Greenhouse Gas...Processed Foods, or Organic Foods Grown Locally?

What do you eat?

 * It takes about 10 fossil fuel calories to produce each food calorie in the average American diet. So if your daily food intake is 2,000 calories, then it took 20,000 calories to grow that food and get it to you. Growing, processing and delivering the food consumed by a family of four each year requires the equivalent of almost 34,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy, or more than 930 gallons of gasoline (for comparison, the average U.S. household annually consumes about 10,800 kWh of electricity and 1,070 gallons of gasoline). 
* 15% of U.S. energy goes to supplying Americans with food. (If all humanity ate the way Americans eat, we would exhaust all known fossil fuel reserves in just seven years.) 
* According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture contributes over 20% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, including more than 20% CO2, 55% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide.

 Are you an omnivore, vegetarian or vegan?

 * According to a recent University of Chicago study, the greenhouse gas burden of the average American diet is 1.5 tonnes greater than a fully plant-based, or vegan, diet. 
* That's a 50% larger difference than switching from a Camry (30 mpg, average) to a Prius (57 mpg). 
* And it's nearly 20% of the average North American's personal greenhouse gas footprint. 
* 18% of human-made global warming emissions are from livestock production. 
* On average, eight times as much fossil fuel is required to produce animal protein than the plant equivalent. 
* On average, it takes 28 calories of fossil fuel input to generate one calorie of food value from an animal. It takes 68 calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of pork, and 35 calories of fuel to make one calorie of beef. 
* Animals grown in feedlots or factory pens consume far more energy to raise than free-range, grass-fed critters, which require only a third of the energy. 
* Eating a vegetable or grain gives the diner all the caloric energy in those foods, but feeding these foods to a pig reduces the energy available by a factor of 10. That's because the pig uses most of the energy just staying alive, and stores only a fraction of the energy in its body. 
* Each step up the food chain - from plants, to animals, to animals fed with other animals - requires a ten-fold increase in energy input. For example, farmed salmon, a carnivorous fish, is two steps up the chain, with fossil fuel being expended to catch fish to feed them.

Do you eat organic?

 * The average diet consumes 1600 liters of fossil fuels each year, 256 liters are for the "food miles," the fuel used to transport food from the farm to the plate, and there's also the fuel used by factory farm equipment and for processing and cooking, but 496 liters are used in the chemical fertilizers that are banned in organic production.

 Do you eat processed, packaged foods?

 * Even vegetarian processed foods require some ten calories of fossil fuel input for every calorie of food value. A 2-pound box of breakfast cereal requires the equivalent of burning half a gallon of gasoline.

 Eat low on the food chain. Buy local. Buy in season. Buy organic. Avoid processed foods and even packaged foods.
Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
Chef Tim Johnson
Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

Red Color No Longer Means Fresh Meat

A majority of consumers think treating meat with carbon monoxide to make it look fresh is deceptive and several supermarkets have taken it off the shelves, yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has failed to withdraw approval of the practice.

As a result, Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, has introduced legislation that would require labeling of carbon monoxide treated meat.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, who introduced a bill banning the use of carbon monoxide in fresh meat packaging in the last Congress, is a co-sponsor.

"Blasting meat with carbon monoxide makes spoiled meat appear to be red, wholesome and healthy when it's really dangerous to eat," said Stupak.

"Although it is well-known that consumers rely heavily on color to evaluate the freshness of meat, the FDA has not required the use of carbon monoxide in the packaging of meat to be labeled," he said. "Consumers, therefore, have no way of knowing that the meat has been treated, and that they can no longer rely on color to judge the freshness and safety of the meat."

A September 2006 Consumer Federation of America poll revealed that 78 percent of consumers felt that the practice of treating red meat with carbon monoxide is deceptive and 68 percent would support mandatory labeling.

In July 2006, Consumer Reports found unacceptable levels of spoilage organisms in meat samples treated with carbon monoxide even before the use-by or freeze-by date.

The regulation of fresh packaged meat is handled by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both of which allowed the process in 2004.

"Congress seems to be as frustrated as we are about FDA's continued silence on the matter," said Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch. "It's crazy that Congress has to get involved when the FDA and USDA each have the authority and more than enough information necessary to put a stop to this practice now."

The FDA considers carbon monoxide treatment of meat to be "Generally Recognized as Safe" and says the treatment helps to maintain the characteristic color of fresh meat. The carbon monoxide is not intended to affect microbial growth and will not extend the shelf life of the product, the agency says.

The Safeway chain has announced that it will no longer carry carbon monoxide-treated beef or veal and would exhaust existing inventories by July 27.

This action is in response to a June letter to the chain from Stupak and John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat. The national supermarket chain joins a long list of supermarkets that have declared they will not carry meat treated with carbon monoxide.

In 2006, several supermarket chains indicated they thought the practice deceives consumers.

"The evidence is overwhelming - treating meat with carbon monoxide is deceptive and potentially unsafe," said Hauter. "There's no reason why this practice shouldn't be immediately stopped."

We as consumers should always remember that when animals are slaughtered all fluids are drained, especially the blood... and once the life source is taken out, the flesh is brown in color and will soon turn to grey. So being a chef, it is my responsiblity to state when anything is added to give these flesh products shelf life, it is deceptive.
Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
Chef Tim Johnson
Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

FDA to relax labeling

Proposal to ease requirements on irradiated foods draws criticism

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed easing labeling requirements for irradiated foods, allowing some zapped products to be exempt from disclosure and others to use the term “pasteurized.”

The controversial plan — part of an effort to alleviate consumer fears about the use of radiation in reducing food-borne hazards — is one of several labeling changes pending before either the FDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture that involve information on how food is processed, where it comes from and what it contains.

At issue, besides irradiation, is a long-stalled requirement for country-of-origin labeling; the use of non-organic ingredients in “organic foods;” the definition of gluten-free foods; and whether meat and milk from cloned animals, if eventually approved for sale, should be labeled as such.

While details of the cases differ, they raise important questions about science, health, marketing and the consumer’s right to know, with the food industry and consumer groups generally at odds over what should or should not be included in the labeling.

“There is always a struggle between consumers who want more and more useful labeling and various industries who don’t think it is in their interest to let the information out,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union.

Regina Hildwine, senior director for food labeling and standards for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said the right to know doesn’t mean everything consumers are interested in must be placed on a food label.

Hildwine said limited space on food labels should be reserved for information about ingredients and nutrition to help consumers make informed health-related decisions. “That is far more important than how a product might have been cultivated or processed using a particular practice, or, in most cases, where it comes from,” she said.

The 2002 law requiring country-of-origin labeling on beef, pork, lamb, fresh fruit and vegetables, seafood and nuts has only been applied to seafood. Lobbying from the meat and grocery industries prompted the former Republican-controlled Congress to twice delay implementation until September 2008.

The issue has taken on increased resonance with the huge increase of imported foods in the past decade, and most recently because of questions about the safety of food from China.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken earlier this month showed 57 percent of the shoppers surveyed found it difficult to determine which countries produced the items in their grocery store, with 74 percent concerned about the safety of food from China and 61 percent worried about food from Mexico. A separate survey by Consumers Union in June found that 92 percent of consumers wanted to know which country produced the food they were buying.

Current irradiation labeling requirements are viewed by consumers as a kind of warning. Hildwine said the labels tend to “mislead consumers and promote fears” that the products are dangerous, when that is not the case.

Designed to kill harmful bacteria and increase product shelf life, irradiation was approved as safe and effective by the FDA two decades ago. It involves exposing meat, poultry, fresh fruits, vegetables and spices to gamma rays or electron beams within a shielded facility.

Labels for irradiated products currently must carry a special logo — known as radura — and a disclosure statement saying the product was “treated with radiation” or “treated by irradiation.” Irradiation has not been widely used by the food industry, in part because of consumer fears.

Prompted by provisions in a 2002 farm bill and the lobbying of food processors, marketers and the irradiation industry, the FDA earlier this year proposed that companies only be required to label food as irradiated if the process causes a material change that affects the taste, texture or smell of a product.

In addition, the proposed regulation would let companies use the term “pasteurized” if it can be shown that irradiation kills germs as effectively as pasteurization, which involves heating a food to a high temperature and then cooling it rapidly.

While the food industry sees the change as long overdue, consumer groups are uniformly opposed to eliminating the current disclosure requirements. Despite the FDA’s assurances, some critics maintain irradiation causes a loss of vitamins and creates new chemical compounds that could pose health risks.

BEING LABELED

Other food labeling issues on the table include:

• A proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allow 38 nonorganic ingredients, including food colorings, starches, hops, fish oil, gelatin and whey proteins, to be used in foods that carry the USDA organic seal.

• A U.S. Food and Drug Administration plan to allow foods made without a protein found in wheat, rye and barley to be labeled gluten-free to help the estimated 1.5 million to 3 million Americans with Celiac disease, which can cause inflammation of the small intestine.

• A pending FDA proposal stating that food derived from cloned animals is as safe to eat as conventionally produced food, with the possibility that the agency will not require cloned meat and milk to carry any special label if approval is granted.

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

Chef Tim Johnson

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

How Food Manufacturers Trick Consumers with Deceptive Ingredients Lists

The myth: Ingredients lists on food products are designed to inform consumers about what's contained in the product. The reality: ingredients lists are used by food manufacturers to deceive consumers and trick them into thinking products are healthier (or better quality) than they really are. This article explores the most common deceptions used by food manufacturers to trick consumers with food ingredients lists. It also contains useful tips for helping consumers read such labels with the proper skepticism.

Deceiving consumers: Tricks of the food trade

If the Nutrition Facts section on food packaging list all the substances that go into a food product, how can they deceive consumers? Here are a few of the most common ways:

One of the most common tricks is to distribute sugars among many ingredients so that sugars don't appear in the top three. For example, a manufacturer may use a combination of sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, corn syrup solids, brown sugar, dextrose and other sugar ingredients to make sure none of them are present in large enough quantities to attain a top position on the ingredients list (remember, the ingredients are listed in order of their proportion in the food, with the most common ingredients listed first).

This fools consumers into thinking the food product isn't really made mostly of sugar while, in reality, the majority ingredients could all be different forms of sugar. It's a way to artificially shift sugar farther down the ingredients list and thereby misinform consumers about the sugar content of the whole product.

Another trick is to pad the list with miniscule amounts of great-sounding ingredients. You see this in personal care products and shampoo, too, where companies claim to offer "herbal" shampoos that have practically no detectable levels of real herbs in them. In foods, companies pad the ingredients lists with healthy-sounding berries, herbs or superfoods that are often only present in miniscule amounts. Having "spirulina" appear at the end of the ingredients list is practically meaningless. There's not enough spirulina in the food to have any real effect on your health. This trick is called "label padding" and it's commonly used by junk food manufacturers who want to jump on the health food bandwagon without actually producing healthy foods.

Hiding dangerous ingredients

A third trick involves hiding dangerous ingredients behind innocent-sounding names that fool consumers into thinking they're safe. The highly carcinogenic ingredient sodium nitrite, for example, sounds perfectly innocent, but it is well documented to cause brain tumors, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer and many other cancers (just search Google Scholar for sodium nitrite to see a long list of supporting research, or click here to read NewsTarget articles on sodium nitrite).

Carmine sounds like an innocent food coloring, but it's actually made from the smashed bodies of red cochineal beetles. Of course, nobody would eat strawberry yogurt if the ingredients listed, "Insect-based red food coloring" on the label, so instead, they just call it "carmine."

Similarly, yeast extract sounds like a perfect safe food ingredient, too, but it's actually a trick used to hide monosodium glutamate (MSG, a chemical taste enhancer used to excite the flavors of overly-processed foods) without having to list MSG on the label. Lots of ingredients contain hidden MSG, and I've written extensively about them on this site. Virtually all hydrolyzed or autolyzed ingredients contain some amount of hidden MSG.

Don't be fooled by the name of the product

Did you know that the name of the food product has nothing to do with what's in it? Brand-name food companies make products like "Guacamole Dip" that contains no avocado! Instead, they're made with hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial green coloring chemicals. But gullible consumers keep on buying these products, thinking they're getting avocado dip when, in reality, they're buying green-colored, yummy-tasting dietary poison.

Food names can include words that describe ingredients not found in the food at all. A "cheese" cracker, for example, doesn't have to contain any cheese. A "creamy" something doesn't have to contain cream. A "fruit" product need not contain even a single molecule of fruit. Don't be fooled by product names printed on the packaging. These names are designed to sell products, not to accurately describe the ingredients contained in the package.

Ingredients lists don't include contaminants

There is no requirement for food ingredients lists to include the names of chemical contaminants, heavy metals, bisphenol-A, PCBs, perchlorate or other toxic substances found in the food. As a result, ingredients lists don't really list what's actually in the food, they only list what the manufacturer wants you to believe is in the food.

This is by design, of course. Requirements for listing food ingredients were created by a joint effort between the government and private industry (food corporations). In the beginning, food corporations didn't want to be required to list any ingredients at all. They claimed the ingredients were "proprietary knowledge" and that listing them would destroy their business by disclosing their secret manufacturing recipes. It's all nonsense, of course, since food companies primarily want to keep consumers ignorant of what's really in their products. That's why there is still no requirement to list various chemical contaminants, pesticides, heavy metals and other substances that have a direct and substantial impact on the health of consumers. (For years, food companies fought hard against the listing of trans fatty acids, too, and it was only after a massive public health outcry by consumer health groups that the FDA finally forced food companies to include trans fats on the label.)

Manipulating serving sizes

Food companies have also figured out how to manipulate the serving size of foods in order to make it appear that their products are devoid of harmful ingredients like trans fatty acids. The FDA, you see, created a loophole for reporting trans fatty acids on the label: Any food containing 0.5 grams or less of trans fatty acids per serving is allowed to claim ZERO trans fats on the label. That's FDA logic for you, where 0.5 = 0. But fuzzy math isn't the only game played by the FDA to protect the commercial interests of the industry is claims to regulate.

Exploiting this 0.5 gram loophole, companies arbitrarily reduce the serving sizes of their foods to ridiculous levels -- just enough to bring the trans fats down to 0.5 grams per serving. Then they loudly proclaim on the front of the box, "ZERO Trans Fats!" In reality, the product may be loaded with trans fats (found in hydrogenated oils), but the serving size has been reduced to a weight that might only be appropriate for feeding a ground squirrel, not a human being.

The next time you pick up a grocery product, checking out the "No. of servings" line in the Nutrition Facts box. You'll likely find some ridiculously high number there that has nothing to do with reality. A cookie manufacturer, for example, might claim that one cookie is an entire "serving" of cookies. But do you know anyone who actually eats just one cookie? If one cookie contains 0.5 grams of trans fatty acids, the manufacturer can claim the entire package of cookies is "Trans Fat FREE!" In reality, however, the package might contain 30 cookies, each with 0.5 grams of trans fats, which comes out to 15 grams total in the package (but that assumes people can actually do math, which is of course made all the more difficult by the fact that hydrogenated oils actually harm the brain. But trust me: 30 cookies x 0.5 grams per cookie really does come out to 15 grams total).

This is how you get a package of cookies containing 15 grams of trans fats (which is a huge dose of dietary poison) while claiming to contain ZERO grams. Again, it's just another example of how food companies use Nutrition Facts and ingredients lists to deceive, not inform, consumers.

Here are some additional tips for successfully decoding ingredients list labels:

Tips for reading ingredients labels

1. Remember that ingredients are listed in order of their proportion in the product. This means the first 3 ingredients matter far more than anything else. The top 3 ingredients are what you're primarily eating.

2. If the ingredients list contains long, chemical-sounding words that you can't pronounce, avoid that item. It likely does contain various toxic chemicals. Why would you want to eat them? Stick with ingredients you recognize.

3. Don't be fooled by fancy-sounding herbs or other ingredients that appear very far down the list. Some food manufacturer that includes "goji berries" towards the end of the list is probably just using it as a marketing gimmick on the label. The actual amount of goji berries in the product is likely miniscule.

4. Remember that ingredients lists don't have to list chemical contaminants. Foods can be contaminated with pesticides, solvents, acrylamides, PFOA, perchlorate (rocket fuel) and other toxic chemicals without needing to list them at all. The best way to minimize your ingestion of toxic chemicals is to buy organic, or go with fresh, minimally-processed foods.

5. Look for words like "sprouted" or "raw" to indicate higher-quality natural foods. Sprouted grains and seeds are far healthier than non-sprouted. Raw ingredients are generally healthier than processed or cooked. Whole grains are healthier than "enriched" grains.

6. Don't be fooled by the word "wheat" when it comes to flour. All flour derived from wheat can be called "wheat flour," even if it is processed, bleached and stripped of its nutrition. Only "whole grain wheat flour" is a healthful form of wheat flour. (Many consumers mistakenly believe that "wheat flour" products are whole grain products. In fact, this is not true. Food manufacturers fool consumers with this trick.)

7. Don't be fooled into thinking that brown products are healthier than white products. Brown sugar is a gimmick -- it's just white sugar with brown coloring and flavoring added. Brown eggs are no different than white eggs (except for the fact that their shells appear brown). Brown bread may be no healthier than white bread, either, unless it's made with whole grains. Don't be tricked by "brown" foods. These are just gimmicks used by food giants to fool consumers into paying more for manufactured food products.

8. Watch out for deceptively small serving sizes. Food manufacturers use this trick to reduce the number of calories, grams of sugar or grams of fat believed to be in the food by consumers. Many serving sizes are arbitrary and have no basis in reality.

9. Want to know how to really shop for foods? Download our free Honest Food Guide, the honest reference to foods that has now been downloaded by over 800,000 people. It's a replacement for the USDA's highly corrupt and manipulated Food Guide Pyramid, which is little more than a marketing document for the dairy industry and big food corporations. The Honest Food Guide is an independent, nutritionally-sound reference document that reveals exactly what to eat (and what to avoid) to maximize your health.
Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
Chef Tim Johnson
Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

SESAME TAMARI VINAIGRETTE

NUTRITION PROFILE: Low Calorie | Low Carb | Low Sodium | Low Cholesterol | Low Sat Fat | Heart Healthy The roasted-nut and citrus flavors of this easy dressing go well with Asian-style salads or meals; try drizzling it on grilled shrimp or chicken breast, too. Makes 3/4 cup ACTIVE TIME: 5 minutes TOTAL TIME: 5 minutes EASE OF PREPARATION: Easy 1/4 cup orange juice 1/4 cup rice vinegar 2 tablespoons reduced-sodium tamari or reduced-sodium soy sauce 1 tablespoon toasted sesame oil 1 tablespoon honey 1 teaspoon finely grated fresh ginger Whisk orange juice, vinegar, tamari, oil, honey and ginger in a small bowl until the honey is incorporated. Transfer to a jar and refrigerate. NUTRITION INFORMATION: Per 2-tablespoon serving: 37 calories; 2 g fat (0 g sat, 1 g mono); 0 mg cholesterol; 4 g carbohydrate; 0 g protein; 0 g fiber; 303 mg sodium; 21 mg potassium. Exchanges: 1/2 fat 0 Carbohydrate Servings MAKE AHEAD TIP: Cover and refrigerate for up to 1 week Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

ORANGE-OREGANO DRESSING

NUTRITION PROFILE: Low Calorie | Low Carb | Low Sodium | Low Cholesterol | Low Sat Fat | Heart Healthy What this dressing lacks in calories and fat it makes up for in big, bold orange flavor and herbal oregano notes. Makes about 1 cup ACTIVE TIME: 5 minutes TOTAL TIME: 5 minutes EASE OF PREPARATION: Easy 1/2 teaspoon freshly grated orange zest 1/2 cup orange juice, preferably freshly squeezed 1/4 cup cider vinegar 1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil 2 teaspoons chopped fresh oregano or 3/4 teaspoon dried 1 teaspoon Dijon mustard 1/2 teaspoon salt 1/2 teaspoon freshly ground pepper Place all ingredients in a jar. Cover and shake to combine. NUTRITION INFORMATION: Per 2-tablespoon serving: 27 calories; 2 g fat (0 g sat, 1 g mono); 0 mg cholesterol; 2 g carbohydrate; 0 g protein; 0 g fiber; 165 mg sodium; 41 mg potassium. Exchanges: 1/2 fat 0 Carbohydrate Servings MAKE AHEAD TIP: Cover and refrigerate for up to 1 week. Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

ROASTED TOMATO VINAIGRETTE

NUTRITION PROFILE: Low Calorie | Low Carb | Low Sodium | Low Cholesterol | Low Sat Fat | Heart Healthy Recipe Invest a little extra time in this recipe to slow-roast the tomatoes and you’re rewarded with a rich, earthy flavor with almost no fat. Makes 1 cup ACTIVE TIME: 10 minutes TOTAL TIME: 2 hours EASE OF PREPARATION: Easy 12 ounces plum tomatoes, halved lengthwise and cored 1 tablespoon chopped garlic 1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil 1 teaspoon Italian seasoning mix 1 teaspoon kosher salt Freshly ground pepper to taste 2 tablespoons sherry vinegar or red-wine vinegar 1. Preheat oven to 300°F. Coat an 8-inch-square glass baking dish with cooking spray. 2. Toss tomatoes, garlic, oil, Italian seasoning, salt and pepper in a medium bowl. Spread the tomatoes in the prepared baking dish. Bake until the tomatoes are broken down and the juices are thick and syrupy, 1 hour 20 minutes to 1 hour 35 minutes. 3. Transfer the tomatoes to a blender. Add vinegar and puree. (Use caution when blending hot mixtures.) Cool completely before using. NUTRITION INFORMATION: Per 2-tablespoon serving: 19 calories; 1 g fat (0 g sat, 1 g mono); 0 mg cholesterol; 1 g carbohydrate; 0 g protein; 0 g fiber; 99 mg sodium; 59 mg potassium. Exchanges: Free food 0 Carbohydrate Servings MAKE AHEAD TIP: Cover and refrigerate for up to 1 week. Stir before using. Courtsy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

Salmon, Cucumber, Dill Salad

This very summery dish is light and refreshing. The dill complements the rich taste of salmon beautifully. And it can be made in just 15 minutes from start to finish, giving you an easy, and delicious way to enjoy the healthy benefits of salmon with minimal effort. The stovetop cooking method uses no heated oils and seals in the flavor and juices of the salmon. Topped with the low fat mustard sauce you have the perfect healthy salad without compromising flavor.

Prep and Cook Time: 20 minutes Ingredients: 1� lbs salmon filet, cut into 4 pieces, skin and bones removed 1 TBS Dijon mustard � TBS honey 1 large cucumber, peeled, cut in half lengthwise, seeds scooped out, diced in � inch cubes, 3 cups 1 large ripe fresh tomato, seeds, excess pulp removed, diced 1 medium ripe, but firm avocado, diced in � inch cubes 2 TBS chopped chives 3 medium cloves garlic, pressed 1� TBS chopped fresh dill 2 + 1 TBS fresh lemon juice 1 TBS extra virgin olive oil salt and cracked black pepper to taste

Directions:

1. Mix together cucumber, tomato, avocado, chives, garlic, and dill, in a bowl and set aside.
   
2. Whisk together lemon juice, olive oil, salt and pepper in a separate bowl. Toss with cucumber mix when ready to serve.
   
3. Preheat a stainless steel skillet over medium high heat for 2 minutes. Rub salmon with 1 TBS lemon juice and season with salt and pepper. Place in hot pan bottom side up. Cook for 2 minutes. This is our Stovetop Searing cooking method.
   
4. While cooking, mix together honey and mustard. Turn salmon and spread honey mustard on top of fish. Continue to cook for another 2 minutes, depending on how thick salmon is. You want it pink on the inside. Season with pepper.
   
5. Divide cucumber mixture between 4 plates and serve with salmon.
   
   Serves 4
   

Healthy Cooking Tips:

Choose salmon filets that are cut from the thickest part of the fish. It will be thicker, and moister after cooking. Because stove temperatures vary, it is best to check the salmon for doneness after about 1 minutes after you have turned it. Salmon is best-cooked medium. Insert the tip of a knife into the thickest part of the filet. It should flake, yet still be pink in the center. Also, make sure you don't toss the cucumber mix with the dressing until you are ready to serve. The salt in the dressing will draw out the water in the cucumbers and dilute the flavor of your salad.

Nutritional Profile

Introduction to Recipe Rating System ChartThe following chart shows the nutrients for which this recipe is either an excellent, very good or good source. Next to the nutrient name you will find the following information: the amount of the nutrient that is included in the noted serving of this recipe; the %Daily Value (DV) that that amount represents (similar to other information presented in the website, this DV is calculated for a 25-50 year old healthy woman); the nutrient density rating; and, the recipe's World's Healthiest Foods Rating. Underneath the chart is a table that summarizes how the ratings were devised. 

Salmon, Cucumber, Dill Salad 1.00 serving 370.54 grams 444.33 calories
Nutrient	Amount	%DV	Nutrient Density	World's Healthiest Foods Rating
vitamin D	493.29 IU	123.3	5.0	excellent
tryptophan	0.39 g	121.9	4.9	excellent
omega 3 fatty acids	2.48 g	99.2	4.0	excellent
selenium	62.62 mcg	89.5	3.6	excellent
vitamin B12 (cobalamin)	5.09 mcg	84.8	3.4	excellent
protein	37.27 g	74.5	3.0	very good
vitamin B3 (niacin)	13.74 mg	68.7	2.8	very good
vitamin C	31.22 mg	52.0	2.1	very good
phosphorus	516.22 mg	51.6	2.1	very good
magnesium	168.61 mg	42.2	1.7	good
vitamin B6 (pyridoxine)	0.76 mg	38.0	1.5	good
potassium	1181.27 mg	33.8	1.4	good
vitamin A	1332.39 IU	26.6	1.1	good

World's Healthiest Foods Rating	Rule
excellent	DV>=75%	OR	Density>=7.6	AND	DV>=10%
very good	DV>=50%	OR	Density>=3.4	AND	DV>=5%
good	DV>=25%	OR	Density>=1.5	AND	DV>=2.5%

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
Chef Tim Johnson
Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™