Everything Else You Know About Food Deserts Is Wrong

In recent posts, Childhood Obesity News looked at some of the ups and downs in thinking about food scarcity or insecurity. We saw how researchers found more grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods than in wealthier areas, which seemed to belie the whole food desert concept.

For Latinos, access to healthy foods can be sporadic. But that was not the end of it. Around the same time, the National Council of La Raza stated:

Counties with large Hispanic populations have a greater proportion of people with limited access to grocery stores (29 percent) than other counties do (21 percent).

The report pointed out a few other things. Although a predominantly Mexican-American neighborhood might be dotted with bodegas, that did not equate with food abundance. The stores all offered the same processed, nutritionally inadequate choices.

But when the owners were working with outdated, inefficient equipment and the architecture of another age, how could it be otherwise? Some were not aware of business best practices. They needed education in how to take care of fresh produce, to the advantage of both themselves and the customers. To invest in cooler cases and well-functioning display bins, they needed grants, or loans, or tax breaks, or some variety of financial incentive.

Some impatient critics believe, or at least claim, that there is no demand for fresh produce and other ingredients in Hispanic neighborhoods because the residents prefer junk food. Managing Director at the Texas-based marketing agency Sensis Karla Fernandez Parker set the record straight about that common misconception by applying common sense:

The demand for fresh produce and healthier options is there, especially among Latinas who may be less acculturated than their contemporaries. They typically immigrated to the U.S. when they were young, so their cooking is rooted in the traditions of home. Yet finding the fresh ingredients to make those traditional dishes is difficult in these deserts, especially without a car.

At any rate, various seemingly negative discoveries in some parts of the country did not slow down the interest in finding and fixing similarly deprived areas elsewhere.

Rather than abandon the food desert idea altogether, some proponents decided that the problem was with terminology, and favored “resource desert” or “food hinterland” as better descriptives. Mostly, formal research had not been designed in ways that agree on basic parameters, which makes data curation difficult.

Different questions and standards in various studies make it difficult to perceive what is really going on. Were the samples too small? Were the geographical areas chosen for study too narrow? Was the whole thing a misunderstanding based on faulty study techniques and implementation?

Still, the fact remains that the mere presence of a store selling fresh produce at a reasonable price is in no way a guarantee the people will add it to their diets.

As time went on, more activists felt that food desert philosophy as it first emerged might be doing more harm than good — because it obscured the underlying societal evils of poverty and hunger, and (with the best will in the world) distracted us from real solutions.

Some saw it as nothing more than a false path, perhaps regretting that they so readily took the food desert concept and ran with it. It began to look as if changing the built environment, even though expensive and sometimes unpopular, is still easier than changing people’s hearts and minds.

One way or another, preoccupation with the food desert concept continues.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Building Oases In The Food Deserts Of Hispanic Neighborhoods,” MediaPost.com, 05/10/18
Source: “Say Good-Bye to “Food Deserts,” Ecotrust.org, 01/14/14
Photo credit: Seth Werkheiser on Visualhunt/CC BY-SA

The Evolution of Food Desert Philosophy

“Redefining the Food Desert,” a study of food access in Bridgeport, CT, addresses common misunderstandings. The term “food desert” does not mean that no groceries can be accessed by anyone in the district. It means that high-nutrition produce, safe meat, and other luxuries whose shorthand definition is “good” food, are not readily available to the average person. The condition is also known as food insecurity.

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative was created in 2010 to help smaller establishments stock up on better stuff, and encourage the building of grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods. By 2014, some version of fresh-food financing was established in 22 states. Meanwhile, the SNAP incentivized participants to buy more fresh produce.

Between 2011 and 2014, four major studies, enumerated for Slate.com by Heather Tirado Gilligan, showed:

[…] no connection between access to grocery stores and more healthful diets using 15 years’ worth of data from more than 5,000 people in five cities.

[…] the local food environment did not influence the diet of middle-school children in California.

[in grade school children] no connection between food environment and diet…

[grocery store opened thanks to the Fresh Food Financing Initiative] no significant impact on reducing obesity or increasing daily fruit and vegetable consumption.

It is a challenge for people with little money to feed themselves and their families under the best of circumstances. Add in transportation obstacles, time limitations, and other variables, and sometimes it’s just easier to send the kids out for frozen pot pies or fast food. There is a whole science of price-distance relationship. Poor people spend more to eat things that are often unworthy of the term “food.” Sometimes, they just can’t help it.

All this adds up to a major public health problem with many branches, like obesity, hypertension, and other co-morbidities. This in turn leads to even wider societal consequences, like the lack of military preparedness.

What can be done? The improvement of public transport systems has not turned out to mean much in terms of curbing obesity, and so has been denounced as a waste of money, but there is another side. Under any circumstances, the people deserve superb public transportation. And with better ways to get around, people can qualify for and keep jobs, and afford to buy better food.

This report breaks it down:

Two interpretations are possible when examining food choices in poorer urban communities. Either residents are largely unaware of the benefits of healthy eating and food availability is not the issue, or the total cost of securing healthier food, including the opportunity cost, is higher than the cost of lower quality foods sold closer to home. If the first explanation holds, then food deserts are likely a non-issue. The second explanation is that healthier food “costs” more.

Studies in 2009 and 2012 found more grocery stores in low-income than higher-income neighborhoods. This in itself is not surprising, because residents of wealthy areas don’t want to lay eyes on anything except well-kept houses, lawns, and swimming pools, and the people in those neighborhoods tend to have cars, if not servants, to do their shopping.

Still, critics spun this information into an acknowledgment that food deserts do not actually exist. While not strictly true, the aspersion threw a monkey wrench into the works.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Redefining the Food Desert: Combining Computer-Based GIS with Direct Observation To Measure Food Access,” ResearchGate.net, December 2014
Source: “Food Deserts Aren’t the Problem,” Slate.com, 02/10/14
Photo credit: Bart Everson on Visualhunt/CC BY

Food Policy Councils

As Clare Gupta points out, writing for the University of California,

Most communities have transportation, housing or land use policies, but food policies are frequently missing.

She goes on to say:

FPCs support a variety of food and agriculture-related policies and programs, including healthy food access, land use planning, regional food procurement, food waste, food and economic development, local food processing, and regulations related to urban farming or community gardening, to name a few examples.

As of 2009, there were between 75 and 100 food policy councils the USA, existing at municipal, county, state, or tribal levels, or even as collaborations between different government bodies. By 2015, there were more than 200. As news of this good idea spread, it was picked up by food-service organizations, community coalitions, and what Mark Winne, a Connecticut-based co-founder of a number of food and agriculture policy groups, calls a “crazy-quilt of small federal grant programs.”

They embrace farmers, retailers, and distributors, every stage of the massive undertaking known as feeding the people. Now, there is quite a number of FPCs in North America, as shown by the Food Policy Networks map. Because of local conditions, each FPC necessarily has its own priorities and personality. Once again, one size does not fit all.

Winne describes three typical projects: community gardens in Ohio, a farmers’ market in New Mexico, and a three-acre agricultural project in California. Academia is interested in knowing which ones really move and shake. For instance, researchers learned:

A targeted sub-group of the FPC (i.e. working group; task force, campaign) can work with key allies to push forward a particular policy priority — the entire council does not necessarily have to be entirely involved.

Advocacy & Lobbying 101 for Food Policy Councils,” created by The Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, is a typical publication. Allies stand ready to spread any news about how to successfully accomplish great things. In fact, FPC participants see information sharing as the most valuable thing that goes on, both within a group and among groups.

The FPC culture seems in general to be open-minded. It does not scorn what others call anecdotal evidence. Gupta quotes the literature:

Real-life experiences are often as compelling with policy-makers as statistics. FPCs cite the value of integrating information from numbers (i.e. quantitative data) and stories (i.e. qualitative data).

The Food Policy Networks website offers such useful items as the current Food Policy Council Report, a recent Food Policy Priorities Survey, and the U.S. Food Policy Study Guide, which explains the current Farm Bill.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Food policy councils are emerging as a model to address gaps in local policies,” UCANR.edu, 02/19/19
Source: “Visioning For Healthful Food Access In Portland,” PDX.edu, June 2009
Source: “Stand Together for Community Food Projects,” MarkWinne.com, 05/21/18
Source: “FLPC Releases Advocacy and Lobbying Guide for Food Policy Councils,” CHLPI.org, 03/07/19
Photo credit: Global Justice Now on Visualhunt/CC BY

Everything You Know About Food Deserts Is Still Wrong

In her article about ostensibly wasted efforts to fix the “food desert” problem, Elizabeth Nolan Brown quoted a U.S. Department of Agriculture publication, which concluded that proximity to a supermarket doesn’t seem to affect food choices very much. The implication was, any attempt to persuade chains to locate branches in certain neighborhoods is pointless. But things are not always so simple.

As Childhood Obesity News readers will recall, closer examination of matters revealed another facet. Perhaps it is unfair to accuse store owners of plotting to take advantage of a transportationally-challenged captive audience. And yet, despite the presence of a nearby grocery store, the residents of a housing project in Portland found it sensible to periodically carpool to a more distant retail district.

Why? Because, even taking into account the price of gas and the loss of valuable time, groceries cost one-third less at the farther store. That is the difference between spending $60 or $90, or $200 versus $300.

The USDA magazine also concluded that “household and neighborhood resources, education, and taste preferences may be more important determinants of food choice than store proximity.” But education can be introduced at any point, through schools, community centers, not-for-profit organizations, well-intentioned media (as opposed to those with voracious appetites for advertising dollars) and other channels.

A pertinent study

A longitudinal study that gathered Body Mass Index information on 1,000 participants in Chile sought “to discern how BMI increase differs across group and across time.” The children’s stats were recorded at ages 5, 10, 15, and 21. The report read,

We hypothesized that home and family characteristics reflective of less supportive environments during childhood will be associated with higher adult BMI and faster BMI growth between ages 5 and 21 years… The four weight groups differed in acceleration of BMI increase starting at age 5, with bigger children getting bigger faster.

Conclusions: Home and family characteristics that reflect an absence of support for children’s development were associated with overweight/obesity in young adulthood and accelerated BMI growth. Findings identify several home and family characteristics that can serve as preventive or intervention targets.

Yes, yes, yes, early-life conditions are important, and parents are mainly responsible for those. But how is a less supportive environment defined and calculated?

Observer and maternal ratings assessed children’s home and family environments and parenting at 1 and 10 years… Accelerated BMI increase related to lower learning stimulation in the home at 1 year and less parental warmth and acceptance at child age 10.

So, a combination of supposedly impartial but possibly judgmental outsiders, plus a whole lot of self-reporting, a category of data that is less than reliable. The elements included “family stress, father absence, maternal depression, frequent child confinement (in playpen), an unclean home environment at 1 year, and low provision for active stimulation and few stimulating experiences at 10 years.” Who readily admits to any of those things, and how much can an observer possibly know about them?

Kids will be kids

Doubt and cynicism are easy attitudes to adopt when questions of cultural heritage are at stake. But many grownups take a sincere interest in doing their best for their offspring, and are even willing to consider abandoning long-cherished beliefs and practices around food. Once they have a chance to learn better, they feed their children consciously, and those kids develop different tastes. Problem — for at least a segment of the populace — solved.

Some parents look at the cost and availability of health care, and decide to go the prevention route, learning as much as possible about how to keep the young from getting sick in the first place. Kids at a certain age are quite willing to argue with the elders, over the virtue of innovation and the lameness of tradition.

Catch them at the right time, and their innate rebelliousness can turn them into staunch advocates for organic kale. Teenagers get into sports. Suddenly performance is everything, and they become self-righteous prigs about dietary purity. A lot of different factors can come into play.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Five Years and $500 Million Later, USDA Admits That ‘Food Deserts’ Don’t Matter,” Reason.com, 06/13/16
Source: “Home and Family Environment Related to Development of Obesity: A 21-Year Longitudinal Study,” LiebertPub.com, 04/01/19
Photo credit: Erin Costa on Visualhunt/CC BY

Everything You Know About Food Deserts Is Wrong

This whole topic is rife with puzzles, one of which Dr. Pretlow articulates here:

The food deserts idea is based on the intuitive premise that people in poorer neighborhoods have “junk food” diets because of unavailability of healthy foods in stores in poor neighborhoods.

As we have seen, this holds true to a certain extent, and not because observers feel that this is the situation, but because some economically disadvantaged people actually do not have the means to travel to stores where a healthy assortment of vegetables and fruits is available at a reasonable price. For instance, a few years back, a study showed that statewide, 59 percent of Indiana’s counties contained areas that fell under the definition of food deserts.

In Indianapolis 63 percent of the population lived within a 10-minute drive to a fast food restaurant or convenience store, while only 39 percent lived within 10 minutes of a grocery store. For car-free people, this is not exactly good news, nor is it helpful to any better-eating ambitions they might have.

Childhood Obesity News also looked into several other factors that can contribute to what has become known as the food desert phenomenon. And yet, these obstacles and shortages are not always present, so what else is going on? A young person communicated with Dr. Pretlow:

And there ARE healthy affordable foods where I live, it doesn’t mean that we buy them. There are multiple McDonald’s in every town.

It begins to look like a classic conundrum: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Dr. Pretlow asks,

Do people in poor neighborhoods have junk food diets because the stores carry only junk food, or do stores in poor neighborhoods carry only junk food because people in poor neighborhoods will buy only junk food?

One of the answers is readily apparent. While stores in deprived areas may not stock junk food exclusively, they sure do carry a lot of it. This is so evident, one public official quipped that instead of food deserts, they should be called food swamps.

Although an abundance of food may be available for purchase, most of it is, for all practical purposes, worthless. But on the legendary “third hand,” as Dr. Pretlow’s young correspondent pointed out, the mere presence of good food does not mean people will take it home.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Associate Editor at Reasonwrote,

The problem was that these items just didn’t sell. You can lead human beings to Whole Foods, but you can’t make them buy organic kale there.

The USDA just admitted as much, with a new report on food deserts… Highlights from the article note that proximity to supermarkets “has a limited impact on food choices” and “household and neighborhood resources, education, and taste preferences may be more important determinants of food choice than store proximity.”

As for resources, that is a sticky question. While it may be true that poor people cannot afford to buy good food on a consistent basis, they can certainly afford to not buy unhealthy food. Anyone at all can afford to not purchase gooseberry/lamb flavored potato chips, triple-decker cupcakes, or chocolate-covered bacon.

It can easily be argued that even with a limited budget, it is probably better to go for quality whenever possible. Even chain supermarkets now have organic sections in their vegetable departments. Grass-fed beef is expensive, but maybe a person only needs to eat one burger, rather than two. Some nutritionists have made a powerful case for the idea of eating less, but better.

The thing is, higher-quality food satisfies the need for all the various nutrients, so that hunger does not return so soon or so intensely. When people eat and eat and eat, it’s often because not a single vitamin or mineral has entered their systems. The body knows it’s all crap and garbage, and insists on being fed more, on the off-chance that eventually a vitamin or mineral might show up.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Indiana’s ‘Food Swamps’ Contributing To Childhood Obesity,” WFYI.org, 05/12/16
Source: “Five Years and $500 Million Later, USDA Admits That ‘Food Deserts’ Don’t Matter,” Reason.com, 06/13/16
Photo credit: Found Animals Foundation on Visualhunt/CC BY-SA

Can This Study Help Someone You Know?

What is going on at the Center for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA)? A very exciting development that might be useful to some of our readers, or to someone they know in Southern California. So please feel free to share the tweet shown at the top of this page. If you have a child or know a child who needs this help, here is the link to go to for more information and the application procedure.

This upcoming interventional study has two titles: the long one is “An Addiction Model Based Mobile Health Weight Loss Intervention With Coaching in Adolescents With Overweight and Obesity: Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Trial,” and the shorter version is “An Addiction-Based Mobile Health Weight Loss Intervention With Coaching.”

These are the bare-bones details:

Purpose of Research:
To test the effectiveness of an addiction-based weight loss intervention, embodied first as a smartphone app with telephone coaching (AppCoach) compared to (1) addiction model based weight-loss app alone (App) and (2) multi-disciplinary in-clinic weight loss intervention (Clinic) on weight outcomes of overweight and obese adolescents at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months post enrollment.

Eligibility:
1. Age 14-18 years 2. Able to read English 3. Body mass index [BMI] ≥85th percentile for age and gender

Time Commitment/Requirements:
18 months: group 1 and 2: 5 visits group 3: 9 visits Compensation provided.

Here is a roundup of the coverage so far, of this series of studies:

Next, we noted Dr. Pretlow’s speech given at CHLA last August, saying…

The randomized controlled trial will continue for three years, which is quite a respectable length of time for a study, with a nice number of subjects, too — 180 overweight adolescents participating through four or possibly five institutions.

This next set of posts covered some of the individuals involved in this large and complicated endeavor. Dr. Steven Mittelman is a pediatric endocrinologist who investigates, among other things, the relationship between obesity and cancer, under the auspices of the Diabetes and Obesity Program at CHLA.

And now, other professionals lending their talents and expertise:

Other related articles are: “Saban Institute Shares Research News” and “Diabetes and Obesity at CHLA.”

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “CHLA Clinical Research Studies,” CHLA.org
Image by CHLA on Twitter

What We Hope to Save Our Kids From

As parents, as health professionals, as teachers, why do we aspire to prevent childhood obesity, especially in our own children and those for whom we are professionally responsible? Because, as members of a compassionate and caring society, we understand the trials that morbidly obese people face, and we want to spare our kids that. Just regular adult life presents more than enough challenges, without the supersize option. What are we trying to protect our kids from?

A recent, lengthy article from the pseudonymous Your Fat Friend revisits the topic of flying while obese, and elaborates on some other seldom-considered problems. Traveling often for work, she is reluctantly but necessarily familiar with the inconsistent “customer of size” regulations that vary from airline to airline, so booking a two-leg journey can be a nightmare. Even when the airline has conscientiously spelled-out rules on its website, that does not mean the ticket agents or flight crew are familiar with those rules.

She is used to paying twice the price, and then not even getting what she paid for because the airline sold her extra seat to another passenger. Only the first seat is paid for by her employer, so these extra costs go on the personal credit card, accruing interest like any other debt.

The “fat tax” is not just an airborne phenomenon. Renting a set of wheels presents obstacles a healthy-weight person never has to think about:

Cars, too, are a challenge, and information about their weight capacity, seat width, and maximum distance from the steering wheel are rarely made available. Often, fat people are required to buy larger cars with lower gas mileage, required to shoulder the cost of more car than we’d want and more fuel than we’d like.

This is a work trip, so for normal-size employees the costs are covered. There is no extra bonus to take care of contingencies having to do with overweight matters. There are the extras “Your Fat Friend” can’t even discuss with colleagues. For instance, a person who is really large, even bigger than the author, can sometimes find a hotel room with an extra-wide bathtub and extra-sturdy toilet, for an additional fee of as much as $300. The author says,

Our fat friends and family already work less, earn less, and pay more, even for basic necessities. We are more likely to be fired, more likely to be overcharged, and more likely to face economic insecurity than our thinner counterparts…

The fat tax is not just monetary. It is paid in frustration, humiliation, and impossible choices. Should a person skip the final day of a conference, because none of her safe airlines are flying home that night? But no. Absence from a mandatory meeting is not politic, so she opts to pay for an extra night of lodging and absorb the loss. In fact, these out-of-town confabs often represent as much as $1,000 worth of out-of-pocket expenses, and even for someone who makes a good salary, this is a bite.

Is the fat tax restricted to travel?

That was a trick question. Of course the fat tax applies not only when moving from place to place. It can find you sitting on your own patio, in a beefed-up Adirondack chair with extra weight capacity and a higher-than-standard price tag, maybe as much as $400 higher. A folding chair, forget it. A heavy-duty bed can cost thousands of extra bucks.

Some home exercise equipment is built to handle the over-300-pound individual, with, of course, a hefty fat tax built in. The author points out the exquisite irony of how those who need such devices the most will also pay the most. Even a street bicycle rarely supports more than 200 pounds — unless, of course, it is a super-strong and super-expensive machine.

Size-accommodation difficulties are everywhere. Plus-size clothing is a bonanza for manufacturers, who have been known to charge nearly twice as much for the same garment. Something a normal-size person rarely needs to think about is the fit of jewelry. But if fingers, wrists, and necks are large, then obviously rings, bracelets, and necklaces must be too.

Ladies, imagine being presented with a fine gold chain, and the giver is saying, “Go ahead, put it on” and you don’t want to, not in front of him, because if it doesn’t extend all the way around your chubby neck the embarrassment will be unbearable. This is the kind of scenario we don’t want our daughters to find themselves in.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “The Fat Tax Is Real — and It’s Getting Worse,” Medium.com, 04/09/19
Photo credit: Christoph Beeh on Visualhunt/CC BY-ND

How to Make Food Taste Better

Maybe if basic food tasted better we would not be compelled to doll it up with high-calorie fixin’s. Sadly, food just doesn’t taste as good as it used to, and part of this can be attributed to the methodology of industrial agriculture. The tomato of today is nothing like the tomato of yesteryear. The thing about taste buds is, they get old just like every other part of a person.

There are several other causes for loss of taste and/or smell, and some of them we can’t do much about — allergies; nasal, sinus, or dental problems; head or facial injury; Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. Sensory loss is a side effect of some medications. The Mayo Clinic says that diminished taste and smell…

[…] might tempt you to use excess salt or sugar on your food to enhance the taste — which could be a problem if you have high blood pressure or diabetes.

Or, we might add, if you are trying to avoid or reduce obesity. With smokers, loss of taste is their own fault, and the more they smoke the worse the problem gets. But smokers are the select group who really have the potential, if not the motivation, to get this taste problem under control.

Just a couple of years ago, a team of researchers discovered that “neither the quantitative impact on taste sensitivity nor the time-course of taste recovery on stopping smoking have been precisely examined.” They wanted to change that.

Nor had anyone looked into how the different regions of the tongue were affected. Some things, however, were known:

Generally, the dietary habits of smokers are characterized by higher intakes of energy (cholesterol, saturated fat and alcohol), and by lower intakes of antioxidant vitamins and fiber (fruits and vegetables).

When you quit smoking, the different areas of the tongue recover at different rates, ranging from two weeks to two months. This does not affect which taste perception (sweet, sour, salt, etc.) returns first, because as we have seen, receptors for all the tastes are distributed throughout the mouth. Compared to a lot of other self-inflicted problems, the recovery time for this one is described as “rapid.”

A fairly reversible disability

Taste receptors are in the mouth to warn the brain not to let toxins any farther into the body. Because we ingest so much crap, most contemporary humans, yes, even non-smokers, have messed-up taste capacity. A diminished sense of taste is counterproductive in an evolutionary sense, because it lessens our chance of survival.

Periodic fasting, or even just keeping things pretty bland for a while, are both excellent ways to restore taste acuity. But the more we abuse our taste buds with weird chemicals the less chance they have to serve us well. And probably, the fatter we will get, because of trying to compensate for the loss.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Is loss of taste and smell normal with aging?,” MayoClinic.org, undated
Source: “Effect of cigarette smoke on gustatory sensitivity, evaluation of the deficit and of the recovery time-course after smoking cessation,” NIH.gov, 02/28/17
Photo credit: Ruth Hartnup on Visualhunt/CC BY

Everything You Know About MSG Is Still Wrong

Childhood Obesity News has discussed MSG apologist Alan Levinovitz. In a Slate article, the writer bragged about how, as a translator in China, he amused himself by lying to Americans who thought they were MSG-sensitive. His game was to tell them there was no MSG in the food, and then to observe their total lack of discomfort, which proved to him that “Chinese restaurant syndrome” was all in their heads.

Not only that, his idea caught on with other journalists who also embarked on independent experimentation to prove that their friends were delusional about the symptoms they thought they suffered from eating MSG. And of course some folks insisted that warning the world about the harmfulness of the additive was really all about racial bias.

In 2016, a study by the Monell Chemical Senses Center was published by the journal Physiology & Behavior. It made this assessment of previous investigation:

[B]ecause no study had separated the positive sensory qualities of the appetizing foods from their high sugar and fat content, it was impossible to know if the taste was actually driving the overeating.

Despite the common perception that good-tasting food is unhealthy and causes obesity, new research using a mouse model suggests that desirable taste in and of itself does not lead to weight gain.

The brainwashing, the gaslighting! They are not just saying that MSG does not cause weight gain. They have the audacity to state that “desirable taste in and of itself does not lead to weight gain.” Okay, technically it does not. Desirable taste merely causes people to compulsively overeat, and compulsive overeating causes weight gain. Furthermore, the Monell study was only about sweet and oily tastes, which are not the same as the umami flavor of MSG, so is really hard to to see the implied relevance.

The granddaddy of all MSG-positive websites is Glutamate.org, which offers eight different PDF files suitable for full-color printing, should the reader feel impelled to pass out literature at some event. It is brought to us courtesy of the International Glutamate Information Service, which sets up the World Umami Forum, whose 2018 keynote speaker was the CEO of Ajinomoto, Takaaki Nishii.

Forum attendees hear such points as this one, made by one of the Association’s science advisors:

We get far more glutamate from our food than from MSG, and do we say that the Parmesan cheese on our pasta gives us a headache?

However, research reveals that some people say much worse about parmesan, in terms of allergic reaction symptoms. Another speaker at that gathering advised that people who think they are harmed by MSG should simply avoid it, a move whose near impossibility we have discussed.

In the most recent, up-to-date glutamate news, Megan Schaltegger of Delish states, “Chick-Fil-A Is One Of The Only Fast Food Chains To Use MSG.” A spokesperson from a rival fast-food chain, on the other hand, assures the public that Burger King is making meaningful changes to its menu and is committed to remove MSG from its offerings by the year’s end.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Hold the MSG,” Slate.com, 07/09/13
Source: “Study suggests palatable tastes do not drive long-term overeating,” ScienceDaily.com, 12/15/16
Source: “Home,” Glutamate.org, undated
Source: “Why all of the fuss about MSG?,” TribuneContentAgency.com, 05/20/19
Source: “Chick-Fil-A Is One Of The Only Fast Food Chains To Use MSG,” Delish.com, 06/10/19
Photo credit: Vox Efx on Visualhunt/CC BY

Everything You Know About MSG Is Wrong — Or Is It?

Childhood Obesity News has been looking at the checkered past of MSG. A lot of people hold strong opinions about its harmfulness, for good reason. The substance goes by many aliases, appears in almost every processed food product, and is virtually inescapable.

Some curious citizens have noticed that science readily accepts the idea that the inner workings of lab rats and mice are pretty much like those of humans. We are regularly asked to accept that animal experiments are relevant to human experience.

Also, we are told that MSG has been used for decades to create obese lab rodents for researchers in need of such a commodity. Here is where a cognitive dissonance problem comes in. The brain’s logic cells put up a red flag. If this stuff is used to make fat rats, how is it not making people fat too? Consequently, MSG looks a lot like something to avoid.

Easier said than done

How many people are able to shop meticulously and cook everything from scratch, day after day after day? Could it even be possible to never eat anywhere but home? To not go to summer camp or join the military? To always refuse invitations from family and friends, to never buy lemon squares at a church bake sale? Imagine trying to maintain those standards with kids. Maybe a few intentional communities can eat clean, but that would be a tiny sliver of the population. So the debate over the effects of this food additive seems rather urgent.

What is MSG?

MSG, the “crystallized manifestation” of umami, was discovered in 1907. It is glutamic acid, which as glutamate can be extracted from seaweed and processed into crystals. When the company started to market it, the first demographic they went after were the Buddhists of China, because MSG improved the flavor of vegetarian meals without adding meat. By the 1950s, American manufacturers were putting it in everything including baby food.

But by the late 1960s, people had grown suspicious of a lot of aspects of society, and this was one of them. MSG started to receive considerable bad press that its champions would like to dismiss as undeserved. There were alarmist and inflammatory headlines.

In defense of MSG, lone warriors like religious scholar and journalist Alan Levinovitz pushed back. He says people don’t know what really affects their health and causes them to feel bad, so they ignorantly demonize certain foods, and, in particular, food additives. Their own lack of unawareness leads them to focus on the blameless MSG.

Levinovitz likens MSG critics to cult members, and cannot understand why they have picked that hill to die on. He speaks of double-blind studies which prove that MSG sensitivity is a psychological phenomenon, saying,

Strong belief can also render a harmless substance poisonous, which is exactly what happened with MSG. Scientists refer to this as the nocebo effect, and it means that careful studies are necessary to distinguish between poisons and poisonous beliefs.

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia,” FiveThirtyEight.com, 01/08/16
Source: “Food Psych #94: How to Leave the Religion of Dieting with Alan Levinovitz,” ChristyHarrison.com, March 5, 2017
Source: “Hold the MSG,” Slate.com, 07/09/13
Photo on Visualhunt

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.

Food & Health Resources