“A Place at the Table” explores the issue of hunger in America, capturing the daily food struggles of Americans from coast to coast. This informative, well-paced documentary serves as a miniature sociology course unto itself, challenging viewers to examine the myriad social, political, educational and health implications of food insecurity in the wealthiest country in the world.

The film effectively balances emotions with education, daring viewers not to be heartbroken by the little girl who matter-of-factly talks about how much her stomach hurts when her family runs out of food. Or the mother of two who was able to provide more food for her family when they were on food stamps than when she finally landed a minimum wage job. These moments transform the very concept of hunger — traditionally associated with unemployment and welfare, hunger insecurity affects people who work one, two and three jobs trying to make ends meet so their children can eat.

The government receives a scathing review in the film, and rightfully so. The U.S. Department of Agriculture pours millions of dollars into commodity crops like soy and corn, which are then turned into fatty processed foods, while putting exactly $0 into fruits, vegetables and whole-grain crops. Simultaneously, it provides almost nothing in the way of school lunch subsidies, forcing schools to serve starchy, unhealthy lunches — which for many kids may be their only solid meal of the day.

The narrative woven in “A Place at the Table” is both shocking and sobering, yet reflects the daily lives of many Americans. Some 40,000 soup kitchens and food banks work to alleviate hunger, but until our elected officials take their heads out of the sand and speak up about this critical issue, we will live in a country where people starve because they have no other choice. Last time I checked, that wasn’t quite the American dream.

“A Place at the Table” is available on Amazon Instant Video.

Watch the trailer below.

We’ve always been told to eat about five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, and a January 2011 study actually suggested it should be eight if you want to seriously lower your risk of dying from heart disease. We’re with you — eight sounds like we’ll need to stuff our pockets with celery stalks and carrots so we can munch on them all day.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s dietary guidelines of 2010 recommend eating 2 cups of fruit and 2.5 cups of vegetables a day. (At least they switched to “cups” instead of the pyramid’s mysterious “servings”; for the record, these measurements translate into about nine servings.)

But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention takes a more individualized approach. After all, our bodies’ requirements must differ with age and lifestyle, right? The CDC offers a calculator that asks for your age, sex and amount of physical activity, and spits out how many fruits and veggies you should be getting each day. Click here to find out how much you need.

According to the CDC’s calculator, a 26-year-old female with less than 30 minutes of exercise every day — in addition to the light activity of everyday life  — requires about 1.5 cups of fruit and 2.5 cups of vegetables each day.

My recommended 4 cups of produce a day might still sound a little overwhelming, but it’s actually not as bad as it seems.

What counts as a fruit or vegetable?

First of all, 1 cup of vegetables doesn’t have to be a heap of raw broccoli. Fruits and veggies can be in the form of 100% juice; raw or cooked; fresh, frozen, canned or dried; and whole, chopped up or pureed. Yes, guacamole counts as a vegetable (score!).

Examples of 1 cup and ½ cup of fruits/veggies

To give you an idea of 1 cup of fruit — or two-thirds of my daily fruit intake — the CDC has provided these examples:

• 1 small apple
• 1 large banana
• 1 medium grapefruit
• 1 large orange
• 1 medium pear
• 1 small wedge watermelon
• 2 large or 3 medium plums
• 8 large strawberries

To get my last ½ cup of fruit, I could (for example) eat:

• 1 snack container of applesauce
• 16 grapes
• 1 medium cantaloupe wedge
• ½ medium grapefruit
• 4 large strawberries
• 1 large plum
• 1 small box (1/4 cup) of raisins
• 1 small banana

To get 2 cups of vegetables, I could eat two of these options:

• 1 large bell pepper
• 1 medium potato
• 2 large stalks of celery
• 1 cup of cooked greens or 2 cups of raw greens (spinach, collards, mustard greens, turnip greens)
• 12 baby carrots (or 2 medium carrots)
• 1 large sweet potato
• 1 large ear of corn

And I can get that last ½ cup of vegetables from a snack of 5 broccoli florets or 6 carrots.

Applying these guidelines to real meals

It’s really easier than you think — and you might already be getting close to the recommended amount. For example, I have a 13.5-fluid-ounce container of orange juice every morning for breakfast. That converts to about 1.7 cups, so I’m already exceeding my daily fruit intake. However, it’s important to note that the Dietary Guidelines of 2010 state that the majority of an individual’s daily fruit intake should come from whole fruit, since 100% fruit juice lacks dietary fiber.

I usually have at least two vegetables with dinner — say, 1 cup of cooked spinach for greens and 1 large sweet potato for a starch — so I knock out four-fifths of my daily vegetable intake in one meal. A snack of one celery stalk with peanut butter in the afternoon would mean I’m consuming my 2.5 cups of vegetables during the day.

A salad for lunch with 1 cup of lettuce and ½ cup of other veggies can help you meet your goal, and try to choose a fresh and nutritious snack instead of a Snickers out of the vending machine during the week. One of my favorites: A tomato, chopped up and salted — preferably with Jane’s Krazy Mixed-Up Salt. Sounds too simple to be so good, but I promise it’s delicious.

For illustrations of these servings and more info on how to apply them to your meals, click here.

Why bother?

Americans fail miserably at getting their fruits and veggies — we only consume an average of three servings a day, or about 1.5 cups.

Meanwhile, science has shown that these healthy foods reduce our risk of cancer and other chronic diseases, such as stroke, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Additionally, they provide the vitamins and minerals our bodies need to function — not to mention they’re low calorie and low fat, so they fix your hunger problem without adding to your waistline.

And the more you eat, the better. A 2011 study indicated that each additional portion of fruits and vegetables was linked to a 4% lower risk of death, with one serving defined as 80 grams, the equivalent of a small banana, medium apple or small carrot.

Check out our recipes for healthy ways to incorporate your daily fruits and vegetables into your diet.

“All Natural”
The second most common claim made on new food products in 2008, “all-natural” is oftentimes all-nonsense. There is absolutely no regulatory definition for “all-natural,” and you’re better off getting the facts on your own from reliable sources — like the ingredients listed on the back. If you’re having trouble understanding — or pronouncing — them, the product is probably not as natural as it claims.

Our stroll through the local bodega produced this example: Nature Valley Chewy Trail Mix of the Fruit & Nut variety. As you can see, the “100% Natural” label is prominently displayed underneath the logo. Yet when you check out the ingredients on the side of the box, the second ingredient listed is “high-maltose corn syrup.” Sounds a hell of a lot like high-fructose corn syrup, huh? Glamour’s Health & Fitness blog describes it as “high-fructose corn syrup’s sneaky cousin.” Experts say it’s a lab-altered sweetener very similar to HFCS, and it appears to be the substitute many manufacturers are using for the controversial HFCS.

Unfortunately there is currently zero scientific research on high-maltose corn syrup, which means it hasn’t been studied for any potential risks. While there are currently no studies, many experts believe it to have the same health risks as HFCS, according to Glamour. Now I’m sure plenty of you could argue all day about whether or not high-fructose corn syrup or high-maltose corn syrup is natural — it’s debatable because it requires a very specific definition of “natural” since both are molecularly altered in the lab — but the point is that I would bet most of you wouldn’t expect high-fructose corn syrup, or it’s “sneaky cousin,” to be second on an ingredient list for an “all-natural” product.

“Lightly sweetened”
Once again, the re are absolutely no regulations concerning the marketing of a product as “lightly sweetened.” It obviously suggests less sugar, but this isn’t necessarily the case with each product. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of “sugar-free,” which means the food contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, and “no added sugars” or “Without Added Sugars,” which mean that no sugar or sugar-containing ingredient was added during processing. But there’s nothing in the FDA or USDA’s labeling guidelines about “lightly sweetened.”

For example, on our shopping trip, we found Kellogg’s Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal, which is described on the front of the box as “lightly sweetened, toasted multigrain flakes and crunchy oat clusters.” For you, “lightly sweetened” might be a sprinkle of sugar. For Kellogg’s, it’s 14 g of sugars. That’s a lot compared with, say, Cheerios’ 1 g per serving. Kellogg’s isn’t the only manufacturer that likes to “lightly sweeten” its packaging claims, so always check the label.

“Made with Whole Grains”
This label is often abused in the same way “Made with Real Fruit” is applied to Pop-Tarts that contain less than 2% of actual fruit. Sure, the manufacturer might have thrown some whole grains in there, but that doesn’t mean it was a significant amount. Take Cinnamon Toast Crunch for example. The box contains the words, “with Whole Grain Guaranteed,” printed in large text with a giant checkmark at the very top, and “whole grain wheat” does appear first in the list of ingredients. However, the reason whole grains are recommended by experts, explained Livestrong.com, is because they provide you with fiber and nutrients. Yet Cinnamon Toast Crunch only claims a measly 2 g of fiber, so it’s unclear how much whole grains the cereal actually contains. Livestrong.com quoted Dr. William Sears, of AskDrSears.com, as saying it’s best to find a cereal with 5 g of fiber or more per serving.

The second issue with this label surrounds the actual definition of whole grains. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that half of our grains are whole, but what actually qualifies as “whole grains?” Many manufacturers assume you don’t know the answer to this and find a sneaky loophole by incorporating ordinary refined wheat flour or enriched flour as their main ingredient, since they’re not required to break down the total “whole grains” into whole grains and refined grains on the label.

Cooking Light supplied an excellent example with Nabisco’s Whole Wheat Ritz Crackers, which tout the claim “with 5 g whole grain” on the front of the box. The crackers are made from enriched flour, and whole-grain wheat flour doesn’t appear on the ingredient list until you’ve read halfway down. According to Cooking Light, you would need to eat more than 200 calories and 360 mg of sodium (and likely a few grams of trans fats) to reach a full serving of whole grains.

“Low-carb”
You could technically slap the “low-carb” label on anything — the FDA currently does not regulate such terms as “low-carb,” “reduced carb” or “carbohydrate-free.” There’s also not enough research to scientifically support the belief that low-carb diets are more effective long term than other, more balanced diets. Plus, as Real Simple pointed out, manufacturers often replace those carbohydrates with high-fat ingredients, like nuts, which raises the food’s calorie count.

“0 grams of trans fat”
This one isn’t so much a lie as misleading simply because most of us don’t know what else to look for on the label. While plenty of foods boast “0 grams of trans fat” on the front of their packaging, they’re often high in saturated fat instead. (FYI: “High in saturated fat” is defined by the FDA as 4 g or more of saturated fat in a serving.)

For example, we came across this box of Hot Pockets Ham & Cheese sandwiches on our shopping excursion. Notice the nice box highlights that this product contains “0 g Trans Fat” on the front of the box. Oh goody! … But wait! We took a look at the nutrition label and found that the saturated fat content is 5 g, which means this product is regarded by the FDA as high in saturated fat — not so good for you after all.

Lesson of the day: Manufacturers think you’re stupid and won’t notice when they use marketing chicanery to trick you into eating less healthy, cheaper-to-produce ingredients. Don’t be stupid. Educate yourself and make wise shopping choices.

• If you’re a hiker or a camper, there’s a good chance you’ve wished for a way to enjoy a refreshing soda or beer when you reach your destination without having to haul the extra weight (and shake up the beer) along the way. Good news: Portable, on-the-go soda and beer now exist. All you need is this special plastic bottle and the drink mix. [Gizmodo]

• Swine flu is back. A new strain has infected at least 145 people, mostly children, since July 12. [Los Angeles Times]

• Celeb trainer Jillian Michaels shares how she’s getting her kids on the healthy eating track. [Fitness Magazine]

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture sparked uproar among the meat industry when it voiced support for the Meatless Monday campaign. Turns out the statement was “made without proper clearance.” [Food Politics]

• A 2,200-year-old mummy has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. [Everyday Health]

• Go green with these 19 household items you probably didn’t know you could recycle. [Go Green America TV]

• Scientists have found a way to replace the cocoa butter and milk fats in chocolate with juice to make low-fat chocolate. But does it taste good? [Science Daily]

• Turn to these ancient grains to help prevent cancer, heart disease and high blood pressure. [Washington Post]

• Johnson & Johnson plans to remove harsh chemicals from products by 2015. [Yahoo News]

• Bill Gates is on a mission to transform the toilet. The billionaire’s foundation is seeking ways to make going to the bathroom more productive, including turning human waste into electricity. [CBC News]

• Butterflies in Japan have seen a higher rate of mutations since the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Hmm, isn’t this how comic books start? [Fox News]

• Coinciding with “Shark Week,” environmental groups have advocated for the listing of the great white shark (from off the coast of California) as an endangered species. [Los Angeles Times]

• Charging your cell phone could be much different in the future. Scientists at the University of California have discovered that bacteria-eating viruses can be used to generate power. [Inhabitat]

“Pink slime” — a term coined in 2002 by former U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein, who quit his job with the governmental agency out of disgust for the product — consists of the spare bits of unusable meat, like connective tissue, that’s scraped off the carcass after the profitable cuts are removed. After being treated with ammonium hydroxide (a combination of ammonia and water), flash frozen and compressed to kill bacteria, the sludge is added as a filler to what an “ABC World News” report this week revealed was about 70% of the ground beef sold in supermarkets.

Ammonium hydroxide was classified as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA in 1974, and the pink slime was approved for use as a food safety agent in 2001, when an entrepreneurial company called Beef Products Inc. started using it because of its low cost. The meat trimmings used in the process are more susceptible to bacteria, so it’s treated with ammonium hydroxide in order to ensure it’s decontaminated.

As Keith Nunes explained in Meat Poultry magazine, “ammonium hydroxide is naturally found in proteins such as beef, pork and chicken. What the Beef Products process does is increase the amount of ammonium hydroxide in the lean beef to elevate its overall pH and make the product inhospitable to the survival of pathogens, such as E. coli and salmonella.”

Slime hit the fan, though, last April when famous British chef, restaurateur and TV personality Jamie Oliver showed viewers of his TV show, “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution,” how the process worked and informed them that the hamburgers, meatballs and meatloaf we eat contain up to 15% of this product. The uproar following the episode led fast food companies like McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Burger King to remove what the industry calls “lean, finely texture beef” from its food.

Photo credit: YouTube

Contrary to your Facebook post,
this photo is not of pink slime.
Despite the fast food industry bowing to consumer concerns, the pink slime controversy continued earlier this year when a photo labeled as “pink slime” went viral. As it turns out, this photo does not depict the product known as pink slime.

According to the Washington Post, it’s the creamy pink paste formed through a process called advanced meat recovery, which mechanically separates the extra scraps of chicken from the bone. The paste is used in chicken nuggets, which Jamie Oliver also showed on one of his “Food Revolution” episodes in 2010. While its appearance is far from appetizing, there does appear to be a difference.

The paste appears much more finely processed than the slime, which you can see here. Based on a USDA document, it sounds like the difference lies in the machinery used to process the products: “Beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems or powered knives, will not be allowed.”

Why it’s back in the news
This week’s televised ABC report put pink slime in the headlines yet again when Zirnstein — the USDA scientist who has been publicly protesting the processed meat since at least 2009, when the New York Times investigated it — informed ABC’s Jim Avila that the slime is in about 70% of America’s ground beef and is ending up in our kids’ school lunches. “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling,” he told NYT.

What defenders say
The USDA has brushed off all of this contention, stating that the slime is completely safe and that the agency actually plans on buying 7 million pounds of slime-containing ground beef over the next few months for the national school lunch program.

The American Meat Institute, unsurprisingly, also defends the filler, saying that not only is it safe and edible, but it’s also sustainable because the meat used for it would be otherwise wasted. “The beef industry is proud to efficiently produce as much lean meat as possible from the cattle we raise,” said AMI in a statement. “It’s the right thing to do, and it ensures that our products remain as affordable as we can make them while helping to feed America and the world.”

Chuck Jolley — president of Jolley & Associates, a marketing and public relations firm that concentrates on the food industry — wrote an op-ed about the pink slime controversy for Food Safety News titled “Manipulated public opinion trumps real science – again.” “Making sure our food supply is as safe as possible requires the use of some sophisticated science,” he argued. “And emotional reactions by people who speak before they understand the process will delay acceptance at best.”

Like pink slime, using ammonium hydroxide in food isn’t anything new.
Both ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are natural compounds found in the environment and are even produced by our bodies. Since its approval in 2001, ammonium hydroxide been used as a leavening agent, as well as a way to control a food’s pH level, in various food products. It’s not just in ground beef; it’s also in grains, baked goods, condiments, sweets, cheeses and even drinking water.

But isn’t ammonia that stuff in my cleaning products? Isn’t that toxic?
Upon hearing “ammonia,” almost everyone immediately thinks of the potent, toxic cleaning products they have in their homes. Yes, it’s the same ingredient, but the level of ammonia in the cleaning products is drastically higher than the level of ammonia in food. As previously stated, ammonia is a natural compound found in the environment and our bodies. We would never consume a toxic amount through ground beef because for it to be toxic, the ammonia content would be so high that we wouldn’t want the potent product anywhere near our noses, much less our mouths.

The real concern:
Is the ammonia enough to kill the bacteria?
In its 2009 investigative report, the New York Times obtained government and industry records indicating that E. coli and salmonella pathogens were discovered dozens of times in BPI meat. According to NYT, “untreated beef naturally contains ammonia and is typically about 6 on the pH scale, near that of rainwater and milk. The Beef Products’ study that won USDA approval used an ammonia treatment that raised the pH of the meat to as high as 10, an alkalinity well beyond the range of most foods.”

After complaints that the ammonia smell was too pungent in the meat, BPI decided to lower the ammonia levels and claimed that E. coli and salmonella were undetectable at a pH level of 8.5. The USDA had not been informed of this change and was only made aware of it through NYT’s inquiries. Reports of bacterial contamination in the meat followed BPI’s lowering of the ammonia levels, which threw the safety of the lowered pH level into question.

What about nutrition? Is this “pink slime” as nutritious as the rest of the meat?
Consumers and mass media are expressing alarm over the presence of ammonium hydroxide in the meat, even though it’s an ingredient that’s been in their food for decades, and the 2009 NYT report introduced concerns of contamination in the meat. But 9Health reporter Dr. John Torres, voiced his unease over yet another aspect of the processed meat in a USA Today story: Is the ground beef with pink slime less nutritious than the ground beef without it?

BPI says no. The pink slime inventor and primary manufacturer wrote to ABC News this week informing them that the product was nutritious USDA-approved beef. “All beef is a good or excellent source of 10 essential nutrients, including protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins,” H. Russell Cross, head of the department of animal science at Texas A&M University, said in a statement to ABC News. ”Finely textured lean beef helps us meet consumer demand for safe, affordable and nutritious food.”

Photo credit: USDA blog

Is ammonium hydroxide included on ground beef’s ingredient list?
A new USDA law took effect March 1 requiring nutrition labeling for ground, as well as popular cuts of, meat and poultry. Since this was obviously an effort to keep consumers well-informed of what they’re eating, it’s logical to think we would also now be seeing “ammonium hydroxide” listed as an ingredient on such labels. Yet this is not the case.

BPI hired Dennis R. Johnson, a successful lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry, to fight for the company’s right to exclude ammonium hydroxide from meat labels. The company won by pointing out that another company was just given the government’s approval to exclude a chemical used in treating poultry from ingredient lists.

According to USA Today, ammonia is not required to be listed on any food label because it’s considered a “processing agent.”

Where can I find meat without pink slime?
After this week’s report, ABC News emailed the top 10 U.S. grocery chains and asked them if they used pink slime in their meat. According to ABC, only Publix, Costco, H-E-B and Whole Foods responded, saying they don’t. If you want slime-free ground beef, your safest solution is sticking with meat marked “USDA organic,” which does not contain the processed product.

So is it safe or not?
Despite the USDA and meat industry’s reassurance that pink slime is safe and edible, the 2009 NYT investigation showed evidence that it may come with a higher risk of bacterial contamination. As the Huffington Post pointed out, using the slime only reduces the cost of ground beef by about 3 cents a pound. It makes you wonder if the USDA and meat industry really consider the minimal cost savings worth the potential risk.

Tell us: Are you worried about pink slime in your meat?

Since 1993, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has required nutrition labeling for meat products that are cooked or contain multiple ingredients, such as marinades or stuffing.

From now on, ground meat and poultry and 40 popular cuts — including steaks, pork chops, lamb, veal and chicken breasts/wings — will be slapped with a label revealing the products’ calories, total fat and saturated fat, as well as protein, cholesterol, sodium and iron.

Example of nutrition labeling for meat from the USDA Blog (click to visit blog)

The amount of trans fat is not required on the packaging, though the USDA estimates that 75% to 80% of nutrition labels choose to list this information anyway, according to WebMD. Check out the label example to the right from the USDA’s blog.

If the packaging doesn’t include this label, or if the meat is being cut and sold at a butcher shop, the retailer must display a poster with the nutritional information next to the product. Additionally, if a ground meat/poultry product boasts the lean meat percentage (e.g., “85% lean”), it also must reveal the fat percentage (e.g., “15% fat”). Small meat-grinding businesses are required to provide the lean and fat percentages but are exempt from the other aspects of the rule, as long as they don’t make any other nutritional claims.

“Consumers should note that 29 cuts of beef, pork and lamb are considered lean,” said J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, in a statement. “A 3-oz. serving of meat or poultry contains between 160 and 200 calories and contains all nine essential amino acids. That is why meat is considered a ‘complete protein.’”

Watching your cholesterol?
Red meat isn’t off the table.
In January, a study contradicted the common belief that red meat is off limits for those watching their cholesterol; in fact, it revealed that a well-rounded diet, complete with lean beef, might actually lower cholesterol just as effectively as a sans-beef diet. The USDA’s new labeling rule can help those watching their cholesterol choose the right cuts for their diet. Click here to read about the study.

What cuts are lean?
For a list of cuts of meat that “make the cut” for lean beef labeling, in order from least to most fat content, click here.

More info
If you have questions about the new labels or other food safety issues, you can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. Or, if you prefer to read up on the new rule yourself, click here to access the full document from the Federal Register.

On Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama and agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack announced drastic changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s guidelines for school meals, marking the first major changes to the breakfast and lunch programs in 15 years.

Beginning in July, breakfast and lunch served at U.S. schools will have calorie restrictions for the first time, significantly less fat and sodium, and minimum requirements for fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Yet french fries will still be served and pizza will still be counted as a vegetable (the tomato sauce, obviously) — a result of lawmakers bowing to food lobbyists back in November.

Vary the veggies and cut the calories
The number of fruit and vegetable servings throughout the week will double at breakfast and rise substantially at lunch, according to the USDA. And though french fries remain (and there are no limitations on the number of potato servings per week), meals throughout the week must fulfill a minimum number of vegetable servings from each of the five vegetable subgroups created by the USDA: dark green (e.g., broccoli, kale, spinach), orange/red (e.g., butternut squash, carrots tomatoes), legumes (e.g., black beans, lentils, split peas), starchy (e.g., corn, green peas, potatoes) and other (e.g., artichokes, mushrooms, cauliflower).

Until now, meals could contain an unlimited number of calories. In July, they’ll be cut off at 650 for kindergarten through 5th graders, 700 for 6th through 8th graders, and 850 for 9th through 12th graders. The saturated fat in breakfasts and lunches must make up less than 10% of the meal’s calories, and all meals must have zero trans fats per serving. Milk will be low-fat or non-fat, including flavored milk. That delicious vegetable known as pizza will at least have a whole-wheat crust, less sodium and must have other “vegetables” as sides. Beginning in July, half of grains offered to students have to be whole-grain rich. By 2014, all grain products will be whole-grain rich.

In the past 30 years, childhood obesity has more than tripled, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Obese children and adolescents are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure, and diabetes. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to heart problems and diabetes, they face a higher risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and the social and psychological issues that come with being the “big kid” among judgmental peers.

But will the new meal plans help?
The new guidelines were based on recommendations from experts chosen by the Institute of Medicine and aligned with the updates to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And while they are a welcomed change in a school system that was only getting 40% of recommended veggies and less than 25% of recommended whole grains to kids, we can’t help but wonder how much of the healthy food will end up in the trash.

Schools can serve fruits and vegetables all they want, but are kids going to eat the broccoli when it’s sitting on their plate next to the pizza? We can force nutritious food onto their plates, but we can’t force them to eat it. At the same time, even if they don’t eat as many of the fruits and vegetables as the USDA wants them to, at least they won’t be consuming as many calories — or as much fat and sodium — as they had under the old guidelines.

Michelle Obama explained the purpose of the new guidelines from a parent’s perspective: “As parents, we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat and ensure they have a reasonably balanced diet. And when we’re putting in all that effort, the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria.”

To see examples of lunches that follow the USDA’s new guidelines, click here.

For more information, click here.

The 2012 spending bill, passed on Nov. 18, allocated funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and in the process lifted a five-year-old ban on funding horse meat inspections. Now before you get up on your high horse and gallop on over to the nearest government official to complain, hold your horses and hear this: There are currently no U.S. slaughterhouses that butcher horses for human consumption, according to the USDA.

So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: There’s no need to panic about Seabiscuit burgers at the moment. That said, it could be in the near future. People like Dave Duquette, president of the nonprofit, pro-slaughter group United Horsemen, seem to be champing at the bit. Duquette was quoted in the Huffington Post saying, “I have personally probably five to 10 investors that I could call right now if I had a plant ready to go. If one plant came open in two weeks, I’d have enough money to fund it.”

We’d imagine, though, if any slaughterhouse producing horse meat opened, they would face the wrath of animal rights groups like the Humane Society and horse lovers everywhere. Horse meat consumption has been taboo since the 1940s, according to HuffPo, as the animals are now adored as pets, not food. Additionally, if slaughterhouses did open up, the USDA would have to find spare change in its budget to fund horse meat inspections, which would cost approximately $3 million to $5 million a year.

Oh, and here’s a twist: If you’re thinking, like we were, that wild horses couldn’t drag PETA away from this protest opportunity, think again. PETA supports the lifting of the ban on funding horse meat inspections. No, this is not one of those annoying People Eating Tasty Animals jokes. The actual People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organization is in favor of the USDA’s decision. They stated that they’d rather horses be slaughtered domestically than be shipped to Mexico or Canada for slaughter.

What’s horse meat supposed to be like anyway?
Reining in this unexpectedly long story so we’re not guilty of beating a dead horse, here’s some insight into horse meat’s nutritional info and taste:

• High source of protein, vitamin B12 and zinc
• Low cholesterol
• Tender
• According to Viande Richelieu Meat, it “tastes like a cross between beef and deer meat with a pleasant secondary sweet taste, due to its richness in glycogen (muscle sugar).”
• It has a high iron content — more so than beef or pork.
• There are about 133 calories and 5 grams of fat in 100 grams of horse meat, compared with 140 calories and 7 grams of fat in beef.

If you’re interested in signing the Humane Society’s anti-horse slaughter petition, click here.

So hypothetically, if you were hungry enough to eat a horse, would you? Yay or neigh?

UPDATE: Check out Yelpers’ opinions on horse meat consumption here.