Search results: a life in food

I promised to post some of the responses to the New York City Health Department’s new campaign against sugary drinks.  Here’s what the New York Times has to say.  Still reeling from the American Heart Association’s recommendation to reduce sugars from soft drinks (see previous post), the Beverage Association has issued this statement:

The messages being spread about beverages by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene are so over the top that they are counterproductive to serious efforts to address a complex issue such as obesity. Like most foods, soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are a source of calories. Simply naming one food source as a unique contributor minimizes a disease as complex as obesity. The key to energy balance and maintaining a healthy weight is counting calories in and calories out, not focusing on specific foods or abstaining from any one food or beverage in particular. While we support the campaign’s desire to help people lead healthier lives, we do not believe the campaign imagery represents a serious effort to address a complex issue such as obesity…Further, the beverage industry provides an array of beverages with a wide range of calories, including zero calories…all of which can be part of a balanced lifestyle [my emphasis].

Yes!  Drink water!  Preferably out of a tap!

Mark Hegsted, who headed the USDA’s now-defunct Center for Human Nutrition in the Carter Administration, died in June at the age of 95.  He was one great guy.  Before USDA, he was on the faculty of the Harvard School of Public Health, where he was famous for studies on how different types of fats affected blood cholesterol levels (the Hegsted equation) and on the epidemiology of calcium and osteoporosis.  These, counter-intuitively, showed that populations with the highest intakes of calcium and dairy products had the highest rates of osteoporosis.  At USDA, he dealt with now historical documents in nutrition history: the 1977 Dietary Goals for the United States and the 1980 Dietary Guidelines.  When President Reagan came into office in 1980, he was immediately fired from his director’s position and relegated to an office in USDA”s version of Siberia.

The New York Times published an obituary, and Harvard University sent out a press release.

I learned about his death from his son, who wrote on June 21:

Dear Friends,

My Dad, David Mark Hegsted, passed away on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 in Westwood, MA, after a brief illness.  He was 95.

For those of you who did not know him, he was born in Rexburg, Idaho in 1914, studied at the University of Idaho and received his Doctorate in Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.  He was one of the first two Professors of Nutrition appointed in 1942 at the Harvard School of Public Health and had a long and distinguished career there.  He authored dozens of scientific papers, traveled all over the world and received many awards from colleagues in his field.  During the Carter administration he headed the U.S. government’s newly created Center for Human Nutrition in Washington, DC and published the first “Dietary Guidelines for Americans”.

More importantly, he was a good and gracious man who will be remembered fondly by all who knew him.  In his later years he especially enjoyed playing bridge and working in his garden at Fox Hill and was a faithful follower of the Boston Red Sox.  He is survived by my family in the Yukon, and his granddaughter Camilla Franck and great-granddaughter Sarah Hespe of New York City.  My mother, Maxine, and my sister, Christina, predeceased him.

It was great for both of us that I could be with him so much during this last phase of his life.  Please take a moment to remember this special man.

Best,
Eric

About five years ago, I went to visit Mark Hegsted in his retirement home outside Boston.  I brought along a tape recorder.  Here is the transcript of our interview.

Henry Blackburn at the University of Minnesota has been collecting historical documents about the history of heart disease prevention.  This includes Mark Hegsted’s personal account of the history of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.  For anyone interested in the history of nutrition in the United States, this is invaluable information.

I’m glad I got to know him, even so late.

A recent meeting of the Institute for Food Technologists included presentations on applications of nanotechnology to food. These, say food technologists, have the potential to improve the safety, quality, and shelf life of foods.  They cite as examples anti-microbial coatings on food packaging materials and improved delivery systems for vitamin and flavor ingredients.

Nanotechnology deals with substances at the atomic and molecular levels, which means really, really small.  One nanometer is 0.000,000,001 meters (10 to the minus 9, or one millionth of a millimeter).

Until now, I haven’t said anything about food nanotechnology because I really don’t know what to say about it.  Is it safe?  How would we know?  Friends of the Earth says nanotechnology is the antithesis of organic agriculture and  represents a new threat to our food supply.  Even Food Technology thinks it should be disclosed on package labels.

The FDA says it already has the authority to regulate food nanotechnology.  The industry says that overly strict regulations are impeding progress in this industry (sounds like the GMO arguments, no?).

What’s going on here?  I’m having trouble getting a handle on this one.

If you know something about this, comments are most welcome.

Ah the British.  So ahead of us in so many ways.  A British court has ruled that Pringles have enough potato in them to qualify as crisps (translation: potato chips) and, therefore, are subject to a Value Added Tax of 15%.  Procter & Gamble, the maker of Pringles, argued against the tax.  Pringles, it says, are not crisps.  Why?  Because their shape and packaging are “not found in nature.”   Tough, said the court.  Pringles are 42% potato.  That’s enough to qualify them as crisps.  Under the law, crisps get taxed.

Pringles are 42% potato?  OK, but what else do they contain?  Here’s the ingredient list: DRIED POTATOES, VEGETABLE OIL, RICE FLOUR, WHEAT STARCH, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT AND DEXTROSE. CONTAINS WHEAT INGREDIENTS. (You will be relieved to note: No artificial ingredients.  No preservatives.)

Hey: potatoes are the first ingredient!  I say tax ’em.

Update May 25: Here’s what Advertising Age has to say about the Pringles-as-a-vegetable idea.  Pringles, it says, was able to supply the entire world with its product out of one factory in Tennessee, precisely because of its infinite shelf life and packaging.  Ordinary potato chips, alas, get rancid after a while.

Investigators at the Harvard School of Public Health estimated the toll of behavioral contributors to early mortality.  Obesity, they say, is the #3 cause of death after cigarette smoking and high blood pressure.

Dutch researchers say smoking is what kills people.  Obesity just leads to disability.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation says schools could do something to help prevent obesity if they got their act together.  It provides a guide to doing so.

Adam Drewnowski, my colleague and friend at the University of Washington, says: if you want to understand obesity, take a look at what poverty makes people eat.

And Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at Rockfeller University tells Nature that obesity is neither an epidemic nor a disease of lifestyle.  It’s all in the genes and in evolution.

I say (see What to Eat): eat less, move more, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, and don’t eat too much junk food!

While the new website was in production, I got a bit caught up on my reading.  Here’s what’s been happening on the obesity front.

Middle-age spread: eat less or else! A new study proves what every woman over the age of 50 knows all too well: you just can’t eat the way you used to without putting on the pounds.  Muscle mass declines with age, calorie needs do too.    Activity helps some, but not enough.  I think it’s totally unfair, by the way, but I’m guessing the same thing happens to men (but they have more muscle to begin with).  Alas.

Turn off the TV: Common Sense Media looked at 173 studies of the effects of watching TV on child and adolescent health.  Of 73 studies examining correlations between TV-watching and obesity, 86% found strong associations.  TV-watching was also strongly associated with such unfortunate outcomes as cigarette smoking, drug use, early sexual activity, and poor academic performance.  Conclusion: if you want to encourage kids to be healthier, turn off the TV!

British government launched an anti-obesity campaign: The UK government’s Change4Life campaign is designed to promote healthier lifestyles.  This is causing much discussion, not least because of its food-industry sponsorship (uh oh).  Food companies are said to view the campaign as good for business (uh oh, indeed). The government wants everyone to help with the campaign by putting up posters and such, and its website is cheery.  Buried in all of this is some good advice, but most of it is phrased as eat better, not eat less or avoid.  That, of course, is why the food industry is willing to fund a campaign which, if successful, could hardly be in the food industry’s best interest.

The Economist, of all things, is getting serious about Food Studies.  It has a lovely history of cookbooks in its current issue, accompanied by a wonderful illustration.  The writer is anonymous, of course (I will never understand why The Economist doesn’t let its writers sign their articles–most annoying).  Cookbooks, says Anonymous, do more than teach how to cook.  They tell us what’s happening in society and help us deal with life.  Buy cookbooks as presents, read them, try a recipe or two, and eat the result!  I can’t think of a better gift.  Happy holidays to all!

And here’s an idea: if you happen to have more cookbooks or books about food than you have room for, and are looking for a wonderful and appreciative home for them, send them to the NYU Fales special collection of materials on Food and Cookery.   The collection has 20,000 volumes so far, thousands of pamphlets, and a rapidly growing collection of papers from food professionals.

It’s beginning to look like the FDA is getting in as many “midnight” approvals as it can before the new adminstration kicks in.  First it loosened its advisory on eating fish, and now it has told Cargill, the maker of the Truvia brand of the artificial sweetener Stevia, that it’s OK for the company to market it.  I guess the FDA must have resolved its doubts about the science supporting the safety of Stevia, even though much of it was corporate-sponsored.  But CSPI still has doubts.  Or maybe the FDA just didn’t have the strength to stop soft drink companies from marketing Stevia-sweetened drinks with or without FDA approval.  CSPI can’t understand the rush.  Why not?  It’s politics as usual, alas.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the reason for the rush is to get products with this “natural” sweetener on the market now.  Coke is coming out with Sprite Green and Odwalla juice drinks, and Pepsi will market SoBe Lifewater and an orange drink called Trop50.  They must thing they are on to something.  Stevia does have its supporters.  Me?  I’ll take sugar anytime.

April 15, 2009 update: Stevia products are on the market and competing vigorously for market share, as discussed by Kim Severson in the New York Times.