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.

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.

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.

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.

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