BREAD HEAD: A New Look at Alzheimer’s
A new case of dementia is diagnosed every 4 seconds, according to the World Health Organization. There are currently 5 million people in the US with it, and that number is expected to triple by 2050.More
A new case of dementia is diagnosed every 4 seconds, according to the World Health Organization. There are currently 5 million people in the US with it, and that number is expected to triple by 2050.More
It’s National Pizza Day. Just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an article on our complete adoration of the stuff.
1. We eat 100 acres a day of pizza.
2. That translates into 3 billion pizzas a year or….
3. 23 pounds of it for every American.
We love the stuff in our house.
But as I dug into that research, I learned something new.
A new study in the journal Pediatrics finds many pre-packaged kids’ meals contain too much salt. We know better now. This isn’t 1984. So what is up?
The researchers looked at the nutrition content of more than 1,000 infant and toddler foods and drinks.
The not-so-good news, 72% of toddler dinners were high in sodium content. The majority of snacks, desserts and juice drinks for both infants and toddlers were found to be heavy on salt.
So why so much salt in our food?
4. Salt is the cheapest ingredient after water
5. Salt holds water, increasing pack weight
6. Salt masks bad flavors from cheap other inputs.
The American Heart Association has highlighted pizza as a top sodium offender, in their “Salty Six” for Kids. On top of that, according to the CDC, pizza is the #1 sodium source for children/adolescents age 2-19.
So how much salt are they using and how much do we actually need?
Fact is we all need some sodium… but only about 500-600mg/day ( which is just 1/4 teaspoon of salt), but the actual consumption is 7X times that minimum: 3600 mg/day. In other words, we are getting an entire week’s worth of salt every single day.
The researchers recommend parents and caregivers carefully check labels for sodium and added sugar. They say reducing excessive amounts of these ingredients from birth to 24 months can lead to better health for children now and as they grow.
The health impacts of sodium overconsumption go far beyond high blood pressure. Broad health impact: heart attack, stomach cancer, stroke risk, brain function and dementia, osteoporosis and bone fracture.
I used to think that the toppings would be the biggest sources of sodium in a pizza. I was wrong.
7. 90% of all the sodium in typical pizza comes from the crust and cheese.
8. Crust is usually about 50%
9. Cheese 40%.
It makes sense, it’s a preservative, but does cheese really have to be so jacked up on it? And what can we do?
Increased risk of heart disease and stroke are fairly well-known problems from consuming too much sodium… but I never knew that kids were at risk. Pizza is everywhere, and no one wants to be “that mom” who is constantly saying “no.” There are enough eating issues already.
And as if it couldn’t get any worse for kids, the Chicago Tribune just ran an unbelievable article about kids getting kidney stones because of diets too high in fat and sodium. Some hospitals, like the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh at UPENN Medical Center have even created special programs to diagnose and treat it. This used to be something that older people got. Not anymore.
Most kids should only consume 1500-2200 mg of sodium a day, though most are getting well over 3,000. (Source: What we eat in America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009-10, Pediatrics).
I looked at a few of the leading pizza companies out there, like Pizza Hut, Papa Johns, Dominos, and almost all of them had much more sodium in a typical 2-slice meal that maximum recommended by the CDC on a per meal basis (some 2-slices of pizza had more sodium that a child/adolescent or adult should have in a whole day!). Many frozen pizzas and the pizza our kids eat in school that I found data on also has a lot of sodium.
Where does all this lead?
As of 2013, one in six kids age 8-17 has high blood pressure, up from one in twenty just 11 years ago. (Source: Sodium Intake and Blood Pressure Among U.S. Children and Adolescents, Journal Pediatrics, September 17, 2012).
So what can we do? Pizza is everywhere.
I am a big fan of better food. But we also love pizza.
I appreciate the value of innovation and technology to make food we eat healthier. But how are we supposed to do better, if we don’t know any better? Food companies have to come clean. There has never been a better opportunity than now.
A quick look at this chart shows you who the big offenders are in the frozen and fast food categories. Choose wisely if you are eating these brands, or make your own with english muffins, spaghetti sauce and some grated cheese.
We can solve this.
I have been at many industry events and trade shows, seen and tasted some great alternatives to regular salt and the high sodium it contains. Solutions exist so that our food taste great but without doing us harm.
What can you do to take care of your kids? Read labels on packages, ask for nutritional information when you eat out and ‘vote’ with your purchases… for healthier food. Importantly let the management of Domino’s, Pizza Hut, and even Costco know… that you want them to please hold the salt. They are listening. Our kids may only represent 30% of the population, but they are 100% of our future.
#rethinkfood
Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/salt/pdfs/children_sodium.pdf
I can remember flying into Houston, my hometown, nine years ago.
I had just learned about the chemically-intensive operating system that had been put in place on our food supply by chemical companies now genetically engineering seeds. I remember looking out the window of the airplane and wondering how in the world to get the message out. Wondering if it was crazy to try, knowing that I had to.
Back then, in 2006, the work was so daunting, few were talking about it and people looked at you like you had three heads when you said “GMO”, but it couldn’t be unlearned. It was something that I couldn’t not do, so I kept going.
Last week, I received this note from a high school friend with a mom going through cancer treatment. When I hear from childhood friends from Houston, it means more than they could ever imagine. Her daughter was asked to draw and write about her dreams in school.
“Going through my daughter’s weekly folder of work from her school. Out of the blue, I see this and think of you… She said the project was supposed to only be about dreams and not about food. She just thought it was the best dream that she could think of….I think so, too.”
The John Lennon song, Imagine, has been sort of a theme song through this. I’ve sung it to the kids at bedtime, over the phone when I travel. It’s such a tribute to seeing beyond the mess that we are in right now to the solutions that we can create together. And when a friend unexpectedly sent me a T-shirt with the words, “You may say I’m a dreamer…..I’m not the only one,” my heart was flooded, because we are not. There are so many incredible people working on this issue, so many with enormous hearts and enormous talent, so many that I am so grateful for every day.
And as companies like Kroger, HEB, White Wave, Whole Foods, Costco, Chipotle and others offer more and more healthy food, this little girl’s dream has a very strong chance of coming true.
It’s up to us.
There was a a big-hearted, Carhartt-wearing guy named Luke sitting next to me on the flight into Missouri today for a conference.
I was nervous about this trip, I don’t know why. Maybe because Monsanto tried to sponsor the conference (kind of a weird flank move) and was shot down. They wanted to be there and wanted a photo opp and press release. So I kept to myself on the flight, worked on my presentation and read about the announcement about FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, and her decision to step down.
“Do you work for the FDA?” he asked. I almost laughed. “No,” I said, “I do a lot of research into our food system. It started with crunching numbers and turned into a lot more.”
“What do you do?” I asked him.
“I build tanks….on dairy farms.” And he proceeded to school me. He talked about the glycol or ammonia used to cool the tanks and to preserve the milk inside of them, he talked about how sometimes he builds tanks for wine, and how some big dairy processors cut corners.
He had a long, slow drawl.
“They just patch things up, you know? They don’t want to spend the money to fix stuff. Tanks get holes, they should be replaced, they just patch ’em up. Bacteria that grows in there. It’s nasty when you see it. Mold.”
He paused and looked out the window.
“They do things half-ass, so they don’t have to spend money.”
I paused.
“Do you have kids?”
“Yeah,” he laughed. “17 months and 4 months.”
I could relate to that. And I told him about our four, how I was named after a farmer, and how I don’t understand why we don’t value our farmers more.
He gazed out the airplane window. “Yeah, I’ve thought a lot about that for a long time. A lot.”
And he talked about how his great uncle had made a good living as a farmer, and how he couldn’t do it now. “You have to be real big” he said.
I was quiet and listened as he talked about wild hogs and what they can do to the land.
“You got a poaching problem out there in Colorado?” he asked. No idea, I said.
He laughed. And we started our descent.
We live in a country where those betting on commodities make enormous profits while the farmers growing those commodities take out loans.
It’s unsustainable. We have to value the livelihoods of our farmers like our future depends on it.
Because it does.
It’s time to rethink food and that starts with the farm system. Economies thrive on entrepreneurship and innovation. Right now, small farmers hardly stand a chance. Imagine if farm startups got the same kind of attention as tech startups?
We grow enough food to feed 11 billion people, but there are only 7 billion on the planet. Imagine if we didn’t waste 30-40% of what is produced.
Just for a while on that flight today, I imagined what it would look like if we had a more transparent and efficient food system and that John Lennon song ran through my head.
“No need for greed or hunger……”
Once you know better, you do better.
It’s time to do better.
#rethinkfood
In a smart move, Breyer’s Ice Cream nixes dairy treated with artificial growth hormones. A food awakening is happening, and consumers are demanding food that is ‘free from’ artificial additives.
The health of our families is changing, and we are waking up to the fact, whether due to a food allergy diagnosis, a diabetes diagnosis a cancer diagnosis or something else, that our food now contains a lot of artificial ingredients that aren’t used in other countries.
The journal Pediatrics reports that 15% of American girls are expected to begin puberty by the age of 7 (with the number closer to 25% for African American girls). As Breyer’s dumps this artificial growth hormones, perhaps it’s time for a little history lesson about the introduction of this artificial growth hormones into the American milk supply in 1994.
For the past almost 20 years, much of our nation’s milk has come from cows injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone. If you didn’t know that, you’re not alone. Since it was never labeled, most of us had no idea that this hormone was introduced into our dairy in 1994. The hormone has two interchangeable names: recombinant bovine somatropine (rBST) and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
RBGH has dominated the milk market almost since the FDA approved it in 1993. It was the first genetically engineered product ever brought to market. And the Associated Press (AP), theNew York Times and the rest of the media have called it “controversial” (the AP headline actually referred to it as “a bumper crop of controversy”).
So what is rBGH anyway? Although the product is made in a lab, it’s designed to mimic a hormone that’s naturally produced in a cow’s pituitary glands. It’s injected into cows every two weeks to boost their hormonal activity, causing them to produce an additional 10 to 15 percent more milk, or about one extra gallon each day. And within the first four years of its introduction in 1994, about one-third of the nation’s cows were in herds being treated with this growth hormone.
If all you knew about rBGH and this hormone was that it increased milk production, you might think it was a good thing. Why shouldn’t we use every means at our disposal to boost the supply of such a nutritious food?
Well, besides increasing milk production, rBGH apparently does a few other things, too.
First of all, the product seems to be hazardous to the cows. The package itself warns of such bovine problems as “increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus,” “decreases in gestation length and birthweight of calves,” and “increased risk of clinical mastitis.” Mastitis is a painful type of udder infection that causes cows to pump out bacteria and pus along with milk, requiring treatment with antibiotics and other meds that can end up in the milk.
When I first read this, I had to stop and walk away from the computer for a few minutes. How many bottles and sippy cups had I filled with this milk? Why hadn’t I known about rBGH when I was pouring countless bowls of cereal for my children? I shuddered at the thought that along with the milk, I had also been giving them doses of growth hormone and antibiotics, not to mention potentially exposing them to cow bacteria and udder pus. How had I not known about this Dirty Dairy?
On top of that, and is often cited in the press (most recently by Laurie David), 80% of antibiotics are now used on our livestock here in the U.S. And overexposure to antibiotics tends to kill off the friendly bacteria in our intestines—bacteria that we need for our digestion and immune system. Many doctors believe that too many antibiotics at too early an age is part of the reason that kids are more likely to be allergic: their immune systems aren’t being given the “microbial environment” that they require. Wonder how many “extra” antibiotics our kids are getting in their milk, cheese, and yogurt? Maybe it’s not just about those hand sanitizers.
And then on top of that, allergies are the body’s response to proteins that it considers “toxic invaders,” and that genetically engineered proteins may spark new allergies. According to CNN and a recent study published in the Journal of Allergy and Immunology, milk allergy is now the most common food allergy in the U.S., having risen to the number-one position in the last 10 years. It’s even starting to affect the sale of milk in schools. Might rBGH be a factor in that increase? We wouldn’t have a clue. No human studies were conducted.
But let’s get back to the cows, because rBGH can hurt them in several more ways. The label also warns of possible increase in digestive disorders, including diarrhea; increased numbers of lacerations on the cows’ hocks (shins); and a higher rate of subclinical mastitis.
Bad enough when dairy cows get visibly sick, because then they’re treated with antibiotics that end up in our milk. But what about the cows who are getting sick at a subclinical level—a level so subtle that farmers don’t notice it? Think of the bacteria and pus pouring out of those inflamed udders—infections that aren’t even being treated! How does drinking that milk affect us, our kids, and our babies in the womb?
Those are just the problems acknowledged on the rBGH product label. Another concern is that the extra hormones drain the cows’ bones of calcium, so that they tend to become lame. The Canadian federal health agency actually found that “the risk of clinical lameness was increased approximately 50 percent” in cows that were given rBGH. Partly as a result, Canada has banned the product, concluding that it “presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows.”
Canada isn’t the only country to bar rBGH. The genetically altered hormone has also been banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, the U.N. agency that sets food safety standards, Codex Alimentarius, has refused to approve rGBH not just once but twice.
Farmers themselves have noticed problems with the product. In addition to the expense of the drug itself, rBGH results in higher feed bills, higher vet bills due to increased antibiotic use, and more cows removed from the herd due to illness or low productivity. One study found that 25 to 40 percent of dairy farmers who tried rBGH soon gave it up because it wasn’t profitable enough to justify the damage to their cows. Other farmers have said that they see how hard the product is on cows, and they don’t want to subject their animals to such treatment.
Okay, so that’s why rBGH hurts cows. But I’m way more concerned about us and our kids. How does having a genetically altered hormone in our milk supply affect us?
As early as 1998, an article in the Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reported that women with even relatively small increases of a hormone known as Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) were up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer.
And guess what? According to a January 1996 report in the International Journal of Health Services, rBGH milk has up to 10 times the IGF-1 levels of natural milk. More recent studies have put the figure even higher, at something like 20-fold.
Now stop and think about that for a minute, while correlation is not causation, breast cancer used to be something that women got later in life. Premenopausal breast cancer was so rare that when young women presented their physicians with breast cancer symptoms, the doctors often failed to diagnose it, simply because it was so unlikely that an “older women’s disease” would be found among young women.
But according to the Young Survival Coalition, one in 229 women between the ages of 30 and 39 will be diagnosed with breast cancer in the next ten years. Why are all these young women now getting breast cancer? And what about the effects of IGF-1-laden milk on older women, who are already at greater risk for breast cancer?
In case you think that the rising cancer rates have something to do with genetics, stop and think again. According to the Breast Cancer Fund, 1 in 8 women now have breast cancer. But only 10 percent of those cases can be linked to genetics. In other words, 90 percent of breast cancers being diagnosed today are being triggered by factors in our environment.
Now if you’re like me, your next question probably is, So, if we know all of this, how did this hormone find its way into our dairy products? How did our government agencies, responsible for ensuring the safety of our food, allow the use of this growth hormone and the sale of IGF-1-laden milk? Why was rBGH not used in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but used so freely right here in our own United States?
Well, the year before the FDA approved the first genetically engineered protein, it said, “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.” But at the same time, the corporate communication’s director of Monsanto, company introducing rBGH, said, ” We should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job.”
You read that right. It’s kind of a “Who’s on first?” routine. Didn’t we learn anything from the tobacco industry?
So with the jury still out on this one, no long-term human trials ever conducted, a self-regulated industry whose “interest is in selling as much of it as possible,” the increasing rates of antibiotics used on our livestock (not to mention the increasing rates of early puberty and cancer), and the stunning fact that this synthetic growth hormone was never approved for use in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 27 countries in Europe, maybe it’s time we start to exercise a little bit of precaution here in the U.S., too.
Thankfully, we can opt out of this experiment and look for milk labeled “organic” or “rBGH-free”— since by law, these types of milk are not allowed to contain rBGH, a genetically engineered product that was never allowed into the milk, cheese, ice creams and other dairy products in other developed countries. And you can find this milk in Wal-Mart, Costco & Sam’s.
And while correlation is not causation, with the American Cancer Society telling us that 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes and the Centers for Disease Control reporting that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15, a precautionary move like this one just might be what the doctors ordered (at least that’s what they did in all 27 countries in Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Japan).
The food awakening is on, and it’s shining a harsh light on the Golden Arches which just reported its first decline in same-store sales in the US for almost a decade, continuing four consecutive quarters of poor financial performance.
The number of 19-21 year olds who ate at McDonald’s in December fell 12.9 percentage points compared to 2011.
Over the past year, senior executives have blamed supply chain issues in China, restaurant closings in Russia and even bad weather. But deeper trends should create concern for financial analysts, investors, and McDonald’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Peter Bensen.
Simply put, McDonald’s and its business model are out of touch. It has seen significant drops in patronage by core segments of its customer base in just three years. Worse, it’s losing ground to competitors – like Chipotle – that it once owned. Wednesday night, McDonald’s CEO, Don Thompson, announced that he stepping down.
McDonald’s competitors are meeting the needs of the 21st century customer and have adjusted to health-conscious diners, but McDonald’s has not. And McDonald’s primary crisis-management strategy— kid-targeted marketing, staff shakeups , new menu items and more marketing — is not cutting it this time. What worked in the past isn’t working for 21st century families.
I should know. Fifteen years ago, I monitored McDonald’s as a financial analyst and observed the upward growth trajectory. Sure there have been health concerns, stoked by documentaries like “Super Size Me” – but McDonald’s saw consecutive growth in global comparable sales.
The tides have turned. The Wall Street Journal reported that net income fell last year by almost 15%. For more than a year now, McDonald’s U.S. sales have struggled. In October, the corporation reported a staggering 30% drop in third quarter profits.
So, what changed?
There has been a food awakening. People are realizing our food system is broken, and this breakdown is contributing to disease. Younger consumers are willing to pay more for better food, and they are connecting the dots between an epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes and obscene amounts of money junk food brands like McDonald’s and Coca Cola spend marketing to children. It’s not just a mom who carries the “veto vote” anymore, it is also the family member or friend with food allergies or diabetes.
People are taking action, globally and locally. Recently, Berkeley, CA overwhelmingly approved a 1 penny/oz. soda tax. A David and Goliath story, the grassroots initiative prevailed despite more than $2 million in outside spending by the beverage industry. Millenials are paying more for better food.
And people are directly challenging junk food corporations. Parents and health professionals have called on McDonald’s to stop marketing junk food to children. Intrepid youth advocates like 11 year-old Hannah Robertson have brought this call to McDonald’s shareholders’ meeting, and just a few weeks ago 70 parents and children rallied in Chicago with one demand for McDonald’s top executives: Retire Ronald McDonald.
This food awakening has changed the competitive landscape, and 20th century brands like McDonald’s are becoming obsolete as they ignore the shifting demands of 21st century families.
Moreover, as this movement gains speed and visibility, McDonald’s is losing its core customer base, and seeing significant turnover at the very top. In fact, it’s seen at least eight senior executive level changes in the last two years. These transitions undoubtedly undermine franchisee confidence in the corporation even further, as relationships are already at an all-time low and have yet to find the person with the magic cure for its woes.
But there is no magic cure. There’s only the reality that as long as the corporation remains out of touch with shifting consumer demand, it will continue to miss the mark and miss earnings.
My experiences as an analyst and as a mother point to the same conclusion — it is the very consequences of McDonald’s outdated business model that have negatively affected the health of American families and are driving a shift in consumer demand. Failing to recognize this shift is not only costing McDonald’s its customers, it’s costing their shareholders, too, while its competitors like Chipotle thrive.
And, according to recent comments from McDonald’s new U.S. President Mike Andres, it is clear the company has resolved to double-down on the same tactics that people are pushing back on. During a call with investors, Andres said, “[Owner Operators] have got to be in the schools… this is an essential part of being a McDonald’s owner operator. This is our heritage.”
This may have been their heritage in the 20th century, but it will make them a relic if they fail to change.
For McDonald’s to continue responding to growing public concern with public relations efforts, especially those targeting kids, is out of touch, and it creates significant financial risk for the corporation. Worse, it can open McDonald’s up to a possible shareholder lawsuit down the road for refusing to protect shareholders from a fundamental shift in consumer demand. Food allergies, autism and cancer are not a trends. The President’s Cancer Panel reports that 41% of us are expected to get it in our lifetimes.
The Golden Arches has long tried to associate itself with happiness and fun. But today, McDonald’s has increasingly come to symbolize unhealthy food and, ultimately, sickness. The longer top executives wait to recognize this and move to meet the evolving needs of 21stcentury families, the worse it will get. The time to act is now. The landscape in front of the company is wide open.
This morning, I appeared on Bloomberg TV’s Market Makers, and the first question I was asked is: “Isn’t this Robyn against Monsanto?”
Could there be a more loaded question?
My answer: This is Robyn for a New Food Economy, for the health of our families and the health of the U.S. economy.More
Did you know? Mountain Dew contains an ingredient that has been banned in 100 countries around the world.
What could 100 countries possibly know that we don’t?More
In a surprising turn of events, one of the leading voices for fixing our broken food system, Jamie Oliver, just announced his partnership with the Gates Foundation.
Jamie is an incredibly powerful entity in his own right, one of the most respected voices in the food movement.
He does not need Gates.
But Gates does need Jamie. The Gates Foundation saw an early opportunity to engage in food’s operating system, investing heavily in Monsanto, serving as one of the agrochemical company’s largest shareholders. And they have been hammered for it. From the Seattle Times to the Guardian in the UK, the issue has been covered. Every time the Gates Foundation enters the public forum on food, these facts are highlighted: the foundation purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto. It has destroyed their credibility in the clean food movement.
The Gates are brilliant and have since hedged and invested in other operating systems, cleaner operating systems, ones that are less dependent on agricultural chemicals, fertilizers and other synthetic pesticides. It’s a smart move for any investor, to hedge, that’s no question.
But is this a smart move for Jamie?
As soon as Jamie shared the announcement in a video, his fans and followers took to his Facebook page sharing their concern. Jamie was quick to respond, issuing the following comment:
Jamie Oliver
January 23 at 4:05pm ·
Hi guys, my video message in support of Bill and Melinda Gates’ letter was in response to their big bets for the next fifteen years. My big bet is that food education for all is fundamental to fixing our broken food system and feeding the world. Following my message a lot of you have shared your concerns about GMOs so I wanted to make sure you knew that my video message wasn’t in support of GMOs but instead sharing my belief in food education. Sharing views, having a right noisy debate and getting to the food truth – including about GMOs – is essential to tackling the big problems we face and is at the heart of the Food Revolution. Jamie
The landscape of food is increasingly crowded with people that are in it for different reasons. Some are in it to monetize, others to become famous, others for the health of their children and others to solve the problem. Some dance between one, two, three or any number of other reasons. Partnerships also happen for different reasons, some financial, some for shared goals, others for shared agendas.
The question with Jamie’s emphasis on “food education” is: what will the Gates’ Foundation’s ‘food education’ look like? Does Jamie play a role in defining that?
I have had the honor of meeting Jamie while hosting his first Food Revolution Day Google hangout. He is extraordinary. The work that he has done is unparalleled. He has done all of it while also being an incredible dad of four and family man. Few if any could juggle those demands.
I can’t help but wonder what drove the decision making process, and if he had gotten more support here in the U.S. for his Foundation, if he could have stood alone on this issue. It’s food for thought.
In the meantime, please keep sharing your comments on his Facebook page. He is listening. Together, we have to build a new food system that promotes a healthy operating system for farmers and a healthy future for all families.
Courage is contagious, and sometimes we have to be brave with our lives so that others can be brave with theirs.
Sources:
The Guardian: Why Is the Gates Foundation Investing in GM Giant Monsanto?
Seattle Times: Gates Foundation Investment In Monsanto Under Fire
Image Credit: Tefal
Nine years ago, this morning, our littlest had an allergic reaction to a plate of scrambled eggs.
Yesterday, I was in NYC and spoke at a luncheon with the Time Magazine’s health editor, beautiful food designed by an extraordinary woman with Hampton Creek products, products made without eggs. The irony of it all was not lost on me, as I thought about it marking the ninth anniversary of this work.More