The joys of drinking wine

Just a quick non-political post this week, I’ll be back with my usual in-depth analysis of a geopolitical issue next Monday. That’s because I’m about to attend a Roman-style symposium. I will be dressed in a toga, eat food that hasn’t been in fashion since the death of Christ, and of course, enjoy a fine selection of mostly Italian wines.

Now drinking wine is an excellent pastime for a variety of reasons. Its a wonderful drink to go with a meal; its a firm belief of mine that every wine has a meal that perfectly complements it. Wine is the right balance of alcoholic strength. Spirits are too strong to be enjoyed on their own, they must be diluted with a mixer. Beer, ale and cider on the other hand, fill the stomach with too much gas, meaning that drinking a decent quantity can become quite difficult. Its also a firm belief of mine that wine-drinking has a certain elegance and sophistication to it- from the design of the wine bottles and glasses, to the sheer variety of flavours that make being a wine connoisseur a uniquely useful talent. Moreover, I find that wine is appropriate for almost any occasion. Its served at weddings, funerals, family celebrations, getting a job, losing a job,  Christmas- even every Sunday should you take the words of Jesus literally.

Now if you don’t like the taste of wine, my only response is pity. I don’t have anything against you, I simply believe that you’re missing out on one of life’s greatest pleasures. But since this is the Epicurus blog, I must stress that you should enjoy your wine responsibly and in moderation. There’s nothing elegant or sophisticated about insobriety- as a student, I know that better than most!

Cheers! Have a lovely week, I’ll be back soon.

Epicureans against political hypocrisy

Thought for a Sunday. The following was originally published in the New York Times. A commentary on political hypocrisy:

And Jesus Said Unto Paul of Ryan …

What would Jesus tell House Speaker Paul Ryan about looking after the sick and the needy?

A woman who had been bleeding for 12 years came up behind Jesus and touched his clothes in hope of a cure. Jesus turned to her and said: “Fear not. Because of your faith, you are now healed.”

Then spoke Pious Paul of Ryan: “But teacher, is that wise? When you cure her, she learns dependency. Then the poor won’t take care of themselves, knowing that you’ll always bail them out! You must teach them personal responsibility!”

They were interrupted by 10 lepers who stood at a distance and shouted, “Jesus, have pity on us.”

“NO!” shouted Pious Paul. “Jesus! You don’t have time. We have a cocktail party fund-raiser in the temple. And don’t worry about them — they’ve already got health care access.”

Jesus turned to Pious Paul, puzzled.

“Why, they can pray for a cure,” Pious Paul explained. “I call that universal health care access.”

Jesus turned to the 10 lepers. “Rise and go,” he told them. “Your faith has made you well.” Then he turned back to Pious Paul, saying, “Let me tell you the story of the good Samaritan.

“A man was attacked by robbers who stripped him of clothes, beat him and left him half dead. A minister passed down this same road, and when he saw the injured man, he crossed to the other side and hurried on. So did a rich man who claimed to serve God. But then a despised Samaritan came by and took pity on the injured man. He bandaged his wounds and put the man on his own donkey and paid an innkeeper to nurse him to health. So which of these three should we follow?”

“Those who had mercy on him,” Pious Paul said promptly.

Jesus nodded. “So go ——”

“I mean the first two,” Pious Paul interjected. “For the Samaritan’s work is unsustainable and sends the wrong message. It teaches travelers to take dangerous roads, knowing that others will rescue them from self-destructive behaviors. This Samaritan also seems to think it right to redistribute money from those who are successful and give it to losers. That’s socialism! Meanwhile, if the rich man keeps his money, he can invest it and create jobs. So it’s an act of mercy for the rich man to hurry on and ignore the robbery victim.”

“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven,” Jesus mused to himself. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter heaven.”

“Let me teach you about love, Jesus — tough love!” Pious Paul explained. “You need a sustainable pro-business model. And you need to give people freedom, Jesus, the freedom to suffer misery and poverty.”

“The Lord God has anointed me to bring good news to the poor,” Jesus replied, emphasizing the last two words. Then he turned to a paralyzed beggar at his feet.  “Stand up!” Jesus told the man. “Pick up your mat and go home.” As the man danced about joyfully, Pious Paul rolled his eyes dismissively.

“Look, Jesus, you have rare talent, and it should be rewarded,” Pious Paul said. “I have a partner, The Donald, who would like to work with you: He’d set up a lovely hospital, and the rich would come and pay for you to heal them. You’d get a percentage, and it’d be a real money-spinner. Overhead would be minimal because every morning you could multiply some loaves and fishes. You could strike it rich!”

n “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God,” Jesus said. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received comfort.”

“Oh, come on, Jesus,” Pious Paul protested. “Don’t go socialist on me again. Please don’t encourage class warfare. The best way to help the needy is to give public money to the rich. That then inspires the poor to work harder, galvanizes the sick to become healthy, forces the lepers to solve their own problems rather than kick back and depend on others. That’s why any realistic health plan has to focus on providing less coverage for the poor, and big tax benefits for the rich. When millions of people lose health care, that’s when a country is great again!”

 “From everyone who has been given much,” Jesus told him, “much will be required.”

“Well, sure, this hospital would have a foundation to do some charity work. Maybe commissioning portraits of The Donald to hang in the entrance. But let’s drop this bleeding heart nonsense about health care as a human right, and see it as a financial opportunity to reward investors. In this partnership, 62 percent of the benefits would go to the top 0.6 percent — perfect for a health care plan.”

Jesus turned to Pious Paul on his left and said: “Be gone! For I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; and I was sick, and you did not help me.”

“But, Lord,” protested Pious Paul of Ryan, “when did I see you hungry or thirsty or sick and refuse to help you? I drop your name everywhere. And I’m pro-life!”

“Truly, I say to you,” Jesus responded, “as you did not help the homeless, the sick — as you did not help the least of these, you did not help me.”

Organic food – what we know so far (The last posting of four about food)

Modern, high-intensity farming is charged with causing food to lose some of its goodness.  Could organic food offer an alternative?

This is a controversial question. Antioxidant levels are higher in organically grown plants, according to a meta-analysis of existing studies published last year. However, in 2012 researchers at Stanford University in California found no strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious.

“In general, for minerals, the differences [between organic and inorganic] are pretty small,” says biochemist Donald Davis. One reason for the nutrient declines seen in some of today’s vegetables is down to breeding – making broccoli heads larger, for example – and organic growers tend to plant the same varieties as non-organic growers, he says.

Another complication is that it is difficult to make a direct comparison of organic and non-organic crops. “You have to take enough samples to grow on a very controlled patch, and expose them to exactly the same treatment,” says Paul Finglas of the UK’s Institute of Food Research in Norwich. “There may well be some evidence that some organic foods are different – such as in vitamin C – but it’s not going to make a big nutritional impact.”

Things look better for organic milk. Recent UK and US studies found that organic milk from cows reared outdoors had higher amounts of antioxidants and omega-3s. The difference is down to diet. “Cattle on organic farms are provided much more access to pasture and fed a much higher proportion of forage-based feeds,” says Charles Benbrook, who showed in 2013 that organic milk produced in the US contains a healthier ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids than non-organic milk. “Grass and legume forages are the building blocks for omega-3 fatty acids, while corn – which plays an important role on conventional farms – is the basis for omega-6.”

One area of concern is the low intake of omega-3s. These essential fatty acids, particularly long-chain omega-3s found in oily fish and shellfish, are vital for growth and development. The average intake among adults in the US and UK falls far short of the recommended amount, largely due to the fact that many people eat little or no seafood. “Omega-3 is probably one nutrient that [Western] people have a deficiency in – at least, they’re not at the optimum level,” says Eric Decker, a food scientist at the University of Massachusetts.  Meanwhile, people are consuming more omega-6 acids, found in vegetable oils. These are important too, but in excess amounts they can trigger the body’s inflammatory response.

What’s worrying some is that changes in farming methods are making some foods lower in omega-3s and higher in omega-6s. This has been shown most clearly in fish. Half of all fish consumed globally now come from aquaculture, and farmed fish have a different nutritional profile to wild-caught varieties. Wild salmon, for example, is an excellent source of omega-3s, because it feeds on smaller fish that have eaten omega-3 rich algae. But farmed fish are increasingly fed vegetable oil, boosting their omega-6 levels.

Last year, a study of salmon sold in the UK found that farmed salmon had twice the amount of fat as wild salmon, a lower proportion of omega-3s and significantly more omega-6 fatty acids – although the authors stress that farmed salmon is still a good source of omega-3s. Similar trends have been seen in organic and non-organic milk and beef , though these contain far less omega-3 than fish.

Fortification is one way to tackle this problem – hence the array of omega-3 enriched products, such as juice and yogurt, now on the market.  (adapted from an original article by Chloe Lambert in the New Scientist).

We are living through a major tipping point

I would like to interrupt the posts on food with a thought that occurred to me yesterday morning.

I believe that the effects of the Trump corporatist/oligarchic coup will guarantee that, far from “making America great again”, America is now signalling by the recent election that it is past its zenith and is heading downwards as the sole world super-power, shedding its moral influence and  respect.  China is set to take its place and is playing a clever game to that effect  all over the world, while America writhes in a mixture of agony on the one hand and indifference and lack of knowledge and accurate information on the other.

It is 2017.  It is exactly one hundred years since the United States intervened in the Great War and effectively supplanted Great Britain as the dominant world power (yes, it took 50 years or more for the British to accept it, and some Brexiters still haven’t).  Go back yet another 100 years and the defeats of Napoleon at Trafalgar and Waterloo in 1815 was the final coup de grace that cemented the world power of Britain, based on its naval power, fueled in turn by the industrial revolution that had began around 40 or so years before.  And in 1714, the Treaty of Rastatt concluded the War of the Spanish Succession, which left the Hapsburgs (and the Holy Roman Empire) at the zenith of their territory and power in Europe.

Is this all coincidence, or is one hundred years the “time limit of dominance” for a great power to stay dominant?  Is there something spooky about the second decade of a century?  Probably not – it could all be coincidence – the similarities don’t go back very far.  But it does seem that, after about one hundred years a super-power loses its sense of direction.  Maybe it’s because the elite has cornered the market in money?  Maybe the people are fed up with the wars and the taxation necessary to be top dog and start asking  “what is the point?”  Or the military has become unable to win any more and has lost credibility (read the Boer War and Iraq).   Or the country has grown lazy and corrupt, educational standards are declining  and the nation has forgotten what made it great?  Or all of the above.

Anyway, we are living through the pivot point where the United States is most likely to decline, however much it spends on futile military escapades.

How have modern farming methods affected the nutrients in common foods? (Third posting of four)

Beef

Beef from cattle reared outdoors on grass is less fatty and contains more omega-3 fatty acids than cattle reared indoors and fed mainly grain. However, consumers preferred the taste of latter, according to a 2014 study.

Pasta

Today’s pasta might be less nutritious thanks to modern, fast-growing wheat varieties introduced in the 1960s. Levels of zinc, iron and magnesium remained constant in wheat grain from 1865 to the mid-1960s, then decreased significantly as yields shot up.

Carrots

Carrots from the 1940s contained less than half the vitamin A levels of carrots grown in the US 50 years later. The reason? A preference for more orangey carrots. The colour comes mainly from the pigment beta-carotene, which the body can use to make vitamin A.

Milk

Milk from cows reared the old-fashioned way – mainly feeding on grass outdoors – has a better nutritional profile of proteins, fatty acids and antioxidants than milk from cows reared indoors and fed intensively.

Spinach

Spinach is a good source of iron, but its iron content was once thought to be 10 times higher. That was the result of a historical error that may have been perpetuated by the spinach-derived superpowers of the cartoon character Popeye. There is no clear data about whether the iron content of spinach is changing due to modern agriculture.

However, fluorescent lighting in supermarkets can be beneficial to spinach . A 2010 study found that spinach leaves stored in simulated retail conditions had higher levels of vitamins C, E, K and folic acid. After nine days of continuous light exposure, folic acid increased between 84 and 100 per cent. In spinach stored in darkness, nutrient levels stayed the same or fell.

Eggs

Eggs have been the subject of health scares over cholesterol, but now they are promoted as a health food. A 2012 study found that UK eggs are getting more nutritious, with lower fat and cholesterol compared to eggs from 1989 – probably because of smaller yolk sizes. They also contained more selenium and vitamin D than in the past, thanks to improved hen feed.

Tomatoes

Supermarket tomatoes are often labelled as “vine-ripened”, but that doesn’t always mean what you hope. It may be ripened on the vine but the vine may not have been attached to the plant. However,  the downsides of early picking are small and an unavoidable consequence of consumer demand. If you pick a tomato grown at home it tastes fabulous because it’s absolutely ready to eat. “But there’s no way you could do that at a commercial level because of the bruising that would occur if ripe fruits were transported through a typical supply chain. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

Frozen fruit and veg

They may not be fashionable, but frozen fruit and vegetables are often nutritionally better than fresh, experts say. Frozen veg is extremely good in terms of nutritional value because it really has been in suspended animation from the point of harvest. You can leave it on the plant longer, so it’s at a better ripening stage when it’s picked.

Peas

Can lose half of their vitamin C in the first 48 hours after harvesting, but if frozen within 2 hours of picking they retain it. Frozen peas are much more nutritious than peas you buy ready to shell. Furthermore,  frozen foods often have fewer additive, freezing being a preservative.

Bread

Humans have been making bread for 10,000 years, but the way we do it has changed dramatically in the last half-century. In 1961, a new method of mass-producing bread was devised at the Chorleywood laboratories, just north of London. It used extra yeasts, additives called processing aids and machinery to slash fermentation times, so a loaf could be made in just a few hours. Around 80 per cent of bread consumed in the UK is now made this way, and the Chorleywood process is used to some extent in many other countries.

But there are concerns that such methods have altered the digestibility of bread, and this may explain why many people with irritable bowel syndrome name bread as a trigger. For a significant subset of those with IBS, the condition is thought to be linked to gut bacteria reacting to fermentable foods, causing bloating.

Last year, Jeremy Sanderson at King’s College London and colleagues compared the effects of fast and slow-fermented breads on gut microbiota from donors with IBS and those free from it. They found that sourdough bread – which is left to rise for several hours using its natural yeasts – produced “significantly lower cumulative gas” in the IBS donors’ microbiota than fast-fermented bread. The theory is that if bread is left to ferment for longer, its carbohydrates will reach the gut in a predigested state and gut bacteria won’t react so much. “If you under-ferment bread and add a lot of yeast, it’s hardly surprising this will set up problems for people who have a problem with fermentation in their gut,” says Sanderson.

Slow-fermented breads may benefit other groups too: sourdough produces a lower glucose response in the body than other breads. What’s not yet clear is whether eating slow-fermented breads would lead to a general improvement in the gut flora of healthy people. “That’s difficult, but it’s a reasonable hypothesis,” says Sanderson. “After all, bread-making probably evolved to match what the gut could cope with.”  (Excerpted from an article the New Scientist by Chloe Lambert)