According to an FDA press release, there is a nationwide recall of eggs from various brands using the same supplier. Information below:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – August 13, 2010 – The following statement was released by officials of Wright County Egg regarding the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) on-farm records review and egg testing for Salmonella.

Wright County Egg of Galt, Iowa is voluntarily recalling specific Julian dates of shell eggs produced by their farms because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections, endocarditis or arthritis.

Eggs affected by this recall were distributed to food wholesalers, distribution centers and foodservice companies in California, Illinois, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. These companies distribute nationwide.

Eggs are packaged under the following brand names: Lucerne, Albertson, Mountain Dairy, Ralph’s, Boomsma’s, Sunshine, Hillandale, Trafficanda, Farm Fresh, Shoreland, Lund, Dutch Farms and Kemps. Eggs are packed in varying sizes of cartons (6-egg cartons, dozen egg cartons, 18-egg cartons) with Julian dates ranging from 136 to 225 and plant numbers 1026, 1413 and 1946. Dates and codes can be found stamped on the end of the egg carton. The plant number begins with the letter P and then the number. The Julian date follows the plant number, for example: P-1946 223.

There have been confirmed Salmonella enteritidis illnesses relating to the shell eggs and traceback investigations are ongoing.

Wright County Egg is fully cooperating with FDA’s investigation by undertaking this voluntary recall. Our primary concern is keeping Salmonella out of the food supply and away from consumers. As a precautionary measure, Wright County Egg also has decided to divert its existing inventory of shell eggs to a breaker, where they will be pasteurized to kill any Salmonella bacteria present.

Consumers who believe they may have purchased these shell eggs should not eat them but should return them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund. This recall is of shell eggs only. Other egg products produced by Wright County Eggs are not affected. Consumers with questions should visit www.eggsafety.org.

Our farm strives to provide our customers with safe, high-quality eggs – that is our responsibility and our commitment.

Contact:
Egg Safety Media Hotline
404-367-2761

Please check your eggs to be sure they are not part of this recall.

On June 15th we were handed down the nutritional ruling from on high. Once again a committee of government appointed experts have congregated and discussed the latest science and findings regarding diet and nutrition. Then they threw all that out the window, had a good laugh at public gullibility and maybe had a beer together.  Or maybe some whiskey shots. That’s the only explanation that makes any sense to me after reading the 2010 Dietary Guidelines.

Seriously, how can you honestly evaluate the latest research and make these kind of recommendations without being 3 sheets to the wind. Maybe they played a 2010 Dietary Guidelines Drinking Game. Every time they saw the word “fat” they had to take a shot. Yikes… they had to have been wasted before the first page was read.

Insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. Well, I take that back. The recommendations aren’t exactly the same… they’ve actually gotten worse. So what do those fun-loving partiers say we should do now? This sentence pretty well sums it up:

“Shift food intake patterns to a more plant-based diet that emphasizes vegetables, cooked dry beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. In addition, increase the intake of seafood and fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products and consume only moderate amounts of lean meats, poultry, and eggs.”

I know. You all are shocked. Low-fat dogma. Again.

But they don’t stop there. Not only are they continuing with their bullheaded insistence that fat is bad, but they want us to eat even less than was recommend before.

“Limiting saturated fatty acid intake to less than 7 percent of calories, replacing these calories with those from mono- or polyunsaturated fatty acids, rather than carbohydrates. As an interim step toward this less than 7 percent goal, all individuals should immediately consume less than 10 percent of energy as saturated fats.”

So now we are down to 10 percent. And I love how they throw that sense of urgency in there by using the word “immediately”. Do it! Immediately! Or we are all dooooomed! I will give them this, they recommend replacing those saturated fats with other fats, instead of carbohydrates. But I’ll admit after reading that, the following sentence doesn’t make much sense.

“Healthy diets are high in carbohydrates. Accepted Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) for carbohydrates are 45 to 65 percent from carbohydrates.”

Alrighty then. So let me get this straight. I should lower my fat intake, but not replace it with carbohydrates. So are they saying I shouldn’t eat? Seeing as how are macronutrient choices are Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates, I’m not sure I’m following. If I can’t replace fat with carbs, then that leaves protein, right? Most protein sources come from meat, which again goes against your whole “plant based diet” suggestion. Me thinks thou doest again drink too much when thou writest thy recommendations. Didst thou also consume White Castle while ingesting said merriment? (One must ponder these things.)

The tired old calories in – calories out theory is tossed around several times throughout these recommendations. I kept waiting for them to recommend exercising at least 8 hours a day. That’s should fix it, right? *snort*

They also believe the real problem lies with us. They have the assumption that the failings of their past recommendations aren’t because the recommendations themselves are faulty, but because we just aren’t following them. Sadly they are wrong. Many people have followed their recommendations to the letter – only to end up sicker, heavier and more discouraged than ever. For many like me, it was when I stopped following this dietary advice that I started on the road to recovery and health.

I will give them this. They did recommend less sugar, but that’s kind of a “duh” moment anyway.

We do have the option of making our voices heard, and now is the time to do so! You can leave a comment here until July 8th, or if you are so inclined, be in Washington, DC on July 8th to give your oral testimony on the matter. According to Jimmy Moore, here’s what you do:

“Call Crystal Tyler at (202) 314-4701 prior to 5 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2010 to be put on the roster to speak that day and plan on being at Jefferson Auditorium in the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., on July 8th from 9am-5pm.”

The above are just some quick thoughts I had on the subject. Due to time constraints I’ll have to stop there. If you’d like to read a more thorough evaluation of the guidelines, please check out these wonderful posts from my fellow bloggers.

Fat-Head: 2010 Dietary Guidelines: Here They Come To Save The Daaaaay!

Fat-Head: 2010 Dietary Guidelines: Same Old $#@%

Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb: 2010 Dietary Guidelines Announced, Still Carb Heavy And Fat-Phobic

Laura Dolson: 2010 Dietary Guidelines, Part One – Make Your Voice Heard

Riiiiiight. And then flying monkeys will sprinkle us all with sparkly dust that makes us magically thin, rich and happy!!!

Yeah. So you can already see I’m less than enthused about this new move made by Santa Clara County officials to ban happy meal toys and other promotions they claim “lure” kids into eating junk food.

This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children’s’ love of toys” to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure. “This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes.”

Reality Check Calling Mr. Yeager. What this really only does is annoy people who like the freedom of choice. Kids will still ask for chicken nuggets and fries. Why? BECAUSE THEY LIKE THEM. When my kids were little and we ate at McDonalds, I didn’t have to force them to eat the foods they liked (unless there was a playplace, then I couldn’t keep them close enough to their food to eat it.)  I promise if you threw those toys in with a happy meal that consisted of  a salad and grilled chicken, odds are the kids would still ask for chicken nuggets and fries.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great to have healthier choices for everyone, but come on, blaming obese kids on toys? It’s asinine at best. Yes, the toy may play a role in a child asking for a specific meal, but parents are ultimately the ones that make that choice. If your child is obese, DON’T BUY THE HAPPY MEAL. Instead choose a better option for your child – something you know they will actually eat and not snub their nose at, and if the toy is that important simply ask the counter help if you can buy the toy. Most McDonalds will sell you the toy at a cheap price.

At least one person on the council had some common sense:

Voting against the measure was Supervisor Donald Gage, who said parents should be responsible for their children.

“If you can’t control a 3-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers,” he said. Gage, who is overweight, said he was a living example of how obese children can become obese adults.

Finally… Someone that believes the parent should make decisions for their child.  Gage goes on to tell how there were no fast food joints in his area as a kid and he was overweight anyway.

Here’s my other issue:

…unless the restaurants meet nutritional guidelines approved Tuesday by the county Board of Supervisors.

And those guidelines would be what? Most likely low-fat. They are concerned with high calorie content and will be shoving low-fat milk in our faces. Milk that deprive young growing children of the fat they need for their brains to develop. They likely also suggest such healthy alternatives as apple dippers in caramel sauce. Or low-fat yogurt full of sugar.

So what is the answer? Assuming that most kids don’t get to McDonalds on their own OR pay for their own meals, I’d say it’s the responsibility of the parent to make healthy choices for their child. If you don’t feel you can do that at McDonalds, don’t go there. Or if you do go there, make it a once in a while trip and not a daily part of your meal planning. Having chicken nuggets and fries once in a great while will not make a child obese. It’s eating refined, process junk food on a regular basis that causes the problems we see today. And I’m not just talking fast food. We bring it into our homes – chips, ice cream, pop tarts, mashed potatoes, pasta… the list could go on and on.

I don’t eat cake because I don’t think it’s healthy, but you don’t see me telling people they should never have cake because it contributes to the obesity epidemic. Cake once in a while is perfectly fine for most people, and I’d be an idiot to believe that someone eating cake on their birthday once a year will kill them. If you eat cake everyday, you obviously aren’t going to be healthy… ahh, but there I go again, using common sense.

This seriously ticks me off to no end. The reason being that this is not their choice. It’s my choice. It’s your choice.  If I want to buy my kids a happy meal with a toy, I should be able to. (I don’t want to, but that’s not the point.) If McDonalds wants to sell me a happy meal with a toy, they should have that right.  As my friend Tom says in Fat Head, “That’s between me and McDonalds”.  Many of you know how I feel about high fructose corn syrup – I despise the stuff. And yet there is a Facebook group trying to get it banned – and I refuse to join. Why? Because if we start banning foods, it starts us on a slippery slope. What if we’d banned foods with saturated fats 30 odd years ago when so many “experts” believed it was unhealthy? Look at what happened when the idiots at CSPI got real fat banned from restaurants and they had to start frying in transfats! Now we know transfats are unhealthy and people were eating them for years thinking it was healthier, simply because some moron got it in their head that saturated fat was bad for us, despite the lack of scientific evidence to prove it.

My point is that banning junk foods, or toys that go with junk foods, is not the answer. The answer is educating people to make the best choices. And I love this country because I have the right to choose. I can choose junk food if I want to. I can choose to eat healthy food if I want to, despite my definition of healthy very different from “expert” opinions.

Again, it’s not forced opinions or coercion that will make the difference, it’s education. If we focused more on teaching people, and less on trying to run their lives, we’d all be in better shape.