Recently another blog commented about an interesting article regarding a new practice of exposing meat to carbon monoxide to make the meat look more fresh. This is not limited to red meat, which turns and stays a bright pink after this treatment, but also to tuna fish. Intrigued by both the blogger's comments and the article it was based on, I wanted to look into this new manufacturing practice.
Being that my field of study is neurotoxicology, with an emphasis on foods, these kind of topics are ones I love to investigate. It is an area that I am very well read in too, since I am just finishing up my PhD in the field. So I think I have some background to give a solid opinion on the topic.
There are many issues at play. One side is trying to sell a product as inexpensively as possible, with as little loss as possible. The other side is looking to buy a product that is safe, healthy, and inexpensive, while still being delicious and presentable. How does the second party know if the product is safe? What keeps the first party from cutting corners in order to sell the product?
In the next few post I will talk through some of these issues, as it relates to this new technique of exposing meat to carbon monoxide. As I see it, the main points are: Should it be labelled as such? Is it safe? What is the consumers response?
Friday, June 23, 2006
Color Fixation of Meats Part 2: Labeling of Products
There are a lot of groups out there that want more information being put on the labels of consumables. Good, I have no problem with having informed consumers. But what about educated consumers? That is a whole different story. History shows that if someone isn't educated regarding what they are being informed about, then quite often people make rash decisions. "A little bit of information is a dangerous thing." How many products didn't make it, even though they are good and healthy, just because the consumer didn't appreciate it. It took a long time for organics to catch on simply because these type of products are smaller and more unsightly, while very perishable and expensive. People looked at them and thought they were bad, then saw the price and thought, why would I pay so much for that? As people were educated, things changed.
Back to the meat story. Most people equate carbon monoxide with car exhaust...so even though it is harmless when ingested, how many consumers are educated enough to know that? (I say "educated," because someone who is just informed might say, "That is stupid, because everyone knows carbon monoxide kills.") You may say, "Well, let them decide." Ummm...in theory Yes, in practice, No. Do you know why the Atkins Diet worked? Was it because dieters were educated on what was going on? No. The Atkins Diet worked because of marketing, not science and education. The Atkins Diet is a very unhealthy way to go, but consumers took it all--bait, line, and sinker--because of the good ol' bandwagon. They were informed that it was a fast way to lose weight, but were not educated about the long term effects of being on the diet.
So how a product is presented is a big deal. Companies are out to market their product, not educate the consumer. They want you to love it and buy it, not get a degree from reading the label. It is supposed to be "The Best," "The Cheapest," "Low Calorie," "High Nutrition," "All Natural" ("all natural" is a big "so what" in my book, and that is from a health and toxicology point of view). To protect the consumerr the government steps in to make sure things don't go too far where people are being deceived and that products are no longer safe.
But how much do you want to know, even if you are informed AND educated? Do you want to know what each of those "natural and artificial" flavors are? (Actually you can't know because often the specific chemicals and proportions are proprietary). Do you want to know that that special tang in Product X comes from a skunk cabbage extract? Even if it is safe, everytime you eat Product X, you will be thinking of those nasty plants.
America is such a legalistic society, that the fine print is demanded. But as the amount of fine print increases, the number of readers (let alone EDUCATED READERS) decreases. So, in labeling a product, the really important stuff is included, while the unimportant (like carbon monoxide) often is not included.
Back to the meat story. Most people equate carbon monoxide with car exhaust...so even though it is harmless when ingested, how many consumers are educated enough to know that? (I say "educated," because someone who is just informed might say, "That is stupid, because everyone knows carbon monoxide kills.") You may say, "Well, let them decide." Ummm...in theory Yes, in practice, No. Do you know why the Atkins Diet worked? Was it because dieters were educated on what was going on? No. The Atkins Diet worked because of marketing, not science and education. The Atkins Diet is a very unhealthy way to go, but consumers took it all--bait, line, and sinker--because of the good ol' bandwagon. They were informed that it was a fast way to lose weight, but were not educated about the long term effects of being on the diet.
So how a product is presented is a big deal. Companies are out to market their product, not educate the consumer. They want you to love it and buy it, not get a degree from reading the label. It is supposed to be "The Best," "The Cheapest," "Low Calorie," "High Nutrition," "All Natural" ("all natural" is a big "so what" in my book, and that is from a health and toxicology point of view). To protect the consumerr the government steps in to make sure things don't go too far where people are being deceived and that products are no longer safe.
But how much do you want to know, even if you are informed AND educated? Do you want to know what each of those "natural and artificial" flavors are? (Actually you can't know because often the specific chemicals and proportions are proprietary). Do you want to know that that special tang in Product X comes from a skunk cabbage extract? Even if it is safe, everytime you eat Product X, you will be thinking of those nasty plants.
America is such a legalistic society, that the fine print is demanded. But as the amount of fine print increases, the number of readers (let alone EDUCATED READERS) decreases. So, in labeling a product, the really important stuff is included, while the unimportant (like carbon monoxide) often is not included.
Color Fixation of Meats Part 3: Toxicology
Carbon Monoxide and You
Carbon monoxide is a nasty chemical, as most people already know. When inhaled, it binds to hemoglobin displacing oxygen. And because carbon monoxide binds more strongly to hemoglobin than oxygen, the net result of inhaling too much carbon monoxide is that your blood no longer can carry a sufficient amount of oxygen.
But this is only if you inhale it! If you eat it, nothing happens. Yes, NOTHING! I just looked up in my MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet), and it said there is no effect if ingested. Wow, this makes ingesting carbon monoxide LESS toxic than eating table salt (which is kind of a reference point for us toxicologists). So should it be of any concern that people are eating this chemical in meats? No, at least not from an exposure point of view. Some say there is the possiblity that people may eat spoiled meat, but I will get to that later.
[By the way, the LD50 of table salt is 1 gram/ kg of body weight. This means that it would be a lethal dose (LD) for 50% of people that ingest this much. So if the average man ate 70 grams of salt all at once, there is a 50% chance he would die right then and there).
GRAS (generally recognized as safe)
GRAS is a concept very common among toxicologists. The idea is that if people have been eating it for decades, with no harmful effects, most likely it is safe. It is kind of a grandfather clause, if you will. There are way too many chemicals in our food for them all to be tested. No, I am not talking about newly invented chemicals, but rather chemicals that are basically extracts from plants like tomatoes and soybeans. To get an idea of other GRAS chemicals check out this FDA site. Which brings me to the FDA.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The good ol' FDA has quite a load on their plate. So do try and give them a break. They regulate foods and drugs, but DON'T do the actually testing of these products. Our government doesn't have the resources to test everything that goes through the FDA. People may feel compelled to complain about this, but if the FDA stopped products until they were tested another group would start complaining that the government wouldn't let them eat what they had a "right" to eat! So they instead rely on the manufacturers to do the testing. Sounds like a huge opportunity to take advantage of the system. Some do, but most don't. The ones I would be most skeptable about would be the dietary supplement companies. They use some pretty sly practices, and can avoid most regulation by the FDA.
And the paperwork! Wow! The FDA has a hard time keeping up with every product. There are some products out there that the FDA has said should be pulled from the market for violations, much of this again in the dietary supplement category (though they can't regulate the product, they can regulate how it is labeled). But the FDA actually is very weak because they are overburdened with the huge work load. So many products continue to be sold against the FDA's finding. BUT when the FDA DOES look into a product/chemical (such as carbon monoxide) and says it is okay, it almost assuredly IS OKAY.
Color Fixation of Meats Part 4: The Consumer
While I was working on my B.S. in Biochemistry/Biophysics I would often do taste testing for the Food Science Department (it was fun and I got some bucks for it). That was a very enlightening experience. I learned about how foods were tweaked to be better tasting, more mouth watering, and look good enough for a beauty pagent. And the bonus was that, due to laws regulating research, I had to be an informed participant. That meant that I knew everything they were adding to the foods.
Picky in their Pick
From this taste testing, I realized that just because something looks good doesn't mean it tastes good. And just because something tastes good doesn't mean it looks good. But looks are very important to the consumer, even at the expense of taste and nutrition. Example: which would you prefer to eat, a shriveled up apple, or a nice big shiney one? A small discolored strawberry that is delicious, or a huge, bright red, bland one? So people may comment that apples are lightly waxed, but those apples are bought up more than the shriveled ones. Another example: awhile back they made green ketchup for kids. Didn't make it for adults. Why? Well, would you love your burger more or less if you had green slime oozing out from your burger. That is what I thought. So how a product looks affects your eating experience.
In the article, one person commented that by fixing meat, the consumer is being "deceived." Ummm...that is a huge stretch. No body is really that stupid (at least I hope not) to cook up stinky, slimy meat just because it is still pink.
The ground beef I buy actually is labelled to say that even though it is a purplish-blue color, it will turn back to red once it is exposed to the air. Even though I am informed and educated about this, I must admit the meat looks a bit disgusting until it turns back to the bloody red, meat color that I savor so much.
The article stated that a lot of fresh--though brown--beef had to be thrown out because nobody would buy it. Who would you like to absorb this cost? Wouldn't it be better if we didn't waste good food? (Don't forget those starving people in Africa, now).
What should the consumer's response be? Well, that is up to you. My opinion is that consumers (especially Americans) should stop being so fussy about what things look like. We are pampered to no end. The smallest thing and we throw food away. Many other cultures around the world are grateful for so much. If we took on this attitude, perhaps meat producers wouldn't have to take this color fixative step because consumers would be fine with buying brown, yet still safe, meat.
Picky in their Pick
From this taste testing, I realized that just because something looks good doesn't mean it tastes good. And just because something tastes good doesn't mean it looks good. But looks are very important to the consumer, even at the expense of taste and nutrition. Example: which would you prefer to eat, a shriveled up apple, or a nice big shiney one? A small discolored strawberry that is delicious, or a huge, bright red, bland one? So people may comment that apples are lightly waxed, but those apples are bought up more than the shriveled ones. Another example: awhile back they made green ketchup for kids. Didn't make it for adults. Why? Well, would you love your burger more or less if you had green slime oozing out from your burger. That is what I thought. So how a product looks affects your eating experience.
In the article, one person commented that by fixing meat, the consumer is being "deceived." Ummm...that is a huge stretch. No body is really that stupid (at least I hope not) to cook up stinky, slimy meat just because it is still pink.
The ground beef I buy actually is labelled to say that even though it is a purplish-blue color, it will turn back to red once it is exposed to the air. Even though I am informed and educated about this, I must admit the meat looks a bit disgusting until it turns back to the bloody red, meat color that I savor so much.
The article stated that a lot of fresh--though brown--beef had to be thrown out because nobody would buy it. Who would you like to absorb this cost? Wouldn't it be better if we didn't waste good food? (Don't forget those starving people in Africa, now).
What should the consumer's response be? Well, that is up to you. My opinion is that consumers (especially Americans) should stop being so fussy about what things look like. We are pampered to no end. The smallest thing and we throw food away. Many other cultures around the world are grateful for so much. If we took on this attitude, perhaps meat producers wouldn't have to take this color fixative step because consumers would be fine with buying brown, yet still safe, meat.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
CSI, how do you stay sane?
Ever watched those clever Sherlocks do their work? Well, probably not in real life, but how about on t.v.?
I am referring to the current fad of forensics shows. Let's see...there is "CSI: Las Vegas", and their offshoots "CSI: Miami" and "CSI: New York" (I still prefer the Las Vegas one, though the Miami version is a close second). Then there is "Crossing Jordan," "NCIS," "Bones," and the new show "Evidence." If you include the crime shows that dabble in forensics, there is a huge list added.
But back to my point: How do the real forensic scientists stay sane, processing all of those samples, day in and day out? Example: Let's say there is this bloody murder scene. To process the scene forensics have to take samples of all of the blood in hopes to find the "perp" (or "un-sub" as they are called these days). After taking all of the samples there might be 40 blood samples!!...that is a lot to process.
These thoughts go through my head every time I have to process samples during my research toward my doctorate.
Just yesterday I had to process 34 samples. Ignoring all of the work I did on these samples on previous days, it took me 5 hours of constant work with no breaks just to quantitate the amount of protein in each of these 34 samples. This involves adding different amounts of different solutions to each of my samples, working with volumes that are smaller than a drop of water. And that was just one step in the whole process to get some data. That frustrating part was that when I got to the end of the experiment, I found out that the whole experiment was a bust. So now I have to go back and start again. And after that is done I have to move on to the final set of samples, probably around 34 again, and work those up from scratch!
How to stay sane through this all?
"There is a fine line between genius and insanity," Oscar Levant was quoted as saying. I think we may have assumed wrongly about the steps to intelligence...that the steps go from average intelligence, to being smart, to being a genius, and if you go to far you hit insanity. I propose that in order to reach the state of being a genius, you first have to cross the valley of insanity!
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I most likely never reach the level of genius. Knowing that, I hope to stop mapping my path through the valley of insanity.
I am referring to the current fad of forensics shows. Let's see...there is "CSI: Las Vegas", and their offshoots "CSI: Miami" and "CSI: New York" (I still prefer the Las Vegas one, though the Miami version is a close second). Then there is "Crossing Jordan," "NCIS," "Bones," and the new show "Evidence." If you include the crime shows that dabble in forensics, there is a huge list added.
But back to my point: How do the real forensic scientists stay sane, processing all of those samples, day in and day out? Example: Let's say there is this bloody murder scene. To process the scene forensics have to take samples of all of the blood in hopes to find the "perp" (or "un-sub" as they are called these days). After taking all of the samples there might be 40 blood samples!!...that is a lot to process.
These thoughts go through my head every time I have to process samples during my research toward my doctorate.
Just yesterday I had to process 34 samples. Ignoring all of the work I did on these samples on previous days, it took me 5 hours of constant work with no breaks just to quantitate the amount of protein in each of these 34 samples. This involves adding different amounts of different solutions to each of my samples, working with volumes that are smaller than a drop of water. And that was just one step in the whole process to get some data. That frustrating part was that when I got to the end of the experiment, I found out that the whole experiment was a bust. So now I have to go back and start again. And after that is done I have to move on to the final set of samples, probably around 34 again, and work those up from scratch!
How to stay sane through this all?
"There is a fine line between genius and insanity," Oscar Levant was quoted as saying. I think we may have assumed wrongly about the steps to intelligence...that the steps go from average intelligence, to being smart, to being a genius, and if you go to far you hit insanity. I propose that in order to reach the state of being a genius, you first have to cross the valley of insanity!
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I most likely never reach the level of genius. Knowing that, I hope to stop mapping my path through the valley of insanity.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Darn Fascia
Ugg...Remember back when I was in D.C.? Well, I did a ton of walking, both to sight-see as well as just seeing all of the exibits at the Neuroscience conference I was attending (no I skipped out on seeing all 27 miles worth of posters). But I did all of this in bad walking shoes. The strange part was that when I would my morning runs with "the Chief," it would feel better.
During January and February I did a lot of running, in the hopes to do VERY well racing the Pacific Crest Half-Ironman duathlon. During this time my right foot would hurt at the beginning of my runs, stop hurting, and then hurt like crazy the next day.
Around March my mom (an R.N.) asked one of the doctor's in her office what could be up. Plantar fasciitis. It is a very common cause of heal pain, where the fascia (bottom part of the foot that creates the arch) gets inflammed.
I have tried to stay away from running the past two months, to let my foot recover "let my heel heal." It is doing better, but a 4 mile hike on Saturday got it hurting again. This Saturday I am heading up to climb Mt Adams and am worried that 1)I won't be in shape because I haven't been running, and 2) that my foot will get worse.
Grrrr...just when I was getting ready for the marathon and that Half-Ironman too.
During January and February I did a lot of running, in the hopes to do VERY well racing the Pacific Crest Half-Ironman duathlon. During this time my right foot would hurt at the beginning of my runs, stop hurting, and then hurt like crazy the next day.
Around March my mom (an R.N.) asked one of the doctor's in her office what could be up. Plantar fasciitis. It is a very common cause of heal pain, where the fascia (bottom part of the foot that creates the arch) gets inflammed.
I have tried to stay away from running the past two months, to let my foot recover "let my heel heal." It is doing better, but a 4 mile hike on Saturday got it hurting again. This Saturday I am heading up to climb Mt Adams and am worried that 1)I won't be in shape because I haven't been running, and 2) that my foot will get worse.
Grrrr...just when I was getting ready for the marathon and that Half-Ironman too.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Portland Marathon
I am actually going to try the Portland Marathon this year. I was going to do it last year, but didn't have the dough. I have run two half marathons, once as part of a Half-Ironman. It really isn't that bad, as long as you pace yourself.
If any of you readers are the least bit interested in doing the marathon, I say GO FOR IT! And let me know, so I can keep an eye out for ya!
Apparently, 1/4 of all racers are walking the entire marathon. Just think, at a nice 3.5 MPH walk (most can keep this), you can finish in 7.5 hours, well within the 8 hour requirement. And if you *jog* (5 MPH) every other mile, you can finish in a little over 6 hours. WAIT, that's not all! If you actually RUN (7 MPH) every other mile, you will be done in 5 hours! And slowly jogging the whole thing would take 5:15 hours.
FOUR MORE MONTHS! Anyone can get ready for this in four months. Now, don't go about this backwards and think, "Oh, I can get started in a month and still have plenty of time." Summer is at hand, and now is the time to get going!
When: October 1, 2006
Cost: $85
Portland Marathon
Anyway, let me know if you want to join the "cool crowd." :)
If any of you readers are the least bit interested in doing the marathon, I say GO FOR IT! And let me know, so I can keep an eye out for ya!
Apparently, 1/4 of all racers are walking the entire marathon. Just think, at a nice 3.5 MPH walk (most can keep this), you can finish in 7.5 hours, well within the 8 hour requirement. And if you *jog* (5 MPH) every other mile, you can finish in a little over 6 hours. WAIT, that's not all! If you actually RUN (7 MPH) every other mile, you will be done in 5 hours! And slowly jogging the whole thing would take 5:15 hours.
FOUR MORE MONTHS! Anyone can get ready for this in four months. Now, don't go about this backwards and think, "Oh, I can get started in a month and still have plenty of time." Summer is at hand, and now is the time to get going!
When: October 1, 2006
Cost: $85
Portland Marathon
Anyway, let me know if you want to join the "cool crowd." :)
Friday, June 02, 2006
Legal Double-Standards in our Schools
I heard about this story a week ago, and was outraged. It wasn't hard to Google, either. It is about how the Ninth-U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that making 7th-graders in California memorize verses in the Koran, pray Muslim prayers, and act out other Muslim exercises is alright. And yet, any hint of Christianity has now been denied access to our schools! How can such a double standard be allowed?
I think it is alright to allow students to learn about the major religions in the world, so they can better appreciate other people's belief systems and understand world politics. But to deny access to one religion, which this country was founded on, while permitting another religion seems backwards.
I seem to remember stories of harmless Christian activities, such as prayer before sports, or a prayer at graduation (See recent story), not being allowed because ONE parent objected. But in this instance, the Muslin teachings continued, but parents could keep their child from attending.
Am I missing something?
I think it is alright to allow students to learn about the major religions in the world, so they can better appreciate other people's belief systems and understand world politics. But to deny access to one religion, which this country was founded on, while permitting another religion seems backwards.
I seem to remember stories of harmless Christian activities, such as prayer before sports, or a prayer at graduation (See recent story), not being allowed because ONE parent objected. But in this instance, the Muslin teachings continued, but parents could keep their child from attending.
Am I missing something?
Brief conversation
Background: For my PhD I am studying a plant toxin that causes something like Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and ALS. In our lab we inject the toxin into mice in the hopes to learn more about these diseases, especially what causes them.
Below is a conversation I had with my boss yesterday, regarding mice that were injected a week before:
>Me: "All but one of my mice died yesterday."
>Boss: "How was their motor-function?"
>Me: "Not too good, being that they were dead!"
Kinda humorous, and thought you might have a chuckle.
Below is a conversation I had with my boss yesterday, regarding mice that were injected a week before:
>Me: "All but one of my mice died yesterday."
>Boss: "How was their motor-function?"
>Me: "Not too good, being that they were dead!"
Kinda humorous, and thought you might have a chuckle.
Spectrum of religions
In our world, we have many religions. Some are very similar to each other, others seem to come out of nowhere. Some have huge followings, some only a few. Some are made up mostly by celebrities (at least it seems), others are more the average person. Some religions are the foundation of countries, bills, and organizations, while other religions only affect someone's code of living.
My question is why do some religions, which have teachings that most would agree are moral, humble, and self-less, get attacked and blamed for everything, while other religions which have questionable practices and teach things that go against common sense, are so well tolerated. Furthermore, a follower from the first category might be called a closed-minded or foolish, while a follower from the second category is might be called enlightened, or cultured?
My question is why do some religions, which have teachings that most would agree are moral, humble, and self-less, get attacked and blamed for everything, while other religions which have questionable practices and teach things that go against common sense, are so well tolerated. Furthermore, a follower from the first category might be called a closed-minded or foolish, while a follower from the second category is might be called enlightened, or cultured?
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Millions for a tram for the millions
Being that my blogs have been way too serious, it is time for something a little less thought provoking. Or maybe not!?!
Today they had an employee Open House for one of the new OHSU buildings. It is the building that the tram will eventually connect to, projected to be this fall. My what a building it is! And the view! A friend of mine who joined me for the open house mentioned the building's balcony (seen at left) would be a perfect place to spend a summer lunch. From it you can see the Willamette River, all of the Lair Hill neighborhood, the Ross Island bridge, and eventually the tram as is docks into OHSU. Was it worth all of the millions it cost to construct? We will see. (Yes, a vague answer to a big question, something that I won't blog about just yet since I am blogging from work).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
