They say that knowledge is power, and some 15 US states are poised to apply that philosophy in tackling the obesity epidemic. These states are considering legislation that would require fast food chains and certain restaurants to provide consumers with nutritional information such as calorie, fat and sodium content of food items. New York and California may be the first to pass laws mandating statewide menu labeling, which could set the trend for other states to follow. The public seems to be embracing the idea, particularly in New York, where a recent poll found that 80 percent of people want nutritional tables posted in fast food eateries. The point of these laws is to encourage consumers to make informed – and thus presumably healthier – decisions about what they are eating. Ultimately, the new laws aim to curb America’s obesity epidemic – which is at an all-time high (34% of adults are obese, and 32% of school-aged children are overweight or obese) – and lower the rate of diseases associated with obesity, such as diabetes, hypertension, and certain types of cancer.

But will people actually use the information to modify their eating habits? Perhaps the best place to inquire is New York City, where a menu-labeling rule is already in place (ahead of the possible statewide regulations). In January, the city’s Board of Health voted in favor of a regulation requiring restaurant chains (businesses with more than 15 units nationally) to prominently list calories on menus and menu boards. The industry group New York State Restaurant Association has challenged the regulation, and the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals will probably deliberate the case for another few weeks, according to a Restaurant Association representative. Meanwhile, the FDA has sided with New York City.

I conducted an informal survey in lower Manhattan and found that, although people seem to be noticing these calorie counts, they way it drives their behavior is variable.

“For me personally, it doesn’t change what I do,” said a man I met in a fast food chain, noting that he is not concerned about his weight. “But I think with other people it does.”

“I don’t pay attention to it,” said a woman sitting nearby. “I don’t believe that a plain bagel has 300 calories,” she added, referring to the posted calorie content.

But according to the employee working behind the register, the nutritional tables are deterring customers from buying high-calorie foods—to the detriment of business. "The people, when they ask about the muffins’ calories, they don’t buy them,” said the employee, pointing at the 400-calorie ‘reduced fat’ item. “It’s affecting my sales.”

A few blocks away at a fast-food restaurant where king-sized chocolate milkshakes pack over 840 calories, patrons stopped to scan the nutrition table on the wall before approaching the register. One young woman studied the information but claimed that it would not influence her decision; she would have that bacon-double-cheeseburger no matter what. But a traffic policeman said he would chosse menu items based on caloric and fat content. “It’s very important to know the nutritional value of the food,” he told me. A couple from Argentina agreed; they used the nutritional tables to avoid the excessive amount of carbohydrates that characterizes the North American diet.

I could not help but notice that the people who said they used nutritional tables to make decisions appeared lean and fit. All this made me wonder whether menu-labeling will simply reinforce good eating habits in those who already have healthy lifestyles, rather than reform those who most need it. Critics of menu labeling have pointed out that Americans have continued to get more obese despite two decades of nutritional labeling on packaged food. Perhaps better calorie labeling will not change things. What do you think?

Image by ebruli

Posted by Coco Ballantyne at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The AAAS meeting last weekend was abuzz with events related to the US elections, including a forum where representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns presented their viewpoints of science policy.

I've been having trouble figuring out the difference between the two candidates' positions on any issue, so was eager to learn something from from the source.

Perhaps reflecting the stereotypes of the two campaigns, the Clinton representative, Tom Kalil, presented a more detailed, wonky set of proposals. Kalil was Deputy Assistant to former President Bill Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy. He said Clinton would double the budgets of specific agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. She also would establish a $50 billion "Strategic Energy Fund" in part to promote renewable energy.

Obama's representiative, Alec Ross, looked about 20 years old and is the exective vice-president of One Economy, a nonprofit corporation that seeks to expand broadband technolgy. Perhaps in keeping with that, he emphasized computer technology advances, such as an expansion of high speed internet access. But he also said Obama planned to double funding of basic research and establish a $150 billion ten-year energy program.

Both candidates proposed programs to create electronic medical records--something that could also aid researchers conducting clinical trials.

I must admit I left still wondering essentially what the difference is between the two candidates. And I also wish someone from the McCain campaign could have been there (his campaign said they had scheduling conflicts). So I'm all for an effort to get the candidates together for a "Science Debate" an idea that is gaining a lot of momentum (although maybe not among the candidates themselves).

What do you think? Is science important enough for it's own debate? Are you ready to get behind the effort?

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sorry we haven't been posting anything for the past few weeks. Blogging requires a degree of discipline that I have yet to develop. We'll try to be a bit more disciplined, though, as there's always interesting stuff happening that it's worthy of comment.

This time is Europe's decision to launch the Innovative Medicines Initiative, a joint effort of the European Union and big pharma to inject cash into Europe's biopharmaceutical industry.

The Initiative correctly stated that investment in Europe has lagged behind what the Americans spend in research and development, and the growth of the industry is nowhere near what you see in countries like China. Part of the solution is to increase investment, sure. But, as we stated in our February Editorial, one wonders if the kind of projects they intend to fund -- which they call "pre-competitive research" (research aimed not at directly developing a drug, but at generating tools that speed up the drug discovery process) will be all that helpful to the biopharmaceutical sector.

In addition to this question, there are other points that may be problematic as the IMI moves forward -- questions about funding, intellectual property and bureaucracy, some of which we discussed in the Editorial. As we wrote there, more money is always a good idea but, when it comes to the actual implementation of the IMI, the devil will be in the details.

Posted by Juan Carlos Lopez at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)