A Beef with Beans

I saw the above graphic on Facebook and decided to reality check it.

By reality check, I am making no observations on the merits of a particular dietary regime, just looking at the presented data from a scientific point of view.

I am interested in whether it is accurate and whether it is fair.

My source of data is the US Department of Agriculture’s on-line database.

General: 

It is not immediately clear to the reader than the data refers to the raw product, not the as-consumed product.  I will compare raw with raw but be aware that cooking raises the meat constituents due to moisture and fat loss and lowers the bean’s constituents due to water uptake.

Protein.

Both claim 22% protein.  The only beef I could find with 22% protein was trimmed tenderloin with only ~6% fat.   All other beef cuts have less than 20% protein.  The portrayed cut of meat looks to be about 20% fat so will only have about 16-17% protein.

Red Kidney Beans have slightly more than 22% protein - most results in the 22-24% range.

So the graphic has over reported beef and under reported beans.  Not sure why but not dramatically so.

Fibre.

Spot on.  Nil in beef, about 15g in the raw beans.

Minerals : Iron, Calcium & Magnesium.

The results reported for beef are pretty much the average results expected,  the middle of the typical range.

The results reported for the red beans are all pretty much from the top end of the typical range.  A little sneaky with this.

There is a more significant problem though.  My first thought in reading this was why don’t dieticians recommend beans to people who are anaemic?  It is usually ‘red meat and/or green leafy vegetables’.  A little reading finds that the minerals, especially iron, in beans are not bioavailable.   

Only about 2% is retained by the body. 

So the value is accurate.  But misleading. 

Cholesterol.

No issues here.  But dietary cholesterol is not considered a necessarily bad thing any more.

Water

Without a doubt water is a big issue in all areas of agriculture.  As far as I can tell the 1,480 litre figure comes from housed cattle, fed on grain.  It will be high for all farming practices but this may be a top-tier estimate.  No-one seems to report the water needs of cattle in outback Queensland.

◊◊

A few things were omitted that really should be included.

Saturated Fat.

Beef has quite high saturated fat levels and this is considered the chief culprit in blood cholesterol level, not the dietary cholesterol.  Beans have none and their fibre helps lower what is already there.

Vitamin B12

Beef provides the essential vitamin, B12.  Beans do not.

Selenium.

Beef is a good source of the mineral Selenium compared to beans.  Mind you Brazil Nuts trump everything on the Selenium front.

Contaminants.

Both beef and beans are open to contamination.  Beans from pesticides, herbicides and beef from hormones and veterinary products.

Land Use.

Brazil is the third largest bean producer (after Myanmar and India) and growing.  Where is the farmland coming from?   There is also the issue of land exhaustion.  Do they rotate crops or just keep adding fertilizers?  Is the production of fertilizer included in the water budget, I wonder?

Conclusion.

There is a confirmation bias displayed in the data presented in the graphic.

Permeate

JCN asks: What the story behind permeate in milk?

Well, it is simple enough but the marketers have had a field day with it, as if it is something evil and noxious.  Admittedly the name does conjure up images of goo oozing out of leg ulcers.

Simply put, permeate is milk with the fat and protein removed.  It consists of water, lactose, vitamins and minerals.  It is to milk what plasma is to blood.

Most commonly it is a by-product on cheese production.

It is the whey in Little Miss Muffett's curds and whey.

So why add it to milk?

Labelling laws.  Milk has a nutrition panel that gives a level of fat and protein present.  No-one consults the cows and they produce a wide range of fat and protein levels.  Dairies blend full cream milk with cream, permeate and skimmed milk to produce a standardised product that matches their label claims.

So it is natural, it is part of milk and it serves a purpose.

When Woolworths say that their milk is 'permeate free', they are lying.

Where is the ACCC when you need them?
...

Vinegar

KM asks: my friend and I had quite a discussion on white vinegar the other day. She insisted that it's absolutely necessary to buy it from an organic store while I could not be sure if there is a whole lot of difference in taste and suitability for cooking between white vinegar bought from the normal counter and from an organic store. Is organic white vinegar superior to normal vinegar and is there a marked difference in how each tastes?

Interesting question.

Firstly , white vinegar is pretty much removed from it's feedstock ancestry.  It is made by first fermenting a sugar source of some sort, using yeast.  The resultant alcohol is distilled from the fermented liquor and then fermented with a separate bacteria (acetobacter) to convert the distilled alcohol to an acetic acid solution.  The fermented liquor is filtrered through a filter aid, such as diatomaceous earth, and heated to sterilize.  It is then diluted to the desired strength.  Vinegar is a weak solution of acetic acid.

It is not out of the question that the acetic acid is a by-product of industrial processes as well.  This could be directly or by comnmercial alcohol being fermented to produce acetic acid.  The acetic acid we use in the laboratory is far too strong to have been produced by natural fermentation.

Which ever pathway it comes through, it must meet the requirements for 'food grade'.

How 'organic' plays into this is a bit obscure.  White vinegar is pretty refined and even if the feedstock was not truly organic, it goes through a serious of steps that far removes if from its origins.

I would not expect any taste difference in organic and non-organic vinegars of the same strength.  Both are just diluted acetic acid.  The 'whiteness' points to the lack of other components of note.

Other vinegars (malt, cider, red wine, white wine, balsamic etc) carry more of their original feed matrix with them and, if organic is a goal, have more of an impact from organic practices.  Certainly the flavour is very different.

...

Masala Chai.

KM asks:  I am used to having (strong) tea that is made by boiling black tea, milk, sugar, and spices all together. I hear that it robs tea of all its benefits. Is that true? I have tried switching to healthier alternatives (like green tea), but nothing wakes me up in the morning better than a cup of Indian Masala Chai. Thanks a lot!

So, what are its benefits?  If waking you up in the morning is a benefit, then it clearly is doing its job.

Obviously Masala Chai has more calories than straight black tea, so over indulgence is not recommended on a straight energy basis but what components (and their effects) in the black tea are removed by adding milk, sugar and spices?

To start with, tea is perfectly good for you.  Adding milk (fat, protein, lactose) is not a minus.  Adding sugar is so-so but fine in moderation.  Adding spices is not going to be a negative.  The antioxidant advocates will say that they are a plus.  It's hard to see a downside.

Without knowing what the implied special benefits of black tea are specifically, it is not possible to know what is open to being robbed from the tea.  I suspect nothing.

In the end, food should not be regarded as a medicine.  Eat and drink in moderation.  Eat and drink for pleasure.  I do not believe that there are any super foods, nor any magic bullets.  Just because some foods contain components that are bad for you in excess (eg nutmeg) it does not mean that the contrary, that some foods are exceptionally good for you, is true.  The universe doesn't work that way.

Start your day happy, with a Masala Chai.
...