didn't tell any of his co-workers, they were offended. His co-workers didn't feel comfortable with him and, whenever possible, avoided working with him. As a result, he didn't get promotions and ultimately wound up leaving the company.
"What you're doing by not sharing is creating a sheet of black ice, and there's no way for anyone to feel connected to you," says Pachter. "In the absence of information, people will make things up that [are] often worse than the truth."
But be careful what you share. It's widely known that managers check social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace as part of the vetting process during hiring. Many say it's their way of examining a potential employee's ability to make sound choices. Blatant bad behavior aside, consider this: Do you want your boss or a potential boss to see images of you making out with your significant other or reading that blog post about your credit card debt? Don't think so.
"We leave a digital footprint that follows us wherever we go," says Dov Seidman, author of How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything…in Business (and in Life).
Since we spend so much time at the office and with co-workers, it's practically impossible not to share intimate personal details. But someone who is a friend at the same professional level as you today might be your boss tomorrow. If you frequently come into the office hung over and brag about how much you partied, you might not be their first choice for a teammate on an important project.
The same goes for sharing the details of a breakup. If you tell a colleague that you fall to pieces and require several days off after breakups, that person might avoid working with you.
When sharing with co-workers there are some guidelines. First, always be honest. You don't want to be branded untrustworthy.
Stay away from discussing politics with people with whom you aren't extremely close. Sharing deeply held political beliefs "can change people's opinions of you," says Pachter. Also, steer clear of issues that might start heated debates at work. It ratchets up the tension level with someone you have to see daily.
It might seem obvious, but stay away from talk of sex. Feel free to mention a nice date or that you're interested romantically in someone. But anything that involves taking clothes off is off-limits. Some people might take innocent sharing as sexual harassment. Also, news tends to travel fast in an office, so be prepared to have those intimate details shared with others you didn't intend to hear.
Religion is another touchy subject. It's fine to mention spending the holidays with family or that you're taking time off for a religious day, but don't go much deeper than that. Many consider religion extremely personal and don't want to be part of a conversation on a topic. But also, for those that aren't religious, hearing about your belief in God might change their opinion of you.
Finally, don't be the office complainer. There's nothing that turns a group of people off more than the office downer.
Tara Weiss, 05.06.08, 5:00 PM ET:
The Monday morning ritual of asking co-workers what they did over the weekend isn't as ubiquitous as it used to be. If you're a Facebook user, you likely already know from reading their status updates and seeing photos posted throughout the weekend.
Not everyone is a Facebook user, but that same spirit of over-sharing is infecting the workplace. Thanks to Facebook, reality TV and personal blogs, it seems that a life not publicized isn't worth living.
Remember to think before you speak, or, er, post. Sure, sharing personal stories is vital to forming bonds at the office. But sharing too much, particularly inappropriate details of your life, can affect how you're viewed professionally.
The same goes for not sharing at all.
"Your colleagues are your professional family," says Barbara Pachter, co-author of New Rules @ Work and a business etiquette expert. "You want that connection, but ultimately you're also there for your career. That's where the balance needs to come in."
It also helps people understand who you are and where you come from. "It provides co-workers with insights and helps others deal with you," says Beverly Langford, author of The Etiquette Edge: The Unspoken Rules for Business Success. "If I know things about you it helps me know how to treat you. It also helps people form bonds because of commonalities. You realize that someone is more than just the person in finance or he's the marketing guy."
Pachter recalls working with a company where the sales manager rarely shared any personal details. He likely thought he was keeping a professional veneer, but when he left for a long weekend to get married and didn't tell any of his co-workers, they were offended. His co-workers didn't feel comfortable with him and, whenever possible, avoided working with him. As a result, he didn't get promotions and ultimately wound up leaving the company.
"What you're doing by not sharing is creating a sheet of black ice, and there's no way for anyone to feel connected to you," says Pachter. "In the absence of information, people will make things up that [are] often worse than the truth."
But be careful what you share. It's widely known that managers check social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace as part of the vetting process during hiring. Many say it's their way of examining a potential employee's ability to make sound choices. Blatant bad behavior aside, consider this: Do you want your boss or a potential boss to see images of you making out with your significant other or reading that blog post about your credit card debt? Don't think so.
"We leave a digital footprint that follows us wherever we go," says Dov Seidman, author of How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything…in Business (and in Life).
Since we spend so much time at the office and with co-workers, it's practically impossible not to share intimate personal details. But someone who is a friend at the same professional level as you today might be your boss tomorrow. If you frequently come into the office hung over and brag about how much you partied, you might not be their first choice for a teammate on an important project.
The same goes for sharing the details of a breakup. If you tell a colleague that you fall to pieces and require several days off after breakups, that person might avoid working with you.
When sharing with co-workers there are some guidelines. First, always be honest. You don't want to be branded untrustworthy.
Stay away from discussing politics with people with whom you aren't extremely close. Sharing deeply held political beliefs "can change people's opinions of you," says Pachter. Also, steer clear of issues that might start heated debates at work. It ratchets up the tension level with someone you have to see daily.
It might seem obvious, but stay away from talk of sex. Feel free to mention a nice date or that you're interested romantically in someone. But anything that involves taking clothes off is off-limits. Some people might take innocent sharing as sexual harassment. Also, news tends to travel fast in an office, so be prepared to have those intimate details shared with others you didn't intend to hear.
Religion is another touchy subject. It's fine to mention spending the holidays with family or that you're taking time off for a religious day, but don't go much deeper than that. Many consider religion extremely personal and don't want to be part of a conversation on a topic. But also, for those that aren't religious, hearing about your belief in God might change their opinion of you.
Finally, don't be the office complainer. There's nothing that turns a group of people off more than the office downer.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Could "Healthy Eating" Lead to Malnutrition?
From The Times
May 2, 2008
Too much healthy eating is as bad for children as too much junk
It is no surprise that children love junk food. Its makers go to great lengths to make sure that their offerings deliver a full-on, unsubtle assault on taste buds, with plenty of salt or sugar to create the sense that it is “tasty”.
But a significant proportion of our nation's children are worryingly chubby and heading for potential obesity problems in later life, it seems that others are suffering from “muesli belt malnutrition”: the overzealous application of “healthy eating” rules imposed on their daily food intake. A recent study warns us that too much fibre and too little fat can lead to vitamin deficiencies and stunts growth in the under-fives.
This means that young children who have wholemeal bread, brown pasta and piles of fruit imposed on them are getting too full too quickly and do not have room for enough foods such as dairy products, meat, eggs and fish, which have vital nutrients for growth and development.
So how do we strike a balance? Children thrive on a good variety of foods, which includes grains and potatoes such as bread, pasta, noodles, rice and all varieties of potatoes; calcium-rich foods such as milk, yoghurt, fish canned with edible bones such as pilchards; protein-rich foods such as eggs, chicken and turkey, red meat and Quorn products; plus a variety of different fruit and vegetables. The million-dollar question is how much should they have of each at various ages.
This to some extent varies with the size and appetite of your child. The World Health Organisation has provided some useful parameters.
Lower-fat milk
You can start giving toddlers semi-skimmed milk from the age of 2. Fully skimmed milk is not suitable as a main drink until they are 5, because it doesn't contain enough calories for a growing child.
Fish
Because oily fish such as mackerel, salmon and sardines contain residues of pollutants such as dioxins and PCBs, the Food Standards Agency advises that you can give boys up to four portions a week, but that girls should have no more than two a week, because the residues can build up in their bodies over the years and can affect reproductive functions in later life. Shark, swordfish and marlin contain relatively high levels of mercury, which may affect a child's developing nervous system, so these should be avoided.
Eggs and nuts
Toddlers should have their eggs well cooked until the white and yolk are solid to avoid salmonella, while nuts for children under 5 should be given only crushed or flaked to reduce the risk of choking.
Wholegrain foods
Definitely do not add bran to children's foods and avoid giving very young children wholemeal pasta and brown rice. Too much fibre can sometimes reduce the amount of minerals, such as calcium and iron, that they can absorb and leave them feeling bloated and too full to finish their meal. By the time they are 5, young children can gradually be weaned on to wholegrain versions of cereals.
What about salt?
There is no need to add salt to the food of children under the age of three. Children in the UK manage to chomp their way through as much as 10-12g of salt daily and yet under the age of 7, children should have no more than 3g of salt each day and those between 7 and 10 no more than 5g. Once over 11, like adults, they should have no more than 6g of salt daily. Current high intakes can damage their developing kidneys and store up potential blood pressure and heart disease problems.
How much sugar?
Our children are getting about 17 per cent of their daily calories from sugar when they should, like adults, be getting no more than 10per cent. This means that four to six-year-olds should eat no more than 40g of sugar a day; seven to ten-year-olds no more than 46g and 11 to 14-year-olds no more than 50g.
If you limit children's consumption of sweets, chocolate and biscuits, along with fizzy drinks and squashes, you will cut their sugar intake. But honey in flapjacks, fruit syrup added to “orange drinks”, glucose syrup in breakfast cereals and dextrose in fromage frais all also count towards sugar intake and also need to be watched.
A good rule of thumb is to look on the nutrition label. Foods and drinks with less than 2g per 100g of sugars (this figure will include all the various forms in which sugar comes) is low in sugar, while any with more than 10g is high.
May 2, 2008
Too much healthy eating is as bad for children as too much junk
It is no surprise that children love junk food. Its makers go to great lengths to make sure that their offerings deliver a full-on, unsubtle assault on taste buds, with plenty of salt or sugar to create the sense that it is “tasty”.
But a significant proportion of our nation's children are worryingly chubby and heading for potential obesity problems in later life, it seems that others are suffering from “muesli belt malnutrition”: the overzealous application of “healthy eating” rules imposed on their daily food intake. A recent study warns us that too much fibre and too little fat can lead to vitamin deficiencies and stunts growth in the under-fives.
This means that young children who have wholemeal bread, brown pasta and piles of fruit imposed on them are getting too full too quickly and do not have room for enough foods such as dairy products, meat, eggs and fish, which have vital nutrients for growth and development.
So how do we strike a balance? Children thrive on a good variety of foods, which includes grains and potatoes such as bread, pasta, noodles, rice and all varieties of potatoes; calcium-rich foods such as milk, yoghurt, fish canned with edible bones such as pilchards; protein-rich foods such as eggs, chicken and turkey, red meat and Quorn products; plus a variety of different fruit and vegetables. The million-dollar question is how much should they have of each at various ages.
This to some extent varies with the size and appetite of your child. The World Health Organisation has provided some useful parameters.
Lower-fat milk
You can start giving toddlers semi-skimmed milk from the age of 2. Fully skimmed milk is not suitable as a main drink until they are 5, because it doesn't contain enough calories for a growing child.
Fish
Because oily fish such as mackerel, salmon and sardines contain residues of pollutants such as dioxins and PCBs, the Food Standards Agency advises that you can give boys up to four portions a week, but that girls should have no more than two a week, because the residues can build up in their bodies over the years and can affect reproductive functions in later life. Shark, swordfish and marlin contain relatively high levels of mercury, which may affect a child's developing nervous system, so these should be avoided.
Eggs and nuts
Toddlers should have their eggs well cooked until the white and yolk are solid to avoid salmonella, while nuts for children under 5 should be given only crushed or flaked to reduce the risk of choking.
Wholegrain foods
Definitely do not add bran to children's foods and avoid giving very young children wholemeal pasta and brown rice. Too much fibre can sometimes reduce the amount of minerals, such as calcium and iron, that they can absorb and leave them feeling bloated and too full to finish their meal. By the time they are 5, young children can gradually be weaned on to wholegrain versions of cereals.
What about salt?
There is no need to add salt to the food of children under the age of three. Children in the UK manage to chomp their way through as much as 10-12g of salt daily and yet under the age of 7, children should have no more than 3g of salt each day and those between 7 and 10 no more than 5g. Once over 11, like adults, they should have no more than 6g of salt daily. Current high intakes can damage their developing kidneys and store up potential blood pressure and heart disease problems.
How much sugar?
Our children are getting about 17 per cent of their daily calories from sugar when they should, like adults, be getting no more than 10per cent. This means that four to six-year-olds should eat no more than 40g of sugar a day; seven to ten-year-olds no more than 46g and 11 to 14-year-olds no more than 50g.
If you limit children's consumption of sweets, chocolate and biscuits, along with fizzy drinks and squashes, you will cut their sugar intake. But honey in flapjacks, fruit syrup added to “orange drinks”, glucose syrup in breakfast cereals and dextrose in fromage frais all also count towards sugar intake and also need to be watched.
A good rule of thumb is to look on the nutrition label. Foods and drinks with less than 2g per 100g of sugars (this figure will include all the various forms in which sugar comes) is low in sugar, while any with more than 10g is high.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Congratulations to Class #49!
Class #49 of the Second Helpings Culinary Job Training Program graduated on Friday, May 2, 2008. CONGRATULATIONS to the graduates!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Do We Vote What We Eat?
What’s for Dinner? The Pollster Wants to Know
By Kim Severson
IF there’s butter and white wine in your refrigerator and Fig Newtons in the cookie jar, you’re likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. Prefer olive oil, Bear Naked granola and a latte to go? You probably like Barack Obama, too.
And if you’re leaning toward John McCain, it’s all about kicking back with a bourbon and a stuffed crust pizza while you watch the Democrats fight it out next week in Pennsylvania.
If what we eat says a lot about who we are, it also says something about how we might vote.
Although precincts and polls are being parsed, the political advisers to the presidential candidates are also looking closely at consumer behavior, including how people eat, as a way to scavenge for votes. The practice is called microtargeting, as much political discipline as buzzword. The idea is that in the brand-driven United States, what we buy and how we spend our free time is a good predictor of our politics.
Political strategists slice and dice the electorate into small segments, starting with traditional demographics like age and income, then mixing consumer information like whether you prefer casinos or cruises, hunting or cooking, a Prius or a pickup.
Once they find small groups of like-minded people, campaigns can efficiently send customized phone, e-mail or direct mail messages to potential supporters, avoiding inefficient one-size-fits-all mailings. Pockets of support that might have gone unnoticed can be ferreted out.
“This is essentially the way Williams-Sonoma knows which of its catalogs to send you,” said Christopher Mann of MSHC Partners, a political communications firm, which has used microtargeting to help dozens of successful candidates, including Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington and Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
Although gender, religion and other basic personal data are much more valuable for pollsters, information about eating — along with travel and hobbies — are in the second tier of data used to predict how someone might vote, he said.
So, for example, Mr. Mann knows that someone who subscribes to lots of gourmet cooking magazines is more likely to be a Democrat or at least more open to progressive causes. That can help a campaign decide if it’s worth spending money courting that person’s vote.
Although Karl Rove was not the first to use microtargeting in a campaign, he brought it to new levels of sophistication and prominence, dividing swing voters into groups like “tax and terrorism moderates.” The strategy helped send George Bush back to the White House in 2004. Matthew Dowd, the former chief strategist for President Bush who is now a political commentator for ABC, helped orchestrate that effort. The Bush team studied food preferences, among dozens of other traits, as a shortcut to finding independents who might lean Republican, he said.
For example, Dr Pepper is a Republican soda. Pepsi-Cola and Sprite are Democratic. So are most clear liquors, like gin and vodka, along with white wine and Evian water. Republicans skew toward brown liquors like bourbon or scotch, red wine and Fiji water.
When it comes to fried chicken, he said, Democrats prefer Popeyes and Republicans Chick-fil-A.
“Anything organic or more Whole Foods-y skews more Democratic,” Mr. Dowd said.
But consumer information has to be studied in context. “I don’t know how much you can use food or drink alone to determine how they will vote,” he said. “You can’t have a candidate with a Pepsi-Cola and Pizza Hut box and think that’s going to win an election for you.” Jeff Navin, managing director of American Environics, a progressive research and strategy firm, agrees.
“Knowing that your base drinks gin doesn’t give you a clear idea on how to communicate with them effectively on issues,” he said. “But if you take it a level deeper and say, are there psychological drivers that will help understand the values behind the behavior, you can speak to those values and persuade voters.”
Mr. Navin offers an example from his firm’s ongoing survey that periodically asks 1,800 people in-depth questions about their lives. In last summer’s polling, the latest available, Mrs. Clinton scored high among voters who also had favorable views of McDonalds, Wal-Mart and Starbucks.
That led his team to conclude that Clinton supporters put a high value on national brands.
Although the landscape in the Democratic race has shifted since the poll was conducted, Mr. Navin said, back then the name Clinton was the most popular national Democratic brand.
Mark Penn, a microtargeting expert who was dismissed as chief strategist for the Clinton campaign last week, wrote a book on the subject: “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes” (Twelve, 2007).
Although Mr. Penn, who claims credit for coining the term “soccer mom,” didn’t specifically seek out research on the dining habits of voters, he does use food as a way to define the candidates.
Specifically, he points to Mr. Obama’s comments about the rising price of arugula at Whole Foods during a campaign stop in Iowa. “He has more of the arugula vote,” he said in an e-mail message last week. “Senator Clinton’s voters are more likely to be making ends meet and so they do a lot more cooking at home and a lot less eating out at expensive restaurants.”
Although Mr. Obama’s team is also using consumer data to target voters, the campaign is focusing more on what one adviser called “macrotargeting.” The idea is to build a unified, all-encompassing Obama brand that works well across all kinds of media platforms. “I would say we’re old-fashioned in that you have to look at America as a whole,” said Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s national press secretary.
That’s not to say they don’t have specific information about voters, he said. And the campaign isn’t above using food to gain an edge. After the founders of Ben and Jerry’s endorsed Mr. Obama, the campaign blog quickly suggested a new ice cream flavor that plays off of a favorite campaign slogan: Yes, Pecan!
Whether a campaign uses a lot or a little consumer information, it can cause trouble if not interpreted correctly, some political veterans cautioned.
An environmentally minded independent who trends Democratic might buy organic milk, but so might an independent conservative who is more concerned about the health of her children than the state of the earth. They buy the same product, but for different reasons. Send an environmental message to the conservative and you could lose her vote.
That’s why some, notably James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, see microtargeting as a waste of time and money. Although he believes the cost of food is a fast-rising issue among voters, knowing what they eat doesn’t win elections.
“Suppose I found out people who drink cappuccinos are Democrats and black coffee drinkers are likely to vote Republican?” he asked. “So what? All kinds of other things are more predictive and less expensive to find out.”
Besides, the lines between who eats what continues to blur. Republicans are not necessarily red-meat-eating bourbon swillers, and not all Democrats are carrying their lattes to the farmers’ market.
Mr. Mann recently saw someone on a Metro train in Washington with a Bush/Cheney sticker on his bag reading “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle,” Barbara Kingsolver's meditation on eating local food.
Some people who cook and serve food have been students of microtargeting for years. JoAnn Clevenger, the owner of the Upperline restaurant in New Orleans, doesn’t need a data set to identify how customers might vote. She just watches what they order.
“The Republicans are more formal and have more attention to structure when they eat,” she said. The classic example would be her delicate trout meunière.
Democrats tend to order earthy, down-home food with lots of juice for sopping, like Cane River country shrimp with garlic, bacon and mushrooms.
But lately she’s seen a lot of interest from both sides for her Oysters St. Claude. The oysters are coated with corn flour, gently fried and then slipped back into their shells and covered with an adventurous, Morrocan-style sauce seasoned with ground whole lemons, garlic, cayenne and paprika.
It’s the ultimate crossover dish, and she believes it’s popular this year because voters are being pulled in several directions.
“You have a respect and a yearning for the past,” she said, “but a feeling like you want something new and exciting that says let’s go all the way.”
By Kim Severson
IF there’s butter and white wine in your refrigerator and Fig Newtons in the cookie jar, you’re likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. Prefer olive oil, Bear Naked granola and a latte to go? You probably like Barack Obama, too.
And if you’re leaning toward John McCain, it’s all about kicking back with a bourbon and a stuffed crust pizza while you watch the Democrats fight it out next week in Pennsylvania.
If what we eat says a lot about who we are, it also says something about how we might vote.
Although precincts and polls are being parsed, the political advisers to the presidential candidates are also looking closely at consumer behavior, including how people eat, as a way to scavenge for votes. The practice is called microtargeting, as much political discipline as buzzword. The idea is that in the brand-driven United States, what we buy and how we spend our free time is a good predictor of our politics.
Political strategists slice and dice the electorate into small segments, starting with traditional demographics like age and income, then mixing consumer information like whether you prefer casinos or cruises, hunting or cooking, a Prius or a pickup.
Once they find small groups of like-minded people, campaigns can efficiently send customized phone, e-mail or direct mail messages to potential supporters, avoiding inefficient one-size-fits-all mailings. Pockets of support that might have gone unnoticed can be ferreted out.
“This is essentially the way Williams-Sonoma knows which of its catalogs to send you,” said Christopher Mann of MSHC Partners, a political communications firm, which has used microtargeting to help dozens of successful candidates, including Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington and Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
Although gender, religion and other basic personal data are much more valuable for pollsters, information about eating — along with travel and hobbies — are in the second tier of data used to predict how someone might vote, he said.
So, for example, Mr. Mann knows that someone who subscribes to lots of gourmet cooking magazines is more likely to be a Democrat or at least more open to progressive causes. That can help a campaign decide if it’s worth spending money courting that person’s vote.
Although Karl Rove was not the first to use microtargeting in a campaign, he brought it to new levels of sophistication and prominence, dividing swing voters into groups like “tax and terrorism moderates.” The strategy helped send George Bush back to the White House in 2004. Matthew Dowd, the former chief strategist for President Bush who is now a political commentator for ABC, helped orchestrate that effort. The Bush team studied food preferences, among dozens of other traits, as a shortcut to finding independents who might lean Republican, he said.
For example, Dr Pepper is a Republican soda. Pepsi-Cola and Sprite are Democratic. So are most clear liquors, like gin and vodka, along with white wine and Evian water. Republicans skew toward brown liquors like bourbon or scotch, red wine and Fiji water.
When it comes to fried chicken, he said, Democrats prefer Popeyes and Republicans Chick-fil-A.
“Anything organic or more Whole Foods-y skews more Democratic,” Mr. Dowd said.
But consumer information has to be studied in context. “I don’t know how much you can use food or drink alone to determine how they will vote,” he said. “You can’t have a candidate with a Pepsi-Cola and Pizza Hut box and think that’s going to win an election for you.” Jeff Navin, managing director of American Environics, a progressive research and strategy firm, agrees.
“Knowing that your base drinks gin doesn’t give you a clear idea on how to communicate with them effectively on issues,” he said. “But if you take it a level deeper and say, are there psychological drivers that will help understand the values behind the behavior, you can speak to those values and persuade voters.”
Mr. Navin offers an example from his firm’s ongoing survey that periodically asks 1,800 people in-depth questions about their lives. In last summer’s polling, the latest available, Mrs. Clinton scored high among voters who also had favorable views of McDonalds, Wal-Mart and Starbucks.
That led his team to conclude that Clinton supporters put a high value on national brands.
Although the landscape in the Democratic race has shifted since the poll was conducted, Mr. Navin said, back then the name Clinton was the most popular national Democratic brand.
Mark Penn, a microtargeting expert who was dismissed as chief strategist for the Clinton campaign last week, wrote a book on the subject: “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes” (Twelve, 2007).
Although Mr. Penn, who claims credit for coining the term “soccer mom,” didn’t specifically seek out research on the dining habits of voters, he does use food as a way to define the candidates.
Specifically, he points to Mr. Obama’s comments about the rising price of arugula at Whole Foods during a campaign stop in Iowa. “He has more of the arugula vote,” he said in an e-mail message last week. “Senator Clinton’s voters are more likely to be making ends meet and so they do a lot more cooking at home and a lot less eating out at expensive restaurants.”
Although Mr. Obama’s team is also using consumer data to target voters, the campaign is focusing more on what one adviser called “macrotargeting.” The idea is to build a unified, all-encompassing Obama brand that works well across all kinds of media platforms. “I would say we’re old-fashioned in that you have to look at America as a whole,” said Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s national press secretary.
That’s not to say they don’t have specific information about voters, he said. And the campaign isn’t above using food to gain an edge. After the founders of Ben and Jerry’s endorsed Mr. Obama, the campaign blog quickly suggested a new ice cream flavor that plays off of a favorite campaign slogan: Yes, Pecan!
Whether a campaign uses a lot or a little consumer information, it can cause trouble if not interpreted correctly, some political veterans cautioned.
An environmentally minded independent who trends Democratic might buy organic milk, but so might an independent conservative who is more concerned about the health of her children than the state of the earth. They buy the same product, but for different reasons. Send an environmental message to the conservative and you could lose her vote.
That’s why some, notably James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, see microtargeting as a waste of time and money. Although he believes the cost of food is a fast-rising issue among voters, knowing what they eat doesn’t win elections.
“Suppose I found out people who drink cappuccinos are Democrats and black coffee drinkers are likely to vote Republican?” he asked. “So what? All kinds of other things are more predictive and less expensive to find out.”
Besides, the lines between who eats what continues to blur. Republicans are not necessarily red-meat-eating bourbon swillers, and not all Democrats are carrying their lattes to the farmers’ market.
Mr. Mann recently saw someone on a Metro train in Washington with a Bush/Cheney sticker on his bag reading “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle,” Barbara Kingsolver's meditation on eating local food.
Some people who cook and serve food have been students of microtargeting for years. JoAnn Clevenger, the owner of the Upperline restaurant in New Orleans, doesn’t need a data set to identify how customers might vote. She just watches what they order.
“The Republicans are more formal and have more attention to structure when they eat,” she said. The classic example would be her delicate trout meunière.
Democrats tend to order earthy, down-home food with lots of juice for sopping, like Cane River country shrimp with garlic, bacon and mushrooms.
But lately she’s seen a lot of interest from both sides for her Oysters St. Claude. The oysters are coated with corn flour, gently fried and then slipped back into their shells and covered with an adventurous, Morrocan-style sauce seasoned with ground whole lemons, garlic, cayenne and paprika.
It’s the ultimate crossover dish, and she believes it’s popular this year because voters are being pulled in several directions.
“You have a respect and a yearning for the past,” she said, “but a feeling like you want something new and exciting that says let’s go all the way.”
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Earthquake Safety
Do you know what to do during or immediately after an earthquake? Take this short (10 question) quiz to assess your knowledge of earthquake safety procedures.
http://www.nwcn.com/sharedcontent/features/flash/quake/during.html
http://www.nwcn.com/sharedcontent/features/flash/quake/during.html
Monday, April 14, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
A Chat with Julia Child's Nephew
By APRIL LISANTE Philadelphia Daily News
For the Daily News
SHE WAS brining, roasting, kneading and sautéing when Emeril Lagasse was in diapers, and Rachael Ray wasn't even a gleam in her parents' eyes.
At a time when cooking wasn't cool - and certainly not on television - Julia Child single-handedly pioneered a new gastronomic course for the world. But the familiar, larger-than-life persona of her celebrity years had humble beginnings as a shy, awkward, sometimes inept culinary student.
Though she is known mostly for the television fame she gained late in life, her love affair with French cooking began as a lark, a thirtysomething's determination to learn a few dishes to please her new husband.
Some of her most intimate culinary experiences as a young woman are captured in the memoir "My Life in France" (Knopf, $25.95), based on Child's dictations to her great-nephew, Alex Prud'homme, in the days before her 2004 death from kidney failure at age 91.
Prud'homme also used old letters, photos and handwritten recipes from Child and her husband, Paul, that passed through the family for decades to recreate Child's years in France, from 1948 to 1954, when she learned to cook.
She went to France with her worldly husband, a U.S. State Department employee who was 10 years her senior. Child's efforts to remedy her ineptitude in the kitchen and her lack of knowledge of French cuisine sparked an obsession that produced, well, historical results.
Prud'homme's book, published in 2006, has just been optioned by Sony Pictures for a movie starring Meryl Streep as Julia and Stanley Tucci as Paul. Nora Ephron - no slouch in the kitchen herself, and writer/director of films such as "Sleepless in Seattle" and "Heartburn" - will write and direct the film, scheduled for a 2009 release.
We chatted with Prud'homme, a freelance journalist and novelist who lectured at the Free Library of Philadelphia last month about the book, the movie and life with Child.
Q: Julia sort of fell into cooking, and in the book she is almost like an alien landing on another planet when she arrives in France. Tell me about what that was like for her.
A: These are stories she'd always talked about - the five years of her life when she was living in France with Paul after the war. She arrives not speaking French and not able to cook more than pancakes. And in typical Julia fashion, she signs up for French lessons. She becomes obsessed.
After a year, she signs up at the Cordon Bleu [cooking school] and learns to cook and how to teach and how to shop in the French way, which means not just buying a piece of meat wrapped in plastic. It means talking to the butcher and asking him about the weather and his daughter.
This was an important life lesson for her and for me. There are lessons embedded in these stories. We try not to hit the reader over the head with them, but they are simple and they can be applied to life. Take time, do things carefully, and, above all, have fun. It's a simple statement, but profound . . . I think it's going to be one of her enduring legacies, this positive, rigorous approach to life . . .
Q: Why are only the years from '48 to '54 the focus of the book?
A: This was the moment of epiphany for her. She arrives as a blank slate in her mid-'30s, she doesn't know what she wants to be when she grows up. She is with her husband, a sophisticated man, and he takes her to this important place at this moment in history.
Q: In the beginning of the book, she talks about her first meal in France when she arrives. It is bizarre to hear Julia Child talk about not knowing what a shallot is, or hearing about her shock that they drank wine at lunch.
A: She always referred to this meal [in the town of Rouen] in a dreamy way that she'd play in her mind over and over. One thing that was fascinating was how memory works. She was 91 at that point when she was talking about it, and her health was not great. Sometimes she could not remember what she did the day before, but she could remember specifics from 50 years earlier - the texture and taste of food and people and places she had seen.
Q: Did you get to know her well from this book-writing process?
A: I thought I knew her pretty well, but when you spend intense time going over things from 50 years ago . . . yes.
Q: What was it about French cooking in particular that drew her?
A: I could never get her to articulate what it was about French food that rang her bell. She loved Chinese food second best, but there was something about French food. We talked around this question, but she said it is the seriousness with which the French take the food - the ritual, the rules and the great pleasure in it.
Q: In the forward of the book, you mention that she and her husband talked about writing this book for a long time, and that you waited a long time for her to agree to do it. How did you finally convince her? Do you think it was her husband's death [in 1994] that convinced her?
A: The book is dedicated to Paul, and his photos illustrated her book. He had already experienced Paris in the 1920s as an artist. He really encouraged her [to learn to cook]. He pushed her. He was a teacher and important influence on her life. She was hoping to meet his high standards, but she took it and ran for it.
At first, I had a hard time getting her to tell me these stories . . . I'd say, "Julia tell me about your first building in Paris where you stayed." She'd say it was a building. It was odd because here's a person who spent her life on the stage performing, but she was actually a modest person who never talked about herself. She never got around to writing the book because she didn't want to toot her own horn.
Q: You were able to write the book mainly because of the letters Paul sent to your grandfather, his twin brother, during these years in France. How was it having all these letters to work with?
A: Paul was a wonderful writer, very descriptive. It was almost like he'd written these letters for us to use to write this book 50 years later. I felt like a pirate discovering a pile of gold coins. I was able to unlock Julia by reading her sections of Paul's letters and it would sort of transport her. . . . I think it was just luck that we were able to work on this thing together. Paul's stories got her going.
Once we got her ideas down on paper, I would go out to Santa Barbara and we'd do interviews in her little apartment from January 2004 to August for a few days each month. [Julia died two days after she and Prud'homme had met about the book for the last time.]
Then I took another year to finish the book and essentially be a ventriloquist. I had to take off my journalist hat and take on her voice. I just used stories she wanted to use. The tone we wanted to set was you [the readers] are sitting at a café table with Julia, and she is telling stories about her life.
Q: What do you think Julia would want the book to convey?
A: She was always modest and would downplay her evolution in American gastronomy. . . . She wants to inspire people. She wants people to love food and cooking and do it with others - to take food more seriously and to take the time to do it right. And above all, have fun.
Q: Are you excited about the movie?
A: Sony Pictures has optioned it and combined it with a book written by Julie Powell ["Julie & Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen," Little, Brown & Co.]. Powell spent a year recreating every recipe from Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." I am happy about that. I think Julia would be pleased. *
For the Daily News
SHE WAS brining, roasting, kneading and sautéing when Emeril Lagasse was in diapers, and Rachael Ray wasn't even a gleam in her parents' eyes.
At a time when cooking wasn't cool - and certainly not on television - Julia Child single-handedly pioneered a new gastronomic course for the world. But the familiar, larger-than-life persona of her celebrity years had humble beginnings as a shy, awkward, sometimes inept culinary student.
Though she is known mostly for the television fame she gained late in life, her love affair with French cooking began as a lark, a thirtysomething's determination to learn a few dishes to please her new husband.
Some of her most intimate culinary experiences as a young woman are captured in the memoir "My Life in France" (Knopf, $25.95), based on Child's dictations to her great-nephew, Alex Prud'homme, in the days before her 2004 death from kidney failure at age 91.
Prud'homme also used old letters, photos and handwritten recipes from Child and her husband, Paul, that passed through the family for decades to recreate Child's years in France, from 1948 to 1954, when she learned to cook.
She went to France with her worldly husband, a U.S. State Department employee who was 10 years her senior. Child's efforts to remedy her ineptitude in the kitchen and her lack of knowledge of French cuisine sparked an obsession that produced, well, historical results.
Prud'homme's book, published in 2006, has just been optioned by Sony Pictures for a movie starring Meryl Streep as Julia and Stanley Tucci as Paul. Nora Ephron - no slouch in the kitchen herself, and writer/director of films such as "Sleepless in Seattle" and "Heartburn" - will write and direct the film, scheduled for a 2009 release.
We chatted with Prud'homme, a freelance journalist and novelist who lectured at the Free Library of Philadelphia last month about the book, the movie and life with Child.
Q: Julia sort of fell into cooking, and in the book she is almost like an alien landing on another planet when she arrives in France. Tell me about what that was like for her.
A: These are stories she'd always talked about - the five years of her life when she was living in France with Paul after the war. She arrives not speaking French and not able to cook more than pancakes. And in typical Julia fashion, she signs up for French lessons. She becomes obsessed.
After a year, she signs up at the Cordon Bleu [cooking school] and learns to cook and how to teach and how to shop in the French way, which means not just buying a piece of meat wrapped in plastic. It means talking to the butcher and asking him about the weather and his daughter.
This was an important life lesson for her and for me. There are lessons embedded in these stories. We try not to hit the reader over the head with them, but they are simple and they can be applied to life. Take time, do things carefully, and, above all, have fun. It's a simple statement, but profound . . . I think it's going to be one of her enduring legacies, this positive, rigorous approach to life . . .
Q: Why are only the years from '48 to '54 the focus of the book?
A: This was the moment of epiphany for her. She arrives as a blank slate in her mid-'30s, she doesn't know what she wants to be when she grows up. She is with her husband, a sophisticated man, and he takes her to this important place at this moment in history.
Q: In the beginning of the book, she talks about her first meal in France when she arrives. It is bizarre to hear Julia Child talk about not knowing what a shallot is, or hearing about her shock that they drank wine at lunch.
A: She always referred to this meal [in the town of Rouen] in a dreamy way that she'd play in her mind over and over. One thing that was fascinating was how memory works. She was 91 at that point when she was talking about it, and her health was not great. Sometimes she could not remember what she did the day before, but she could remember specifics from 50 years earlier - the texture and taste of food and people and places she had seen.
Q: Did you get to know her well from this book-writing process?
A: I thought I knew her pretty well, but when you spend intense time going over things from 50 years ago . . . yes.
Q: What was it about French cooking in particular that drew her?
A: I could never get her to articulate what it was about French food that rang her bell. She loved Chinese food second best, but there was something about French food. We talked around this question, but she said it is the seriousness with which the French take the food - the ritual, the rules and the great pleasure in it.
Q: In the forward of the book, you mention that she and her husband talked about writing this book for a long time, and that you waited a long time for her to agree to do it. How did you finally convince her? Do you think it was her husband's death [in 1994] that convinced her?
A: The book is dedicated to Paul, and his photos illustrated her book. He had already experienced Paris in the 1920s as an artist. He really encouraged her [to learn to cook]. He pushed her. He was a teacher and important influence on her life. She was hoping to meet his high standards, but she took it and ran for it.
At first, I had a hard time getting her to tell me these stories . . . I'd say, "Julia tell me about your first building in Paris where you stayed." She'd say it was a building. It was odd because here's a person who spent her life on the stage performing, but she was actually a modest person who never talked about herself. She never got around to writing the book because she didn't want to toot her own horn.
Q: You were able to write the book mainly because of the letters Paul sent to your grandfather, his twin brother, during these years in France. How was it having all these letters to work with?
A: Paul was a wonderful writer, very descriptive. It was almost like he'd written these letters for us to use to write this book 50 years later. I felt like a pirate discovering a pile of gold coins. I was able to unlock Julia by reading her sections of Paul's letters and it would sort of transport her. . . . I think it was just luck that we were able to work on this thing together. Paul's stories got her going.
Once we got her ideas down on paper, I would go out to Santa Barbara and we'd do interviews in her little apartment from January 2004 to August for a few days each month. [Julia died two days after she and Prud'homme had met about the book for the last time.]
Then I took another year to finish the book and essentially be a ventriloquist. I had to take off my journalist hat and take on her voice. I just used stories she wanted to use. The tone we wanted to set was you [the readers] are sitting at a café table with Julia, and she is telling stories about her life.
Q: What do you think Julia would want the book to convey?
A: She was always modest and would downplay her evolution in American gastronomy. . . . She wants to inspire people. She wants people to love food and cooking and do it with others - to take food more seriously and to take the time to do it right. And above all, have fun.
Q: Are you excited about the movie?
A: Sony Pictures has optioned it and combined it with a book written by Julie Powell ["Julie & Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen," Little, Brown & Co.]. Powell spent a year recreating every recipe from Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." I am happy about that. I think Julia would be pleased. *
Second Helpings Celebrates 10 Years!
2008 marks the tenth anniversary of Second Helpings! Thanks to the great support of people like you, we are able to continue providing vital services to organizations in the Greater Indianapolis area. To celebrate our tenth year we are spreading the news about our mission of eliminating hunger and empowering people. Look for us in the following:
April issue of Indianapolis Woman magazine
Radio spots on 92.3 WTTS during the week of April 21, May 5, June 9, and June 23.
Television spots, in limited markets, during the week of April 14, April 28, June 2, and June 16 on the following networks:
History Channel
Discovery Channel
TBS
CNN
Don't forget to continue checking us out on the Web at ww.secondhelpings.org!
April issue of Indianapolis Woman magazine
Radio spots on 92.3 WTTS during the week of April 21, May 5, June 9, and June 23.
Television spots, in limited markets, during the week of April 14, April 28, June 2, and June 16 on the following networks:
History Channel
Discovery Channel
TBS
CNN
Don't forget to continue checking us out on the Web at ww.secondhelpings.org!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Taking "Customer Service" To a Whole New Level
TACOMA, Washington (CNN) -- At a time when she really needed a miracle, Annamarie Ausnes found one in an unusual place.
Last fall, Ausnes, 55, was one of nearly 75,000 Americans in need of a kidney. Today, she is recovering from a successful kidney transplant -- thanks to her local Starbucks barista.
Sandra Andersen only knew Ausnes as her upbeat morning customer who always ordered a short cup of coffee. What Andersen didn't know was that Ausnes suffers from a genetic kidney disease called polycystic kidney disease. When both of her kidneys began failing, she was placed on a kidney transplant waiting list.
"I was kinda losing a little hope," said Ausnes. Her next step would be dialysis.
"I'd read the statistics. People have been waiting on dialysis for many, many years before a donor comes forth. I felt like the control was being taken away from me," Ausnes said. "But I did have control over one thing, and I knew how to pray. And I just started praying for someone; for God to please send me an angel."
Andersen recalls one particular morning last October when her customer's normally cheerful demeanor had changed.
"I could tell that she just wasn't feeling real well," said Andersen. "So I asked her what was wrong."
Across the counter, Ausnes confided in her barista: Her kidneys were failing rapidly and no one in her family was a match. Without hesitation, Andersen said she would test for her.
Ausnes remembers the moment vividly.
"She threw her hands up in the air. She said, 'I'm testing. I'm going to test for you.' And it was a complete shock to me."
Even more so because Andersen didn't even know Ausnes' name. Andersen can't explain it either.
"I just knew in my heart, I can't tell you why. I knew I had to find out as much info as possible," recalls Andersen. Watch Ausnes recall how she met her "miracle donor." »
After getting her blood tested, she signed a release to become an organ donor and began an interview process to move forward. Then the day came when she was able to break the good news to Ausnes.
"She walked in to get her short cup of coffee. I said, 'I'm a match,' and we both just stood there and bawled," said Andersen. "From that day forward we knew this was gonna happen."
On March 11, Andersen and Ausnes underwent a kidney transplant at Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle, Washington. The surgery was successful.
"We are doing well!" Ausnes said Monday night. "We're moving slower but we feel good. I talk to Sandie every day, and sometimes I sit here and bawl because of what she's gone through for me."Watch how Andersen's gift became 'A kidney named Rose.' »
Andersen says her kidney started working faster in Ausnes than the hospital expected.
"Annamarie is doing better than me! I'm just trying to do too much," laughs Andersen, explaining why she's tired. "We're just excited to get together for lunch sometime soon!" Watch Andersen and Ausnes describe the best kind of donor »
Last fall, Ausnes, 55, was one of nearly 75,000 Americans in need of a kidney. Today, she is recovering from a successful kidney transplant -- thanks to her local Starbucks barista.
Sandra Andersen only knew Ausnes as her upbeat morning customer who always ordered a short cup of coffee. What Andersen didn't know was that Ausnes suffers from a genetic kidney disease called polycystic kidney disease. When both of her kidneys began failing, she was placed on a kidney transplant waiting list.
"I was kinda losing a little hope," said Ausnes. Her next step would be dialysis.
"I'd read the statistics. People have been waiting on dialysis for many, many years before a donor comes forth. I felt like the control was being taken away from me," Ausnes said. "But I did have control over one thing, and I knew how to pray. And I just started praying for someone; for God to please send me an angel."
Andersen recalls one particular morning last October when her customer's normally cheerful demeanor had changed.
"I could tell that she just wasn't feeling real well," said Andersen. "So I asked her what was wrong."
Across the counter, Ausnes confided in her barista: Her kidneys were failing rapidly and no one in her family was a match. Without hesitation, Andersen said she would test for her.
Ausnes remembers the moment vividly.
"She threw her hands up in the air. She said, 'I'm testing. I'm going to test for you.' And it was a complete shock to me."
Even more so because Andersen didn't even know Ausnes' name. Andersen can't explain it either.
"I just knew in my heart, I can't tell you why. I knew I had to find out as much info as possible," recalls Andersen. Watch Ausnes recall how she met her "miracle donor." »
After getting her blood tested, she signed a release to become an organ donor and began an interview process to move forward. Then the day came when she was able to break the good news to Ausnes.
"She walked in to get her short cup of coffee. I said, 'I'm a match,' and we both just stood there and bawled," said Andersen. "From that day forward we knew this was gonna happen."
On March 11, Andersen and Ausnes underwent a kidney transplant at Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle, Washington. The surgery was successful.
"We are doing well!" Ausnes said Monday night. "We're moving slower but we feel good. I talk to Sandie every day, and sometimes I sit here and bawl because of what she's gone through for me."Watch how Andersen's gift became 'A kidney named Rose.' »
Andersen says her kidney started working faster in Ausnes than the hospital expected.
"Annamarie is doing better than me! I'm just trying to do too much," laughs Andersen, explaining why she's tired. "We're just excited to get together for lunch sometime soon!" Watch Andersen and Ausnes describe the best kind of donor »
Sunday, March 16, 2008
A New Disease To Watch Out For...
A woman calls her boss one morning and tells him that she is staying home because she is not feeling well.
"What's the matter?" he asks.
"I have a case of anal glaucoma", she says in a weak voice.
"What the hell is anal glaucoma?"
"I can't see my ass coming into work today."
"What's the matter?" he asks.
"I have a case of anal glaucoma", she says in a weak voice.
"What the hell is anal glaucoma?"
"I can't see my ass coming into work today."
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Second Fridays, Second Helpings
Following the success of the Broad Ripple Music Festival, a series was put together with the purpose of combining music, raising money and awareness, and building new venues for music.
Come join Second Helpings as we celebrate the first Second Friday, Second Helpings concert series on March 14, 2008.
Chris Haskett will kick off the series, located at the Upper Room, along with PJ Christie and Lance Drake, at 10:00 p.m.
Date: March 14, 2008
Time: 10:00 p.m.
Location: The Upper Room, 929 E. Westfield Blvd. Indpls. In. 46220 (Above the Broad Ripple Steakhouse)
Cost: Free; accepting donations of cash and pasta for Second Helpings
Second Helpings, Inc
1121 Southeastern Ave
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-3946
www.secondhelpings.org
Come join Second Helpings as we celebrate the first Second Friday, Second Helpings concert series on March 14, 2008.
Chris Haskett will kick off the series, located at the Upper Room, along with PJ Christie and Lance Drake, at 10:00 p.m.
Date: March 14, 2008
Time: 10:00 p.m.
Location: The Upper Room, 929 E. Westfield Blvd. Indpls. In. 46220 (Above the Broad Ripple Steakhouse)
Cost: Free; accepting donations of cash and pasta for Second Helpings
Second Helpings, Inc
1121 Southeastern Ave
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-3946
www.secondhelpings.org
Friday, March 7, 2008
Happy St. Baldrick's Day
The Indianapolis Jaycees are sponsoring a benefit concert to raise money for pediatric cancer research through the St. Baldrick's Day Foundation.
100% of all donations will go to the St. Baldricks Day Foundation.
The St. Baldrick's Day Concert sponsored by the Indianapolis Jaycees will be held on Monday, March 24th at Indianapolis Fireman's Union Hall at 748 Massachusetts Avenue from 7pm until 10pm.
The evening will include Algren, a great band from the Chicagoland area, ComedySportz as the Master of Ceremonies, and the infamous head shaving ceremony.
The head shaving ceremony is an act of solidarity supporting children with cancer. St. Baldricks Day is an event to raise money for pediatric cancer research.
Algren can be heard online at http://www.blogger.com/www.myspace.com/algrenmusic.
In order to make this event a success, we need your support. The event is open and free to the public, but donations are welcomed. This is a 21 and over event.
For more information please call Traci or Michael at 490-9285 or e-mail msargent14@gmail.com .
100% of all donations will go to the St. Baldricks Day Foundation.
The St. Baldrick's Day Concert sponsored by the Indianapolis Jaycees will be held on Monday, March 24th at Indianapolis Fireman's Union Hall at 748 Massachusetts Avenue from 7pm until 10pm.
The evening will include Algren, a great band from the Chicagoland area, ComedySportz as the Master of Ceremonies, and the infamous head shaving ceremony.
The head shaving ceremony is an act of solidarity supporting children with cancer. St. Baldricks Day is an event to raise money for pediatric cancer research.
Algren can be heard online at http://www.blogger.com/www.myspace.com/algrenmusic.
In order to make this event a success, we need your support. The event is open and free to the public, but donations are welcomed. This is a 21 and over event.
For more information please call Traci or Michael at 490-9285 or e-mail msargent14@gmail.com .
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
"My" Chef is Up for Lifetime Award
Indy can be proud to claim several top chefs.
One such chef is Ralph Comstock, who teaches at Ivy Tech's Culinary Institute. He recently received the Central Regional nomination for the American Culinary Federation's Hermann G. Rusch Lifetime Achievement Award.
The accolade follows Comstock's 2005 induction as a fellow in the American Academy of Chefs, the foundation's honor society. The award recognizes chefs who, according to the foundation, have "advanced the culinary profession and ensured the enrichment of students, our members."
The winner will be identified in July at the group's national convention in Las Vegas.
Asked if he'd be gambling in Vegas, Comstock said, "I'd feel lucky to simply be there. I never dreamed in a million years I'd be recognized at the top of the chefs' association."
One such chef is Ralph Comstock, who teaches at Ivy Tech's Culinary Institute. He recently received the Central Regional nomination for the American Culinary Federation's Hermann G. Rusch Lifetime Achievement Award.
The accolade follows Comstock's 2005 induction as a fellow in the American Academy of Chefs, the foundation's honor society. The award recognizes chefs who, according to the foundation, have "advanced the culinary profession and ensured the enrichment of students, our members."
The winner will be identified in July at the group's national convention in Las Vegas.
Asked if he'd be gambling in Vegas, Comstock said, "I'd feel lucky to simply be there. I never dreamed in a million years I'd be recognized at the top of the chefs' association."
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Padded Resume Costs Chef TV Show
New York -- Robert Irvine, host of the popular Food Network series "Dinner Impossible," has lost his job following allegations that he padded his resume.
Irvine had claimed that he helped design Princess Diana's wedding cake, worked at the White House and graduated from the University of Leeds. But an article was published in the St. Petersburg Times last week that cast doubt on his claims.
On Friday, the Food Network announced they were not renewing his contract with the show, and released the following statement:
"We looked into the situation and found that, as Robert has already admitted, there were some embellishments and inaccuracies in his resume. The few and minor incidents of the inclusion of these embellishments into 'Dinner Impossible' have been removed. The show is, and has always been, completely accurate in the depiction of the cooking challenges faced by Robert. We will continue airing both old shows and the new season of programs currently in production. We have not renewed Robert's contract for future seasons but will fulfill our contractual obligations.
We rely on the trust that our viewers have in the accuracy of the information we present, and Robert challenged that trust. We appreciate Robert's remorse about his actions, and we can revisit this decision at the end of the production cycle, but for now we will be looking for a replacement host."
At the same time, the network also released a statement from Irvine, who expressed remorse for his actions:
”I was wrong to exaggerate in statements related to my experiences in the White House and the Royal Family. I am proud of my work as part of the Guest Chef program in the White House, the opportunities I had on the Royal Yacht Britannia and my culinary accomplishments, and I should have stood on those alone, without embellishment.
I remain committed and enthusiastic about my work with Food Network and other future endeavors. I am truly sorry for misleading people and misstating the facts.To all my family, friends and loyal fans, I will work tirelessly to regain your trust and continue to use my show and life to benefit the less fortunate."
Irvine had claimed that he helped design Princess Diana's wedding cake, worked at the White House and graduated from the University of Leeds. But an article was published in the St. Petersburg Times last week that cast doubt on his claims.
On Friday, the Food Network announced they were not renewing his contract with the show, and released the following statement:
"We looked into the situation and found that, as Robert has already admitted, there were some embellishments and inaccuracies in his resume. The few and minor incidents of the inclusion of these embellishments into 'Dinner Impossible' have been removed. The show is, and has always been, completely accurate in the depiction of the cooking challenges faced by Robert. We will continue airing both old shows and the new season of programs currently in production. We have not renewed Robert's contract for future seasons but will fulfill our contractual obligations.
We rely on the trust that our viewers have in the accuracy of the information we present, and Robert challenged that trust. We appreciate Robert's remorse about his actions, and we can revisit this decision at the end of the production cycle, but for now we will be looking for a replacement host."
At the same time, the network also released a statement from Irvine, who expressed remorse for his actions:
”I was wrong to exaggerate in statements related to my experiences in the White House and the Royal Family. I am proud of my work as part of the Guest Chef program in the White House, the opportunities I had on the Royal Yacht Britannia and my culinary accomplishments, and I should have stood on those alone, without embellishment.
I remain committed and enthusiastic about my work with Food Network and other future endeavors. I am truly sorry for misleading people and misstating the facts.To all my family, friends and loyal fans, I will work tirelessly to regain your trust and continue to use my show and life to benefit the less fortunate."
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Chef Goes Green
From the TASTE section of today's Indianapolis Star:
Good greens
Nutritious collards, kale and chard are best when cooked quickly, gently
By Jolene Ketzenberger
jolene.ketzenberger@indystar.com
February 27, 2008
With spring still weeks away, the bright hues of classic greens can provide an appealing splash of color for winter-weary cooks. Plus, they're good for you.
From curly-leafed kale to red-stalked Swiss chard to classic collards, winter greens can add nutrition to a wide variety of dishes, said chef Carl Conway, director of training at Second Helpings, a local food rescue organization that also provides a culinary education program.
But these aren't your grandma's greens. Don't let the overcooked collards of the past keep you from using these versatile, vitamin-packed ingredients.
"In the South, greens are overcooked," said Conway, a Mississippi native. "It's just Southern tradition."
That's due more to convenience than technique, said Conway: Many home cooks would simply set a pot to simmering while they went about other work. Unfortunately, such long cooking times can simmer the best stuff right out.
"Once the color is gone, so are the nutrients," said Conway. "All of the nutrition and most of the flavor."
He and his culinary students recently created flavorful recipes for braised greens with andouille sausage and a cheesy greens casserole. He particularly likes the braising method. "I think it's the best way to cook them," he said of the classic technique. His recipe involves stirring greens into sautéed sausage, onions and garlic, and then simmering them in broth until tender. "They taste best the less you do with them."
In developing the dishes for Taste, Conway first considered favorite family recipes, he said. "Braised greens are one of the staples of my family, and I used the andouille just because we're used to having spicy stuff with our greens."
He then looked to classic dishes, "things we do that naturally have greens in them," he said. He noted that the casserole filling also could be used in other dishes, such as quiche.
Both dishes also include a bit of nutmeg, which enhances the flavor of any dark green, he said.
Conway encourages culinary experimentation, noting that greens could be added to most dishes that call for spinach.
"Spinach is something everyone is more familiar with," he said, "but any recipe that has 'florentine' in it you can pretty much substitute mustard greens for spinach. Mustard also goes really good with seafood, like scampi."
Warming to the topic, he suggested using greens in a classic white bean and greens cassoulet, an Asian stir-fry or a roasted beet salad with a side of sautéed greens.
"Buy your beets with the greens and use both parts," he said. "Same thing with turnips." But the key, he said, is simply to avoid overcooking. "Just sauté them in a little bit of butter," he said. "Quick cooking methods work best."
And don't forget the nutmeg.
Chef Carl Conway, director of training at Second Helpings, offers these recipes to make great use of winter greens.
What goes well with winter greens? Pair them with some classic comfort foods, said chef Carl Conway of Second Helpings, like a potato gratin and buttermilk fried chicken. Here are a few of his favorites.
Good greens
Nutritious collards, kale and chard are best when cooked quickly, gently
By Jolene Ketzenberger
jolene.ketzenberger@indystar.com
February 27, 2008
With spring still weeks away, the bright hues of classic greens can provide an appealing splash of color for winter-weary cooks. Plus, they're good for you.
From curly-leafed kale to red-stalked Swiss chard to classic collards, winter greens can add nutrition to a wide variety of dishes, said chef Carl Conway, director of training at Second Helpings, a local food rescue organization that also provides a culinary education program.
But these aren't your grandma's greens. Don't let the overcooked collards of the past keep you from using these versatile, vitamin-packed ingredients.
"In the South, greens are overcooked," said Conway, a Mississippi native. "It's just Southern tradition."
That's due more to convenience than technique, said Conway: Many home cooks would simply set a pot to simmering while they went about other work. Unfortunately, such long cooking times can simmer the best stuff right out.
"Once the color is gone, so are the nutrients," said Conway. "All of the nutrition and most of the flavor."
He and his culinary students recently created flavorful recipes for braised greens with andouille sausage and a cheesy greens casserole. He particularly likes the braising method. "I think it's the best way to cook them," he said of the classic technique. His recipe involves stirring greens into sautéed sausage, onions and garlic, and then simmering them in broth until tender. "They taste best the less you do with them."
In developing the dishes for Taste, Conway first considered favorite family recipes, he said. "Braised greens are one of the staples of my family, and I used the andouille just because we're used to having spicy stuff with our greens."
He then looked to classic dishes, "things we do that naturally have greens in them," he said. He noted that the casserole filling also could be used in other dishes, such as quiche.
Both dishes also include a bit of nutmeg, which enhances the flavor of any dark green, he said.
Conway encourages culinary experimentation, noting that greens could be added to most dishes that call for spinach.
"Spinach is something everyone is more familiar with," he said, "but any recipe that has 'florentine' in it you can pretty much substitute mustard greens for spinach. Mustard also goes really good with seafood, like scampi."
Warming to the topic, he suggested using greens in a classic white bean and greens cassoulet, an Asian stir-fry or a roasted beet salad with a side of sautéed greens.
"Buy your beets with the greens and use both parts," he said. "Same thing with turnips." But the key, he said, is simply to avoid overcooking. "Just sauté them in a little bit of butter," he said. "Quick cooking methods work best."
And don't forget the nutmeg.
Chef Carl Conway, director of training at Second Helpings, offers these recipes to make great use of winter greens.
What goes well with winter greens? Pair them with some classic comfort foods, said chef Carl Conway of Second Helpings, like a potato gratin and buttermilk fried chicken. Here are a few of his favorites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
