Junk science is just as bad as junk food. "Junk science" describes claims that are exaggerated and distorted. The study of nutrition tends to attract a lot of misinformation based on questionable or incomplete research. New diets and gimmicks are almost a daily occurrence, making it a challenge to separate fact from promotion. Grand claims are often made for products without any scientific basis. Consumers are taking greater responsibility for their health, making them hungry for nutrition information, creating opportunities for nutrition misinformation, health fraud, and quackery to flourish. Media is consumers’ leading source of nutrition information, but rarely provide enough context to interpret the advice given.
Several organizations, representing over 100,000 food scientists, nutrition and medical professionals, have joined forces to help separate the ducks from the quacks. This joint task force is called the "Food and Nutrition Science Alliance" (FANSA) which includes experts from the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the American Institute of Nutrition (AIN), the American Society for Clinical Nutrition (ASCN), and the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT). FANSA published a list of "Red Flags" to help alert the public to "junk science."
Antioxidants, phytochemicals, complex carbohydrates...is this the outline of a college chemistry course? Or is it dinner? Nowadays, the answer may be both. Scientific developments in food and nutrition are routine occurrences and phrases like "functional foods" are entering people's everyday vocabularies. But how can an average person separate the nutrition science from science fiction or "junk science" and know what to believe? Before reacting to nutrition studies that paint a grim picture of the American dinner table, lunch counter and breakfast nook, consider the red flags to spot "junk" science.
First and foremost beware of recommendations that promise a quick fix. There is no overnight cure that can melt off that fifteen pounds you gained on your vacation. It takes time to see results from valid nutrition therapy. Be skeptical of dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen. Do you feel guilty, for instance, when you eat an egg? Use your common sense when you hear advice to totally avoid one food or another. If claims that sound too good to be true. They often are. There has yet to be a magic bullet developed to fix our health and nutrition issues. Changes take effort not just a wiggle of the nose or snap of the fingers.
Anyone can distort a conclusion. Exercise caution with accepting one single conclusion. Advertisers can turn preliminary findings into sales pitches with baseless claims, often for the sole purpose of economic gain.Get the facts; there are at least two sides of a story. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study is often associated with misinterpretation. There is research, for example, that shows an "association" between television viewing and being overweight. "Junk" science would translate that to mean, "Everyone who watches TV gets fat". Beware, not all nutrition advice is accurate.
Recommendations based on a single study. "Preliminary" research should prompt you to stay tuned for more information. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations are another cause for concern. Be suspicious if there are no credible sources to back up a nutrition claim.
Notorious lists of "good" and "bad" foods should be your “Nutrition Yield Sign.” Nutrition is a science, not a moral issue. There is no such thing as good, bad, legal, non-legal, right, or wrong when it comes to food. A single food or meal doesn't make or break a healthful diet. Healthful eating comes from making informed decisions about all foods.
Be cautious with recommendations that are made to help sell a product. Your first question should be “What is the motivation behind the recommendation?” Recommendations based on studies published without peer reviews are need for skepticism and should have further investigation. Reliable nutrition advice can withstand the critical review of the nutrition community. Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among individuals or groups are biased against different genders, ethnic groups, and different age groups. Men aren't mice and women aren't men. Listen closely to research findings to determine how they apply to you.
Enormous advances have been made in the science of food and nutrition, leading to a fine-tuning of many recommendations about eating healthfully. Despite these positive developments, misinformation about the role of nutrition in health abounds in our society, allowing nutrition related misbeliefs, health fraud, and quackery to flourish.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Frankenstein, Test-Tubes, and Foods
Not since cholesterol and the egg has a nutrition issue been so debated. Genetic engineering, GMOs, transgenic foods, frankenfoods, scientifically engineered foods - food biotechnology is a hot topic that consumers need to know about and understand.
According to a recent survey, consumer knowledge of food biotechnology continues to be low. Biotechnology is any technique (including genetic engineering) that makes use of living organisms to improve plants or animals or to develop microorganisms for specific purposes.
The goal of food biotechnology is to add or delete certain traits to or from a plant to offer herbicide or pesticide resistance, nutritional benefits, or improved crop yields.
The world population is expected to reach 9 billion in 2050. Many scientists are questioning how we will feed everyone. Food biotechnology can be part of the answer making it possible to grow nutrient dense food on smaller plots of land under poor growing conditions. The world food staples can be enhanced nutritionally through biotechnology to offer sustenance and nutrition to hungry people.
According to the International Food Policy Research Institute, “agricultural products grown locally allow poor people to improve their diets without having to depend solely on the vagaries of often-infrequent fortification and supplementation programs.
The potential of food biotechnology to play a role in battling the economically and politically complex issue of world hunger is great. Research is being done to examine technologies that may enhance the protein and fat content of the diet and the potential social and economic impacts of introducing enriched food sources to populations in developing nations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy is based on food product characteristics, not the processes used to produce the food. The FDA’s focus on material facts of nutrition, safety, and content, requires labeling of products that have a change in composition or nutritional content, or the introduction of an allergen.
Many countries place great importance on the processes of food production. The explanation from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations meeting summarizes the difference in opinions of the United States and the European Union:
In the United States, the law requires information on food products to be clear and unambiguous. Labels are intended to provide meaningful information, to warn and instruct the consumer. Further misleading or unnecessary information is believed to conflict with the right of consumers to be able to choose wisely, and to lessen the effectiveness of essential label information.
In the European Union, labeling is viewed as a way to ensure the consumers' right to know any fact that they deem important; it is a way to give consumers a choice and to inform them. The European Union's approach to labeling attempts to reach a compromise among the industrial, scientific and public sectors. In the European Union, the question is not whether to label products of biotechnology, but how to label them.
Although the United States does not require labeling of biotech products based simply on the process, some companies want to label their products to indicate that a food or feed has or has not been developed using biotechnology, allowing a greater choice for manufacturers and consumers. All foods that are derived from agriculture have been genetically modified through breeding. The FDA has issued draft guidelines for voluntary labeling that would not allow terms such as "genetically modified" (GM), "genetically modified organism" (GMO), or "modified" because they would be considered misleading and inaccurate. Today, labeling continues to be a point of contention. Studies show that the overabundance of information on food labels does not always increase knowledge or understanding.
Foods produced through biotechnology may contain allergens. Extensive allergenicity screenings would be conducted prior to marketing. Foods of biotechnology are among the most thoroughly tested food products and research can help with allergies. By actually removing allergens from these foods people can eat them and receive the nutritional benefits.
The FDA, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture are currently involved in food biotechnology issues, regulations, and policies. The verdict is still out. Whatever the case, keep your eyes, ears, and minds open and remember that in the past, changes to our foods have produced public concern and controversy.
According to a recent survey, consumer knowledge of food biotechnology continues to be low. Biotechnology is any technique (including genetic engineering) that makes use of living organisms to improve plants or animals or to develop microorganisms for specific purposes.
The goal of food biotechnology is to add or delete certain traits to or from a plant to offer herbicide or pesticide resistance, nutritional benefits, or improved crop yields.
The world population is expected to reach 9 billion in 2050. Many scientists are questioning how we will feed everyone. Food biotechnology can be part of the answer making it possible to grow nutrient dense food on smaller plots of land under poor growing conditions. The world food staples can be enhanced nutritionally through biotechnology to offer sustenance and nutrition to hungry people.
According to the International Food Policy Research Institute, “agricultural products grown locally allow poor people to improve their diets without having to depend solely on the vagaries of often-infrequent fortification and supplementation programs.
The potential of food biotechnology to play a role in battling the economically and politically complex issue of world hunger is great. Research is being done to examine technologies that may enhance the protein and fat content of the diet and the potential social and economic impacts of introducing enriched food sources to populations in developing nations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy is based on food product characteristics, not the processes used to produce the food. The FDA’s focus on material facts of nutrition, safety, and content, requires labeling of products that have a change in composition or nutritional content, or the introduction of an allergen.
Many countries place great importance on the processes of food production. The explanation from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations meeting summarizes the difference in opinions of the United States and the European Union:
In the United States, the law requires information on food products to be clear and unambiguous. Labels are intended to provide meaningful information, to warn and instruct the consumer. Further misleading or unnecessary information is believed to conflict with the right of consumers to be able to choose wisely, and to lessen the effectiveness of essential label information.
In the European Union, labeling is viewed as a way to ensure the consumers' right to know any fact that they deem important; it is a way to give consumers a choice and to inform them. The European Union's approach to labeling attempts to reach a compromise among the industrial, scientific and public sectors. In the European Union, the question is not whether to label products of biotechnology, but how to label them.
Although the United States does not require labeling of biotech products based simply on the process, some companies want to label their products to indicate that a food or feed has or has not been developed using biotechnology, allowing a greater choice for manufacturers and consumers. All foods that are derived from agriculture have been genetically modified through breeding. The FDA has issued draft guidelines for voluntary labeling that would not allow terms such as "genetically modified" (GM), "genetically modified organism" (GMO), or "modified" because they would be considered misleading and inaccurate. Today, labeling continues to be a point of contention. Studies show that the overabundance of information on food labels does not always increase knowledge or understanding.
Foods produced through biotechnology may contain allergens. Extensive allergenicity screenings would be conducted prior to marketing. Foods of biotechnology are among the most thoroughly tested food products and research can help with allergies. By actually removing allergens from these foods people can eat them and receive the nutritional benefits.
The FDA, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture are currently involved in food biotechnology issues, regulations, and policies. The verdict is still out. Whatever the case, keep your eyes, ears, and minds open and remember that in the past, changes to our foods have produced public concern and controversy.
source: agreenliving.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
