1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Food Ask a food scientist!

Discussion in 'Tilted Food' started by wye, Mar 21, 2016.

  1. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    There are lots of popular misconceptions about our food system today which I'd be glad to clear up for anyone who would like to learn more from a scientific perspective. To put it dramatically, almost everything you know about nutrition, food, and agriculture is wrong, scientifically, and scaremongering ideologies promoted by nonscientific marketing has probably lead you to fear these technologies, which are in fact very beneficial/responsible:
    • preservatives
    • antibiotics
    • GMOs
    • food irradiation
    • noncaloric sweeteners
    And also a few things which you might think are good but are overall harmful/irresponsible:
    • raw milk
    • USDA Organic
    • home-brewed kombucha
    • long-term fasting and other "detoxification" diets
    Feel free to ask me about any of the above or to bring up something else that interests you. The prevalence of misinformation concerning the food system is an important issue which I try my best to constructively confront though lending an understanding of the scientific consensus consistent worldwide.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Borla

    Borla Moderator Staff Member

    When you say you are a "food scientist", what exactly does that mean? You have an actual PhD in food science? Or maybe a mad scientist in your home kitchen? Is your background related to teaching and academia, or manufacturing/processing food? Or just a hobby? Just curious.
     
  3. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    Yup, no problem. I have an academic background in food science as well as a food industry professional background. I have a BS in food science and technology from Cornell, and I will be returning to academia for a PhD in the same.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Plan9

    Plan9 Rock 'n Roll

    Location:
    Earth
    What are your initial thoughts about Soylent as a meal replacement?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    Meal replacement can definitely be convenient, economical, and nutritionally satisfactory. There is however an inherent risk in consuming a single food product formulation at high frequency: a cumulative effect can result from an inadequately fortified nutrient or an inadvertent contaminant, if a deficiency or toxicity appreciates over time. This complication seems to have resulted in some mixed messages from the Soylent website. A video on the homepage states that Soylent is "not intended to replace every meal", while the FAQ's Eating nothing but Soylent page provides the logically false statement "If you would like to eat only Soylent during the day, that is an option".

    The reasoning present on the Soylent Approach to Nutrition page is quite commendable, though the sweeping statement "... all characteristics and functions of life on earth are encoded in DNA." discounts the role of post-translational modification, epigenetic factors, and a host of behavioral phenomena including perceptual learning, cognitive development, memory, language acquisition, and many other psychological and sociological effects that are not modeled by genetics. A highly salient illustration of these principles concerns the discrete biopsychological identities of any pair of monozygotic twins, especially those separated at birth and raised by different parents in disparate parts of the world.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Plan9

    Plan9 Rock 'n Roll

    Location:
    Earth
    Consider writing for your audience.

    I'm a blue collar knuckledragger.

    ...

    That said, your second paragraph seems a bit like a wild faux-brainy aside given that this thread is about something that is digested for energy and subsequently pooped out.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    @roachboy, is that you?:D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Snoogans

    Snoogans Getting Tilted

    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Please elaborate on the noncaloric sweeteners!
     
  9. snowy

    snowy so kawaii Staff Member

    Soylent apparently makes the claim that everything about us is in our DNA, which ignores the whole nature v. nurture thing, and nurture has a role in how we turn out, given twin studies.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    OK, I'm saying that Soylent is marketed as having a complete set of all the nutrients necessary for a typical healthy human, but, without controlled product testing to confirm that the chosen nutrient levels are effective, it's possible that someone who consumes only Soylent for a long period of time might end up with a low level of a nutrient that wasn't added at high enough levels. Similarly, components of Soylent that are harmful in high levels, such as arsenic, cadmium, or lead, are present in each serving of Soylent at low levels but could add up over time (bioaccumulate) if you consume only Soylent. The comparison against conventional meals on the linked page is a little misleading because those meals are particularly high in heavy metals due to the inclusion of fish, wine, and canned products. Eating tuna for every meal could pose a serious risk for metal toxicity.

    I assure you, my second paragraph is not cargo cult science or technobabble. It addresses a statement from the Soylent team concerning their otherwise sound rationale for using genetically modified ingredients. Their claim is that DNA accounts for all aspects of life as we know it, but modern geneticists recognize that little things other than DNA influence our physiological characteristics, and psychologists reconcile nature with nurture to conclude that genetics alone does not explain many animal behaviors.

    Sure. Noncaloric or nonnutritive sweeteners are chemical compounds that have been engineered* (1) to be largely indigestible, (2) t0 molecularly interact the sweet taste receptor to give the perception of sweetness, and (3) to be excreted or minimally metabolized without introducing risk for developmental toxicity or carcinogenicity at the upper limit of human intake.

    *Or, as in the case of rebaudioside A (refined Stevia products), extracted from a plant source following the identification of a phytochemical fitting the three criteria listed.

    Noncaloric sweeteners generally impart much greater sweetness than sugar on a weight for weight basis. This means that lower quantities of sweetener can be used to sweeten a product the same amount, which makes them cheaper to use than sugar (and some have a longer shelf-life as well). Some sweeteners can be alternatively used in very small amounts to counteract an undesirable flavor from one or more other ingredients. This effect is called flavor masking, and sucralose is used for this purpose in Soylent. Most importantly, though the substitution of sugar for noncaloric sweeteners may not necessarily be a good weight loss method, it's been shown to benefit diabetics and those with a related metabolic disorder, reactive hypoglycemia.

    Yes, exactly. Thanks for clarifying. Though furthermore, research in the field of epigenetics reveals that not even nature's contribution is limited to DNA sequence but includes DNA methylation, histone modification, miRNA downregulating mRNA, and the role of bacterial sRNA in gene expression and protein binding (which gets you sick).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mbraitman

    Mbraitman New Member

    I don't really agree with what your saying here. I would like to know how the the not so good things that you said ate just fine, are actually fine. I have done some research into food sciences..so please elaborate.
     
  12. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    Sure thing. Please see my previous post for a detailed description of noncaloric sweeteners. I'll do shorter versions for the other four technologies.

    Preservatives inhibit the growth of both pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms, which greatly reduces risks of foodborne illness and maintains the nutritional and sensory qualities of a food so that needless food waste can be minimized. Like sweeteners and other food additives, preservatives approved for use in manufactured food products are rigorously tested and must be verified as safe for human consumption by regulatory commissions such as the FDA's GRAS in the US.

    Antibiotics treat bacterial infections. The USDA's FSIS enforces antibiotic residue limits for meat and eggs in the US to ensure that the amount of any antibiotic present in an animal product is well below statistically significant levels. The current trend for meat produced without anitbiotics promotes animal cruelty.

    The cultivation of crops genetically engineered to grow more efficiently, resist drought, overcome poor soil composition, improve yield, and inhibit spoilage reduces pesticide and fertilizer use, conserves natural resources including arable land and fresh water, and confers both higher earnings for farmers and lower costs for consumers (which improves food security in impoverished areas), all without any ecological or health risks. The safety of GM foods has been undeniably demonstrated by over two thousand scientific studies over the past few decades, including many multigenerational, long-term animal feeding trials. Every scientific organization across the world is in agreement over this, and not a single case of illness has ever resulted from GM technology. Genetically engineered food crops are also the focus of humanitarian efforts to address micronutrient deficiencies (exemplified by the vitamin A-fortified "golden rice") and to minimize a food's content of naturally occurring carcinogens (as with the case of the Simplot "Innate" potato varieties).

    Food irradiation kills the vegetative cells of bacteria along with other pests and parasites, reducing the risk of foodborne illness, lengthening shelf life, and preventing the spread of invasive species. The radiation doesn't remain in the food, nor does it adversely affect the quality of the food itself.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
    • Like Like x 6
  13. Snoogans

    Snoogans Getting Tilted

    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden

    Good answer, and super-interesting!! I've spent most of my life being afraid of preservatives, additives and antibiotics etc. because of being ignorant, but have in the last couple of years realized I have no real base for it and started to trust in science.

    Thanks for explaining this, but please elaborate on the promotion of animal cruelty.
     
  14. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    But don't be too trusting. Remember, food science gave us transfats, which are safer and more healthy than butter, right?:rolleyes:
     
  15. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    Glad to hear that. Maintaining an antibiotic-free livestock operation encourages a rancher to leave infected animals to suffer though their infections in hope that they recover without having to transfer the animals to an operation that does use antibiotics. Good agricultural practices or GAP largely discourage this, but the only reason it's an issue is due to consumer demand for meat produced without antibiotics. Concerns over antibiotic use in animal production fostering antibiotic resistance are misplaced, which a previous US under secretary of agriculture for food safety has thoroughly explained here: Antibiotics and Animals Raised for Food: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics | Food Safety News

    To be precise, trans fats occur naturally in animal products including butter and beef. Food science gave us partial hydrogenation of vegetable oils, which produces trans fats that are now understood to be more harmful than the structurally different trans fats that occur in the milk and body fat of ruminants.

    Science is actually on your side about not trusting things. The scientific method is predicated on constantly questioning and revising our knowledge, so scientists challenge trust in a present model when they find evidence that offers a more accurate model. In this way, the scientific method never really proves anything, because it can only disprove, or falsify. So it's not that partially hydrogenated oils were proven to be safe, but rather that, for a long time, their safety wasn't disproved. Once the weight of the evidence for adverse effects of PHOs on cholesterol levels became apparent, the scientific consensus was revised, and regulatory policy has changed accordingly. For instance, the FDA has recently revoked GRAS status for partially hydrogenated oils and mandated their removal from all food product formulations by 2018.

    The inherent risk of unforeseen negative consequences exists for virtually everything whose safety hasn't been disproved. There's a chance that any technology we use or activity we practice might be harmful in a yet-to-be-observed way. But science provides the most effective methods available for determining those risks based on our present knowledge. To deny that is to deny the understood safety of every technological or medical advancement considered to be of acceptable risk for its benefit.

    The moral of the story: We can't be sure of anything we know from observation, but if we want to trust anything at all, we can trust the scientific method, because it's the best way we have for building on our knowledge and approaching the full truth.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    To be precise, naturally occuring trans fats are such a small fraction of meat and milk fat that they are virtually insignificant.

    Less than 1% of beef tallow, mutton fat, bacon drippings, whole milk, heavy whipping cream, etc., are naturally occurring trans fatty acids, according to Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Pork, bacon, rendered fat, cooked [bacon drippings]

    and Mary G. Enig's book, Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer... Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol: Mary G. Enig: 9780967812601: Amazon.com: Books

    From what I could find, any reference to naturally occurring trans fats are nothing but a red herring dragged out by the industrial fat folks.
     
  17. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    Yes, naturally occurring trans fats make up only a small fraction of the fat in ruminant products. I didn't neglect to mention that because I'm trying to hide an important distinction but because it wasn't relevant to responding to your claim that food science gave us trans fats. My point was that trans fats are not all synthetic, regardless of precisely how common they are naturally. Furthermore, recent research indicates that the negative effects of consuming partially hydrogenated oils vs. naturally-occurring trans fats is not due to the portion of total fat they constitute. The effect of PHOs on cholesterol levels is different from that of naturally-occurring trans fats because the two groups are structurally different, as I wrote previously. Specifically, they are made up of different fatty acids.

    On a side note, be careful when mentioning "significance" in scientific discussions because in such context it typically refers to the statistical concept of determining that a value isn't due to random chance. That's not the case here, because the difference in the trans fat content of ruminant products compared with non-ruminant products is statistically significant.

    Pork products don't have naturally-occurring trans fats because pigs aren't ruminants. Here's an example of a ruminant product with a high NOTF content, but again, NOTFs aren't thought to be less harmful than PHOs because they're only a small fraction of total fat; they're thought to be less harmful because they contain a less harmful set of fatty acids.

    Show Foods

    So, I'm not using this claim as a red herring, which as a fish has no trans fat content either. The claim that some trans fats occur naturally is warranted as a direct refutation of your original claim. I understand that you may have been using the term trans fats as a shorthand for PHOs. Given this, I chose to clarify what seemed to me the intended meaning of your statement. I promise you I'm not here as a shill in promotion of the dwindling market for PHOs.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2016
  18. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet.

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    While I don't completely trust what the food industry tells us about additives and such, I think that much of the distrust is based on false 'information.' I'm pretty sure that the public in general is influenced by the number of TV drama episodes where an agribusiness is covering-up a harmful product.
     
  19. wye

    wye Getting Tilted

    If you name some additives or other things which concern you, I'll offer a scientific perspective on them. I haven't seen any such tv episodes. I'm sure some exist, but to me a far more salient source of misinformation is represented by food product marketing that plays on irrational fears of GM technology, animal antibiotics, and synthetic ingredients as an emotionally powerful and very profitable way to promote a food product as healthful and/or ethical in competition with everyone else doing it. It's both greenwashing and um, healthwashing?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Snoogans

    Snoogans Getting Tilted

    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden

    I'm turning this into a quote-poster and putting it up on my kids walls.
     
    • Like Like x 1