The many faces of photography

'Sunset writ small' by
bgblogging under a CC license.

This is not supposed to be a regular post. It's rather an addendum to my previous one, 'Photons & imagination'. You see, while I was going through that a second time (a hard-to-explain masochistic thing that I find myself sometimes doing), I felt the urge to add several other things on photography. No, the lot of additions I had in mind would hardly make the topic complete but, also, that was never my original intention.

Photography is one of the things that has many different functions in our lives. For some, it is art. For others, science. Also, it forms a kind of expression, in a way an equivalent to speech, in the sense that it can convey messages to specific (or not-so-specific) audiences. Some consider it a visual tool merely accompanying written or oral speech. At the same time, photography is a means for art, science and communication. And, on top of that, there are the ones that embrace photography as passion.

A few days ago, I made a reference to light field photography, which seems to be slowly emerging as niche in photographic consumer-oriented products. I described it as exciting and challenging but also divergent from the traditional spirit of photography that most hobbyists and professionals carry. I now consider that I may have been a bit too harsh on that.

It's no secret that the photography world features considerable diversity: a variety of technologies are being used for a variety of applications by a variety of people. Photography seems to me as a mainstream skill/ hobby that hosts an overwhelming number of hard-to-ignore niches. Just a couple of examples I recently came across:

a. Revisiting the old times of photography, a case of which is the resurrection of instant film cameras (Polaroids). The Polaroid (corporation) having itself shifted a bit to the modern era and seeing the entire film-based world slowly making the leap towards digital media there were voices that asked otherwise. The SavePolaroid movement (archived site: here) lobbied for the preserving the option to use Instant. "It grows up with you and becomes a part of you", as a visitor of SavePolaroid.com said. I can see what she meant, although - myself - I was never an instant film user. That is passion! Now, the Impossible project offers the chance for people to meet or continue to use instant film Polaroids.

'Lomo' by pixelfreund.ch
under a CC license

Lomography is another retro photography passion that is very much alive and still burns. Understandably perhaps, since it applies no specific rules for photography (apart for the 'there are no rules' rule) making it really dynamic, potent means of expression. Beyond that - I'm sure - there are many oldish photography branches that still enjoy support.

b. "Small world" photography. To be fair, that's by no means mainstream. Capturing images from the "small world" often requires specialised equipment and some skills in sample preparation. Especially when it comes to techniques like TEM (transmission electron microscopy), AFM (atomic force microscopy), BAM (Brewster angle microscopy) or - even - confocal microscopy, one needs specilised equipment that is (very) unlikely to be found outside the lab walls, in the hands of hobbyists. An encouraging exception to the rule has been a recent boom in the marketing of USB microscopes (such as VEHO or Reflecta), although I tend to believe that the trend doesn't persist much anymore.

Photos from the small-scale world, however, always attract attention. Be it insects, snow flakes, bacteria, crystals, phases of matter or molecules, the images of the world at such size-scale have always been associated with a certain kind of "cool factor". There several interesting sources out there. Apart from what one can find in Flickr or Picasa, Nikon "Small World" is certainly worth a visit. It is a corporate-supported website (Nikon Instruments) hosting several galleries with photos from the "small world", which were selected by open competitions. In most cases, the photos there are accompanied by (brief) information on the sample and the technique used to get the picture. As an example, a favourite of mine:

Charles Krebs, Wing scales of Urania riphaeus (Sunset moth) (100X),
available in the "2008 Winners" gallery of Nikon "Small World"

I guess that the bottom line is that the photography scenery is - fortunately - beautifully complex. It's certainly unlikely to feel bored there!

Photography: Photons & imagination

'1934 Kodak Brownie
Hawkeye 2A vintage
camera' by Kevin Dooley
under a CC license

Capturing moments in time or instances of human imagination on something solid is nothing new. Paintings, sketches, sculptures, photographs - to name a few means - have all been part of, more-or-less, the same game. From amongst those means, photography is probably the most recent addition.

Manipulating light through pinholes or lenses has been known since the BC era. Finding a way to 'freeze' light on a piece of film proved to be a bit more challenging. The first useable form of photography - as an innovative technology - came up at about 1820. The next few decades were certainly exciting with huge steps towards better equipment and superior consumables. Technological progress and consumer demand went hand-in-hand for several decades. Even a few years ago, just before the dawn of the digital era of photography, cameras and films were practically for all, available in all sorts of flavours and costs.

Regardless of the technological advances, the main idea has remained mostly the same since the early photography days: Collect light from an object/ person/ scene, drive it on a photo-sensitive surface and capture the moment! Even with the coming of CCDs, which eventually made digital cameras possible, the idea has remained unchanged; it is just the film that has been put aside. (Edit: When it comes to photography and the corresponding equipment, people often like retro-looking technology.)

Around that main theme, a number of variations have developed. Different kind of lenses, numerous filters allowing for all sorts of visual effects, software that enables post-processing with - practically - no limits, etc. People have even looked at how things look outside the narrow limits of (our) visible light spectrum; infrared and ultraviolet photography are niches that still maintain their audience and are always associated with a certain 'cool-factor' (e.g., common things in the IR and a more structured approach in UV/IR photography).

A much less known area of photography is 'light field photography'. Putting science aside for the time being, the idea is somehow different than classic photography: instead of getting a single projection of rays of light on a plane (be it a film or a sensor) let's get more information about the light received by the camera, i.e., not only intensity and frequency (colour) but also direction. Having captured an instance where the received light rays have been 'better documented' makes it easier to manipulate that instance after its capture, changing, for instance, the focus point or altering (slightly) the view point.

Stanford university hosted quite a lot of work on light field photography. It worth visiting their webpages, e.g. http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/ (there is a nice, illustrative video at the bottom there). Ren Ng, one of Stanford's researchers has started his own company using that technology, Lytro. Lytro has made quite an impact on the photography press lately by launching a camera with the capability to focus after the fact.

Promotional video of the Lytro camera

Sample photo from the Lytro website. Click on an area of the photo to refocus.

Now, personally, I find both the science behind and the application quite exciting! Despite the fact that some experts were rather critical on the particular implementation (e.g., Thom Hogan's blog). And no, I believe that Lytro is not the first plenoptic camera that reaches the market (e.g., Raytrix GmbH), although it does come in a very consumer-oriented form.

Myself, I find the whatever technological or practical constraints bearable. For instance, the resolution offered is likely to be quite far from what the current dSLR or prosumer options. Also, merely viewing lightfield photos requires proprietary software and so does sharing such photos. But still, it's the new thing around. It may feel clumsy and strange but if it stays around long enough, it is bound to improve!

However, I admit, it sort of beats the purpose of getting photos in the first place. Yes, it still allows you to 'capture the moment'. But it takes away the magic of finding the right angles, focusing on the spot that highlights your point of view behind the photo. It is basically about the same debate around video vs. photography. (Edit: for those of you who wonder, light field video does exist - e.g., http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~lizhang/projects/lfstable/ - yet not in a commercial product AFAIK; having a light field video camera allowing for ex-post manipulation of the output with respect to POV or focus would be cooooool, too.)

I think that we are about to see plenty more developments in the world of image capturing and processing.

BTW, just before closing this post I can't resist saying that, yesterday, I saw at Slashdot a link to Kevin Karsch's site on 'Rendering synthetic objects into legacy photographs'. I find pretty amazing what they have managed to accomplish. Also a bit scary. Here is a video they have made available:

Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs from Kevin Karsch on Vimeo.

If we keep on that pace of development, I - sometimes - wonder how much more innovation can we possibly accommodate :-)

(Note: I'm not affiliated to any of the companies mentioned above. This is not a product review - I neither own nor have access to any of the light field cameras mentioned.)

Mind control... the natural way...

'Zombie walk 2010'
by rodolpho.reis
under a CC license

A few weeks ago, the story of the 'ability' of some humble members of the lactobacillus genus to alter the behaviour of mice made headlines in many online media and gained several minutes of publicity on the TV.

The story was based on a paper of Cryan et al. in PNAS, which describes the effect on the behaviour of mice when fed with feed supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus; altogether, mice became more relaxed. Although that's not the first time that gut bacteria have been shown to have an effect on the mood of mice in vivo, this time the impact to the public seems to be higher.

Symbiotic relationships in living organisms is nothing too uncommon. That applies to both mutualistic and parasitic symbiosis. Although 'mind control' cases have been known, especially in parasitic symbiosis, it wouldn't have been easy for me to imagine that the same would apply to a mutualistic symbiosis, especially if that was taking place in the gut.

The 'mind control' cases one would imagine that they should involve an organism with direct access to the brain or, at least, to the bloodstream. The infection of the bullet ants from cordyceps is an example. The fungus forces the infected ant to climb upwards and firmly grab itself. There, the ant will eventually die and the ascocarp (the fruiting body of the fungus) will come out of the ant's head.



'Mind control' can be used by insects which want to lay their eggs on their ideal host, too. For the orb spider, for instance, the nemesis is the pompilid wasp, which temporarily immobilises the spider, lays an egg on it and let the larva do the rest. The larva sucks nutrients from the spider and, when the time comes, chemically instructs the spider to alter its web in such a way that it can support the cocoon that the larva will later on make for itself. Needless to say that the orb spider doesn't survive the process and becomes dinner, after all. (the video below shows the process - the action starts from about 03:00)



An even spookier approach is practiced by the Ampulex compressa wasp. That uses cockroaches to lay its eggs onto. To manipulate the cockroach, the wasp injects, in series, firstly a temporary numbing agent in the cockroach's brain and, then, a chemical that blocks its escape reflex. After the process, the cockroach is alive and well (not for too long though) and follows the wasp's will. The end is bitter in this case, too, as the larvae will consume the cockroach in the process, starting from its non-vital organs.

Snails, too, can host parasites. (I found a link to the video below at http://primesurrealestate.com/2010/04/mind-altering-parasites/).



For humans, the list of parasites is not too short, either. But I am not aware of any zombie-like mind control bugs. Yes, toxoplasma gondii can alter the behaviour and behavioural characteristics of people, affecting males and females in different ways but not in the grotesque way that bullet ants are controlled by the fungus. Still though, the effect from toxoplasma might be responsible for the macroscopic properties of societies around the world, taking into consideration how widespread toxoplasmosis is, although other factors are likely to exercise far higher influence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635495/).

A number of diseases are also known to affect the mental processes, usually messing with the brain tissue (e.g., Alzheimer's, syphilis, etc.) but such changes - I suppose - are non-reversible.

Going back to the story with the mice and lactobacillus rahmnosus, the beauty in it is that the effect is 'subtle'. Measurable and real but mild and reversible. And that shows a lot of potential to be explored on the use of probiotics not only for the protection of the gut's normal function but also for the delivery of 'brain-related' interventions. What makes things even more interesting is that living bacteria are adaptable and 'intelligent' in the sense that they may be able to perform their 'mind-controlling action' (e.g., excreting a cocktail of chemicals) only under the right conditions. Just imagine mitigating the stress feeling by adopting a diet rich in probiotics - e.g., within fermented food - with the ability to respond to in-gut stress markers. It is so much easier than having to take pills and the fact that their action is subtle may allow individuals to also train themselves to feel less stressed.

It seems, after all, that diet does have the potential for an even greater impact on our lives...

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.

What the world needs...

'October 2010 Alaskan
Viaduct Closure' by
WSDOT under a CC license.

...is plenty of things. Clarity and simplicity? Peace on earth? Food for all? Money? Ideas? All of those things? Which ones exactly, depend on your point of view but, really, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. The world is a game of many players, where all can do their bit to influence the result.

A friend send me a link to Architectes de l'urgence the other day. I felt surprised. Even though I am an engineer myself. Even though I am aware of the contribution of engineers in many places around the globe, where the need for (re)construction exists.

I felt surprised possibly because in our everyday life, houses, roads, manufacturing plants, schools, office buildings, etc., are taken for granted. I felt surprised simply because there is nothing hero-like in the view of an engineer. And it's not just me, I believe. Many have heard of Doctors without borders - but that is human health we are talking about. Don't worry. I won't go to claiming that we should reserve a cheer for engineers. But I feel like reminding me (us) that what the world may truly need is expertise.

Expertise. Expertise in construction, IT, medicine, agriculture, education, food processing, energy, etc. Expertise on all those things that are the structural elements of modern life as we know it. That is the thing that can make the difference. And, indeed, you can't have development without the right minds (and hands) in place (and in the right order). Even when you achieve development, you still need the right experts to ensure sustainability.

That's certainly not a personal discovery of mine. Generating or enriching in-house expertise, attracting the right people, achieving the right level of education, etc., have all been in the competitiveness/ innovation agenda of communities (countries and  regions) for quite some time now; take the Marie Curie schemes as an example. But still, I find that, as a priority, it tends to fall under the radar quite often - possibly because expertise costs, without leading to direct profits.

I believe that investing in expertise, preferably in a sustainable way, needs to stay on table, especially in times of crises. In the same way that expertise should be part of any emergency aid package, be it a response to a natural catastrophe or human destruction.

When old ideas would be just fine

"System power on off switch"
by Dhanu under a CC license

My car had a flat battery the other day. Again.

It's that kind of problem that is simple to understand, quick to realise and easy to solve. But it's annoying. Very annoying. And it really makes you wonder: why cars - all cars - can't have battery indicators; the kind of battery indicators that actually indicate how much juice (and life) the battery still has.

Yes, I know, top end models have it. Newer models, from 2006 onwards, are increasingly featuring things like that. But why does it have to take soooooooo long to have things like that in a car? The charge level indicator is something that every consumer appliance with a rechargeable battery has been equipped with the last few decades. It's nothing too sophisticated. It's an old idea. And if one thinks of modern consumer electronics, such as mp3 players, laptops, etc., one can see that, nowadays, there are much more sophisticated - and precise - ways to predict remaining battery usage time. Judging from the prices of such devices, the electronics in question can't be too expensive.

So why does the car industry ignore that? I understand that a flat battery happens once every 3-4 years but it is still annoying and as a problem it seems extremely easy to prevent (two factors involved: low amount of energy stored in the battery and/or reduced capacity of the battery to store energy). True, the car industry would need to adapt the circuits in question to the specifications of the battery and the consumption patterns of their cars. To be fair, that does involve some work, since - unlike mp3 players - cars have a very wide spectrum of power needs. The immobilizer circuit, for instance, doesn't take too much power to run, but the ignition on the other hand, does. Also, it's the temperature span the battery operates under. Most mp3 players spent their working lifetime indoors or in a pocket heated by the body temperature; car batteries are not that lucky. And on top of that, the automotive industry typically needs to test everything for reliability, both individually and as a whole. But still, how hard can it be?

 

2011 is here

"New Year Fireworks, Athens"
by RobW under a CC license

Yes, it is. Happy New Year to us all!

Season's greetings

Photo by Jackie Kever
under a CC licence

...and a Merry Christmas to all of us!

Food Designer: Where innovation becomes edible

A drop of inspiration
by Tammy Bogestrand
under BY-NC-ND

In most productive sectors product innovation is a major drive for the market. Take the automotive industry, for instance. Innovative designs, new technologies that affect safety, performance or cost are all evaluated by the consumers and contribute to making their choice.

As with any rule, exceptions exist. The tourism industry, for example. There, the consumer often wants to re-live an experience; at least, a considerable part of the market is related to experiencing tradition and cultural heritage.

The food industry lies somewhere in between. Policy makers tend to treat it as a traditional sector, although that trend is not too consistent.  And so do most of the consumers. "Food", as a word, doesn't automatically link to the words "novelty" or "innovation". That doesn't mean that there is no innovation in the sector. On the contrary. While technologies that can ensure safety and quality have been in place for many, many, many years (thermal processing, the use of salt or smoke for food preservation, food fermentation, are all really old breakthroughs), further progress is ongoing.

Much of that innovation in the food sector is under the hood, transparent to the consumer. Take high temperature - short time pasteurisation, for instance. While not too recent as a piece of innovation, it is commonly used on liquid products, such as milk or juices and together with aseptic packaging can give products with amazing shelf-life, without sacrificing any of the nutritional characteristics of the raw ingredients (well, the latter is not 100% accurate but the losses are minor). Depending on the local labelling legislation and its implementation, the consumer may be unaware of the pasteurisation technology employed.
It's only when a food product is marketed as innovative that the consumers will establish it as such and associate it with the brand. Energy drinks is a good example, where consumers are likely to be informed of the innovation involved and aware various differences across the products currently available. Products containing stanol or sterol esters (which can lower cholesterol levels) is another such example.

Unlike the other industries, the food industry hosts very diverse views when it comes to innovating. Few would object to employing innovation for the benefit of enhanced safety. However, even there barriers exist. For instance, food irradiation has never gained wide acceptance - at least not in Europe. Also, technologies that affect any sensory property, making the product to diverge from the established norm, are likely to be met with skepticism. That has been one of the hurdles for high pressure pasteurisation, which in some cases affects the colour of the treated foodstuffs. Innovation in the food sector also is a question of ethics, as well as subject to the specific food law.

Interestingly, however, a wave of industry professionals is working towards innovation that will be clearly visible to the consumer. The so called "functional foods" is one such example. "Minimally processed" food is another one, where the innovation is on the way of safe delivery rather than on the formulation. The whole food experience is studied by an emerging class of "food designers". The modern way of living, at least in the big, busy cities of the world, poses several challenges to the food producers and gives ground for further thinking. Effective and handy food packaging, which is nice to the environment, portions that are "right", variety in flavours and nutritional balance, the food experience at a catering venue, all these are examples of the challenges on the table.

Food designers certainly have a lot to deal with, not only from the scientific or technological point of view, but also from the social. Food has always been a social element and that isn't going to change much any time soon. Compromising innovation with the societal perception for food and food preparations is, for sure, challenging. A good side effect of that is that any innovation reaching - finally - the consumer is likely to be a more "mature" one, which is a good thing when it comes to playing with nutrition and food.

One thing is certain, though: food attracts attention. Or at least gastronomy does. The weekly TV programme, in Greece, hosts at least 6 gastronomy-related shows, which collectively manage to get a fair share of the viewing audience. Of course, unlike technological innovation, gastronomical innovation is more familiar to the consumer. It is a kind of creativity within the reach of every one of us. Messing with flavours, recipes and dishes can be part of the social game, too. Can food designers do something like that with the other aspects of food innovation? Is there a way for technological innovation to have social consensus (ethics included) early in the product development process?

Food innovation doesn't mean that we should forget about the traditional qualities of food, both raw and processed. That means that we, consumers, should learn about what we eat, both the good and the not-so-good side, and learn how to make informed choices. To that end, relying solely on the industry to provide such education to the extent needed, doesn't make sense. Legislation and formal education can help but, again, they are no panacea. When it comes to such knowledge, consumers should care to undertake such initiative.

The apple from the edge of the world

Eating an apple by Sean
Dreilinger under BY-NC-SA

On 1 October a warning was posted on the site of the Food Standards Agency (UK) advising food operators that shipments of apples imported from Chile have been found containing morpholine (at about 2 ppm) and that those apples should not be sold in the UK market. Similar advice was given by the food safety authorities across the EU and - where necessary - recalls where initiated.

In various places around Europe, the news piece got attention, as would happen with any news item related to food safety. In this particular case, however, the warning/recall/etc. drill from the food safety authorities is due to a legal reason rather than the appearance of a major threat for consumer safety: Morpholine (1-oxa-4-azacyclohexane) is a chemical used in a variety of applications. The major one is corrosion protection in water tanks and steam production systems. The morpholine molecule is amphiphilic making it also a good emulsifier. As such, morpholine can added in wax mixtures used by the produce industry in the coating of fruits like apples, citrus fruits, etc., making those easier to spread on the fruits.

Using various coating mixtures onto fruits, post-harvest, is a common practice. Such coatings hinder water evaporation and protect the fruit from various environmental factors, thus prolonging their shelf life. Fruits do have a natural water-repelling coating. Often, though, this gets damaged or remove by post-harvest handling. It's good to keep in mind that such coatings cannot make a fruit fresh; they just protect the freshness of the fruit.

The use of morpholine in wax coatings is not allowed in the EU, but it is permitted in other places in the world (e.g., USA, Canada, Chile, etc.). The EU has chosen the safe route here. The concern is not so much for morpholine itself, for which studies (examples here and here) do not indicate significant toxicity, mutagenic or teratogenic action, but rather for its nitrosated derivative that has been shown to be mutagenic and carcinogenic in lab animals. The conversion of morpholine to its nistosated derivative can be done in the body in the presence of nitrites. Even in the latter case, current risk analysis scenarios, as hinted in the FSA statement, suggest a very (very) small risk for the consumer. Peeling the apples would remove the risk factor altogether but - to be fair - plenty of consumers prefer eating them unpeeled; a normal rinse, would not affect the coating and would not remove its content.

As in every food safety discussion, voices calling for reviewing the handling of morpholine-containing wax-coated fruits have surfaced. After all, the food law is not necessarily a reflection of scientific findings. It's politics, too. It's very much a balancing game, where risk is on the one side and benefit on the other (and I'm talking about all kinds or risks and benefits, not just the ones about human health). Often, law makers take sides based on (their) common sense.

IMHO, not using a chemical that when ingested may pose a risk - no matter how inconceivably small - makes sense, especially when there is a list of down-to-earth, food grade compounds that could be used to achieve the same technological purpose (e.g., lecithin, fatty acid esters). Edible coatings may still be a rather active scientific niche but there are already proven formulations that could be used. Normal packaging materials could also be sufficient.

Going beyond the scientific/ technological discussion, I believe that for the food operator things are rather easy. Knowing what the law dictates is the way that their business will not be disrupted. Simply, that's the way to compete at the local level. I'm not saying that monitoring the food law across the globe is an easy task, although things have been slowly improving on that field: the EU and several other countries offer online access to legal documentation. Beyond that, there are officers that can be asked and professionals that they can help. In any case, such challenges are part of the global commerce game.

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???)

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....