Revamping those to-do lists

'to do list' by Eamon Brett
under a CC license

To-do lists are nothing new. They are simple and humble yet, for some people, precious.

Personally, I'm not too much of a fan of such things. For that, I have paid the price at a number of occasions. However, having forgotten - a number of times - to get the all the things I need from the supermarket in a single go and having gotten things I didn't really need instead, I somehow convinced myself to ride the wave and install one of those 'to-do' list apps on my mobile.

I went for Wunderlist but I soon realised that there are numerous alternatives, such as Toodledo, Remember the milk (!), Asana and many. many others, including Google Tasks, which is tightly integrated with GMail and Google Calendar and the purpose-built Google Keep. Each of those has its pros and cons, some are simpler and more intuitive than others, etc., but all can, in some way, find home in your smartphone and replace that old-fashioned to-do list on a piece of paper.

(BTW, I won't be doing a review of those apps here. However, there are plenty of reviews over the internet, for example in LifeHacker, the Verge and PC World.)

I'm a bit surprised that some many people came up with an idea (or copied the idea) for an app to replace a simple piece of paper. I know, I shouldn't be. After all, this is a kind of useful app with quite some margin for extra features.

People have been creating to-do lists all the time and having them in a digital form does come with advantages, such as the possibility to re-use lists or list items, share them with others, collaborate around them, combine them with work planning, etc. It's just that such lists can easily exist on torn notebook pages and post-it notes and still reach their objective. In that sense, having such apps feels like an overkill but, at any rate, clearly, that will work, too. After all, smartphones are supposed to be much more besides a simple mobile phone and adding the to-do list functionality is another (small) step towards helping us in our daily lives.

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....

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.

Eating well (when budgets are tight)

'365.29' by jessyroos
under a CC license

In Greece, we are well into a second year of austerity measures. They come in waves of increasing severity. Most people, of those who still have a job, that is, have lost between 20 and 40% of their income, either because of pay cuts and increased taxes or because of a re-adjustment of their working hours. Others have lost their jobs altogether.

It is no rocket science that a reduced income leads to tighter budgets. So, will that affect the way we eat? Simple answer: Yes!

The decrease in the income of most people is larger than the expenses that one would call as "luxury". And if one puts aside hard costs, such as house mortgages, car insurance, etc., then whatever is left is shared among the expenses for food, health, clothes, transport, utility bills, education, etc. Taking into account that the expenses for food rank high on the household budget, it is easy to see why the way we eat is likely to be affected. This is a case of food crisis such as in other parts of the world, where the nutrition challenge has long been identified, but still it calls for careful thinking and concern.

Private label products sell increasingly well in supermarkets (the link is in Greek - Google translation available here), restaurants see a decline in the number of patrons, fast food chains and coffee shops introduce "deals" in their menus and so on. Unless the cost of all food ingredients drops accordingly, the temptation of an increasing number of people to choose food solely based on price is a risk.

Food safety is a legal requirement, so I wouldn't worry to much for that. But what about food quality? What about nutritional content?

The risk is known. As food is associated with health, eating bad will - at some point - lead to health problems. I'll skip the part where I say that addressing health problems costs money - to the individuals affected, as well as to the healthcare system. I'll just state that eating well (i.e., healthy) is need - not a luxury.

So, the challenge here is to ensure that affordable food is - nutritionally - good food. That isn't necessarily too hard to do. And there are ways to make people more aware of that. For instance:

• We should be encouraged to cook more, using good ingredients and following a balanced diets. Bringing friends at home and cooking, instead of ordering pizzas could be an idea. Apart from eating better, it could also improve our quality of life in other ways.
• We should take the time to have a look at the nutrition labels of foodstuffs we use. And, yes, we should try and understand what they tell us. Have a look at here (if you live in the EU) or here (if you live in the US).
• We should encourage competition amongst economic operators of the food market, making sure that the bad ones get the message and rewarding the good ones with our trust.

In a few words, I think we should become more involved in whatever relates to our nutrition...

Health and nutrition: Pyramids, plates and food labels

'Avocado snack' by Voxphoto
under a CC license

The more consumers become aware of the links between food and health, the more active the triangle of the food market, scientists and policy makers becomes.

In Europe, stakeholders of the food world are already engaged in the discussion on the nutrition and health claims that may appear on foodstuffs. An EC Regulation is in place (EC/1924/2006) but essential elements of that Regulation are still in the making. Such elements include the lists of health claims, which will define the claims and the exact conditions under which they can be displayed on a foodstuff.

Another element, quite important, is the definition of the nutrient profiles, which will make a food eligible to bear claims. Nutrient profiles are being worked on by EFSA experts; what makes it interesting, is that those profiles are, in very simple terms, an effort to determine whether a food is 'good' or 'not so good' and allow claims to appear only on the 'good' ones. Doing that, of course, is not an accurate science but it does rely on effectively summing up whatever established scientific facts on food and nutrition exist. In some places, nutrient profiles are already present and are taken into consideration in the advertising of foodstuffs - though mostly on a voluntary basis.

The food labels are likely to change yet once more in the future. In Europe, the GDA labelling (an industry-supported voluntary nutrition labelling scheme) has gained plenty of momentum. In the US there is the 'Rethink the Food Label' effort, which leans onto the public to put forward proposals for a better label. I can't predict what the outcome will be. Personally, I would prefer scientists to strongly pump input to the process. But I do see that food labels should make the most that consumer perception allows for.

USDA - ChooseMyPlate.gov

Parallel to the labelling developments, the communication of nutrition facts is - once more - being re-processed. In the US, the typical food pyramid is being replaced. The new icon is a plate, accompanied with clear dietary advice. Is that going to be an effective way to further 'activate' consumers towards a healthier nutrition? Was the old, pyramid figure judged as ineffective (for sure, it seems it had caused some friction with the industry stakeholders)? Time will tell, I suppose. But - as always - reliable information is a key for good decision making; even if all at stake is just the supermarket shopping.

Language twists: the case of N-(L-α-Aspartyl)-L-phenylalanine, 1-methyl ester

A few days ago, a case involving Asda, a UK supermarket chain, drew my attention. As mentioned in the FoodNavigator, Asda and Ajinomoto, a producer of food ingredients, entered a court battle on the use of the word "nasty" for, amongst others, aspartame (actually, aspartame was indirectly referred to as one of the "hidden nasties"; Asda produces private label products claiming to contain "no nasties").

It seems that the first court ruling allowed Asda to use a generic term as "nasty" for foodstuff, thinking that it does constitute a specific "malicious falsehood". However, after Ajinomoto's appeal, a second ruling supports that the word "nasty" carries multiple meanings, one of which is damaging to aspartame products.

Although the case seems to be in progress, it is certainly interesting to think of the possible results. Asda claims to be using terms that echo consumers' concerns. So, the "no nasties" claim actually translates to the fact that the product labelled as such contains none of the ingredients consumers tend to think as "nasty". Interestingly, that approach requires little or no scientific backing. On the other hand, "nasty" carries a negative meaning, which might affect the choice of consumers that may think that the term is based on scientific evidence.

The food sector is, unfortunately, not empty of controversy cases. The case of aspartame is recorded as one of them. Having said that, aspartame is an approved sweetener (also known as E951 in Europe) and that means that there is sufficient scientific proof that it is safe to use within the limits and for the uses specified. By the way, Asda is not disputing aspartame's safety.

What worries me is that the case is, in a way, a question of whether free speech can apply in the market environment. Indeed, the consumers have preferences, which are not always based on scientific facts and, historically, have not always been right. So, is it ok to mirror those beliefs on products?

Well, in a way that has been done before. Think of the various certification signs that appear on food products. Some of them certify qualities that have little to do with the actual safety or nutritional content of the food. For instance, think of examples like the PDO labels, which indicate that a product was made in a specific geographical area or the TSG label that guarantees the "traditional character" of the product. Those labels often attract the consumer to the benefit of products that carry them. The difference with the "no nasties" label is that those signs are awarded after a certification process.

So the question translates: Could there be a certification process for the "no nasties" (or other equivalent phrases) sign? In theory, why not? The national legislations across Europe allow for claims such as "no preservatives", "no artificial colourings" ,etc. A similar trend applies to foodstuffs with natural flavouring. However, it would be safe to assume that the industry behind the ingredients concerned will react, possibly on the basis of established safety or on the basis of offering choices and health benefits to specific consumer groups.

The key here, as always in the food world, is for the consumer to be in position and understand what a claim on the packaging means. And that key principle applies - IMHO - to all claims, legally established or not. It is no coincidence that Regulation (EC) 1924/2006, regarding the nutrition and health claims on foodstuffs, requires food manufacturers to ensure that their claim is understood by the average consumer and, also, to provide additional relevant advice together with the claim.

Some say that the food labels of the future will have a lot of things to read. But then again, making usable information available to the consumer could be a way to improve the food choice mechanism and the food-associated wellbeing. Time will tell, I guess....