Should I follow the OT “Food Rules”? (Part 3)

Now that we’ve discussed the who and the what of the Old Testament dietary laws, it’s time to ask ourselves our initial question again.

Should I follow the Old Testament “Food Rules”?

From our first session, we can clearly see that Gentile believers have no obligation to follow the Old Testament dietary law. In our second, we questioned but did not answer whether Jewish believers should follow the dietary laws. That is what I shall attempt to answer today.

I argue that there are two types of laws given in the Old Testament: universal law (sometimes called the “moral law”) which springs from the nature of God, and specific law (including sacrificial law, civil law, and laws of distinction) which is given for a specific people in specific circumstances with a specific purpose.

The former laws are universal (duh) and unchangeable. All men everywhere are accountable to obey them at all times. The latter laws, on the other hand, do not apply in certain circumstances. There are three reasons why a specific law may not apply to an individual:

  1. If a person does not belong to the group to which the command was given, they are not obligated to keep that specific law
    For example, only those who had taken the vow of the Nazirite were required to avoid all fruits of the vine; only male Jews or male aliens who wished to become Jews were required to be circumcised
  2. If the circumstances for which the law was given have changed, one is no longer obligated to keep that command
    For example, the civil laws regarding punishments for stealing, killing, adultery, etc. were given for the ruling of the theocratic nation of Israel. That nation no longer exists.
  3. If the purpose of the law is fulfilled, there is no longer a need to continue to follow the external law meant as a shadow to point towards the thing that would come
    For example, the sacrificial law and all the laws regarding temple ritual have been fulfilled in Christ, who was the ultimate sacrifice and who established in the church a temple not made with human hands.

If the purpose of the dietary laws are, as I purport in my previous post, to distinguish the Jewish people as separate from all the other nations of the world, the next question to ask is whether that purpose has been fulfilled.

Must the Christian Jew continue to follow those laws that were intended to identify the Jews as distinct from the rest of the world? Does the Christian Jew need some sort of external practice or mark to identify Him as chosen by God?


I was hoping to finish this week-but I have, yet again, let my word count run away from me. Next week, I’ll pick up where I left off, looking at Peter’s Vision and the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius.


Should I follow the OT “Food Rules”? (Part 2)

Last week, I discussed the “who” of the Old Testament dietary laws and concluded that the dietary laws were given to the people of Israel and not to the surrounding nations. Thus, Gentile believers have no obligation to keep the Old Testament dietary laws.

For the majority of believers, that’s enough for us to eat our bacon in peace.

But what about the Jews? Are they obligated to keep the Old Testament dietary laws?

To begin to answer that question, we must ask a second question of the texts (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14): Why has God given these dietary laws to the Israelites?

The answer is easy to find, but not quite as easy to interpret. Leviticus 11:44-45 gives several answers:

  • For I am the Lord your God
  • For I am holy
  • For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God
  • For I am holy

Deuteronomy 14:21 repeats the above:

  • For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.

If we are to believe the Scriptures, we must understand that the reason the Israelites were to keep the dietary laws was because God is holy–and they were supposed to be holy like God.

In our modern understanding of the word “holy”, we struggle with how this fits. We see “holy” as being “good” or “clean” (which it is, in a sense). But “holy” goes beyond that. The word Kadesh, which is translated “holy”, literally means “apartness” or “separateness”.

God is apart from humanity, separate from us. He is the great Other, the One so far different from us, so far above us that we cannot attain to Him.

When God was calling Israel to be holy, He was calling them to be apart, separate, different from the nations around them.

To demonstrate how His people were different from the people around them, God gave them a collection of rules for proper behavior.

Some of those rules, what we call the “moral law”, spring from the nature of God or from the created order and, although they were given specifically to the people of Israel on Mount Sinai, they are universal for all humanity. Lying is wrong because God is truth. Murder is wrong because God is the author of life. Idolatry is wrong because God alone is worthy of worship. Adultery is wrong because God created marriage to reflect His faithfulness.

Others of the rules given to Israel are not universal. These laws had a specific target and a specific purpose. The laws regarding the sacrificial system were intended to reinforce the need for atonement and to point forward to the coming Sacrifice. The laws regarding how restitution is to be made if someone steals something or borrows and loses something or accidentally mistreats someone were intended for the government of Israel’s theocratic nation-state. Other laws, like the command to not wear garments mixed with flax and wool, were intended to set Israel apart from the nations around them.

The dietary laws, like the laws governing mixed fibers, were laws of distinction–laws intended to make Israel stand out from all the other nations of the world, just as Israel’s God stands out above every other god.


As mentioned last week, this series within a series on Old Testament “Food Rules” is going to keep going until it reaches its conclusion, probably another couple of weeks.


Should I follow the OT “Food Rules”? (Part 1)

If you read last week’s post, in which I proclaim that there is no forbidden food, you already know what my answer to the title question is going to be.

I don’t believe that the believer in Christ has any obligation to obey the Old Testament dietary laws.

Saying that is the easy part. Judging by practice, this is the view of the majority of Christians worldwide.

But theology is not democracy, and majority vote means little by way of determining orthopraxy.

If we’re going to answer the question of whether New Testament believers are bound to obey the Old Testament dietary laws, we must look at Scripture itself.

The logical first step in this study is to look at the Old Testament dietary laws themselves. As we read through these laws, found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, it is important to note who God is giving these laws to and why He is giving them these laws.

Observe the following verses, extracted from those two chapters:

“Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth.”
~Leviticus 11:2

“For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
~Leviticus 11:44-45

“And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.”
~Deuteronomy 14:10

“You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.”
~Deuteronomy 14:21

Our first question, when reading this text, should be to ask who God is giving these dietary laws to.

The answer should be plain. Leviticus 11 states that these laws were spoken “to the people of Israel”.

In Deuteronomy 14, we read a repeated refrain “it is unclean for you” (emphasis mine). The God who does not waste breath inspired those last two words as well as the previous ones. God does not declare these various animals unclean, period–He declares them unclean to the Israelites.

Furthermore, God declares that one of his “food rules” for the Israelites is explicitly NOT for the foreigners who live among them. The Israelites aren’t supposed to eat an animal who has been found dead–but they are more than welcome to give or sell it to the people around them that those others might eat the animal who was found dead.

An initial, simplistic answer to the question of whether a New Testament believer should follow the Old Testament food rules is apparent. New Testament Gentile believers clearly have no obligation to follow the Old Testament dietary law because the dietary laws were explicitly given to the people of Israel, and were not meant to apply to the people around them.

The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 confirms this conclusion by stating that Gentile believers are not obligated to keep the law of Moses (contrast the Judaizers’ comment in Acts 15:5 with the apostle’s command in Acts 15:28-29).


As I’m getting a bit long, I’m splitting this post into as many posts as it’ll take to get through this topic. Judging from what I’ve got right now, it’ll be at least three, if not four or more posts. (And don’t worry, I will get to and discuss the Jerusalem council in more depth.)


There is no forbidden food

Since the original forbidden fruit, the history of humanity has been rife with food rules.

Don’t eat this, do eat that. That food is bad, that food is good.

Today’s modern dieter (and most women, regardless of their dieting status) have a deeply-seated conviction that some foods are bad (maybe even evil.)

Popular diet counsel might disagree over which foods are good and which foods are bad, but all of them agree that food is moral and some foods forbidden.

That is frankly unbiblical.

When God gave humanity food, He gave them all the plants and all the animals. In other words, He gave them everything for food.

Later down the road, after a group of Pharisees berate the Savior and His disciples for their eating habits, Jesus replies in a landmark exposition on food:

“Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.”
~Mark 7:14-20

In this passage, Jesus sets aright the wrong thinking of his day. Food cannot make one clean or unclean. Food is amoral.

Food enters through the mouth and is excreted at the bottom. It is external to the body, not internal to the soul.

Food doesn’t defile us, our hearts do.

In saying this, Jesus clarifies several hundred years of teachings and traditions regarding which foods one can eat and which foods one cannot.

As Mark, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote: “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

Perhaps we might still be able to excuse our attitudes and popular teachings about good foods and bad foods by saying that this is only one passage–and that the original context was about hand washing anyway.

But it’s harder to ignore the apostle Paul’s stunning of indictment of those who follow “deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons”:

“…who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”
~I Timothy 4:3-6

Here, Paul not only says that forbidding food is unnecessary, he says that it’s demonic.

That’s right. It’s demonic.

The enemy would have us live in a world of forbidden foods. He would have us concerned about eating the right foods and avoiding the wrong ones. He would have us plagued with guilt over the food in our cupboards or what we order in a restaurant.

God, on the other hand, created all foods good. Nothing is to be rejected.

God (through the apostle) does not stipulate what we should eat, but how we should eat it.

There is no forbidden food. All food is to be received with thanksgiving.


I know that this is probably one of my most controversial teachings about food. I also know that many will ask about the Old Testament dietary laws–since Scripture certainly contains plenty of food restrictions. I plan to address those next week, explaining how the Old Testament dietary laws have been fulfilled in Christ–and are not binding on the New Testament believer (either as a command or as a suggestion of what to eat and what not to eat).


Food is a Gift from God

What’s the first mention of food in Scripture?

If you guessed the forbidden fruit, you’ve got it wrong.

The first mention of food comes just after the creation of mankind–and before the account of the preparation of Eden for man.

“And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so.”
~Genesis 1:29-30 (ESV)

Now, some might look at this passage and start making rules. Since God says that He’s given mankind every green plant for food, that means that God’s intent for mankind is that they be vegetarian. What’s more, this Scripture prominently mentions the seed, which is an implicit condemnation of the genetic engineering that results in non-propagative species of plants…

Rules. We’re used to looking at food in terms of rules. The foods we should eat, the foods we shouldn’t. The way we should eat, the way we shouldn’t. The right way to buy, to cook, to eat food.

But to reduce this passage to rules is to miss the point of the first Scriptural mention of food.

Before God gave mankind rules about food, He gave them food itself.

Food is a gift from God.

This is so important, so central to a Christian understanding of food. Food is not an enemy to be fought against. Food is not a lover to be enchanted with. It is a gift to be thankful for.

In Genesis 9, just after God blesses Noah and his sons and repeats to them the creation mandate, He also repeats His gift of food. This time, it comes with an expansion.

“The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”
~Genesis 9:2-3 (ESV)

Just as God had given every plant to mankind for food, He now gives them every living creature.

Food is a gift from God.

The Lord taught us to pray in such a way as to remind us that food is a gift from God. How many times have you recited the familiar words of the Lord’s prayer without thinking of their implications.

“Give us this day our daily bread…”
~Matthew 6:11

We are dependent upon food for our physical sustenance–and it is God who gives us our food.

Food is a gift from God.

I can sense the discomfort some might have with this introduction to a theology of food.

How impractical, you may think.

Repeating a theological refrain.

What does that have to do with nutrition?

I would argue that it has everything to do with nutrition.

In the developed world (and perhaps elsewhere too), there are two prevailing attitudes towards food–attitudes that coexist despite their contradiction. We either see food as an enemy or as a lover or both. We love food for its flavor, for the comfort it provides, for how we feel when we’re eating. We hate food for what it does to our bodies, for what it cannot provide, for how we feel when we’re done eating.

The Biblical perspective on food provides the remedy to both of these unhealthy attitudes towards food.

While the glutton worships food, the Christian worships the God who has graciously given him food. While the dieter hates food and fights against it, the Christian receives it with thanksgiving to the one who has given it.

Food is a gift from God.

This is the beginning of a theology of food.


Introducing a Theology of Food

Several of you commented positively when I suggested in jest that I might just have to write my own Christian nutrition reference. While I’m not sure a book of that sort is anywhere in my near future, I figured I might as well get a few of my thoughts into text–and give you all a sneak preview of what I might write about if I were to write a book on the topic!

Food plays an enormous role in our lives. Physically, it provides fuel for activity, essential nutrients for our body’s functioning, and a whole host of chemicals that either enhance or limit our body’s health. Psychologically, food offers comfort and is a repository of memories both good and bad. Socially, food provides the context for relationships, from school lunch rooms to church potlucks to awkward first dates at “fancy” chain restaurants. Developmentally, food plays an important role in the socialization of children to the norms of our cultures.

For most of humanity’s history, food was a matter of life and death. Subsistence farming meant that most of the world’s population was in a constant state of what today’s nutrition experts call “food insecurity”–not knowing where the next meal would come from (or whether it would come). Humans saw food from a survival standpoint.

In the past one hundred years, the sciences of agriculture and nutrition have grown in leaps and bounds. Food became abundant and readily available to most, at least in the developed world. Dozens of essential nutrients have been discovered and analyzed, multitudes of studies have explored the health impacts of the food we consume. We have come to see food from a health standpoint.

More recently, consumers have looked at the explosive growth of the agriculture industry and have called some of its tenets into question. They have started the local foods movement, the organic foods movement, the sustainable agriculture movements, the humane meat movement, and a dozen other movements looking at food from economic and/or ecological standpoints.

Christians, of course, acknowledge the broad array of standpoints by which to evaluate food–but many find themselves confused as to exactly what they should be thinking about food. How does Christianity influence what they eat and don’t eat? Does Christianity influence what they eat or don’t eat? Is the health aspect most important for Christians? Should Christians see food as fuel, nothing more? Should Christians be most concerned about sustainability or justice in distribution or taboo foods?

Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch theologian and statesman, once said:

“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!'”

Most Christians would agree that food, which touches so many square inches in the domain of our human existence, is no exception.

My experience, however, has been that most Christians have a vague sense that their Christianity should influence their view of food–but they don’t really have any idea how their Christianity should influence their view of food.

They’ve heard so many different things about food from so many different sources that many of them just throw up their hands and resign themselves to a vague feeling of guilt that they’re probably not thinking about food as they ought.

So what does God have to say about food? How should the Christian view food?

Come along with me over the next several weeks as I explore a theology of food.


I anticipate posting about once a week in this ongoing series, “A Theology of Food”. Depending on how things turn out, I may decide to make posting about food and nutrition issues a regular feature on bekahcubed. I appreciate your feedback along the way!


Book Review: “The Biggest Loser” by The Biggest Losers with Maggie Greenwood-Robinson

Did I ever tell you about the week I went on a diet?

No, of course I didn’t.

I had to quit because I lost weight.

Yes, that’s right. I’m sorry. I wanted to see how the rest of the world, the diet-following world, lives–but I had to cut the experiment short because I managed to achieve what many of them only dream of: weight loss.

Which, for me, is not really a good thing. I’m about as low as I’m comfortable going.

But I did want to review The Biggest Loser, the book written after the first two seasons of the successful TV reality show by the same name. And I wanted to do more than just give comments on the theory. I wanted to have some useful comments on the practice.

So here you go…

The Diet:

The Biggest Loser weight loss plan as propounded within this book isn’t bad. The nutrition component proposes an alternate pyramid–4 (or more) servings of fruits and vegetables, 3 (only 3) servings of low-fat protein foods, 2 (only 2) servings whole grains, and 1 (200 Calorie) serving of “Extra”. This would be significantly less than ideal from a nutrition standpoint if the servings were standard servings such as are found on myPyramid or even in diabetic exchanges. There’d be far too little grain. But it just so happens that The Biggest Loser considers 1 serving of grain to be 1 cup of cooked grain or two slices of bread (twice the size of a standard myPyramid ounce.) As a result, the diet isn’t too off balance.

It’s relatively simple and it’s low calorie without being too low calorie.

The problem? It’s really hard to cook like this. There are recipes in the back of the book–and a few of them look good–but you’d have to be pretty creative to keep this diet from getting dreary. For my part, since I work all day and often have extra activities at night, I don’t have time to be in the kitchen all day–and the “grab and go” or “quick prep” options get old quickly. I can only eat so many smoothies or cottage cheese with vegetables or baked/grilled chicken breasts. I need me some OIL, some real FAT.

I was hungry all the time. It stunk.

But I did lose weight. So it does work.

Other than the 4-3-2-1 plan, the chapter on nutrition had plenty of information, about half of which was correct. It gave tips on label reading (generally a good idea), suggestions for including more fruits and vegetables (some decent advice, some ridiculous like “potatoes make you hungry”), what to drink (suggested that you can burn extra calories by drinking your water cold–sorry folks, but ice cold water does not a diet make.) While following the recommendations found within the chapter on nutrition won’t hurt you, quite a bit of it is unnecessary or based on tenuous (at best) science.

The Exercise:

The exercise component of The Biggest Loser varies depending on an individual’s starting fitness level, but includes cardio workouts and circuit training (cardiac speed resistance/stretching).

I’m not a fitness expert, but the recommendations for exercise seem fairly consistent with the recommendations of organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine (as well as MyPyramid)–increasing activity to 60 minutes of moderate to high intensity aerobic activity on most days of the week.

The Rest:

While the diet and the exercise sections of this book weren’t awful, they weren’t anything extraordinary (or anything extraordinarily accurate) either. What might really make this book useful is the collection of strategies found in chapters two and five.

Chapter 2 helps the reader explore his motivations for weight loss and gives some tips for getting organized for weight loss. Two of the organizational tips are very useful: Buy a food scale or use measuring cups and spoons to measure out your food and keep a food journal. The ideas for motivation are also useful. However, the chapter could easily encourage people to think that weight loss is somehow a panacea that will make their life all better. It’s not. And sometimes, one needs to make some basic quality of life/self respect changes in order to make weight loss happen (as opposed to the other way around).

Chapter 5 has participants from the first two seasons of the television show sharing some of their own strategies for weight loss. This, I think, is probably the best part of the book. A lot of weight loss (or healthy eating in general) is about finding what works for you, with your lifestyle. The more ideas you hear, the more likely you are to find something that will work for you.

The final chapter gives instructions for starting a Biggest Loser challenge of your own with friends or in your workplace.

Eh, if you’re interested in that sort of thing.

For my part, I prefer to look at better indicators of overall health rather than simply at numbers on a scale.

But if you’re interested in weight loss or interested in the Biggest Loser show, you could do worse than following the recommendations found in this book.


Rating: 2.5 stars
Category:Weight Loss
Synopsis:The Biggest Loser coaches and participants from seasons 1 and 2 of the show give a basic diet and exercise program as well as tips for weight loss.
Recommendation: This plan won’t kill you. It’ll probably help you lose weight (if you can manage to stick to it). But it’s not for everyone–and likely very difficult to fit within a “normal” (that is, ridiculously busy) life.



Food Guide Fight

In 2005, the USDA laid to rest the Food Guide Pyramid famously found on the backs of cereal boxes. With breads, grains, and pasta on the big bottom layer, the 1993 Food Guide Pyramid was a favorite of cereal and bread makers everywhere.

“See, that’s us! We’re the base of a good diet,” they said-trying to reclaim ground lost in the low-carb craze of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Food Guide PyramidThen the government decided to update the Pyramid–introducing the snazzy (and, in my humble opinion, less intuitive) MyPyramid.

It took a while for the Food Guide Pyramid to disappear, but it’s been a while since I’d last seen it–until this last month, when I was making my way through the B children’s picture books at my library and ran across Rex Barron’s Showdown at the Food Pyramid.

Now, I’m a dietitian–and I’m pretty sold on the Food Guide Pyramid. While it had some faults, it was a good educational tool. It did a good job of showing the approximate proportions of different food groups that make up a healthy diet. It was easily understandable and quite intuitive. It was a good tool.

So maybe you’d think I’d be excited about a children’s picture book that uses the Food Pyramid to teach kids about nutrition.

And maybe I might be–but I’m less than excited about this book.

Showdown at the Food Pyramid tells of the happy pyramid that lived in peace until some new foods–Hot Dog, Candy Bar, and Donut–came along and upset the peaceful world. Soon there was an all-out war between the junk food (led by King Candy Bar) on the top floor of the Pyramid, and the Fruits and Vegetables on the second floor.

The two groups duked it out until at last the poor fruits and veggies collapsed under the weight of the evil junk food.

The collapsed food items decide to rebuild the pyramid, only this time they’re going to do it right–according to the Food Guide Pyramid.

Yeah.

Nice story.

Or not.

Apart from being ridiculously pedantic, this story makes the error of fostering an unhealthy attitude towards food.

By framing the pyramid as a fight between good foods and bad foods, this book fosters the idea that food is a moral issue.

It isn’t.

Let me repeat that.

Food is NOT a moral issue.

There is no such thing as “good” food and “bad” food.

Does that mean that mean that we should be unrestrained in our eating? Of course not. But we should be cautious against calling unclean what God has made pure.

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.

This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

~Acts 10:9-16, NIV

Vegetables are not godly while chocolate is sinful.

That idea is not only false, it’s dangerous.

It keeps people from enjoying food, it encourages them to binging and purging, it promotes false guilt over food.

Choose NOT to teach your children this book’s message. Choose instead to teach them that food (all food) is a gift from God and that we should strive to use it (as everything) to glorify Him.

“Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
~I Corinthians 10:31


Reading My LibraryFor more comments on children’s books, see the rest of my Reading My Library posts or check out Carrie’s blog Reading My Library, which chronicles her and her children’s trip through the children’s section of their local library.



Teaching Food

I teach a couple of “Scientific Principles of Food Preparation” labs at our local university–and I absolutely love what I do.

What I don’t love is trying to explain what I do.

The easiest explanation, although not the most accurate, is that I teach college nutrition students how to cook.

The truth is…a bit more complicated.

Over the course of any given lab, I might be showing someone how to separate an egg, explaining how one ingredient can be substituted for another, defining “simmering” or “rolling boil”, encouraging students to get out of their comfort zones and eat a new food, describing some cultural ritual associated with a food, and discussing the functional properties of certain ingredients.

And then there’s the part I’m actually hired to teach. :-)

You see, ultimately, my job is to help students understand not how to cook, but why we cook the way we do and what happens when we cook certain ways.

My job is to teach the science behind cooking.

For instance, last week I showed the students why recipes that include purple/red vegetables often include an acid of some sort (vinegar, lemon juice, fruit, etc.)

I boiled some red cabbage in three separate pans. Each pan contained water and cabbage, but two contained extra ingredients. To one pan, I added baking soda (a base). To another, I added cream of tartar (an acid).

I drained the cabbage and reserved the liquid to show the students what each looked like.

Red Cabbage at different acidity levels

I explained how the purple/red pigments, called anthocyanins, found in these fruits change their color based on pH. As the concentration of hydrogen ions increase (the acidity increases), the color becomes more of a red/pink color. As the alkalinity increases, the color changes to blue-green color.

I encouraged the students to take a close look at the texture of each wedge of cabbage. The one that was cooked in a basic solution was incredibly mushy, because the hemicellulose, one of the fibers that gives structure to vegetables, becomes soluble in water under basic conditions, causing structure to be lost.

I talked about the sensory implications of cooking style–how different methods of cooking vegetables influence their color, flavor, and texture. I talked about the nutrient implications of cooking style–how different methods of cooking vegetables influences nutrient availability, nutrient loss, and ease of eating.

I talked about “phytochemicals” and how many of these “food dyes” that give color to our vegetables have been identified as having beneficial health properties. I mentioned lycopene, the bright red pigment found in tomatoes. I explained to my students that lycopene is a carotenoid that can not be used by the body to synthesize Vitamin A–but that is still useful as a phytochemical that appears to be active in prostate cancer prevention.

I teach “pure science”–things like osmosis and acidity and chemical structures. I teach “food science”–things like the functional properties of gluten and the interactions of glutenin and gliadin to create an elastic dough. I teach “nutrition science”–things like what nutrients can be found where and how different cooking techniques influence the nutritional properties of a food.

But mostly, I just teach food.

Which suits me just fine.

‘Cause I love teaching–and I love FOOD!


How long does it take to bend a bone?

Once a month, I give a nutrition presentation for our church’s children’s group “Rock Solid Kids.”

I’ve presented on the food groups–talking about variety and balance. I’ve presented on grains–and how half the grains should be whole. I’ve presented on fruits and vegetables–and how we should eat all the colors of the rainbow.

This Wednesday, I’ll talk about dairy.

Which means it’s time to talk bones.

For the sake of the kids (and certainly not for my own sake :-P), I purchased two fried chicken drumsticks from SuperSaver to eat for dinner tonight. I carefully ate every scrap of meat off the bones (such sacrifice!) and painstakingly removed all the excess cartilage from the joints.

I placed one bone on my stovetop to dry–and the other, I placed in a saucepan full of vinegar.

Bone in vinegar

Do you remember that experiment? Didn’t you do it when you were in elementary school? You soak a bone in vinegar until the calcium leaches out, leaving a soft, rubbery, bendable bone.

It’s been a long time since I did that experiment–and I can’t remember how long it takes to bend a bone. That’s why I’m heating the vinegar–I figured that’d make the reaction go more rapidly.

But still, I’m impatient. After three hours on the stove, surely my bone should be bendable, right?

But it’s not. Which leaves me with a dilemma. Do I leave the bone on the stove? Do I transfer it into a crockpot? Do I take it off the stove and leave it in a covered jar and trust that it’ll bend by Wednesday? I don’t know.

How long does it take to bend a bone?