the wine diet: a book review

Here's a review I wrote early last year for organic matters, about a book I'd just completed at the time. The book was called the Wine Diet, and it has recently been reprinted, this time called the Red Wine Diet. Which is fair enough, as Corder has nothing particularly positive to say about white wine. The book also ties in with the fighting foods article I posted here recently.

I have to say that I'm happy with the style of the article below - I'm glad it reads as it does. This isn't always the case for me, so enjoy.

I got The Wine Diet by Roger Corder as what could be called a reluctant Christmas present. Anyone who already enjoys his fair share of beaded bubbles winking at the brim doesn�t necessarily need help convincing himself to further integrate wine into his life. So the present-giver was hesitant, but I�m glad she gave it. And the sauce-consumption hasn�t skyrocketed since then either.

Part of her trepidation may have come from the by-line on the front cover of the book: �Drink red wine every day; Eat fruit and berries, nuts and chocolate; Enjoy a longer, healthier life�. Wow. Bold claims indeed, in both senses of the word. No, this wasn�t written by a spin doctor for some global wine brand, quite the opposite in fact. Rodger Corder is a very level-headed Professor of Experimental Therapeutics at the William Harvey Research Institute in London. And most if not all of the big global wine brands come out badly from the book, as will be seen later.

The types of wine Corder advocates in his own version of moderation � one glass at lunch, one or two with your evening meal, every day � are wines high in a particular type of natural plant chemical, or polyphenol. Specifically, the holy grail of polyphenols is called procyanidin. This is the most abundant polyphenol in young red wines, and according to Corder�s extensive research, it is a key to keeping our blood vessels from clogging up and thus to keeping ourselves healthy.

But not all red wines have them. While he provides some handy examples in the book, it�s possible to guesstimate on the basis that traditionally-made, regional wines on small family vineyards are probably well on the way to healthy. With this in mind, consider the following specific traits: Fermentation where the seeds and skins stay in contact with the fruit for a long time; particular regional grape varietals with plenty of seeds in the first place; vineyards at reasonably high altitudes; low yields; well established vines that don�t need or get too much irrigation; tough soil conditions; long, slow ripening; natural settling in the bottle, rather than excessive fining or especially filteration; aging in oak rather than steel barrels � all these characteristics can help the procyanidin levels in a wine stay high.

These wines can be considered socio-culturally and environmentally embedded rather than anonymous and globalised, as some many of our available wines are today. Why? Because Corder takes his cue from the lifestyles, including the wine-drinking habits, of people in various mountainous rural parts of Europe. In general, there has been a French Paradox, whereby the French who drink plenty of wine seem to live longer than they should because of their lifestyle and diet. However, hilly parts of the islands of Sardinia, Crete and the south-west of France have populations that live Europe�s longest and healthiest lives. What�s more, there are dietary anomalies along with a deficit in anything approaching a modern health care infrastructure in these remote places.

While these peoples do consume a typically good Mediterranean diet, and have a lot of outdoor work and indeed hill walking integrated into their daily routines, they also consume too much saturated fat, and many of them smoke a lot. Along with this, they often don�t have nearby hospitals or easy access to GPs. Crucially, from Corder�s perspective, they are old without medical interventions. Few of the many centurions in Sardinia have had a heart bypass. Who knows what age these people would actually get to if they had their local red wines, slightly tweaked versions of their current lifestyles and the full gamut of modern medicine at their disposal? For Corder, the missing link, the answer to that French (longevity) Paradox that�s been knocking around for decades now, is the type of wine these people drink.

None of the big boys of the wine world do well from this book. As he says himself, �I�m very sorry to tell you that the big brands that have led to the huge expansion of Australian wine exports are, on the whole, low in procyanidins�. In fact, having read the book, it�s possible to extract a rule of thumb for red wine - if a particular wine is advertised on TV it�s almost certainly of little or no health benefit to you at all.

Corder has written a health and diet book, not a wine book. Importantly, diet here refers to a way to eat, not a way to avoid food. Essentially Corder thinks that procyanidins are vital, and some red wines just happen to have them. Hence the byline quoted earlier that refers to dark chocolate, berries, nuts and fruits. Many of these foods have this healthful thing too. Again, however, Corder is clear � processed versions of these are of little use either. To get any health benefit from chocolate, make sure it is as pure and high in coca solids as possible. Likewise, pure apple juice should be naturally cloudy. In fact, more than just wine, Corder provides a nutrition and lifestyle plan, including two weeks of recipes. And it�s simple � like the food we should be eating.

In celtic tiger Ireland, we have wines of the world at our disposal. We have more choice than consumers in most parts of the wine producing regions in Europe do. But we don�t have easy access to many potentially healthful regional varietials - grapes like the uber-healthy Tannat are deemed too quirky, idiosyncratic, old worldy, perhaps even farmyardy for the sophisticated Celt. The irony is on us � our retarded palate may be clogging up our arteries.

And what about our culture? What would our friends, loved ones and colleagues think if we suddenly started drinking a glass of red wine at lunch every day, and two more every evening? And what about ourselves? Would we have the discipline to stop at about three spaced-out glasses every day? Or would we start looking to the Sardinians with their four to seven glasses as the sauce kicked in? Would we even realise that they use 125 ml glasses, not 175mls, after glass three? As he says himself, moderation is the key - for Corder, moderation is regular but small doses.

So approach this book as if it has a health warning attached. Which of course it does.

organic 2007 becoming organic 2008

Here is my review of key organic news 2007, with a look towards 2008. as often is the case, the emphasis is particularly on Ireland. No hyperlinks as of yet, but they are nearly all in the labels on the left in any case.

As a year turns over it is apt to look back on 2007 from an organic perspective. There were a mixture of highs and lows, with perhaps more of the former.

2007 saw a rise in both global and national organic food consumption: globally up to �30 billion, nationally up to �76 million. Production has also been rising: globally it now stands at over 31 million hectares. Nationally, there has been an increase since 2006, following the lean years of 2000-2005. Currently, there are about 1300 organic farmers in the republic of Ireland farming about 40,000 hectares.

One thing that might have a bearing on these figures, and a definite high of 2007, is of course the Ministry Trevor Sargent has taken on, which has organic under it�s remit. The Greens entering government was certainly a noteworthy event of 07, and their choice of ministries clever strategically. Minister Sargent�s aim to increase the organic acreage to 5% (from just under 1%) by 2012 is laudable. The first minor changes - the decoupling of organic from REPS, tillage and horticulture changes, and the establishment of the Organic Farming Scheme � are worthy enough. However we now need to see more targeted, timelined action in key areas.

Separate to policy issues, organic companies in Ireland seem to be lording it at present. St. Tola�s organic cheeses scooped top prize at the inaugural SHOP (organic) awards. Meanwhile, Glenisk dairies, Ireland�s biggest organic company won the �making a difference� award at the Food and Drink awards.

Glenisk seem unstoppable at present. They now export to the UK and have invested �8.5 million in their new production plant, where they process 5,300 tonnes of yoghurt annually.

They have also managed to maintain and develop their eco-credentials. These include converting their truck fleet to biodiesel, powering their plant with wind power through Airtricity and installing a reed bed system for waste.

One thing that was not a highlight however, was national organic week. If anything, this year�s week was weaker than last year�s week (which was weak anyway!). The supposed showcase does need considerable enlivening and, in particular, better funding. There are many causes of the week�s relative obscurity, which have been outlined here before. Organic producers themselves, retailers, Bord Bia and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food all share some of the blame. Next year�s will have to be better, but it will need co-operation, vision and hard work.

From the beginning to the end of 07, in the UK and in Ireland, people in authority have continued to deny the benefits of organic food. The then UK Environment minister, David Miliband was lambasted for calling organic food a lifestyle choice way back in January. Likewise, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland were criticised for also describing organic food as a lifestyle choice in November.

This position seems increasingly untenable in the face of mounting research into the nutritional benefits of organic food. Amongst other 2007 research into organics the QLIF project�s research was perhaps the most headline-grabbing.

This University of Newcastle-based study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than their conventional counterparts. Antioxidants are thought to play a role in the better cardiovascular health.

Another noteworthy piece of organic-related research from 2007 found that children who consume organic milk are less likely to develop eczema, asthma and related allergies. However the research referred not just to cow�s milk but to mother�s milk: it suggested that mothers who consumed organic dairy products passed on this beneficial effect to their babies. This research is also the first example of specific health benefits (as opposed to simple nutritional superiority) being revealed in an organic product and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

2007 was also the year when food prices and climate change became centre-stage issues. Globalisation in all its nuances has begun to bite. Bali may have been a bit of a bail out for the industrial world, but if the approaching change in administration in the US is anything like that of Australia�s, there may be hope on that front too.

On both these fronts, and on so many more, organic farming has a role to play. Here�s to an organic 2008.

should restaurants label for calories?

I wrote an article recently on compulsory calorie labelling in the US, and asked some chefs and others in the food area in Ireland if the same should happen here. I have to say I wasn't expecting the chefs to be overly supportive of the idea, but I was suprised at the sheer range of disagreement. Compulsory calorie labelling in Ireland might take some time...

Imagine walking into a restaurant and seeing the calorie count of the meal you are about to have on an overhead display or on the menu? Would you think twice about that big juicy option? This is currently the situation in New York, where there has been an inordinate amount of twoing and frowing between representatives of the restaurant industry and fast food chains on the one hand, and food advocacy groups, pubic health officials and Major Bloomberg�s administration on the other.

During the summer, calorie labelling became compulsory for standard portions in all manner of standardised eateries, from sandwich bars to fast food chains in New York. Restaurants with more variable dishes, menus and portion sizes were exempt. The legislation required that the calorie count be prominently displayed on menus in the same font, and be the same size as the price.

However, after much pressure from the New York Restaurant Association and others, a federal court last September found against the initiative. However, the situation has since further developed, with the reintroduction of an amended version of the ruling. As and from October 24^th last, it has been compulsory for chain restaurants to display calorie information on menus.

According to Professor Marion Nestle of New York University, the average US citizen consumes around 3,900 calories per day � twice what they need. The New York City Department of Health (NYCDH) claims that that people eat more when they eat out: they claim that adults eat one third more calories while children consume twice as many calories when eating out as compared to eating a home coked meal.

According to research conducted by the NYCDH, only 3% of customers saw or accessed calorie information in a selection of chains, whereas 31% of customers did so in Subway, where calorie labelling was on menus beside the cash registers. These customers also consumed about 634 calories, 50 less than those in the other chains, according to the research.

All across the US, similar initiatives have been undertaken, where obesity rates are soaring. 20 states have brought in some type of similar legislation, with the Californian effort being the most high profile: there, unlike Bloomberg in New York, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB120, California�s restaurant nutrition labelling law. According to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 84% of Californians supported calorie labelling on menus.

There is little doubt that in almost all other areas of food, there is an abundance of information easily accessible. It is also the case that eating out can no longer simply be seen as a treat; the jumbo breakfast role is eaten outside of the home, after all.

So could or should the same thing happen on this side of the Atlantic? Perhaps unsuprizingly, those in the industry have a plethora of problems with any such move. I canvassed responses from across the food system.

Delphi restaurant in Connemara got straight to it: �Ludicrous. Impractical, inaccurate, misleading and thus meaningless�.

Jacques Barry, from Jacques in Cork were equally against the idea: �We here in Jacques would hate that idea as we feel the sourcing of food is way better than the calorific value of food. If one eats a proper balanced diet of freshfruit, vegetables, meat, fish and cheese that is enough. Analyising the calorific content takes away from the joy and pleasure of food. All the food we cook in Jacques comes from Cork County as we have such wonderful produce and the biggest coastline in Ireland�.

Brid Torrades, of Osta wine bar, the Atrium caf� and the newly opened Tobergal lane, all in Sligo, was equally dismissive of the idea. �If something like that comes in, I think it�d be time to hang up the apron� she tells me. �Chefs would be doing sums rather than cooking. Already the paperwork and the records that have to be kept are burdensome .This would take the whole spontaneity away from cooking.�

She goes on: �If you are making a sauce, or a la carte cooking, where you have to adjust things, they�ll never be accurate.�

Ross Lewis of Chapter One in Dublin is also unconvinced; �This approach would be barking up the wrong tree. I don�t see how they could calculate that. We take in 2-300 products per week, to make the dishes we have. And we rotate very sensitively with the seasons, and that has its own merits. The food is more nutritious, better, and tastier.�

Ross and Brid disagree however, on whether the big boys should have to do display calorie count. In the Californian proposals, there was a limit of 14 outlets before the legislation was to be applicable. There are also restrictions in New York, where only 10% of eateries, those with 15 or more outlets, are affected. Importantly however, these provide over 30% of the food eaten outside the home.

�It�d be fine for contract, or industrial type catering. But for spontaneous cooking it would not work� according to Bird. However Ross is against compulsory labelling for calories, even for those producing the more standardised meals: �I�m against it in general. You can preach all you like, but people should get up off their arses and do their own homework as well. Look, no one thinks that you can go to McDonalds 4 times a week and remain underweight. They are only fooling themselves if they think they can. People need to develop a broader more holistic view of food. It�s up to people to find out�.

But just how easy is it to estimate? In Surrey, a unit from the local council tested 36 meals from restaurants and found some surprising results; Shepherd�s pie and mixed veg had just over half the calories of a Thai green curry with egg fried rice. The UKs� Food Commission underscored the difficulty consumers have; according to them, a McDonald�s Hot Fudge Sundae had 330 calories, whereas a shake can have up to 1160.

It is also the case that the healthy option can have secret, hidden sodium and fat: a winter root vegetable soup might, along with those seasonal, local vegetables also have more than a pinch of salt and a hearthy dollop of butter and cream. Who�s to know?

McDonalds� themselves gave me this response to the issue: �Mcdonalds has calorie labelling on its core products i.e. Big Mac, McChicken sandwich, filet of fish etc for the last 18 months. This info is available on tray liners in restaurants and on the Mcdonalds website�.

It is much the same for fast food chains in the US and UK, where this and other nutritional information is available on the trays and on websites. The problem is that this information is not accessible just before purchase, when many feel it would be most useful.

I asked McDonalds for their opinion on prominent display of compulsory calorie labelling before purchase, but received no response at time of going to press.

One Irish healthy food advocacy group I put the idea to expressed a mixed opinion. Dave Burns of Red Branch are an advocacy group that promotes healthy lifestyle options for children, with a particular focus on food. �I think something like that wouldn�t go amiss. But we in Red Branch don�t believe you should be telling people what to do, we think you should empower people to make up their own minds. You�ve got to give people the information they need to make an informed choice.�

However, Dave isn�t too optimistic: �But for what it�s worth, in our experience, and we�ve worked with parents and school children all over Ireland, we don�t think it would work. You might be better off with something like the traffic light labelling system�

This UK system uses the red, amber and green light sequence of traffic lights to grade three things: fat, saturates and salt in foods. �It�s clear and easy to use. If a product has a red light, red doesn�t mean that you stay away from something all the time. It�s not poison, it doesn�t mean avoid it altogether, but we all know about the deep fried Mars bars in Scotland � that would be a red light product. And what that�s telling you is; better not have too many of those�.

Guess what? The Shepherd�s Pie and mixed veg got three green lights in the Surrey survey above, and the thai green curry three reds. But with so much opposition, we may be a long way from seeing either the calorie count or traffic lights on menus here.

If you come here to see what's on, I'd also recommend having a look over at matt reed's blog, for Matt always seems up to date with what's going on in the world of organics....
there today, I learned that more research has come out suggesting that organic is more nutritious....like Matt, I'm a bit skeptical about this sort of research, though I have written the odd article in this vein before myself....
when I did write one for the Irish Times in this style, I got some positive feedback from various places. Two valid criticisms, or additions to the debate, were the following:

1: essentially it's v difficult to really compare the products - you have to take into account so many issues (distance, age of product, size of farm, crop rotation used, and some of these aren't strictly comparable between conventional and organic)
2: Science should also look at the subjective effect of both conventional and organic over a period of time on an individual, not just 'product x vs product y'.

As a further addition, you should then really start to look at how the products are used differently by consumers in a variety of settings, e.g. the home (Lockie et al 2002 quotes consumers who used to let conventional veg go off at the back of the press, but wouldn't dream of doing this to their organic veg...why does this happen and what does it mean?)

And then we have the age old problem of organic embedded into a world of conventional distribution, trying to maintain it's own certs and standards, which add to organic food miles and thus to the age of organic products, while only being a 4ish% of food production accross the EU...how would organic and conventional compare nutritionally if they each had all the inputs and processes necessary within each, or more importantly comparable reach of their respective places of production?

healthy debate, new labour and crying over split cats out of the creamy bag

as some of you are probably aware the UK Environment secretary David Miliband annoyed organic advocates with his comments on organic being a lifestyle choice and being without proven health benefits.....

well, he seems to be rowing back a bit.....

he runs his own blog too, where he addresses the issue

some of the most recent impetus for considering organic to be healthier comes from recent research into organic milk...you could say, ....well (t)he(y) would say that, wouldn't (t)he(y)?

Others better informed on the UK situation regarding organics are a bit disappointed by David

it all comes back to promoting organic and automatically making everything else look inferior really, doesn't it?