Skip to content

Playing With Your Food: Gluten Free Diet Fad

One of the most fortunate parts of living in a rich and prosperous part of the world is having the luxury of turning down food. In North America, because we have so much food, many have become picky eaters. The better and more available our food becomes it seems the more of our food many refuse to eat. Most of the world might be starving, but many here are obsessed about losing the extra weight he or she might have, or paranoid about some harmless food additive. Much of this nonsense can be seen in diet fads. The latest is the gluten free diet craze.

"Gluten free". One sees these two words a lot today. Everything is "gluten free" it seems; even a pork roast. Ask people who are on gluten free diets what gluten is, and you might get a variety of answers: it is a chemical, it makes people sick, it makes people fat, it causes autism, or cancer, or small pox, or cholera, or rabies, or the plague, or it makes moths to fly into bright lights at night, or deer to run out in front of moving cars. That fact is, most people who eat "gluten free" do not even know what gluten is. Let us find out what gluten is by first looking up the word "gluten" in the dictionary.

gluten |ˈgluːt(ə)n|

noun

a substance present in cereal grains, esp. wheat, that is responsible for the elastic texture of dough. A mixture of two proteins, it causes illness in people with celiac disease.

ORIGIN late 16th cent. (originally denoting protein from animal tissue): via French from Latin, literally ‘glue.’

Oxford Dictionary

Here we see the problem, it is "celiac disease". Some people think gluten causes celiac disease. No, gluten "…causes illness in people with celiac disease.". Celiac disease is hereditary. What is celiac disease?

celiac disease

noun

a disease in which chronic failure to digest food is triggered by hypersensitivity of the small intestine to gluten.

Oxford Ditionary

Since so much of our food is now gluten free, then a lot of people must have celiac disease, right? No, only about 1 percent of the population has celiac disease. For about 99 percent of people gluten is harmless when ingested. Lets now look at some bakery information. This is from a manual for a home bread making machine.

Gluten:

"… a natural protein found in wheat that gives bread its chewy texture and and high volume."

"An elastic substance that is developed from protein when wheat flour is combined with a liquid and then mixed or kneaded."

"Helps give bread its cellular structure"

"Whole wheat flour contains the bran and germ from the wheat kernal. It is lower in gluten..."

If you have experience in baking, you know the importance of gluten when baking bread. The flour is combined with water, and then mixed and kneaded. If you knead the dough by hand, you can feel the gluten forming when the dough starts to feel elastic like. The reason you must knead dough as part of bakery process is it forms gluten. Why is gluten important?

"Kneading the dough makes the gluten elastic enough to form the structure of the bread"

"When the dough has been well-kneaded, the gluten forms thin elastic strands that make up the structure of the bread. As the yeast develops and multiplies, it produces carbon dioxide gas. The gas becomes trapped in the gluten strands, forming bubbles. As these bubbles collect, the dough expands and rises."

"The gluten strands are now strong enough to support the loaf. The yeast will once again produce carbon dioxide gas and the dough will rise to maximum height."

Some people who know little about baking find out very soon when baking gluten free bread that it does not rise like regular bread because there is not enough gluten in the dough. 

Hard wheat has a higher gluten content, and so it is usually used for bread making because most bread needs to rise. Whole wheat bread usually needs to have gluten added to the recipe. Soft wheat has a lower gluten content, so it is usually used for pastry. 

To reduce gluten in baking, fat (shortening, butter, margarine, vegetable oil) is added. A gluten free diet is likely a higher fat diet. 

If you are not allergic to peanuts, you can eat peanuts. If you are not lactose intolerant, you can eat dairy products. If you do not have celiac disease, gluten will not harm you.

Gluten free is not for me. 

I have added MSG to this post because MSG is similar to gluten in that many people disapprove of MSG without even knowing what MSG is.

MSG

abbreviation

monosodium glutamate.

monosodium glutamate |mɒnə(ʊ)ˈsəʊdɪəm| (abbr.: MSG)

noun

a compound that occurs naturally as a breakdown product of proteins and is used as a flavor enhancer in food (although itself tasteless).

A traditional ingredient in Asian cooking, it was originally obtained from seaweed but is now mainly made from bean and cereal protein.

Chem. formula: HOOC(CH 2) 2 (NH 2)COONa.

Oxford Dictionary

© Trevor Dailey

References:

National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NDDIC)

The Science Of Cooking: Gluten

Citizen Bread Maker Manual

Wikipedia: Gluten-free diet

Legends Over London Jet Festival 2014 Brief Review

The first annual Legends Over London Jet Festival, presented by the Jet Aircraft Museum, took place on July 19 and 20, 2014. The show was sponsored by local business, and the London Health Sciences Foundation was the charity benefiting from the proceeds of the event. It was a limited ticket sale of about 3500 tickets for each day.

Although this show was a much smaller show from the years gone by when the London International Air Show hosted tens of thousands of people over a weekend with aircraft counted in tens it was well received by the public. The last time London saw an air show was ten years ago in 2004. 

As a two day attendee of the show, and a member of the Jet Aircraft Museum, I will give my personal review of the 2014 Legends Over London. The following is the sole opinion of the author.

The Good

It was a fantastic turn out. A large number of people attended the show.

The volunteers who helped out with the show were absolutely professional and experienced. The Public Safety crew and the E.M.S. (Emergency Medical Services) crew all were outstanding in quality. Events like this do not happen without high quality and dedicated volunteers. The volunteers make the show happen, and these volunteers did the job they were asked to do.

Cost of the show was reasonable, I think, at $10 per ticket, plus $5 for on site parking.

On site parking was well organized, from what I could see, as I watched the vehicles flow in for the show. The parking was right outside of the fenced boundary of the show grounds, so walking a long distance, or boarding a shuttle bus to and from the show grounds, was not necessary.

The vendors and the small Midway for the children were all within easy walking distance on the show grounds. This made it a lot easier for families with kids, I think. There was no difficulty in finding a place to sit and watch the show, and every place on the shows grounds was close enough to the runway that it was impossible to miss anything flying if you were off buying some food, or you were with the kids at the midway. Every spot was a good seat.

Pilots in the flying display were skilled and professional, and it showed in the air. The pilots were of very high quality, and a couple of the air displays were very creative.

The show did not go ahead on Saturday because of the poor weather, but those who purchased tickets for Saturday were given the opportunity to return on Sunday when the weather allowed for the flying display.

The Bad

Saturday was a washout because of the low cloud cover and the rain. It was wet and cold. Something learned was in that kind of weather those who did come out would have appreciated hot coffee, or another hot beverage, but none of the vendors had any. I think it would be a good idea to always have a poor weather menu ready if you are a vendor so the day is not a total loss.

Although the Canadian Harvard Association aerobatic display team was outstanding, the commentary was an almost direct copy of the commentary script used by the famous Snowbirds team with even the same rhythm and tone as the Snowbirds' commentary. Some of the lines were directly lifted from the Snowbirds' show commentary. To me, it smacked of plagiarism. The Harvard aerial display had manoeuvres that the Snowbirds have used, but unless the Snowbird created those acrobatic manoeuvres, anyone can use them in their performance.

Scripted commentary from the announcer was annoying at times. She even used one old bad announcer air show joke I had heard before at other air shows regarding lost children.

And the Ugly

Rock concert or Air Show? From long before the gates opened to after the last act had concluded, the loud speakers blasted loud music from obnoxiously loud speakers directed at the spectators. Many people complained about the constant music that soon became unwanted noise to the people who were trying to have a conversation with someone, but the loudspeakers were making it difficult to hear people speak. It was not a large venue, and the sound system did not need to be at a stadium filling volume.

Air Show commentary is something I have long disliked. The stupid jokes, the constant bad morning radio show chatter, the person who has a microphone and thinks he or she needs to be talking into it all of the time, the missed cues, the wrong announcements during the flying display because the announcer wasn't paying attention to the show Air Boss on the radio, etc..

Music and commentary is fine during a display if that is what the performer wants, but nobody is going to leave the show because the music volume level is set at a background level, or someone is not talking over the loudspeakers before the show starts, or between acts.

Some photographers carry scanner receivers with them to hear the show Air Boss so they know what is going on because they find the air show announcer annoying or unhelpful.

Conclusion

Overall, I think it was a very good show, and I am looking forward to seeing next year.

© Trevor Dailey

Legends Over London

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

London, Ontario's Garbage Bag Tax

Most citizens willingly accept a municipal tax on their garbage. Yes, a garbage tax. Most people buy into the "green religion" so "environmental" taxes are easy to create with few people questioning the value of such things. What is a garbage bag tax?

A garbage bag tax when the municipality you live in allows a homeowner to only put a certain number of garbage bags out for municipal waste collection. Any bags over the limit allowed will not be collected unless a special tag is attached showing that the homeowner paid to have the bag collected. This is a garbage bag tax.

The City of London Ontario has a current 4 bag limit before a homeowner must pay the garbage bag tax, and here is the problem for the tax and spend London City Council. There isn't enough tax revenue for the City to waste, so the City Councillors are always looking for new ways to tax the citizens of London. Few people would stand for a tax on their garbage so "greenwash" is applied to deceive people.

The first garbage tax, although indirect, was recycling through the Blue Box programme. Municipalities used "greenwash" to convince the citizens that in order to save landfill space, something that is not a problem (With compaction at the [London] landfill an average family’s yearly garbage is reduced to 1 cubic metre (a space about the size of your refrigerator)), people needed to spend their valuable time sorting through their garbage and separate the recyclables to reduce the waste stream. The scheme was to get citizens to sort their garbage, for free, and give any valuable recycling material, mostly aluminium, to the City. The Municipalities would make money by selling the recyclable material it got for free. The City takes money from the people by force, all tax is by force, to provide a so-called service of recycling, and uses the "service" solely to generate more money for the City. It did not work.

Anything of value is going to be picked out of the garbage by people. This has always been true recycling. Aluminum, mostly in the form of soda cans, is one such material that can be sold for a decent amount of money. Paper, plastic and glass are not worth it. Most recyclables end up in the landfill because it is cheaper to send it there than to recycle it. One of the most valuable materials in household garbage, aluminum soda cans, was being given to charities, or scavenged from the blue boxes at night by people. This left the Municipalities with less than what they planned they would get. The next scheme was to tax non recyclable garbage.

A garbage bag tax seems like an easy way of generating revenue for a Municipality. Charge citizens to have their garbage collected, even though the citizens are already paying property taxes for garbage collection, "greenwash" it, and nobody will question it. This tax worked for a while until households reduced the number of garbage bags they put out at the curb, and few households were over the limit anymore. This meant the City was again seeing a decline in the garbage tax revenue.

The City of London, for example, came up with the idea to only have garbage collection once every two weeks instead of every week. This, the City reasoned, would force households to go over the bag limit and pay the garbage bag tax. It did not matter to the City Councillors that the citizens of London are paying more in property taxes each year, but getting less in municipal services, and the City was making the citizens to pay twice for garbage collection. Once again, things were not going according to plan as this did not increase the number of garbage bags put out at the curb. The City tried other things, like bag weight limits, to try to force citizens to use more garbage bags, and go over the limit, but nothing really worked.

London City Councillors are now deciding if they will force households to pay the garbage bag tax by lowering the bag limit to as low as two bags of garbage before households must pay the garbage bag tax to have their garbage collected.

It should be noted that those living in apartment buildings, and many businesses, are not subject to this garbage bag tax. Likely because the City of London has not thought of a scheme yet to tax all garbage; however, I am sure London City Councillors are working hard at it.

Some argue garbage collection costs the city money to provide, so it is reasonable to charge people for the service. The answer to this is to privatize garbage collection, let each homeowner hire a company to pick up their garbage, and the city will not have to pay for garbage collection. But municipal services are not about service anymore, they are about generating revenue for the city.   

© Trevor Dailey

London Transit Commission: Tax Money To Burn

My car is a used car that cost me $3000 when I bought it in 2009. It is small, and is a 2004 model. It was all the car I could afford. Before I bought my car, I used public transit for many years. I have not used public transit since buying my car. 

If you want an example of the City of London burning the money it takes in taxes from its citizens then here is one: The London Transit Commission.   

SERVICE HIGHLIGHTS: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Operating Overview

The City of London’s 2014 Approved Tax Supported Budget for Transportation Services is $61.4 million representing a $1.0 million or 1.8% increase from rates and $4.2 million increase in cost associated with servicing an expanding/growing City. 

2014 Approved Budget Breakdown

Roadways 62.5%

Public Transit 42.5%

Parking 5.0%

$26,096,000 for Public Transit (Conventional Transit Services)

Net Property Tax Supported: $22,234,000 (Conventional Transit Services)

Emphasis added

Source: 2014 Budget 

Using: Plan Your Trip With Google Maps

London public transit directions to work by 08:00 hrs. Monday to Friday only. No full bus service on Saturday. Approximately 10 km distance.

Leave home (on 3 major bus routes) at 06:30 hrs. Any later departure and arrival at work will be after 08:00 hrs.

Walk about 1 km to bus stop.

Board bus and travel for approximately 21 minutes.

Disembark bus and walk about 150 metres to bus stop to catch transfer bus that is due at stop in about 17 minutes.

Board transfer bus and travel for about 7 minutes.

Disembark bus and walk 300 meters to work (Built up industrial area serviced by 1 "peak hours only" bus route).

Travel time: about 1 hour.

Car directions to work by 08:00 hrs. Monday to Saturday. Approximately 10 km distance.

Leave home about 07:30 hrs.

Drive approximately 15 minutes.

Park car in parking lot at work.

Travel time: about 15 minutes

© Trevor Dailey

Explaining Liberal Ontario Electricity

Ontario's electricity company was started with just one employee named, Hydro who was dependable, and hard working. Over the coming years, the demand for electricity increased, and another employee was hired. This employee was named, Coal. Like Hydro, Coal was dependable and hard working. As the demand for electricity continued to expand, the Company hired a third employee named, Nuclear. As with Hydro, and Coal, Nuclear was dependable, and hard working. These three employees stayed with the Company over the years, always dependable, and always hard working. Customers were served with the electricity they wanted. Then things began to change.

The Liberal government now owns the Company, and decided the Company would be better off without Coal. A decision was made to terminate Coal's employment with the Company. Always improving, Coal was more efficient and harder working at the time Coal was dismissed from the Company. Coal was forced from the Company, but the work Coal did still needed to be done. So the Liberal government gave Coal's old job to two of the Liberal government's close friends named, Wind and Solar. These two new employees were not experienced nor skilled in the job like Coal was. They also have a different work ethic than Coal.

Wind and Solar both come into work whenever they want, and work however long as they want. Wind and Solar turned out to not be dependable and hard working like Coal was. They worked out their own high pay rate with the Liberal government who was more than happy to give them special treatment, and more pay for less work. Because the poor work rate of Wind and Solar, the Liberal's had to find a way to get the work done Wind and Solar was not doing. Gas was hired by the Liberals to do the work Wind and Solar would not do. Gas has been put on call to work when Wind and Solar are late, do not show up for their shifts, decide to work odd hours, or go home early.

Because of the lack of productivity of Wind and Solar, the special treatment, and the high wages they demand, the Company is forced to pass on the cost of Wind and Solar to the customers. This contributes to the rise in electricity prices in Ontario.

Hydro and Nuclear still work for the Company, and remain as dependable and as hard working as ever, but Coal is gone replaced by three new workers who do the work Coal did once did alone for a lower price. Some are still hopeful one day dependable, hard working, and now even more efficient Coal will return to the Company to do the good work Coal once did for the benefit of the electricity customers of Ontario.

© Trevor Dailey

Where is my Electricity Coming From at this Hour? (if I live in Ontario)

The Levered Choice

The doorknobs are strewn across the desk. She selects one, and holds it up.

"A lot of people like this one" she says, turning the knob slightly back and forth to demonstrate the device. Putting it down, she grabs another one.

"This is another popular one. There are so many, it is hard to say which one is the best" she says.

The selection of doorknobs is impressive. Every design type one could imagine. All in different sizes and styles. I ask her what she thinks of the doorknob ban that will replace all doorknobs with a door lever.

"Asinine" she says as she shakes her head with annoyance. "It is a solution to a problem that will never exist. It is just another chip out of our freedom, out of our self determination. A way for politicians to get votes who are only really thinking of getting themselves elected. Ever notice how these stupid things always show up around an election? Or how they get sneaked in behind the voters' back? Politicians just want to leave a mark, a legacy, no matter how dumb or damaging it is. Communism is by force, and socialism is by vote."

I tell her she doesn't have to paraphrase Ayn Rand to me. I tell her about the benefits of the ban, how it will make life easier for the elderly and the disabled.

"Really?!" she says, "Is every elderly or disabled person the same? They all have the same needs? They are all helpless?

I mention older people with arthritis, and how a lever would be easier to use than a doorknob.

"How do you know that?" she asks. "Do you have arthritis? Is arthritis the same for everyone? Have you asked all the elderly and disabled people if they want a doorknob or a door lever?"

I reply that of course I haven't.

"Then how do you know what they want?" she says. "Why do you even think anyone, especially a politician, a bureaucrat, or an administration knows what is best for anyone else?"

She turns her chair, and takes a door lever from behind her. Turning back to the desk, she takes one of the doorknobs in the other hand, and holds them both above the desk as she shows them to me.

"This is one choice, " she says referring to the doorknob "and this is another choice" she says referring the the lever door handle. "Everyone has always had the choice of one or the other; and the thumb latch if we want to bring that one in to the mix, too. The point is, what is wrong with people having a choice?"

There is nothing wrong with choice, I tell her, but society needs to be all inclusive, to include everyone regardless of age or disability.

"Society doesn't owe you anything" she says, "Society isn't 'inclusive' when government takes away the rights of people."

I tell her the ban only applies to public buildings, and to newly constructed buildings. The doorknobs already in place in house will be permitted to stay.

"That's wonderful" she says, "the government is going to allow me to keep the doorknobs on my existing home. How should I thank the government for granting me this privilege? And what about new homes? Are the elderly and the disabled buying a lot of new homes these days? If someone does not like the doorknob on their door, there is nobody stopping them from removing it and putting a lever door handle, a thumb latch, or a piece of rope, or chain, or whatever they want in its place. People buy new homes and change things about the house all the time."

I remind her it is just a doorknob.

"That's right, it is just a doorknob. A doorknob the government is using force against me to make me not use. And if I do, the government will use the power of law to fine me, or even imprison me, for installing a doorknob. I can be fined or imprisoned for installing a doorknob."

Nobody is going to go to jail for using a door knob I tell her.

"Then why is there a law?" she says, "What you you think the punishment for installing a doorknob should be?"

I tell her this doorknob ban is a good thing, it is the right thing to do.

"It isn't the right thing to do," she says, "A 'good thing' done by force is never a 'good thing'."

I tell her she has been reading too much Ayn Rand, and that she doesn't understand they way the world is today.

"We shall see," she says, "We shall see."

© Trevor Dailey

London, Ontario's Howard Roark?

In the city of London, Ontario, there are a few impressive looking buildings, and many of these buildings have been part of London for many decades, or more than a century.

Some Londoners look at these relics of a bygone society as examples of architecture that needs to be preserved because buildings are just not designed like that anymore. This is true.

What is built in the city today appears to be mostly unprepossessing, myopic designs that have replaced the beauty of the inspiring designs of yesterday, if anything is even built at all.

If you want to know why development in the city of London is is such a deplorable state, the answer may be here:

Just Right July 10, 2014 Audio 60 minutes

Guest: Arnon Kaplansky – London Mayoral Candidate – Today’s Howard Roark?

© Trevor Dailey

Here We Go Again: London, Ontario, 2014 Municipal Election

London, Ontario is due for another municipal election in October of 2014. If you are like me, you find municipal politics either worth ignoring, or municipal politics makes you angry.

With a now former Mayor who was recently convicted of criminal offences, London just might get interesting debate on the hustings. Perhaps we will, but I expect more of the usual pork barrel politics.

If you are interested in voting in the October 2014 municipal election, then I recommend listening to these two radio shows from Just Right. Each radio show is about 60 minutes.

The "Little Boxes" song played on the following episode in its many versions might get annoying for the listener.

Just Right-274-November 1, 2012

GUEST: Orlando Zamprogna - Former Controller, Past Deputy-Mayor Of The City Of London

Just Right-324-October 31, 2013

GUEST: Ted Wernham, President, Wernham Wealth Management, Past Chair, London Transit Commission; Four-term member of London's City Council

Here is the 2014 City Budget:

City Council approved the 2014 Budget on Thursday, February 27th, 2014. The Budget was approved with a 2.8 per cent tax increase from rates which equates to an increase of approximately $66 to the average home assessed at $208,000. Please visit the Newsroom page at www.london.ca for more details.

© Trevor Dailey

I Am Not A Stupid (Beer) Consumer.

For as long as I can remember, back to when I was a kid, The Beer Store has had a 10¢ deposit on each beer bottle it sells, refundable on the return of the bottle to The Beer Store. As a kid, I can recall collecting discarded beer bottles from the ground and taking the bottles to The Beer Store to get the deposit. It had nothing to do with being "environmentally responsible" or other such nonsense, it was money on the ground. I was operating a small business, and like all businesses, profit is the most important part. Without profit, there is no business. 

The deposit on beer bottles was started in 1927 likely by the motivation for profit. It is sometimes less expensive to reuse as many bottles as possible than to make a new bottle each time. If the bottle is returned, the store refunds the deposit, and the brewery reuses the bottle. The consumer gets a little money that he or she might use toward the purchase of more beer, and this is a good business idea. If the bottle is not returned, the brewery keeps the deposit to help cover the cost of making a new bottle. If the bottle is returned, but is not reusable, the brewery sells the glass to a recycler, and that money might be used to go toward making a new bottle. It all makes good business sense. So what is wrong with that?

"We were green before green was cool. 94% of beer containers are recycled" is the new motto of The Beer Store regarding the return of empty bottles known as its "Empties Exchange". On the Beer Store website, there is no mention of the economic benefits of the refundable deposit for either the breweries or the consumers. It is all government initiated "greenwash". 

Glass bottles break fairly easily, and can be crushed and ground down into very small pieces, even a powder. Glass is largely made from sand, soda, and lime. Millions of beer bottles, already of a small size, in a landfill is meaningless.

Do not treat me like a fool. Do not try to deceive me by "going green" to try to get me to buy into the "cool green movement". Be honest, and tell me why the refundable bottle deposit is a good business model for the brewery, and for me as a consumer.

Tell me that because the bottle is of value to the brewery, the brewery will gladly refund the deposit for the return of the bottle. I have an empty bottle the brewery wants, and the brewery agrees to refund me the deposit on the return of the empty bottle. I agree to return the empty bottle for the refund of the deposit. This is a fair transaction. Stop pushing this "environmentalism" claptrap on me. I am not a stupid (beer) consumer. Go (away) green.

© Trevor Dailey