ChowBaby

I should start by telling you that I woke up feeling annoyed this morning. And, no, it has nothing to do with the time of the month. Ah, shit! Saying that makes it seem like it must have something to do with that time of the month, but I promise it doesn't.

See, last night I read about a new book written by a pediatrician and the chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia that presents a case against the link between vaccines and autism. Notice I'm not linking. I don't want to step into that fray today. Especially since it wasn't anything about either side of the vaccine debate that got me worked up. Instead, it was a (probably throwaway) quote by actress Amanda Peet who has become a spokeswomen for a vaccine advocacy group. Here's what she said:

“Where I live in L.A., there’s this child-rearing trend—only feed your kids organic food, detoxify your house. And there’s a lot of anticorporate fervor, anti-pharmaceutical company fervor.” She went on, "I'd have lunch with my friends who were moms, and they'd say they wouldn't vaccinate, or would space out their vaccinations and hadn't I heard?" 

Wait! How did organic food come into this? (And, side question: is detoxifying your house a bad thing?)

I think I know the answer to my own question. Organic has become trendy. Something no longer associated with an authentic movement, but with mega corporations that market over processed foods and questionable nutritional claims trying to get in on a new consumer interest. Organic products are often exorbitantly expensive (and, ironically, bringing the price down often means hoping that the big, bad companies who can produce and distribute on a scale that makes the whole enterprise more affordable get in the game). There is uncertainty over what organic even means and if the label can be trusted. This is related, at least in part, to the issue of industrial organic (which is also related to the fact that over sweet, over processed foods can be made with organic ingredients--i.e., organic doesn't necessarily mean healthy), and the fact that organic products can only be truly organic under particular conditions that are supposedly overseen by the USDA. You know, the same agency that also oversees industrialized meat production and processing. And that's worked so out well, right? And all this isn't just news of the past. Our soon-to-be secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, who will oversee the USDA, has a history of supporting biotechnology and genetically modified foods. What are we to make of all this? Especially in a time when related government agencies have failed parents with their positions on bisphenol-A and melamine in our baby formula? Oh, there's more, but I'll spare you. Needless to say, I get it. I understand why you're skeptical. I am, too.

That's why, along with my wicked sense of humor (oh yea), I'm the first one to make fun of the whole obsessive mommy questioning, "Is it organic?" about every "O" shaped cereal and puffed fruit snack you try to hand a kid these days. Even though I'm one of those moms. And why, depending on my mood, I laugh or cringe every time I write a recipe for this blog and specify "organic" next to every single item in the ingredient list. But, let's take a moment and breathe. Or at least give me a moment to catch my breath. 

Organic means grown without the chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sludge sewage, bioengineering, antibiotics, or ionizing radiation. I know that this requires diligent oversight that has been brought into question, but go with me for a minute. Seems pretty straight forward that we would want our government to ensure that our food is grown in as natural a ways as possible. If we can support natural growing techniques without jeopardizing health or food supply, we'd want to. Right? It would not only result in less toxic food, but also cleaner soil and water supplies. I'm guessing we're all, more or less, on the same page here.

Now, are organic products in the US actually less toxic and reliably grown on farms that have cleaner soil and help keep water supplies clean? Not an easy question to answer. I'd guess that, realistically, we can say "some". But some is better than none. And some can lead to many. Many leads to most. Support for organic farming and products both in the form of consumer purchase and activism can help push us towards stricter policy and oversight and greater organic supply. In the meantime, I get that most of us can't be cavalier about spending extra money on organic just to help push us towards a tipping point. (Though, for the record, I don't believe that's all your doing when you buy organic. I believe there is compelling evidence that an organic diet reduces the amount of toxins that you and your children take in.) If that's the case, you might want to consider buying organic just for your little ones (since they eat more fruits and veggies relative to their body weight and developing bodies cannot break toxins down as effectively as ours) or focusing on the dirty dozen (also listed here along with the 12 least contaminated foods, and on Greenopolis with some useful notes on why certain produce is safe to buy non-organic). If you can afford organic and are interested in considering pro-organic research data, here are some points that I find compelling:

• The Environmental Protection Agency reports that children receive 50% of their lifetime cancer risks in the first two years of life.
• According to the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences, standard chemicals are up to 10 times more toxic for children than for adults. The fact is that children take in more toxic chemicals relative to their body weight than adults and their developing organ systems are less capable of detoxifying chemicals.
• According to the Food and Drug Administration, half of the produce currently tested in grocery stores contains measurable residues of pesticides.
• According to the Department of Health and Human Services, organophosphate pesticides (OPs) are now found in the blood of 95% of people tested. OP levels are twice as high in blood samples taken from children than in adults. Exposure to OPs has been linked to hyperactivity, behavior disorders, learning disabilities, developmental delays, and motor dysfunction.
• The Food and Drug Administration conducted laboratory tests of eight top-selling baby foods which revealed the presence of 16 pesticides, including three carcinogens.
• In blood samples of children aged 2 to 4 years, concentrations of pesticide residues are 6 times higher for those eating conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables when compared with those eating organic food.
• The Centers for Disease Control reports that one of the main sources of pesticide exposure for children comes from the food they eat.

(Source: Organic Consumers Association, US Government Fact Sheet)

Dr. Green, renowned "green" pediatrician, adds, "In 1993, a congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern that existing methods of risk evaluation for pesticide exposure were failing children. More recently, the Consumers Union and Environmental Working Group have released studies confirming that children are overexposed even if their exposure is within legal limits. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated a review of agricultural chemicals in light of this new information about risk assessment. Included in this act is a requirement to impose a 10-fold margin of safety to protect children when setting standards for the use of pesticides on food. While safety standards have become more strict, buying organic products, if they are available and you can afford them, and supporting organic agriculture may be your best protection."

Phew. Lots of info. I know. One last thing, though. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Despite what I believe are dubious positions on various child health and safety issues, I feel it would be irresponsible to not report the AAP's position that there is no evidence that "organic, natural, or health foods are any more nutritious or taste better than regular foods." You know, the same way a little bit of melamine in your baby's formula won't kill them. OH snap! (And, as a side note, a prerequisite for joining the AAP is dead taste buds.) But, seriously. While I couldn't find the full text of any of their source research without paying (which I didn't do), I've considered their position and thought that you might want to, as well.

There you have it. Why I buy into organic. But convincing you isn't my point. You being indifferent to, pro-, or anti-organic isn't what makes me mad. It's that damn Amanda Peet and her quote, which I feel was irresponsible.

First off, it's judgmental. And, sadly, baby and kids food tends to be a lightning rod for judgement. Breast milk or formula? Organic or not? All natural or processed? Homemade or store bought? And don't get me wrong--I've been a perpetrator as much as (okay, more than) I've been a victim. And I say that even as someone who was emotionally and physically pulverized by breast milk supply issues that forced formula on Isaac starting at 3-months-old. I guess that in a time like ours, when an obsession with self-awareness has intersected with a massive parenting industry that churns out books and products and advice, feeding is one of the last primal ways we have left to nurture our children. But I wish we could find more compassion for each other. And respect for natural food as a fundamental element of our existence and history.

I also find the comment to be dismissive of sound research on both sides of the issue (certainly the pro-organic side, but she also diminishes the anti-organic stance by chalking the whole thing up to some "in-the-know" privileged mommy trend). Lastly, I find it dangerous that she flippantly brings together the organic and vaccine debates. While there is some interaction--some parents promote organic, gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic children--there is no direct relationship between organic and vaccines (i.e., not all parents of autistic children who believe organic matters necessarily believe that vaccines caused their child's autism, and vice versa). These are not just fads that can be clumped together as part of some cockamamie natural movement. They are globally debated health and environmental issues that have sound research--and smart, informed, outspoken parents--on both sides of the debate. And we're all just doing our best to figure it all so we can make the best decisions we know how for our families.

Poor Amanda Peet. She probably doesn't even remember saying the quote. And I can imagine how she meant it differently than I took it. (See? Compassion. And I'm not being sarcastic!) But she is a public person and has chosen to be a spokeswoman. With great power comes great responsibility. I hope she'll be more careful about how she speaks about her issue at hand. And, if she did mean her comment the way I took it, I hope she'll consider (re-consider?) the research on organic as carefully as she did the research on vaccines. If she ends up feeling the same way and wants to talk about it publicly, maybe she'd be willing to speak more specifically so that moms, like me, who are interested in the issue can reflect on a new, educated, parent-centric point-of-view. Because those are always helpful, even when we disagree. 

-S

related posts:
obama's food policy & choice of tom vilsak for agriculture secretary
dr. alan greene goes organic--is all organic really better
US (non) regulation of baby products
top foods to buy organic
Tree Hugger's "Green Basics" overview on organic food (including criticisms of organic)

you may or may not know this. but there are two federal agencies that
regulate the food industry. the FDA (or Food and Drug Administration)
and the Agriculture Department. one oversees both drugs and anything
to do with meat and/or poultry in the food supply (that's the FDA, of
course) while the other oversees the rest of the food supply (and that
would be the Agriculture Department).
 
why are they split up? you're not the only one wondering that. you
also can't help but wonder if things like melamine in our infant
formula and salmonella in our kids' peanut butter wouldn't be better
avoided with one central agency that institutes strict food safety
guidelines (instead of the "voluntary" ones now in place--whose crazy
idea was that?!) and strict penalties for anyone who breaks the rules.
especially when leading experts assert that federal agencies "don't do
anything until people get sick." uh, hello? can anyone say prevention?
read more about current policies and what obama might
do in this New York Times article.

-m

BabyCakes (and i'm not talking about mine--though those are nice, too ;-) are a revelation! Like thousands of others in the blogosphere, I'm a cupcake person. (Okay, really, I'm a donut person... but cupcakes come in a close second.) We skipped a wedding cake and served cupcakes instead. I serve cupcakes at every birthday, mine and Mike's. And now at Isaac's birthdays, too. Well, at the one birthday party he's had so far.

I discovered BabyCakes last year while looking for 1st birthday party sweets. At a mere 12-months-old, Isaac had never had refined sugar, maple syrup, agave syrup, sucanat... none of it. I felt kinda bad serving a sugar-virgin icing slathered cakes, even small ones. On one hand, it seemed insane to introduce sweets at such a young age when he was so blissfully unaware and satisfied with his non-sweetened diet. On the other, I needed to relax--it was his birthday. What's the big deal? And restriction is much more likely to make him a sugar fiend than anything else. Plus, when I told Mike and my mom about the bakery's agave sweetened, soy-, dairy-, egg- and gluten-free treats, they laughed at me. This was my way of relaxing? Feeling a little embarrassed (was I going to be that mom?!), I gave in and got delicious cupcakes from a conventional bakery. Of course, they were a hit. And, of course, Isaac managed not to become the sugar addict I feared he would. Because we don't really eat a lot of sugar. Every once and a while wouldn't kill him.

So, it's been a year and it's cupcake time again. This year, though, I am not afraid or embarrassed. We've had a year of food experiences and now that he's an oh-so-mature eater, he's had his share of sometimes-snacks (i.e., sugary sweets). I tried making cupcakes the other day (the pineapple carrot ones mentioned in yesterday's post), but they came out only okay. A baker, I am not. (Michelle's the queen of that domain.) So I'm back to researching cupcakes to buy for Isaac's birthday play date on Sunday. 

I've considered everything from these crazy tiny stuffed gems by Baked by Melissa to these bite size beauties by Kumquat Cupcakery. And, of course, there were the usual NYC suspects: Magnolia Bakery and Cupcake Cafe. I even considered a 1/2 homemade approach using mix from the infamous Los Angeles cupcake bakery Sprinkles (the mix is available for shipping). But I kept coming back to BabyCakes. I'd been shamed into old-fashioned, refined sugar bombs last year and needed to know if it was really worth it (cuz, you know, it might be!). So, this morning, I made the trek to NYC's lower east side for a cupcake taste test. I got 1 vanilla cake/lemon frosting, 1 vanilla cake/vanilla frosting, 1 chocolate cake/chocolate frosting, 1 pumpkin spice/vanilla frosting, and 1 brownie (because they use brownie batter to make cupcakes!).  And, I gotta say, these cupcakes kick ass.

I wanted to like BabyCakes, so I tasted them with Mike, who I knew would be a harsher critic (especially when it came to chocolate). As it turns out, these are the genuine article--we both really liked them. The best were the brownie and pumpkin. The brownie was moist, chocolaty, and had just the barest hint of that natural-y aftertaste that often lingers after baked goods like these. It was hardly detectable--Mike agreed. The pumpkin spice was perfect. Also moist, but cakey, and full of flavor, with a nice nutty undertone. I'd NEVER in a million years guess that either flavor was an "alternative" baked good. We are definitely getting these for Isaac's birthday play date.

The vanilla and chocolate cupcakes were a little more obviously "natural", but still delicious. The vanilla cake was a little bit dense and dry/crumbly, at least compared to the brownie and pumpkin (though not unbearably so). It had a mellow vanilla flavor, which I prefer to the super-sweet ultra-vanilla that you typically get. I preferred the vanilla cake with lemon frosting to the vanilla cake with vanilla frosting--it tasted just like those yummy lemon Girl Scout cookies, but lemon was Mike's least favorite. He said that it started out strong (because he agrees that the icing is delicious), but finished in a way that he didn't like. His favorite of the chocolate and vanilla varieties was the vanilla cupcake with vanilla frosting. He thought it was the most like a conventional cupcake. The chocolate cupcake was a little anemic compared to the brownie, but it was chocolaty enough for me... AND for Mike! The icing was yummy--started a little sour cream-y with a coconut undertone, and finished chocolate. It might not be strong enough for serious chocoholics.

BabyCakes delivers to the contiguous 48 states via FedEx, so you can get them no matter where you are. I think they are well worth it--and absolutely so if you or your child is a vegan or has food allergies. But more than anything, BabyCakes is proof that you can make a mean cupcake without a butt load of butter and sugar. (And speaking of butts, they have a great tag line: Saving your behind, one cupcake at a time!) This year, I will proudly buy and serve BabyCakes at our various birthday gatherings. And maybe next year, I'll make 'em myself with the help of the BabyCakes cookbook: Vegan, Gluten-Free, and (Mostly) Sugar-Free Recipes from New York's Most Talked-About Bakery.

In the meantime, for all you cupcake lovers, here is a short list of the many cupcake blogs ready for the reading: 
Cupcake Blog
52 Cupcakes
Cupcakes Take the Cake
Cupcake Frenzy
Cupcake Project
I Heart Cuppy Cakes
the Kumquat Cupcakery blog
Cupcake Fetish
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World
the BabyCakes blog

-S

when i posted my new year resolutions, stacie commented that she wanted me to ditch the pull-up bar and research water filters that remove (among other things) flouride. well, i didn't ditch the pull-up bar (in fact, i'm going to get it today!)—but i did look into some water filters. and, man, is it confusing. so i'm going to try to keep it simple. and here's what i found.
 
first, a little background. as per my new year resolutions blog post, there are lots of reasons why bottled water is really bad for the environment. we all know more and more about about why BPA plastics are bad for our bodies. and stacie already blogged about why many experts think flouride is bad for our kids.

here's where i'm at now. i have one of those poland spring home-delivery water dispensers in my kitchen. the big 5 gallon version. we go through 7 jugs a month at a cost of $53.55 per month. and we do our best to use our klean kanteen bottle (the whole family has them in different sizes) in lieu of buying disposables when we're on the go. starbucks will fill them with everything with water (for free) to tea and coffee (although that isn't the focus of this post). this solution addresses the issue of flouride, but still has less-than-stellar environmental and BPA consequences. so i'm ready for something better.

turns out, there are tons of pitcher, faucet-mount, counter-top, under-the-sink, and whole-house filters that remove various contaminants from silt to heavy metals to pesticides. the quality counter-top and under-the-sink ones seem to run in the $100-$200 range. and it seems that only the reverse-osmosis products also remove flouride. the counter-top versions can be installed in 5 minutes with no plumbing experience. the under-the-counter versions require some plumbing expertise. but not too much—ie, i can do it but i'm not sure about stacie (wink).
 
now let's do the math. because in this economic climate, the bottom line matters more than ever. sure, i try to make the best environmental choices at every turn. but if i can't afford the best environmental option today—even though i know it is the most valuable option for our kids, families, and earth long-term—well, then it just isn't an option. an initial filter investment of about $150 would equal 3 months of my current poland spring delivery. and since the average replacement filter costs about $55 dollars and should be changed every 6 months, i'd need to buy 2 filters this year for a total of about $100. that means that less than 6 months of poland spring equals 12 months of filtered water in the first year. and next year, i only have to buy the filters—at a cost equal to 2 months of poland spring delivery. so now i can save money AND do the best thing for the environment. woohoo!
 
so which should you buy? i wish i tell you, but i haven't even decide which i'm going to buy yet. luckily, there are lots of brands out there. PUR, Brita, Kenmore, Whirlpool, Clear2O.... the list goes on and on. you might want to check out the green guide for tons of great info on the various contaminants in water, product reviews, and the environmental impact. i'm leaning toward this Crystal Quest stainless steel water filter from Pure Water Essentials. mostly because i live in a rental apartment so don't feel like taking the time to do any real plumbing work. plus, i like the way it looks.
 
bottoms up!
 
—m

it's about time. though still not enough and not fast enough. but something is better than nothing, for sure. here's the article from today's New York Times.

-S

a quick friday post about getting local fruits and veggies.

this Michelle Slatalla article in the NY Times was published this summer. but i missed it. if you did, too, it's a great resource for finding local veggies online. well, at least if you live in CA, WA, TX, IL, OR or NY.

the sites that she (and, now, i) list are delivery services that bring organic, local fruits and veggies to your door. as a brooklynite, i'm used to getting groceries delivered from fresh direct. it's not without complication... or guilt. the scheduling. the extra packaging. and the extra gas and food miles that home delivery adds to the equation. but i'll stand by my decision to get groceries home delivered for as long as it enables more home cooked meals and better eating (fresh direct has a good organic selection from which we do most of our shopping).

if services like these empower families to eat better and support their local farms, then i'm all for it. and maybe, if they haven't already, these services will get creative about lessening the impact of individual home delivery so that, at the very least, the upside of creating a support system for local farmers balances the downside.

eat your veggies. have a great weekend.

-S

you may still be thinking about turkey (and that includes thinking that you never want to eat turkey again), but i've moved on to fish. [insert yet another joke about me being greek.]

i've posted several times (and have more posts up my sleeve) about fish resources that help suss out safe fish options that are also environmentally friendly. this SUPER COOL APP allows you to text 30644 to get up-to-date info on seafood. just send the message "FISH" followed by the name of the fish in question. you'll get a reply from the Blue Ocean Institute's assessment (which you can also access directly online here). they've also conveniently formatted fishphone.org for cell phones if you've got a mobile that goes online.

thanks, coolhunting, for the find!

-S

happy belated thanksgiving, y'all! we're back in the office and out of our tryptophan haze. as i settled in with my double latte this morning (i was up way too late for a woman with a toddler!) and caught up on headlines, i came across a sad story about how diluted formula nearly killed a baby in florida.

the gist of the story is that a mom was thinning her baby's formula to make it last longer because she can't afford enough. additionally, she was feeding the baby water in between feedings to help keep him sated. apparently, what this is common. in fact, i found this definition of water intoxication (ie, water poisoning) from the 2002 McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine which specifically states, "it is common in infants living in poverty, whose parents 'stretch' powdered formula by adding water."

the mom in this florida case had no idea how much harm her money-saving ways could cause her baby. and without that knowledge, i can imagine any parent who can't afford enough food for their child feeling scared and pressured to think of ways to make their baby's sustenance last. i commend her for going public with this story. it must have been hard to do. but it highlights important, but less frequently talked about infant feeding information that, sadly, may be more relevant to more people as we weather hard economic times.

with that, here's a quick rundown of some facts on introducing water to your baby:

• common wisdom is that babies younger than 1-year-old, especially breast fed babies (breast milk is 80-90% water), do not need water
• but it is often said that you can begin introducing small amounts of water, especially to formula fed babies, at 6-months-old (consult with your pediatrician to determine when and how much water to give your baby)
• never give water to an infant younger than 6-months-old (unless otherwise instructed by your pediatrician)
• any age- and health-appropriate water intake should not serve as a substitute for breast milk and/or formula, which should always be made according to the manufacturer's instructions
• in fact, it's often suggested that sips be offered after meal time so that water doesn't interfere with baby's appetite for breast milk and/or formula
• too much water, which includes any water given to children younger than 6-months-old (unless otherwise indicated by your pediatrician), can cause serious health problems (immature kidneys expel sodium along with excess water, so giving infants too much water causes a sodium imbalance that can disrupt brain activity and cause, among other things, seizures)

if you are looking for ways to give this holiday season (and beyond!) you might consider donating formula to a local food bank (Feeding America--formerly America's Second Harvest--offers this food bank locator) or your local WIC (Women, Infant, Children) agency (WIC is state-run so the best way for you to locate a nearby agency is to google "WIC + [your state]"). formula is exceedingly expensive but vitally important to any infant whose mother is not exclusively breast feeding. any help struggling moms can get is help that can ensure the health and safety of their babies.

i know... heavy post following a holiday weekend, but i brought it around to giving and the holiday spirit, right?! now let's carry that on beyond december because we're all in this together...

-S

a friend who's toddler kept getting croup recently mentioned that she believes her son has been in much better health (and croup-free) since she switched him to goat's milk. fascinated (after all, i am greek), i began doing research.

apparently, goat's milk is the milk of choice in most of the world (not just greece!). and many adults who have cow's milk allergies can tolerate goat's milk, though it's not exactly clear why (nor is it as clear when it comes to very young children).

there seem to be two issues at hand: allergy & intolerance and nutrition. oh, there's also a matter of over-industrialized dairy in this country, but i'll leave that to you (or another post one day soon).

allergies and intolerance
while goat's milk tends to be more easily digested, it's composition (not nutritional profile--i'll get to that in a second) is pretty similar to cow's milk. one way that goat's milk is different, though, is that its fat globules don't cluster the way that they do in cow's milk. many, including dr. sears believe this is an explanation for why some people who have a hard time digesting cow's milk can more easily digest goat's milk.

some intolerance issues may be related to allergies. initial studies suggested that some of the proteins in cow's milk that cause allergic reactions are relatively absent in goat's milk. more recent studies have debunked that, concluding that... you guessed it... more research is needed to understand the role that proteins might play in milk tolerance. in fact, this article which i landed on from the Kelly Mom entry on goat's milk suggests that many researchers believe that infant's who are sensitive to cow's milk can also have serious allergic reactions to goat's milk.

nutrition
one of the first things i looked for when i started researching was a straight nutritional comparison of goat's and cow's milk. it may not seem at first glance like there is much difference, but there is. and it's meaningful. goat's milk has greater levels of vitamin A, riboflavin, calcium, potassium and niacin. awesome. it also has less iron, zinc, B6, and B12. (and, remember, folate is water soluble vitamin B.) not awesome, for infants especially.

it's important to consider these nutritional differences in the context of your or your child's specific health needs and overall diet before deciding which milk is the better option. you can also get a detailed profile of goat's milk at one of my favorite food research resources, World's Healthiest Foods.

the bottom line
everything i read suggests that children under 1 should never be given goat's milk (or cow's milk, of course) in lieu of breast milk and/or formula. and children under 3 who are allergic to cow's milk may also prove to be allergic to goat's milk. dr. greene provides specific guidance in his answer to a mom who asks about giving goat's milk to her cow's milk and soy sensitive 6-month-old.

if you have an older child who eats a well balanced diet and doesn't have any major health issues (or perhaps ones that might be well served by the nutrients in which goat's milk is abundant--check with your pediatrician), it seems that goat's milk is a fine addition (or substitution) to consider. and, if you're concerned about the impact of a massive cow dairy industry and the over-processing of cow's milk in the US, then it's something definitely worth looking into for older, lactose tolerant children.

as for isaac, my favorite (and the world's most willing) food guinea pig, he loved goat's milk. we've been switching between that and cow's milk effortlessly for a few weeks now and all is fine. (except when i can only find goat's milk for my coffee... then, not so fine. we're not in greece anymore, dorothy.)

-S

i made flax seed more convenient than ever... totally by accident!

i buy organic whole flax seeds and grind them myself. (time saving tip: grind a week's worth and store in the fridge in an airtight container. i love my glass pyrex storage set. just don't keep too long since ground flax seed can go rancid.) i usually pulse just a few times, yielding a grind that still has some texture which works nicely with yogurt (my new FAVORITE--pear is best!!) or soup or oatmeal.

this time, though, i wasn't paying attention and pulsed longer. i ended up making a flax seed powder. it is a lot like a ground spice (of course!). what's the big deal, you ask? the difference in texture made it even easier for me to think of sprinkling it on all kinds of stuff. just this morning i sprinkled it on top of the butter and apple butter on isaac's toast, just the way i would cinnamon.

the powder doesn't have the same, yummy, mild nutty flavor that you get when you just lightly grind flax seed, so i'll probably end up using both textures. (i also keep the oil on hand for things like salad dressing.)

oh, and by the way, whole flax seeds are much harder to digest and, therefore, less nutritious. 

-S