TPO

I have heard this as well. Young kids have small stomachs, and milk and fruit juice fill them up without some of the benefits that solid foods have, such as fiber. True, but last time I checked, mother nature developed breast milk for human children and cow's milk for calves. And I don't think either form of offspring was designed to drink it for a lifetime. Many schools have offered only skim and low-fat milk for years, and although I wish whole milk wasn't considered such a bad thing, I can think of legitimate reasons for not offering whole milk. What I have trouble justifying is the baked Cheetos. Some great answers to this one already, but I would add fear to the list. When I was in school, if you lived within a mile of the school you walked and when you got home in the afternoon you took off on your bike or walked all over town. Today buses pick up kids a block away from school and very few kids play outside, and some of that comes from the fear of children being hurt or abducted.

Do you really believe that? Because I don't. I believe that most corporations are out to make a buck, and continue to make a buck by creating a need, real or imagined, for their product. ← I believe that corporations often do some good through community involvement and charitable contributions. I do not, however, believe this comes from the goodness of their hearts. Decisions are based on market research, which determines when the benefits of public relations and free advertisement outweights the cost of charity. But on the subject of doing good, I can't see how advertising junk food to young children benefits our society. If children have no money of their own and parents are supposed say no to the majority of unhealthy foods, then what purpose does the advertising serve?

I don't have kids, but I'm around them enough to know just how difficult it is. Which begs the question -- why do we want advertising that creates bad guys out of good parents? As pointed out several times on this thread, toddlers don't have the money and transportation necessary to buy items themselves, so one reason to market to them is to get them to nag their parents to buy them stuff. Parents are doing a very difficult job, and advertising helps to undermine that job by just giving them more and more occasions when they have to say no to their kids. And since kids cannot tell the difference between an advertisement and a fact until they are about 8, I doubt toddlers can fully understand that parents are doing what it best for them. Additionally, advertising does a good job in manipulating the "compromises" that are common between parents and children today. The kid wants to eat Lucky Charms, the parents want them to eat Cheerios, they compromise on Honey Nut Cheerios -- courtesy of the General Mills advertising campaign designed to create exactly that situation. ETA disclaimer that I have never suggested such advertising be banned, just that we not be so nonchalant about its effects on small children and work toward better educating kids and parents.

A good advertising campaign creates a need. A great advertising campaign creates a need without consumers realizing that's what they're doing. One good example is Disney classics in limited VHS/DVD release. There is no real reason for Disney to do limit how long they will sell a movie, other than to create a need within the eight-year generational cycle of advertising to kids. Another is microwavable snacks for kids. There is no real reason kids need a hot snack instead of a cold piece of fruit, but marketing campaigns were able to tap into a child's desire to feel grown up by being allowed to use the microwave and create a need. I don't doubt FabulousFoodBabe's ability to keep her kids from being wrapped up in consumerism. I know a few parents who have been very successful in that respect as well. But I also know parents who aren't as successful, and I don't think that small children should have to suffer the consequences when their parents aren't 100% effective in battling multi-billion advertising budgets -- especially when there is no real necessity to heavily market junk food to preschoolers. The American Psychological Assocation's Task Force on Advertising and Children, which include the American Academy of Pediatrics, came up with a list of recommendations to help counter the effects on advertising and I thought it was a good list. Two items I thought were particularly relevent were: Develop curriculum for different grade levels to help children understand advertising; and educate parents and professionals who work with children and youth on the effects of advertising.

I don't think this is anything new; every school district in the past few places I have lived in offered only 2% and skim milk at school. However, I do wish whole milk didn't have the bad reputation that it seems to have. And if kids had less Cheetos in their lives -- even if they're baked -- it wouldn't matter what the calorie content of their milk was.

Even parents do monitor television behavior at home can't always monitor it at daycare and preschool -- many allow kids to watch television and use educational programs sponsered by Pizza Hut and other junk food companies that contain their logos and ads -- or when children are playing with friends. There is product placement in children's movies and books; ads in magazines, the internet, and video games; packaging designed to influence children while in grocery stores; and more. To avoid advertising literally could mean staying home with your child everyday and avoiding almost all forms of entertainment. I definitely agree it is the parents' job to say no to their children when needed. But unfortunately, not every parent does this. I bet most of us know parents in our own circle of friends who allow their children to have most of what they want, including unhealthy foods. But because some parents do this doesn't mean I think kids deserve to pay the price for it. Preschoolers have absolutely no ability to distinguish between an advertisement and fact, and I don't think they deserve to be overweight or have high cholesterol because they are convinced they need junk food and their parents don't know how to compete with $15 billion annual advertising campaigns. Again, I don't thinks ads need to be banned. But I do think there are solutions, possibly through making junk food corporations help pay to educate the parents, much like alcohol and tobacco companies do. Raising children is one of the most difficult and most important jobs anyone can have. Perhaps we would be better off to try and make this job a little easier instead of a lot harder.

I don't really believe the playing field is that level -- one or two parents up against $15 billion in annual junk food marketing. But even if it was, what about the lasting effect of advertising that's around long after the kids reach adulthood? Just about everything from soda and fast food to SUVs are marketed to preschoolers because corporations know these ads create brand loyalty long before these kids ever have any money of their own. To me, it's like having your kid's sponge-like brain exposed to French everyday and believing that as long as you don't let your kid speak French at home he'll never learn the language. I think food corporations should take this advice -- they are better off to start regulating themselves like alcohol companies self-regulate their ads than to wait until some government restrictions are handed down.

Boston Globe – December 7, 2005 Steak your claim At five restaurants, we get a taste of Boston's longstanding love affair with beef By Alison Arnett, Globe Staff Steaks scorecard: * Most flavor * Cooked to a ''T" * Dreamy sides * Service with a smile --------------- It's a match for meat By Stephen Meuse, Globe Correspondent --------------- The carnivore's favorite dessert After a T-bone or porterhouse, cheesecake hits the spot By Lisa Zwirn, Globe Correspondent --------------- Cookbook Review: Bayless makes Mexican accessible By T. Susan Chang, Globe Correspondent Recipe: * Tinga tacos --------------- Tailgate gourmet has a tasty pregame plan By Leigh Belanger, Globe Correspondent --------------- In the Market: Rack of lamb What it is, where to buy it, and how to use it. Recipe: * Rack of lamb with harissa and currants --------------- Trying to duplicate a childhood favorite Recipe: * Mincemeat cheesecake --------------- Carry a torch for this pumpkin brulee dish Recipes: * Pumpkin cheesecake brulee

Toronto Star – December 7, 2005 Hankering for fruitcake? What's old is new again By Susan Sampson Recipe: * Coffee Fruitcake --------------- Deli celebrates 30 years By Jennifer Bain --------------- Cooking for dogs Essex Cottage Farms Holiday Cake Mix for Dogs & Puppies: What it is, where to buy it, why you should have it, and all the details. --------------- The matchmaker A brief review of Harmony on the Palate: Matching Simple Recipes to Everyday Wine Styles by Shari Darling. --------------- A pocket full of vino A brief review of Pocket Guide to Ontario Wines, Wineries, Vineyards & Vines by Konrad Ejbich. --------------- A responsible way to play chess --------------- Hedonism, uncorked --------------- Tame those reds with an aerator --------------- Every good wine deserves to be pumped

I think parents would be able to combat advertising if marketing campaigns were designed only to get a child to want a product. But while that is one goal of corporate marketing, it is not the only goal. Studies have shown corporations that brand loyalties and consumer habits can be formed at a very young age -- long before children are old enough to actually purchase their products -- and they use that to their advantage. Think of how easy it is to teach a foreign language to a small child. In that respect, most people agree that their brains are like sponges. But when it comes to advertising, we believe that the $15 billion a year spent marketing junk food to kids will not have a lasting effect. Still, I don't think advertising to children should be banned. I just think that personal and corporate responsibility should go hand in hand -- and both parents and corporations should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

It's breakfast central on my fridge, with an assortment of cereal and a bunch of bananas.

No doubt about it. Although the report stated it couldn't conclusively say television advertising was responsible for adiposity, some of the "other explanations" were Internet advertising, video game advertisements, and product placement in television and movies. One thing I didn't see (although I didn't read the whole report) was how the time spent doing these activities affects adiposity. In other words, the time spent watching television is time not spent doing something physical. The more I think about the issue of advertising for children, the more overwhelmed I feel. Schools often need money, and get it from soda companies in exchange for having their vending machines in schools. They often teach current events using Channel One, which requires kids to watch advertisements. I think advertisements aimed at children are unfair (many are too young to weigh both sides of an issue) and unethical (why aim advertising at people whose only means of buying a product are to beg, borrow, or steal). But maybe they are just one aspect of a bigger problem. There may be many reasons people try to fit 30 hours of work and activities into each 24-hour day, and why healthy food, home cooking, and physical activity seem to be some of the first things to go in an attempt to fit other things in.

Good point, but after reading the entire pagethat quote comes from, I'm not convinced that advertising plays no role, only that television advertising may not be the only explanation for one of the diet-related health outcomes the report covers. But, like you, I'm no scientist either. Still, I do think the industry could benefit from self-regulation. Otherwise, if they want to advertise freely it should be possible to make them responsible for the consequences of their campaigns.

There is no possible way, as long as the child is never given money for a school lunch, is never given an allowance, and is never allowed to visit friends. How does an occasional Snickers bar get compared to regular smoking? I think there are people who have occasional cigarettes and live long and productive lives. But that doesn't mean I think cigarette companies should have free reign to market their products to children anyway they see fit. I would like to see junk food companies and cigarette companies treated similarly. Both know that if their products are consumed at the levels they would like them consumed, ill heath and possibly death can result. Just as cigarette companies must contribute to anti-smoking ads and health expenses, junk food companies could have similar requirements to fulfill. That way, we are not controlling what they can do but simply requiring them to take responsibility for their actions. After all, if we want "personal responsibility" I think we also should aim for "corporate responsibility."

Toronto Star – November 30, 2005 Savour the flavours of Iraq Iraqis have their own way with kebabs, put yogurt to good use and like to match meat with dried fruit By Habeeb Salloum Recipes: * Lentil Soup (Shawrabat 'Adas) * Eggplant and Yogurt (Badhinjan bil Laban) * Meat Patties (Kebab Iroog) * Yogurt and Cucumber (Jajeek) * Rice Kubbah (Kubbah Halab) * Sumac Salad * Date Cookies (Klaychah) --------------- Onion dish has mayor's vote By Susan Sampson Recipe: * Three-Onion & Cheese Casserole --------------- A pretty fancy powwow By Jennifer Bain Recipe: * Three Sisters Soup recipe --------------- Can't go wrong with these Gordon Stimmell rates three wines under $13 to pair with salami or pepperoni pizza, lamb kebabs, and roast turkey. --------------- Saggio dishes out a warm welcome Judy Gerstel reviews Saggio Ristorante in Woodbridge. --------------- A great beer that I loathe By Jon Filson, Suck It Back

Boston Globe – November 30, 2005 They got game And they shot it themselves. Five Boston chefs go hunting for dinner. By Joe Yonan, Globe Staff --------------- A new generation of wine enthusiasts Twenty-somethings are drinking it in By John S. Forrester, Globe Correspondent --------------- A sweet, gingery start to the day Recipe: * Ginger crumble scones --------------- Gas prices fuel costs at eateries By Alison Arnett, Globe Staff --------------- Persimmon perks up a homey dessert Recipe: * Individual persimmon bread puddings --------------- In the Market: Artisanal pasta What it is, how to use it, and where it's good. Recipe: * Baked ziti --------------- Gadgets: I'll see that pot and braise you one Recipes: * Grilled quail * Rabbit agrodolce

Ms. Reichl, Judging by the success I have had using Gourmet recipes, I'm sure they are tested thoroughly. I am curious, however, about how you ensure the recipes will work well for average home cooks with varying equipment and skill levels. Also, I wonder if the testing process has changed over the years, particularly if there were any changed you have made.

Obviously I cannot speak for Sandy's newspaper, but the newspaper I used to work for had a sore spot when it came to big-box stores because they would not distribute their flyers as inserts in the newspaper or run any advertising. Right or wrong, that particular publisher would not have offered free advertising to companies that did not see the value in helping support a community newspaper.

I will point out that most people who live in Texas for any length of time, from thereon generally refer to themselves as a Texan - deservedly so. ← Ah, see, in New York, we have standards for this sort of thing... ← Here in Maine, you could move here the day after you are born and live here 80 years, but you won't be a Mainer. Since George HW Bush splits his time between Maine and Texas, by default he has to consider himself a Texan because he can't call himself a Mainer. Everytime I see "fish jello" on this thread, I think of lutefisk. And how thankful I am that my Norwegian husband doesn't eat it.

My husband got me one of those last year also! He usually buys me the perfect gifts, from pots to utensils. My mom laughs and says if my dad every bought her a pan for her birthday she'd divorce him, but I love my kitchen gifts. My husband also is very supportive of my cooking experiments. He often offers compliments, but knowns when I ask his honest opinion that I mean it (usually because I am testing a recipe for a column) and he's not afraid to tell me when something isn't great or what it needs to improve the recipe.

I think saying that celebrity chefs are causing the decline of culinary school enrollment is like saying that if there was a decline of enrollment into college music programs it would be American Idol's fault. If you are scared off of a career because you are afraid that someone like Gordon Ramsey will swear at you or that someone like Simon Cowell will tell you your voice is awful, then maybe you just don't have the right personality for those types of jobs.

Very true. I think that part of the reason this cookbook creates such a discussion is because the Bush family has always had money. We tend to expect such people to be curious and adventurous, to travel and experience new things, and perhaps to develop sophisticated tastes. If the Clinton family chef wrote this cookbook, I doubt anyone would blink an eye at the recipes that begin with condensed soup and mayonnaise. But I guess even the very rich are not exempt from finding comfort in comfort foods.

We all have different dietary structures, but the way some foods are processed may be unique to the American culture. I think we're the only ones eating genetically engineered corn every day, and I bet the way we factory-raise chickens and other meats isn't popular wordwide. If I were pregnant, I would try to avoid processed foods and I would avoid raw/rare meat and eggs mainly because of the way these things are grown and harvested. I don't think I would go quite as far as avoiding green peppers, sage, and other such things, although it's hard to say for sure since I'm not pregnant.

Maybe these dishes aren't made on a regular basis, but when they are served at Jeb Bush's inauguration, I think they are common. I thought this brief Q&A with the author was interesting: The Dish on the Bushes I wouldn't mind checking out the recipes Prince Bandar contributed to the cookbook.

I would venture a guess, however, that it is uncommon for families with personal chefs to eat this way. But since the Bush family isn't known for being adventurous (not meant as a criticism), it doesn't surprise me that their favorite meals come from decades-old recipes.