The next innovative ballpark food is set to hit Miller Park this season, as Milwaukee Brewers fans will have a chance to take a bite of the Inside The Park Nachos.

 

They feature a stick of beef, loaded with refried beans, rolled in Doritos, and then deep fried and drizzled with sour cream and cheese.

 

“We’ve sold nachos before, but some people don’t want to get messy,” said Jamie Hodgson, general manager of Miller Park hospitality for concessionaire Delaware North.

 

“I think this is going to be a big seller because you can eat this in one hand and have a beer in the other.”

 

Two other items will get the attention of Brewers fans. One is the Down Wisconsin Avenue Brat. It’s an 18-inch brat covered with gravy, French fries, cheese curds, cheese sauce, fried sauerkraut and jalapeños, then topped with sour cream and chives. The behemoth will cost $20.

 

“The smart fan knows that you pay for something like this by just splitting it, but we know there are going to be people that save it all for themselves,” Hodgson said.

The third star of the Miller Park menu this season is the Miller Park Bratchos, a take on the meat-based nachos that were popularized recently by the Green Bay Packers.

 

This version has four sausages — chorizo, Italian, Polish and bratwurst — cut up and served on top of kettle chips, sour cream, fried jalapeños and sauerkraut.

 

The Brewers will be competing for the item that gets the most buzz at major league ballparks this year. The leader in the clubhouse is the Arizona Diamondbacks, who are serving a Churro Dog, which is a churro inside a doughnut bun topped by a frozen yogurt sundae.

Source: Milwaukee Brewers offering deep-fried nachos on a stick at ballpark

There’s a researcher at the RAND Corporation who has been building a reputation as a curmudgeonly skeptic when it comes to trendy ways to fight America’s obesity epidemic.

First, Roland Sturm took aim at the idea that “food deserts” — areas without well-stocked grocery stores — cause unhealthy diets and obesity. His studies found that they do not. When Los Angeles decided in 2008 to ban new fast-food restaurants in some of the city’s poorest neighborhood, Sturm was skeptical that it would help lower obesity rates.

Now Sturm, an economist, has taken a close look at what LA’s fast-food ban has accomplished. He concludes in new paper published online by the journal Social Science & Medicine that there’s no evidence it had any effect at all. In fact, obesity rates in South Los Angeles and other neighborhoods the law was aimed at increased faster than in other parts of the city or other parts of the county.

Advocates of the measure saw it as a powerful tool to help improve diets. Opponents, like fast-food chains, said “the sky is falling,” Sturm tells The Salt. In reality, he says, “this has had no measurable impact.”

In part, he says, it’s because the fast-food ban took aim at an inconsequential target. It merely blocked new construction or expansion of “stand-alone fast-food” restaurants. Yet Sturm found that in South LA, the area covered by the ban, free-standing restaurants are relatively uncommon. They are far outnumbered by restaurants in strip malls and small food shops such as corner stores, none of which are restricted by the new city ordinance.

In the years since the ordinance was enacted, he says, the distribution of food outlets in this part of LA has remained more or less the same. Small corner stores are common, and so are fast-food restaurants in strip malls. No new free-standing fast-food restaurants have opened, but they were rare to start with.

Finally, he says, “social norms have not changed, either.” Surveys of diet and obesity show no changes that can be attributed to the new fast-food restrictions. Fast-food consumption and obesity rates continued to increase in all areas of LA from 2007 to 2011-2012, and the increase was greatest in the areas affected by the fast-food restrictions. There was one notable exception: Soda consumption declined, but this was true across the city, not just in South LA.

Barry Popkin, a professor of global nutrition at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says he wasn’t surprised at all by Sturm’s observations. “That little ban was just too trivial,” he tells The Salt. Many studies have now concluded that physical access to food “is less important than people think.”

Fat Thanks to Sona S. for the tip!

via Why Los Angeles’ Fast Food Ban Did Nothing To Check Obesity : The Salt : NPR.

Of all the issues the Obama administration is grappling with, a modest redesign of what food labels say about sweeteners might not have seemed among the more controversial. But ever since First Lady Michelle Obama unveiled the plan last year, a lobbying frenzy has ensued.

The objections have come not only from candy makers and bottlers of soft drinks.

The governor of Massachusetts implored the administration to rethink its proposal. The governor of Wisconsin protested too. So did the government of Australia, which warned the move could violate international trade agreements.

The proposal being considered by the Food and Drug Administration would add a new line to labels on packaged products noting how many teaspoons of sugar had been added.

The FDA’s problematic push for an added-sugar label on food

The furor over the idea reveals the extent to which extra sugar is infused into even the most unlikely foods and the concerns that manufacturers have about consumers finding out. The FDA has received 287,889 public comments on the plan, including many from major food companies and trade associations.

Nutrition advocates say the strong reaction shows just how much is at stake.

“They know this will impact how people choose their products, and that terrifies them,” said Renee Sharp, director of research for the Environmental Working Group, one of several advocacy groups campaigning for the label change.

But food industry representatives say the proposal is unwarranted. Current labels disclose the total amount of sugar in a product, combining what occurs naturally in a food and what is added during processing. Sugar is sugar, and no evidence justifies singling out one type for added labeling requirements, industry officials say.

“The lack of science to justify ‘added sugar’ labeling sets an alarming precedent,” the president of the Sugar Assn., Andrew Briscoe, wrote the administration.

Opponents warn of a slippery slope that starts with sugar but doesn’t end there. Any number of ingredients could be targeted next as a de facto warning to consumers, they say.

via Food industry waging a bitter battle over proposal on added-sugar labels – LA Times.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign Let’s Move is out with new advice for Americans: skip the buffet and stick to unsweetened tea.

The tips were introduced as part of Mrs. Obama’s “#GimmeFive challenge,” which is encouraging people to come up with five ways to be healthier for the fifth anniversary of Let’s Move.

President Barack Obama’s five ways to be healthy are jogging on stage to give a campaign speech, shooting a basketball, playing tennis, climbing the stairs to Air Force One, and lifting a baby, according to a video announcing the challenge.

“We all have to try harder to live a healthier life, but it’s important because these habits lead to a more fulfilling life,” Let’s Move said in a recent blog post. “On days when your family can’t cook at home follow these suggestions from USDA’s MyPlate.”

The suggestions include choosing water, fat-free milk, and unsweetened tea instead of soda, and asking for salad dressing to be served on the side. “Then use only as much as you want,” Let’s Move said.

“Choose a ‘small’ or ‘medium’ portion,” they said. “This includes main dishes, side dishes, and beverages.”

The recommendations also included opting for vegetable stir fries and kebobs, and steering clear of the buffet.

“Order an item from the menu instead heading for the ‘all-you-can-eat’ buffet,” Let’s Move said.

via Let’s Move: Skip the Buffet | Washington Free Beacon.