Nanny Nanny, Boo Boo.

 First, please read NPR's story about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's large sugary drink ban, then read my response.

 Health is relative to the person, not relative to the food. Let me repeat that: HEALTH IS RELATIVE TO THE PERSON, NOT RELATIVE TO THE FOOD. 

Too many calories are saved as fat. Too much sugar can lead to insulin problems. I know diabetic people that drink a minimum amt of pop or even none, and I know perfectly healthy, normal, people that drink a ton of Mtn Dew. HFCS is no different than sugar, which is the whole reason coke/Pepsi are able to use it instead of cane/beet sugar. 

I DO NOT support this because it's not going to work and it's too difficult to enforce. This sort of legislation is the exact sort of thing that the right cites when giving examples of left wing over-reach. It doesn't work, for one. This will amount to a tax on these drinks and we have seen that such measures do not impact levels of obesity. Why? Because people will just drink twice as much pop when they get home or eat more calories. 

Another problem is how can you possibly enforce this? Are regulators going to set up Cops In Shops style stings? What about people from outside of the city that purchase a big drink and bring it into NYC? Will their drinks be confiscated... or dumped out as some beat cop is writing out a ticket? This is nothing but a plan to shame people, which only serves to alienate them more and keep them inside where they shouldn't be if they are already way overweight. I know my progressive friends mean well, but you are going about this the wrong way and creating a group of people even more ignorant of science who shun ANYTHING that has an industry behind it.

Wonky Tonk

 Mark Bittman surrogate Ezra Klein devoted his Wonkbook writing today to the issue of animal antibiotics.  For those unaware, Klein is an exceptional policy wonk and something of a subject matter expert on politics.  I get his Wonkbook updates emailed to me daily.

I wrote about the need for more Subject Matter Experts a month and a half ago, but I was specific about the SME's needing to speak from their own area of expertise.  This is where I have a problem with Ezra Klein's Wonkbook entry.  Ezra IS something of a foodie and has written about experiences with Haute Cuisine in the past, but Ezra is not by any means a regular writer of, or expert in, food & ag issues.

He mentions how 70% of all antibiotics go towards animals, which I am not disputing.  I would say... as I have in the past that there is a simple explanation for this.  There are about 315,000,000 people in this country... but over a billion head of livestock.  So while 70% seems like an alarming number at first glance, it's entirely reasonable that since animals out number us more than 3 to 1 that most of the antibiotics goes towards animals.

Ezra went on to very matter-of-factly wax on about how animals are all 'stacked on top of one another'.  While this can be true for chicken, we aren't stacking animals or crowding them nearly as full as is made out to be true in the media.  It's counterproductive to cram animals tightly together(chickens notwithstanding) because the stress will cause illness and negatively impact rate of gain.

Antibiotic use is a hotly debated issue, but I haven't seen any evidence that we are eating the antibiotics that the animals eat, as Ezra Klein asserts.  I haven't even seen credible evidence that animal antibiotics contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans.  Again, it would be foolhardy to give antibiotics, therapeutic or not, to animals when it will still be in their system at slaughter.  It's a waste of antibiotics, and besides, USDA regulations require a minimum withdrawal period before animals can be harvested.  That number is different depending on the medication.

Also... don't people cook their meat?  Other than steaks, are people eating rare chicken or rare hamburgers?  How else would antibiotic resistant bacteria make it from the animal to you?

I'm still a fan of Ezra Klein, but I just wish that people would stick to their area of expertise or at least do more homework than reading Bittman's blog or Michael Pollan's books. We have many great colleges with awesome food/ag science departments that a man of Ezra Klein's notoriety could easily access.

[The number of head of livestock in this post was a loose estimate, and if anything, is probably very low]

Mecca Flakes

 So we have several companies that make corn flakes.  Hundreds of workers are responsible for this breakfast classic that has been a part of the American breakfast for many decades.

What if I propose a rule saying that any company that employs a Muslim man or woman must put a symbol on their boxes when they worked on the line that produced that box of cereal?

Presumably, we've already done the same background checks as we have for every other employee.  The employee has received many hours of food safety, GMP, bio security, and other basic company/HR training.  The employee has also received the same on the job training that any other line worker gets and is monitored closely for a period of time after he/she is trained.

"But still.... how do we know that he/she won't.... you know???  I'm concerned for my family... I should have a choice between corn flakes made by friendly white people and ... you know...  Look, I know they're not ALL bad, but... you know... I've heard things.  A few of them have been known to be bad in the past... and well... I don't want to take any chances."

Would this bother you?  Would you be outraged?  Would you think it was a load of crap that the person proposing such a rule would hide behind 'choice' when we all know they're motivation is either fear or misinformation?

Suppose this rule went into effect and several groups boycotted the companies that manufactured these 'Mecca Flakes' as they will call them.  Pretty soon, those companies will get rid of any Muslim employees and a general panic may be stirred up about the role of Muslims in our society, despite all assurances of safety and all calls for sanity and for reason.

Now, replace the word Muslim with GMO.

"Oh Sam, that's different!"

Bullshit.  The traits of one worker on one line in one factory that hammers out thousands of boxes of cornflakes a day is NO different than one gene in a plant that produces corn in a field that produces many thousand of bushels.

Do you think it's wrong to require a company to disclose it's Muslim employees?  Good.

"But what about choice?"

'What's the difference?', I say.  In both cases their safety has been verified and their performance thoroughly analyzed.  In both cases, a non Subject Matter Expert stirs up fear and misinformation, recruiting others that are ignorant about the issues to call for labeling so they have a 'choice'.

Labeling of GMO comes from two agendas: 1. I don't know enough about science to know this is safe, I'm afraid and fear drives my choices or 2. I want more people to be afraid and stirred up about this and with GMO labeling, we will have something specific to boycott so we can drive the technology out of the market altogether.

Remember when Rush Limbaugh was trying to get people to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential Primaries?  He wasn't doing so for any genuine reasons(sorry Ditto Heads), he knew that the GOP had a strong campaign ready to go against her,  The Anti-GMO activists know that they can drive mass hysteria IF there is something to point at and be hysterical about. 

I don't support labeling because:

1. Safety has already been verified.

2. It IS the same commodity -  Corn is corn & soy is soy

3. USDA Organic already has guarantees for being GMO free

4. I want to take a stand against runaway activism that preys on the ignorance and fear of others to get what they want.

The Need For And Futility Of SME.

Science is facing a huge paradox in the media... perhaps even a goose.  Ok, bad joke...sorry.  The paradox is that we simultaneously need more Subject Matter Experts speaking out on behalf of their area of expertise, while it seems more and more evident that these efforts to educate will fall on deaf ears.  I submit to you one such example.

I joined the group answer site, Quora a while ago and didn't really do anything with it.  Well, I decided to search for food and jump in on a question I felt I could answer and hopefully enlighten someone.  Instead of passing my knowledge on to others, I ran into the mental brick wall that calls itself Kent Fung.

Kent is sort of a compilation of many other online encounters I have had, and more than any other, embodies the conspiracy theory mindset that I have been complaining about that comes from the hysterics and activists.  I will now post the quest that I answered, plus all of the replies...

Here is the main question:

Which animals suffer the most under the hand of humans? Either due to common conditions such animals are kept in, or specific extra suffering to alter the quality of the food product.

Here is the answer that I responded to:

'I would say any non-organic meat that you buy from most of the grocery stores. One of the best documentary about food that we eat is called "Food Inc." you should watch it.'

Here is my response:

'You are much better off checking out a few food science text books or checking out some food or animal science courses at the local university than you are by learning from Food Inc.'

Kent Fung:

'I'm all for education, but to be honest, when it comes to issues affecting public health -- such as agriculture, medicine, and nutrition, what's taught at many -- perhaps even most -- U.S. universities has been compromised by the corporate sponsorships and grants on which they rely. So yes, by all means, take college courses -- but also be aware of who's paying your professor's salary.'

Me:

'No, it hasn't.  There are no corporate overseers telling professors what to say and what to teach.  That is pure non-sense.  When a corp gives money, it's usually towards facilities and not to a specific individual.  The university has say over the staff, not a donor.  You may find a highly publicized scandal here or there, but 99% or more are teaching legit science.'

Kent Fung:

'Sam, the only people who tout this line are either already bought and paid for -- or charmingly naive. Money corrupts, and professors aren't immune to this effect -- particularly when in many cases, professors aren't paid by the universities in which they teach -- but by corporate grants. (Government grants are no better, as many government officials who decide on grants have multiple vested interests in promoting the agenda of big pharma and agribusiness as well.) Very, very few people are going to bite the hand that feeds them. Professors aren't any more ethical than anyone else, and even those who might have resisted will find themselves unable to when, for say, $10 million -- chump change to a major corporation -- a company can endow an entire department. What professor is going to risk not just his own funding, but the funding of all of his colleagues?

The pharmaceutical industry was notorious for exactly this behavior, getting influential medical school professors to not only advocate on behalf of their drugs to other doctors, but to toe the corporate message in their lessons to students. The problem was so prevalent that many universities ultimately had to establish clear policies regarding the matter. Alas, in the real world, crafting policies doesn't solve ethical problems -- it just makes people find creative ways to be unethical.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/public...
http://www.jsonline.com/features...

The food business isn't any different. Like their big pharma cousins, they make huge grants to university agricultural departments, and to professors who profit enormously from their largesse. There are few -- even in academia -- who won't slant their research in exchange for millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Take Monsanto for example:

http://www.alternet.org/environm...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

Note that the ethical problem is particularly worrisome at public universities because state governments have increasingly slashed support for them, forcing schools to turn to corporations for money to fund operations. I see that you're at OSU. Sorry, Sam, but your education has already been compromised.' 

Me:

'Corps make donations because they need the highly trained graduates that come out of them.  The professors have varied backgrounds as far as food science goes.  Some are life long academics, who just do research in the lab, some came from industry, and some were strictly Chemists or biologists before teaching food/ag science.  I was there and saw with my own two eyes how all this works.  The professors spend all their time wrapped up in helping answer student's questions about their research or grading, or conducting their own research.  Your argument is sounding very conspiratorial.  Really, you sound no different to  me than someone making wild claims about 9/11.  The two links you chose to use to backup your conspiracy theory are from environmental and organic activists, and can hardly be taken seriously.'

Kent Fung:

'Environmental and organic activists "can hardly be taken seriously." I can see who you expect to pay your bills. Incidentally, I suppose now you're going to tell me what's wrong with the articles by researchers at Santa Clara University and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In fact, given the decrepit state of American's general health, I'd say it's mainstream food producers who can't be taken seriously.

Your logic doesn't work. Corporations don't need to make donations to get "highly trained graduates." All they need to do is offer decent salaries and they'll get all the "highly trained" graduates they need. There isn't a labor shortage in this country.

You also clearly don't understand how modern universities are funded.

Lifelong academics who "just do research in the lab" cost lots of money. That money doesn't come from the university, it comes from grants made by external donors. A typical university's budget is focused on maintaining and building more gee whiz facilities to recruit new students. Teacher and researcher salaries are taken care of by government and corporate grants.

What about those who came from industry? Most still have ties to their old employers -- and I don't mean that they go have drinks with their old boss -- I mean that they've started joint ventures on the side with them, or their old employers are actually funding their academic work.

And then you write about people "who were strictly chemists or biologists" before becoming teachers. Unless you're implying that they were independently wealthy and dabbled in chemistry and biology as a hobby, preserving their amateur status for the Olympics, then they were paid by someone, You know who that someone was? A major corporation, because that's where the money is.

"You were there and saw with your own two eyes how all this works," eh? You audited professors' tax returns, looked through their stock portfolio and bank accounts to see where their money came from? What about the departmental budget -- did you examine it, and where the money that funds the department comes from? No? Then you didn't see "how this all works."

You further claim that your professors "spend all their time wrapped up in helping answer student's questions about their research or grading or conducting their own research." 1) Who funds their research? 2) "All their time, huh?" You know this because you lived with your professors and can account for their time every day of the week, including who they speak with?

Let's be clear that this problem isn't limited to the fields of food science, public health, or medicine. All academic research, particularly in the sciences, has proven susceptible to this vulnerability.

Conspiracy? It's enough of a problem that the NIH is looking into it. Do a Google on conflicts of interest in scientific research -- I'm hardly the only one who's noticed there's a problem.

Here's a nice little presentation at the University of Chicago for the Global Health Initiative: http://globalhealthinitiative.uc...

Now yes, this deal primarily with corruption by the pharmaceutical industry. But: Worldwide revenues for pharmaceutical industry are estimated at $2.3 trillion a year. Worldwide annual revenues from the sales of processed foods? Nearly $5 billion, and that's in 2006 numbers. Are you really going to tell me that with that much money involved, the food industry is LESS willing to be underhanded than big pharma?'

Me:

'There are no corp overseers watching over the research.  Classes are all textbook and lab based science, not from one specific corporation.  Corporations do have an interest in seeing that universities have the tools necessary to train students.  It's the universities that supply brain power to the corps, not the other way around.  Go to John Coupland, who is on Quora, and ask him how many corporate overseers he comes across in his food science dept at PSU.  You've made up your mind and bought into the crazy conspiracy theory, which is unfortunate, because you really don't know what you're talking about.'

Kent Fung:

'They don't have to "watch over" research. My boss and his boss don't watch my every move either, but you can bet that I don't do anything to piss them off.

Why don't you go to John Coupland and ask him if he's in the habit of encouraging or publicizing research by his staff that shows (or might show)  that the products made by the corporations who fund his department will kill you? [edit: quick Google of John Coupland shows that his research is of interest only to manufacturers of processed foods. There's no way his opinion will be unbiased. His department, incidentally, has so many ties to industry groups within the food manufacturing industry that you've basically made my point.]

You've made up your mind to enslave yourself to corporate america, which is unfortunate, because you're contributing to the decline in U.S. civilization.'

Me:

'This is all about being anti-corporate for you.  It certainly isn't anything about science and you aren't interested in any sort of truth.  Research often falls in line with Corporate interests because corporate interests tend to follow the science and use scientific research to develop new products and improve existing products.  It isn't some biased atmosphere that exists only to serve corporate America.  You have such a sad and twisted view of science, education, and business in general.  Nothing I will ever show or tell you will convince you otherwise, because you have bought into a conspiracy theory.'

Kent Fung:

'Curiously enough, I'm not anti corporate at all, and I happily work for one of the largest corporations in the world. But the truth of the matter is that the agribusiness corporations are the source of much of the world's ills, and part of the way they are able to get away with it is by corrupting what is taught to students -- from primary school through university -- as "conventional wisdom." Look how good a job they did with you.

I'd love for you to show me evidence that "convinces me otherwise," but all you've put forth in your argument is your dubious claim that you know how the system works because you've "been there." Well, you don't, because you were never more than a cog in the machine.'

Me:

'That's the whole beautiful point, I can't show you evidence.  You are convinced of your view of the world and put me in the position of proving a negative, which is impossible.  Any evidence I show you will NEVER be good enough to get you to change your mind.  You have quite stubbornly painted yourself into a corner after picking your version of reality.'

Kent Fung:

'No, the reason you can't show me any evidence is because you're merely a foot soldier, and no one trusts foot soldiers with the truth or the battle strategy. It's going to be tough for you when, decades from now, you finally figure it out. Have a nice life until then ... and if you;re determined to be a tool, at least make sure you're a well-paid tool.'

Me:

'I'm not a foot soldier for anyone.  Hell, I just paid my rent 3 weeks late and I'm in between jobs.  My employment has had no influence over my views. Facts have.'

Kent Fung:

'Wow. So you're an unpaid shill. Dude, that's sad. Most people ask for money before they sell their soul. Ah well.'

So you see that nothing I said or could say would ever convince Kent that maybe he was wrong.  This is how the conspiracy theorist thinks.  Have you ever tried talking to someone who is convinced that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job or that fluoride is being introduced into the water supply as part of some evil government plot?  It's maddening and every point where you think, 'Ok, he can't possibly have anything to say about that', the person takes it to another amazing, cynical, convoluted level.

I asked John Coupland to respond and, being the English gentleman he is, he politely declined.  As a professor and food scientist, he plays things pretty even handed, keeping an open mind and never saying never.  He mentioned to me that the issue may be slightly more complicated than either of us indicated in our back and forth on Quora.

We need more Subject Matter Experts talking about their specific area of expertise, but it's pointless to talk to people like Kent, whose mind is made up.

Great Food Science Videos.

 I thought I would do a little outreach today and post some videos that highlight food science in some way...

Disney & @IFT

 

Penn State's Food Science Dept.

My favorite series of food science related videos featuring Science media personality, @DrKiki

My favorite food science related video features Cornell Researcher Brian Wansink on a segment of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

Childhood Obesity

 This is sort of a blog request from @WineePamela after some tweets I wrote about how to fight Obesity.  I've written about weight loss before, but I really feel weird about doing it because I'm a pretty big guy.  I guess I'm like a coach, where I know all about the game but I wasn't the greatest player.


If you are really concerned that kids are too fat, then you have to approach things from a more pragmatic standpoint and stop with all the slogans, easy answers, and non-expert speculation. So to fight childhood obesity...


1. Parents:


When kids are little, all parents ever do is tell kids to stop running around, slow down, sit still... and finish your dinner.  I thought all the hoopla over Kids meal toys at McDonald's was silly because most kids I've ever seen eat there waste more than half of their food.


So maybe be glad when the kids are doing winds sprints while giggling and if the kids don't finish their dinner... give them a little less.


2. Coaches:


What I remember the most about playing sports in middle and high school was all the punishment exercise and yelling.  I got horrible anxieties before practices.  Coaches do more to limit physical activity later in life than any video game console.  When one guy screws around, the football/basketball/wrestling coach has everyone run wind sprints, do laps, or do some form of calisthenics as punishment.  This is a horrible message to send.


3. Teachers:


Coming from a food science background, I naturally think it's an ideal subject for high school students to tie together chemistry, biology, and chemistry, but it also gives you a great background in nutrition.  Kids should know what a calorie is, how to calculate the number of calories they need to maintain/lose/gain weight, and how to track their caloric intake.  it's also a great way to learn which foods are the best sources of protein/iron/vitamins/calcium/potassium.  This is very practical knowledge that also reinforces what the kids have already learned in school, while also reinforcing scientific method and critical thinking skills.


4.  Other Kids:

Kids are mean and being fat seems to be one of the last socially acceptable forms of discrimination in this country.  This is a tragic combination.  Fat people in general get very little sympathy because they are just seen as sloth-like lazy buffoons.  Other kids can help by not shaming or being cruel to obese kids.  Furthermore, they can make friends with obese kids and include them in their physical activities.  Shame does not work.  If your feeling down on yourself, you slow down, stay out of view... you don't go for a walk or go exercise.

5.  Food Activists:

I know you think everything is all a big conspiracy and that all processed foods are poison... but seriously, knock it off.  Misinformation serves only to confuse people and prevents them from reaching a solid, science based understanding of food.  Misinformation also allows people to peddle their ridiculous weight loss schemes and bilk the public for billions of dollars a years.  Please stop.

6. Fashion Industry:

Pencil thin models give people an unrealistic yard stick to judge themselves and others by.  We no longer think hometown girls are cute because they don't look nearly as hot as the model.  This also creates a much bigger gap bewteen the beautiful people and the obese.  

If you are a big kid, your clothes aren't only bigger, but they're completely different.  Why?  Why can't you get big sizes from Gap, Adidas, Champion, and Nike.  How easy is it to get active wear in big sizes in the same style as the smaller sizes?  And while I'm at it, stop putting flames or dragons... or flaming dragons on big & tall clothing.  What is that?  So not only do fat people feel ostracized, they have special fat clothes that look completely different.

PayPal

You should see a PayPal Donation button in this blog post and on the side of this page.  I'm currently out of work and behind on rent.  I've done this blog for two and a half years and have many great, informative posts.  If you can spare anything... even $5, it would be greatly appreciated. The donations are anonymous, so you don't have to worry about getting an awkward half sobbing thank you from me or me pledging a life debt to you.  Rent is overdue and I hope to get hired on somewhere... for something, sometime soon.  So if you've read and liked my writing over the past couple years, please send a dollar or two my way.  Even if you think I'm a tool, give me a buck so I can keep writing and giving you more to complain about.

Slow Food.

Slow Food USA is having some sort of problem, according to the article I read in Chow.  I think their problems are a little more... existential in nature.

The problem here is that the group itself is formed under a false premise.  Organic/natural foods aren't intrinsically better than conventional or 'mass produced' food.  You can think it tastes better as a sort of placebo effect, but nutritionally, an organic/natural version of a conventional food is the same.  Asking people in this country to pay more for their food is pretty insulting and shows a complete lack of understanding about economic development. 

Much of why we spend so little on food is because we have so much more money and spend it on other things, so as a percentage, we spend less on the food.  There's not a lot of people buying Xbox 360's and cars and flat screen tv's in Sub-Saharan Africa.  And many people there grow their own food, not because they're hip and socially conscious, but because they'd starve otherwise.  As subsistence level farmers, they HAVE to decide how much food they need to sell instead of eat.  Their incomes are practically non-existent.

Like most foodies, the Slow Food movement meant well, but were misguided, misinformed, and generally uneducated about food.  So what they did was substitute their opinions and feelings in place of facts and then built an institution around them.  To shore up that institution, they needed enemies and that's where corporations came in.  Most foodies are anti-corporatist, so for them, it was easy to direct vitriol and hatred to any 'big' entity.

Thoughts, feelings, accusations, paranoia, and conspiracy theories support the cause, not science.  They see science as part of the 'big' machine that exist only as Yes Men.  The problem with this is that any serious critique of a foodie movement like Slow Food shows that that they simply make oversimplified, and unsubstantiated good vs evil populist claims about food.