McGill symposium investigates what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in food
Once upon a time, we used to sit down to dinner and all that mattered was what the food tasted like. If it pleased the palate, we ate it. Oh, how times have changed! Now the dinner table has become a virtual laboratory where foods are evaluated in terms of being either “good” or “bad.” It makes sense. After all, food is the only raw material that ever enters our body, so we are what we eat. And the myriad chemical reactions that go on in our body all the time — which, taken together, constitute “life” and determine health — all depend to some extent on the nutrients supplied by our diet.
Food, of course, is not the only determinant of health. Genetics, as well as exposure to microbes and various environmental chemicals, also play a role. But food intake is something we have control over, so it comes as no surprise that for many people eating has become sort of a clinical trial. The idea is “eat right, and be all right.” The problem is that it isn’t all that easy to determine what “eating right” really means. There is certainly no shortage of information or opinion on the subject. But there’s plenty of confusion as well. Just how many eggs a week is “all right”? How much of a concern is mercury in fish? Is there any merit to a “raw food” diet? Is vegetarianism the way to go? Who is right in the debate over genetically modified food? Should we be going organic? Are artificial sweeteners a health hazard? What about antioxidant supplements? Is there an issue with non-stick cookware? Is taxing junk food a step in the right direction to improving the North American diet? To what extent is nutritional research influenced by funding from industry? Well, it all depends on whom you ask.
Science, like other areas of life, has its stars and superstars. They’re the people who perform the high-quality research upon which we rely for guidance. But that research is published in scientific literature, which is generally not available to the public, and in any case it tends to be highly technical. It has to be interpreted by science writers in order to be useful. And the world of science reporting also has its stars and superstars.
All of this leads up to an invitation to attend this year’s Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium, one of McGill University’s premier annual events, organized by the Office for Science and Society, of which I am the director. This time, the focus is on Food: A Serving of Science, with four superstars, two from the world of nutritional research and two from the world of science communication.
Dr. Walter Willett is chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and has published more than 1,400 scientific articles on the relationship between diet and disease. He has written extensively about the negative impact of red meat, sugar, fruit juices, potatoes and refined carbohydrates on health, and takes issue with the food industry’s oft-repeated mantra that there are no “good” or “bad” foods, just “good” or “bad” diets and that any food can be eaten as long as it is within moderation. Willett believes we should be using the words “good food” and “bad food” liberally and is well-equipped to back up his views with the results of scientific studies he has carried out.
When it comes to antioxidants, one of the hottest topics in nutritional research, all roads lead to the lab of Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University in Boston. It is impossible to delve into the subject of antioxidants without encountering numerous references to Blumberg’s work, be it about the benefits of drinking tea or the wisdom of taking vitamin supplements. When it comes to questions about how naturally occurring antioxidants such as carotenoids, polyphenols and flavonoids can affect health, the media look to Blumberg for answers.
Time magazine has called New York Times personal-health columnist Jane Brody the “high priestess of health.” Since 1976, readers have looked to Brody’s highly popular syndicated column and bestselling books for insight into the complex world of health research. Whether she’s dealing with New York’s legislation to tax sugary soft drinks, the problem of too high an iron intake or the overmedication of the elderly, she proves herself to be not only a master of information but a great storyteller.
If there is one book that anyone interested in food (and who isn’t?) should read, it is Harold McGee’s On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen. This amazing blend of history, chemistry, culinary techniques and nutritional advice is guaranteed to please every palate. McGee also writes the Curi- ous Cook column for the New York Times and is your man if you want to know why cilantro is either loved or reviled, how much water you need for your pasta or why some researchers believe olive oil can have an antiinflammatory effect.
Mash and blend the knowledge, wit and communication talents of these four speakers and you are sure to cook up a tasty dish for the inquisitive mind. The action takes place Monday and Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. at the Centre Mont-Royal, 1000 Sherbrooke St. W. Willett and Blumberg will speak on Monday, and McGee and Brody will inform and entertain on Tuesday. Admission is free.
Mark Twain once said “part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like and let the food fight it out inside.” He was wrong. Adelle Davis, America’s most popular and influential nutritionist in the 1960s and 1970s, had a different view: “We are indeed much more than what we eat, but what we eat can nevertheless help us to be much more than what we are.” She was right.
On Monday and Tuesday we will be treated to expert speakers’ views on the current nutritional “rights” and “wrongs” as we partake of a scrumptious buffet of information. Bring your appetite for science. You won’t walk away hungry.