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!

Consumer perception: A tool without instructions?

'Pick yours' by esti
under a CC license

My belated, yet warmest, wishes for a Happy New Year to us all!!!

Holidays is a good thing. It gives you time to relax, spend more time with the people you like and love (OK, sometimes it also forces you to spend time with people you don't like so much :-) and change your focus altogether for a little bit.

Lately, there is the story in the news about researchers from Valencia (Spain) and Oxford (UK) on "The Influence of the color of the cup on consumers' perception of a hot beverage". The paper has published back in August 2012 in the Journal of Sensory Studies and during the last few days has been featured in major blogs and news sites such as POPSCI, Discovery News, etc.

In the study, the researchers offered a panel of 57 volunteers cups of a hot chocolate beverage and asked them to rate them against - amongst others - flavour and sweetness. Cups were plastic and coloured red, orange, white and dark cream on the outside (white inside). The results indicated that the testers rated the beverage of higher chocolate flavour when they drank from the orange or dark cream cups. Sweetness and chocolate aroma were less influenced by the colour of the cup, but still the dark cream ones got a better score than the others. As the authors pointed out, that can help catering professionals tune the aesthetics of the plateware or packaging (or possibly dining environment, altogether) in order to enhance consumer experience.

That is not the first time it is shown that factors beyond the sensory aspects of a foodstuff affect consumer perception. A strawberry mousse, for instance, tastes better when server on a white dish. And, as Betina Piqueras-Fiszman from the Polytechnic University of València has demonstrated, the weight of a dish, where a meal is served on, has an impact on the expected food density and expected satiety from the consumer.

Clearly, appearance is a tool for achieving or boosting consumer acceptance. But is it also a tool to be used in achieving a better diet, that is, eating less and/or eating healthier? Possibly, yes. Hot chocolate served in an orange cup, for instance, may require less added sugar to become acceptable. Make that an orange coloured clay mug, which is much heavier than a plastic cup, and it may give the consumer the feeling of a denser drink. In that way one may achieve better consumer satisfaction while keeping the impact on the total daily calorific intake under better control. Still though, a cup of chocolate will always be a cup of chocolate, will always have more calories than a cup of unsweetened tea, etc.

Such an approach may be worth considering, especially in cases where a good and balanced nutrition is a target, e.g., in school meals. There, plateware of the right weight and colour could have a diet-support function, on top of making the life of pupils more colourful. After all, kids have demonstrated that they do have an opinion on what they eat! (I'm referring to Martha Payne, a 10-year-old girl from Scotland, who had a blog with comments on her school meals). The same goes to canteens, often found in or around busy workplaces (and they are not always cool). If you think about it, the associated cost should not be out of reach and the impact on the environment should be lower. Adding colour to plastic dishes/ cups/ etc. adds a few cents more in a recurring way, while switching to normal ones adds an initial purchasing cost plus the cost of washing them to be re-used.

One thing that bothers me, however, is whether the effect of the eating environment, plateware included, is absolute or relative. In other words, does the feeling of enhanced sweetness appears only to consumers that make the switch to cups of different colour or does it fade over the time one uses the same cup? There is certainly something there but there may be also, a lot more to learn.

That certainly reminds me that the safest and most time-proof way to a balanced diet is to train oneself to the "right tastes" so that the appealing food would need to have an excess of sugar or salt and it would include fruits, vegetables and wholemeal products.

Dinner table: Food for thought

'Dinner table settings'
by joeywan under a CC license

For the part of the world that is lucky enough to have secured a minimum amount of food on a daily basis, the dinner table may feel like the reasonable place to end the daily routine.

In fact, though, the dinner table is much more than that. It's the place to talk with family and friends. It's the place to listen to others. It's the place to get to know people. It's the place for all emotions, from sorrow to happiness and from anticipation to excitement. It's the place to secure a deal, explore arguments, brainstorm on ideas, announce plans and... well... eat.

The latter, quite rightfully, sounds like stating the obvious. However, what I'm really trying to say is that, food-wise, the dinner table is challenging in many different ways. While, normally, we tend to focus either on the social dimension of eating or on satisfying the physical need to eat, getting things in order for a dinner table (or any meal, in fact) is not that simple a process. Indicatively, consider the following elements:

• General food safety; are the raw materials safe, has the food been handled properly, etc.
• Food allergens; is the food OK for the people that will consume it with respect to allergens, does one of them has an allergy on one of the ingredients used, is it likely to have allergens present through contamination, etc.
• Nutrition; does the meal provide what is needed for all its intended consumers, does it provide variety under the "balanced nutrition" rationale, etc.
• Special dietary needs; are they known for each of those consuming the meal, are cultural or religious-based dietary needs also considered, are they properly addressed altogether, etc.
• Acceptance; are the meal elements acceptable at the sensory level, i.e., do they look nice, do they have an appealing flavour and taste, etc.
• Novelty; is the meal intriguing or interesting for those who will consume it (not necessarily in the sense of 'food innovation')?

'Table' by anthimeria
under a CC license

Don't consider that list as exhaustive. It's not. Not even close. What is interesting is that each of the points above is close to being a science on its own.  And what is challenging is that for each of the points above there is still much to investigate and learn (at the scientific level).

Most of you will argue that although we normally eat on a daily basis in our lives the food we consume rarely causes problems. That is a fair point. But:

• The reaction of people to unsafe food depends on their overall health status and the factor that makes the food in question unsafe. Pathogens like listeria monocytogenes tends to be more of a concern for immunosuppressed individuals and pregnant women but there are food-borne pathogens that much more aggressive. Contaminants of chemical or biological nature may or may not lead to acute effects, depending on the type of agent, the amount consumed, etc. The impact of the consumption of unsafe food on human health and well-being in the long run is not always very easy to calculate. Besides that, most food-related incidents tend to be downplayed (e.g., an upset stomach or a single diarrhea incident is normally ignored) so the exact impact of non-safe food is likely under-estimated.
• Food allergy is not that rare. It 's impact on the individual depends on the level of sensitisation for the allergen in question and the amount consumed but in some cases it can be life-threatening.
• Good nutrition is a standing challenge. Nutrient needs vary depending on both genetic factors, age, health status, life-style choices and cultural background. Beyond that, there are people with special dietary needs, who need to abstain from certain ingredients or require more or less from specific ingredients. For instance, coeliacs must follow a gluten-free diet. To make things more complicated, the availability of each nutrient is a dish depends on several factors, including the nutrient form in the food, the food matrix (i.e., where is the nutrient contained), the presence of other ingredients (e.g., a nutrient may become partially "out of reach" to the digestive system in the presence of specific ingredients).
• Acceptance for both "normal" and "novel" foods is a relatively new niche for studies under food science. There is still a lot to learn on how people make choices for food and towards what result. It is not always the question of whether the food smells, tastes and "feels" good, though. Cultural background, habit or past personal experiences, amongst others, can make people like or detest certain foodstuffs.

I'm not suggesting or implying that the person who cooks dinner should get a food science degree. I'm merely pointing out that there is really a lot to learn for something many of us normally take for granted.

Bugs: Coming soon in an ice-cream near you!

'Nanners and Rummy Raisin
Ice Cream"' by ulterior epicure
under a CC license

Within a few days after our birth our intestines get populated by numerous bacteria. Such bacteria will, normally, keep us company until the end of our lives. With them, we are connected by a bit more than a mere co-existence. Current knowledge describes our relationship with plenty of the gut flora microorganisms as "symbiotic": we feed them, provide warmth and shelter to them and in return the keep our guts safe from pathogens, train our immune systems and release metabolites of theirs, some of which are necessary for us. Well, that relationship does go pear-shaped occasionally, but life is full of messy stuff, isn't it?

The interesting thing is that the more we look into our intestinal population the more links we find between their existence and our lives. Yesterday, the New Scientist was highlighting research findings on rats, which suggest that the composition of the gut flora has an effect on appetite, initially, and, later on, changes in the body weight: Changing the gut flora of obesity-resistant rats to that of the obesity-inclined one increased the appetite, firstly, and the weight, secondly, of the former.

Weight changes and the composition of the gut flora is nothing new. In 2006, the New Scientist featured a corresponding article. It was based again on research carried out on mice. That time they compared normal μmice with ones that had been living in sterile conditions and, thus, had no microorganisms within their digestive track. Those mice tended to stay slim. Having their gut populated by the flora of the normal mice lead to a body weight increase of about 25%. If the flora used was similar to that of obese mice, the weight gain was much higher. That observation was attributed to the effect of the gut flora on the food that passes via the intestines; the microorganisms living there help metabolize it more efficiently, thus producing more energy the mass unit than without their intervention. The more efficient the microorganisms are, the higher the weight gain for mice.

Combining the two observations there are several questions that come to mind:

• Let's assume that gut flora that is more efficient in processing the food we normally eat leads to us getting more calories out the food. Temporarily, that will lead to weight increase unless we either reduce our food intake or increase our physical activity. However, it is suggested in the 2012 article that the appetite (of rats) is enhanced. Does this mean that the flora microorganisms mess with the energy intake - appetite mechanism of the host? And if yes, is that a temporary effect? What pathway does it messes up with?
• Since the gut flora lives on what food we consume and on the metabolites secreted by our cells, locally, do they have any mechanism to "encourage" us to eat the food that is most nutritious to them? I don't necessarily refer to "mind-control" but to any pleasant or unpleasant symptom that may encourage or discourage us from eating stuff that "tastes" nice or not-so nice, respectively, to our intestinal guests.
• Is it possible to sustainably change one's gut flora in such a way that it will lead to better weight control? Can this be done in a safe way? What will be the catches (because, surely, there will be at least one downside!)?

The last point carries particular weight for the food industry. Foodstuffs with probiotic content have been consumed practically since the beginning of civilisation; fermented dairy products being a common example. Recently, the trend has expanded and, for some time, probiotics (and prebiotics) became central to what is typically referred to as "functional food".

'Strawberry Panna Cotta'
by Matthew S. Cain under
a CC license

If probiotic microorganisms can indeed help maintain a healthy body weight, without negative side effects, they could become particularly interesting for foods that tend to be tempting and are often responsible for making a weight-loss diet feel particularly punishing.

Ice-cream is a good example. The idea has been explored a few years ago and there seems to be little concern for technological limitations. Household-oriented recipes have also been available for - say - yoghurt ice-cream or more exotic stuff, such as kefir-based chocolate ice-cream.

Having said that, I find the path of "slimming" foods to be a potentially slippery one. Regardless of how pleasant the thought is of devouring tons of yummy ice-cream and, still, lose weight, the wise thing to do is seek for a healthy, balanced diet and live a life with plenty of physical activity. And then, why not, enjoy the occasional scoop or two of our favourite dairy vice....

Thirsty?

'Water walker' by Navdeep Raj
under a CC license

What do you ask for when you feel thirsty?
Water, maybe?

It doesn't take much thought to reply to that, does it?

A couple of days ago (on 18/11, to be precise), The Telegraph featured an article titled "EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration". The article comments negatively on legislation that follows an EFSA opinion, which rejects a health claim on the potential of water consumption against dehydration. The EFSA opinion is not a very new story but it seems to have resurfaced. The said article was also in slashdot yesterday, so I assume that it has received plenty of attention world-wide by now.

Interesting article, with negative bias, regardless of the fact that both quotes and facts are provided. The article suggests that EFSA's opinion and the subsequent legislative act are really against common knowledge and are, thus, wrong. Apart from that, according to the article, the whole process has been rather expensive (for the taxpayer). Only at the very end of the text does a supportive (for EFSA) opinion appears, with no further comments given.

Well, let's see where this case stands. The claim that was submitted to EFSA for their opinion was "regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance". It was submitted by two German professors (some internet sources say they are consultants for the bottled water industry) under Art. 14 of Regulation EC/1924/2006, which covers claims for the reduction of disease risk.

EFSA said (and repeated) that the submitted claim did not meet the requirements of Art. 14 for the reduction of disease risk. The European Federation of Bottled Water seems to agree. Dehydration is a state of the body and - itself - is not a disease, although it can be a side-effect/ symptom of various diseases. I admit, however, that EFSA's opinion has been written in a rather complicated way, where they seem to somehow accept dehydration as a disease before concluding that the requirements of the Regulation are not met!!! Strange....

To make things interesting, the responsible EFSA's panel had given favourable opinions on the role of water for "maintenance of normal thermoregulation" and for it being a "basic requirement of all living things" - both claims falling under Art. 13 of Regulation EC/1924/2006, which includes claims on "the role of a nutrient or other substance in growth, development and the functions of the body". In order words, it seems plausible that the claim was filed under the wrong classification. If that was really the case, EFSA should not be the one to blame for that.

It is clear that all nutrition and health claims submitted for consideration should be rigorously processed. That 's what the law foresees and that 's what is needed in order to protect the consumer and maintain a competitive - but fair - market. Submitting obvious (or stupid) claims doesn't mean that they won't go down the processing pipeline. And although that this comes with a price-tag, there's no safe way to go around that; there is no "obviousness" clause that would allow the EC (or EFSA) to accept or reject a proposed claim.

Going a bit beyond, I really wonder, what is the reason of having a health claim supporting that water can help against dehydration? If it is common knowledge (which it is), why apply for it? In any case, the EU law would prevent such a claim phrased in a way that it would benefit a particular product, since the beneficial function is performed by any drinkable water (yes, including tap water :-)

Was it an effort to prove that the system is broken? If that was it, then point taken. And then immediately, point put aside. Every system that is open to all and is committed to dealing with all has similar weaknesses. I've got nothing against improving a system, if that is needed, but passing the obvious through formal channels so as to see what happens is a questionable practice...

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...

The taste of silence

Savory Silence by Josh Liba
under BY-NC-SA

(Alternative title: "Tastless food? Quick! Get those earplugs on!")

Recently, the BBC News had an article on the work of Woods et al. titled "Effect of background noise on food perception" (published in 'Food Quality and Preference').

The study received particular attention from the press, both at home and abroad. While the inter-correlation between the senses is within popular belief (e.g., impaired vision and auditory perception), the study points to normal life effects that were not - by popular wisdom - normally attributed to an interaction between senses.

The scientific paper demonstrated that the existence of background sound affects the perceived sensory properties of the food; gustatory properties (taste, e.g., saltiness, sweetness) were diminished while auditory properties (e.g., crunchiness) increased. The press extrapolated on the example of in-flight meals, which commonly get described as 'tasteless'. However, if the observations of the study hold, the everyday life effects could be of much greater importance.

Although tempted, I'll skip the case of the restaurant environment (but I do wonder, could a quieter eating environment make a chef's creations tastier?) and, instead, I'll share a few thoughts for the office environment.

The modern, urban environment most of us live and work in tends to be noisy. I don't know whether the effect of background sound is a function of its intensity (I would assume so, possibly also featuring a cut-off level, under which no significant effect on taste perception would be observed) but, please, think of it for a second: The typical office chatter can reach 65 dBA, a properly maintained PC is at about 45 dBA, a ringing phone could be at about 75 dBA, a printer could be between 60 and 75 dBA. For comparison, a quiet room is at about 35 dBA, a lawn mower is at about 90 dBA and a crying baby can reach 110 dBA. In flight cabin noise levels are between 70 and 85 dBA, depending on the type of aircraft, flight phase, cruising speed, location of the measurement point, etc. Thus, while not directly threatening for the human auditory system, the office environment is certainly not quiet.

Now attempting to extrapolate the study to the practical effects on food consumption in an office environment becomes interesting; existing noise levels may be pushing employees to use more salt or sugar to reach the taste intensity the are used to experiencing at home. At an era where both salt use and sugar consumption are under fire for their contribution to high blood pressure and obesity, respectively, the auditory environment around us may be contributing towards the wrong direction. Although rather hasty to urge for action based on limited evidence, the link between sound environment and nutrition-related choices is something that should be looked into. In any case, if one takes into account the other health risks of office noise exposure, it becomes evident that noise control maybe of higher priority than commonly thought.

In the majority of cases the reduction of background noise levels is neither costly nor technically challenging. Simple measures, like relocating noisy equipment, encouraging people to use earphones (instead of loudspeakers), using sound dumping/ diffusing office space dividers, etc., may be a good start. However, in cases where space is precious and the convenience of private offices cannot be afforded, help from an expert should be used. After all, it is a question of both health and productivity!

(BTW, what about air quality and food sensory perception???)