12/17/10

Scott's Chocolate Chip Cookies

1 1/2C butter (unsalted), room temp
1 1/4C sugar
1 1/4C light brown sugar
1 Tablespoon vanilla
2 eggs (large)
4C flour
2 Teaspoons baking soda
1 - 24 ounce package semi sweet chocolate chips 
Preheat oven to 350ºF 
Cream the butter and sugars until well mixed  
Add vanilla and eggs - beat until mixed 
Add flour (a little at a time so as not to make a mess) and baking soda and mix on low speed until well incorporated 
Add chips and beat until combined
Bake them on a baking sheet for 10 minutes, until lightly golden 
Remove them from the sheet and cool them on a wire rack

Review: Choice Organic Teas

I received recently, courtesy of Choice Teas, the Organic Earl Grey Tea. I love the smoothness of that tea. I drink it with milk, and it has a great aftertaste; there is no bitterness or sourness to it. The Earl Grey is my drink of choice on  cold day.


I also tried the Organic Decaf English Breakfast Tea, and the Yerba Maté Mint; they all have a pure, smooth flavor, with a beautifully balanced aftertaste.


I also use a lot of Choice's Organic Peppermint Tea. It is refreshing, and it has such a great flavor you don't even need to add honey to it, it holds up on its own.


Worthy of mention, the packages in which all Choice Teas come in are entirely compostable and recyclable.


You can find all of Choice's teas at your local natural/health food store. Here in my neighborhood, I buy it at Grassroots Natural Market.

12/14/10


Top 12 Unhealthiest Holiday Drinks
posted by Melissa Breyer Dec 13, 2010
Ho ho oh no, the holidays. Don’t get me wrong, I love the holidays. Especially the flavors involved; pumpkin, gingerbread, and eggnog all get a hearty oh-oh-yes from me. But the pure volume of food and drink, at some point, becomes nearly obscene. So you skip the big, gooey slice of gingerbread cake and opt for a drink instead, only to find, come January, that–what the gingersnap?!–you can’t snap your jeans. Welcome to the world of ridiculously caloric beverages; the ones that should make you fearful rather than cheerful. Here are twelve to put on Santa’s naughty list.

12. Starbucks: White Hot Chocolate 
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 570
Saturated Fat: 21 g
11. Panera: Peppermint Hot Chocolate
Serving Size: 14.25 oz
Calories: 610
Saturated Fat: 11 g
10. Starbucks: Eggnog Latte
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 630
Saturated Fat: 30 g
9. McDonald’s: Frappe Caramel 
Serving Size: 22 oz
Calories: 680
Saturated Fat: 29 g
8. The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf: Gingerbread Cookie Ice Blended Drink
Serving Size: 24 oz
Calories: 690
Saturated Fat: 11 g
7. Starbucks: Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 700
Saturated Fat: 7 g

6. The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf: Gingerbread Cookie Ice Blended Drink
Serving Size: 24 oz
Calories: 710
Saturated Fat: 12 g
5. Caribou Coffee: Ho Ho Mint White Chocolate
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 790
Saturated Fat: 27 g
4. Caribou Coffee: Spicy Milk Chocolate Mocha
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 880
Saturated Fat: 26 g
3. Chik-Fil-A: Peppermint Chocolate Milkshake
Serving Size: 19.43
Calories: 930
Saturated Fat: 20 g
2. Dairy Queen: Pumpkin Pie Blizzard
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 1050
Saturated Fat: 22 g
1. Sonic: Holiday Spiced Sugar Cookie Blast
Serving Size: 20.8 oz
Calories: 1256
Saturated Fat: 39.6 g


Top 12 Unhealthiest Holiday Drinks


posted by Melissa Breyer Dec 13, 2010
Ho ho oh no, the holidays. Don’t get me wrong, I love the holidays. Especially the flavors involved; pumpkin, gingerbread, and eggnog all get a hearty oh-oh-yes from me. But the pure volume of food and drink, at some point, becomes nearly obscene. So you skip the big, gooey slice of gingerbread cake and opt for a drink instead, only to find, come January, that–what the gingersnap?!–you can’t snap your jeans. Welcome to the world of ridiculously caloric beverages; the ones that should make you fearful rather than cheerful. Here are twelve to put on Santa’s naughty list.
12. Starbucks: White Hot Chocolate 
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 570
Saturated Fat: 21 g
11. Panera: Peppermint Hot Chocolate
Serving Size: 14.25 oz
Calories: 610
Saturated Fat: 11 g
10. Starbucks: Eggnog Latte
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 630
Saturated Fat: 30 g
9. McDonald’s: Frappe Caramel 
Serving Size: 22 oz
Calories: 680
Saturated Fat: 29 g
8. The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf: Gingerbread Cookie Ice Blended Drink
Serving Size: 24 oz
Calories: 690
Saturated Fat: 11 g
7. Starbucks: Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 700
Saturated Fat: 7 g
6. The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf: Gingerbread Cookie Ice Blended Drink
Serving Size: 24 oz
Calories: 710
Saturated Fat: 12 g
5. Caribou Coffee: Ho Ho Mint White Chocolate
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 790
Saturated Fat: 27 g
4. Caribou Coffee: Spicy Milk Chocolate Mocha
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 880
Saturated Fat: 26 g
3. Chik-Fil-A: Peppermint Chocolate Milkshake
Serving Size: 19.43
Calories: 930
Saturated Fat: 20 g
2. Dairy Queen: Pumpkin Pie Blizzard
Serving Size: 20 oz
Calories: 1050
Saturated Fat: 22 g
1. Sonic: Holiday Spiced Sugar Cookie Blast
Serving Size: 20.8 oz
Calories: 1256
Saturated Fat: 39.6 g


12/11/10

BEYOND FOSSIL FUELS

Using Waste, Swedish City Shrinks Its Fossil Fuel Use


Johan Spanner for The New York Times
As part of its citywide system, Kristianstad burns wood waste like tree prunings and scraps from flooring factories to power an underground district heating grid.



KRISTIANSTAD, Sweden — When this city vowed a decade ago to wean itself from fossil fuels, it was a lofty aspiration, like zero deaths from traffic accidents or the elimination of childhood obesity.
Green
A blog about energy and the environment.
Johan Spanner for The New York Times
Kristianstad calculated that it eliminated 64 tons of CO2 emissions annually by using wood pellets to heat a city greenhouse.
But Kristianstad has already crossed a crucial threshold: the city and surrounding county, with a population of 80,000, essentially use no oil, natural gas or coal to heat homes and businesses, even during the long frigid winters. It is a complete reversal from 20 years ago, when all of their heat came from fossil fuels.
But this area in southern Sweden, best known as the home of Absolut vodka, has not generally substituted solar panels or wind turbines for the traditional fuels it has forsaken. Instead, as befits a region that is an epicenter of farming and food processing, it generates energy from a motley assortment of ingredients like potato peels, manure, used cooking oil, stale cookies and pig intestines.
A hulking 10-year-old plant on the outskirts of Kristianstad uses a biological process to transform the detritus into biogas, a form of methane. That gas is burned to create heat and electricity, or is refined as a fuel for cars.
Once the city fathers got into the habit of harnessing power locally, they saw fuel everywhere: Kristianstad also burns gas emanating from an old landfill and sewage ponds, as well as wood waste from flooring factories and tree prunings.
Over the last five years, many European countries have increased their reliance on renewable energy, from wind farms to hydroelectric dams, because fossil fuels are expensive on the Continent and their overuse is, effectively, taxed by the European Union’semissions trading system.
But for many agricultural regions, a crucial component of the renewable energy mix has become gas extracted from biomass like farm and food waste. In Germany alone, about 5,000 biogas systems generate power, in many cases on individual farms.
Kristianstad has gone further, harnessing biogas for an across-the-board regional energy makeover that has halved its fossil fuel use and reduced the city’s carbon dioxide emissions by one-quarter in the last decade.
“It’s a much more secure energy supply — we didn’t want to buy oil anymore from the Middle East or Norway,” said Lennart Erfors, the engineer who is overseeing the transition in this colorful city of 18th-century row houses. “And it has created jobs in the energy sector.”
In the United States, biogas systems are rare. There are now 151 biomass digesters in the country, most of them small and using only manure, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. estimated that installing such plants would be feasible at about 8,000 farms.
So far in the United States, such projects have been limited by high initial costs, scant government financing and the lack of a business model. There is no supply network for moving manure to a centralized plant and no outlet to sell the biogas generated.
Still, a number of states and companies are considering new investment.
Last month, two California utilities, Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric, filed for permission with the state’s Public Utilities Commission to build plants in California to turn organic waste from farms and gas from water treatment plants into biogas that would feed into the state’s natural-gas pipelines after purification.
Using biogas would help the utilities meet requirements in California and many other states to generate a portion of their power using renewable energy within the coming decade.
Both natural gas and biogas create emissions when burned, but far less than coal and oil do. And unlike natural gas, which is pumped from deep underground, biogas counts as a renewable energy source: it is made from biological waste that in many cases would otherwise decompose in farm fields or landfills and yield no benefit at all, releasing heat-trapping methane into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
This fall, emissaries from Wisconsin’s Bioenergy Initiative toured German biogas programs to help formulate a plan to develop the industry. “Biogas is Wisconsin’s opportunity fuel,” said Gary Radloff, the initiative’s Midwest policy director.
Like Kristianstad, California and Wisconsin produce a bounty of waste from food processing and dairy farms but an inadequate supply of fossil fuel to meet their needs. Another plus is that biogas plants can devour vast quantities of manure that would otherwise pollute the air and could affect water supplies.
In Kristianstad, old fossil fuel technologies coexist awkwardly alongside their biomass replacements. The type of tanker truck that used to deliver heating oil now delivers wood pellets, the major heating fuel in the city’s more remote areas. Across from a bustling Statoil gas station is a modest new commercial biogas pumping station owned by the renewables company Eon Energy.
The start-up costs, covered by the city and through Swedish government grants, have been considerable: the centralized biomass heating system cost $144 million, including constructing a new incineration plant, laying networks of pipes, replacing furnaces and installing generators.
But officials say the payback has already been significant: Kristianstad now spends about $3.2 million each year to heat its municipal buildings rather than the $7 million it would spend if it still relied on oil and electricity. It fuels its municipal cars, buses and trucks with biogas fuel, avoiding the need to purchase nearly half a million gallons of diesel or gas each year.

The operations at the biogas and heating plants bring in cash, because farms and factories pay fees to dispose of their waste and the plants sell the heat, electricity and car fuel they generate.
Johan Spanner for The New York Times
A municipal fire inspector making a fuel stop. Kristianstad’s municipal cars, buses and trucks now run on biogas fuel.
Green
A blog about energy and the environment.
The New York Times
Kristianstad’s energy makeover is rooted in oil price shocks of the 1980s, when the city could barely afford to heat its schools and hospitals. To save on fuel consumption, the city began laying heating pipes to form an underground heating grid — so-calleddistrict heating.
Such systems use one or more central furnaces to heat water or produce steam that is fed into the network. It is far more efficient to pump heat into a system that can warm an entire city than to heat buildings individually with boilers.
District heating systems can generate heat from any fuel source, and like New York City’s, Kristianstad’s initially relied on fossil fuel. But after Sweden became the first country to impose a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, in 1991, Kristianstad started looking for substitutes.
By 1993, it was taking in and burning local wood wastes, and in 1999, it began relying on heat generated from the new biogas plant. Some buildings that are too remote to be connected to the district heating system have been fitted with individual furnaces that use tiny pellets that are also made from wood waste.
Burning wood in this form is more efficient and produces less carbon dioxide than burning logs does; such heating has given birth to a booming pellet industry in northern Europe. Government subsidies underwrite purchases of pellet furnaces by homeowners and businesses; pellet-fueled heat costs half as much as oil, said Mr. Erfors, the engineer.
Having dispensed with fossil fuels for heating, Kristianstad is moving on to other challenges. City planners hope that by 2020 total local emissions will be 40 percent lower than they were in 1990, and that running the city will require no fossil fuel and produce no emissions at all.
Transportation now accounts for 60 percent of fossil fuel use, so city planners want drivers to use cars that run on local biogas, which municipal vehicles already do. That will require increasing production of the fuel.
Kristianstad is looking into building satellite biogas plants for outlying areas and expanding its network of underground biogas pipes to allow the construction of more filling stations. At the moment, this is something of a chicken-and-egg problem: even though biogas fuel costs about 20 percent less than gasoline, consumers are reluctant to spend $32,000 (about $4,000 more than for a conventional car) on a biogas or dual-fuel car until they are certain that the network will keep growing.
“A tank is enough to get you around the region for the day, but do you have to plan ahead,” Martin Risberg, a county engineer, said as he filled a biogas Volvo.

12/8/10

What are you cooking your food in?

You take time and energy to find good quality organic food, fresh organic produce, dairy and meat. But how do you cook it?
The pots and pans that you use to cook your food with can have a great effect on your health as well. The food is not only in direct contact with the pot in which you prepare it, it is heated in it, which can further exacerbate any potential chemical contamination. It is very important to use cookware that will not leach undesirable chemicals into your food.
The safest material to use for cookware is stainless steel. It is easy to find, as it is available online, in department stores and supermarkets. 
It is well worth to invest in a solid, good quality, thick stainless steel pot. It will last forever. I purchased a set of All Clad pots almost 14 years ago; they are very sturdy, and will probably outlast me. I bought one pot at a time, as I needed them, and built my set that way. 
Try to avoid cheaply made, thin stainless steel; the food will stick to it and burn, and you will likely find yourself frustrated and willing to turn to the convenience of non-stick. Also, most of them have handles that are made of plastic. The handles are generally not attached very well, so they become loose and fall off and/or break. They also melt and burn if the fire is too hot, releasing plastic fumes which are an obvious health hazard.
One can find stainless steel bakeware in cooking stores, as well as online with free shipping. I replaced all the Teflon-coated bakeware I had for stainless steel that I found online. Glassware is cheap and easy to find online, in department stores and supermarkets, and works well for both roasting and baking. Ceramic is another great choice, but more expensive and harder to find; it will also crack if you do not handle it well. Baking stones are wonderful, and last forever; they are great for baking cookies, pizza, scones and bread. 
Cast iron, and enameled cast iron, are other great traditional choices. They are incredible pots to have if you love making stews, soups and other slow-coking dishes. They can go from stove-top to oven, which is a great quality for a pot. Enameled cast-iron pots can even be used to bake nice crusty, whole-wheat breads. They will also last forever, but you cannot cook tomatoes using cast iron, and you cannot cook with high heat on enameled cast iron. So, if you are looking for the one pot that can do everything, go for a good quality stainless steel one.
Do not use Teflon-coated pots or bakeware (that includes Calphalon and other non-stick cookware). Teflon is poisonous when heated; it does not matter if it is cheap Teflon from the supermarket, or expensive material from specialty shops. When heated, it emits toxic fumes. Teflon-coated pots and bakeware generally come with a tag explaining how much heat it will tolerate before breaking down and emitting chemical fumes. Stoves and ovens do not emit a completely even heat, and there is no guarantee that the heat is not surpassing the tolerable amount for the cookware. Recent research also shows that toxic fumes are released not only when Teflon-coated pans are overheated, they are released just about any time they are heated (www.ewg.org). Teflon-coated pots and pans heat up very quickly, and it is difficult to gauge exactly how hot they really get. They also scratch and wear out, which means that in a short amount of time you will have to spend yet more money and energy looking for another pot or pan.
Aluminum is not a good choice for either cookware or bakeware. It is well known that aluminum exposure has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, so that is not a route one would want to take. 
Personally, I would also not cook with silicone bakeware or utensils. The same goes for plastic cooking utensils. I have not seen enough evidence to know that I can trust them. I am generally skeptical of new materials, as their health hazards are not apparent for many years, Teflon being a prime example. 
I will stick with the old, traditional cookware. They last virtually forever, and are a safe and great investment for your health.

12/2/10

Congress Approves Child Nutrition Bill


WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Thursday to a child nutrition bill that expands the school lunch program and sets new standards to improve the quality of school meals with more fruits and vegetables.
Michelle Obama lobbied for the bill as a way to combat both obesity and hunger. About half the $4.5 billion cost of the bill over 10 years is to be paid for by a cut in food stamp benefits starting in several years.
The House passed the bill by a vote of 264 to 157. It was approved in the Senate in August by unanimous consent. It now goes to President Obama, who intends to sign it.
In September, some liberal House Democrats and advocates for the poor railed against the bill, saying it was wrong to pay for the expansion of child nutrition programs by cutting money for food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
But the Democrats put aside their disagreements on Thursday, after concluding that it was better to take what they could get than to gamble on their chances of passing a modified bill in the next Congress. Republicans will control the House after Jan. 1, and the agenda is likely to be dominated by efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit.
Mr. Obama tamped down concerns by telling Democrats he would work with them to find other ways to pay for the bill before the cuts in food stamps take effect.
“The president will do everything he can do to restore these unconscionable cuts,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Democrats and a few Republicans praised Mrs. Obama. “She has been an incredible champion for our children, particularly in the areas of nutrition and obesity,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Mr. McGovern, who is co-chairman of the House Hunger Caucus, said: “Hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin. Highly processed empty-calorie foods are less expensive than fresh, nutritious foods.”
School meal programs have a major impact on the nation’s health, and supporters of the bill said it could reduce the prevalence of obesity among children. The school lunch program feeds more than 31 million children a day.
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, said, “The bill sets national nutrition standards that will finally get all of the junk food infiltrating our classrooms and our cafeterias out the door.”
Republicans complained that the bill would increase federal spending. Moreover, said Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, “it is paid for with funds that are borrowed by the federal government.”
Representative Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia and a physician, said: “This bill is not about child nutrition. It’s not about healthy kids. It’s about an expansion of the federal government, more and more control from Washington, borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. The federal government has no business setting nutritional standards and telling families what they should and should not eat.”
The bill gives the secretary of agriculture authority to establish nutrition standards for foods sold in schools during the school day, including items in vending machines. The standards would require schools to serve more fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products.
In addition, for the first time in more than three decades, the bill would increase federal reimbursement for school lunches beyond adjustments for inflation — to help cover the cost of higher-quality meals. It would also allow more than 100,000 children on Medicaid to qualify automatically for free school meals, without filing paper applications.
One of the most contentious provisions of the bill regulates prices charged for lunches served to children with family incomes that exceed the poverty level by more than 85 percent, a threshold that works out to $40,793 for a family of four.
“This provision would require some schools to raise their lunch prices,” the Congressional Budget Office said.
Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota, said that the price provision was tantamount to a tax increase on middle-class families. The National Governors Association and local school officials objected to it as a new federal mandate.
But Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a research and advocacy group, said: “The price of paid lunches needs to go up. Schools are not charging enough to cover the cost. As a result, money intended to provide healthy food to low-income kids is being diverted to subsidize food for higher-income children.”
School districts that comply with the new standards can receive an additional federal payment of 6 cents for each lunch served. The National School Boards Association, representing local board members, said “the actual increased cost of compliance” was at least twice that amount.
The bill was written mainly by Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas and chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who lost her bid for re-election.
Passage of the bill followed years of studies by the National Academy of Sciences and negotiations by advocates for children and the food industry. It was supported by health, education and religious groups, labor unions and the food, beverage, dairy and supermarket industries.
The bill rounds out the tenure of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. When she took the gavel in January 2007, she was surrounded by the children of House members, and she called the House to order in the name of “all America’s children.” On Thursday, though she left the supervision of preliminary votes in the House to others, Ms. Pelosi took back the gavel to personally declare the bill passed.
Ms. Pelosi said the child nutrition bill, besides being “important for moral reasons,” would increase the nation’s economic competitiveness and military readiness. Millions of young adults are unable to serve in the armed forces because they are overweight, she said.

12/1/10

Review: Kiss my Face Peace Soap

I have been using, courtesy of Kiss My Face,  the Kiss My Face Peace Soap for a month now, and absolutely love it. I usually make my own liquid hand soap by mixing castile soap, water and a bit of lavender oil. Sometimes it comes out perfect; but sometimes it is too strong, so it is harsh on the hands; or too watery, and it does not wash well... or worse, too oily, which just leaves you with lavender-oily hands...
This soap is exactly what I was trying to achieve with my own concoction, except better. It has the correct proportions, so it always foams nicely when you squirt it; and it is gentle on your hands, which is a huge plus when you constantly need to wash them- no need to use hand lotion afterwards. It can also be refilled, which makes for less waste, since the pumps are not recyclable.