While at Whole Foods, I compared the organic apples with the conventional apples. They looked the same and may have tasted the same. Of course, the organics cost about 30% more. But really, other than price, the only thing that distinguished these apples was the display sign that said ‘organic’ and the annoying little sticky things on each apple.

I doubt, indeed I am sure, anyone at Whole Foods, the produce distributor, or the FDA actually tested these organic apples to ensure they were organic. For what would they even be testing? Residual pesticides, perhaps, but what if they were very low? Would that have meant they had been sprayed? What if the orchard down the road had sprayed and the pesticide drifted in the air to the neighboring orchard?

You get the point – it is difficult if not impossible to tell. That’s why the USDA has a strong certification program with farm or plant inspectors, required documentation, etc., to ensure organics are really organic.

Unfortunately, however, there is a lot of fraud, worth millions and millions of dollars. Indeed, the organic premium provides incentive for unscrupulous producers to commit organic fraud. That’s why, when someone is caught, the punishment is severe, including large fines and jail time.

Indeed, some examples are provided here, here, and here.

Image:  www.growingproduce.com

IFT (Institute of Food Technologists) has been actively involved for many years in world hunger programs such as World Food Day. As they write on their website, “World Food Day is an opportune time to reflect on how our work as a science of food and food innovation community can help realize a world with zero hunger.”  I encourage you to visit this link, as well as this more recent link, to explore how IFT is engaged in this issue. I also encourage to you visit this link to learn more about World Food Day 2024.

As we finished up our discussion on organic foods and clean label, we will discussed reasons why so many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these foods.  One of the main reasons is that organic foods are thought by consumers to be healthier than conventional foods.  We will reviewed the actual data on this question, but regardless, this perception certainly exists.

It’s interesting that by attaching an “organic” label to a food, it suddenly becomes healthy.  Cookies, cake, ice cream, candy bars, potato chips – you name it, there is bound to be an organic version.

From the “you can’t make this up” file, there is even organic tobacco.  Indeed, in the tobacco-growing state of Virginia, tobacco has become one of the main organic commodities produced in that state.

Now I know organic versions of wine and beer are available, but as I was writing this I thought what could possibly be next.  Organic marijuana edibles, perhaps?  Sure enough, they are widely available in California, Colorado, Washington and other states where recreational marijuana is legal. Some contain THC and others CBD (the bioactive chemical components). But be advised, they are not cheap. The organic CBD infused dark chocolate bar shown on the image cost more than $20!

One of the persistent GMO questions that continues to be debated is the most basic question of all – what exactly constitutes “genetically modified”?

Certainly, humans have been relying on hybrids for centuries, whether they be grapes, wheat, or other crops.  Breeding can also be considered a form of genetic selection. Scientists have also relied on classical mutation to obtain novel plants and microbes.

But GM is different in that, at least for the vast majority of cases, the genetic changes that occur in GM require rather precise molecular manipulation of genes or genomes. Cloning, gene inactivation, and other methods that rely on introduction or modification of genes into an organism are generally considered to be GM.  This can actually be regarded as a plus, since the genetic changes that occur by non-GM methods are often not precise and other changes can occur.

Recently, techniques for molecular manipulation have been developed that are even more specific and precise. One technique in particular, called CRISPR, is already being used in yogurt microbes, as noted in this article in the Atlantic, as well as other foods (article in Wired).

You may have heard about CRISPR in the news – after all, two of the scientists involved in the early research, Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, won the 2020 Noble Prize in chemistry.

What are your views on GM foods and the use of CRISPR?

For reasons we have discussed in class, food recalls are now a very common occurrence.  As mentioned during the food allergens unit, most food recalls are for undeclared allergens (e.g., when soy or milk or wheat or other allergenic ingredients) that get mislabeled or inadvertently added to a food.  While these can be serious, the recalls that get the most attention are for pathogens in foods.  Even then, unless the recall is particularly widespread and causes lots of illnesses or deaths, it seems like the public hardly pays attention.

Although the FDA and USDA websites post recalls, one of the best sites for a daily check on the most current recalls is the Food Safety News website. Interestingly, it is maintained by the Bill Marler law firm (Marler Clark).  There you can see that in the last month there have already been 8 recalls, most of which are due to pathogenic organisms like Salmonella.

For some of these, the contamination was detected before anyone got sick, but in other cases, the recall was prompted by reported illnesses.  One might argue that the frequency of recalls is too high and that this means our food supply is not safe. On the other hand, it could also be argued that detection and tracing methods are now so sensitive and so fast that public health is actually better off than ever before.

This a glass half-full or half-empty kind of argument.  Which side do you take?

Image from http://www.reajetus.com

In class, we will discuss ethical labels on foods (organic and other labels), and this is even part of your assignment for the week. The presumption is that these labels make a difference to consumers. In other words, all things being equal (e.g., quality, price), would a consumer choose a product with an ethical label over one without such a label? Moreover, would a consumer pay more for such a product?

Naturally, there are research studies that have asked this exact question. In a 2021 study, researchers in Belgium recruited 179 consumers to evaluate three food products (nuts, juice, and chocolate). Each of these products was presented to panelists in pairs – one was labelled as Fair Trade and the other was conventional. Of course, both were the same Fair Trade product.

A sensory panel was used to determine “liking”. For this study, the scoring was based on a 9-point hedonic scale, where 1 = dislike extremely, and 9 = like extremely.

So, do you think the panelists would like the Fair Trade-labeled product more than conventional?

Yes, not did the Fair Trade labeled products get a higher liking score, but the panelists were also willing to pay more for the chocolate and juice (not so for the nuts).

Interestingly, although the panelist clearly liked the Fair Trade labeled product more compared to conventional, they viewed the sensory attributes about the same. Thus, based on this and other similar studies, the appeal of an ethical label appears to be independent of the actual product attributes. However, defining the basis of that appeal is more complicated.

Image: www.theurbanecolife.com

In our topic on Food and Culture, we spent a lot of time discussing the various factors that influence why individuals across the world eat what they eat. As we discussed, culture is one central factor that shapes how we prepare similar food ingredients and what foods we consume. These differences should be appreciated and embraced as a way to learn about other cultures.

However, as emphasized in a recent controversial article in AP News, in America these cultural difference have been maligned and viewed as not being ‘normal’. Well the article provides multiple examples specific to America, I would argue that this type of behavior, as in being critical of what others eat when it is different, is not unique to the U.S.

How do you think food diversity should be view?

Image: www.oneagainstchildhoodhunger.com

Ultra-processed foods and their role in the risk of obesity and other related chronic diseases is still heavily debated today. Here is a link to a debate that was held at the 2022 annual meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), which us usually in Chicago. Here, 4 experts debate the question: “Should We Eat More Processed Foods?”

This question is very relevant for both the topic of obesity, but also other topics to come, such as novel foods, functional foods, and plant-based alternatives.

What do you think, should we eat more processed foods?

As we finish our section on obesity, I want to direct you to this terrific article in Food Technology magazine from 2022. It describes the personal journey of Dr. Sara Bleich, a professor of Professor of Public Health Policy at Harvard and the former Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the USDA.

In this article, Dr. Bleich discusses many of the same issues we talked about – childhood obesity, the role of communities, and how obesity affects certain populations more than others. She also touches on one of themes of this unit – how the food industry can partner with the USDA and public health agencies to improve the food supply in order to help reduce rates of obesity.

What is especially inspiring about this article, however, is that while Dr. Bleich may have earned degrees from Harvard and Columbia, when she was a child, her family received SNAP and WIC assistance.

Image from www.ift.org

We are about to end our unit on “why we eat what we eat” and will soon begin discussing the obesity epidemic. The two topics that are clearly related, since a major question related to the obesity issue is why so many of us eat too many calories. Indeed, addressing the latter question is critical to developing public health strategies to reduce obesity rates.

Because we are social animals who like to eat together, psychologists have suggested that social eating may positively or negatively affect our eating habits. In other words, research has shown people match food intake to that of their eating companions. If surrounded by healthy eaters, individuals tend to eat healthier. In contrast, if your social group is engaged in unhealthy snacking or overeating, that’s where you are likely headed as well.

In one study, scientists collected brains scans from subject who had simply watched other people eat chips. They found that the subject’s response was associated with their body weight. Thus, some people may be more susceptible to the so-called obesogenic food environment (i.e., surrounded by tempting foods) than others.

Image from: www.reddit.com