Antioxidant nutrients are effective marketing tools. And most consumers who see an antioxidant claim on a product label will buy it for that reason. Even candy touts antioxidants, but evidence they make you healthier is lacking. They may even be harmful.
Given that polls show that nearly 75% of Americans are more afraid of food than they are of terrorists, isn't it time to fix our food safety regulation? America's two-agency system -- the FDA and the USDA regulate different but connected fields -- is part of the problem.
Kids who go to high schools located within 500 feet of a fast food outlet are fatter than kids whose schools are further away, according to a recent study. What are the implications for kids, for schools, for neighborhoods, and for concerned legislators?
Food companies are always trying to convince you their products are healthful. But what does "healthy" really mean, beyond marketing hype? Finally, researchers offer a working definition that has nothing to do with symbols, scoring systems, or any other marketing gimmicks.
What should we think about Açaí, the latest miracle fruit that is supposed to cure whatever ails us? The research may look formidable at first, but its conclusions are simple: Açaí juice contains antioxidants. The bottom line: so do all juices.
A new study from the Archives of Internal Medicine says yes. People who eat the most red meat have a 20 to 30 percent increased risk of premature mortality. In an accompanying editorial, Barry Popkin points out additional reasons to consider eating less meat: food prices, the environment, and climate change.
From Capitol Hill to Madison Avenue, there's much to discuss right now in the world of food marketing and policy. In food-related scholarship, experts weigh in on such obesity-related topics as child obesity, the role of schools, creating healthy environments, and fast food.
It's been a big week for food politics in my local newspaper. First, the Obama's new garden and now Andy Martin's recap in The New York Times of the events leading to the current push for a healthier and more sustainable food system. Mark Bittman also writes about the organic revolution in the Week in Review.
The Rudd Center at Yale is devoted to establishing a firm research basis for obesity interventions. Its latest contribution is a paper in the Milbank Quarterly. Its provocative title: The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? The paper is getting much attention.
E-mail inboxes are being flooded with copies of a wild message about how proposed food safety legislation will kill organic farming. Does the message come from opponents of animal traceability who think that having to track animals will be difficult for small farmers?
By this time everyone in the world must know that the Obama's are planting a vegetable garden at the White House. Today's New York Times not only covered it, but on the front page yet. Planting a garden is front-page news? Indeed it is.
NYU developed programs in Food Studies based on the premise that food is so central to the human condition that studying it is a great way to get into much larger social questions. There's a terrific example in an article in the April 9 New York Review of Books (not yet posted) that deals with lobbying, earmarks and how they effect food.
Long-awaited Country of Origin Labeling legislation becomes law today, after a long battle with beef producers who wanted to keep the information off of meat labels. But will the law be as widely ignored by meat sellers as it is by fish sellers?
Some have estimated the total cost of the recalls to be as high as about $1 billion, $75 million of that just to Kellogg. With the Peanut Corporation of America having filed for bankruptcy, the economic toll of the peanut butter disaster is surprisingly high at a time when we don't need it.