September 2010

Meet the Pawpaw, aka the Michigan Banana

Sep 27 2010

Tied down with brown twine
Up past the tree line
Up by I hope where
The King of Spain don't care.
I'm sitting up in my pawpaw tree
Wait they make mango mush outta me.
-
The Fiery Furnaces

A Taste of the Tropics in the Midwest

Photo by flickr user Voxphoto, who writes Petravoxel and Silverbased, click for bigger + photostreamDiscovering the pawpaw has been a lot like discovering the ground cherry. In both cases, part of the thrill was getting to try something you can’t buy at a typical grocery store. However, they’re both pretty unpleasant when they’re green—sour, bitter and mildly astringent—so based on my very first taste of both, I wasn’t 100% convinced they were safe for human consumption. But once they ripen, they’re just glorious. They’re as sweet as strawberries or the ripest melon or peach and fill the kitchen with a beautiful citrusy, floral perfume. And they’re both strangely reminiscent of vanilla custard. Despite whatever challenges are involved in cultivating and transporting them, they’re both so appealing that I’m genuinely surprised no one’s managed to make them commercially viable, at least in some kind of frozen or preserved form.

However, the pawpaw seems just slightly more incredible than the ground cherry. The latter at least has familiar local analogs like cherry tomatoes and blueberries. The pawpaw, on the other hand, seems like nothing that ought to grow anywhere within fifteen degrees latitude of Michigan. They’re shaped like champagne mangos, but the flesh is paler and much creamier, almost like ripe avocado. They smell like a cross between orange blossom, pear, pineapple, and honey. The flavor is milder than the aroma, but still unmistakably tropical.

I hate when that word is used as an independent flavor descriptor—normally, as far as I’m concerned, “tropical” is a climate or a region, not a flavor—but whatever the common denominator is between mangos and guavas and papayas, whatever combination of volatile esters and carbonyls and alcohols artificially-flavored “tropical” candies attempt to mimic, pawpaws have it too. As the common name implies, their closest gustatory cousin is probably the banana. In addition to the “Michigan banana,” the pawpaw has also been referred to as the: prairie banana, Indiana (Hoosier) banana, West Virginia banana, Kansas banana, Kentucky banana, Michigan banana, Missouri Banana, the poor man's banana, Ozark banana, and banango. Flourishing, it looks a bit like a magnolia bushEven the tree looks like it belongs somewhere with winters that could be described as “balmy.” It has broad, glossy leaves and big reddish-purple flowers. My supplier, a generous friend with a pawpaw tree in his backyard, says it looks like a tree that “took a wrong turn at Panama and ended up in the US midwest.”

Where to Find Them, and Why It’s So Hard

Unfortunately, unlike ground cherries, pawpaws haven’t shown up at my local farmer’s market (at least not that I’ve seen). They may be available at some markets in Ohio and Indiana or farther south. If you do come across someone selling them, don’t be turned off by bruising or soft spots. That often indicates that the fruit was ripened on the tree, which is what you want. Unlike tomatoes, which are merely lackluster when they’re picked while green and artificially “ripened,” a pawpaw picked early may remain unpleasantly bitter even after it softens into mush. Many people actually think they taste best when they’re a little spotted and soggy. However, once they’re ripe, they’re very delicate—just like a brown banana or a super-ripe pear. Probably the number one reason the pawpaw hasn’t been cultivated for mass distribution is that it would be virtually impossible to transport tree-ripened pawpaws in bulk without damaging them so much that most people wouldn’t want to buy them. Read more

Buckeyes, Schmuckeyes, or if you prefer, Peanut Butter Bon-bons

Sep 20 2010

When I first set out to make these chocolate-covered peanut-butter balls, I intended not to refer to them by their traditional Midwestern moniker. Surely, I thought, neither the State of Ohio nor its flagship public university can claim any special relationship to sweetened peanut butter in a chocolate shell. There’s no reason I have to invoke tOSU’s mascot in the middle of football season in Michigan. But then I found some pictures of actual buckeyes nuts, and I’ll be damned if they don’t look uncannily like their namesake.

shown here popping out of the big spiny, smelly balls that grow on the treesand here, looking almost unmistakable from the chocolate variety

 

really, the only difference is that the candy version has a flat edge

and yes, I posed these specifically to mimic the above picture

I'll eat YOUR eyes! Whitetail buck from flickr user key lime pie yumyum

Real buckeyes are the seeds of trees in the genus Aesculus, which includes between 13 and 19 species (depending on how you count) that grow all across the Northern Hemisphere. The name “buckeye” is generally attributed to an American Indian word for the seeds and the nutritious mash they made from them after roasting—“hetuck,” which means “eye of a buck.” One species in particular, Aesculus glabra, became commonly known as the “Ohio buckeye,” even though it grows throughout the American Midwest and Great Plains regions, ranging from southern Ontario to northern Texas, apparently because the botanist who gave the tree its English name first encountered it on the banks of the Ohio River.

However, there’s also a California buckeye and a Texas buckeye and even a Japanese buckeye. And the seeds of all the trees in the genus—including Aesculus glabra—are also commonly known as horse chestnuts, after the larger family they belong to (Hippocastanaceae). So there doesn’t seem to be any simple botanical or taxonomical reason why the “buckeye” became so firmly associated with the state of Ohio.

How the Buckeye Became Ohioan and Ohioans Became Buckeyes

According to one story, it all goes back the spectacularly-named Ebenezer Sproat (or Sprout), who was a Colonel of the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War. After an unsuccessful post-war stint as a merchant, he became a surveyor for the state of Rhode Island and bought stock in the Ohio Company of Associates, which sent him west with the group led by Rufus Putnam that founded Marietta, Ohio, the first permanent American settlement in the Northwest Territory. There, Sproat became the first sheriff in the NW Territory. And aside from being a relatively prominent citizen, he also happened to be quite tall and, “of perfect proportions,” according to Wikipedia, whatever that’s supposed to mean. The Indians in Ohio were impressed with his height and/or his importance, and thus came to refer to him as “Hetuck” or “Big Buckeye.” A similar account suggests that it was mostly his height—claiming he was 6’4” (which would have been tall indeed in the 18th C.) and that he earned the sobriquet on September 2, 1788 when he was leading a procession of judges to the Marietta courthouse. Indians watching the giant of a man walk by began calling out “Hetuck, hetuck.”  Read more

Price, Sacrifice, and the Food Movement’s “Virtue” Problem

Sep 15 2010

I'm not elitist, I just think you should reconsider whether your cell phones or Nike shoes or whatever it is you fat fucks spend your money on is really more important than eating heirloom beets. I just want you to make what I believe would be the more satisfying choice for you. Because I am the authority on what you find satisfying.

Urging others to eat better (and thus more expensive) food is not
elitist,
[Alice Waters] said. It is simply a matter of quality versus quantity
and encouraging healthier, more satisfying choices. “Make a sacrifice
on the cellphone or the third pair of Nike shoes,”
she said.

The Price Paradox

One of the most frequent critiques of what has been called the “food revolution” and especially its de facto spokespeople, Alice Waters & Michael Pollan, is that the kind of food they want people to eat—fresh, organic, free-range, grass-fed, local, slow, “healthy” etc.—is generally more expensive than the alternatives: processed, conventional, caged, corn-fed, industrially-farmed, fast, “junk” food. For example, in an interview with DCist to promote his newest book, Anthony Bourdain said:

I'll tell you. Alice Waters annoys the living shit out of me. We're all in the middle of a recession, like we're all going to start buying expensive organic food and running to the green market. (interview with the DCIst)

Pollan and Waters have responded to this critique numerous times, and their standard defense goes something like this:

Pollan, nomming something virtuous, I'd wagerWell, $4 for a single peach or $8 for a dozen eggs isn’t really that expensive. The real problem is that government  subsidies have made junk food artificially cheap and confused us about the real price of food. Many people have discretionary income that should be spent on more expensive food that’s better for their health, the environment, animal welfare, etc. If consumers demand it, producers will find a way to provide it.

Michael Pollan, demonstrating his undeniable talent for reducing complicated issues to pithy sayings, has summarized this in his rule: “Pay more, eat less.” In essence, they suggest that good food should cost more. But then, on the other hand, they argue:

Local, organic, [yadda yadda] food is so self-evidently superior that the primary reason most people continue to choose crappy, industrially-produced fast food that destroys their health and the environment is because it’s just so much cheaper. Many people don’t have discretionary income, and therefore something needs to be done on a structural level—possibly an entire overhaul of the agricultural subsidy system—to make “real” food affordable enough for everyone. In other words, good food should cost less.

These aren’t wholly incompatible, and indeed, I suspect that many proponents of the “food revolution” support both: people who can should be willing to pay more for fresh, local, organic food now. At the same time, we should collectively pursue policies that make that kind of food cheaper until everyone can buy it.

But what if the problem isn’t cost?

As James Williams points out in a recent article in The Atlantic, “Should We Really Pay $4 for a Peach?”, what he calls “healthy food” like apples, dry beans, carrots, and celery have declined in price right along with cookies, ice cream, and potato chips over the last two and half decades. According to the Economic Research Service of the USDA, from 1980 to 2006—precisely the period when many people claim that fast food overtook our national diet and made us into the fattest people on the planet—food declined in price across the board, and crucially, “the price of a healthy diet has not changed relative to an unhealthy diet.” As Williams says:

Evidently, consumers have chosen to take advantage of the declining prices for the cookies rather than the apples, thereby undermining the claim that we choose cheap unhealthy food because it's cheap. As it turns out, we also choose it because we appear to like it better than cheap healthy food.

I take issue with the rhetorical move of collapsing American consumers—a diverse lot—into a single “we,” but even if what he says isn’t true for everyone, it must be true for a lot of people. I suspect that many proponents of food reform don’t want to believe that’s really the reason people continue eating “bad” industrially-processed junk because they have the special conviction of born-again religious zealots. Being converts themselves, many of them believe that all the unconverted masses need is to be enlightened the same way they were. They assume that once other people are “educated” about how superior organic, local, yadda yadda food is, they too will see the light.

But what if that’s not true? What if most people will remain skeptical about the supposed superiority of natural, organic, local, etc. food (often with good reason) or, more often, be simply indifferent to claims about its superiority, no matter how cheap and accessible it is? What if buying organic food really won’t be more satisfying to many people than a third pair of Nikes? (And could Waters have chosen a more racist or classist example of conspicuous consumption? Seriously, why not a flat-screen television or granite countertops?)

When Price IS King

from Sociological Images, click for link There’s an important caveat about the price issue that Williams left out: calorie for calorie, soda, candy, chips, and fast foods made with cheap meat, soybean oil, and white flour are significantly cheaper than apples and dried beans. For the roughly one in five Americans who lacked the money to buy the food they needed at some point in the last year, or the more than 49 million Americans categorized as “food insecure,” price may still be the dominant factor guiding their food choices.

I don’t think most food insecure people necessarily stand around in grocery store aisles looking at nutritional labels and crunching the numbers to figure out what will give them the highest caloric bang for their buck, the way Adam Drewnowski did. However, many of them probably stick to cheap, processed combinations of corn, wheat, and soy because they know they can afford enough of that to get by on, and because it tastes good to them.

In the somewhat-dated account of urban poverty There Are No Children Here, Alex Kotlowitz describes the monthly shopping ritual of a single mother on food stamps. She goes to the office where she gets her food stamps, and then goes directly to the store where she buys the same array of canned, boxed, bagged, and frozen foods every month. She has it down to a science. She knows exactly how many loaves of white bread, boxes of macaroni and cheese, cans of soup, pounds of ground beef and bologna, and bricks of generic American cheese it takes to to feed her family for a month on her government-allotted budget.

However, as those damned hipsters on food stamps have demonstrated, even people of limited means can produce the kinds of meals Alice Waters might smile upon. So why don’t they? Read more

Fresh Tomato Soup Two Ways: Clean and spicy or Creamy and comforting

Sep 9 2010

no grilled cheese required 

Not Your Famous Pop Arist’s Tomato Soup

I love Campbell’s classic condensed tomato soup. I know, me and half the rest of the Western world, right? There’s a reason it’s an icon. I’m not saying it makes me special or anything. But I really, really love it. My freshman year of high school, I made a Campbell’s Tomato Soup can costume for Halloween out of two giant macramé rings and some red, white, and mustard-yellow felt. That was before everyone had cell phones and all cell phones were cameras, so you’ll just have to believe me when I say it was a decent facsimile. I wore it again on Halloween my sophomore year of college, and my roommate went as Andy Warhol. No one got it. We didn’t care.

I’ve mostly abandoned the other processed foods I loved as a kid, like Kraft Mac & Cheese, Nissin Cup O’Noodles, and the generic versions of Lucky Charms and Apple Jacks. But I always have tomato soup in my cupboard. I had never even thought about making fresh tomato soup before, because why bother? Campbell’s is so good.

And then, this summer, I just kept finding myself stuck with mountains of too-ripe tomatoes (and a lot of rotting ones that ended up in the trash bin). I did the fresh tomato pasta sauce thing. I did the fresh salsa thing. But eventually, all I could think about when I looked at the endlessly-refilling pile was the tomato juice I made a couple weeks ago for the tomato bars. There were a few ounces left over, and as I drank them, I regretted the fact that I didn’t have gallons of it. It reminded me of a velvety, chilled version of Campbell’s soup.

You Can Never Go Home Again

Looking back, I feel like that juice was my first tentative bite of a forbidden apple. Now that I’ve fallen to temptation and made fresh tomato soup not once, but twice, I’m a little afraid that I won’t be able to go back my old canned stand-by. What if I don’t like it as much anymore? What if I’ve spoiled myself?

this version is rich enough to be a satisfying dinner with a salad and some breadIt would be one thing if it was entirely different—the way baked macaroni and cheese is so unlike Kraft, the two don’t even really compete. Apples and oranges. But it turns out that if you cut up some really ripe tomatoes and then simmer them for 15-20 minutes, maybe with some sautéed onion and a dash of sugar and salt, maybe with some jalapeno and/or ginger, and then you strain out all the solids…it’s almost exactly like Campbell’s, except better. Transcendent. It’s the purest, richest tomato flavor I’ve ever tasted, permeated by sweet onion and spice. It feels like a warm hug in a bowl, like a last gift from Summer delivering you gently into the Fall.

I didn’t even want to put crackers in it because they just would have diluted it. I might eat it alongside a grilled cheese sandwich someday, perhaps something snooty like port salut with mango chutney, or raclette with ham and pickle slices…but there will be no dipping. This soup is the platonic ideal of cooked tomato all by itself. 

However, I guess since I figured I’d already ruined myself for Campbell’s, I decided: why not make a creamy version? Same process, but I cooked the tomato down a little more before straining it and then made a quick roux to thicken the milk before whisking the tomato back in. This time, I garnished it with a few parmesan curls and some chopped fresh parsley. As I was eating it, I got to thinking that what would really put it over the top is some grilled cheese croutons: sharp cheddar or gruyere melted between two thin slices of bread and then cut into bite-sized pieces, tossed in a little oil or melted butter and sprinkled with dried parsley, garlic powder, and maybe some grated parmesan and then toasted for 10-15 minutes in a hot oven until golden brown and crisp all over. Of course, that’s really just gilding the lily

Both ways, it’s fantastic and deceptively comforting, given that it may be robbing you of one of your most enduring childhood pleasures. I just hope I don’t find myself tomato soup-less when the first cold front hits and I’m out of fresh tomatoes. When I have to go running sheepishly back to Campbell’s, which I inevitably will, I hope its familiarity will overwhelm the inevitable disappointment. And maybe that will be the time to break out the grilled cheese croutons. Read more

In Praise of Fast Food by Rachel Laudan

Sep 7 2010

is this really inferior...

to this?

I don’t normally just post links to other content, but I think this article is such a smart and elegant polemic against “Culinary Luddism,” or the idea that “traditional” foodways (many of which aren’t actually traditional) are sacrosanct and modern industrialism has just ruined everything. I found myself nodding enthusiastically throughout and felt called to arms when I reached the conclusion:

What we need is an ethos that comes to terms with contemporary, industrialized food, not one that dismisses it; an ethos that opens choices for everyone, not one that closes them for many so that a few may enjoy their labor; and an ethos that does not prejudge, but decides case by case when natural is preferable to processed, fresh to preserved, old to new, slow to fast, artisanal to industrial. Such an ethos, and not a timorous Luddism, is what will impel us to create the matchless modern cuisines appropriate to our time.

YES. It is naive—at best— to believe that the world before industrial, processed food was idyllic in terms of nutrition, the distribution of agricultural and culinary labor, or the quality and variety of culinary experiences. At worst, ideas about what counts as “natural” or “real” with little basis in historical or scientific fact are used to reinforce social inequalities and make people feel either guilty or morally superior to others because of how they eat. Laudan corrects mistaken assumptions about the “halcyon days of yore” and critiques common beliefs about the inherent superiority of local, slow, artisanal, etc.

At least for now, the whole article is available for free. If you want to know why “modern, fast, processed” food isn’t such an unmitigated disaster after all, and why we may actually need mass-production, even if it’s a more considered, regulated, ethical form of mass-production, this is a good place to start:

In Praise of Fast Food

Labor Day Lemon & Herb Chicken Drumsticks

Sep 6 2010

I was a tiny bit afraid they'd gotten too dark, but they turned out perfect. If anything, we almost wanted them with a little more char.  

My Most Ambivalent Holiday

I was raised in a Union family. We checked clothing labels and only bought the ones that said “Made in the U.S.” We didn’t buy grapes because of César Chávez. Every year, my dad went to the Eugene V. Debs Memorial Kazoo Night where he watched a Tigers game from the bleachers and between innings, hummed “Solidarity Forever” in unison with bunch of other Union guys. He would bring home magnets that said “Stick it to capitalist tools” and sponges that said “Wipe up capitalist scum” and t-shirts emblazoned with a twist on Debs’ most famous quote:

While there is a lower class, I am in it, and 
while there is a criminal element I am of it, and 
while there is a soul in prison, I am not free, and
while there is a game in Tiger’s Stadium,
I am in the bleachers.

I stole this at some point in college because I just had to have it--a keychain is something you keep with you all the time, and I wanted one that would remind me of my dad

 I think he asked about it at some point and I pretended not to know where it had gone to. I wonder sometimes about whether that makes me a bad daughter...or a good one

My feelings about labor organization have gotten more complicated over the years. I’ve had to reckon with the fact that unions are fallible and that labor history is marred by strategic missteps and ugly bigotry. The current popularity of anti-union sentiment can’t be entirely attributed to Reaganomics and  right-wing campaigns—unions themselves bear at least some responsibility. However, that awareness—the idea that little-u unions can be wrong—seems to exist on a different spatio-temporal plane than my belief that the idea of Unions, or Unions qua Unions are good. That thought/feeling is deeper and also somehow before my ability to think about why unions make mistakes or the erosion of labor organization in the U.S. I guess it’s something like an article of faith.

That’s not to say I don’t have reasons for being pro-Union. I think all workers deserve a say in their conditions of employment. I think more egalitarian resource distribution is both morally and practically a good thing (for some of the same reasons that Robert Reich mentioned in his recent NYTimes op-ed). I believe that protections against some of the worst abuses of workers in the name of profit wouldn’t exist without labor organization, like the minimum wage and child labor laws. But ultimately, it’s impossible for me to separate those beliefs, which might be subjected to rational debate and supported or contested with evidence, from a more inchoate “Union = good” thought/feeling that precedes and undergirds them.

Ultimately, that faith eclipses my cynicism about how the holiday was only established to try to placate workers who were (justifiably) outraged about the fact that federal troops called in to put an end to the Pullman Strike had killed 13 workers and wounded 57. Or how the September date was set to distance it from International Worker’s Day, which commemorates the Haymarket Massacre and tends towards far more radical agitation and demonstration. Or how those injustices and the accomplishments of organized labor have largely slipped from our national memory. In many ways, Labor Day itself is a far better symbol of how unions are pacified and convinced to delay—often indefinitely—their pursuit of more radical demands than it is of the victories of organized labor.

I need bigger cages or stakes to tie them to. Also, I should probably check on them more than once a week.And then there’s the fact that it’s also the symbolic end of summer. The end of sundresses and afternoons when it’s too hot to do anything but take a nap near an open window and hope for the occasional breeze. The end of my annual half-hearted attempt to control a small tomato jungle. It is the official point when I can no longer pretend I’ll ever make up for the gap between everything I had intended to do and the summer that has actually eclipsed—with too few meandering walks, too little of my dissertation written, and far too few mint juleps.

Despite all of that, I love Labor Day for basically the same reason I love Thanksgiving and remain grudgingly fond of Memorial Day and the Fourth of July and, to a  lesser extent, Mother’s and Father’s Days. For one, they remind me to appreciate and celebrate things that I am truly grateful for. And moreover, my primary association with them has way less to do with the ostensible reasons for the holidays than it does with the way I celebrate them: by taking a day off work, getting together with friends and family, and eating some great food.

om nom nom nom nom Read more

Why Posting Calorie Counts Will Fail, Part III: Calorie-restriction dieting doesn’t work long-term for most people

Sep 3 2010

Previously in this series: Intro, Part I, and Part II.

The article on "Making Weight Loss Stick" is by Bob Greene, the personal trainer and "fitness guru" Oprah first started consulting with in 1996. Sadly, I don't think that's *meant* to be ironic. Oprah 2005/2009

To test whether turning [fat people] into thin people actually improves their health, or is instead the equivalent of giving bald men hair implants, it would be necessary to take a statistically significant group of fat people, make them thin, and then keep them thin for long enough to see whether or not their overall health then mirrored that of people who were physiologically inclined to be thin. No one has ever successfully conducted such a study, for a very simple reason: No one knows how to turn fat people into thin people.
Paul Campos, The Obesity Myth (2004)

Diets do cause weight loss…in the short term

People who think calorie restriction dieting “works” haven’t necessarily been duped by the diet industry or seduced by the prevailing nutritional “common sense” that weight loss and gain are a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out. Many of them believe it because their personal experience seems to confirm it, often repeatedly. Of course, “repeatedly” is part of the problem. Weight cycling—losing and re-gaining 5% or more of one’s total body weight—isn’t what dieters or public health policy makers are shooting for. Even people dieting with a specific occasion in mind, like a wedding or a high school reunion, would generally prefer to achieve permanent weight-loss.

But almost a century of research has shown that dieting—which usually involves calorie restriction—is not the way to do that. Studies repeatedly find that while eating less causes weight-loss in the short term, a majority of participants in weight-loss interventions focused on diet gain most of the weight back within 1 year and the vast majority (90-95%) gain all of it back within 3-5 years. Approximately 30% gain back more than they initially lost, and there’s some evidence that people who’ve lost and regained weight have more health problems than people who weigh the same, but have never lost and regained a significant amount of weight.

This is not controversial. Virtually every study of weight-loss dieting that has followed participants for longer than 6 months has found that the majority of dieters regain all the weight they lose initially, if not more. In other words, Oprah’s high-profile weight fluctuations are not the unfortunate exception to most dieters’ experience, they are the rule. A gallery of pictures of Oprah through the years illustrates the most frequent and reliable outcome of dieting:

Oprah in The Color Purple Screen shot of the infamous "fat wagon" episode first aired in the fall of 1988, when Oprah strode on set in what she proudly declared were size 10 Calvin Klein jeans after an Optifast diet, wheeling a Red Flyer wagon full of lard representing how much weight she'd lost  At the Emmy Awards, holding her third for "Outstanding Talk/Service Show Host"  Holding yet another Emmy at the end of that impressively-muscled arm, shaped with the help of trainer Bob Greene

             1985                           1988                             1992                             1996

 At the party celebrating the first anniversary of O Magazine  At the Academy Awards, wearing Vera Wang Presenting at the Emmy Awards presenting at the 2010 Oscars, possibly on the way back down again?

              2001                            2005                          2008                            2010        

I am not concerned (in this entry) with why calorie restriction diets fail—there are competing theories and perhaps I’ll try to tackle them some other time. However, when it comes to evaluating public health policies aimed at the general population, like posting calorie counts on menus, it doesn’t really matter why the kind of behavior it’s designed to encourage fails, especially when it fails so spectacularly. Whether the problem is that 90-95% of people don’t have the willpower to stick to calorie-restricted diets or that most peoples’ metabolic rates eventually adjust or both or something else entirely, continuing to prescribe calorie restriction to individuals seeking to lose weight is futile at best. Given the health problems associated with weight cycling and psychological distress caused by diet “failure,” it’s probably also dangerous and cruel. More on that another day, too.

The goal of this entry is to provide a condensed-but-comprehensive overview of the evidence that convinced me that weight-loss dieting—and particularly calorie-restriction dieting or eating less—does not “work” for most people. By “work” I mean lead to significant weight loss—at least 10% of starting body weight—that lasts for more than 3 years (in keeping with the clinical definition of “weight loss success” proposed by the 1998 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [NHLBI] Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel proposed). I honestly tried to keep this as short as possible and bolded the “highlights” if you want to skim. However, if brevity is what you’re looking for, see this 2007 Slate article. Read more