Monday, June 24, 2013

IEEE SPECIAL REPORT ON FOOD: THE AGE OF PLENTY

SPECIAL REPORT: THE AGE OF PLENTY

http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/the-age-of-plenty

 

There’s a surging current of alarm that we’re headed for a food doomsday by 2050—that the world’s food-producing capacity will crash before population peaks at 10 billion. Don’t you believe it! Smart technology and better management policies will let us feed the hungry hordes to midcentury and beyond.

Scroll down to browse more than 20 stories that examine the link between technology and food, including views from experts like Keith Fuglie, Nathan Myhrvold and Pablos Holman, and Jeffrey Lipton and Hod Lipson.

 

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Nickelodeon Resists Critics of Food Ads

June 18, 2013

Nickelodeon Resists Critics of Food Ads

By BROOKS BARNES and BRIAN STELTER

One year ago, the Walt Disney Company unveiled a strict new set of nutritional standards and said it would ban ads for noncompliant foods from its child-focused cable channels by 2015. Advocacy groups fighting childhood obesity cheered.

And then they shifted their focus to Nickelodeon, Disney’s archrival and the country’s other major children’s programmer. Exactly when would it be following Disney’s lead?

The answer appears to be never — not only because doing so could hurt Nickelodeon’s bottom line, but because the children’s cable behemoth may have taken enough steps to blunt the attacks.

Despite continued pressure on Nickelodeon to restrict ads for products like Trix and Cocoa Puffs — four United States senators renewed the pleas in a letter to the company last week — the Viacom-owned network has remained defiant. Nutritional standards, it contends, must be decided by regulators and food companies, not Hollywood.

“As an entertainment company, Nickelodeon’s primary mission is to make the highest quality entertainment content in the world for kids,” the company said in a written response to the senators. “That is our expertise. We believe strongly that we must leave the science of nutrition to the experts.”

Money, of course, is a significant factor. Food advertising on Nickelodeon has fallen 45 percent since 2008, according to the company, partly because of its own efforts to cut back on ads for certain sugary drinks and fatty foods, and partly because of self-regulation by food companies.

But food remains Nickelodeon’s third biggest advertising category (behind movies and toys), accounting for roughly 18 percent of annual sales. At a recent meeting on Capitol Hill, according to legislative aides, Viacom lobbyists reiterated this point and emphasized that their children’s networks — Nick, Nick Jr. and TeenNick — are more reliant on advertising than Disney’s flagship Disney Channel, which accepts limited sponsorships but does not accept 30-second spots.

Advertisers spend roughly $950 million annually on television tailored to children under 12, according to industry estimates. Across all the children’s cable channels tracked by Nielsen, the number of food ads was up 16 percent in the first quarter of the year versus the same quarter a year earlier, far outpacing the increase in all advertising, which was 6 percent.

Nickelodeon, which declined to comment for this article, is dug in for other reasons. Its executives ardently believe that critics, in particular the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, have ignored its many efforts to cut down on junk food ads and promote healthy lifestyles to its viewers.

For years, for instance, Nickelodeon has dedicated 10 percent of its promotional airtime to health and wellness messaging. It has also restricted the licensing of characters like SpongeBob SquarePants on certain junk foods and sent millions of dollars to communities to buy equipment like swing sets, among other initiatives. Once a year, Nickelodeon suspends programming on all of its channels and Web sites for three hours as part of a program called Worldwide Day of Play.

Against that backdrop, analysts say, some critics are having a harder time painting Nickelodeon as an uncaring corporation peddling junk food to children.

“Nickelodeon is not above reproach by any means,” said Dade Hayes, executive editor at the trade publication Broadcasting & Cable, and author of “Anytime Playdate: Inside the Preschool Entertainment Boom.” “But they certainly can’t be depicted as an evil Philip Morris-type cabal, either.”

Nevertheless, the pressure on Nickelodeon to take stronger measures has persisted. Last week, four Democratic senators — Richard Blumenthal, Richard J. Durbin, Tom Harkin and John D. Rockefeller IV— prodded by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, asked Nickelodeon in a letter to “promptly take similar action” to Disney and “implement strong nutrition standards.”

But it was hardly a fire-breathing missive. “We applaud the initiatives that Nickelodeon has taken to promote healthy lifestyles for children,” the letter said.

Senator Blumenthal said the letter’s gentle tone was intentional. “We want to reason with them,” he said. “We want this to be voluntary, even enthusiastic on their part.”

Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, conceded that the volume of food ads on Nickelodeon had gone down.

“Things are moving in the right direction,” she said. “They’re just moving way too slowly.” A study by the center last year found that 69 percent of the food ads on Nickelodeon were for foods deemed unhealthy by the center. In 2005, it was 90 percent.

She dismissed Nickelodeon’s assertion that entertainment companies — particularly ones that do not serve food at theme parks and on cruise ships — have no business deciding nutritional standards.

“They can’t tell that Airheads candy are unhealthy without having a Ph.D. in nutrition?” she asked.

“We’re not expecting perfect standards, but we’re expecting some standards,” she added.

Ms. Wootan has shown no interest in letting up, even if some of her rhetoric has seemed excessive at times. In March, for instance, she put out a news release that charged Nickelodeon with “recklessly throwing gasoline on the fire” when it comes to childhood obesity.

At the same time, her organization, in partnership with other advocacy groups, took out a full-page ad in The Hollywood Reporter in the form of an Old West wanted poster. It featured mug shots of a slovenly SpongeBob SquarePants and included the words “Approach with caution! SpongeBob may be armed with nutritionally dangerous foods.”

 

Monday, June 17, 2013

Would Americans Be Better Off Eating a Mostly Organic Diet?

 

Would Americans Be Better Off Eating a Mostly Organic Diet?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324063304578525342828282504.html

 

Sales of organic food have been rising steadily over the past decade, reaching almost $30 billion in 2011, or 4.2% of all U.S. food and beverage sales, according to the Organic Trade Association.

 

Many of the consumers who purchase these products say paying more for organic produce, milk and meat is a trade-off they are willing to make in order to avoid exposure to chemical pesticides and fertilizers and milk from cows given bovine growth hormone. But other families—especially those whose food budgets may be more limited—wonder if organic food is really worth its hefty price tag.

 

So far, researchers haven't been able to provide them with a definitive answer.

 

Some experts say common sense should tell us that food grown without the help of synthetic chemicals is probably safer and healthier to consume than food containing those substances, even in trace amounts. They believe Americans should try to substitute organic products for conventional ones whenever possible.

 

But others point out that there isn't enough scientific evidence to say for sure that eating organic food leads to better health. As such, they say the most important dietary advice they can give Americans is to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables and less processed food.

 

Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at the Harvard School of Public Health, argues for eating more organic food. Janet H. Silverstein, a professor of endocrinology at the University of Florida and a co-author of an American Association of Pediatrics study on the health benefits of an organic diet, takes the skeptic's view.

 

Yes: It's Common Sense to Try To Avoid Pesticide Exposure

 

By Chensheng (Alex) Lu

Enlarge Image

 

Harvard University

Chensheng (Alex) Lu

Is there definitive scientific proof that an organic diet is healthier? Not yet. Robust scientific studies comparing food grown organically and food grown conventionally don't exist, thanks to a lack of funding for this kind of research in humans.

 

The lack of definitive evidence—combined with the higher price of organic food—has given skeptics a golden opportunity to argue that organic isn't worth the cost and effort.

 

But let's be clear: Some convincing scientific does exist to suggest that an organic diet has its benefits. What's more, it only makes sense that food free of pesticides and chemicals is safer and better for us than food containing those substances, even at trace levels.

 

While studies in recent years have delivered a decidedly mixed message about the healthfulness of organic food, those on both sides of the debate generally agree that organic produce typically contains fewer pesticides than conventional produce, and that people may be able to reduce or eliminate agricultural chemicals from their bodies by adopting an organic diet

 

This was illustrated in a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2006. That study, which I led, showed that within five days of substituting mostly organic produce for conventional produce in children's diets, pesticides disappeared from the children's urine.

 

Protective Effect?

 

Many say the pesticides found in our food are nothing to fear because the levels fall well below federal safety guidelines and thus aren't dangerous. Similarly, they say the bovine growth hormone used to increase cows' milk yield is perfectly safe. But federal guidelines don't take into account what effect repeated exposure to low levels of chemicals might have on humans over time. And many pesticides were eventually banned or restricted by the federal government after years of use when they were discovered to be harmful to the environment or human health.

Enlarge Image

 

 

Organic foods have made big inroads in supermarkets like this Hannaford store in Quincy, Mass.

Pesticides, in particular, are made to kill organisms, and the President's Cancer Panel in 2010 made clear that it sees them as a threat, advising Americans to "reduce their cancer risks by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers."

 

Organic skeptics like to cite a meta-analysis study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine last year that suggested organic foods are neither healthier nor more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.

 

Left out of that analysis, however, were recent field studies showing that organic produce, such as strawberries, leafy vegetables and wheat, not only tastes better but contains much higher levels of phenolic acids than conventional produce. Phenolic acids are secondary plant metabolites that can be absorbed easily through the walls of intestinal tract, and can act as potent antioxidants that prevent cellular damage, and therefore offer some protection against oxidative stress, inflammation and cancer.

 

The Price Debate

 

Yes, organic food typically costs more and can be harder to find than traditional food, but one could argue that the price of conventional food is artificially low because of all the subsidies that organic farmers don't get and that the government could do more to help organic farmers lower their costs. Nevertheless, when bought in-season, organic produce is often comparable in price to conventional produce.

Enlarge Image

 

A good strategy for consumers on limited budgets is to buy the organic versions of foods on the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list, as they typically contain the most pesticides. Or, consumers could focus on buying the organic versions of the foods they eat most.

 

As for suggestions that organic food is just as susceptible to bacterial contamination as regular food, that is off point. That type of contamination can happen after harvesting and often has nothing to do with how food is grown.

 

Knowing that we could reduce our exposure to pesticides and increase our exposure to antioxidants by eating organic food, it makes great common sense to consume more of it.

 

Dr. Lu is associate professor of environmental exposure biology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Email him at reports@wsj.com.

 

No: There Is Little Evidence Organic Food Is Worth the Cost

By Janet H. Silverstein

 

University of Florida

Janet H. Silverstein

There is no definitive evidence that organic food is more nutritious or healthier than conventional food, but there is proof that eating more fruits and vegetables and less processed food is.

 

Therefore, our focus as a society should be to eat as much fresh food and whole grains as possible—regardless of whether it is organically grown or not.

 

Organic food is more expensive than conventional offerings—up to 40% more, according to some estimates—which could make it cost-prohibitive for families on limited food budgets. Given the lack of data showing that organic food leads to better health, it would be counterproductive to encourage people to adopt an organic diet if they end up buying less produce as a result.

 

If families can afford to buy organic and still put a good amount of healthy food on the table, then the decision about whether to spend the extra money on organic produce, milk and meat should be based on a solid understanding of what we do and don't know about the benefits.

 

Pesticides and Safety

 

It is difficult to compare the nutritional value of organic versus conventional food because the soil, climate, timing of harvest, and storage conditions all affect the composition of produce. Still, published studies have found no significant differences in nutritional quality between organic and nonorganic produce or milk.

 

Similarly, there is no evidence that giving bovine growth hormone (BGH) to cows changes the composition of milk or affects human health. BGH is inactive in humans and degrades in the acidic environment of the stomach.

 

As for pesticide exposure, the U.S. in 1996 established maximum permissible levels for pesticide residues in food to ensure food safety. Many studies have shown that pesticides levels in conventional produce fall well below those guidelines.

While it's true that organic fruits and vegetables in general contain fewer traces of these chemicals, we can't draw conclusions about what that means for health as there haven't been any long-term studies comparing the relationship between exposure to pesticides from organic versus nonorganic foods and adverse health outcomes. It may seem like "common sense" to reduce exposure to these chemicals, but there are currently no good evidence-based studies to answer the question.

 

While awaiting definitive studies, families on limited budgets who are concerned about pesticide exposure can refer to the Environmental Working Group's list of the "Dirty Dozen," those foods with the highest pesticide residues, and the "Clean 15", the foods with the lowest pesticide concentrations. A good strategy would be to focus on buying organic versions of the foods on the "Dirty Dozen" listing.

 

Don't Trust Labels

 

 

We would like to think that organic food is grown locally, put in a wheelbarrow and brought directly to our homes. However, much of it comes from countries where regulations might not be as tightly enforced as in the U.S., and labeling of the foods might be misleading.

 

And just because food is labeled organic doesn't mean it is completely free of pesticides. Contamination can occur from soil and ground water containing previously used chemicals, or during transport, processing and storage. Organochlorine insecticides were recently found in organically grown root crops and tomatoes even though these pesticides haven't been used for 20 years.

 

A recent epidemic of salmonella deaths from both organic and nonorganic peanuts, meanwhile, suggests that organic meat and produce are just as susceptible to infection by bacteria and fungi as other foods.

Given what we know, the best diet advice we can give families is to eat a wide variety of produce and whole grains. Whether they want to buy organic is up to them.

 

Dr. Silverstein is professor of endocrinology at the University of Florida and a co-author of an American Association of Pediatrics study on the health benefits of an organic diet. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

 

Thursday, June 6, 2013

FW: You're Invited: Food and Farm Policy: Impacts on Health and Health Care Costs

 

 

BPC Presents:

Food and Farm Policy: Impacts on Health and Health Care Costs

The 2013 Farm Bill reauthorization debate provides an opportunity to examine efforts to minimize escalating obesity rates and identify opportunities to promote healthy eating.

The Bipartisan Policy Center's (BPC) June 2012 report Lots to Lose: How America's Health and Obesity Crisis Threatens Our Economic Future provides evidence that the obesity crisis has significant consequences for our well-being, the economy, and national security.

Join BPC as we convene a panel of experts to discuss how to ensure that federal policy supports both a strong farm sector and a healthy population, against a background of high health care costs, tight budgets, and a rapidly changing agricultural sector.


Keynote remarks by:

Kathleen Merrigan
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture

Panel discussion featuring:

Sec. Dan Glickman
Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Senior Fellow, BPC
Co-chair, BPC's Nutrition and Physical Activity Initiative

Robert Guenther
Senior Vice President of Public Policy, United Fresh Produce Association

Eric Olsen
Senior Vice President of Government Relations, Feeding America

Rep. Charles Stenholm
Former Representative from Texas
Senior Policy Advisor, Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman Matz PC

Closing remarks by:

Ann Veneman
Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Co-chair, BPC's Nutrition and Physical Activity Initiative


When:
Thursday, June 20, 2013
9:30AM-11:00AM

Where:
Bipartisan Policy Center
1225 Eye Street NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005


REGISTER HERE
Invitation transferable.

About the Bipartisan Policy Center
Founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a non-profit organization that drives principled solutions through rigorous analysis, reasoned negotiation and respectful dialogue. With projects in multiple issue areas, BPC combines politically balanced policymaking with strong, proactive advocacy and outreach. For more information, please visit www.bipartisanpolicy.org

 

Bipartisan Policy Center - 1225 Eye Street NW - Suite 1000 - Washington, D.C. 20005

Follow BPC:
Twitter l Facebook l Instagram

Profile & Subscription Preferences |
Unsubscribe

 

Saturday, June 1, 2013

The Jargon of Junk Food

The Jargon of Junk Food

Manufactured foods need manufactured words

By Paul McFedries

Posted 31 May 2013 | 4:21 GMT

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/the-jargon-of-junk-food

Illustration by Greg Mably

Our limbic brains love sugar, fat, salt.… So formulate products to deliver these. Perhaps add low cost ingredients to boost profit margins. Then “supersize” to sell more.… And advertise/promote to lock in “heavy users.” —Bob Drane, former vice president for new business strategy and development at Oscar Mayer, quoted in Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us (Random House, 2013)

Most of us love food—many of us love food a little too much. Hence the dangerous rates of morbid obesity in the United States and elsewhere, an epidemic known as globesity. Those extra pounds generally come from the overconsumption of soft drinks, snack foods, and fast foods. The massive popularity of these so-called junk foods (a phrase that was added to the language menu in 1973) is a testament to the food industry’s talent for creating feel-good food.

Our diets may be richer for it, but so too is the English language, which now boasts many tasty new words and phrases cooked up by food industry scientists and technologists. (I’m indebted to New York Times reporter Michael Moss, particularly for his fascinating new book Salt Sugar Fat, for many of these terms.)

Food companies don’t want their customers to be obese, of course, but what they are dedicated to is increasing stomach share, or the market share within a food category. They’re certainly happy to use marketing techniques to do this, particularly up-and-down-the-street marketing where they get their product prominently displayed in every mom-and-pop shop and convenience store on a street. But processed-food companies increasingly turn to their legions of scientists to produce foods that we can’t resist. These food geeks tweak their products by varying the levels of the three so-called pillar ingredients—salt, sugar, and fat.

Why not just crank these ingredients up to 11 if we crave them so much? It turns out that although we generally do like more of them, when you go past a certain amount, we like the result less. That optimum amount of salt, sugar, or fat is called the bliss point. Scientists also adjust these ingredients as well as factors such as crunchiness to produce a mouthfeel—that is, the way the food feels inside a person’s mouth—that causes consumers to crave more. Technologists can also induce a flavor burst by altering the size and shape of the salt crystals themselves so that they basically assault the taste buds into submission.

The holy grail of junk-food science is vanishing caloric density, where the food melts in your mouth so quickly that the brain is fooled into thinking it’s hardly consuming any calories at all, so it just keeps snacking. In the process, packaged-food scientists want to avoid triggering sensory-specific satiety, the brain mechanism that tells you to stop eating when it has become overwhelmed by big, bold flavors. Instead, the real goals are either passive overeating, which is the excessive eating of foods that are high in fat because the human body is slow to recognize the caloric content of rich foods, or auto-eating: that is, eating without thinking or without even being hungry. (The opposite problem is being overhungry, where you’re so ravenous that you’ll basically eat anything that’s put in front of you.) Either way, if you end up with a food baby, a distended stomach caused by excessive overeating, you’ve made a fast-food executive somewhere very happy.

Sometimes these junk-food machinations backfire and companies end up battling the cookie aisle problem. This is where consumers shun a particular aisle in the store, such as the one containing the cookies, because there is too great a risk they would buy-and-binge, purchasing a bag of Oreos and then eating all or most of them once they get home. Of course, with both waistlines and processed-food company profits expanding alarmingly, it’s clear that consumers are in fact spending all too much time in the cookie aisle. They can’t help it. The science made them do it.