Still, I was pretty shocked when I came across some recent statistics about how much protein we’re actually eating. Rather than being protein deficient, many of us are practically swimming in it. The average woman consumes somewhere between 70 and 77 grams a day, while a typical guy inhales 102 to 111 grams. To put that into perspective, that’s 15 to 45 percent more than most of us need according to current guidelines. And although many people think those recommendations are on the low side, it’s still fair to say that we’re hardly protein deficient.

When it comes to protein, the problem isn’t how much we eat, it’s how we eat it. Most of us start the day with a protein-empty, carb-heavy bagel or muffin. At lunch, we might nibble on a salad or sandwich. Then — boom! — dinner often is a big hunk of meat, chicken or fish. The trouble is, our bodies can’t store protein, so most of that dinnertime protein gets broken down and excreted.

There is a better way. By feeding your body a steady stream of protein at each meal you’ll be able to reap its benefits all day long.  Try to eat roughly 20 to 30 grams at every meal. Here’s a snapshot of what that would look like.

• Breakfast: one single-serve container of nonfat plain Greek yogurt, 1 cup fresh berries and 2 tablespoons sliced almonds
• Lunch: Fish tacos with cilantro lime slaw (recipe below)
• Dinner: Balsamic turkey cutlets with Swiss chard (recipe below)

Easy, right? Just keep in mind that for maximum results you’ll want to combine this with a few sessions of muscle-building exercise such as weight training a few times a week.

Fish Tacos with Cilantro Lime Slaw

Serves 2

Ingredients

Cilantro Lime Slaw:

• 1½ tablespoons fresh lime juice
• 1 tablespoon rice wine vinegar
• 1 tablespoon canola oil
• 1 teaspoon sugar
• ¼ teaspoon salt
• ¼ teaspoon pepper
• 1½ teaspoons lime zest
• 3 cups shredded cabbage or coleslaw mix
• 2 tablespoons chopped fresh cilantro

Fish tacos:

• 8 ounces firm white fish such as tilapia
• ¼ teaspoon chili powder
• ¼ teaspoon ground cumin
• ⅛ teaspoon salt
• ⅛ teaspoon pepper
• Non-stick cooking spray
• 4 6-inch corn tortillas

Directions

1. In a medium bowl, whisk together lime juice, rice vinegar, canola oil, sugar, salt, pepper and lime zest. Add shredded cabbage and cilantro. Toss well and set aside.
2. Season fish with chili powder, cumin, salt and pepper.
3. Spray a griddle pan or large sauté pan with non-stick spray and heat over medium-high heat. Add fish and cook 6 to 8 minutes (until fish is opaque and flakes easily), turning halfway.
4. Divide fish among tortillas. Top with coleslaw and serve.

Balsamic Turkey Cutlets with Swiss Chard

Serves 2

Ingredients

• 4 teaspoons canola oil, divided
• 8 cups Swiss chard, stems removed and roughly chopped
• ¼ cup low-sodium chicken or vegetable broth
• 2 tablespoons balsamic vinegar, divided
• 2 tablespoons golden raisins
• Dash nutmeg
• ¼ teaspoon salt, divided
• ¼ teaspoon pepper, divided
• 2 5-ounce turkey breast cutlets
• 1 clove thinly sliced garlic

Directions

1. Heat 2 teaspoons canola oil in a large sauté pan over medium heat. Add Swiss chard, broth, 1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar, raisins, nutmeg and half the salt and pepper. Sauté until wilted, about 5 minutes. Set aside.
2. Season turkey cutlets with remaining salt and pepper.
3. Heat remaining oil in a large sauté pan over medium heat. Add turkey and cook 6 minutes, turning halfway, until turkey is golden brown and cooked through.
4. Add garlic to pan and stir briefly for 30 seconds. Remove pan from heat and add remaining balsamic vinegar. Stir well until turkey cutlets are coated with vinegar.
5. Divide Swiss chard between 2 plates. Top each with 1 turkey cutlet and serve.

As the coordinator of community health resources at Saint Vincent’s Hospital in New York City, she had received a grant from the New York State Department of Health to improve nutrition access in the West Village. She decided to dive into uncharted territory, establishing the West Village CSA, a community supported agriculture organization that would provide local, seasonal produce to the community.

Overcoming Obstacles

In those days, it wasn’t always an easy sell. “Now that everything is [more focused on] local and sustainable, it’s a lot easier,” says Fuchs, who today owns a nutrition consulting firm. “But back then, we really had to take a grassroots approach recruiting members through street fairs, fliers and word of mouth.”

Today, many CSAs nationwide are playing a role in reaching out to communities in need through healthy food and nutrition education. Yet to successfully serve low-income communities, particularly those in food deserts, there are obstacles to overcome.

First, there’s the issue of location. Between bare-bones budgets and only requiring a few hours a week for distribution, community-supported agriculture typically is dependent on other organizations to donate space—such as an empty lot, community center or church basement—where CSA members can pick up their shares (boxes of produce, as in their “share” of the harvest). In order to be accessible to low-income members, the distribution location also needs to be in close proximity to their neighborhood. Many CSAs partner with places of worship, schools, community gardens or YMCAs.

In addition, finding ways to help low-income members pay for their shares requires creativity, especially since many CSAs require payment in advance to help offset the investment on the part of the farmers providing the produce.

The Dollars and Sense

“It can be hard for members to pay upfront if they are living from paycheck to paycheck,” says Paula Lukats, program manager for Just Food, an organization that connects New York City communities and local farms through sustainable food programs including CSAs, community-run farmers’ markets, and farm-to-food pantry programs.

“We’re always striving to strike a balance between making fresh, healthy, locally produced food affordable and accessible to community members, while also ensuring that farmers receive fair payment for the food they produce.”

Just Food has found success in offering two- or three-tiered sliding scale systems based on family income. In a typical three-tiered system, families with a household income below $35,000 would pay $350 for a whole share, while those with incomes between $35,000 and $65,000 would pay $450 per share. Families with incomes of more than $65,000 would pay the top tier rate of $550 per share.

“The sliding scale payment systems work best in mixed-income neighborhoods where some people can pay more for their share and others pay less,” says Lukats. “Most CSAs don’t ask for proof of income, opting to trust people to choose the level that works best for their family. People are very generous and value that their CSA is accessible to the full community, so groups usually don’t have trouble finding people who will pay the higher share cost.”

Others develop a payment structure where qualifying members can pay over time instead of up front. These payments may be made in two ways: The first is in installments that must be paid in full by the beginning of the growing season, and the second is in installments that are spread throughout the season. While this can be extremely helpful to families who might not otherwise be able to pay the full share price in advance, it can be a drawback for farmers who don’t receive as much startup money to prepare for the season.

In addition, some CSAs have been able to plug into the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, giving SNAP participants the opportunity to use their benefit dollars for CSA produce. One example is the Long Island City CSA—run out of the Hour Children Food Pantry.

“We are a client-choice food pantry, which runs twice a week and helps over 250 families weekly,” says Abigael Chagnon Burke, co-site coordinator and core group coordinator for the LIC CSA. Burke is a second year Anti-Hunger and Empowerment AmeriCorps member at Hour Children, which serves one of the largest public housing developments in the country. “We strive to move clients away from food pantries through benefits access and nutrition education.”

The LIC CSA has seen big benefits by helping members use their EBT/SNAP cards. Members who use these are not required to pay membership dues nor do they need to pay upfront. Instead they make one weekly payment using their EBT/SNAP card at an EBT machine supplied by the New York Coalition Against Hunger.

And the easier those food stamps are to use the more low-income families benefit. A study published earlier this year in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that enabling farmers market vendors to collect SNAP payments via an electronic point-of-sale system saw a 38-percent increase in the amount of fresh produce purchased by SNAP participants.

The Community Connection

Making produce easier to use is key to successfully reaching lower-income members. “When you get beets five weeks in a row, you really need new ways to use them, even if you love them,” says Fuchs. “So a huge piece of reducing spoilage is showing people how to use the produce they receive.”

Many CSAs have weekly newsletters with recipes, preparation instructions and tips to reduce spoilage. Others have initiatives built around food education, such as Just Food’s CSA Chef Program, where members attend cooking demonstrations and can learn about local, seasonal eating and cooking, fruit and vegetable identification, and food storage and preparation.

CSAs rely on a strong sense of community to keep members of all income levels engaged—organizing pot luck suppers, farm trips, weekly chats and recipe sharing.

“Helping connect the community to the farmers who grow their food and bringing high-quality, local, organic produce to an urban neighborhood which would otherwise lack proper food access,” says Abigael Burke, “is an incredibly rewarding experience.”

In those days, it wasn't always an easy sell. "Now that everything is [more focused on] local and sustainable, it's a lot easier," says Fuchs, who today owns a nutrition consulting firm. "But back then, we really had to take a grassroots approach, recruiting members through street fairs, fliers and word of mouth."

Today, many CSAs nationwide are reaching communities in need through healthy food and nutrition education. Yet to successfully serve low-income communities, particularly those in food deserts, there are obstacles to overcome.

First, there's the issue of location. Between bare-bones budgets and a limited distribution schedule, CSAs typically depend on other organizations to donate space — such as an empty lot, community center or church basement — where members can pick up their shares (boxes of produce, as in their "share" of the harvest). In order to be accessible to low-income members, the distribution location also needs to be in close proximity to their neighborhoods. Many CSAs partner with places of worship, schools, community gardens or YMCAs.

In addition, finding ways to help low-income members pay for their shares demands creativity, especially since many CSAs require payment in advance to help offset the investment on the part of the farmers providing the produce.

The Dollars and Sense

"It can be hard for members to pay up front if they are living from paycheck to paycheck," says Paula Lukats, program manager for Just Food, an organization that connects New York City communities and local farms through sustainable food programs, including CSAs, community-run farmers markets and farm-to-food pantry programs.

Learn more about the Just Food Conference 2013 — happening March 29 and 30 in New York City.

"We're always striving to strike a balance between making fresh, healthy, locally produced food affordable and accessible to community members, while also ensuring that farmers receive fair payment for the food they produce," says Lukats.

Just Food has found success in offering two- or three-tiered sliding scale systems based on family income. In a typical three-tiered system, families with a household income less than $35,000 would pay $350 for a whole share, while those with incomes between $35,000 and $65,000 would pay $450 per share. Families with incomes of more than $65,000 would pay the top-tier rate of $550 per share.

"The sliding scale payment systems work best in mixed-income neighborhoods where some people can pay more for their share and others pay less," says Lukats. "Most CSAs don't ask for proof of income, opting to trust people to choose the level that works best for their family. People are very generous and value that their CSA is accessible to the full community, so groups usually don't have trouble finding people who will pay the higher share cost."

Others develop a payment structure where qualifying members can pay over time instead of up front. These payments may be made in two ways: The first is in installments that must be paid in full by the beginning of the growing season, and the second is in installments spread throughout the season. While this can be extremely helpful to families who might not otherwise be able to pay the full share price in advance, it can be a drawback for farmers who don't receive as much startup money to prepare for the season.

In addition, some CSAs have been able to plug into the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, giving SNAP participants the opportunity to use their benefit dollars for CSA produce. One example is the Long Island City CSA — run out of the Hour Children Food Pantry. "We are a client-choice food pantry, which runs twice a week and helps over 250 families weekly," says Abigael Chagnon Burke, core group volunteer for the LIC CSA. Burke is a food pantry coordinator and development assistant at Hour Children, which serves one of the largest public housing developments in the country. "We strive to move clients away from food pantries through benefits access and nutrition education."

The LIC CSA has seen big benefits by helping members use their EBT/SNAP cards. Members who use these cards are not required to pay membership dues, nor do they need to pay up front. Instead, they make one weekly payment using their EBT/SNAP card at an EBT machine supplied by the New York Coalition Against Hunger.

And the easier those food stamps are to use, the more low-income families benefit. A study published in the May 2012 Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that enabling farmers market vendors to collect SNAP payments via an electronic point-of-sale system saw a 38-percent increase in the amount of fresh produce purchased by SNAP participants.

The Community Connection

Showing people how to prepare fruits and vegetables is key to successfully reaching lower-income members. "When you get beets five weeks in a row, you really need new ways to use them, even if you love them," says Fuchs. "So a huge piece of reducing spoilage is showing people how to use the produce they receive."

Many CSAs have weekly newsletters with recipes, preparation instructions and tips to reduce spoilage. Others have initiatives built around food education, such as Just Food's CSA Chef Program, where members attend cooking demonstrations and can learn about local, seasonal eating and cooking, fruit and vegetable identification, and food storage and preparation.

CSAs rely on a strong sense of community to keep members of all income levels engaged — organizing pot luck suppers, farm trips, weekly chats and recipe sharing. "Helping connect the community to the farmers who grow their food and bringing high-quality, local, organic produce to an urban neighborhood which would otherwise lack proper food access," says Burke, "is an incredibly rewarding experience."

Current Labeling Regulations

“Because the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require labels on genetically modified foods or foods with genetically engineered ingredients, those people who are concerned can’t rely on most food labels to give them the facts,” says Elisa Zied, MS, RD, president of Zied Health Communications, LLC, in New York City.

There are a few exceptions. The FDA does requires labeling if the engineered food differs substantially from the original food in terms of its composition or nutrition content, if it contains dangerous levels of toxic compounds or if a new allergen has been introduced:

• If a bioengineered food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart such that the common or usual name no longer adequately describes the new food, the name must be changed to describe the difference.
• If an issue exists for the food or a constituent of the food regarding how the food is used or consequences of its use, a statement must be made on the label to describe the issue.
• If a bioengineered food has a significantly different nutritional property, its label must reflect the difference.
• If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.

Nonetheless, for some people, a lack of clear GE/GM identification on food products makes it difficult for shoppers to make informed decisions. In response to “Monsanto Develops Sweet Corn for Consumers” in the Fall 2011 issue of ADA Times, Joan A. Marn, MS, RD, LD/N, clinical instructor in the department of dietetics and nutrition at Florida International University writes: “You report that ‘Modified for resistance to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and certain insects, the new corn will not be labeled with Monsanto's name or be labeled as a genetically modified food.’ What an outrage! We don't even know what GM foods are doing in our bodies, and to have Monsanto hide their name and not label it GM is beyond unacceptable; it is deceptive.”

Marn is not alone in this sentiment. When asked if they are in favor of mandatory labeling of GE foods, many consumers generally say yes. However, responses to more specific questions about food biotechnology compared to other food safety issues show a different attitude. In a 2008 International Food Information Council survey, 79 percent of people ranked contamination and food safety as their biggest concerns, while only 1 percent chose biotechnology as their leading food confidence issue.

The Expense of Labeling

“In the same way there is a difference in price between organic and non-organic foods, mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods would carry a price differentiation,” says Terry Etherton, PhD, department head and professor of animal nutrition at Penn State University. Just as there is a cost of ensuring that foods are grown or raised organically, there would also be an additional cost for ensuring that a food did not contain GMO ingredients, which the producer would have to pass onto the consumer. Because products have to be controlled to be either organic or non-GMO before they can be labeled, the costs are linked.

And American consumers may not be willing to pay up. A 2001 Bruskin Research National Opinion Poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that 44 percent of respondents would be unwilling to pay more money for the labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. And in a 2002 Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics study, researchers polled both Norwegians and Americans about their concerns regarding GE foods: 36 percent of Norwegians stated that price would impact their decision whether or not to buy genetically engineered foods compared to 67 percent of Americans.

An economic burden associated with mandatory labeling could change the variety of foods available on supermarket shelves, according to Etherton. Rather than passing on the costs to consumers through increased pricing, some manufacturers may opt not to produce foods that contain GE ingredients at all, shrinking our choices at the grocery store.

On the other hand, the price pendulum could swing in the other direction, says Beth Stark, RD, LDN, healthy living coordinator for Pennsylvania-based Weis Supermarkets. “While consumers are becoming more savvy about genetically engineered foods, there’s still a huge amount of public uncertainty about their safety,” says Stark.

Options for Consumers

“If you’re looking to avoid or minimize these ingredients because of health or other concerns, look for products that contain labeling certifying that they’re not genetically engineered,” says Zied.

The Non-GMO Project, a Bellingham, Wash.-based organization, provides third-party verification for manufacturers who voluntarily label products as free of genetically engineered ingredients. To earn the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal, foods must be in compliance with the European Union requirements.

A second option is to buy food that is certified organic. According to USDA regulations,foods and ingredients labeled organic cannot be produced using biotechnology.

Still, cautions Zied, birds, pollens, and other environmental forces and factors could potentially cross-seed crops. “These seals cannot guarantee that organic products or those with the Non-GMO Project Verified seal are 100-percent GE free,” says Zied, “but they may provide an added layer of assurance.”