Chef's profileHealthy Cooking TipsPhotosBlogLists Tools Help

Blog


    SPECIAL INVITATION!!!!!!!!!

    I'm please to let everyone know about my new company HEALTHY NUT LLC. and website myhealthynut.com, where we will be featuring unique services to the community at large and we invite everyone to stop by, so your needs can be met by our staff team healthynut...we look forward to working with everyone and remember...grace is upon you so eat to live!
    Courtesy of Healthy Nut  LLC.
    Chef Tim Johnson, CEO

    THE KEY IS PORTION SIZES!

    Nutritional information from the USDA
    The following USDA nutritional information for the various meat catagories will provide you with a source of comparison for Elk with other meats and fish. All information is based on a serving size of 100 grams (approximatelyy 3.5 ounces).

    Ranking in order of Protein content.
    MEAT TYPE................. PROTEIN

  • Elk .............................. 22.95g
  • Buffalo ......................... 21.62g
  • Turkey (meat only)......... 21.77g
  • Chicken (meat only)....... 21.39g
  • Halibut ......................... 20.81g
  • Fish - Pink Salmon ....... 19.94g
  • Fish - Atlantic Salmon.... 19.84g
  • Beef - Select................. 17.48g
  • Beef - Choice ................ 17.32g
  • Fish - Orange Roughy.....14.70g
  • Pork............................ 13.91g
  • Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

    Chef Tim Johnson

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

    STAY FOCUSED

    How to Shop Carefully With a Tight Budget

    The high cost of many items nowadays necessitates careful budgeting. If you carefully select your purchases and create a shopping list, you'll be able to get what you need without damaging your wallet too much.

    Buy food first. Check your refrigerator for the staples that need to be replaced. Milk, bread, eggs and cheese are all staples that should be available, and should go first on your shopping list. Expensive fresh fruit can be replaced with canned fruit, and macaroni and pasta are cheap, but not very nutritious. Meat is expensive in the short run, but packs a nutritional wallop that gets you a lot of bang for your buck.

    Plan ahead and show discipline. Looking at the bins of cheeses can make you want to buy more than you really need, so write down on the list exactly what type of cheese you want, add it to your cart and then walk to another aisle.Look at the ends of the meat and seafood section. There are often marked-down items there.

    1. Make friends with the butcher. He or she may point out some great deals, or mark meats down especially for you. Same thing works with the Produce Manager. Being friendly is free, but pays great dividends!
    2. Compare brands and check prices. There is usually a store brand version of most items that is cheaper and of comparable quality to the big name item.
    3. Read circulars before you go into the store to see if what you need is on sale. Comparing circulars from different stores might help you get a better deal.
    4. Clip coupons for items you normally buy and bring them with you.
    5. Buy dry goods and toiletries in larger sizes to save money.
    6. Remember what you went to a store to buy, so you do not have to walk up and down aisles. Zero in on the aisle or store you need to buy the item, enter, buy the item, and then leave. Impulse buying will ruin any budget, and when yours is tight, it will just be worse.
    7. As you buy, write the prices on a pad that you keep with you. It might even be best to use a small adding machine, pocket size, and as you put the products in your shopping cart, calculate what you have spent, remember how much you have set aside to spend, and when you get close, then stop shopping. Remember, you still have to buy shoes.
    8. Know exactly what type of shoes you need. Do not look around at all the different styles. Try on the proper size, and if they fit, then buy it and leave the store. Hanging around, looking at the handbags hanging on the wall might tempt you to buy something you really do not need. 
    9. Put all the costs into the little adding machine. If you note that you have gone over the amount you can spend, then return an item that you really do not need at the moment, and put it on another list of 'to buy next time.

    Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips  

    Chef Tim Johnson

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

     

     

    THIS LITTLE PIGGY

    Pig Genetically Engineered and close to your table



    This is an appalling, unethical misuse of molecular biology. It is promoting horribly inhumane treatment of animals in the pursuit of an entirely unsustainable model of food production.

    The pigs, pale pink and bristly, trot around the pen, stopping every so often to root in piles of bedding. They grunt and squeal and wag their short curlicue tails. All three like a hard scratch on the rump.

    In almost every way, these broad-backed oinkers are just like the other Yorkshire pigs at the opposite end of the barn.

    All except for the brackish green muck that oozes from their backsides. And the snippet of mouse DNA that has been slipped into their piggy chromosomes.

    These are Enviropigs, developed by researchers at the University of Guelph to poop out more environmentally friendly waste. The trademarked pigs are just one of dozens of genetically engineered animals at research institutions around the world whose genes have been altered for human benefit. And, due to a recent move in the U.S., the Enviropig may be the first to arrive on your dinner plate.

    Two months ago, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidelines that outline how genetically engineered animals will be regulated. The agency, which asked the public to weigh in on the proposals, closed the 60-day comment period on Tuesday.

    Regulators are now sifting through the thousands of comments, many of them raising troubling questions about how so-called supermeats get to market.

    As the guidelines stand now, companies do not have to conduct human trials to test the safety of transgenic meats. Nor do they have to specially label products made from genetically engineered animals. And many consumers are outraged that transgenic meats could end up in their grocery cart without their knowledge.

    Despite concerns, experts say the FDA's much anticipated document, the first of its kind issued by a federal government, will be the catalyst for moving genetically engineered livestock from the experimental farmyard to the supermarket.

    Proponents of transgenic animals - whether faster-growing fish, special-milk-producing cows and goats or healthy-for-you-pork producing pigs - say they herald a new era of food production. FDA officials say genetically engineered animals hold "great promise" for improving human medicine and the environment. The made-in-Canada Enviropig, for example, could clean up hog farms around the world by drastically reducing a major pollutant found in pig waste.

    But here in Canada, regulators have yet to announce how they plan to regulate genetically engineered animals, though officials may act soon after the U.S guidelines are finalized. A spokesperson for Health Canada, the agency responsible for establishing these guidelines, said officials will liaise with the FDA on the issue. Until regulations are in place, foods derived from transgenic animals will be prohibited - even if approved by the FDA.

    For Cecil Forsberg, one of the University of Guelph scientists who developed Enviropig, the FDA draft guidelines open the door to corporate investors interested in their trademarked animal. Food companies, he says, have been slow to back genetically engineered animals without a clear approval process.

    The first Enviropig was born at the university farm in 1999. Unlike the rest of his litter, this piglet had a bacterial protein, called the phytase gene, attached to a piece of mouse DNA that locked into his chromosome. The scientists hoped the phytase gene would make the pig produce an enzyme to help it better digest plant phosphorous, a vital nutrient in their feed. The mouse DNA was used to kick start phytase production in the pig's salivary system.

    The genetic engineering worked.

    Enviropigs are able to digest the plant phosphorous more efficiently, which means there is less phosphorous - up to 60 per cent less than ordinary pigs - in their waste. That, in turn, means less phosphorous will leach from pig manure, a major fertilizer source for farmers, into freshwater lakes and streams where it can trigger vast algal blooms and kill fish.

     They say they have enough evidence to declare Enviropigs safe to eat, since chemical analysis has shown the animal's tissue composition is the same as an ordinary Yorkshire pig, and the introduced bacterial protein is not found in any major food tissues, such as the ham, loin, heart and skin.

    They also have shown the engineered trait is successfully passed down to offspring, that the genetic engineering does not harm the pigs in any way, and that Enviropigs do not damage the environment. These evaluations are required under the FDA's draft guidelines.

    No one can say for certain when or if  the Enviropig will be approved, but industry experts predict it will be one of the first transgenic animals approved in the U.S., possibly in 2009. The FDA plans to regulate genetically engineered animals the same way they regulate new animal drugs. Officials will evaluate each new animal on an individual basis and continue to monitor it for safety once approved. Products that prove unsafe will be pulled from the market.

    Scientists who develop transgenic animals say the FDA's proposed guidelines are strict, which should help boost consumer confidence in the products. They point to the government's successful regulation of genetically engineered plants, which have been on the market for more than a decade, and the fact that the FDA declared meat from cloned animals safe to eat last January.

    But critics say the proposed guidelines are too lenient and the approval process too secret. They also contend the FDA does not have the expertise or resources needed to properly evaluate the new technology, especially when it comes to environmental protection.

    A key concern with transgenic animals is they will escape captivity, breed with their conventional cousins and pass on the engineered genetic trait. Transgenic faster-growing salmon, for example, could out-compete wild salmon for food and mates, endangering native fish stocks.

    Amid the swirling scientific concerns, perhaps the biggest question of all is whether or not consumers want genetically engineered animals in grocery stores at all.

    Surveys show the majority of Canadians are wary of genetically engineered animals. That guardedness is reflected in a growing trend that sees consumers looking for more organic, locally sourced or non-industrially farmed products.

    Right now, governments don't consider any of the ethical, social and religious issues with genetically engineered animals. Many people, are concerned about animal welfare, the intensification of industrial agriculture and general reach of biotechnology into their home and onto their dinner plate.

    For some religions, taking a pig gene and putting it into a fish would be problematic.

    Instead of joining in the ethical debate, regulators have decided to leave those tough questions up to consumers in the marketplace. The problem with that philosophy, is when they release their guidelines -it will not require companies to label foods made with genetically engineered animals.

    It's almost impossible for the public to make those value choices without labels. They want to know which meats, what milk and what cheese is developed from genetically engineered animals and what is through conventional. That will be the biggest issue and I think it's entirely justified.

    Aqua Bounty Technologies has spent more than 10 years developing a salmon that can grow to market size in half the time of conventional farmed salmon. Their AquaAdvantage salmon is an Atlantic salmon that has been engineered to carry an extra growth-hormone gene from a Chinook salmon. That extra gene makes the AquaAdvantage salmon grow year round, unlike conventional Atlantic salmon which only grow during warmer months. Stotish says the engineered salmon will make fish farming more efficient, a boon to producers and to consumers, who can continue to buy cheap salmon.

    Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

    Chef Tim Johnson

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

    FOOD FOR THOUGHT

                         Health and Nutrition
     
    At no time in history has there been as much concern over nutrition as at present. As scientific understanding of nutrition grows, restauranteurs are feeling the pressure. It is unquestionably the responsibility of chefs to provide their clientele with healthful, nutritious food.

    Many chefs feel a responsibility not only to provide such foods, but also to help educate their customers about nutrition. They welcome the challenge to develop menus that offer good health as well as good taste. They may, for example, supplement their regular menus with “spa” menus or “healthy” menus offering special dishes low in fat, calories, and sodium.

    Or they may include such dishes on their regular menus and highlight these items with asterisks or other symbols. On the other hand, many operators insist, “I’m running a restaurant, not a hospital.” Not a few restauranteurs have had the experience of investing time and money in developing nutritional menus that people claimed they wanted, only to have the menus fail because no one ordered them.

    It is important for cooks to find some kind of balance. Restaurants are businesses and can be successful only if they offer people what they want. Preaching to customers about the dangers of eating the wrong foods is not a formula for success.

    On the other hand, a responsible operator will work to prepare healthful, nutritious food that people will order because it is flavorful and enjoyable to eat in addition to being good for them.

     

     Chef Tim
     
     Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
     
     
     
    Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!
     
     
     
     
    ©2006    Chef Tim & Associates. All rights reserved.

    You Got What?

    Pennsylvania's Milk Cover-Up

    If one trend has been clear in recent years, it's the desire by consumers to know more about where their food comes from and the way it's produced.

    Consumer surveys clearly show a desire for more transparency - not less - on milk labels and the right to choose. Lake Research Partners found 80 percent of consumers supported the labeling of rBGH-free milk products. The Natural Marketing Institute found that 53 percent of shoppers look for dairy products free of artificial hormones.

    But, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture told 19 dairies that they cannot use language such as "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones," or "From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST," starting Jan. 1, 2008.

    Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said the action was promoted by concerns among "consumer groups," farmers and processors, though the action was entirely in line with the policy position of Monsanto, which makes synthetic bovine growth hormone and has seen its use decline.

    Why stop there? Why not ban farmer claims such as "grown without pesticides," "locally grown" or "no artificial preservatives or colors" that create an alternative to conventional products? The same logic used by the state for milk can be applied to these other labels that consumers seek out.

    Product labels - whether organic, local, or produced without antibiotics and hormones - provide a way for consumers to get that information and make a choice. So why is Pennsylvania swimming against the tide and severely limiting what farmers and processors can say on their milk labels? And why should the rest of the nation care about what happens in Pennsylvania?

    If every state followed Pennsylvania, consumers would be denied the right to choose the products they want and farmers would be banned from describing their production practices. Already, Ohio, New Jersey and Indiana are reportedly mulling similar restrictions.

    Critics and scientists have raised questions about the synthetic growth hormone because of poor animal health and concerns about possible links to a cancer-promoting hormone in humans. Monsanto and others argue those concerns are baseless. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rBGH in 1994, but the drug has been banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

    Wolff said that since the synthetic hormones cannot be detected in milk, a label that indicates their absence would be impossible to verify. As for antibiotics, all milk is tested to be free of antibiotics so there's no reason to label their absence either. But Pennsylvania's action goes beyond limiting statements about the milk and bans factual statements about production practices as well.

    Starting in January, for example, a farmer cannot say on a milk label, "I don't use rBGH on my farm" - even though this statement says nothing about the milk and may be factually correct. Such production claims can be verified. Inspections are required by law for organic farms, for example. Conventional milk producers who also avoid synthetic hormones can issue a legal affidavit to that effect, under penalty of fraud. But Pennsylvania closed off this avenue by saying that such affidavits were now unacceptable as a basis for label claims.

    Organic milk companies have not been exempt from the action. Aurora Organic Dairy has gotten a warning letter from the state, and other organic milk companies expect to get cited as well.

    This debate isn't particularly new, but it has gained steam, as national companies and retailers seek milk produced without rBGH. Starbucks - which sells more milk than coffee - announced its intention to do so earlier this year and supermarket giant Kroger is too. Many natural food stores have long sold milk produced without synthetic hormones.

    By stating their chosen avoidance of rBGH, these companies are following federal directives that have been in place for 17 years. In 1994, when the FDA approved Monsanto's synthetic growth hormone, it allowed production claims such as "from cows not treated with rBST."

    For the past several years, Monsanto has sought to limit these absence claims because it believes they disparage producers who chose to use the substance. Monsanto has also been taking legal action to stamp out labels. In 2003, it sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine over a label statement that read, "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones." The suit was settled out of court. Last year, Monsanto appealed to the FDA to review the wording for rBGH label claims and also sought action from the Federal Trade Commission on advertising.

    The FDA declined to act, noting that it would only intervene in cases where fraudulent claims were made on the milk label. The FTC also found no instance where a national company made claims about the absence of rBST and dismissed Monsanto's claim. Having struck out with federal regulators, it now appears that Monsanto is lobbying state governments to limit these labels.
    Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
    Chef Tim Johnson
    Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

    Appreciation

    I would like to thank msn.spaces.live for giving me the platform to express food and eating healthy to your readers worldwide and to thank them for picking my blog for this weeks featured story. http://whatsyourstory.msn.com/?src=spaceshome
     
    Sincerely Yours,
    Chef Tim
    Remember... Grace is upon you so eat to live!