In a 1975 Food and Drug survey in various questions made about food practices 71% of people felt that fresh vegetables were better than frozen vegetables that maybe you believe that too. I think dr. Brantner said that the fresh was better. Unfortunately in our large country that we have and because of the distribution system that we have the only way that fresh vegetables actually have higher nutritional content than processed vegetables is if you pick them from your own garden because just the fact of harvesting makes the product died and as it dies the nutrient content goes down and unless one preserves at in somewhere other we cannot preserve the original content. So the only way you can get higher nutritional content is from the Fresh directly out of your own garden a fact that many people do not understand and we get this because of this or that the fresh or the natural is sometimes better sameNatural versus synthetic vitamins and if we learn any chemistry, we know that they are the same yet 62% of the population felt that natural was better than the synthetic General Mills survey show that 51% of consumers purchase more natural products. Whatever natural means, we'll come back to that later on. In a survey done by our Department of Agriculture economics last year the public these are some of the things they wanted. They wanted less packaging more direct farmer to consumer marketing lower prices. Of course, we all like lower prices more natural product better quality and better nutrition certainly meaningful things if that fact is going to increase our help. In addition to these kinds of things people are also interested in purchasing foods to give them more of them more bigger the whole thing with bee pollen America's number one pollen athletes and experts Rave about very interesting testimonial as to what kinds of things increase our parents or help and you can go to Maine stores and find these things including the large supermarkets. The consumer really have good knowledge in this area and interesting study that was done by the Food and Drug Administration in 1973. And then repeat it again 1975 asked questions about nutrition. This is nutrition specific knowledge and they had two parts of the survey in 75 a self-obsessed part and an actual question are in which there were specific answers at the Food and Drug felt were correct answers. And as you can see only one third of our population really has good knowledge or high knowledge about nutrition another 30% on a board and another 30% or in a very low level. Question is why why is this occurred in a country that we think is one of the best countries in the world? Why do we have this poor knowledge? Why do people have misunderstanding about food and then questions is our food supply that good maybe we've all been deluded while I look at it and I guess since some people will get into nutrition. I sometimes get into psychology. I've looked at it from the standpoint of the forces that operate on the system to create the sort of dilemma and confusion about food and nutrition and I've separated into three areas people forces the forces of people who settled the date of forces that scientists and other people gather to operate on the people forces and the Future Shock forces such as the world food crisis energy crisis the question of free enterprise system versus some other type of system that might make the food supply better and all these forces intertwining operate on this system. Consider basically is some of the people forces to show you why we have gotten to the condition that we have gotten. Let's look first at what I consider some of the problems in the backgrounds of consumers the average person about nutrition about science. U.s. Office of beckon of Education in 1975 and again in 1976 doing surveys around the country as to education levels of adults people over 18 in back of adults over 18 20% of the population were functionally illiterate. They could read words pronounce words, but they did not understand what these words meant. They could not utilize these words properly another 30% or on a borderline of this functional illiteracy. So we have a real problem that if we can educate people they don't know how to utilize this kind of information if people did get education about science and school in a past and a science has been good in the past and certainly coming with the area we've had occasion in which I called a fill-in-the-blank you learning equation, you're given three unknown you given three factors equation with foreign owns and you find out the fourth unfortunately in the area. As we stated earlier, we don't have those kinds of equations in many cases. We don't have the good equations that we can plug in and say this food is good. This food is not good x amount of this food is correct. So we have a real problem that area and unfortunately mean school science which could teach some of this nutrition has gotten around to educating students about things that are important such as social sciences alcohol addiction drugs modern living and sex certainly a very important part of our lifestyle, but we wants to eat three times a day and we don't have the education that has been given about nutrition in terms of Y nutrition the physiology and about why foods are processed if they are given education that area and it is helpful to some degree. We are giving the basics for I'm not against the basic for but it doesn't fit in taint in today's lifestyle in some aspects or we are taught the prejudices were some of the Wives tales which may have some partial truth to it, but it becomes testimonial rather than scientific fact, so we have this real problem. There is a lack of scientific education in the great school or High School System about food nutrition and processing of foods. Today's consumers exposure to science once they get out of the school system where they have learned very little comes from many different areas. I've just listed some of them here I take I get very upset when I see some of these things and let me just point out a few of the types of things. The written word is a very good for those 50% who can read their exposed to many different written words one goes to the bookstore. Will you see the health and nutrition area and you'll see many books like this written by so-called experts in nutrition. Unfortunately, most of these people have self appointed themselves as nutritionist and we tell the consumer will look up their credentials or even better yet. Many of these so-called experts have made up beautiful sounding Medical Society types things which they join and they belong to and so that it's hard for the average consumer to understand whether that is a true. Organization or not give you an idea. For example Carlton Fredericks who has been touted as one of the leading experts in nutrition is country. His undergraduate degree was in English and his Ph.D was in radio and Communications. His Theses was based on advertisements. He gave over a New York radio station on vitamins and I'm buying vitamins and his thesis was based on consumers response to his advertisements so he called it a nutrition faces he was Tried and convicted several times in New York state for practicing medicine over the air and practicing medicine from people and yet he is one of the most popular talk show people in the area nutrition in this country because he believes that why he is selling his correct. This is a problem. How do we find this out? Same thing with sugar Blues William Duffy has no credentials whatsoever except that he married Gloria Swanson who was interested in nutrition. Many medical people get into the ACT. Also, I hate to demean the medical profession because it's not all of them but there are some who take some facts and some of these books are very truthful in part because a teacher has two things moderation and a teacher's exercises part of it, but they hook on to some of the fattest type of things. Dr. Jarvis from Vermont to Stowe Vermont cures and apple cider vinegar and honey is being a cure for everything and certainly we have to talk about sugar and I'll get into it later on because they're certainly is a holy war going on about sugar in this and the question is what is the truth? We have a doctor Yadkin from England who wrote a book sweet and dangerous based on some epidemiological studies that he has done again. The question is is what is in the air truth or not. This is what the average consumer who can read is it supposed to or we have other people who have been trained again in English or journalism write books about the danger. our food supply consumer beware Let me point out that sometimes we as professionals don't find out the facts were also because the woman who wrote this book, in fact was touted as a a world expert and food and nutrition and she is giving talks too many medical groups and dental groups as being an expert in the area and her only expertise is what she reads in the other books that are the same type of thing in this area is if you look at her quotes, this is the problem, of course, then we have the National Enquirer witch. Interestingly enough. They've had a number of suits against them and they are beginning to have good articles in it by well-documented people. So it's not always there's not always bad articles, but the kind of thing that people get exposed to and one of the largest selling magazines Prevention magazine, which has many articles by many medical professionals and they're mostly based on testimony. And that's our whole problem science is not testimonial but for the average person testimonial sounds like science and so we run into this problem. So this is the written word and of course not only written word important in today's society and I really believe this is one of the reasons for the demise in reading ability is we have we are living in a world of electronic journalism there been many programs about sugar about food additives one that I remember in particular and 60 minutes. Show a girl who supposedly was a sugar junkie and she went through withdrawal syndrome symptoms because of sugar and hurt and they interviewed her parents and their parents response. And this is I think is what is probated in our society. The parents response was that the industry is to blame you never said once whether the parent had some kind of responsibility in taking control of that child in terms of what the child should be getting the child was only eating candy bars and eating nothing else, but it was the industry to blame not that I'm defending industry, but I think we have to look at some of the basic problems that bring us together. The question is is everything else that we read in a journal or in a newspaper truthful or not. And how do we determine that? There's no answer to that kind of thing. So that's one area of it the second area which I think is very very important. We all would like to believe in that Miracle food. The problem with America food is that in many cases 85% of illnesses are self-limiting they'll cure themselves. So this is why we get the testimonials at their cure there and many people think that we should be able to have drugs that can do this kind of thing since we've been able to develop kidney machines that will keep people alive or do heart transplants, and we've been able to put man on the moon. Miss brings us to the second area of people forces and that's the consumer group Force has there been many consumer consumer is how they operate and really the question is where do they get the data to use to speak for the consumer? And this is a real problem because many of these same people are consumers and they're exposed to the same kinds of information that I just showed you and so sometimes their data is not altogether correct or they misinterpret or misuse the data. Let me use sugar as an example and let me point out some of the problems with sugar sugar is a carbohydrate. It's something that supplies energy in the body. There is no known metabolic disorder from consuming sugar in moderation. If one consumes an excess of anything, then we run into problems. We one disease that Sugar definitely causes is Dental caries. No question about that at all. However, some are other there been. Some forces that came together to bring it now into the Limelight of attack against the whole nutrition area. It started I guess first with supermarket boycotts and then there was the boycotts against meat and now we have the sugar thing may be 5 years from now, we will have something else being in there. It's interesting to remember that the desire for sweetness is not something that's learned Mori Care at the University of Pennsylvania The Institute for sensory physiology has done studies of fetuses in the womb both animal and human fetuses and has shown that the major response to taste and they've gone gone in with little TV cameras and looked at the faces of infants and they put sugar in the amniotic fluid and there's a smile and a smacking of the lips of the issue. So it's not something that we were. You can look at it almost as Original Sin. And maybe that's why we have this holy war. What's interesting is? Breakfast cereals and not that I'm defending sugar breakfast here is what breakfast cereals have been picked as one of the consumer groups attacks. Now this points out the percentages of sugar that's in your food supply that's consumed by the average person and if you look down at the bottom there, The lowest amount of sugar in a total diet comes from pre sweetened cereals. They are surveys done breakfast surveys done of children show that if they are using it for breakfast for a snack, but it's probably using the breakfast. It's Supply it constitutes 3% of their sugar intake candy and Confections Supply about 13% The major amount of sugar still in the diet is in the prepackaged sugar the 30% that we sprinkle in our coffee that was out there or Auntie or the can sugar that we consume in restaurants. However, it has been pictured as this very nasty demon know I'm not going to go into the physiology. I just point out how consumer groups get us into this Viewpoint. There's something wrong in our food supply. Unfortunately, even I forgot that I had some studies done at the Eastman Dental Research Institute just show you the confusion and the problems that sent from a scientific standpoint. I'm on the American Dental Association Asian expert panel on Carrier Genesee of food. We're trying to determine methodology to determine how cariogenic various foods are that is one very well accepted study in which you measure the dissolution of tooth enamel in a clinical study interesting thing. If you just go down this list here and look at whole wheat bread and this is the right hand column whole wheat bread and this one particular study that dissolves 5/8 mg of Enamel and a sugar breakfast cereal in the cream cookie down near the bottom dissolved about half of that amount what's important is not just sugar content stocking report as well. Its residents time pH change all many other factors. So one should not single out one particular type of ingredient but we have this kind of thing that is occurring in our society and unfortunately industry gets on the bandwagon for this apple juice. No, there's no need to put the words on there, but the consumer is scared of sugar. And so what's the word no sugar added if you've heard the Dole pineapple juice add recently. No, no sugar added. No cholesterol. No additives. No. No, this apple juice is the one fruit juice that naturally contains the highest amount of natural sucrose, which is sugar. But they use is negative type of advertising. Legislators certainly are there to protect us Abraham Lincoln? Quoting from or paraphrasing what Thomas Jefferson said said that the government should do for individuals what they cannot do for themselves. I think that's very true. Unfortunately in our society today many individuals don't want to do for themselves anymore. And that's where we run into the problem. And so that we have many people. Trying to do for a small group or a certain group and imposing some problems on other groups. Let me quote from dr. Harvey Wiley who was the first commissioner or I should say his first Chief chemist of the Department of Agriculture back before there was a Food and Drug Administration in a speech that he made in 1901 when he was working on the food supply. He said by 1976 through a general comprehension of the principles of nutrition food will be more wholesome and more potent the general acceptance of the principles of hygiene and nutrition will make the average lifespan of humans longer and their usefulness more fruitful. Now if you listen to many of the consumer groups you listen to many of our Legislators today they feel that we are worse off than we were back in the 1800s or the 1900s. And this is a very very difficult problem. They have gotten on this kind of thing bandwagon insane misuse of data that some of the consumer groups have done. Let me call here. For example from George McGovern. Where is correct in a certain contacts, but it can be used to scare people. He says we have reached the point where nutrition or the lack or the excess or the quality of it. Maybe the nation's number one Health from the threat is not very berry flavor or scurvy rather receive a more subtle. But also more deadly reality of millions of Americans loading their stomachs with food, which is likely to make them obese to give them high blood pressure to induce heart disease diabetes and cancer in short to kill them over the long-term actually, right? But maybe the emphasis sometimes is wrong certainly. The work that McGovern's committee did has made many nutritionist start thinking about the total picture and mix of what our food should be. But sometimes it gets misused. Sometimes it gets out of hand in question is how do we look at the state of forces what the general concerns were is weather because of our current health statistics in this show some data for 1972 deaths in the United States and we have over 1 million people dying of diseases of the heart and blood vessels over 350,000 dying of cancer. Where is only $100,000 on Down the Line cancer and heart disease are number two and number one and number two causes of death in this country back my class yesterday that I teach and liberal arts was based on what do you want to die from? It's very interesting. Is that some of the recommendations made to prevent? Coronary heart disease may increase your risk of cancer. And I think I'd rather die of a heart attack when I think about it. If you look up at our whole food system, I won't go into those things when we have some questions. Maybe I'll go on to it further. The question is is it really that bad are we in a dilemma is the food supply that we're eating causing the serious problem. This just show some age-adjusted death rate from 1950 to 1969 interesting. Some changes have occurred. In fact, it's gone down even more for 1975 and I don't have that slide with me, but we have decreased coronary heart disease by something like 25% since 1950 most of that decreases in the younger age population. Neoplasms are Cancers have increased most of that increase has been due to lung cancer diseases of the digestive tract or it have either been stable or are decreasing. So maybe we've done something right since the 1950s you got to remember in 1900 the major cause of death was influenza pneumonia cause diseases of bacteria in food, and people died of diarrhea and vomiting. We don't die of that today. We die of diseases of Aging or health are lifespan actually has increased quite significantly in 1900. It was around 49 and today. It's 71. It's not increasing dramatically as it's done before when you see a major increase occurred in the 1900s to 1920s, when we began to learn the principles of microbiology and begin to learn the principles of healthcare and preventive maintenance in terms of health. All right, what does this mean in terms of the government forces that work on the system? It's very very difficult thing to point out what the government is going to do. Certainly the Senate select committee. And I think it'd be interesting for many of you to get a copy of this. This is a picture of the first edition to get a copy of the dietary goals. If you're interested in hell that cost $0.95 from the superintendent of documents. It's got a lot of good data and statistics on our Healthcare System in our food supply. I think this has been one good thing that the government has done. I think it's stimulating a lot of changes in the system where unfortunately we have some problems that exist within the government aspect. This is a good example of the Dilemma between laetrile and the Dilemma on saccharine. Who do you listen to what are there is saccharin dangers is laetrile dangerous. Should we stand up for individual rights? I think let me quote from Governor Richard Lamm who spoke at a meeting. I went to two years ago AAA s meeting that was held. He's the governor of Colorado. He said we must throw ourselves from the conceitful notion. That science is the key to our future. It is only one key and not the major one. The social Innovations are equally or more important than scientific ones science is a process that seeks truth politics is a process that seeks survival. Bring interesting what he says there is that in some cases, even if we have the facts maybe from a social political organization as - says life is full of choices, but sometimes we don't get them and maybe that's correct in the long run for the over well-being of our whole country, but that's how the political forces operate on this system in our food choices. lastly Let's talk about industry forces. Industry certainly can respond very rapidly. We've all heard about the fiber thing and it's interesting is if you go to the experts, there's no clear-cut opinion of what value fiber will doing since it was something easy to do by the industry. We see more and more foods with fiber in them. There's this bandwagon approach that gets on everybody's eating more brand and we don't know it's a very interesting thing there many benefits of fiber if it's using a proper contacts, but it also make was some problems the other problem that industry does as I pointed out before it gets into the misuse of scientific fact from the standpoint of Scare Tactics to market products. This is a good example of it. This is a Processed baby food jar baby food. This food is preserved by heat processing to destroy the microorganisms that could cause botulism in their there is absolutely no need and no reason to put chemical preservatives in it because it's the only process you don't put chemicals in it and yet on the label it says our baby foods are not chemically Preserve. Truthful very truthful statement question is why is it there? Is it ethically correct or not? I fight the food industry very much for this kind of thing, which I think only balloons the public into thinking there's some problem. This is another one which I think is very excellent. That was on a potato chip bag without additives was a hell of a lot more dangerous hypertension a little bit of additives that might be it will flow and not K-Cup. What is quite interesting salt without additives some companies try to do a good job General foods for example has put many advertisements and many of the magazines talking about various things. For example in this when they're talking about calcium propionate, which is a preservative added in bread and they point out that in a piece of cheese of Swiss cheese where we use a natural fermentation of a mole to produce calcium propionate, which preserves the cheese. One slice of cheese has the equivalent of the amount of propionate and 10 loaves of bread. It's because the mold produces a tremendous amount of print and only 50% of people who can read will even read the flag. So it may not do a very good job. All right. What now? Can we look at in terms of what myself as a scientist and the other scientists and educators are going to be speaking to you about today. And here's where we have a real dilemma of the food or nutrition scientist. A problem is that we a scientist if we want to seek the truth in many cases. We become two handed scientists. We say on the one hand. There are these facts and on the other hand. There are these facts and it's a problem for you as a consumer for the average consumer on this side, which side it is. It's a lot easier to say as a consumer group leader would say it is so or is it legislators will say it is so the politics will seek survival and say it is so until we run into this problem and many of the side is both in the food in the nutrition area as well. As in other areas are branded as pawns are various groups because they Pick this position want one way or another or they take no position another meeting at the scientist of losing their complete. ethics in doing research if they accept money for a particular type of project and I think it's going to provide into the medical profession as well. I have seen in fact industry people blaming scientist for doing some work with show that cholesterol was no good. And this was an industry representative from a company that was selling low cholesterol soy products and very interesting response at the scientist came up with which was very interesting was this company was a drug company also makes the swipe product and her response was well, then Physicians and the medical clinical professionals who are working on various drugs that your company supplies for testing or they want so biased as well. Very good point that was made do we have this real problem of being able to speak out and say something. I like to just point out for example that Thomas Edison. I guess it's close to a hundred years when he discovered the electric light bulb said that by 1980 America will be lit. gas quite interesting, but sometimes we make statements which do not turn out to be true in a long-run. The science is in a dilemma as well as to determining what are the facts and speaking out these facts because we get branded sometimes is being biased which we are in some ways are other and it's hard to present both sides of the issue logically. All right. What can we do or what is being done to help change the situation advertising legislation ethics? I think is a very key part of the problem. If you heard today the Federal Trade Commission has published some new regulations, which will totally banned any advertising to very young children and possibly ban advertising of any food product containing sugar or a snack food. That may be right that may be right if indeed this is causing major health problems in the country, but it also takes away the individual rights of our free enterprise system and we have to start looking at whether the regulatory agencies are performing for the function that the legislature wants them to do. And I question is that the way to go about it. Certainly we need more ethics in advertising and shortly marketing people. And I guess this is our real problem and a problem that I've worked on is that most marketing people. Work for food companies are not trained in food and nutrition and for two years. They may be working for a food company two years later. They may be selling Volkswagens. And it's very hard to get the fax through them and they will do anything that will sell a product and that's where we have the problem of Ethics. But I hate to see major legislation and regulations taking away the individual rights and control. I guess I'm too much of a republican sometimes in that area. Problem right now is the very poor lack of scientific basic information in this area. Both of the great schools high schools the problem of consumer understanding this type of thing and the Very tremendous enthusiasm tremendous enthusiasm of consumer groups of legislators to legislate this type of thing for us without us learning about it and without us exercising our own individual rights if we are educated in our own way and this enthusiasm bothers me in somewhere other and you said that science is the great antidote for the poison of enthusiasm. The only problem that he didn't say the only problem is he never told us how to administer that antidote and that's where we like today. We have a real problem in this whole area. Hopefully today you will learn some of the means of administering that antidote to yourself and you will learn some better nutrition and health practices. I hope I stimulated you to learn about these things. I know I may have said things that you may not agree with what I think this is the only way that's going to start stimulating you to have an education this area that will make your life more helpful. Thank you very much.