A Response to Genetically Modified Food

The topic of genetically modified foods is one that is similar to the topic of processed foods, which I wrote an expository paper on. Although the paper was informational, if it were a position paper, I would have said that processed foods were not as safe as organic foods. The position Sebastian took on genetically modified foods was similar to the position I would have taken on mass-produced and industrialized foods. Sebastian claims that genetically modified foods are not safe because of allergen and health risk factors, as well as environmental risks. I agree with this position because chemical alterations in food are never guaranteed to be 100% safe. Since we are not all food scientists, we never know what modifications are truly happening to our food.

Genetic modification, which is inserting desirable genes form one organism into another, poses health risks. The first argument made was that allergen genes could be transferred from one organism to another. This could be potentially fatal to somebody who thought a food was originally safe to eat, and was not aware of the allergen. Personally having some food allergies and restrictions, this is troublesome to me. If I unknowingly ate food containing one of the allergens I have, medical problems could arise. As of right now, the main health risk in GM foods is allergenicity. In an article called "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?", there were some claims of unknown health risks, but scientists could not make any specific correlations proving that genetically modified foods presented human health risks.

Although I believe that genetically modified foods have the potential to be harmful, similar to processed foods, they can be mass-produced. Since genetically modified foods can grow in harsher conditions, the production numbers can increase. I believe this could help solve the problem with undernourishment that is occurring (according to a “World Hunger” presentation given by Faculty Associate Julie Thurlow of the Nutritional Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, approximately 1 in 6 people throughout the world are undernourished). Genetically modified foods and industrialized foods can be mass-produced and yield bigger products than organically grown foods. However, the health risks that accompany genetically modified foods are too dangerous at this point. Similar to Sebastian's point of view, I believe the production should cease until safer methods are created. Chemical alterations can be helpful and/or harmful; until safer methods are created and used, we should stay away.

Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research - One Final Persuasion

Stem cell research has the potential to provide cures for numerous diseases, which is why it should be federally funded. Unfortunately, the occurrence of cancer, heart failure, kidney disease, diabetes, muscular dystrophy and more is all too common. In order to try and create treatments for these illnesses, extensive research needs to be done on stem cells. An issue with stem cell research is that it is expensive and time-consuming. However, if scientists had a consistent supply of money to use for their research, progress could be made faster. According to Dan Kaufman, M.D., PhD, assistant professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology, Oncology at the University of Minnesota: “None of this can happen without money…You can have all the embryonic stem cell lines in the world available to use, but if the funds aren’t there, then it doesn’t matter.”

Federally funding stem cell research can help save lives; there are many benefits to reap from stem cell research. Although some people are concerned that it may be unsafe or unethical, their fears can be calmed by the fact that NIH will be creating new guidelines. President Obama claims: “The majority of Americans—from across the political spectrum and from of all backgrounds and beliefs—have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research, that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided." According to a recent poll, 67% of the registered voters approved of President Obama providing federal funding for stem cell research. President Obama is opening more stem cell research lines with the new NIH guidelines. With more lines to work on, researchers will have more opportunities to create stem cell treatments.

Governmental federal funding of stem cell research will enhance the safety, effectiveness, and progression of stem cell research. There are also nonprofit organizations that support and donate to stem cell research. If you want to get involved with stem cell research, or find out more information, look at some of the sites listed and described below.

•International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR): http://www.isscr.org/about/index.htm

•Research!America provides ways to advocate and take action for stem cell research, along with polls in different states, stem cell research initiatives, legislation, and additional information: http://www.researchamerica.org/stemcell_issue?gclid=CJSyqNbK354CFQQMDQodJErUMw

•Stem Cell Resources provides a list of numerous organizations that are part of stem cell research. “The organizations listed below provide valuable educational information regarding the developments, applications, and ethical issues surrounding the use of stem cells”: http://www.stemcellresources.org/who_orgs.html

•UW-Madison’s Student Society for Stem Cell Research: meets every other Wednesday night at the Genetics/Biotechnology building on University. For more information e-mail: ssscr.wisc@gmail.com

Celebrity Endorsed Product

Water is a product that is commonly used and obtained by people everywhere around the world. All living species need it to survive. So who knew it even needed to be endorsed? As if water wasn't popular enough already, the brand Smart Water is advertising celebrity Jennifer Aniston to endorse it.

Every time there is a Smart Water ad, Aniston’s face is present. The Smart Water ad reads: "PURE SPECULATION: we’re not ones to sip and tell, but Jen’s pretty into us (and our vapor distilled purity)". The concept of water being purified, having minerals added, and being electrolyte-enhanced seems a little over-the-top. What happened to regular water?

With that being said, endorsing Smart Water with Jennifer Aniston’s face was probably a smart move. She is a popular celebrity and is known by many people, based on the work she has done in the TV and film industry. Therefore, putting her face with the Smart Water ad is an easy way to attract attention. However, the product Jennifer Aniston is endorsing is water, so it’s hard to tell if she is an expert or is qualified to endorse it, mainly because anybody can drink water and verify that it's good for the body. She may not be an expert in the field of chemically engineering water, but she’s an appropriate choice to use in advertisements based on the fact that Aniston “truly embodies what smartwater is all about as she combines substance and style like nobody else”, according to People.

When I was thinking of a celebrity-endorsed product, the Smart Water ad with Jennifer Aniston was the first product that came to my mind. I wouldn’t necessarily say that people would drink Smart Water because Jennifer Aniston drinks it, but her Smart Water ads may come to mind when somebody is wondering what kind of water bottle to drink, which could lead to the desired outcome. Either way, people have to drink water. Whether they will drink it because of Aniston or because they are thirsty is difficult to know.

Same-Sex Marriages

Love, happiness, and marriage are rights that everybody is entitled to. My divorce-attorney father may say that those may not come all together, but every person should at least have the right to experience them.

The first article discussed the religious, procreation, and historical pros of same-sex marriages. One influential point the article made was: “The Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right, older than the Constitution itself. When civil rights are at stake there is no such thing as deserving them; they are intrinsic to our very way of life.” Regarding the cons of same-sex marriages, some reasons why it should not be allowed are as follows: income taxes, social security, and medical insurance premiums will rise, children will be indoctrinated, and the workplace will try to indoctrinate workers. However, the monetary issues the article brings up are mainly hypothetical. In addition, indoctrinating children and workers is not a con—people should be accepting of this lifestyle even if they choose not to participate in it.

The first article regarding the pros of same-sex marriage was more convincing than the opposing article. The pro-article supported the arguments with specific examples; one specifically regarding the point of procreation claimed that fertility tests have never been required in order to receive a marriage license—couples are allowed to marry when the woman is beyond child bearing age or a spouse is on their death bed. Therefore, it is unfair to make the argument that same-sex couples will prevent procreation due to the inability to conceive. Many heterosexual couples are unable to conceive, or even choose not to conceive. There is always the option to adopt for homosexual couples.

I have always supported same-sex marriage, so my opinion has not changed. Based on the articles, I now support same-sex marriage even more. It’s unfair to deprive people of the right to express their love and commitment to one another. Although some may be shocked by the idea at first, accepting the idea of same-sex marriages will likely become more socially acceptable as time goes on. More and more we exclude less and less.

Artificial Sweeteners - Review of Class Blog

I start every morning off with two Splendas in my coffee. When I came across the article “Artificial Sweeteners: How Bad Are Saccharin, Aspartame?” I decided it was probably a good time to do some research on my bad Splenda habits. Luckily, the article told me that my habits with artificial sweeteners aren’t going to give me cancer, but they certainly aren’t all that healthy.

There are many types of artificial sweeteners, and some have been labeled as dangerous over the past years. Saccharin was the first artificial sweetener to be discovered in 1879, but it left an aftertaste of “unpleasant metallic”. So when cyclamate came out in 1951, lots of companies used it in their products because it tasted better than saccharin. However, cyclamate was soon being linked to cancer, and the government ordered it be taken out of all foods. Saccharin, although not linked to cancer, needed to carry warning labels because a study indicated that it might contribute to cancer in rats. Aspartame was then created and became the main additive in diet cola drinks. Numerous tests have been conducted on aspartame and all confirmed that it is safe to consume aspartame.

According to the National Cancer Institute, there are no clear connections linking cancer and artificial sweeteners. Numerous studies are conducted on artificial sweeteners before they are marketed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also regulates artificial sweeteners and requires artificial sweeteners be FDA approved before marketed for sale. This makes sense; according to "Artificial Sweeteners", diet cola has been tested more than 200 times, and each time it has been proven diet cola is safe to drink.

One quote that stood out to me in "Artificial Sweeteners" article is: “The fear-mongering and misinformation plaguing the faux-sweetener market seems to be rooted in a common misconception. No evidence indicates that sweeteners cause obesity; people with weight problems simply tend to eat more of it.” People struggling with their weight may try to use artificial sweeteners as a substitute for real sugar to cut out calories, but may later overcompensate by eating more of another food item. Using artificial sweeteners does not mean people should eat more calories of other foods. Although artificial sweeteners are lower in calories and much sweeter than sugar, but a little bit of the naturally sweet sugar may be just sweet enough.

Debunking Health Claims

The claims that Metamucil makes about their various products all sound beneficial and healthy. Some of Metamucil’s biggest claims are “Helps lower your cholesterol; Helps your natural cleansing process; Provides a good source of natural fiber; Promotes overall well-being”. However, there are so many claims it seems a little too good to be true.

According to the experts on the Metamucil website, Metamucil can add large amounts of fiber to a diet, can help digestive health, and comes in many forms that are easily accommodating to different lifestyles. Along with this, Metamucil can help lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease. On the other hand, other experts claim “excessive amounts of Metamucil can result in a vitamin deficiency” and since it can act as a digestive aid, people can become dependent on the product. In addition to these claims, Metamucil is also used by some as a weight-loss product. This is because is contains fiber, which often makes the stomach feel fuller. People taking Metamucil may be inclined to eat less, causing weight loss.

Metamucil contains psyllium husk, which is "a natural plant fiber that is a great source of soluble fiber". The websites that contained the opinions of “experts” made similar claims about the fiber in Metamucil products, which leads me to believe that the claims made about the fiber in Metamucil are valid.

Since some people use Metamucil as a way to lose weight while others use it to increase fiber in their diets, the truth may differ depending on who is asked. I believe Metamucil works as a digestive aid and as a way to increase fiber in the diet because all claims made about Metamucil verify it contains lots of fiber, and the ingredients in Metamucil verify the amount of fiber as well. However, rather than taking Metamucil, I would recommend eating foods such as apples, plums, broccoli, peas, bran cereal, whole wheat bread, and beans. Incorporating more fiber-rich foods into your diet before taking fiber supplements is a safer and healthier option. By eating natural foods, there is no need to take Metamucil and risk developing a dependency on it.

Preparing a Meal

The first step I took when preparing my meal was going to Gordon Commons and purchasing food items from Ed’s. There weren’t many options when it came to making a meal from scratch, so I decided to make a turkey sandwich. I gathered a loaf of bread, Oscar Meyer oven roasted turkey breast, and Wisconsin’s Finest medium cheddar cheese. With these items, I went back to my room and made a sandwich. I first took out two slices of bread, then put three slices of turkey on the bread, and topped that off with a slice of cheddar cheese. I made these sandwiches for my roommate and I. When the sandwiches were finished I disposed of the paper plates and napkins and put the leftover food items in the refrigerator. Although the steps to preparing and eating this meal weren’t difficult, it took more time and effort to prepare it myself rather than going into the cafeteria and eating food already made. But at least by preparing the meal myself, I knew exactly what it contained and where it had been.

I agree with the statements Pollan makes about the events that led up to American acceptance of food. A long time ago, it was considered a good thing to be a little heavier—having some meat on your bones was a sign of wealth and power. People savored every last bite of food. Now, we are embarrassed to eat a lot. As Pollan says, “energy has gone into helping us keep all such animal appetites under control” (page 55). In addition to this, one problem we have as Americans is the abundance of food. There is so much food conveniently located everywhere that we don’t even appreciate it. Fewer meals are made from scratch with natural and organic ingredients. An increasing amount of meals are now pre-prepared or taken out from restaurants and brought back home. This is similar to having to make my own meal—it would have been much more convenient to microwave something already made. The preparation was quite difficult given a lack of choice in organic foods to choose from.

Real vs. Fake Food

I will admit that I too am guilty of listening to the constantly changing opinions on which nutrients are good and bad. About a year ago, I kept hearing about new studies and reports on how bad cholesterol was for me. Knowing I ate a lot of hamburgers, which contained high amounts of cholesterol, I decided to try incorporating veggie burgers into my diet, which were considered to be an overall healthier food.

Hamburgers had always been one of my favorite foods, so I was skeptical to try the veggie burgers. They actually tasted surprisingly delicious. I was not expecting to like them at all, so I was thrilled to find a new food. Another thing I liked about veggie burgers was how convenient it was to make them; it took less than ten minutes to prepare.

Veggie burgers look about the same as regular hamburgers, but a little lighter in color—more of an orange/red than brown. Veggie burgers taste excellent, although they taste more like vegetables than meat. The smell is also different; distinct although quite difficult to describe.

In addition to convenience and taste, around the time I started eating veggie burgers, there were numerous breakouts of various food bacteria. My chances of ingesting E. coli became much smaller by eating a veggie burger compared to a hamburger. Along with my fear of food bacteria, the nutritional value of veggie burgers was more appealing to me than hamburgers. There were smaller portions available, less saturated fat, and more soy and protein. Although veggie burgers contain more nutrients than hamburgers, they are not real meat, so it is difficult to tell if the veggie burger can really be compared to a hamburger.

As for now, I try and switch between eating veggie burgers and hamburgers. There are pros and cons to each food, so it is best to get a little bit of the natural food if I continue to eat the processed version. All in moderation, and it should be fine.

Michael Pollan Discusses "In Defense of Food"

The Michael Pollan event was wildly successful. Thousands of people showed up to hear him speak, whether they agreed with the information in his book or not. In addition to this, his speech was entertaining. Pollan made the event casual and incorporated jokes. The audience interaction was strong; people were receptive to what he was saying. Even those who did not necessarily agree were responsive in a positive manner.

Michael Pollan makes some strong points that are hard to argue with. As a hopeful future dietitian, although he insults the profession a little bit, I must admit that a lot of what he claims makes sense. The first point he made that stuck out to me was about the “American Paradox”. Pollan claims that for a nation who obsesses about nutrition, we have very poor nutritional health. I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why nutritional science is a good major to have—people are obsessed with eating properly and seem to need the guidance dietitians can provide. To go along with this, Pollan also said that when nutrients are what matters, people become dependent on scientists to tell others about foods to eat. As I think about this more, it seems a little pathetic that we’re the only animal species that’s needs an entire group of professionals to determine what’s good and bad to eat. However, at the same time I feel conflicted because learning nutritional science is what I feel passionate about. What kind of future does the nutritional science profession hold? I’m not quite sure, but dietitians seem to be needed and not needed at the same time.

This brings me to the second point Pollan made that I felt was powerful: nutritional science is a young science. It’s promising, interesting, but not quite 100% yet. He compared nutritional science now to what surgical science was like in the 1600s. This is a much more promising view to me. I took this statement as nutritional science experts were needed in order to get this science up to high standards, which makes me feel confident about my future in dietetics. The Western Diet is one that definitely needs to be altered, and I want to be a part of that change. Michael Pollan made a point that I had never really thought about until his speech: we are always trying to determine a “satanic” nutrient, or a “blessed” nutrient, and our views on these nutrients keep switching and changing. Since the status of nutrients is never constant, people are left feeling unsure and insecure about what to eat, which is why dietitians and nutritional scientists are so heavily relied on.

One other comment Pollan made was, “We got fat on the low-fat diet.” Most of the bad fats we consume are the ones we invented in an effort to be healthier. The low-fat foods and nutrients may be low-fat, but are high in other bad fats. Nutritionists are now trying to point this out to those who are frustrated with their weight. Pollan said, “Nutritionists are the guides”. For the sake of my future profession, I hope it will remain this way for a long time.

Thoughts on Section I of "In Defense of Food"

In Section I of In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan's view on nutrition is keeping it simple. Throughout this book so far, it seems that what he’s trying to do is put things in perspective. He is re-focusing his image (and perhaps ours as well), while viewing the big picture.

One point Pollan makes is that food used to be a good thing—it was social, bonding, and beneficial. I agree with this statement. Now it seems that people are afraid to eat the way past generations used to—they didn’t care what the food was. If it tasted good, why not? We’ve gotten so caught up in eating “the right things”, we’ve forgotten how to enjoy it altogether.

However, Pollan makes a certain point at the beginning of his book that I feel conflicted about: “What other animal needs professional help in deciding what it should eat?” My major is dietetics, and I hope to go into a nutritional field one day. By Pollan making this statement, my future career in dietetics and nutritional science is not looking favorable. Although fortunately for me, people out there still feel they need massive amounts of guidance when it comes to nutrition and being healthy.

“Speak no more of food, only nutrients” was another important point brought up in the book. Pollan mentions nutrition experts only talk about nutrients, rather than food in general, which can be harmful. Every day more and more contradicting arguments and studies about nutrients are coming out. We seem to be working around food instead of just eating it. The food vs. nutrients ordeal has gone on far too long.

Philip Brewer, author of an In Defense of Food review blog, agrees with Pollan’s main objective: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” We are hearing too much information rather than keeping it simple, which is how Brewer describes In Defense of Food. Brewer claims the book is straightforward, and I agree. My feelings on the book so far: eat in moderation, and you’ll be fine.

Preview of "In Defense of Food" Review by Philip Brewer: "The message of this book is simple: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Michael Pollan gives it away right at the start, so I don't feel too bad doing the same. If you already eat food, but you worry about health and nutrition, you'll find this book fascinating and important. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who tends to eat less food and more "edible substances" and "food products," you will instead find this book important and fascinating..."

http://www.wisebread.com/book-review-in-defense-of-food