Pressing that 'send' button....

'Mail Box' by zizzybaloobah
under a CC license

E-mail is nothing new. Actually, in terms of internet communication means, it is rather a dinosaur of communication.

Since e-mail's first steps in the '70s, lots have happened both to e-mail as a technology, itself, and its competing internet-based communication services. In 2012, the 3 main web-mail providers had over a billion users with Google leading the race. So far, e-mail looks as if it is here to stay for the decades to come. But do we really need it?

Back at e-mail's early days, it was soon understood that if e-mail would be any good for communication, it needed to be able to offer interoperability among networks, servers and clients. It achieved that following a development course strongly based on a series of (then) emerging standards, each adding new capabilities to the service. Thus, the early text-only services can now support attachments, formatting, multimedia contents, different recipient groups, etc.

E-mail was designed to emulate the classical snail-mail exchange in the digital world. Some of the associated terminology reflects that (e.g., CC). That is not necessarily a bad thing because, well, people do need to exchange information in an affordable, flexible, reliable and resilient way - I'm talking about information that would normally be delivered by snail mail some years before.

At this point, it would be useful to look at what people tend to do online. The following infographic (2012) can give us a few clues:



Infographic by- GO-Gulf


E-mail/ communication is a strong factor, taking some 19% of the online time. Social media, however, are ahead with 22%. Plus, the trends shown concern service niches well away of e-mail communication.

E-mail use seems to be declining amongst teens, who seem to favour instant messaging. E-mail seems to look a bit too formal and needs more time between typing the message and being ready to press 'send'. In fact, in several instant messaging services (e,g,, Skype) there is no 'send' button - the user can just press 'Enter'.

Personal experience also suggests that the bulk of my e-mail use could easily be replaced by instant messaging. I've caught myself using e-mail as an instant-messaging client from time-to-time, pressing 'reply', typing just a few words and pressing 'send', often 'forgetting' to change the subject line or re-check the recipients. From time-to-time, I also use e-mail as a 'mini-forum' service, exchanging comments with a small group of people. To be honest, that last thing often gives ground to considerable off-topic-discussions, with the occasional (polite) trolling but that happens when using personal e-mail so I guess it's OK.

Despite all those indications of e-mail's weaknesses, its biggest strengths are flexibility, acceptance and standardisation. All three are boring stuff but, really, they make a difference:

• E-mail is flexible in the sense that one can use it for short or long messages, to one or more recipients, with any formatting, attachments, etc. Contrary to that, most instant messaging solutions (Skype, WhatsApp, etc.) are much more limited in terms of formatting, message size, attachment options and recipient groups.
• Most likely recipients have an active e-mail address (businesses, public bodies, individuals, etc.). The same doesn't apply to instant messaging services (that thing with google+ and its messaging capabilities is a different story to user handles instead of e-mail addresses is a different story). Further to that, e-mail communication is considered as a formal means of communication in an increasing number of countries and organisations. Instant messaging services have the aura of 'informal' and 'casual'.
• At the technical level, e-mail services are well established. One can use any e-mail client to address any recipient and the chances are that the recipients will receive and be able to read the original message as the sender intended (most of the times, at least). If delivery fails for some reason, the system tells the sender what went wrong. Contrary to that, there is no true 'universal' instant messaging service. People tend to be restricted with the social medium of their choice.

So yes! We still need e-mail. While not impressive  anymore, it does what it does quite well. And by forcing us to press that 'send' button, it provides us some time to reflect on what we are about to send. The latter can be life-saving under many circumstances.

Work or pleasure, access to the internet is a must

'Internet' by transCam
under a CC license

It is that time of the year that colleagues, friends and myself have just been, currently are or plan to be on holidays. I couldn't help but notice that although most clearly state that they plan to "switch off", all be a few actually mean "do something different to work, have fun but keep in touch". And by that, they mean via social media, skype/viber/whatsapp/hangouts/etc., e-mail and the other digital means of communication.

WiFi accessed internet tends to be mainstream in hotel/ rooms, bars, cafes, and - practically - "everywhere". Yes, I've come across free internet access facilities in small and far away places (and, needless to say, I found that pleasantly surprising). On top of that, most smartphone owners tend to have a kind of data plan on their contract.

While the demand for internet connectivity itself is sufficient to explain the corresponding market development, I wonder how come people have shifted their habits so much. I mean, yes, people did use to send postcards in the past but that was about it. Were there "communication needs" to be satisfied that were technologically impossible to address? Or did the needs develop after the right technologies emerged? Is it a trend or is it here to stay?

This time, I'll leave it at this point. There have been opinions on that (and some research, as well) but I find it is still premature to write a bottom line, yet :-)

Batteries for our power-hungry lives

'Power sunset' by Khalid
Al-Haqqan under a CC license

The use of electricity has been one huge step for mankind. I sometimes wonder whether the electricians/ engineers of the first few years of electricity (in the 19th century) could predict the magnitude of its applications some 5-7 generations in the future.

Today, in the urban world, at least, it is very hard to leave away from a mains socket for long. True, big household appliances, such as the stove, the microwave, the washing machine and the vaccuum cleaner - to name a few - are nothing of an innovation, nowadays. But numerous other (electronic) gadgets for our daily life have emerged. Some competing for our "free" time, while others aggressively claim to be (and some truly are) productivity tools. Laptops, tablets, mobile phones and smartphones, digital cameras, mp3 players are amongst the popular ones. The list gets expanded constantly as we speak. Smartwatches, wearable devices, medical devices, and all those existing or emerging devices that gear up for the internet of things.

Don't worry... I won't be lecturing you on our level of dependence on those numerous electric and electronic devices. After all, they are here to make our lives a bit better, even if we are talking about small things, such as reading a tweet from a friend, googling an unknown word or anything of that scale (I'm being a bit unfair, since living in networked wolds offers great potential - and I've written something vaguely on that in the past).

But I will share with you that being "forced" to seek for a mains socket every so often annoys me.
OK, not so much when I'm at home or at work but definitely when I'm away on a business trip or on holidays. It is 2014, I know. There are power sockets in most places. Charging hubs in airports and cafes with wireless charging stations starting to appear, as well.

You may feel differently but I' d really applaud any development that would increase our flexibility away from a mains socket. Having said that, the options are limited. Sun charging doesn't seem to be living up to the hype (it takes too much time under intense sunlight to charge a moderate smartphone). Energy harvesting is still in development. Batteries have come a long way so as to hold more power, endure many more recharging cycles, tolerate heat or cold, etc.  but at the same time, however, our devices need more juice to "do more stuff". I feel that we are witnessing an energy stalemate, where the power storage front barely manages to meet the energy demand of our devices.

Unfortunately, as a consumer, I don't see any major consumer drive to prolonged power independence. I hope I am wrong. I hope engineers will manage to give us better energy storage options and, at the same time, manage to do more "stuff" with less power. To put it in a more naive (but challenging) way: My 10-year old mobile had a 900 mAh battery and could last for some 7-8 days albeit under low use (say, a phone call per day). My current smartphone has a 1500 mAh battery and can barely reach 4 days (with WiFi, 3G, BT and GPS off). Could a future smartphone survive for a week with all the bells and whistles on? I only wish....

Getting some data is easy...

'Target' by Nina Matthews
under a CC license

...getting the right data, not necessarily so. Getting valid and usable results out of it is a completely different story!

Since our world in becoming increasingly driven by data-fed decisions (in theory, at least), it may be useful to check, from time-to-time, the route from raw data acquisition, to data aggregation, processing and analysis, to the data-driven decisions, their implementation and their verification.

I don't know if the overall data production has increased, world-wide. I would suspect it has. An increased number of tasks are accompanied by data recording for the shake of quality monitoring, performance evaluation, security, etc. That is, not taking into consideration activities that aim at data production itself, such as research activities, meta-analysis studies, etc.

Access to data is another issue. Personally, I feel access to data has improved due to (i) more discrete data points/ sets being publicly available and indexed in an convenient way (e.g., search engines), (ii) more data being available in an organised, searchable form (e.g., databases) and (iii) more information on how to get close to the various data sets/ databases in publicly available (e.g., in publications, the press, search engines, etc.). What is hard for me to know is whether the data seemingly available for each instance of need is truly comprehensive or, at least, reasonably representative of the total data truly available. Further to that, it is a priori unclear, whether the data available is representative of the population under study or suitable to address the problem in question. Proper definition of the problem and careful examination of the data can provide answers to many of the questions above, of course, but in this case I'm just voicing the general concerns.

Data analysis also seems to be easier today. Sometimes, too easy. Sure, there are plenty of people that know how to use the right tools on data but, since such tools are becoming increasingly user-friendly and accessible, I suspect that not all that use them really know what they are doing (on their defense, some problems are difficult to define). And if these people are involved in decision-making then things can become questionable (or funny). Ah, and despite all the hype on big data, people still need to do some thinking!

The last bit is implementing actions based on the results of data analysis, taking into account ethical considerations and ensuring that those actions (i) actually correspond to what the results have identified and (ii) that they work as intended.  Politics and policy making is not a purely science-based territory but, rather, an arena where scientific results, gut impulses, interests from various parties and plain luck - to mention a few factors only - compete to affect decisions. I'm not rushing to label that 'wrong'. After all policy making has various expectations to meet and, be it as it may, it has been an integral part of our civilisation. 

I strongly feel that we should continue studying our policy making processes (there are various approaches to that),  we should further improve our quality control mechanisms and develop the courage to critically review policies and measures in a transparent way at a regular fashion.

Antibiotic resistance and food (again)

'Mission San Juan Capistrano bells'
by Ballookey Klugeypop under a
CC license

Antibiotic resistance is the case where microorganisms become able to survive after exposure to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is not a new phenomenon. When resistance to multiple antibiotics is observed in pathogens then things become particularly alarming. Infections by multidrug resistant pathogens (superbugs) are very difficult - and sometimes impossible - to treat, especially when the patient's organism is weak.

I've written on superbugs before but recently antibiotic resistance re-surfaced in the news in a different way. As described by Maryn McKenna, seafood imported from South Korea to Canada was found with Pseudomonas bacteria, which turned out to carry a gene that enables the synthesis of a carbapenemase enzyme.  This is alarmingly important for a number of reasons:

• Carbapenamase enzymes can inactivate carbapenem, an antibiotic of last resort.
• Seafood is sometimes mildly processed, in some cases deliberately to retain flavour and texture, while in others it may simply be undercooked. In such cases, the bacterium found would be likely to survive.
• Non-resistant bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance from resistant ones via horizontal gene transfer involving plasmids

If consumed, the bacteria in question could possibly make it to the gut. As they are not pathogens they would not pose a direct problem themselves but they would be likely to transfer antibiotic resistance to the gut flora bacteria. I am not aware of the probability of such chain of events but should it happen in individual consumers, it would create inside them a population of bacteria resistant to a class of last resort antibiotics. That's not a good thing to happen!

Carbapenem resistance in the food production system has been a concern previously. Unfortunately, this needs to be considered in tandem with the occurrence of carbapenem resistant infections that seems to be on the rise in Europe (but still under control).

The Canada seafood case highlights a different route of concern, where the consumers may be exposed to resistant non-pathogens (with the potential to be found on a variety of foodstuffs) rather than resistant pathogens, directly, or antibiotic residues in food, which could - in turn - potentially invoke antibiotic resistance.

There is a need for better monitoring of the various routes that can lead to antibiotic resistance. This is no small challenge, though (and it comes with a certain price tag)! However, without any need to panic, it is essential we understand what the risk is and adapt our food processing (and healthcare) practices accordingly. Such approaches work on the prevention front. Hopefully, we'll also make some more breakthroughs on the antimicrobial front, as well!

Food@Work

'Work' by Pierre Metivier
under a CC license

Last week I wrote on food consumption at school. Providing healthy food and in sufficient amounts there is something that few would object to. But what would people think on the need to provide healthy meal options at the workplace? Should be people be allowed, or even, encouraged to eat at work?

Yes, they should be allowed and actively encouraged to healthy (and balanced) nutrition options. Beyond the positive health effects, the associated break may help overall performance, promote the social environment at the workplace and, in brief, make things for employees and their employers better. It is a win-win case, really (although the exact practice to be adopted depends on the case and the economic environment)!

Practical experience, however, suggests that meal customs and provisions at the workplace vary considerably across businesses and regions to anything between no lunch at all and full, three-course meals. What makes it interesting is that scientific evidence has been in favour of lunch breaks for quite some time now, at least partly on the basis of forming healthy eating habits. Having access to (the right) food at work, within a break, also make employees more productive overall.

If it makes any difference, the International Labour Organisation has published a detailed study on the topic. Overall, it calls meals at work "a lost opportunity" since, often, they are either severely limited (or skipped, altogether) or do not encourage healthy/balanced nutrition. The study concludes on a wide set of recommendations for governments, employers, workers and trade unions.

On the other side of the argument, concerns exist regarding the cost - benefit ratio of providing healthy meals at work. A recent study by the Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, looking canteen takeaway meals, suggests that the overall benefit is modest compared to the cost, although the practice might be sustainable.

For me, the bottom line is simple: Meals at work are a very good way to keep the adult working population healthy (physically and mentally), productive and happy. The economics of each possible approach are a limiting factor. But there is no need to reach Google's standards in workplace meals (and, yes, they've given some thought on their canteens). but even humble, low cost but carefully thought of meal provision solutions (e.g., access to local shops or canteens) may be adequate, provided the right framework is in place. Such regulations framework could, for example, establish the right of employees to meal breaks, ensure a minimum variety of food offered by workplace business operators, including low-fat, low-salt, fruit and vegetable options, etc.

Food@School

'School canteen drenched
with golden sunlight 3'
by Edmund Yeo
under a CC license

Balanced nutrition is a challenge in most places in the world. Even where food is plenty. School meals and school food, in general, is an important factor for raising a healthy new generation. This applies independent of the actual socioeconomic environment, i.e., irrespective of whether children come from families with limited access to food or have family backgrounds lacking healthy standards in nutrition. Thus, the food supply system in schools (dictated by any "Food@School" policies) needs to aim towards two objectives:

• Offer affordable food providing a wide set of nutrients, at a reasonably sufficient quantity in a balanced fashion, and
• Train children into becoming responsible food consumers, actively seeking for nutrition balance and healthy choices.

As you may be guessing, those are not easy objectives for a variety of reasons, including - in no particular order:

• Elevated costs in providing free or subsidised food
• Limited know-how and/or resources needed to design, promote, implement (and enforce?) healthy school lunches
• Limited know-how and/or resources to support healthy food choices through education
• Low(er) priority at the policy agenda
• Insufficient or unclear regulatory framework
• (Possibly) limited continuity and support of such schemes at the home environment
• Low acceptance by the children of the options offered to them (consumer perception concerns do not only apply in adults!)

Luckily, not all the reasons above apply in all cases. But even having a single of those being applicable can have a detrimental effect in the outcome of any Food@School policies. The good thing is that by addressing any single one of those, the situation in the others is likely to improve - a kind of positive spill-over effect!

Mother Jones (amongst others) has recently featured an inspiring article on Jessica Shelly, the director of food services for Cincinnati's public schools. She, not only managed to meet regulatory guidelines for the formulation of school lunches (such as those dictating the use of whole grains) at a very low cost per meal but effectively altered children's attitude towards healthy food employing simple things such as:

• allowing kids to tailor their meal (salad bar)
• seeking for new recipes that would be part of a healthy and balanced diet but also appeal to kids
• listen to what the kids have to say on the food they consumed through a kind of customer satisfaction programme (all kids can do that and some have been doing it very, very successfully!)
• encourage teachers to join kids while eating, thus using them to set an example of food choices
• changing the name of dishes to make them more marketable

I'm sure that one could also add several more bullet points on the list, such as:

• Involve kids in designing meals or individual food products
• Enhance food science and nutrition training throughout school
• Take advantage of the culture-food links
• Use special events, campaigns, competitions, etc. to keep kids engaged on food and nutrition aspects
• Try to engage the kids' families on balanced nutrition issues

Clearly, not all such changes would be feasible in every school or region. In fact, many schools do not have restaurants but rather canteens - and, even canteens may be a luxury for some places. But Jessica Shelly's moves can be adapted as needed and then adopted in most places, even in a slow and incremental pace.

I'm positive that they will deliver promising results!

Acrylamide: A shady side of yumminess

'Homemade freedom fries'
by sean dreilinger under
a CC license

EFSA has recently published a draft scientific opinion indicating concerns regarding acrylamide intake and its potential role as carcinogen.

If that is as alarming as it sounds, why don't we take action now to eliminate it from our food?

And, at any rate, what can we do about it?

The brief answer to the latter is that acrylamide is not easy to get rid off entirely, as is forms during common food processing, both at the kitchen level and the industrial level. But, yes, we can reduce it further by modifying the cooking and processing steps. "Brown it lightly, don't burn it" is the simple rule to follow!

The answer to the former, however, is a bit more difficult to give using hard data to back it up, because total acrylamide intake is normally rather low and there is not too much evidence on the effect of acrylamide consumption on consumers, yet. So right now, reasonable caution is the most prudent thing one can advise.

OK. If you are still with me and can bear with me for a little longer, here is the slightly more detailed version of the story...

Acrylamide is a chemical compound formed in starchy foods when they are heated at high temperatures, starting at low rates from about 120 ^oC,  for prolonged time. It is just one of the many products of the so-called Maillard reaction, which actually is a large set of reactions, that take place when amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and reducing sugars are heated together. The Maillard reaction products contribute considerably to the brown colour and the characteristic taste and flavour of baked, grilled, fried, etc. products.

Most of the food-contained acrylamide comes from the consumption of potato crisps, fried potatoes and coffee. Other starch-containing food that have been subjected to high temperatures, such as rusks, bread, etc., also contain acrylamide but typically in lower (or much lower) concentrations. EFSA's draft opinion quotes a mean intake that ranges from 0.3 to 1.9 μg/kg body weight. Indicatively, smoking also adds to the acrylamide intake by 0.5 to 2  μg/kg body weight. Once consumed, acrylamide is metabolised either to N-acetyl-S- (3-amino-3-oxopropyl) cysteine or Glycidamide. It is mainly the latter metabolic product that raises the concerns for acrylamide's genotoxic and cancerogenic properties.

So how big is the risk?

EFSA follows the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach. MOE is the ratio between the dose where no adverse effect is observed to the estimated human exposure. To estimate the risk level, MOE is compared with the product of the uncertainty factors that need to be taken into consideration. Those are factors applied to data obtained from animal studies and account for the various differences between species (taking into consideration safety factors, as well). In the current case of examining acrylamide's genotoxic and cancerogenic properties, EFSA calculated a MOE much higher lower than the product of the uncertainty factors, thus indicating concern.

Acrylamide production during food processing is not a new story. In fact, there are indications that acrylamide content has been reduced lately as awareness for acrylamide concerns increases.

Currently there is little evidence through human studies on any alleged effects of acrylamide. Evidence comes mostly from animal studies, where acrylamide's consumption effects have been observed. Such toxicological studies often study consumption regimes unrealistically higher than normal human intake, within non-typical diets. The latter implies that the ingestion of acrylamide is not accompanied by ingestion of other ingredients that may - in vivo - play a role in its actual effect. Despite those uncertainties, that doesn't mean that acrylamide concerns should be dismissed. Rather that caution should be advised and studying of the issue should continue.

In Europe, sampling and analyses for acrylamide content in food has been ongoing for several years now. Parallel to that, the food industry has been using an acrylamide "toolbox" in an effort to reduce acrylamide content in processed food. At the industry level, there is also the possibility to use different raw materials (less prone to acrylamide formation), enzymes (to break down or modify the protein content that contributes to acrylamide formation), etc. All those are steps towards the right direction and take place in parallel to the efforts to fully characterise the risk.

Acrylamide, as mentioned previously, also forms during cooking food at home. There, the rule of thumb is "Lightly brown it - Don't burn it!". Which goes together with the common sense advice to maintain a balanced diet with variety in the foods consumed.
 
Note: Various organisations across Europe have produced relevant FAQs or info-sheets. If you are in Europe, it's worth checking at your national Food Authority's website. E.g., BfR (DE), ANSES (FR), EFET (GR), FSAI (IE), FSA (UK), AECOSAN (ES), etc.

Read me?

'Reading the paper' by State
Library of Victoria Collections
under a CC license

This time, I'll stay clear of food science and, for a change, I'll start with the bottom line:

We live busy lives, we do a lot of necessary or not-so-necessary things, most of which compete for our attention. That is why reading has become so difficult. That is why reading (long articles) online doesn't really stand a chance!

Here, I got it out of me. So now I can start again, the normal way this time. But I promise to keep it short. I have to.

I met a friend the other day and, at some point during our conversation, just after starting the 2nd pint, if I recall correctly, I vaguely mentioned something about this blog. The response I got was shockingly honest: "Yes, I know you blog but I haven't read any of your posts." That was the point I started thinking "Hey, you are supposed to encourage me or, at least, discourage me in a gentle way and you have just done neither". Instead of speaking my thought, I took another sip of my beer and said nothing.

The truth is that we get easily distracted. It is not a new thing. After all, distraction is nothing more than an attention shift from what we currently do onto something else. In our cave times, lying on the grass and getting distracted by the sound of animals fleeing at the sight of a hungry tiger could have been a life saver. This is certainly different to reading an article online and getting distracted by a twitter notification but the underlying mechanism remains the same.

There have been studies on that, both academic and informal, such as that on Slate. There are indications that the way we read and interpret, itself, is changing. Some of the observations, such as word/ page scanning, apply to both online and printed media. Regardless, they all seem to converge to the conclusion that keeping our attention on long online articles is tough. Some studies move onto providing advice for content developers (well, in this case, that is me). In brief, the things to do are:

• Put important things on top
• Use emphasis in a way that facilitates page scanning
• Keep it short and simple, avoiding unnecessary web design bells and whistles
• Use photos/ videos/ media contextually related to the text

I promise I'll try to stick to those rules. Although I'm not sure if all of those can be followed every single time. I may give it a try on a post on acrylamide in food.

And for those of you loyal enough to stay undistracted till the end, a great presentation from Apollo Robbins, pickpocket, magician, security consultant, etc. If you want subtitles (in many languages) visit TED.

Foodborne diseases: The case of the innocent-looking berries

'Berries' by Jeremy Cherfas
under a CC license

It's been about two-and-a-half years now that cases of hepatitis A have been appearing in Europe. Further analysis, as quoted by the European Food Safety Authority, has shown similarities in the viral genome across the majority of those cases. That is an indication for a common source of infection, which - currently - is believed to be frozen berries. So far, 11 countries in Europe are known to have been affected. (A similar-sounding story that appeared in the US seemed to be coincidental and it was attributed to imported pomegranate seeds.)

Technically, the term "berries" covers a wide variety of fruits although it is normally used to describe small, juicy, bright-coloured fruits, such as blueberries, strawberries, blackberries, blackcurrant, etc. They can be eaten raw but they are also extensively used as ingredients either raw or as preserves in other foodstuffs, such as creamy desserts, parties, flavoured ice-creams, various alcoholic beverages, etc.

In some of those products the berries find themselves in having had minimal - and sometimes non-thermal - treatment. That provides ground for pathogens and, in the case of hepatitis A, the hepatitis virus that may lie on the surface to survive.

Locations of the hepatitis A outbreaks attributed
to a common, continuous source in the EU/EEA,
possibly frozen berries; Compiled from Source:
European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control and the European Food Safety
Authority,  2014; Outbreak of hepatitis A in
EU/EEA countries - Second update. EFSA
supporting publication 2014:EN-581. 14 pp.

Hepatitis A is a disease usually transmitted via the consumption of food or water contaminated by infected fecal matter. It has a very long incubation period that can reach up to 50 days and, in some cases, it is asymptomatic, i.e., the people infected do not display any symptoms of illness (but they can transmit the virus).

While the food law in Europe requires food businesses to keep traceability records when receiving or providing food products or ingredients to other food business operators, including retailers, linking the hepatitis A outbreaks to a particular contaminated ingredient and tracing it back to a single source has proven to be very challenging.

The main reasons for that are the long incubation period of the disease and the complexity of the food chain, especially when dealing with multi-ingredients food products. Thus, when a case of hepatitis A is confirmed, pinpointing the source of the infection would require the patient to identify foodstuffs he/ she had consumed over a very long time (up to 50 days before the onset of symptoms), an exercise that is nearly impossible to execute in a fully accurate way. Then the ingredients and the processing of the individual foods needs to be considered in order to select the ones likely to have been vehicles for the virus. Then those should be traced back the food chain. With luck, superimposing the trace-back routes of different cases infected by the same virus strain could, at some point, help identify the starting point of the contamination.

Although hepatitis A is not normally a deadly disease (for reasonably healthy adults), it can be a rather "unpleasant" experience. Thankfully, consumers can minimise the risk by boiling frozen berries for about one minute; this will destroy the virus if present on the berries. Simply rinsing the berries with tap water may not be enough; depending on the type of the berries, they may have a large total surface with lots of niches where water cannot really reach (not to mention that fruits tend to have a hydrophobic surface... which reminds me of an older - yet irrelevant - post).

Moral line of the story - if there needs to be one: Risk communication, i.e., telling consumers (and businesses) what the hazard, the risk and the reasonable mitigation measures are, preferably in plain language, can be very effective when everything else fails.

Beer

'Beers' by Evil Sivan
under a CC license

Today's post is just a quick tribute to beer. No tricks, no puns, no deep thoughts and comments. Just a few words to the drink that may be a major reason to follow the World Cup (possibly second to watching the football games themselves).

They say it's the oldest fermented beverage and it's the third most consumed drink after water and tea.

The bare basics of beer production are dead simple:

1. Germinate cereal grains and then dry them to make malt
2. Extract the sugars from the malt using warm water
3. Put aside the solids, add hops to taste and boil the liquid to increase sugar concentration, destroy the enzymes extracted, extract the bitterness from the hops and sterilize the solution
4. Let the mix cool down (and add more hops to adjust the flavour if desired)
5. Add yeast and let it ferment (for about a week up to about a month, depending on the yeast and the fermentation conditions)
6. Filter the output if desired
7. Add carbon dioxide if needed
8. Bottle the beer
9. (Chill to taste, open and enjoy)

As with many drinks, a main factor defining beer's sensory profile is water. That is despite the fact that hops' bitterness and flavour may be the most profound component in the overall profile of beer. Then, of course, there are all the flavour compounds produced during the malting process (that were then passed on the water during the extraction phase) and those produced by the yeast during the fermentation.

With such variety available beer tasting has been a fact for a while (e.g., Belgium Beer Lovers) and beer connoisseurs (and their services, e.g. Beerology) have become increasingly popular figures in the beer world.

Beer is also a major exported good; in 2011 the total beer exports reached a value of about $11.6B (source http://atlas.media.mit.edu/bji3e8):

And the corresponding map for beer imports (from the same source - http://atlas.media.mit.edu/8qp2r5):

With such figures in mind it comes as little surprise that Brazil had to introduce a beer law specifically for the 2014 World Cup (lifting a horizontal ban on the sale of beer at matches that was enforced for more than 10 years).

Ah, well, nothing is ever 100% pure, is it?

:-)

Let's all enjoy a pint then.... under the sound of the obligatory Charlie Mopps song (the lyrics are in the description space of youtube)...

Gamification

'Tetris' by Matteo
under a CC license

People play games. All people do. Kids play, with friends or alone, with toys or without. Adults play games, maybe involving sports maybe not, with others or alone. Playing games is one of the elements that helps children evolve into adults. For adults, games are considered to be a leisure thing, sometimes a kind of social function and some others a tool to isolate from other external stimuli.

For some reason, though, video games (or computer games, if that term suits you best) are often looked down on. They have been considered a nerd thing and/or, sometimes, a 'geek thing'. They have often been referred to as "a waste of time".

Video games are a thing of our times. The corresponding industry has rapidly grown over the last few decades (and its statistics are always fun to read) together (or helped by) the introduction of the PC to the wide consumer audience, the dedicated game consoles and - more recently - the myriads of game-capable mobile devices. To day, a huge variety of genres, titles, etc. have emerged, some managing to become iconic. Pacman, Nethack, Arkanoid, Tetris, Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego, Neverwinter nights, Doom, Sid Meier's Civilization, etc. Really, the list is endless.

[Full disclosure: I 've spent quite some time immersed in various computer games myself, ranging from Pacman, Tetris and Civilization to DotT and Beneath a Steel Sky, to TF2, the Neverwinter series, indie games such as World of Goo, Braid, FEZ, etc. And so far, I'm not sure I 've regretted it :-)]

So why something so popular is heavily criticised? I agree that popularity on its own isn't a measure of usefulness or value. Tobacco, unhealthy snacks and -even- drugs may be popular and desirable, to the level of lethal addiction. But are video games in such class?

Many opinions have been voiced - at different strengths. But I tend to agree with the one that says that games can have an impact on our real lives.

How?

Conventional mechanisms include helping us let steam, helping us focus on something else (so as to return to reality with a clear mind) and, in online games, socialise. Yes, socialise. In a digital way. Perhaps not-so-equivalent to the face-to-face contact but not far from exchanging e-mails or Facebook posts.

Video games, both normal and serious ones, have been put forward as a learning and skills honing platform

Jane McGonigal gave a TED talk on 2010 supporting that video games, being so engaging, can serve as the means for us to reach goals in real life. Part of that rationale is supported by a variety of modern apps offering to "gamify" our lives in the personal and the professional environment. Those are tools that will help people self-commit to an activity or an objective and reward them accordingly. Give a try to HabitRPG or Fitocracy. Neither got me engaged but many others seem to disagree.

Rewards in video games - a copycat of the rewarding system in real life, which is itself based on reward processes in the brain - is something that all gamers understand and it is indeed the driving force in every successful game.

So what do we need to do to harness the potential of video games? The obvious answer is that we need to ensure that game developers integrate "the right messages" in their games. However, I'm not sure that this is likely to happen and I'm not even sure that I would like it to happen. After all, games are selling the fantasy element. In fact, they don't need to change. It is the other things of our lives that can use make use of the interfaces that games have created.

But there is a limit to the applicability of games. There is always a lurking danger when dealing with real life consequences bearing game-like attitudes. If that has to do with things such as college exams, getting to know new people,etc., it may be OK. But if that has to do with actions associated with serious risks of any kind, then things are completely different. There is little real-life protection one can offer in a game universe.That universe is something others may not be able to perceive the same way. The gaming world is a world that our laws don't necessarily apply (both the natural and the ones of the legal system).

Thus, we need to make absolutely sure that the borderline between gaming in real life remains clear!

After all, we only get one real life...

Legal compliance: A battle facing complexity?

'Winter Simplicity' by
Doug Brown under a CC license

Some say the food sector is one of the most regulated areas of economic activity. Although a bit counter-intuitive, since making food seems easy to most people and that would not seem to justify having a lot of regulations, the statement is not far from true, at least in Europe.

Under more careful thinking, the argument in favour of such a tight regulatory framework is easy to see: there is a great deal of things that can go wrong in food production and that can cause trouble to consumers, economic losses, etc. The type and severity of that "trouble" depends on the type of the problem, the size and the distribution of the product batch. And, yes, food-borne "trouble" continues to occur even today from time to time (e.g., there seems to be an ongoing incident with Hepatitis A, possibly from contaminated frozen berries) and it is always associated with a corresponding cost.

Even if having a tight regulatory framework is inevitable, at least for the time being, there is no need for that to be unreasonably complex. Of course, here, the word "unreasonably" would be interpreted in a very different way by the different stakeholders of the food industry. Most probably some lawyer would even go as far as to claim that the set of laws for food production is really simple and straightforward (!).

Interestingly, two guys from the Michigan State University attempted to measure the complexity of the Law (in the US Code)  - the research paper and a corresponding presentation are also available. In brief, the two researchers tried to quantify "complexity" by using metrics that would apply to people trying to read the law and comprehend its requirements. One of the approaches was to count the references of a piece of text to other pieces of legislation. (Yes, certain Titles of the Code were rather complex indeed).

I would find it extremely interesting if a similar approach would be routinely implemented to other bodies of law, e.g. the food law in the EU or in its Member States. Or. possibly, to run benchmarks among similarly-oriented bodies of law across countries. That could be a novell way to drive the various legislative bodies to produce regulations that, as a whole, are easier to find, comprehend and apply.

In my humble opinion, clearer regulations would lead to higher compliance, possibly with a lower associated cost. That would mean more money for business to pursue other goals (e.g., environmental performance) or invest elsewhere. In the food sector, higher compliance usually translates to better protection of the consumer and, in turn, higher confidence of the consumer to the food production and distribution chain.

To be fair, there is an increasing trend for authorities to provide consolidated versions of the legislation or - at least - to group all legislation relevant to a topic and provide it to the public as such. That 's very good news but, again, we are nowhere near to claim that we have achieved simplicity and clarity in the legal texts, yet...