As you may have noticed, I have something of a weakness for vintage cookbooks. I like seeing how women were cooking (and it was almost always women doing the home cooking back in those days) in the few generations before I was born. I like the pictures, which typically range from quirky and appealing to downright stomach-turning (that cherry pie doesn't look particularly appetizing).

This Betty Crocker Picture Cook Book, which is the second edition and was published in 1956 (to see covers of all editions of this book, click here), satisfies my vintage cookbook needs on a lot of levels. It starts you out with a photographic tour of the modernly decorated offices and workspaces of the Betty Crocker kitchens (complete with faux living room) and then moves you into the basic recipes and meal plans. There are pictures throughout the text, but more often you come across helpful diagrams and line drawings, some very reminiscent of the illustrations found in my preferred edition of the Joy of Cooking (late sixties/early seventies, with the white dust jacket and turquoise fabric underneath).

Beyond all that though, it is a useful and still-applicable cookbook. It has pie crust recipes which aren't particularly different from many of those available today. It has temperature guides for roasting meats and offers an assortment of menus that help you get dinner on the table fast (whether you're doing your cooking in 1956 or 2008).

Recently General Mills, the maker of Hamburger Helper, announced that they were going to do their part to save the planet by straightening out the noodles in boxes of Hamburger Helper. Their thinking was that smoother noodles will take up less packaging because they settle together more easily. That will in turn make it possible for them to make the boxes smaller and then move more HH in each shipment. Problem solved!

The folks over at the Environmental News Network have a bone to pick with General Mills. They say that tweaking the shape of the noodles will not have a significant impact on the health of the environment. ENN argues that until large companies like General Mills take a holistic look at what they make, how they make it and what they make it with, they won't have more than a drop of impact in the bucket of sustainability.

There are two things I have been trying like the Dickens to change about my diet: 1) drinking more water, and 2) eating food with more fiber. The water part is hard for me because I don't like how plain water tastes (yes, water does have a taste, you know), and I have an unholy addiction to Diet Coke and energy drinks.

The fiber part is even harder. I love fresh fruits and vegetables, but that's not the issue. The issue is my lifestyle. I don't just have a full-time job. I have the fullest-time job possible, I blog, and I live alone. This combination makes it near impossible to cook proper meals that include fresh produce and grains with fiber. For a while, I was taking fiber supplements in the form of, you know, those "drink" things, but that stopped as soon as I realized how bloated I was getting from it.

FiberOne is a candidate in my quest for quick sources of fiber. FiberOne is a line from cereal and food company General Mills that has a few products, all focusing on high fiber. The basic cereal looks like any other fiber cereal - little "noodles" or "branches" - that definitely look too healthy to enjoy. General Mills has expanded the line with two more family friendly cereals, meaning that in the bowl, they look a lot less clinical.

I tried FiberOne Raisn Bran Clusters, which is FiberOne's entrant in the raisin bran cereal playing field, which is dominated by Kellog's Raisin Bran. However, if the marketing on the cereal box is accurate, FiberOne beats all other raisin brans with 40% of the recommended daily intake of fiber. Supposedly, that makes FiberOne's Raisin Bran Clusters the leader.

Love cereal? Well, then you and Jerry Seinfeld may soon be paying a lot more for the stuff (though I'm sure the increased cost won't bother Jerry too much).

Because of unfavorable weather conditions in key areas (who knew one of the places we get our wheat for cereal from was the Black Sea region of the Ukraine??), the cost of wheat is going up, and if those prices continue to be high then companies like Kellogg and General Mills will have to raise prices on their boxes of cereal.

If that wasn't enough bad news? The price of milk is also going up! Milk prices in the U.S. are up 3% this year, and could skyrocket towards the end of the year.

The calls for restrictions on how much and how often food is advertised to children have not gone unheard. While some companies previously cut their kids' advertising, a new initiative shows that more are getting involved. Ten of the largest food and beverage manufacturers in the US, including McDonald's and Coca-Cola, vowed that at least half of their "advertising directed at children under the age of 12 would promote healthier foods or contain messages that encourage healthy lifestyles." The companies also agreed not to advertise at elementary schools and to promote only healthy or nutritious foods in most forms of marketing, including in interactive games, which were a primary concern to many who felt that they children would not realize it was advertising.

Critics are predictably critical. Instead of viewing this as a step forward in the battle against childhood obesity, which is how many parents and politicians see it, they simply state that this isn't good enough. The industry is planning to self-regulate and executives could not cite specific changes that would result from this decision. On the other hand, given that nothing like this has been done before, it is not surprising that it is hard to say what, precisely, will be the result. In any event, a decision to work towards promoting a healthy lifestyle is far better than the total ban on advertising that the critics want.

General Mills has very strict advertising guidelines. They "consistently [avoid] advertising on programming that contains graphic violence, excessive sexual content and foul language," to much applause from consumer groups. It is the newest change to that policy, however, has those groups almost cheering aloud. The company has said that it will no longer advertise certain products, those that are considered to be unhealthy or high-calorie, to children. If a product contains more than 175 calories per serving, it will not be advertised to children under 12 via TV ads, movie tie-ins, internet content or using licensed cartoon characters. On top of that, "every product also must be considered 'healthy' or provide an important childhood nutrient, as measured by government guidelines." They will continue to use characters, including the Trix rabbit and the popular Dora the Explorer, to promote their other cereals, as the company has done for decades.

It is a bold step for the company, as it means that they might lose market-share to competitors in this area, but if parents applaud the move as much as the consumer groups, it might encourage some of them to stick with the brand in support.

Since Kellogg's cereals are about to go up in price, taking a look at some of the lower-priced alternatives to name brand cereals seems prudent. This month's Consumer Reports happily obliges us with their taste test of store brand frosted flakes (Kellogg's Frosted Flakes), toasted oats (GM Cheerios), and frosted mini wheats (Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats).

Frosted flake cereals are the least nutritious of the bunch, with about 120 calories, 12 grams of sugar and only 1 gram of fiber. Kellogg's well-known brand topped the taste test, tied with the lower-priced Malt-O-Meal version of the cereal. Other brands tasted slightly bitter. CR also noted that a few turned the milk bright yellow. Sounds like it's best to stick to the familiar in this case.

Kellogg's is planning to raise prices and decrease package sizes for its ready-to-eat boxed cereals this fall. The cereal giant is expected to increase its marketing budget, or at least maintain it, to make sure that customers keep buying their products in spite of pricing changes. After all, they have to convince the consumer that it is worth paying more money for less cereal for their profits to remain the same.

But is it worth it? The two main reasons that people eat cold cereal are convenience and price. A bowl of cereal takes seconds to prepare and you can get several meals out of one box. But, if given all the time and luxury of a relaxing Sunday, cereal might not be the first thing that breakfasters would reach for. A small price hike, about 2%, might not make a big difference in buying habits, but it will certainly set the stage for other cereal companies to follow in the footsteps of the largest cereal company and could even lead to further changes in pricing. When consumers realize that they are getting less than what they think they're paying for, some might stop buying cereal on a regular basis and the companies could be hurt more in the long run.

General Mills has a brand new cereal out in stores now. It's got the now-familiar "whole grain" label on it, promising a healthy breakfast, but somehow Double Chocolate Cookie Crisp doesn't seem like it's going to stack up nutritionally to, say, a bowl of oatmeal. I had no idea that Cookie Crisp was still on the market (anyone remember the cop that used to be in the commercials?), let alone the fact that GM was working on new variations, including the double choc as well as peanut butter.

Surprisingly, Double Chocolate Cookie Crisp isn't too bad when you take a look at the label. Each serving as only 130 calories and 2.5 grams of fat, none of it saturated, and it's fortified with calcium, iron, folic acid, etc. And the taste? It's pretty much like chocolate chip cookies and milk. They might be a bit on the sweet side, but for a chocoholic needing a fix in the morning, you could do a lot worse.

If you're not interested in sugary treats in the morning, the cereal might be more satisfying as a snack in the afternoon. Each 3/4 cup serving is going to be slightly bigger than what you'd find in one of those 100 calorie packs of "cookies" and you'll get a lot more servings out of a $4 box.

If you love the flavor of cereal, but hate the way that it gets mushy in milk, General Mills is introducing the perfect product for you: cereal-flavored milk. The company has just signed a 5-year licensing agreement to turn some of its most popular breakfast cereals into low-fat milks. The cereal flavors will include Trix, Lucky Charms and Wheaties and the milk will be sold in single-serving containers.

I gather that these products are meant to be consumed as a stand-alone product, not with actual cereal. They will be released around the end of the summer, in time for the back-to-school season. Frankly, I can't see the appeal. The leftover milk from the bottom of a bowl of Lucky Charms? Thanks, but no thanks.

We mentioned the growing market for yogurt and how it is being included in products from toothpaste to cereals. This week, the Wall Street Journal did a quick taste test of three of the new yogurt-coated breakfast foods: Total Vanilla Yogurt, Life Vanilla Yogurt Crunch, All-Bran Yogurt Bites. They point out that none of the cereals contained live cultures, instead relying on dried nonfat yogurt and yogurt powder to add color and flavor to the cereals. Most of the flavor came for the sugar that was added in addition to the yogurt, though, and the WSJ tasters found the Life and Total cereals to be far too sweet. The All-Bran version was the favorite, as it didn't have the overly sugary taste of the others, though the tasters commented that they could have used a few more yogurt bites.

I tasted Kellogg's Cran-Vanilla Crunch, which has cranberries and yogurt-oat clusters. It might have been a bit on the sweet side for breakfast, but I still enjoyed it. And it made a great snack or topping for plain, non-cereal yogurt.