Food Politics

Hi Marion,

I am writing today because your blog is such a valuable source of information on the science of food. Did you know there is an award to recognizes the best research in human nutrition and food science/technology?

On behalf of Bimbo Bakeries USA, I’d like to alert you that the deadline to submit entries for their prestigious, bi-annual Pan-American Nutrition Award (PANA) 2010 is fast approaching (October 15). One of the largest bakeries in the world (producing 150 brands, 7,000 products and serving 17 countries), Grupo Bimbo is committed to promoting scientific research to advance the fields of human nutrition and food science and technology. To that end, PANA 2010 recognizes the best research papers of the year and is granted to both established professionals and young scientists in two categories (human nutrition and food science/technology) and in four zones: the United States of America, Mexico, Central America and South America.

Entrants can submit their published papers for consideration at the PANA award website http://premiopanamericano.grupobimbo.com/home/home.php

There is $56,000 in award money to be distributed amongst named winners, but the deadline for award consideration is October 15, 2010. Would you be willing to post a fact sheet on your blog about the award? Or perhaps you could simply announce the opportunity to enter? We really just want to increase the amount of entrants this year.

Additional information:
o Young scientist: must have concluded a Master’s Degree, max 2 years before pub date of the invitation for award and actively participate in important scientific and or tech research projects; must have at least one publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Prize $2,000.00

o Professional: must have carried out unique, valuable research projects alone or as part of a team with at least 5 peer-reviewed publications in the last 3 years and have supervised postgraduates; must have taught and participated in activities promoting science. Prize $5,000.00

Thank you so very much.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Daitch

For your consideration:
Public release date: 1-Sep-2010
[ Print | E-mail | Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: John Reganold
reganold@wsu.edu
509-335-8856
Washington State University
Study finds commercial organic farms have better fruit and soil, lower environmental impact
Research team compared fields and fruits in heart of nation’s strawberry patch

IMAGE: John Reganold is lead author of a PLoS ONE paper finding organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries than conventional farms while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically…
Click here for more information.

PULLMAN, Wash.—Side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional strawberry farms and their fruit found the organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse.
“Our findings have global implications and advance what we know about the sustainability benefits of organic farming systems,” said John Reganold, Washington State University Regents professor of soil science and lead author of a paper published today in the peer-reviewed online journal, PLoS ONE. “We also show you can have high quality, healthy produce without resorting to an arsenal of pesticides.”
The study is among the most comprehensive of its kind, analyzing 31 chemical and biological soil properties, soil DNA, and the taste, nutrition and quality of three strawberry varieties on more than two dozen commercial fields—13 conventional and 13 organic.
“There is no paper in the literature that comprehensively and quantitatively compares so many indices of both food and soil quality at multiple sampling times on so many commercial farms,” said Reganold. Previous Reganold studies of “sustainability indicators” on farms in the Pacific Northwest, California, British Columbia, Australia, and New Zealand have appeared in the journals Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
All the farms in the current study were in California, home to 90 percent of the nation’s strawberries and the center of an ongoing debate about the use of soil fumigants. Conventional farms in the study used the ozone-depleting methyl bromide, which is slated to be replaced by the highly toxic methyl iodide over the protests of health advocates and more than 50 Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences. In July, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked the EPA to reconsider its approval of methyl iodide.
Reganold’s study team included Preston Andrews, a WSU associate professor of horticulture, and seven other experts, mostly from WSU, to form a multidisciplinary team spanning agroecology, soil science, microbial ecology, genetics, pomology, food science, sensory science, and statistics. On almost every major indicator, they found the organic fields and fruit were equal to or better than their conventional counterparts.
Among their findings:
• The organic strawberries had significantly higher antioxidant activity and concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds.
• The organic strawberries had longer shelf life.
• The organic strawberries had more dry matter, or, “more strawberry in the strawberry.”
• Anonymous testers, working at times under red light so the fruit color would not bias them, found one variety of organic strawberries was sweeter, had better flavor, and once a white light was turned on, appearance. The testers judged the other two varieties to be similar.
The researchers also found the organic soils excelled in a variety of key chemical and biological properties, including carbon sequestration, nitrogen, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and micronutrients.
DNA analysis found the organically managed soils had dramatically more total and unique genes and greater genetic diversity, important measures of the soil’s resilience to stress and ability to carry out essential processes.
###

Marion, I missed your 8/25 presentation at Sandia Nat’l Labs but I watched the streaming video today which is available on our internal website. Excellent presentation and a worthy mission! I look forward to reading your books and will review your website to stay informed. Thanks for making the trip out west.

Dr. Nestle, I enjoy your blog and thought you might find this interesting.

I am an RD and recently attended a Webinar for continuing education credits by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) (http://www.foodinsight.org.) The topic was “Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology Survey” http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2010_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Food_Technology_Survey . They do produce some useful consumer research.

All seemed well and good at first, but the methods used in their survey were disturbing. After asking about people’s awareness of GMO foods and finding that the overwhelming majority were blissfully ignorant (or more likely apathetic) IFIC reframed the questions by explaining one or more benefits of GMO food. [sarcasm]Remarkably[/sarcasm] when being told of the advantages of GMO food without any balancing con arguments, most people said “yeah, sure that sounds good.”

Their conclusion, “People tend to be pro-Biotechnology when you educate them on the benefits.” (Duh?) To that end, they recommended reframing the discussion about GMO foods by avoiding “negative” descriptive words like “genetically modified,” “genetically engineered,” and “transgenic.” Instead they advocate terms that obfuscate the real meaning such as “food biotechnology,” “enhanced farming,” and “grown in a better way.” [sarcasm]Right… That’s fair and balanced.[/sarcasm]

In their “Guiding Principles” they state, “We do not speak for, or represent, any company, industry, product or brand. … We do not lobby or advocate for legislation or regulations. … We do not endorse products or accept advertising.” (http://www.foodinsight.org/About/Guiding-Principles/tabid/90/Default.aspx) Nevertheless, I found them to be overtly providing pro-agribusiness “education.” This isn’t surprising given their list of sponsors.

Caveat emptor.

Hello Marion,
I recently read in the news about the “Frankenfish” and the possibility that the FDA may approve the fish as the first genetically modified animal allowed for human consumption. If I am correct, they will be holding public meetings on the matter. Can you give any general advice on how people such as myself can voice our distaste at such an approval? I have found links at the FDA’s website on how to submit public comments but am clueless on how to effectively get my voice heard. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Katie Lin

Hi!

Stumbled upon your website, and was drawn to find out more about your book, What to Eat? I tried to click on quite a number of the reviews listed – since so many are from publications I know, read, and respect – but for each link it said “page not found”. I don’t know if other users have had this problem, but you may want to investigate and fix those links! And I would really love to read the reviews, so I’d love to know if and when they’re taken care of!

Thanks for doing what you do,
Megan

Hi Marion,
We are Organic School Project, a non-profit organization in Chicago and our mission is to improve the way Chicagoland schools feed our children. You can learn more information about us online. (see the links below)
We love what you are doing and your website looks very nice.
Would you like to exchange links with our website http://www.organicschoolproject.org or our blog http://organicschoolproject.blogspot.com/ ? We have a brand-new website coming up very soon which is fabulous and we’d love to add the link to your website there or on our blog. And we hope that you put the link to our website or blog on the Link page of your website as well.
Please let me know!

Thank you! Talk to you soon.

Your friend at Organic School Project

Ms. Nestle,

As a longtime reader, I really enjoy and appreciate the information that you provide to us. As someone who’s interested in public health and personal health, you are right on target.

However, you must stop using Wikipedia as a source of information – any information, large or small. You should not quote from Wikipedia – even if it’s the “definition” of commodity speculation – and you certainly must not use it to explain that cupuacu is a “chocolate-like tree with a sweet fruit” or, worse, as a source that documents the decline of the Alaskan fishing industry.

Wikipedia is a nameless, faceless, authorless source of information that is subject to the whims of both the volunteer authors and the faceless but all powerful editors that decide what gets in – and what does not. You should realize, when Wikipedia speaks of the decline of the Alaskan fishing industry, that it could be a tainted source.

There are always better places for the same information, many of which are documented via footnotes in the better Wikipedia articles. The articles that are quoted in the paragraph that you reproduced in your article were published in 1999, 2001, and 2003, not “21 years later” as the Wikipedia author claims – and which you repeat. The articles that are listed as “almost 20 years after the spill” were, in fact, written only 15 years after the spill, but were retrieved 20 years afterwards. The footnotes have the right story, but the text of the article does not. “Almost 20 years” sounds nice, but 15 years is not the same as 20.

Such is Wikipedia. You are a very well respected professor that is delving into the world of journalism, where facts are facts and little discrepancies do matter as they chip away at the veracity of the story as a whole. These matters give the impression of fast and sloppy writing. Personally, I’d rather see fewer articles that were more clearly researched. (And frankly, if you had simply left out the Wikipedia entries altogether, your journalism would have suffered hardly at all.)

With all best wishes,

Jeff Baron

Center for Food Safety reports: federal judge bans planting GMO sugar beets pending proper EIS, . http://truefoodnow.org/2010/08/13/

Dear Marion,
If I may please ask for guidance.
A company is advertising a sugar alternative.
The advert reads, among other:
1. “Too much sugar . can cause cancer”
2. “a diet high in sugar can cause weight gain”
3. “a diet high in sugar can cause diabetes”
4. “a diet high in sugar can cause sugar shock”
5. “sugar excess can suppress your immune system and increase the risk of developing cancer”.

They quote the following article, of which you are a co-author, to justify their advertising: American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention

I have read the paper and although there is a statement stating “EXCESSIVE intake of sugar and other highly-refined carbohydrates may contribute to insulin insensitivity, alterations in the amount and distribution of body fat, and increased concentrations of growth factors that may promote the growth of cancers” I felt that their claims were exagerated and taken out of context. Or would you concur that their claims are correct within the context stated above.

Sincerely,
Harris

Hi Marion,

Many of the natural lifestyle blogs I read have been promoting soaked grains. Soaking advocates argue that immersing grains in an acid medium prior to cooking neutralizes phytic acid. Supposedly this helps with digestion and the absorption of more nutrients from the grain.

What’s your take on soaking?

Thanks very much!

Kelly T. from Goleta, CA

Hi Marion,

I had a conversation recently with a friend, and he said that food safety bill contains wording that would try to control what food individuals can grow in their gardens, leading to less and less access to things like heirloom veggies, and requiring that individual grow only seed from large corporations, like Monsanto. While I’m generally in favor of regulation that will increase our food safety, I’m concerned about items like this one that might be buried in the bill.

Do you know where in the bill this kind of information is coming from?

Thanks, Renee

Thought you find this of interest if you haven’t seen already: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/the-dark-side-of-vitaminw_b_669716.html

Yes, I think Cargill is under pressure because I have been getting lots of emails from the groups pressuring them! I agree with your solution (girls, education, etc.), but will Cargill and others do this? It doesn’t seem in their best long term interest. I would so love to be one of your students and write a great term paper once again! I guess I was a “geek”–I always liked writing papers.

Hello Marion,

This was in my mailbox today–No heading, no logo, no ID of any kind other than it is puportedly from Cargill. Sounds like the usual claptrap to me and very short on specifics. Nowhere does is say that they will simply PAY PEOPLE MORE for their cocoa! Lots of “workshops” and “working with others” and so on.

Do you think this is odd in that it has no identifying info?

——-

*
Cargill & Cocoa‏
Add to contacts
From: Cargill_Incorporated@cargill.com
Sent: Tue 8/03/10 8:36 PM
To:

Cargill is concerned about the safety and well-being of children who may be involved in dangerous, excessive, abusive or forced work on cocoa farms, which is why we are committed to working towards a supply chain where no children are subject to these conditions and to improving the livelihoods of cocoa farming communities.

We do not accept the use of illegal, abusive or enforced labor in any of our operations and we abide by the laws in the countries in which we operate. We require our direct suppliers of cocoa beans in Côte d’Ivoire to sign their adherence to the same standards. If suppliers are found to be employing such practices their contracts are subject to termination.

Ensuring cocoa is produced in a sustainable and responsible way is very important to Cargill. That’s why we are investing in activities, which are helping cocoa farmers improve agricultural working practices, increase their incomes and provide support to local cocoa communities. We also recognize that achieving more sustainable cocoa production cannot be achieved by working on our own.

For nearly ten years, as part of the global chocolate and cocoa industry we have been working with the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other international organizations including the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) to bring about positive and sustainable change to the way cocoa is grown and harvested in West Africa. The chocolate and cocoa sector is committed to a program of investment and improvement of social conditions in cocoa producing countries. Collectively it has invested more than U.S. $75 million and is supporting some 40 programs throughout West Africa that are providing cocoa farming families and their communities with opportunities to increase their incomes; teach farmers about responsible labor practices; and improve access to quality education for children.

The UTZ CERTIFIED cocoa program – established by Cargill, along with Dutch development organization Solidaridad, Oxfam, WWF and others in the cocoa sector – has introduced independent certification to improve agricultural, environmental and social practices in cocoa production, as well helping farmers improve quality, yields and most importantly raise their incomes.

Through our Farmer Field Schools program small-scale farmers are benefitting from a 30% increase in their incomes from higher yields, as well as receiving a quality-related bonus payment. Our training program will reach 10,000 farmers in 2010 and will result in more than 10,000 tons of UTZ CERTIFIED cocoa beans being available for use in sustainably certified chocolate and cocoa products.

Our own programs in West Africa promote better and safer working practices and help prevent children from forced or dangerous work on farms. Our farmer training seminars teach better and safer farming practices, such as using sticks in place of machetes to open cocoa pods especially when children might be involved, and using pesticides only in a prudent manner and never if children are around. These sessions also promote the importance of school attendance for children.

Through our partnerships in Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon and Ghana we are overcoming barriers to school attendance and improving rural education opportunities. In Ghana, our work with CARE has helped increase school attendance by 17.5% in 70 cocoa growing communities. In Côte d’Ivoire and Cameroon we have established 49 family farm schools in partnership with the European Institute for Cooperation and Development (IECD) which are improving education and providing practical farming skills to adults and children.

More information about our efforts and commitment to sustainable and responsible cocoa is available on our web site http://www.cargill.com/corporate-responsibility/pov/cocoa-sourcing/index.jsp

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-regulators-out-of-the-loop-on-chemical-risk-20100802-1139o.html

This article appeared in our local paper today, originally from the Washinton post. I work in the medical devices industry where we need to prove our devices are safe before they are approved for sale. The fact that the chemical manufacturers, who are exposing everyone to their products, can release chemicals without even a basic understanding of their toxicity is outrageous. (then we wonder why we are seeing massive increases in autoimmune disease, obesity, some cancers etc etc).

US regulators out of the loop on chemical risk LYNDSEY LAYTON, WASHINGTON
August 3, 2010
.WHEN US cereal giant Kellogg recently recalled 28 million boxes of Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, Corn Pops and Honey Smacks, the company blamed elevated levels of a chemical in the packaging.

Dozens of consumers reported a strange taste and odour, and some complained of nausea and diarrhoea. But Kellogg said experts it hired determined that there was ”no harmful material” in the products.

American regulators, charged with ensuring the safety of food and consumer products, are in the dark about the suspected chemical, 2-methylnaphthalene. The Food and Drug Administration has no scientific data on its impact on human health.

The Environmental Protection Agency also lacks basic health and safety data for 2-methylnaphthalene – even though the EPA has been seeking that information from the chemical industry for 16 years.

The recall hints at a larger issue: huge gaps in government knowledge about chemicals in everyday consumer products, from furniture to clothing to children’s products. Under current laws, the US government has little or no information about the health risks posed by most of the 80,000 chemicals on the US market.

”It is really troubling that you’ve got this form of naphthalene that’s produced in millions of pounds a year and we don’t have some of the basic information about how toxic it is,” said Erik Olson, an expert at the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is advocating an overhaul of US chemical laws.

In 1994, the EPA invited the chemical industry to submit health and safety data for 2-methylnaphthalene because it was being produced in large quantities, said Mary Dominiak of the EPA. Chemical manufacturers have yet to disclose that information, she said. And they may not even have it. If a manufacturer possesses data showing that a chemical harms health or the environment, it is required to turn over the findings to the EPA. Critics say that creates a disincentive for manufacturers to test their chemicals.

A component of crude oil, 2-methylnaphthalene is structurally related to naphthalene, an ingredient in mothballs and toilet-deodorant blocks that is considered a possible human carcinogen by the EPA.

Kay Cooksey, a packaging expert at Clemson University, said 2-methylnaphthalene likely ended up in cereal because something went awry in the manufacturing of the foil-lined bags. The foil is attached to the paper bag with an adhesive that is heated, she said. If too much heat was applied, or if the composition of the adhesive was incorrect, 2-methylnaphthalene could form.

Kellogg submitted a copy of its health-risk assessment to the FDA, but neither the company nor the agency would release it.

WASHINGTON POST

Hello – I have written something that I hope you may be interested in taking a look at. I am getting started with a science blog. We write about current events topics from an unopinionated scientific perspective, usually presenting scientific research in a way that is friendly for everyone, not just scientists, to read. One of the first things I chose to write about is High Fructose Corn Syrup, to find out if it is worse for health than sugar and how it relates to obesity in the United States. I think there is some interesting information in there, and I read and linked to many scientific research papers in the process.

I came across your blog and liked what I found. I think information on HFCS fits with the topics on your blog, so I thought you might have an interest in reading what I came up with. My point of view is based on science and research. If you think your readers would enjoy what we have written, and want to share it with them, that would be amazing, but all I really hope is that you will take a look. Here is the link:

http://actualityscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/issue-high-fructose-corn-syrup-part-1.html
-Justin Lapp
Actuality Science

Thanks for the warning. I’m aware that there are (count ‘em) FOUR servings in one small container of Hagen Daaz. I think the way labels are currently done is disingenuous–they try to obscure how many calories are in the container, but at least the info is there. This is also true of Whole Foods with their serving dishes (ounces) and their calorie count (grams). The dish they call small is more like itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny, but is, unfortunately, one serving–and as you say, who stops with that tiny amount–or even bothers ordering it? I only buy ice cream when I know I will have people to share it with, which is the only way I can monitor it!

By the way, Hagen Daaz makes a very nice dark chocolate sorbet which has a lot less calories than ice cream, which is why I was trying to find out how many calories in WF’s gelato (to compare).

Marion,

In my quest to let retailers know that caloric information is desired by consumers, I recently asked a Whole Foods employee how many calories were in a serving of their gelato. She was happy to look it up for me and proudly proclaimed that the amount was 160 calories per 100 grams for the particular variety I was inquiring about. Well, the stuff is sold by the ounce! Not very helpful, and the woman had no clue as to how many grams were in any of their containers. I pulled out the iPhone and googled “100 gram equivalency” and got the answer of 3.5 oz. The smallest dish they offer is about two oz., and the 12 oz container would have, well, I can’t get that to come out to anything even, but approximately 550 calories in 12 oz, which doesn’t seem right to me.

The point is, this seems like deliberate obfuscation. Calories should be given in the same system as the serving dishes and should be simple to work out for various sizes. I have found similar problems elsewhere, such as the Science Diet dog food (Hill’s) site. You were kind enough to work all that out in your book, but I had gone to the site before I read the book, and could make little sense of it all. Math is not my strong point, but I can usually do simple arithmetic; however, all this using different systems and obscure measures seems to me just one more reason to REGULATE AND FORCE THESE COMPANIES TO CLEARLY CONVEY THE CALORIC CONTENT OF THEIR FOOD.

p.s. I didn’t get the gelato from the case, but rather the Hagan Daaz that at least clearly gives the information.

@James Schulman

Thanks for the link–I enjoyed the segment as well!

Thought you might enjoy this clip from Colbert earlier this week:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/341501/july-29-2010/thought-for-food—cereal–foot-long-cheeseburger—ecobot-iii

Mr. Bruno,

I am concerned that you would use a blog to solicit funds. Your cause is worthy, but you need to raise your own money, locally. This seems unseemly at best. You should ask the people at the event to make contributions. Prof. Nestle makes monumental contributions already through her teaching, writing, and public appearances. She is, of course, free to speak for herself and this is just my take on your request.

Did you hear about this?
http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/07/27/washing-raw-chicken-actually-increases-your-food-poisoning-risk
I never even heard of washing meat, but it’s a nice little reminder that we really need to push for safe, clean food….

Thank you so much for your recent AFM article. I was delighted to read such a well thought out response in the face of excruciating silence from AAFP membership. Some of my medical student classmates and I, with med students at other schools, have drafted up a resolution calling for an end to the coca cola alliance and we want to do some extra efforts to drum up support for it during the resident/student conference in Kansas City this weekend.

Specifically we want to set up a table, pass around a petition, have buttons and stickers, and have people sign postcards that we will send to the AAFP board of directors. We are very passionate about ending this conflict of interest and exploring healthier partnerships for the sake of our members and our future patients.

Would you be able to help fund some of our efforts? $100 could provide us with 300 postcards, 100 buttons, and 100 stickers to pass out at events and at a table.

Thanks for all your amazing efforts so far and for any support you can lend,
Yours,
Richard

Oregon Health & Science University
Medical Student, Class of 2013
TheVACUUM.org uninsured video project

Hope your readers find value in the newest post.
http://dropitandeat.blogspot.com/2010/07/daily-exercise-is-must-or-so-you-think.html

Lori Lieberman, RD, CDE, MPH, LDN