An Investment In Future Shoppers.

I've already blogged about the #GMO debate many times, but I think it's important for me to bring some clarity to the issue, to paraphrase the great Todd Glass.

Ok, so we have the Washington state #GMO labeling initiative I-522. If this passes, then most foods that have genetically modified ingredients will have to have a label stating so.

Why do farmers, scientists, science writers, and people in the industry have an issue with this?

First of all, the label serves no safety or educational function. If you buy the wrong kind of flour, your bread may turn out horrible. If you buy something with an undeclared allergen, you could go into anaphylactic shock and possible die. So it's important to label things like what kind of flour because cake and all purpose flour and flour made with summer or winter wheat may function differently.  We label allergens so people can easily see what to avoid... for obvious health reasons.

If you accidentally buy a food with a #GMO ingredient, nothing different will happen to you. Nothing.

So why label it?

Why would the Organic Foods lobby be funding I-522?

For those of you that don't know, foods classified as 'Organic' must not use #GMO inputs in their production.  So at first glance, it would appear that the Organic Foods lobby would have no dog in this fight... so why be involved?

This is where the label's purpose comes into focus...

Ok, so let's say you are Whole Foods and business is pretty good.  Organic food as an industry has been growing at around 25% a year for at least the last 5 years now. Pretty soon, that growth will reach a lag phase and start to level off.  Whole Foods is aware of this and know that they need fresh customers to sustain year over year growth.

Well, one way to guarantee more customers is to tell people your food is intrinsically better because it isn't #GMO.  

So how do you do that?  

You could list all the ways that non-GMO foods are demonstrably better... but what if you can't prove that?  The other option is the tried and true practice of propaganda.  You don't tell them why your food is better, you tell them the other food is so much worse.  Doubt is easy to grow and impossible to discount completely because one cannot disprove a negative.

So you spread propaganda about #GMO and you associate #GMO with big corporations(unlike mom & pop stores like Whole Foods).  You introduce doubt by saying the studies aren't big enough or long enough or independent enough.

The next step for Whole Foods is to warn people about every product you don't want them to buy... a label.

The label serves as a warning or to put it mildly, a reminder to choose a different food.  Now here's the catch: most grocery stores sell conventional foods and have a small organic section.  The organic section isn't really the big money maker and is subsidized by all the regular groceries. Grocery stores in general operate on a pretty thin profit margin.  So when people read what is essentially a warning label, they will start to buy USDA Organic foods, which means that regular grocers will see sales drop on about 90% of it's inventory.

This is where Whole Foods comes in...

Stores like Safeway and QFC will take a big hit to their private brands as well as the nightmare of having to segregate stock for Washington stores from it's distribution inventory for Oregon, Utah, Idaho, etc.  They may even have to close some Washington stores because of this.  But who will be there waiting with their mostly #GMO free inventory and a distribution system already designed to keep certain foods separated?

Whole Foods.

And you can bet Whole Foods can expect to pick up major market share as sales from their competition drops. It will be a major windfall for them.

Soon, Washington residents may have no major grocer to go to except Whole Paycheck, and Whole Foods will be waiting with open arms.

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!

Bad Arnold & The School Lunch Examiner.

First blog of July and I have several mini-topics to go over.  I think this might be a better format, as the longer blogs I'm known for might be off-putting to people wanting some quick serve information.  It's ironic, because I was taught to be succinct in my writing and I'm a staunch opponent of length requirements in writing assignments.

First thing... Examiner.

I applied to write posts for the Examiner so I could at least make a little of what Adam Carolla calls WAM(walking around money).  Blogger has ad programs, but I've earned a whopping $6 in a year.  So I applied and submitted a writing sample, which I had to edit extensively because they didn't like anything written in first person.  It's such an old school, pre-blogging, pre-op-ed style.  It's like being asked to use a typewriter.  I submitted, I waited, I got fucking rejected.  Not bitter...nope, not at all.  How could I possibly compete with the award winning writing of the Examiner Food writers discussing the most ironic, bitter micro-brews, or some crazy lady talking about how Mountain Dew is destroying America...

IFT 2010 in Chicago has begun.  Have fun and mingle lots my friends.  For those that don't know, IFT is the Institute of Food Technologists, which is a professional organization for food science and food industry pro's.  IFT is a great resource if you have questions about food science and you can find them on Twitter @IFT

I need a career, folks.  I keep trying and I keep getting denied.  I have talents that are going to waste.  I can write, speak, present, sell, collaborate, investigate, or manage things for your organization.  I am very relocatable and willing to travel 100% for my job.  I'll work trade shows and live out of a suitcase if that is what you need.  If you are in need of a good addition for your team, please contact me on Twitter @samvance 

The House Committee on Education and Labor is holding hearings about the School Lunch Program today.  They want an $8 Billion budget for school lunches.  I'm not sure if this is the proposed budget or an addition to the budget, especially frustrating since I was just searching for the info on the committee website.

They seem to be having 2 hearings today.  One hearing is about how this bill(H.R. 5504) will help tackle childhood obesity and the other is about how we it will help end child hunger... What?  A couple things about this: The bill doesn't directly address obesity.  The bill makes it easier to use local farms and I think it updates the nutrition requirements based on professional recommendations.  By law, the school lunch program must provide no less than 30% of the nutrition and caloric value that a child needs in a day.  This is assuming the kid eats 3 meals a day.  

The way to battle obesity is to reduce calories, not increase the nutritional density of a food.  This bill can do little to that end because the kid eats whatever when he/she gets home from school.  Also, you can't force the kids to eat the food you make.  So what is the increase in spending?  I know some of the spending is a 6 cent increase in the school lunch reimbursement rate, but that doesn't account for all of it.  More of the money comes from increasing the number of kids that qualify for free and reduced lunches, but again, that doesn't account for all the money.  The rest is in buying more expensive food.  

This is directly related to the local farm provisions.  You see, 'local' farms charge a premium for the food and take advantage of your fear and anxiety over processed foods and corporations.  This creates a sort of halo effect for these operations, where consumers falsely conclude that local food is more nutritive and safer.  It isn't.  In fact, Dole and Del Monte have greater resources for ensuring that fruits and vegetables are safe.  Small operations can't afford these resources and don't intend to invest in them.  The whole reason they market themselves as local is so they can charge a premium on that food.  A large operation has to invest to protect itself against recalls and lawsuits.  Also, these operations are usually highly automated, meaning there are less people touching and contaminating the product.

I really think this just comes down to foodies and food hysterics being anti-corporate, anti-science, and pro-presentation.  They really don't like the way school food looks, which isn't the point of it.  I could make these foodies a school lunch that was more fattening and has more calories and they would choose it over the current school lunch.  Actually, Cornell has done research where they take fast food and reconfigure it to look like fine dining and participants had substantially higher opinions about that food and how many calories they thought it had versus the exact same fast food they just sampled.  This bill has a couple good things in it, but for the most part it's style over substance.

Arnold Foods makes a wide assortment of higher end breads.  They usually enjoy shelf placement right alongside Sara Lee and Pepperidge Farm.  I was shopping at the Bigg's Hypermarket in Hyde Park (Cincinnati) and noticed and unusual quality defect in a package of their sesame seed sandwich buns.

Can you tell which package doesn't look right?

The package on the left is barely done and has no color.  I am amazed that nobody working on the line or in QA for Arnold caught this.  The bottom of the package is soggy and a little doughy.  The process for these buns is pretty straight forward.  Dough is batched and loaded into a hopper where it is portioned, shaped, and sent through a proofing room.  Then the dough heads through an oven on a belt.  Most likely, the belt speed, oven temp was adjusted and a few of the buns were in the oven when the belt speed was too fast or the oven temp was too low.  This should have been picked up by QA though.

Bad Buns.

Good Buns.

FYI - I did take the bad buns to Bigg's customer service counter and explain what the issue was and told her the grocery manager could probably get a credit for them.

Food Hysterics Are Taking Over.

It's been a long time coming, but we are now starting to see the food hysterics taking over.  It isn't just them though, but a larger movement that will never think we are safe enough or healthy enough.  You've heard stories of schools banning dodgeball and tag.  You've heard about the participation ribbons(losing is too negative).

This overreaction to life has fed the Food Hysterics and created a sense(to them) that they are justified in what they are doing.

So what are they doing?

The CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) is launching a lawsuit against McDonalds.  Apparently, CSPI told McDonalds not to put toys in Happy Meals.  McDonalds probably realized that CSPI has no authority over them and ignored the order.  So now they're being sued for what CSPI claims are deceptive practices.  By putting toys in Happy Meals, it entices kids to drive to McDonalds, open their wallets, and fork over their hard earned money for... what a  minute, that doesn't sound right.

Washington D.C. schools will now stop offering flavored milk to students.  There choices are now 1% & skim.

Seriously.

Let's look at the Happy Meals first:

Obviously, kids aren't buying the Happy Meals, the parents/guardians are.  The toy is as much for the parent as it is for the kid, since the kid stays put and is placated by the toy and not running a muck in the restaurant.  Sure, the kids can bug the folks to get them a Happy Meal, but even then, they can still ask them to omit the toy.  But it isn't the toy that the CSPI is really opposed to, is it?  Clearly, they are opposed to the food, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

Look at the actual ads for Happy Meals:

Happy Meals used to be 4 McNuggets or a Cheeseburger, fries, and a soft drink.  Now they have the option of replacing fries with apple slices and replacing the pop with milk.  So you can get McNuggets, apple slices, and a milk.  That's a pretty good lunch and the kid can be treated to some hot fries every now and then or just have a few of mom or dad's.  I have a niece and a nephew almost 2 and just over 4 years old.  I have never seen them finish what's on their plate, not even close.  They eat like birds and I guarantee that they don't eat more than 200 calories out of their 430 calorie Happy Meal.  By the way, if you adults want to go on a diet without giving up your favorite foods, I have a suggestion for you... Happy Meal!  You could have a happy meal for 3 meals and still be at a caloric deficit.  They even give you a toy(while supplies last).

CSPI is being really short sighted here.  Sure they missed the fact that adults are in charge, and they missed the fact that Happy Meals are advertised with apple slices and milk now, and they missed the fact that many kids probably don't even finish the Happy Meal, and they missed the fact that for every fat kid eating a Happy Meal, there are many other kids who are just fine.  Despite all that, they missed a way these Happy Meals can be used in their favor.  What if the toy was a ball?  What about a jump rope?  How about one of those mind boggling logic puzzles?  Not only that but what about using toys to establish a lifetime of eating apples and drinking milk?  Sure they can still get the cheeseburger and fries if the parent allows it, but they should still have that choice, right?  Right??

CSPI is wrong about this.  The Food Hysterics are wrong about their issues.  On nearly every issue, they get the science wrong, or quote studies that have been discredited, or have too small a sample size, or only make a correlation(which you should know means nothing), or haven't been replicated or peer reviewed.  If you you tell the truth, that it all boils down to managing calories, then their life's work goes away.  They're not activists, they're Hysterics.  They take a trace amount of a food additive that would require you to eat 100's of pounds of that food a day to get ill and turn it into a huge danger to society.  They need these wild accusations to prey on the weak minded and the science illiterate so that The Food Hysteric's way of life can continue.  

They really need to settle down.  Maybe they need a Happy Meal.  You know, they do come with a toy...

The Media Is like High School For Science...

Ever have a rumor stat about you when you were in high school?

Infuriating, isn't it?

Sometimes it's a half truth, and sometimes it's just something taken out of context.  Either way, the efficiency of the rumor spreading is way higher than the efficiency of you explaining the whole story or putting what was actually said into context.  You converted one or two people, but everyone else you confronted just laughed in your face, called you a liar, and repeated the rumor to more people.

Many things in life are counter-intuitive.  We anticipate one thing but the other thing is true.  Less is sometimes more.  You really do, on average, hit the golf ball farther and straighter when you don't try to swing so hard, and so on.  These same types of things exist in food science.  Although, it's not that they're counter-intuitive, it's that the public has a bad intuition.

Let's look at BPA, for example.  Does everyone remember the statement put out by the FDA in regards to BPA in January?  What did it say?  Some remember it as an admission that the government was wrong about BPA and that we need to take a careful look at how it's regulated.  This is one of those rumors that start by something being taken out of context.  What the FDA said was that BPA was safe, but there haven't been studies on very subtle effects and that effects on the very young warranted further study.  But in several stories that came out since then, it was reported as if the government changed their mind on all the established science.

This is also a great example of how efficient rumors are vs. explaining the whole story.  For those who've really looked into BPA, you'll know that BPA(like most chemicals including some vitamins) have a level at which they cause harm.  So it has the potential to do harm, and the article(rumor) reports that it's in everyone's bodies, so it must be harming our bodies, right?  Hold on.  This is the type of rumor where you need to explain, and most people don't sit still for it, but let me have a crack at it.  BPA is established as a GRAS food additive.  It's not mixed directly in food, but rather it makes up part of the packaging that the food touches, so it must be labeled as an additive.  Anything GRAS has a limit on how it can be used and at what quantities.  That's per the Code of Federal Regulations.  That limit is based on the Lowest Observable Effect Level determined in lab tests.  Just to be sure it's safe enough to use, they take the quantity that is determined to cause the LOEL and divide it by as much as 1,000.  Now, the studies on BPA all say that it can't be proven that BPA is a definitive danger.  Furthermore, some studies show us how much BPA was found in a particular canned product.  I've mentioned this before but one of the highest BPA concentrations was found in canned fruit.  Here's the part you never get to read.  At those levels, a person would have to eat several hundred pounds of the fruit every day to reach the LOEL.  But the published rumor is titled, 'BPA in Cans Poses Health Threat, Report Claims'.

This has been going on for a while with different things.  I remember a similar story about Tab years ago and they figured you'd need to drink hundreds of cans a day to get ill from whatever the chemical was.

Salt is one of the relatively new bad guys.  The way you hear it told, the food industry is poisoning us with dangerous levels of sodium and they say it causes 100,000 deaths a year.  Wow, that's a lot of people.  The trouble is that BPA supposedly causes a lot of death's too, as does HFCS, as does trans-fat, but where do the numbers come from?

Correlation.  

Correlation got you into fights in high school.  Correlation caused your parents to punish you when you did nothing wrong.  Correlation is basically this:  A is true and B contains A and B contains C, so C is true.  Put another way...  From statistics-help-online.com:

"Let's take some other ludicrous examples to explain the problem of correlation vs. causation. Define as the temperature of a day in Manhattan, and as the number of ice cream vendors out on that day. The correlation coefficient between these two is almost certainly quite positive. (How many vendors are out there in January?). Does this prove that ice cream vendors cause it to be hot? Obviously causation goes the other way. Common sense tells you that. Unless of course you believe in conspiracy theories."

 So all the salt people's numbers are based on correlation studies.  Is salt killing us? A clue can be found by observing other countries.  This is helpful in the HFCS argument since sugar is cheaper than HFCS outside of the US and we can compare with obesity and diabetic rates to see how much healthier they are(in the case of HFCS, non HFCS countries don't fare better).  

NYT article by John Tierney:

"When all the surveys in Britain are considered, there has been no consistent downward trend in salt consumption in recent years, said Dr. McCarron, who has been a longtime critic of the salt reformers. (For more on him and his foes, go to nytimes.com/tierneylab.) He said that the most notable feature of the data is how little variation there has been in salt consumption in Britain — and just about everywhere else, too.

Dr. McCarron and his colleagues analyzed surveys from 33 countries around the world and reported that, despite wide differences in diet and culture, people generally consumed about the same amount of salt. There were a few exceptions, like tribes isolated in the Amazon and Africa, but the vast majority of people ate more salt than recommended in the current American dietary guidelines."

 So if we all eat about the same amount of salt but we have varying amounts of high blood pressure and heart trouble, then what does that say about salt causing problems.

A couple rules of thumb for reading news releases about studies:

Scientists don't generally brag, so take note of the ones that do and what their intentions may be.

Regardless of your opinion of the matter, judge a study on it's science and methodology, not it's source of funding.

Look for numbers and look for them in context.  Beware of studies were they are vague aboiut the numbers or use them out of context, as in percentages.

Read the whole study if possible.  Sometimes a researcher or writer of the article will say the opposite of what the study actually proves.

Beware of Meta-analysis.  These are studies of studies and they're never as good as well designed original studies.

Learn statistics. This will make you smarter and less likely to be taken advantage of by con men or people with an agenda.

One study proves nothing!  Reproducibility is king.  A good study can be duplicated and if it's true, the results will be reproduced.

Correlations are a starting point in a scientific quandary, not the end.  You need causation, not correlation studies and a lot of percentages to be validated.

Getting Fresh with Foodies...

Kroger Fresh Fare Closing.


The Kroger Fresh Fare concept that existed at the fancy Kenwood Towne Center will be closing at the end of the month according to an article in the Cincinnati Business Courier which I have linked to in the title of this blog.

It's either closing due to lower sales or trouble with the newly built property, depending on who you ask.  If you ask me, it's a bad strategic move either way.


First let's assume they aren't meeting sales numbers.  OK, but did they adjust their expectations when the economy nose dived?  Are they using unrealistic goals as an excuse to up and leave?  The more likely reason could be that they don't want to be in the middle of any entanglements that arise from Bank of America foreclosing on the property... and sales are probably down as well.


This is bad for several reasons.  First, this is Kroger's front door step.  Closing a unique concept in the home of your headquarters is like Louisville KFC's closing down or Wendy's closing their Dublin, OH locations.  Even though they have a few other Fresh Fare concepts in the country, it's still a proof of concept for the company.  What message do you send to shoppers about that concept and about the strength of your brand if you yank one of 2 or 3 in the country from your own front doorstep?


Even if it loses them some money, it's worth keeping the concept alive and can serve as a great test market for all things upscale.  The development on the site of the Kenwood Towne Center isn't going to crumble into dust.  The businesses will rebound and whoever is still there will reap the rewards.  Also, Kroger now has a ton of Marketplace locations and they could easily close one of those instead or one of their regular Kroger stores.  The closing of that store will be ironic because it will cause the other Kroger stores in the area to be much busier.  This will be great for those store's numbers but will annoy the shoppers that get sick of waiting in long checkout lines.  Some of these shoppers will instead seek out unique experiences like those found at Whole Foods, Fresh, and Kroger Fresh Fare... if it were still open.






Foodies or Food Snobs: Time for a stern talking to...
Like many of you, I get excited about food.  I can get lost for hours in a grocery store and not buy anything.  In fact, I often get so excited that I can't decide, then walk away empty handed.  I love to look for quality ingredients, try new brands, and be a cheer leader for the things I do like.


What I don't like is what I hear and read from some foodies and food blogs.  I won't start beef(get it?) with any blogs by being negative, but I will praise a couple blogs I think are good examples.


Fries With That Shake - Run by Jess Ward, the Burger Baroness herself celebrates food and tells you what's good without being too good for certain foods.  Maybe it's the fact that she's a fan of burgers, but you never get the feeling you're being lectured, shamed, or talked down to for the food you enjoy.  Bravo Jess, and next time you're in Cincinnati, lets go out for burgers. Follow her on Twitter @BurgerBaroness



Get in mah belly! - Run by Liz and I don't know nearly as much about this blog except that it's honest and not what I would call a Shiite Foodie.  Maybe that's not fair... how about Fundamentalist Foodie.  She likes the food of the masses, seems humble about her food experiences, and like Jess, is really excited to write about food.

What many people do that I don't like is very similar to reviews written in auto magazines.  In those magazines, the guy is always disappointed and makes some shitty comment about the test car that makes the reader feel that the whole process was beneath him.  They'll write things like, 'Of course, we would have preferred to test the 6-speed manual, but we'll have to make do with this automatic.'

So food snobs love to brag about how unique their dishes or ingredients are and love to dog on anyone else they feel doesn't have exotic enough ingredients.  Maybe they only drink IPA's or brag about how much the superdark microbrew costs, or scoff's at the idea of a domestic draft.  These people have indoctrinated themselves to the point that they can't eat a simple cheeseburger or make a fried egg sandwich unless it's flax seed bread, brushed with seasoned extra virgin olive oil, toasted on the grill and made with rare eggs that you can only find in a certain farmer's market that's only open during the summer solstice of every leap year for 2 hours.


Stop it.  You're missing the point of food(aside from providing nutrition).  The point is to have an enjoyable experience and to make something that tastes good that you can share.  What it's become is a canvas for food hipsters to put on an air of superiority.  Foodies react to food as if that is how they think they should react and not what they really think/feel.  It's not about brands or being ironic.  Stop being dicks.  

p.s.
Re: the Kroger story...

I know Kenwood is not in Cincinnati Proper but it is Cincinnati to everyone else that doesn't dwell in the Cincy Metro Area.

Bottle Caps 2: Electric Booga-Dew.

Last week, I blogged about a new bottle cap design being used by a Pepsi bottler for Mountain Dew.  Yesterday, I was surprised to see yet another design in use.  The third design was for an August 2, expiration date while the second design was from a bottle marked July 26.

Notice the difference between the July 26 cap(left) and the August 2 cap(right).  The newer cap places the threading closer to the bottom of the cap.  Also notice that the plastic ridge from the 2nd design is now more pronounced in the 3rd.

Here is a much clearer pic that starts to give away the most significant difference between the 2nd and 3rd caps.

As I mentioned last week, the 2nd cap(center) was ever so much shorter than the original(left) and probably saved the company money as for as cost of the product and transportation cost.  Now look at the difference between the 2nd cap and the 3rd(right).  It seems this cap is even shorter and more dramatic in design, especially if you compare it with the original.  Is this a supply issue or market testing?  The 3rd design looks a lot like the short bottle caps that Coca Cola switched to for their 20 oz bottles.  My only complaint is that the caps slip away from the fingers pretty easy when attempting to unscrew and take a drink with one hand while steering my car with the other.

In other pop news...

Coca Cola brought back Mello Yello and gave it a retro themed can.  I love the can's design.  It's very pleasing without looking too extreme.  They kept the formulation the same, as far as I know, and I was surprised to see they didn't switch to cane sugar as Pepsi did for it's Throwback products.  Of course, Mello Yello was replaced by Vault, which has the exact(or nearly exact) formulation.  I'm glad to see an established brand back on the shelves.

Political Science vs. Food Science

Since there are bills being considered relating to food safety regulation, I thought I would take a few minutes to tread the contemptuous waters of political science.  I won't talk about the bills themselves, just the basic principles of regulation, where I stand, and where politics gets in the way of good policy.

I have a strange mixture of ideologies.  It's not strange to me, but it is to everyone else in this crazy polarized country of ours.  Some people's ideologies are formed by fundamental beliefs, some by fact, and some by misinformation.   My politics are a combination of facts and fundamental beliefs in how we should treat others.  I have a certain level of expertise in food science and food safety, which tends to land me amongst many conservatives and libertarians, but I'm pretty liberal in all other fronts except maybe economic development theory.

This really sucks when talking to people about non-food issues, because as soon as food issues are brought up, I have to switch sides and oppose these otherwise nice/logical people.  To liberals I say that you defer to the scientists when it comes to theology(age of the Earth/Creationism), and you defer to the scientists when it comes to Climate Change, but you completely abandon science when it comes to issues regarding food.  Why?

Are you all food scientists that know things everyone else does not?  No.  Are you simply misinformed? Not really, because when I bring up the science behind something or studies indicating that I am correct, you'll reject them outright.  You call them biased if food science experts do a study about food, then cite your own biased study from an environmental group.  And by the way, would you hire a diesel mechanic or someone from the Army Corps of Engineers to cater a wedding?  Would you trust a study on carbon emissions from a food scientist?

For whatever reason, food has become politicized, and I have a theory about this.  Liberals seem to be in support of things that are niche markets, and small operations.  Many of these movements tend to be on the radical side(meaning extreme, not awesome).  Organic supporters want to believe that organic food has better nutritional value.  Locavores believe that a cow that was processed nearby somehow tastes better. Raw milkers think that the statistically insignificant loss of some nutrients during pasteurization can cure all the ills of the world.

So this would appear to be a liberal set of beliefs regarding food, but hold on a minute, what happens when a large operation gets into these markets?  Now the liberals create a new term, green-washing.  Suddenly, everything they were so evangelical about(science be damned) is now insincere, cynical bunk.  It's now Walmart and Tyson and Dean Foods trying to trick you.

The Food Hysteric's agenda - whether they realize this or not - is just a cover for being anti-corporate.  Some of it may just be a counter-culture thing, but it's mostly a complete lack of faith that large companies can be interested in both profitability as well as safety(I think these corporation's legal/marketing depts would beg to differ with you).

So when legislation is introduced regarding food, it is written with this sort of anti-corporate populism that can end up ignoring science altogether.  We propose strong reforms to eliminate BPA even though it is not even remotely dangerous at even the highest detected levels found in products that use it for packaging.  One study I mentioned in one of my first posts took the highest amount of detected BPA in a product and figured out the least amount of that product it would take to harm someone.  The product was Dole canned fruit and I think they calculated that you would have to consume several hundred pounds per day for a lifetime to get ill.  But we have states voting to eliminate BPA because people are scared and it's political suicide to support it.

Local meat processors are freaking out because there is a push to see that the small operations verify the safety of their HACCP programs through microbiological testing - just like large processors do.

It's not science, it's politics.  Small operators don't want to give up their profits to ensure their food is safe, but they are all too happy to see Tyson and Koch and Cargill have to pony up.  It's a sick sense of satisfaction that Food Hysteric's enjoy when anything punitive is brought down upon a corporation.

Let me also say that I am pro-regulation.  Yes, let's hold each other's feet to the fire and make sure we are doing all we can to have a safe food supply, but that means everyone.  People have been pushing to mandate that the FDA inspect many more plants than it is.  This seems rational until you realize that the FDA is critically understaffed, same with the USDA.  So what good is new regulation in this instance, when it doesn't solve the problem of a poorly staffed agency?  This is what happens when science and reason are suppressed in favor of politics, populism, misinformation, and hysteria.

Science isn't left or right.  In fact, I'd say that most scientifically minded people I encounter are libertarian - not the fake tea-party libertarian, mind you, but the Ron Paul libertarians.  Can science win?  I sure hope so, or else our society will head for a second dark ages with lower crop yields, everything considered toxic, and nobody aspiring to enrich our lives through science and innovation.

p.s.

It isn't just food, that suffers our science illiteracy.  NASA has been grossly underfunded for years.  'Too expensive.  A waste.' people say.  NASA only takes one half of one percent of the budget, but brings about jobs and creates technology that is used in many other industries.

p.p.s.

The title of this blog post is a clickable link to read a story about BPA by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan.  I urge you all to read it.  Also, you can find me on Twitter @samvance and look me up on Facebook under the same name.

Jamie Oliver's Food [D]evolution.

The title of this very short blog is clickable, so...you know...click it to see what I'm talking about.


I watched a piece that ABC's Nightline program did about Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution.  It was obviously about his show, but they did that thing where they just put the set and his show in the background without mentioning it as a sort of subliminal advert for the other ABC show.  They show a clip where Oliver is in some lady's kitchen and has conjured up all the things she says she feeds her family during the week and piles all these things on a smallish kitchen table.

She was shamed by this(of course) to the point of tears and he then tells her that this food was endangering her family and shedding years off of their life.  Nightline later shows a clip of lunch ladies being interrogated over food ingredients.  Oliver again asks a shaming question of whether they know all the ingredients in the food item he was looking at.  They didn't.

He was pointing out the 'chemicals' in the foods and was made that these chemicals were being fed to school children.  It's 'chemicals' and deadly additives to Oliver and food activists like him, but to a food scientist, it all makes perfect sense.  In some cases, the ingredients are very familiar(vinegar, baking powder, vitamin c) but regulations require the food companies to use the scientific names so you see things like ascorbic acid, boric acid, and acidic acid(not sure why I listed all acids).  In other cases, the additive serves an important function in relation to shelf life, flavor, color, or it may even be a trace ingredient in another ingredient.  For instance, you may see anti-caking agents mixed in with some flour/salt so they flow in the hopper at the plant. 

Anything currently proven to be a danger is not in use.  Anything GRAS (generally recognized as safe) is at the very least, only used in quantities that have no ill affects.  For instance, an additive may be toxic once an ounce per pound of bodyweight is ingested, but the formulation might never have more than a hundreth of an ounce per serving, meaning that you would need to ingest 100 servings per pound of bodyweight.  So if you weighed 100 pounds, you would need to ingest 1000 servings.

A major problem that food hysterics like Oliver have is that while educated in cooking, they are uneducated about food.  Their ignorance of food science and things like how toxicity levels are determined give them a zero tolerance view on additives without scientific support for it.  The science they do mention always fails to account for the volume of a particular additive it would take to make someone sick.

He makes a remarkable statement that underscores this theme of willful ignorance.  I'm paraphrasing, but he says that if you don't understand something in the ingredient list, don't buy that food.

Let's apply this logic to other things in life, shall we?

Unless you've built computers from scratch and know all the components - don't buy a computer.  If you don't understand the mechanics of the internal combustion engine and other major systems of a car - don't buy one.  You can apply this leap in logic to bug spray, medicine, medical devices, video games, the shoes on your feet, or the paint on your walls.

The lady from the beginning of the story was interviewed and said that thanks to Jaimie's intervening, she has lost 40 lbs.  For her and her kids, she cut out chips, snacks, and pop.  The problem is that she was told those things made her fat, and not that it was the excess calories.  Sure if you stop eating 10% of the foods you normally eat, it stands to reason that you'll lose 10% of the weight.

The problems:

No real education about food and nutrition, just misinformation and scaremongering.  It's awesome that Jamie Oliver teaches people how to use ingredients and plan out and make a meal.  This can save people money and they can lose weight if they reduce their caloric intake.  Also, Nightline offered no interviews with food scientists or food science academics to counter what he said.  Once again, America gets half the story.

Real Food.

I have yet to weigh in on the 'real food' phenomenon, so here it goes...

I am a big fan of language. Words matter to me and I try to be very measured in what I type or say. Now I don't want to get into the whole sender-receiver model of communication, but it's important that the words we say are understood by the receiver to have the same meaning. So when someone says something is hot, it's important whether the receiver thinks you mean temperature or flavor.

CNN picked up on a blogger's challenge to eat only real food for a month http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/23/real.food.challenge/index.html?hpt=C1

Within the article, they define real food as not processed foods. They actually say what real food isn't and not what real food is, which I think is intriguing. They define processed food as: "... any food that has undergone a change of character. For example, edamame would be unprocessed, and tofu would be processed."

No.

Processed foods are foods that have a process applied to them. This includes rinsing, chopping, heating, freezing, beating (as in sheer force aka meringue or butter), or sanitizing. Unless you eat your organic grown veggies whole without cooking them, you are eating a processed food.

Any milk that isn't raw would also be considered processed, and therefore, not 'real'.

This can't be the intended definition of real food though, right? Seems a bit too strict, paranoid, and in many instances - dangerous. What do they really mean by 'real food'?

I'll take a crack at it.

They mean guilt free, non-corporate, and pretty.

These labels that the ironically labeled foodies put forth are a complicated mix of all the vitriol and mistrust they feel about the world around them. You see, they feel the corporations are all corrupt and are conspiring to poison the masses and control them through their fake foods. Let's run down the list of these corporate supported evils, shall we?

Instant potatoes - [gasp] The absolute worst. You should be ashamed if you don't have an hour to peel and boil potatoes, then mash them with cream.
**reality** They are mashed potatoes. They're just drum dried (dehydrated) so that they are shelf stable.

American Cheese Singles - Too lazy to invest in a good cheese slicer? No self respecting foodie would be caught dead with this in their refrigerator!
**reality** Developed in Europe, American cheese is made of the melted remnants of other cheeses. It's now made in a more consistant way, but isn't technically a vat cheese. Whether sliced off a block or peeled from the plastic, American Cheese melts better than most and has a mild flavor profile, making it ideal for sandwiches.

Sugar - Did you know that sugar makes everybody fat, causes diabetes, and probably hates minorities. It's so evil, because it's processed.
**reality** I prefer to use sugar that has been inspected, purified, and separated from most pebbles, dirt, and insect parts. Sugar is a food for fermentation also, resulting in alcohol, carbon dioxide, or both. Sugar sweetens foods, helps it brown when baked, and binds free water - making it safe from certain microorganisms.

The truth.

Real food is anything you eat and digest that offers calories and/or nutrition(carbs, vitamins, proteins, fats). When you hear someone talk about 'real food', your ears should perk up and you should start asking questions. You'll almost always find hidden motives, agendas, and irrational paranoia just below the surface.

The Race To Zero.

This week (Feb. 21 - 27, 2010) is National Eating Disorder week and I thought I would share a concern I had since it goes with that theme.

A few years back, I was one of the first member's of Ohio State University's Campus Dining Services Advisory Council. The council weighed in on issues impacting the food and service there of for the 50,000+ students of OSU. Campus Dining Services had taken in $36 million in revenue for the previous year, so they fed a lot of students in their then 22 facilities. The new Union is set to open if it hasn't already and those numbers are sure to grow.

One item of business at the first meeting I attended was to discuss ways to educate the diners on so they could make responsible food choices. One idea was to post the calories per serving for every item prepared in house(prepackaged items already do this). It seemed very reasonable and I even added that they should also post the amounts of protein, fat, sodium, and carbs.

There was a nutrition student in the group, that had a concern.

'What about people with eating disorders?' She asked.

Her experience was that freshman women were already stressing over their figure and by seeing the calories per serving they'll be less inclined to eat certain foods. Anyone remember the Freshman 15? This seems like a good thing considering American's general over-consumption. She explained that they don't stop cutting calories and the people she worked with as a nutrition major were essentially eating like it was a golf match. Fewest calories wins. So instead of having a caloric goal in mind, for instance 100/200 calories less than they typically consume based on activity and body weight, they try to eat only very low calorie foods in an effort to stay as close to zero as possible. They suppliment their diets with things like mints, cigarettes, and bottled water.

I call this the Race To Zero.

Posting calories makes us feel better, like we're doing what we can in the battle of the bulge. I think that battle we wage makes us unhealthier and endangers those in our society who's minds trick them into seeing themselves as bigger than they really are.

The major problem with solutions that many people post are that they are very narrow minded and not based in science and reason. Yahoo! or: thewebsiteIlovetohate! constantly posts stories about the 'worst foods'. They've had stories about the worst restaurants, appetizers, burgers, breakfast foods, desserts, salads, and the latest is fries. What makes these foods the worst? Calories, according to the articles. Every food that is demonized is demonized on calories.

So now we are posting the calories of everything while simultaneously running stories that demonize foods for how many calories are in them. What are people supposed to take from that? Calories = bad. Less calories = good. Zero calories = perfect.

Folks... Zero calories = dead.

The problem with posting calories for one item is that it doesn't take into consideration everything else the person had or will have to eat that day. The only way this can work is if people understand how many calories they need and how many calories they already had.

A very crude measurement is to multiply your weight by 11(for women) or 12(for men). This gives you a crude measurement of how many calories are necessary to maintain that body weight. So ladies, wanna know what it takes to be 115lbs??
You cannot consume more than 1,265 calories a day without factoring in physical activity.
A 200lb man by comparison can consume 2,400 calories a day and not gain.

As I said, physical activity offsets these numbers. This is why Michael Phelps can consume many thousands of calories a day. He trains in a pool 8 hours a day and his metabolism is extremely high. So there are many factors that affect weight. Girls, if you are 5'10" and at least have an average musculature, then I'm sorry, but you have no business weighing 115lbs. Consuming only 1,200 calories a day can kill you.

The numbers I gave were the absolute bottom for maintaining organ function. Standing burns calories. Sitting burns calories. Sleep burns calories. Obviously, things like; walking, running, swimming, weight training, yoga, and pilates all result in your need for more calories. You have to count the calories spent on every activity and add them up to get a realistic idea of how many calories you need.

Henry Cardello has a book called Stuffed Nation where he offers the solution of incentivizing the food industry to cut the calories in the foods they make. I think it's a novel plan but I also think we have a risk of this biting us in the ass.

Let me paint a not so rosie picture...

This plan works really well. Calories are cut by a lot...maybe 30% or more. Everyone wants the incentives and the reduced calories makes their products more profitable. It quickly becomes an R&D's version of an arms race... a Race To Zero. Tragedy strikes! It could be war, drought, early frost, a new ice age, raised ocean levels driving the populations of the world inland and leaving less farmland, whatever situation you can conjure up.

The food supply is now scarce and we are forced to ration what we have so that everyone may have some food. The problem now is the opposite; people aren't getting enough calories and they're getting sick. People's immune systems start to fail. Common colds are debilitating. Manual labor is something we no longer have the energy for. People are weakened and less able to fight in battle. We are overrun by another country. Some assimilate, many more are massacred.

Ok, so that's a crazy Mad Max extreme, but it illustrates that it's the total diet that matters most and not the calories in Outback's Aussie Cheese Fries.

So let's educate people on a diet of moderation. Stop eating when you start to feel full (not after). Try to eat a variety of things(yes, that includes meat and seafood, hippies). Save the rich foods and desserts for special occasions and spend the rest of the time eating reasonably. Go outside, run around, play a sport, get exercise. If you find you have gained weight, monitor the calories in what you eat for a week and see where you are over indulging. That's it.

So we have two extremes; obesity and dangerously thin that are getting all the attention. I suggest our social policy as it related to food and health be well rounded and based in science and education. But whatever you do, please don't turn our nation's diet into a Race To Zero.