Science Based Cuisine

I came across an article on the science blogging site Science 2.0 stating that soda and juice companies are lying about fructose levels (that's pretty much the headline). It is a parsed summary of an accepted manuscript for the journal Nutrition which analyzes the fructose content of popular packaged beverages made with and without high fructose corn syrup. The article is critical enough to note that the fructose to metabolic syndrome connection is at best tenuous (and a poor approximation of real diets), but the charge that manufacturers are intentionally misleading customers with regards to fructose is bothersome.

To make the charge that someone is lying (or in this case, whole cadres of manufacturers - which only eggs on conspiracy theorists) is a fairly serious interpretation of the case. Does the evidence support this? The authors of the paper purchased samples of the different drinks, and analyzed them with various methods to measure the sugar composition of each sample. A bit of introductory chemistry here: glucose and fructose are simple sugars - when combined, the form sucrose, what we all call table sugar. More importantly, glucose and fructose are isomers - basically, they use the same atoms, but are just arranged differently. In fact, one can convert glucose to fructose and vice versa through a process called isomerization.

Corn syrup is mostly glucose. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is made by isomerizing part of that glucose into fructose - in fact, what makes HFCS "high fructose" is usually just 55% fructose to 45% glucose, rather than the 50-50 mix in regular table sugar. There are different grades of HFCS, depending on the amount of fructose therein.

So, the authors claimed that a significant portion of the sodas supposedly made with sucrose still contained free fructose, and that for a good portion of the sodas made with HFCS, the fructose was proportionally higher than the 55% that should be in the food grade HFCS. Does the data bear this out? Fortunately, the paper included the raw data, and I replotted it (after discovering a minor summation mistake in it).

Red circles denote drinks made with sucrose, blue are drinks made with HFCS.

First of all, they only sample 4 drinks with sucrose. The drink types vary widely in flavor and formulation, but most cluster around the 55% mark - even those made with sucrose. But we also know that sucrose degrades into the simple sugars simply by heating it into syrup - so the fructose content could easily be a byproduct of the processing. The paper actually takes this possibility into consideration - but quickly discards it as unlikely, without reference and any further explanation. Reviewers should have picked up on this contention.

This does lend credence to the idea that by the time it gets to market, HFCS and sucrose are functionally identical. There is the one outlier - the Sierra Mist Natural which seems to retain much undegraded sucrose. It could be something peculiar with that manufacturer: seems to me that there is reasonable doubt here contend that the manufacturers that claim to use sucrose are actually secretly substituting HFCS just based on this evidence alone.

The other is that the drinks are higher than 55% proportion of fructose - a reasonable number of them are also below this magic 55% mark. This is within statistical deviation, and could be explained by simple manufacturing variation or even storage isomerization. But even if they are consistently higher than 55% - I don't think the drinks are labeled to disclose that they are at most 55% fructose. Only that they are made with HFCS - which they do disclose. After all, even at 75% fructose - it would still be called HFCS.

How does this support the contention that there is "lying" going on? This is a potentially libelous situation, as none of this supports evidence of the intent to mislead, or failure to disclose. At best, there is a hint that a manufacturer may be taking shortcuts, but it won't be from this kind of analysis.

Words such as "lying" carry weight. I should hope that science reporting will be more analytical, rather than parroting the frame that the authors of the study wish inject, to bring some kind of ominous implication of conspiracy based on flimsy evidence.

For all the hullabaloo about "gourmet" food trucks and park devoted to them, rolling taquerias have been a mainstay in Houston dining - in these loncheras,  tacos come fast, flavorful and cheap, unceremoniously plopped onto the cheapest disposable plates, to be eaten while standing under the sun.

But on a recent trip to an Airline taco truck, I noticed a disturbing trend.

Note the yellowish tinge to the obligatory slice of lime.

The tell tale seeds confirmed my suspicion: they are distributing lemons.

In the Houston Press blog, recently appointed food critic Kaitlin Steinberg posts an article called "Attack of the Frankenfish", which is, of course, about the potential (and long delayed) approval of the Aquabounty transgenic salmon to the US markets. The writing uses the leading epithet "frankenfish" twice, painting immediately in the reader's mind that these are some kind of science fiction monster, despite the conciliatory wording admitting that the fish are only different in their growth rate - they grow twice as fast as their unmodified kin.

After that, Ms. Steinberg starts citing the Center for Food Safety. Despite the seemingly authoritative name, the CFS is a political action group dedicated to the elimination of genetically engineered foods, regardless of facts. They have resorted to outright fabrication and falsehood in marketing.

The Center for Food Safety, under its façade of nonprofit watchdogging, has all the marks of a black-marketing campaign, run on behalf of organic and “natural” foods. Its advisory board is packed with organic-foods activists.

Sadly, Ms. Steinberg was suckered in by this shady group. Although she writes that there are "Many organizations like the Center for Food Safety " which have petitions against the Aquabounty salmon, she fails to cite or link definitively to any one of them. But if they are like the CFS, they shouldn't be trusted anyway.

The environmental impact should be no different than for any aquacultured fish (I'd be more concerned with tilapia). As for the issue that the salmon could contain higher amounts of antibiotics - I refer you to my earlier postings about antibiotics in agriculture - a complex issue that merits much more thought than a simple condemnation. Mentioning it in ominous handwaving is manipulating the emotional susceptibility of the reader - this is not backed by any actual science. Then again, that's what the CFS really does - it subverts the air of scientific authority to spread unfounded fear.

At the end of her posting, Ms. Steinberg falls into the usual rhythm of anti GMO fearmongering, cautioning people to look for "wild" salmon, to avoid this product - even though it hasn't even entered the market yet. Poor Kroger is the unfortunate collateral damage of this inadvertent smear campaign, unfortunately named simply for not committing to a business move that they cannot control.

I suggest that Ms. Steinberg rethink her role in being the tool of a manipulative unscrupulous media entity.

Ridiculous labeling.

In a guest posting on Keith Kloor's Collide-o-Scape blog on Discover, Ramez Naam presents his case that (genetically modified organisms) GMO supporters should embrace labeling. I was rather puzzled by this piece. He starts the article by being careful to state that he himself is a GMO supporter - pretty much in those terms. And then he expands on his thesis:

"by fighting labeling, we’re feeding energy to the opponents of GMOs"

He uses the term "fighting labeling" quite frequently in the piece, as if there's an active force preventing labeling. This buys into the straw man fallacy, as the fight is against mandatory labeling. Labels do not appear spontaneously on foods, and supporters of GMOs are not somehow marshalling forces to remove them. Enforced labeling, under penalty of law, is the serious debate at hand.

But then, over on Twitter, I confirmed that he was already referring to voluntary labeling, although it sounds like it's coerced voluntary labeling. Basically, Ramez has a hard time countering the contention

“If you’re so proud of your GMOs, why don’t you label them?”

Because he is proud of the technology. I pointed out to him that voluntary labeling already exists - it's branding. I think, though, that Ramez is stuck with the idea that the battle is already lost - he bemoans the fact that multiple states have mandatory GMO labeling laws in the works, all of which are, of course, not based on science and merely fanned by propaganda and hysteria. So, he's playing the same game - never mind the science, let's take away this one talking point by actually labeling the products, albeit with labels that GMO supporters find less objectionable than those being proposed. He doesn't address how these consistent labels will be funded or enforced. He thinks that if we concede this one point, to win the greater war, we blunt the impact of the coming labeling laws.

This is where I find the stance insidiously repugnant. The imposition of such labeling laws are an injustice, plain and simple. Those that cry "lack of consumer choice" in the current climate are flat out wrong - there are plenty of consumer choices, and that choice is not guaranteed by the market. It's an entitlement mindset that demands enslavement of our farmers and food producers, that a select group of consumers should be able to shackle their means of production beyond reasonable scientific precaution. In order to provide the desired "consumer choice" - they take away choice from the farmers. If not the point of scientific validity, then we stand in support of farmers.

The logic of Ramez's piece is that a heinous crime is about to be committed - so let's do it sooner, at least we'll be gentler. If a girl is about to be brutally raped, let's choose to be the kinder rapist. All the while blurring the fact that horror need not happen at all. No, it's cowardice that rationalizes aligning with, rather than opposing, injustice. AntiGMO propaganda paints a false dichotomy, that somehow labeling is being suppressed - it isn't. Preposterous labels are all over our food products right now ("all natural"), some even with ridiculous health claims. We don't foster better science understanding by giving succor to unjust labeling demands by carrying it out for them.

So, posting in the Houston Press blog Eating Our Words, Molly Dunn reports

researchers at Granada University in Spain have discovered that beer can hydrate your body after a workout better than drinks like Gatorade, water and chocolate milk.

With, a link to the Washington Times article citing exactly that. Well, except for the chocolate milk part.  That seems to be a casual addition - certainly, though, the original scientific article would have compared beer and chocolate milk. Except, the Washington Times article does not link to the original scientific paper either. Instead, it cites a report from The Telegraph, reporting on a conference in Granada. But no link to the article itself. Or any specifics about this report. Surely, this should raise alarm bells.

Well, it's the age of Googling, after all. A quick search for Manuel Garzon and Beer reveals this article from The Telegraph. Written in 2007. As well as enough links to other articles that point to the "beer better hydrator than water" claim as an urban myth.

Seems that The Telegraph isn't exactly the best source of scientifically vetted information — very often, a claim that is too good to be true, is.

So my friend asks me - do I know if a certain favorite Chinese restaurant is MSG-free? This is a loaded question - to be honest, no restaurant is probably MSG-free. But I am getting ahead of myself. Just what is MSG anyway? The initials stand for monosodium glutamate - chemically, that breaks down into one atom of sodium and a glutamate molecule. The sodium isn't usually the relevant element; glutamate is the moiety of interest. And what is glutamate? It's an amino acid.

Let's take a quick trip to basic biochemistry. You've heard that protein is important in your diet, right? Well, that's because proteins make up a lot of the workhorse molecules that govern life itself - from enzymes, to structural materials, to regulatory switches, proteins do these things. And proteins, well, they're made of up smaller subunits called amino acids. Think Lego bricks - you can make anything from a computer to a starship with a limited set of brick shapes, it just depends on how you arrange them together. Much the same way, most life takes a basic set of 20 amino acids, hooks them up in various ways, and viola, you get hemoglobin, or puffer fish toxin, or aspartame.


Of these 20 amino acids, human can synthesize 10 - the other 10 are called the essential amino acids because they have to be procured in the food. That is, we eat proteins, break them down into the component amino acids, and then reuse them for our purposes. And glutamate? Well, we already make this amino acid in our own bodies.

The concept of umami or the flavor of "savoriness" may still sound foreign to a lot of folks as the "fifth" taste, but biochemically, we definitely have receptors for this sensation - and it is triggered by glutamate. Foods rich in protein, like broth, teem with umami because there's lots of glutamate there. Common techniques of adding mushrooms or yeast extract are simply ways of adding crude amounts of glutamate to the bolster the umami profile of a dish - after all, that is what the receptors have evolved to look for. In a sense, almost no food, so long as it has some protein in it, is free of glutamate. So, why all the fuss about MSG - which is basically just a chemically pure form of glutamate? Could it stem from the demonization of chemical purity? And why specifically the quest for MSG-free Chinese food?

Years of testing has failed to tie any particularly adverse reactions to exogenously added MSG to food, unless the tasters know about it. And this includes ridiculous amounts of added MSG. But the story is a fascinating one that inspects the American distrust of "ethnic" incursions in the 1970s, tenacious adherence to a cultural scapegoat, and is quite capably told in The MSG Files. Highly recommended reading.

Seems that food blog reading can be as formulaic as writing :). I couldn't help finding this listicle amusing on the types of food blog posts that attract traffic. I don't think this is scientifically vetted, but certainly listicles in general attract discussion since they are almost invariably incomplete. By the way - it's "bare your soul", not "bear your soul".

Alinea, Chicago, IL

If I haven't been clear before on my position, I think the "organic" appellation is meaningless, and does not (should not) signify correlation with food quality. Moreover, the whole brouhaha over transgenics (aka "GMO") is hysteria with no real basis in science.

Ok, that out of the way, let's get into some meaty speculation.

Most of the DNA in human genome doesn't encode information that translates into proteins - the old mind set was that since proteins are main movers and shakers of cellular biochemistry, then most of the human genome is useless, hence, the term "junk DNA". We know now, of course, that there's very little actual junk there. In fact, a huge proportion of the DNA (perhaps most of the human genome) is involved in regulation, small pieces of information that modulate the actions of the main "coding" regions. It's like any big organization; middle management makes up the bulk.

Liquid nitrogen, FlipBurger, Atlanta, GA

Well, this recent work from China shows that if humans who consume plants encoding one of these regulatory pieces, the plant DNA can modulate the diner's metabolism. This is astounding - it means that items we eat can transmit and modulate information to our own physiology. Conspiracy theorists can therefore have a leg to stand on against transgenics - after all, why would we allow some malicious entity to control our physiology or behavior through our food by encoding it into the DNA of the crop.

But would avoiding transgenics be a panacea? Maybe not.

When regular mice are transplanted with gut bacteria from obese mice, they start developing the propensity to gain weight. Scientists postulated that this is because the gut bacteria act as the gateway to nutrition, allowing more absorption or less depending on the set up. But more recent work indicates that since gut bacteria populations can affect mood and behavior, perhaps these the bacteria were actually modifying the mood of the mice so that they ate more.

Combine these discoveries, that eating "genetic information" is sufficient to transfer it, and that bacteria can be confer behavioral changes without modification, and one can speculate a grand conspiracy where food providers control our predilections and medical conditions.

And this can all be done "organically".

baby crab snacks. Narita Airport, Tokyo

No secret that the Japanese have a wonderful obsession with snacking. Actually, relative to the monolithic meal model of Americans, much of the rest of the world "snacks" all day. I'm not going to argue the health benefits of that, but the smaller meals also results in a diversity that can be mind boggling. One blog in particular, Japanese Snack Reviews, does just that: reviews a different Japanese snack each post. It's wondrously entertaining, and I encounter things like Mango Chocolate. Of course, on my recent layover in Japan, I had to see what was available.

Jewel-like bean paste filled snacks.

Cake decoration of a different level.

Cold Stone Creamery here attends to the lower lactose tolerance of the Asian populace.

Masterful and meticulous packaging.

I think these are plastic replicas, but they're so good, I couldn't tell.

Small cakes in the form of baby chicks.

No secret that the Japanese have this odd obsession with KitKat. Here's Green Tea flavor.

Halo-halo from New Filipiniana, Houston, TX. Photo by Gary Wise, used with permission.

The Filipino dish halo-halo is often described as a dessert, although it is really quite filling in many incarnations. It's a member of a family of ice-based dishes found throughout Asia, from Korea's patbingsu, to the Taiwanese shaved ice bowls. The name literally translates to "mix-mix", which is both an admonition on how one is supposed to eat it, as well as a description of what the dish is. A number of sweetened items, from beans, to yam, to ice cream, are piled together with crushed ice and milk. Mix it up, and enjoy.

But food evolves. While many halo-halo preparations boast of a large variety of ingredients in a glass, one shop in Manila specializes in what could be an early ancestor to the modern halo-halo. This version only has three ingredients outside of the ice and milk: flan, sweetened bananas, and hominy. But much care is taken in the shaving of the ice, such that it yields more easily to the mixing spoon. And with relatively few ingredients, the care taken in its construction is more evident in the less muddied flavors. It is perhaps akin to the difference between a classic Neapolitan pizza margherita and the Americanized superloaded delivery pizza.

Old School Halo-halo. Mandaluyong, Philippines. Only three mix-ins, but the ice is super fluffy.

To you, the readers, thank you.

I open with that because I'm sometimes surprised to learn about who reads my blog. I just recently found out that this humble forum is nominated for a Foodie Star award over at My Table Houston. It stands with some illustrious company:

29.95 (Houston Chronicle)
Delicious Mischief (John DeMers)
Eating Our Words (Houston Press)
Guns & Tacos (Jay Rascoe)
Houston Foodie (J.C. Reid)
Texas Eats (Robb Walsh)

Personally, I think that Nishta Mehra's heartfelt Blue Jean Gourmet blog, a recent awardee at the Houston Web Awards, should have been a member of this group. The final winner is determined in part by popular vote - voting opens August 1 at houstonculinaryawards.com.

To be honest, I don't expect to win, so I am already pleased with the nomination. The blog is up against some powerful competition: Two of them are professional, ad driven blogs with staffs of bloggers. The others have a strong focus on dining out and travel - which is in line with the main theme of My Table as a magazine.

Part of the reason why I started this blog is that all too often, when someone says "food blog", the focus in particular is in dining out. While I do recount experiences of dining out in different restaurants, I firmly believe that the subject of food encompasses so much more, that there's a lot to learn about the art, science, and practice of food. As a cultural experience, as a scientific endeavor, as a learning experience, and as fundamental diplomacy.

I applaud the other nominees. They are all works of great talent and enthusiasm, and encourage you to read them, to learn the pulse of food in Houston. Thank you again for visiting, and I'll just keep writing.

I was having a conversation recently with a friend who had a complete misunderstanding about the use of pesticide resistance genes in crops. Apparently, they had this idea that you can just sprinkle on genes on plants, and thus, they can poison people who eat them. A great deal of the fear mongering around the use of transgenics (including the recent legislative move to block the US Food and Drug Administration from approving the marketing of transgenic salmon).

You get a lot of comments repeated over and over again, about all the potential risks of using transgenic technology (more commonly filed under the broader and inaccurate term genetically modified organisms - GMOs), despite repeated refutation of these claims. Over 30 years worth of unfounded claims, and yet, the political machine that runs on this dogma can sway whole governments.

This recent NPR interview is worth a listen. You can hear the exasperation in the voice of the scientist. While the idea of "genes leaking out" is indeed so preposterous, it belies the hubris that somehow an ignorant misunderstanding of genetics and evolution can serve as an political equal to informed scientific study.

Fact is, one day we'll have to deal with feeding 9 billion people on this planet. And transgenic technology will be part of that.

Blood sausage, Cochon Butcher, New Orleans, LA

One the traditional Vietnamese soups is the spicy bun bo hue, and usually found amidst the chunky bits are cubes of minerally, dark "tofu". Or, in reality, pork blood. People express an aversion to eating blood. Blood sausage is hard to find in Houston, wish I could find it more. It would pair really well with lentils and the newly emerging summer squashes.

Alton Brown once famously declared that the only singletasker allowed in his kitchen is a fire extinguisher. And it's a basic good rule to follow - so many kitchen gadgets are built for a single purpose, and so often, they're not even that good at that. Fifteen examples are in listed here - imagine a little doodad whose only purpose is to help you get that banana peel started. Oh, and that egg cracker: by the time it takes to even load the device, you could have already been cooking.

That's not to say I haven't entertained the idea of a single tasker in my kitchen. I've yet to find an alternative purpose for say, the ice cream maker. And while the waffle iron gets plenty of alternate uses:

waffled grilled cheese pan de sal sandwich

I must say I am still stymied by a bit of nostalgia: the waffle dog. While people in America are mostly familiar with the concept of a corn dog (a hot dog covered in cornmeal batter and deep fried - usually on a stick), the waffle dog is a hot dog cooked in a waffle. But to accomplish this, you'll need a waffle iron specifically designed to hold a waffle dog. Near as I can tell, the concept is peculiarly Filipino, although the product itself seldom seen outside of the Philippines. I've read of waffle dogs being experienced in Thailand, and there's certainly a waffle dog franchise based out of Hawaii (no doubt catering to the local ethnic Filipino population). Perhaps a waffle dog maker can make for an interesting single tasker in one's kitchen one day.

Sometimes, it's worth stepping back, and looking at the big picture.

I am often puzzled by the strenuous attempts people go through to recapture certain tastes and dining conventions. Like how often vegetarian cuisine is defined by how well it can mimic meat or meat based diets, or the inordinate hoops that shrines to authenticity some restaurants become. Because despite the biological implications of eating, dining, in general, is really a cultural phenomenon, building community through communication, and, yes, discriminating against those whose mores don't conform. Some effects are universal (such as the predilection for sweet flavors), while others emerge from agreement, debate, and conformity.

This is the root of fear when dining outside of the comfort zone of cultural acceptance. And those who venture beyond these lines can be seen as equal parts foolish and adventuresome, and most of us watch in fascination. Or in my case, I applaud these mavericks of dining.

Take, for example, the grand project by Daniel Delaney, called What's This Food? (cheekily abbreviated WTF). Every day, Dan takes a different foodstuff, something that may be sitting in the border of the American dining consciousness, and brings it into focus for a few minutes in a video segment, cooking or preparing it with humor and aplomb. The segment on Kiwano melons is inventive to say the least.

Speaking of community, no doubt you'll notice the addition of the new gadget for ChipIn. Linda Salinas of Houston had an accident, and the community is rallying to support her in her time of need. P. Cook of Houston Food Adventures is helping organize fund raising activities. Please help spread the word. Thanks for helping.

What kinds of foods would be appropriate to celebrate April Fools' Day? I should think that the most obvious are the foods that are meant to fool people into thinking they're something else. Take for example, tofu dogs. Which aren't made from any kind of meat, much less dog meat.

Then again, how about some salad?



A proper dessert would be Dirt Cake. Imagine, cake that fools you into into thinking it's dirt. Brilliant. But what better way of fooling your diners into thinking that it's dessert - when another dessert shows up?

Perhaps the most appropriate thing for April Fool: Raspberry Fool. Well, technically, a fool is just pureed fruit tossed into whipped cream, so I hope we can rename some fruit into april, and then there'd be a dish called april fool. Until then, we may have to settle for aprium fools instead.

Maybe it really reads アイスクリーム. :)


That's Japanese for ice cream. Because there's something really fun about how the Japanese interpret ice cream (and pizza, but that's a different story). To the point that someone can have a whole blog just on Japanese ice cream.

From where I got this fantastic illustrated guide to making ice cream stuffed mochi. Recipes for this are easily procured elsewhere, but there's nothing like pictures to seeing it in action.

A follow up to yesterday's posting: please go check out the photographs of the New Year's eve feast we cooked over at the House of BBQDude.

Congratulations to BBQDude over at IndirectHeat for placing third in the blog based Duck Challenge. It may be all electron celebrations but it's still a win. Right?

I don't often do this, but I'm linking out to another blog entry. Because it is just awesome.

Behold. Balut. Illustrated.

Tasty Island is rapidly becoming one of my favorite feeds to read. And is yet another reason to visit Hawaii.