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...

An inconvinient necessity

'Morality' by wasim muklashy
under a CC license

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no news. As a concept, it probably has roots dating back at ancient times. But the corresponding research field is rather new as it is said to have been launched just in 1956.

AI has gained a lot of attention by the public, governments and corporations for the single reason that it is a very promising field towards a variety of goals ranging from helping humans in daily tasks, helping protect the environment, accelerating scientific research and discovery to boosting surveilance and gaining an upper hand in wars. And also, well, it has found room in a long list of novels, films, etc. which has contributed to the - good or bad - public image of AI (Bladerunner, the Star Wars series, the Star Trek films and TV series, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Battlestar Galactica, Almost Human being just some few of the many films/ series portraying AI in full interaction with the human world).

At the same time, ethics has been developing throughout human "evolution", formulating questions on the moral aspects of this "evolution", seeking answers to those questions and, ideally, providing guidance to resolve ethical dilemmas and move forward. Most would accept, however, that ethics has been a rather "soft" filter for human activities throughout history. But let's not focus on that right now.

As I was browsing Slashdot the other day, a post on autonomous cars caught my attention. The original article on WIRED debated on the moral and legal aspects of programming autonomous cars. In brief, the dilemma that was elaborated on was what should an autonomous car be programmed to do if an accident is inevitable. Should it choose to crash onto the most "robust" target? Should it choose to crash onto whatever minimises the damage to itself or its passengers? Should it decide randomly? Who gets the blame on legal and ethical terms (those two are not necessarily the same)? Is it the owner, the manufacturer, the original programmer, the physicist/ engineer/ mathematician who developed the driving behaviour models (who may have had nothing to do with the production of the car)?

The problem in such questions is that there are valid arguments both pro and against each of the options. Actually, the problem is not in identifying the arguments but, rather, in quantifying their importance in a way compatible to established ethics, public perception and the law. And those three can stand really far apart from each other. Even worse, the distance amongst them may change by time due to many different factors.

We may not be realising that but similar concerns should actually apply to all AI elements of our world (they are too many) - even to plain automation systems (problems do arise from time to time). Autonomous cars just happen to be a high profile case right now (BTW, the new generation of Google's autonomous cars pushes the barrier a bit further).

Should we (the human race) stop for a while to sort out the moral questions before moving forward? I think, that may not be a realistic question to ask!

Distances

'The breakwater' by
Joris Louwes under a CC license

It's been ages since I 've last posted a few lines here.

It 's not that writing something down has become more difficult than it normally is. It's the lack of motivation for putting that extra effort in wrapping it up - the much needed step before hitting the 'publish' button.

Don't get me wrong, the paragraph above is not meant to be a kind of humble brag. Rather, it is just a plain reference to the common, school-grade essay-writing methodology.

But - hmmm -  I'm already diverging from the topic I had in mind, which - by the way - has nothing to do with either technology or innovation.

The other day I was talking with an old friend. A person who now lives several thousand miles away, with whom I haven't had a descent, full-scale conversation for months or even more. Silly, I know; especially in the age of internet/voip/social-something everywhere that we live in. Not that I didn't have valid excuses ready (I always do). Silly, perhaps also sad, but true.

At any rate, it was nice catching up, spending quite some time describing trivial details of everyday life, as if they did, really, matter.

And that was exactly what got me thinking.

It's not necessarily what one has to say. And it's not necessarily if it is technically easy or not to communicate a message at a certain time. It's the outcome of the feeling we are after that which defines the distance to a person and justifies the effort to communicate.

(OK, the lines above are 'a touch' more dramatic than they should. And, to be fair, plenty of the things we say during the day are part of our working life or inseparable aspects of our operation as 'normally functional individuals'. To such thing, the paragraph above does not apply. But if you place this part out of the communication equation, the rest seems to be fully up to us.)

Photography: the never-ending possibilities

'Camera 003' by Shutupyourface
under a CC license

Camera technology has been rapidly evolving through the years. Yes, I 've written before about that. But change is constant and multilevel. I believe that, to some extent, it is driven by the need to diversify in order to satisfy niche needs, rather than to achieve market domination.

True, some emerging products integrate improved technologies that ensure that the usual camera functions are carried out in a faster, more efficient or more user-friendly way. Better focusing speed, higher low light sensitivity with less image noise, larger sensors, smaller or lighter bodies, environmentally sealed cameras, stabilised lenses or sensors, are examples or improvements that aim the conventional photography experience.

But there, within the sea of consumer products, there are some few that aim at the curious child within us. Take a look at the Panono camera, for instance. It employs mostly conventional hardware, cleverly stitched together to produce 360 deg panoramas in fun way.

And then there are those small "wearable" cameras, such as Autographer, mecam, Narrative, etc. Also action cameras, such as GoPro, which are usually mounted on bikes, helmets, shoulders, etc.. And, of course, there is Google Glass which has put on the spot yet another camera niche.

Further to these examples, above, some have chosen to use conventional technology in an uncoventional way. For the shake of the argument, here are some vivid examples (in no particular order):

1. A camera mounted on the back of the head of an arts professor, so as to take snapshots of whatever lies behind him at regular intervals. 
2. A single fast action camera (a GoPro in this case) used to mimic the bullet time effect, which was made widely know in The Matrix movie (clip).
3. X-ray snapshots of nature-like compositions.  Well, that's not exactly conventional for most people but it uses technology that has been available for quite a few decades.

I'm sure one can go on for longer on the topic of photography niches (HDR photography, IR photography, pinhole camera photography, light field cameras, even Kirlian photography) but my point is that, in photography, technology - while multiplying possibilities - have never seriously hindered creativity.

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.

A wishlist (part one of many)

'Dr Who game list' by
Hopkinsii under a
CC license

The new year is just a few days away. That, gives us yet another chance to wish for and dream about, reflect on the recent past and decide on changes. I'm not sure how successful any of that turns out to be in the long run. But it 's unlikely to cause any harm, either.

Myself, I don't like lists much. Partly because I find of limited use to put wishes on paper (or any of the other modern alternatives - that's not the issue), partly because I find it strange to turn to lists in order to try to get me into doing things :-)

For the sake of the days, Ι'll play bold and make a wish; a Grand one, going beyond the usual (but always needed) health, happiness and peace on earth.

Let 2013 find us using our resources in a better, wiser way!

And by 'resources' I mean all kind of resources from water and energy to money and human capital. And by 'wiser' I mean wiser at all levels, scientific yet socially responsible, ambitious yet practical, locally-thought yet internationally-relevant. That's no easy feat - I admit - but after all that's what wishes are for!

My warmest wishes to all of you!

Wishes

'A wish runs through it' by
debairdâ„¢ under a CC license

A Merry Christmas to all of us!

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.

Music; imagination with a cap

'Rocketship music' by
mark sebastian under
a CC license.

One more post that has, really, nothing to do with food and very little - if any - with innovation.

The other day I came across an old post on Covered in Bees asking the question "How many songs are there?". The post tries to answer the question by calculating the number of bit value combinations that are possible within the total bit of a 5-minute song on a typical CD, which is sampled at 44.1 KHz at a 16-bit depth. The resulting number of combinations is 2^211,680,000. That is a really a big, VERY big number. It is a number over 63 MILLION digits long. In comparison, as the post in Covered in Bees points out, the number of atoms that comprise Earth is a figure of some 50 digits in length.

The calculation above comes with several working hypotheses, such as sampling rate, sampling depth and duration. That makes calculation easy for digital recordings. For analogue recordings things would be a bit more complicated but, given that we humans do have practical thresholds in telling tones apart, the key outcome would be the same: The number of "compositions" lasting a finite amount of time is, practically, finite.

The number of "melodies", however, is debatable and is much, much smaller than the figure 2^211,680,000. You see, that figure includes ANY combination of sounds with duration of 5 minutes: all music of all kinds ever conceived, discussions of any topic, sounds of nature, white noise, even silence. What the figure does NOT take into consideration is whether the outcome would sound like "music" to us, not to mention "pleasant music".

Well, at this point things become a bit more complicated. Obviously tastes in music vary. Age, character, culture, tradition, instruments and transmission media available are amongst factors that affect perception of what constitutes "pleasant music". A recent scientific paper (NJ Hudson, "Musical beauty and information compression: Complex to the ear but simple to the mind?", BMC Res Notes. 2011; 4: 9) argued that appealing music, regardless its complexity to the ear, is the one that in fact is simple to the min.

On the funnier side of things, Axis of Awesome suggest that major hits of our time have in fact been based on just 4 (four) chords. Yes, 4. No need to elaborate on that. Feel free to watch the corresponding video:




To be fair, the Axis of Awesome talk about the "pillars" of melody and NOT about the main melody itself. If you want to look closer to similarities between songs, go check out SoundsJustLike.com.

At any rate, however, regardless of the math involved, the hard truth is that the tunes we like are finite and - most probably - few. Which sort of explains why the same (or similar) music resurfaces from time to time, usually accompanied by different lyrics. Personally, I'm quite surprised that IPR lawyers and IPR trolls haven't heavily headed that way, yet. But, hey, for common people like us, the point of music is to have fun, make ourselves feel a bit better and - altogether - "talk to the soul", isn't it?

Knock-knock

'cell phone' by
samantha celera under
a CC license

Despite being a Sunday today, I woke up early. It's one of the side effects of having to be at work at 07.30 on a daily basis, I guess.

I wasn't feeling particularly lazy so I had breakfast, did a bit of tidying-up (ouch!) and browsed the news. At about 11.30, I got in the mood picking up my mobile and catching up with friends.

So I try calling the first on the list.... no reply. OK. 11.30 might still be early for some. Another one came to my mind - and that was a phone call I had to do at some point during the day, regardless - but, again, no luck. Moving onto the third one, well, no luck there, as well. At that point I thought that, given the time of the day, I was really trying to get hold of the wrong kind of crowd. So I tried calling an uncle of mine and "volunteer" for an errand. And nope. Nobody there, too.

For some weird reason, knock-knock jokes started coming to my mind but I soon pulled myself together and went on with my day....

So, the key messages of today's experience are:

• Sunday mornings can be very quiet if you happen to wake up early.
• Sunday mornings can be very noisy, if you happen to choose to stay in bed but have a friend who tends to wake up early.
• Sunday mornings is the ideal time to be anti-social. Most likely, nobody will disturb you but, even if somebody does, you can just ignore them and they'll be OK with it.
• Still, Sunday mornings are waaaay better than Sunday evenings, with the exception of those Sunday evenings that are followed by a bank holiday Monday.

Note: I re-tried calling those people in the afternoon and, that time, my success rate was significantly higher.

Stuff happens

'New Outhouse'
by andyarthur under
a CC license

Yes, it does.

I've been the proud owner of a humble Android tablet for quite some months now. Not the most mission-critical hardware I have but, still, a fully respectable gadget.

Yesterday, the YouTube app wanted to have it updated. Blindly, I obeyed. The new version kept crashing on start. Then another app crashed. And then another. And then the entire system froze. You know, the point where you restart the thing and hope for the best.

The restart took ages. A few things were missing but, most importantly, no app could start without crashing. They all had to be un-installed and re-installed. One-by-one. Yes, I tried clearing the dalvik cache before that. Yes, I double checked that there is enough space left. Yes, I got rid of things I didn't really need, just in case. Nothing really made a difference.

I ended up wiping the entire thing up and starting fresh with the initial factory version. Let me just say that this one is not a crystal clear process if you don't have a functional device. There is a start-up key combination that takes you to a pre-boot Android menu but that's not easy to assume. You can google for it, of course, and it comes up easily. But, still, you need access to the internet for that.

Getting things back to where they were (well, to approximately where they were before stuff happened) took about 3-4 hours and a good amount of cursing. Having survived that I can come up with a list of nice and bad things).

The nice things:

• Since most of the apps come from the Android market, Google may remember, right after the fresh installation, which ones the user bought and offer to install them (one by one) again. For some reason, that happens for some only for-pay apps.
• Google play remembers all the apps the user bought. So in the case Android doesn't remember the apps already bought, if the user searches for them, Google play will offer to install them without having to buy them again.
• E-mails, contacts, photos and anything that is stored on the Google cloud will be easily accessible after the wiping/ re-installation process.
• To be fair, the whole re-installation process is dramatically faster than what would be needed for a PC. Then again, I'm only talking about what I think was caused by a software glitch, not a hardware failure. Had that been the case, the only option for the tablet would have been a trip to the manufacturer's service (i.e., weeeeks of waiting).

The bad things:

• All the good things above can happen only if the user has access to his/her Google account. Being locked out or without internet access is very bad news in that case. In fact, internet access is really needed for things a user would normally do with a tablet.
• Google play won't remember the list of free apps the user has installed. Those apps have to be located and installed manually, one-by-one (unless the user kept a backup - there are special apps for that).
• Device settings, widget configuration, notes, calendar entries, documents and any other kind of files, etc. are all lost (unless the user kept a backup).

Moral lines of the story:

• Tablets occasionally fail. Take backups (yeah right!) both using cloud services and local media.
• If you rely on access to specific data or applications, have a backup device at hand that can hold and process the data you want. That could be your laptop/ netbook/ etc. As a bonus, you get something that will help you find your way in making the tablet operational again in case you get stuck (yes, Google is your friend but you need something to access it from.

That's all folks.

It wasn't in the plan to write about that. But I'm afraid that those pieces on gluten and crisis management will have to wait for a few more days. After all, stuff happens....

Hiatus; end of...

'February 2010-National
Margarita Day' by cmiked
under a CC license

It has been months since I last had the chance to post something on this blog. It wasn't planned. I admit I've missed it a bit. But now I'm back and, since September is the second best time of the year for personal resolutions, I 've promised myself to stick a convenient, yet steady, pace. Of course, promises are to be broken but, for the time being, this hiatus is over.

(Having said that, I subconsciously look back to all those things that I 've been absolutely determined to do but never did. And keeping a blog-posting schedule clearly doesn't rank high up compared to other targets I 've set - at times - and then put aside.)

In my defense, many small or not-so-small things have happened since April that kept me either busy or distracted. One is for sure, it hasn't been holidays. In that sense, the margarita on the left is purely wishful thinking.

At any rate, let's see how this new effort goes....

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....