“Healthy” Food Panel
Sept. 24, 2013
Deborah M. Pearsall
Professor Emerita
Department of Anthropology
pearsalld@missouri.edu
In the discipline of Anthropology,
“healthy” food means . . .
Food that contributes to:
physical health, mental, emotion,
spiritual health good functioning of
social system sustainable functioning
of the food and nutrition system
Traditional Food and
Nutrition Systems
• What is a traditional
food and nutrition
system?
– food, knowledge,
practices in cultural
and environmental
context
http://www.woodlandindianedu.com/storagefoods.html
Food preparation methods
Fish prepared with fermented breadfruit balls
• What parts are eaten?
– Differ in nutrients
• What variety is eaten?
– Differ in nutrients
• How are foods
prepared?
– Effects nutritional
content
• What is eaten together?
– Complementary
foods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common traditional
management practices
Burning
Digging and tilling
Pruning, coppicing, and pollarding
Weeding and cleaning
Transplanting
Selective harvesting and replanting
Enclosures
Mulching and fertilizing
Burned
forest
Productive
swidden
Fruit
orchard
Forest
garden
Forest management
• Maya example
• Techniques employed:
– Burning to open forest
– Weeding and low intensity
burning to reduce weeds,
release nutrients from
litter
– Encouraging useful
trees/removing
undesirable ones
– crop rotation
– Attracting seed dispersers
and pollinators
Documenting TREM
(traditional resource and environmental management)
• Practices are
interrelated, must be
studied in cultural
context
• Combining
ethnography and
ecology to
understand
management
• Archaeology and
paleoecology provide
time depth
Agriculture in the
Americas
• In 1492, millions of Native
Americans were
agriculturalists
Planting in
Florida
Planting potatoes
in Peru
• Plant domestication began
10,000 years ago in the
early Holocene
• multiple domestications of
plants needed for
nutritionally balanced
meals
The major kinds of American crops:
– Pseudocereals, grains, oil seeds
• amaranth, chenopod, knotweed, maize, maygrass,
sunflower
– Legumes (pulses)
• Common bean, lima bean, jack bean, lupine, peanut
– Squashes and gourd
• pepo, pumpkin, bottle gourd
– Roots and tubers
• arrowroot, llerén, manioc, potato, sweet potato, yam
– Fruit trees
• avocado, cacao, guava, papaya, peach palm, soursop
– Spices, stimulants, fiber
• chile peppers, coca, cotton, tobacco
Domesticated Plants
at Real Alto, 2800 BC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
maize (Zea mays)
achira (Canna)
arrowroot (Maranta)
llerén (Calathea)
manioc (Manihot
esculenta)
cucurbits (Cucurbita
and Lagenaria siceraria)
cotton (Gossypium
barbadense)
jackbean (Canavalia
plagiosperma)
chile pepper (Capsicum)
a, b, c, e, f: maize; d: arrowroot
Karol Chandler-Ezell, D. Pearsall, J.
Zeidler 2006
What are the impacts of agriculture?
• Environmental impacts
– Slash and burn indicators
– Intensive agriculture
• Impacts on human populations
–Population growth
–Profound social changes
–Health and nutrition
Impacts of agriculture on health
• Poorer dental health (1.3%
10.4% caries)
– Caries, tooth loss (increased carbs, especially sugars, soft
gruels, beers)
• Poorer growth and development
– Dietary stress leading to interrupted growth, increased
morbidity
• Increased rates of anemia (reduced access to
protein)
• Health challenges from higher population densities:
parasites, disease transmission, conflict
• Health challenges from environmental changes:
water and mosquito-borne diseases
Review of Main Points
• “healthy” food is viewed as part of a food and
nutrition system
• Traditional knowledge of food practices is as
important as traditional varieties
• Agriculture sustains large populations but
presents health and environmental
challenges
Deborah M. Pearsall
Professor Emerita
Department of Anthropology
pearsalld@missouri.edu
References
•
•
•
•
•
Chandler-Ezell, Karol, Deborah M. Pearsall, and James A. Zeidler. 2006. Root and tuber phytoliths and
starch grains document manioc (Manihot esculenta), arrowroot (Maranta aundinacea), and llerén
(Calathea sp.) at the Real Alto site, Ecuador. Economic Botany 60:103-120.
Fowler, Catherine S. and Dana Lepofsky. 2011. Traditional and environmental management. Pp. 285-304 in
Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. Hunn, and N. Turner. John Wiley and Sons.
McClune, Letitia M. and Harriet V. Kuhnlein. 2011. Assessments of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional food
and nutrition systems. Pp. 249-266 in Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. Hunn, and
N. Turney. John Wiley and Sons.
Pearsall, Deborah M. 2000. Paleoethnobotany. A Handbook of Procedures. Left Coast Press.
-----. 2008. Plant Domestication. Pp. 1822-1842 in Encyclopedia of Arcahaeology. Academic Press.
Kevin L. Fritsche, Ph.D.
Professor of Animal/Human Nutrition
University of Missouri – Columbia
Division of Animal Sciences,
Dept. of Nutrition & Exercise
Physiology
Email: fritschek@missouri.edu
In the discipline of
“healthy” food means . . .
,
On-line Medical Dictionary says…
“Any food believed to be ‘good for you’, especially if high in
fiber, natural vitamins, fructose, etc.”
“Healthy foods may reduce cholesterol, reduce
atherosclerosis and risk of stroke, help control glucose, halt
progression of osteoporosis, and reduce the risk of
infections, cancer.”
Current dogma…
“There are no good or bad foods,
only bad diets.”
However, the “all foods can fit” framework
has undermined the establishment of
standards for defining nutritional quality of
individual foods.
unHealthy foods…
1. Refined grains, fats, and sweets are
inexpensive, palatable, and convenient.
2. The terms energy-dense and nutrient-poor
are commonly used to characterize foods
perceived as unhealthy and to distinguish
them from more nutritious options.
“Nutrient-poor vs. nutrient-rich”
• Widespread agreement on what
qualifies as a “nutrient-poor” food.
• In contrast, little agreement exists
about what a nutrient-rich food is…
..it is more than
“sugar-free” or “low-fat”
Nutrient profiling
The science of ranking and/or
classifying foods based on their
nutrient composition has become
known as nutrient profiling.
What’s up with nutrient profiling?
• A number of existing nutrient profile models
or nutrition quality indices have recently
been developed by academic researchers,
regulatory bodies, and the food industry.
• Some of those indices are based on only
nutrients to encourage, others on only
nutrients to limit, or on some combination
of both.
Validation is ongoing…
• In 2009 several nutrient-rich foods (NRF)
indices were validated against the Healthy
Eating Index (HEI), an accepted measure of
diet quality.
• One particular index, based on 9 nutrients
to encourage (protein, fiber, vit. A, C, E,
calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium)
& 3 nutrients to limit (sat fat, added sugar &
sodium), performed well.
(Fulgoni et al. 2009, J. Nutr. 139: 1549)
The long-term goal…
• Continue to validate and implement one or
more nutrient-density indices of individual
food items in the marketplace.
• This should help consumers to identify and
select nutrient-dense foods while permitting
some flexibility where discretionary calories
are concerned.
• Outreach & education will be needed.
Organic vs. conventional foods?
• Demand for organic food continues to
expand, in part, because some consumers
believe these foods are more nutritious.
• A recent systematic review of the evidence
on this topic concluded:
There are no meaningful differences in the
nutrient profiles between organic vs.
conventionally produced/grown foods.
(Dangour et al, 2009 Am J Clin Nutr 90: 680)
Review of Main Points
①“Foods are not good or bad, only whole
diets” is not a helpful approach;
②Nutrient profiling for scoring individual
foods is coming;
③Organic foods are NOT more nutritious.
Thanks for your attention!
Kevin L. Fritsche, Ph.D.
Email: fritschek@missouri.edu
Role of Beef in a Healthy Diet
Carol L. Lorenzen
Professor and Meat Extension Specialist
Division of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
In the discipline of Animal Science,
“healthy” food means _________
• A complete protein delivered in a tasty and
appealing manner.
• Animal based products that are produced in
an efficient and sustainable manner.
Nutritional Reasons to Eat Red Meat
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Packed with nutrients at an affordable price.
Complete protein
Bioavailable iron
B vitamins
Zinc
Thiamine
CoQ10
National Cattleman’s Beef Association
Comparison of Beef, Pork and Chicken
3 oz Cooked
Serving
Calories
Total Fat (g)
Saturated Fat
(g)
Cholesterol
(mg)
Skinless
Chicken Breast
139
3.1
0.9
73
Skinless
Chicken Thigh
177
9.3
2.6
81
Pork Top Loin
Chop, bnls
173
5.2
1.8
61
Pork Tenderloin
120
3.0
1.0
62
Beef Top Sirloin
162
8
2.2
76
Beef Top Loin
168
7.1
2.7
65
Beef Tenderloin
175
8.1
3.0
71
Adapted from USDA Nutrient Database, 2006
Role of a Meat Proteins in Offsetting
Age Related Muscle Loss
• Dietary protein intake plus resistance exercise
can maintain muscle mass in older people
Phillips, 2012, Meat Science
Role of Meat Proteins in Offsetting Age
Related Muscle Loss
• Red meat is effective in increasing muscle
protein synthesis compared to plant proteins.
Role of High Protein Meals in Appetite Control
Reference
Hunger
Fullness
Stubbs, 1999
Decrease
Increase
Stubbs, 1996
Decrease
Increase
Leidy, 2009
Decrease
Increase
Latner, 1999
Increase
Blom, 2006
Decrease
Bowen, 2006
Decrease
Increase
Bowen, 2006
Decrease
Increase
Leidy, 2011
Decrease
Increase
Leidy, 2010
Decrease
Increase
Marmonier, 2000
Decrease
Increase
No difference
Increase
Leidy, 2010
Smeets, 2008
Increase
Leidy, 2012
Decrease
Increase
Leidy, 2007
Decrease
Increase
Adapted from Leidy, 2012, Reciprocal Meat Conference
Role of Meat in Cognition
• Iron’s role in cognition
– Required by enzymes involved in specific brain
function
• Zinc’s role in cognition
– Implicated in central
nervous system
development
National Cattleman’s Beef Association
Animal Science Reasons to Eat Red
Meat
• Ruminant animals have the ability to convert
cellulose into meat, milk and fiber.
Ruminants Role in the Food System
1/3 of the Earth’s surface is land (34 billion acres)
4%
10%
Urban
41%
15%
Cultivated
Non-productive
Forrest
Range
30%
D. C. Church. 1993. The Ruminant Animal
Efficiency of Livestock Production
• Pounds of beef produced has increased 12.3%
between 1977 and 2007 (Capper, 2011, Journal of Animal Science).
• Number of beef cattle has decreased 43.0%
between 1977 and 2007 (Capper, 2011, Journal of Animal Science).
Efficiency of Livestock Production
-22.9%
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
-8.7%
1977
30000
-9.4%
-49.3%
20000
2007
-13.8%
10000
0
Total energy Feedstuffs
requirement (kg x 106)
(MJ x 107)
Land (ha x
103)
Water (L x Fossil Fuel
109)
Energy (BTU
x 109)
Adapted from Capper, 2011. Journal of Animal Science
Efficiency of Livestock Production
60000
50000
-23.3%
-14.0%
-11.5%
40000
1977
30000
2007
20000
10000
0
Manure (kg x 106)
N excretion (kg x 104) P excretion (kg x 103)
Adapted from Capper, 2011. Journal of Animal Science
Efficiency of Livestock Production
-22.9%
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
-19.5%
-12.3%
30000
1977
2007
20000
10000
0
Methane (kg x 104)
Nitrous Oxide (kg x
103)
Carbon Footprint (kg
of CO2 x 106)
Adapted from Capper, 2011. Journal of Animal Science
Changes in Carcasses Composition
Trait
1974
2011
% Change
Fat Thickness, cm
1.58
1.30
-21.5%
Hot Carcass Wt., kg
308
374
+21.4%
Ribeye area, cm2
76.3
88.8
+16.4%
USDA Yield Grade
3.4
2.9
-17.2%
Small+
Smallo
-9.8%
Marbling Score
Adapted from 1974 USDA Market Consist Report and Moore et al., 2012, Journal of Animal Science
a
Carol L. Lorenzen
Professor and Meat Extension Specialist
Division of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
“Healthy” Food Panel
Sept. 24, 2013
Does Food Play a Role in the
Development of Chronic Diseases?
David E. Goldstein, M.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Missouri Health Sciences Center
1 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO 65212
goldsteind@health.missouri.edu
www.endodoc.org
In the discipline of medicine, “healthy”
means . . .
food that does not contain
ingredients or contaminants
known to contribute to adverse
health outcomes.
Question:
Can we actually define what are
"healthy foods?
Answer:
"No clear standards exist to define
foods as good or bad, healthy or
not healthy."
USDA-Food and Nutrition Service, March 1, 2007.
FACT:
We in the U.S. are fat and sedentary, and
the rest of the world is following our lead.
www.hsph.harvard.edu
Flegal KM et al: Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999-2010. JAMA 2012;307:491-97.
Ogden CL et al: Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents. JAMA 2012;307:483-90.
www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity
THE GOOD NEWS:
The steadily rising
prevalence of
obesity in the U.S.
over the past 50
years seems to be
reaching a plateau.
THE BAD NEWS:
We are still fat and
sedentary.
O'Conner A: "Is the public health message that we are too fat and too sedentary sinking in?" NYT,09/16/2013, A12
Question: Why are we so fat?
Simple Answer:
We consume more food than we burn up.
Bruni F: "Hard truths about our soft bodies." NYT, 09/17/2013, A23
Question: Why are we so fat?
Complicated Answer:
Genetic and non-genetic factors
Genetic Factors (the bad news)
Many different genes exert strong
influences on body weight.
Sims E et al: Endocrine and metabolic effects of experimental obesity in man. Recent Prog Horm Res 1973;29:457-96
(Vermont prisoner studies)
Stunkard AJ et al: The body-mass index of twins who have been reared apart. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1463-7.
Non-genetic factors
(the potentially good news)
Obesity is not inevitable in people who
possess genes that promote obesity
(e.g., the Pima Indians)
Gladwell M: The Pima Paradox. The New Yorker, February 2, 1998, p43-57.
What's the big deal about being
overweight?
Obesity is a powerful risk factor for the
development of serious chronic diseases such
as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer,
and arthritis. To what extent diet composition
plays a role in the development of these
chronic diseases independent of obesity is
unclear.
Tirosh A et al: Adolescent BMI trajectory and risk of diabetes versus coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2011;364:315-25.
Mozaffarian D et al: Components of a cardioprotective diet: new insights. CIrculation 2011;123:2870-91.
Estruch R et al: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1279-90.
Kotchen TA et al: Salt in health and disease-a delicate balance. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1229-37.
Question: What should we do
(part 1)?
Answer: I'm not sure. Although we know a
great deal about obesity and its health effects,
we do not have particularly effective ways to
prevent and/or treat obesity other than
bariatric surgery. I do not believe we can
legislate healthy eating. On the other hand,
public policy can promote the benefits of
healthy eating and physical activity.
Patel AI, Rithie L: Striving for meaningful policy to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage intake in young children. Pediatrics
2013;132:566-68.Med 2013;368:1229-37.
Question: What should we do
(part 2)?
Answer:
In the end it is more about
personal choice rather than
anything else.
Casazza K et al: Myths, presumptions, and facts about obesity. N Engl J Med 2013;368:446-54.
Review of Main Points
A. The food system provides ample food which is more or
less healthy and relatively inexpensive.
B. There is no consensus among "the experts" on what
constitutes healthy vs. unhealthy food. But, I believe
there is at least a majority view on what constitutes a
healthy diet.
C. The single biggest challenge our society faces with respect
to food, is how to develop effective ways to prevent and
to treat obesity. Success will require major changes in
public policy regarding food issues and in personal foodrelated decisions.
David E. Goldstein, M.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Missouri Health Sciences Center
1 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO 65212
goldsteind@health.missouri.edu
www.endodoc.org
Laina Fullum RD, LD
Nutrition Services Department
Columbia Public Schools
573-214-3480
lfullum@columbia.k12.mo.us
In the discipline of Dietetics, “healthy”
food means . . .
…foods that provide essential nutrients, energy and
building blocks to support the human body at an
optimal level for disease prevention….But
• Each individual has their own healthy food
beliefs and focus which is influenced by their
present state of being, personal desire, and
past experiences
Feeding Programs at CPS
• National School Lunch Program (program est. 1946)
– After School Snack Program
– Seamless Summer Feeding Option
• School Breakfast Program (program est. 1975)
• Special Milk Program
• Donated Foods Program
• Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
• Cater dinner to a community organizations
Nutrition Services
• Serve 29 kitchens for 33 sites
– CPS Enrollment 17,722
• 155-165 employees
• Free and Reduced Price Eligible: 38%
– About 6,700 students (2011-2012)
• Average Daily Participation
– Over 8,300 students eating a reimbursable lunch and 3,200
for breakfast
Number of Lunches Served
• 2012-2013 1.67 mil. lunches 17,722 students
• $8.6 mil budget
• Nutrition Services is self supporting
– Federal
– State
– Lunch Prices
– A la carte sales
New Regulation Focus
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Calories
Total Fat
Saturated Fat
Protein
Vitamin A, C,
Calcium
Iron
Cholesterol
Fiber
Sodium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All nutrients on the left
Vitamin E
B vitamins 6 and 12
Zinc
Magnesium
Potassium
Phosphate
Folate
Research based nutrition
Mission
All students and staff of Columbia Public Schools
will have access to fresh, flavorful and nutritious
meals daily while promoting local sustain-ability.
Healthy Food?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Very strict new USDA regulations
Varied socioeconomic background
Newer push for updated healthier food
Exposure & Opportunity
Nutrition education
Food safety
We read the labels and provide foods kids will eat
Limit influence by popular trends and social outcry
Better programs
– FFVP, Farm to School, utilization of chefs
• Commodities are getting better
Challenges
• Balance what’s palatable for all children to eat
– Varied backgrounds
• Stigma of the lunch program
• Budget constraints affect quality
– It isn’t just food, its labor, utilities, permits, inspections…
• New regs predicted to cost $450,000 the first 2 years
• Many student do not like the new food
• Time constraints
• Building infrastructure
• Staff constraints
• Low interest in healthy foods
Review of Main Points
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Program shift: low income vs. student health
Funding has not kept pace
Discouraging level of interest in healthy food
Budgets are tightening
We cannot afford organic
We cannot source 100% local
We can provide color, variety, safety and
exposure
• Great new initiatives that need fine tuning
Laina Fullum RD, LD
Nutrition Services Department
Columbia Public Schools
573-214-3480
lfullum@columbia.k12.mo.us
Contact
Donna Mehrle, MPH, RD, LD
MU Food Systems Network Co-coordinator
mehrled@missouri.edu
Or
Mary Hendrickson, PhD
MU Food Systems Network Co-coordinator
hendricksonm@missouri.edu