We've all heard stories about food "rules" - the chef who refused to serve a food writer for ordering a Diet Coke with her meal, the waiter who wouldn't bring ketchup to the table because the frites were "supposed to be" eaten with garlic mayonnaise. Ordering the steak well done is sacrilege! Don't you dare put extra wasabi in your soy sauce dish - the sushi chef has already put in the exact right amount!

Writing in the New York Times Magazine, Robert Trachtenberg discusses the issue of food rules with an essay on the Italian taboo against putting Parmesan on seafood pasta. Trachtenberg knows it's against the rules, that traditional Italian chefs claim it masks the delicate seafood flavor. But he's not buying it - he likes it that way. Chefs chastise him, waiters serve him in secret, whispering that they fear for their jobs.

Seems pretty silly to me, the idea of rigid food rules. On the one hand, I'm always keen to eat the "original version" of a food, the way it's supposedly been eaten for hundreds of years in Thailand or made by grandmothers in Mexico for generations, yada yada yada. Tasting things the way the locals eat them is a way of connecting with the culture, of expanding your own horizons. And certainly I wouldn't want to disrespect a culture or a chef by doing something truly rude.

On the other hand, sometimes you just know what you like and what you don't like. And why is it anyone's business to tell you different? I would be pretty darn annoyed if a waiter withheld my Parmesan because the chef felt the pasta was better without. If a dining companion warned me against putting more wasabi on my sushi I would probably tell him to shut up. I really like wasabi. The very phrase "It's a matter of taste" is used to point out that taste is subjective, and necessarily varies from person to person. And does food really need to be taken so seriously anyway?

What do you think about following/breaking food "rules?"

Meat and milk from cloned animals have been deemed safe by the FDA and won't make it to market for some time yet, which is a relief to many consumers because the USDA has also determined that there needs to be no label distinguishing between cloned meat and naturally-bred meat and some would like to see that policy change before the products are on store shelves. Another issue that needs definition is whether or not clones can be organic. Many feel that as long as the clones are "raised organically," living the same lifestyle and receiving the same food as conventionally organic animals, they should receive the designation.

Others, all supporters of the organic movement, range from strongly against the issue to rabidly against it. The terms "organic" and "cloned" just don't belong together, they say. The current guidelines state that genetically modified foods cannot be consider organic. By implication, an animal made in a lab - even if it isn't "genetically modified" - should also be excluded. "Surely, these opponents conclude, no animal is more engineered than a clone."

For the moment, it seems that the current organic rules would apply and that it would not be difficult for cloned foods to qualify as such, but ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of the USDA, which could be considered by an advisory panel as early as spring. After this decision, we may see a revision of the definition of "organic" itself.

The fork, once known as a split spoon, is a vital eating utensil for just about everyone these days. The implement originated sometime during the early Middle Ages, caught on in Italy in the 11th century and gradually spread across Europe, heading first to France and then to Spain, over the next few centuries.

When they first came into use, it was considered very rude to eat from them and spoons, knives and fingers were the implements of choice for most diners. These days, there are few foods that cannot be eaten with the aid of a fork and it would be considered quite rude to resort to using fingers in most dining situations. Culinary etiquette experts offer a few pearls of wisdom on what foods are appropriate to eat with your hands (just in case one of these experts happens to show up the next time you're having a meal out).The foods you can eat by hand are:

• Bread: break slices of bread, rolls and muffins in half or into small pieces by hand before buttering.
• Bacon: the crispy American style can be picked up and eaten. The more ham-like Canadian bacon should be cut.
• Finger foods/meals: Follow the cue of your host. If finger meals are offered on a platter, place them on your plate before putting them into your mouth. Make sure a napkin is nearby.
• Foods that are meant to be eaten by hand include: corn on the cob, ribs, lobster, clams and oysters, chicken wings, sandwiches, certain fruits, olives, celery, dry cakes and cookies.

In light of the E. coli and botulism problems over the past few months that have been linked to California growers, there has been a proposal that new standards should be implemented to ensure that consumers will feel safe and comfortable buying California produce. Most growers have already increased the amount of oversight that their produce recieives, but the new plan involves the creaton of a "seal of approval" for all leafy vegetables. The standards for the seal have not yet been determined, but growers and lawmakers plan to iron out the details later this spring. Issues being considered are how to more effectively test irrigation water and how to keep livestock, primarily cattle, away from cropland.

In spite of the fact that there is no actual plan in place yet, the idea of a "seal of approval" is already being met with opposition, with critics saying that "the industry's proposal relies too heavily on policing itself." This could be a strong argument in other industries, but when it comes to food safety, no one wants to make sure consumers are protected more than the growers whose livelihoods depend on consumer satisfaction with, and confidence in, their products.

The strawberry milk that is sold by Horizon Organics is white, unlike the pink strawberry milks sold by some of its competitors. The company is having a hard time finding a natural, organic coloring to give it the familiar color that consumers associate with strawberry-flavored milk.

And they are not alone.

For a company to use the "USDA Organic" label, the ingredients must be organic and the colorings must be natural. The colorings must be from organic ingredients for a product to claim that it is 100% organic. Fresh produce and other products don't usually have issues with colorings, but other organic products do, which can give them a disadvantage in the marketplace because consumers expect their food items to look a certain way. Strawberry milk, for example, is generally a shade of pink.

So organic food processors are looking for natural plant sources that will produce the colors they want and trying to encourage farmers to produce organic versions. Beets are used for red, carrots for orange and turmeric for yellow in many products, but many categories are left without coloring. To help alleviate the problem and not put organics at a disadvantage, the National Organic Standards Board is planning to meet this spring "to devise a precise list of natural colors that can be used in organic foods until organic colors are commercially available."

First things first: are you a beef eater? Do you like to cook? If you answered "yes" to both questions, you might want to consider entering your best recipe in the 27th National Beef Cook-off. The Cook-Off is put on by the Cattlemen's Beef Board to promote beef and seek out new, inventive recipes.

There are four categories in which to enter and the contest is focusing on health and nourishment this year, as opposed to over-the-top indulgence. The categories are Dynamic New Dishes, Nuevo Latino, Small Plates, Big Taste and Kids in the Kitchen. The final category is open to parent/child teams (five of which are guaranteed to make the finals.

The contest is open only to amateur chefs - home cooks - who want to compete for a $50,000 grand prize for the "Best of Beef" recipe of the year. An additional $60,000 in prizes will be given out at the showcase in September in Chicago, so as long as you make it into the top 25 finalists, you have a good shot at going home with something in addition to a bunch of great new recipes. The deadline for entry is March 31st.

There is a problem with using a strategy known as "nutrient profiling," a strategy designed to help regulatory agencies determine what is - and what is not - junk food quickly and easily. It works by setting limits on the number of calories and the amount of fat, salt, sugar, etc. that any food product can have. Everything is held to the same standard based on a predetermined portion size. Advertisers, schools and government agencies using this see the food world in black and white and it makes it very easy to sort out the goof from the bad.

In theory, that is.

The problem is that it doesn't take into account what the food actually is. Last year in the US, Illinois introduced similar standards that left whole milk classified as "junk food." Now, in the UK, Ofcom's guidelines for food advertising classify cheese as junk food, as well as several other foods that wouldn't necessarily be perceived as junk food by the average consumer, because it is "high in fat, salt and[/or] sugar ." This means that cheese cannot be advertised on TV programs made for children or where a high proportion of the viewers are under 16.

The nutrient profiling system has led to complaints from food organizations, including the British Cheese Board, and calls for a change in structure. The BCB says that the portion size of cheese used was much too large and other groups say that it is unfair that natural, balanced foods are restricted while diet sodas and other low-cal processed foods are permitted.

What would you do if your child were punished because you did not pack a lunch that met the schools' guidelines?

In Kent, England, a 10-year old boy was made to leave the lunchroom and eat outside under supervision because his lunch contained "one more snack than allowed". At Lunsford Primary School, a lunch is only permitted to contain two snacks (the type and quantity of other food items was not specified) and young Ryan Stupples's lunch had cheese biscuits, a cake and a fromage frais yogurt. We can assume that the school felt that the contents of Ryan's lunch would have a negative impact on the eating habits of the other children, or else they would not have sent him outside to eat. "Ryan said he...felt upset and frightened and feared he was 'going to be suspended'."

The school defended the decision to remove the child from the lunchroom, stating that they had given the father a warning about packing appropriate lunches.

Canada does not have a country-wide organic certification system - not yet, anyway. Organic farming and ranching is an almost $1 billion dollar industry in the country, but currently, the farmers cannot seek certification from a central source. Some are certified by the US Department of Agriculture, which would be required for export to the US anyway, and farms in Quebec and British Colombia are regulated by rules put in place by the individual provinces.

A new system would allow for a "Canada Organic" label, increasing awareness of the farmers nationally and internationally and the country has been working on developing a standard set of guidelines and regulations since 2004. Recently, the process was sped up to meet a deadline set by the EU that would prohibit uncertified organics from trade after December 31st. Such a ban could cost Canada millions of dollars, so after much deliberation, a draft of the new rules was published on September 2. It will be up for discussion and revision for 75 days, at which point it will become law.

The Department of Agriculture has proposed some changes to the standards currently in place for grass fed beef. At the moment, there really are no specific guidelines, and farmers who produce at least 99% grass fed beef want labels that indicate that their beef is exactly what it sounds like: from cows that live in pastures and eat only grass. The proposal has no provisions that state that the cows must be kept in pastures and it defines "grass" to include "leftovers from harvested crops," including corn and silage, which feedlot finished cows are already fed. It means that some conventional beef, feedlot beef, could be labeled "grass fed."

Understandably, the farmers who have pasture-raised cattle don't like the proposal because it devalues the "grass fed" label, barely separating it from conventional beef as far as consumers are concerned. They propose a more specific definition of "grass" and a minimum amount of time that the cows must spend grazing in pasture each day. The Agriculture Department says those rules are too strict and that their standards put less strain on ranchers, particularly in years of bad weather or drought when pastures may suffer.

Under the Agriculture Department's standards, more beef labeled "grass fed" will reach the market. But will consumers want it, or be willing to pay a premium for it, if it has no distinction from conventional?

In a study published by the American Dietetic Association, parents are the biggest factor in what kids eat and in the food choices that they ultimately make. For young children, this doesn't come as a surprise because they have few opportunities to eat food not provided by their parents, but what makes the study noteworthy is that it applies to teens and concludes that having "healthy household eating rules" is the biggest factor in influencing a child's diet.

When parents emphasized getting a certain amount of fat (i.e. always served lean ground beef instead of regular) or made the number of servings of fruits and veggies important, the kids were more likely to make the same choices when eating without their parents.

What are good "healthy household eating rules" to have? The researchers who performed the study suggested having only healthy/healthier snacks at home, always having a vegetable with dinner and a fruit with breakfast, and setting limits on sweets and sodas. Kids might not strictly follow the "rules" when they're not at home, but their long-term choices will be shaped by them.

Starting next month, poultry providers will have to meet a new set of packaging standards for their products. For example, the labels will clearly have to state if the product needs to be cooked. Regulators say that there is a good deal of confusion among consumers, especially over frozen, raw poultry that may already be partially prepared with a stuffing or breading, so the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has devised this label: Uncooked: For Safety, Must be Cooked to an Internal Temperature of 165 degrees F as Measured by Use of a Thermometer. The new labels will be added to all frozen poultry products.

The FSIS is in the process of approving cooking instructions that will accompany all the chicken products, with guidelines that suggest consumers use traditional food preparation methods as opposed to the microwave. "A fundamental part of label evaluation is to ensure that labeling will be understood and followed by consumers," said the FSIS.

I wonder exactly how many consumers are "fooled" into thinking that their raw chicken is already cooked. Are the artificial grill marks and colorings, not to mention breading, so convincing as to actually make people think their raw chicken was cooked before being frozen? Are people so used to buying frozen, pre-cooked meals that the concept of a non-precooked item is foreign to them? I would certainly like to think not. It is possible the the labels will help consumers be more prepared should the bird flu suddenly pop up.

 

We have been told constantly since the new food pyramid was released that whole grains are essential to a healthy diet. There are many names for breads that contain whole grains: seven-grain, multi-grain, whole wheat. But the name, until this week, was actually no guarantee that the bread itself contained whole grains. A wide range of other products - from cereal to pasta - claim whole grains as a component.  This week, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines that define what a "whole grain" product actually is. According to CBC news, the FDA says that whole grains must have the intact, ground, cracked or flaked fruit of the grains. "The grain's principal components - the starchy endosperm, germ and bran - are also in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact grain. Such grains may include barley, buckwheat, bulgur and corn."

The definition is merely in draft form at this point and it is unclear whether federal labeling regulations might be applied in the future. Some companies - like General Mills - asked for a specific guideline as to what might be considered to be a "good" or "excellent" source of whole grains, but the FDA has refused to issue one at this time.

One of the most popular and long-lived old wives' tales is known as the "5-second rule". The "rule" stipulates that food that has fallen on the floor is still safe to eat if you pick it up within five seconds of it hitting the ground. It has been around for many, many years, propagating itself on school playgrounds across the country and possibly even the world. Variations exist, shortening the rule to 3 seconds or expanding it to 10, but the basic theory remains. Unfortunately, it isn't true, as the Sacramento Bee's Lisa Heyamoto found out.

While some people, from 3 to 93, will continue to believe in the truth of this tale, the reality is that most surfaces are covered with germs and bacteria and floors are no exception. Drier foods, like cookies or a bagel, are less likely to pick up unsavory particles than wetter foods, like meat and cheese. Of course, we are all coming into contact with bacteria every day, whether we're cleaning our counter with a kitchen sponge (bacteria breeding ground) or giving our pets a pat. There is very little that can be done to avoid all contact. Ms. Heyamoto reminds us not to believe that we're "safe" when we follow the rule, but that your comfort level with what your food comes into contact with is subjective. The kitchen floor? Sure. The sidewalk outside your office? Perhaps not.

You can't go wrong following the other food rule: "When in doubt, throw it out!"