On Apr 3, 7:53*pm, Dave > wrote:

> "Now that we have identified the importance of these compounds,
> producers can start to care more about the polyphenolic composition of
> their oils," she says. It is certainly possible to see functional
> olive oils on the market in the not-too-distant future, speaking on
> their label of heart protective claims and the percentages of DHPEA-
> EDA inside the bottle. The whole "functional foods" industry is in a
> growth mode, and with research like this, olive oil could certainly be
> seen by agencies such as the FDA and the FTC as a product that could
> have valid health claims on labels in the near future.

The only "function" that olive oil needs is to make food taste good.

Jeezus! This reminds me of balancing the "humours" in food in
medieval cookery.

Cindy Hamilton

On Apr 6, 6:45*am, Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:53*pm, Dave > wrote:
>
> > "Now that we have identified the importance of these compounds,
> > producers can start to care more about the polyphenolic composition of
> > their oils," she says. It is certainly possible to see functional
> > olive oils on the market in the not-too-distant future, speaking on
> > their label of heart protective claims and the percentages of DHPEA-
> > EDA inside the bottle. The whole "functional foods" industry is in a
> > growth mode, and with research like this, olive oil could certainly be
> > seen by agencies such as the FDA and the FTC as a product that could
> > have valid health claims on labels in the near future.
>
> The only "function" that olive oil needs is to make food taste good.
>
> Jeezus! *This reminds me of balancing the "humours" in food in
> medieval cookery.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Cindy,

It's actually a good thing for the olive oil business, because it's
been known for years about the health benefits, but they were never
allowed to say anything about those benefits on their labels. (Just
like a box of Cherrios cereal can say "Heart healthy" now, if it has
Oats in it, etc).

Once this happens, they can then start investing in not only making
the oil taste good, but they can fine tune it so that there is more of
that particular healthy ingredient, and that benefits the population
as well as the company, by being generally healthier to consume.
Positive results for all, both manufacturer and consumer!

And I know what you mean about tasting good . . . I LOVE to try
various olive oils with small pieces of bread to dip. We get that
chance here at our Farmer's market on the weekends, and there is quite
a variety of tastes for olive oil.

Dave

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 7:53*pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>> "Now that we have identified the importance of these compounds,
>> producers can start to care more about the polyphenolic composition of
>> their oils," she says. It is certainly possible to see functional
>> olive oils on the market in the not-too-distant future, speaking on
>> their label of heart protective claims and the percentages of DHPEA-
>> EDA inside the bottle. The whole "functional foods" industry is in a
>> growth mode, and with research like this, olive oil could certainly be
>> seen by agencies such as the FDA and the FTC as a product that could
>> have valid health claims on labels in the near future.
>
>The only "function" that olive oil needs is to make food taste good.
>
>Jeezus! This reminds me of balancing the "humours" in food in
>medieval cookery.
>
Michael Pollan calls such things "nutriceuticals", as I recall, and
dates that ay of thinking to a big blowup when nutritionists began
recommending reducing the amounts of red meat and butter in american
diets. Beef producers and dairy producers spazzed at the idea, so the
government recommendations changed to limiting the intake of certain
chemicals found in animal fats, not the foods themselves. It fit
quite nicely with the trend towards factory foods in general, and soon
a whole new cut-and-paste attitude took wing in the American food
industry.
--

modom

On Apr 6, 6:37*pm, "modom (palindrome guy)" >
wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 7:53*pm, Dave > wrote:
>
> >> "Now that we have identified the importance of these compounds,
> >> producers can start to care more about the polyphenolic composition of
> >> their oils," she says. It is certainly possible to see functional
> >> olive oils on the market in the not-too-distant future, speaking on
> >> their label of heart protective claims and the percentages of DHPEA-
> >> EDA inside the bottle. The whole "functional foods" industry is in a
> >> growth mode, and with research like this, olive oil could certainly be
> >> seen by agencies such as the FDA and the FTC as a product that could
> >> have valid health claims on labels in the near future.
>
> >The only "function" that olive oil needs is to make food taste good.
>
> >Jeezus! *This reminds me of balancing the "humours" in food in
> >medieval cookery.
>
> Michael Pollan calls such things "nutriceuticals", as I recall, and
> dates that ay of thinking to a big blowup *when nutritionists began
> recommending reducing the amounts of red meat and butter in american
> diets. *Beef producers and dairy producers spazzed at the idea, so the
> government recommendations changed to limiting the intake of certain
> chemicals found in animal fats, not the foods themselves. *It fit
> quite nicely with the trend towards factory foods in general, and soon
> a whole new cut-and-paste attitude took wing in the American food
> industry.

Michael Pollan is cool. I wish that Obama would drop his name
occasionally. I understand him not making him Ag Sec, but if the
president suggested to Oprah that she promote The Omnivore's Dilemma,
you know she'd do it, and Americans would thereby be educated, and
perhaps edified.

Hehe, I just heard on All Things Considered that pet adoption ios
sometimes called "re-homing."

> --
>
> modom

--Bryan