Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘nutrition

Science Policy Around the Web – July 18th, 2019

leave a comment »

By Silvia Preite

New therapeutic nutrition strategy corrects malnutrition by fostering a healthy gut

Malnutrition represents a major global health problem world-wide, causing nearly half of all deaths among children under 5 years of age. According to an estimate by UNICEF/WHO/World Bank, the number of children under 5, in March 2019, with wasting was more than 49 million. Moreover, impaired nutrition in the first 3 years of a child`s life can lead to failure to thrive, neurodevelopmental delay, and other long term health complications.

Commensal microbiota colonizing the gut is composed of a high number of bacteria, fungi and viruses, influences many normal body functions and is implicated in several health conditions, including obesity, autoimmunity and responses to cancer therapies. Two recent articles published in the journal Science report that specific food combinations promote the development of a mature gut microbiota that fights malnutrition and supports growth. As healthy children age from infants to toddlers, their gut microbiota composition progressively matures as well. In contrast, analysis of fecal samples from children in Bangladesh revealed that commensal bacteria remain immature in profoundly malnourished subjects. Animals reconstituted with immature microbiota showed impaired metabolism, less muscle formation, and weaker bones highlighting the importance of mature bacteria in the growth and development of children. 

Additionally, the authors found that a specific combination of food promotes healthy commensal bacterial that boosts body growth. Specifically, Microbiota-Directed Complementary Food (MDCF), containing chickpea, peanut and soy flour and raw banana, fostered microbiota maturation in mice and piglets transplanted with immature microbiota to a greater extent than a standard milk powder and rice-based Ready-to Use Supplementary Food (RUSF). The improved efficacy of MDCF compared to RUSF was further supported by a 1 month clinical trial conducted in 63 undernourished Bangladeshi children (12-18 months of age). Specifically, MDCF was more effective in promoting the engraftment of mature bacteria, resembling the ones in healthy children, and improved blood biomarkers associated with healthy development and immune function.

            Although the long-term consequences of these nutritional regimens remain to be assessed, these studies open opportunities for the use of new food supplements to help children recovering from malnutrition. Moreover, these discoveries can be used to improve the nutrition of well-fed children to support the development of healthy microbiota.

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 18, 2019 at 9:59 am

Posted in Linkposts

Tagged with , , ,

Science Policy Around the Web – October 5, 2018

leave a comment »

By: Cindo O. Nicholson, Ph.D.


source: pixabay

Food & Nutrition

More evidence that nutrition studies don’t always add up

Nutrition studies are important to public health because incidences of cardiovascular and other physiological diseases can be minimized by educating the public on what foods to eat in their correct proportions. For example, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey state that in 2015-2016 the prevalence of obesity in adults and children were 39.8% and 18.5% respectively. Among the causes of obesity is an improper diet that includes mostly high calorie foods that are low in nutrients. These examples highlight why nutrition studies are needed and important for improving public health.

Despite their importance, nutrition studies have been plagued by inconsistencies. Most recently, a prominent a food scientist from Cornell University (Dr. Brian Wansink) has resigned due to investigations that have found him guilty of “academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data.” The verdict of Dr. Brian Wansink may create a substantial ripple-effect because of his prominence in the food sciences field. Dr. Wansink’s prominence in the food and nutrition sciences filed lead to his 14-month appointment as executive director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in 2007. Dr. Wansink’s research also lead to $20 million being spent by the government to re-designing school cafeterias.

So far, thirteen of Dr. Wansink’s papers have been retracted due to questions about their scientific validity. Dr. Wansink’s lab has been accused of practicing exhaustive statistical analyses like “data-dredging” or “p-hacking” in order to detect any interesting relationships in their studies that would create a “big splash” in the public. Unfortunately, data-dredging in the food and nutrition sciences is fairly widespread. What is happening with Dr. Wansink and the field of food and nutrition sciences should be a wake-up call to all fields of health sciences research due to their findings being used as rationale for implementing public policies. Striving for consistency in research is necessary for the public to have faith in scientific evaluations being used in public policy.

(Anahad O’Connor, The New York Times)


Human Fetal Tissue Research

Trump administration launches sweeping review of fetal-tissue research

The U.S. government has cancelled a contract with the non-profit, tissue supplier Advanced Biosciences Resources (ABR, Alameda CA) where ABR would provide the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with human fetal-tissue samples. The human fetal-tissue samples were going to be implanted into mice to create humanized mice. These humanized mice could then be used in experimental tests to approximate how humans would respond to drug treatments. In a letter to the FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, 85 members of the U.S. House of Representatives claimed that ABR might have violated federal law by profiting from the sale of the “body parts of children”. This letter prompted the Department of Human Health Services (HHS) to cancel the contract with ABR. Furthermore, the HHS is auditing “all acquisitions of human fetal-tissues” to ensure that all tissue providers are adhering to federal regulations.

Though researchers support the regulations that are in place for the use of fetal-tissues, some wonder if this federal audit is a result of politicizing research done with human fetal-tissues. Strongly emotive language was by members of the House of Representatives describing the sale of “body parts of children”. In addition, the language used inaccurately portrays the human fetal-tissues used in research. As one researcher pointed out, the fetal-tissues used in research are non-viable and otherwise would have been discarded. This engenders the question would you rather discard these tissues or use them to benefit human health? The use of human fetal tissues are indispensable for studying organ development, tissue regeneration, and human development on the whole. The regulation of human fetal-tissue use in research should be fair, sensible, and non-politically motivated.

(Sara Reardon, Nature)

Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 5, 2018 at 9:08 pm

New nutritional guidelines for 2015-2020 released after compromises with Congress, food industry

leave a comment »

By: Kimberly Leblanc, Ph.D.

Earlier this month, the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion released the new nutritional guidelines, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, for 2015-2020. Many of the guidelines are familiar from previous versions, recommending a wide range of fruits and vegetables, at least 50% of grains being whole, fat-free or low-fat dairy, a variety of lean proteins, and limiting saturated fats, trans-fats, and sodium. One of the new recommendations was a stricter limit on sugar intake, with no more than 10% of daily calories coming from added sugar. The World Health Organization (WHO) has made similar recommendations, citing evidence that lowering added sugar could reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer. In an article for Politico, Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said that the recommended limit is “a major step forward.” The biggest surprise in the guidelines was the recommendation that men and boys “reduce their overall intake of protein foods” such as meat, poultry and eggs, and add more vegetables to their diets.

The nutritional advice is updated every five years, and it has become mired in political controversy because of its impact on how the food industry does business and how Americans eat. Recommendations from the report guide decisions on the aims of food assistance programs, the content of school meals, the labeling and advertising of food products, and the advice given by health professionals. With billions of dollars at stake, food industry groups bristle at any potentially negative mention of their products. The interest groups unhappiest with the guidelines are likely to be sugar growers and food manufacturers, as a result of the government’s new recommended limit on added sugars. However, before the recommendations could make it to the new guidelines, they were met with strong opposition from a number of corporate and agricultural interest groups, the meat industry in particular.

One of the many recommendations made by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in their report that did not make it into the final version of the guidelines was for Americans to adopt a diet low in red and processed meat, which met with strong opposition from meat industry groups. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and the North American Meat Institute spent hundreds of thousands of dollars last year lobbying, with a part of their goal being “to get lean beef recognized in the final health dietary patterns statement.” “Those things should be part of, and remain part of a balanced diet, and there’s no reason to cut back,” said Dave Warner, spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council. That comment stands in stark contrast to the findings of the WHO last October, which classified the consumption of red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and the consumption of processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans” based on “sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.” The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee was more conservative in their report, stating, “moderate evidence reports inconsistent positive associations between colorectal cancer and the intake of certain animal protein products, mainly red and processed meat. Limited evidence shows that animal protein products are associated with prostate cancer incidence.”

Another recommendation that didn’t make the cut was the advice for Americans to consume more plant-based foods and less meat to help promote environmentally sustainable eating habits. That suggestion elicited intense lobbying and criticism from the food and meat industries, leading to a congressional hearing on the topic last year. In December of 2015, Congress passed a spending bill that contained a directive for the Obama administration to ignore environmental factors and focus solely on nutrients in the next revision of the guidelines. However, food production, and livestock in particular, has a significant negative impact on the environment. Livestock producers, which include meat and dairy farming, account for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. That’s more than all the world’s cars, buses, boats, and trains combined. If you think regulating this would fall under the Environmental Protection Agency’s jurisidiction, think again. In December of 2015, Congress renewed a provision that prevents the EPA from requiring emission reports from livestock producers, making the meat industry the only major source of greenhouse gases in the country excluded from filing annual reports. Despite the evidence and the recommendations from the committee, the pressure from industry and farm state lawmakers has led USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell to promise furious lawmakers that they would steer clear of recommendations concerning the environmental impact of the consumption of meat.

Nutritional issues were also a bargaining chip in the spending bill that was passed in December. In recent years, reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs have allowed the USDA to improve critical nutritional standards. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics earlier this month concluded that the nutritional quality of school meals has increased by about 30 percent, and an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documents improvements, too. Yet the School Nutrition Association (SNA), which represents cafeteria directors and receives financial support from food companies, has lobbied Congress to relax some standards, complaining that the sodium standards would be “extremely difficult to achieve” and that stricter nutritional standards have led to cafeterias losing money. Their demands were met in the congressional directives that were attached to the bill, which prohibits the federal government from requiring less salt in school lunches until more research is done and allows schools to obtain exemptions from whole-grain requirements. This despite the fact that the CDC found in 2014 that 90% of school-aged kids eat too much sodium, and that the USDA reports that 97% of all schools are already meeting the 100% whole grain rich rules. As of January 20th, 2016, the Senate Agriculture Committee has voted in support of a compromise plan in the re-authorization of the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act, which incorporates the SNA’s demands to table the sodium recommendations and allow exemptions to the whole-grain requirement. The SNA had also asked to relax the fruit and vegetable requirement, but lawmakers didn’t budge on this key tenet of the standards.

Nutritional research is constantly evolving, and our guidelines should evolve with new evidence as it comes out.  Debates over the scientific evidence for certain guidelines, such as the link between saturated fat and heart disease, are reasonable. That’s the point of having a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee made up of scientists and medical professionals review the evidence before submitting their recommendations. As a prime example, the committee reversed the recommended cholesterol limit of 300mg/day in the new guidelines “because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol.” However, scientific evidence isn’t the only factor influencing our guidelines. Agricultural and corporate interest groups, due to their size and financial incentives, have the power to shape the nutritional guidelines based on economic interests rather than scientific evidence. This power, and the desire of certain politicians to cater to these groups, is troubling, especially in a time when childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years and when type 2 diabetes accounts for 20% to 50% of new-onset diabetes case patients in youth.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 1, 2016 at 9:00 am

Posted in Essays

Tagged with , ,

Science Policy Around the Web – October 16, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Sylvina Raver, Ph.D.

Photo source:

Nutrition Policy

How agriculture controls nutrition guidelines

Every five years, the nutritional recommendations that help Americans make healthy dietary choices are revised to reflect the current state of nutritional and health science. Although only 4% of Americans adhere to these Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), DGAs have a huge impact. For example, physicians routinely use them to advise patients on how to stay healthy. DGAs also affect billions of dollars in government spending as they inform meal content for military personnel, those helped through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and US children who are served public school lunches.

The process of updating DGAs involves compiling the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a panel of scientific experts who distill thousands of scientific studies into an advisory report, with comments from the public and input from federal agencies. For the first time, the 2015 DGAC report recommended that sustainability of food sources be considered in the final 2015 DGAs. Sustainable diets are defined by the United Nations as those with “low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and healthy life for present and future generations,” and the recommendation to consider sustainability is within the statutory bounds of the DGAC as defined in 1990. Proponents of the sustainability language emphasize the importance of considering the environmental impact of food production, and argue that nutrition is influenced by agricultural practices; for example, wild-caught fish or grass-fed beef is generally more nutritious than farm-raised fish or corn-fed beef. Opponents argue that sustainability is beyond the scope of the DGAC and accuses the committee of writing the recommendations from a political perspective rather than a scientific one.

Unsurprisingly, considering the extent of government funding that is influenced by the DGAs, the 2015 DGA revision process has come under constant attack by the agricultural industry. On Wednesday October 7, during a meeting of the House Committee on Agriculture, chaired by Representative Mike Conaway of Texas, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack conceded that the 2015 DGAs were not “…the appropriate vehicle for this important policy conversation about sustainability” as a “matter of scope,” and that sustainability would not be a factor in the 2015 DGAs. The sustainability debate will likely resume in 2020 when the DGAs are next revised.  (James Hamblin, The Atlantic; Kathleen Merrigan et al., Science; Sandra Hassink & Steven Stack, The Hill)

Scientific Funding

Neuroscientist team calls for a National Brain Observatory

A team of six influential neuroscientists has proposed the creation of a national network of neurotechnology centers that they’re calling the National Brain Observatory. The same group of scientists, dubbed “the Kavli six” due to their affiliation with The Kavli Foundation, is credited with drafting a proposal to map the activity of the living brain that would become President Obama’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative announced in Spring 2013. The first round of BRAIN funding was awarded mostly to individual labs or multi-lab research teams. In an opinion article published October 15 in the journal Neuron, the Kavli six call for the next step in the BRAIN initiative: a coordinated effort to synergize the discoveries made by the multiple individual laboratories funded by BRAIN. The scientists believe that the technological challenges facing neuroscience necessitate large investments in advanced technologies that are beyond the scope of any individual lab or research institution, similar to the national telescopes and particle accelerators used in the fields of astronomy and physics.

The goal of the National Brain Observatory proposal would be to expand shared access to four types of expensive technologies required to map the brain’s structure and activity: 1) large scale electron microscopes, capable of magnifying objects by more than 10 million times; 2) fabrication facilities to develop nanosized electrode systems capable of recording the activity of large networks of neurons with minimal damage to brain tissue; 3) new optical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) facilities to monitor the dynamics of neural circuits in real time; and 4) advanced electronic storage and computational data mining to collect and analyze vast amounts of data.

The Kavli six suggests that such technologies could arise from existing Department of Energy (DOE) National Labs around the country, such as Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, or they could be housed in newly created facilities. The group argues that the experimental challenges being undertaken by the BRAIN Initiative, and by the neuroscience field at large, can only be surmounted through “highly coordinated, multi-investigator, cross-disciplinary efforts” such that a National Brain Observatory would permit. (Emily Underwood, ScienceInsider)

Genetic Testing

The crowdsourcing site that wants to pool our genomes

Two geneticists have launched a new crowdsourcing science project to collect the genetic data generated by direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies like and The project, called DNA.LAND, is a non-profit website created by Drs. Yaniv Erlich and Joe Pickrell and is affiliated with the New York Genome Center of Columbia University. DNA.LAND urges potential users to “Know your genome; Help science,” and the platform is designed to give participants ancestry and relationship data, as well as help to fill in missing sequences of DNA overlooked by DTC companies through a method called imputation. Although some of these functions are already provided by DTC companies, these companies compare users’ genetic information within individual company databases, and customers may miss out on connecting with relatives who have had their genetic information sequenced elsewhere. DNA.LAND compiles genetic information from multiple DTC companies, thus creating a dataset that is beyond the scope of anything amassed to date. To the extent to which users consent, scientists can then use this vast pool of genetic data to tackle research questions that require very large sample sizes. The project’s founders also envision linking DNA.LAND data with that from other sources, such as from activity tracking devices like Fitbits, or from social media activity that might indicate someone’s sleep patterns or mood fluctuations.

Privacy concerns are obvious. The site’s consent form contains minimal medical and legal jargon to describe guidelines that the founders say should lessen many of the privacy risks, such as not sharing personal identification information or genetic data with third parties without the user’s explicit permission. Still, the form contains the important caveat that the chance of a confidentiality breech is not zero and sharing data of this type carries inherent risks. Indeed, in 2013, Dr. Erlich and colleagues authored a study that revealed that men who have had their full genomes sequenced could be re-identified based on short DNA sequences found on their sex chromosomes.  To help ease users’ privacy concerns, both of DNA.LAND’s Principal Investigators adopt a “skin in the game” philosophy by making their own personal genomes publicly available. They are not alone; by October 15, less than a week after the site went live, nearly 6,000 genomes have already been uploaded. (Ed Yong, The Atlantic; Erika Check Hayden, Nature; Andrea Anderson, GenomeWeb)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 16, 2015 at 9:00 am

You Are What You Eat – The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

with 2 comments

By: Amanda Whiting, Ph.D.

photo credit: MyPlate Logo via photopin (license)

Many Americans, at one point or another, have probably heard about the “food pyramid” and know that it has something to do with what the government says makes up a healthy diet. But have you ever wondered where those federal food and nutrition guidelines actually come from, or what information they’re based on, or just who gets to decide what is “healthy” for everyone?

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy & Promotion (CNPP) is responsible for the general nutritional guidelines for Americans. The most recent nutritional icon, called “MyPlate,” was released on June 2, 2011 by First Lady Michelle Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and replaced the previous “MyPyramid” model. The visual guide features a colourful plate divided into approximate portions for fruits, vegetables, grains, protein and dairy. The dinner table imagery is meant to help children, parents, and other adults prioritize their food choices at meal times to include all of the groups listed, as well as consume them in proportions relative to each other (e.g. half a plate of fruits and veggies) as a model diet to promote good health.

The nutritional recommendations behind the simpler MyPlate came from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), a policy document jointly produced by the USDA’s CNPP and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Since the publication of the first edition in 1980, the Guidelines have been updated every five years to reflect the most current knowledge on health and nutrition. A Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), made up of 13 to 17 nationally recognized experts in the field of health and nutrition, meets in the year prior to each update to discuss what should be included, removed, or revised in the guidelines by conducting a thorough review of scientific and medical literature, as well as soliciting comments from the public. A scientific report is written and delivered to Secretaries of the USDA and HHS containing the DGAC’s recommendations for the next edition. The next revision to the guidelines is currently in process, with the final report due to the USDA and HHS by early 2015.

As with any guide that tries to cater to a population as large and diverse as the American public, MyPlate and the Dietary Guidelines are not without disagreements and multiple opinions. Everyone likes to think that how they eat is “healthy” – be it vegetarian, fruitarian, vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, carnivore, paleo, primal, veggie-free, or what-have-you. In addition, MyPlate has been criticized for removing a reference to physical activity, another important contributor to good health, which was present on the MyPyramid icon as a person climbing stairs.

While some people might be of the opinion that what the federal government says is “good food” and “healthy” isn’t all that important (because they’re going to eat however they want anyway), the Dietary Guidelines for Americans does play an important role in public health. In addition to consisting of guidelines for the general public’s own consumption, the DGA is a policy document that is used to set policy related to nutrition within the government. In the USDA, the dietary guidelines are used to set standards for school lunch and other feeding programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women Infants and Children (WIC) program. Within HHS, the DGA is used by parts of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to produce consumer information materials supporting healthy lifestyles for various diseases (such as hypertension), while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses parts of the DGA as the basis for the Nutrition Facts information guides found on all packaged food. Thus, it is important that the final DGA and the recommendations made by the DGAC are firmly based on rational, scientific facts and arguments and are not unduly influenced by groups with their own interests at heart.

This influential effect on other governmental policies is what makes the content of the DGA itself very political. It seems that every step forward in terms of recommendations based solely on scientific evidence for advancing optimal human health, is met head on by opposition from groups with powerful incentives to make money and/or preserve a status quo. As one example, it is likely that the 2015 DGA will include a recommendation that sugar be limited to no more than 10% of a person’s daily calories. All previous editions of the DGA have not included a recommendation for an upper limit on daily sugar consumption, which is why there is no number for % daily value (%DV) for sugar on any food product nutrition label. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently in the process of updating their guidelines on sugar consumption. This guidance, expected to be published in early 2015, suggests that a reduction in sugar consumption from less than 10% of total energy intake per day (the current 2002 guideline) to below 5% would have additional health benefits on body mass and tooth decay. For an average adult, the 5% mark would be equivalent to approximately 25 g of sugar per day or less. The American public currently consumes an average of 126 g of sugar per day, with much of that coming from added sugars in processed foods, and specifically, from sweetened beverages. Success in this one single area – reducing American’s consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages – could have a significant impact on the overall health and body mass of Americans. Not surprising, the beverage industry has issued some pushback for the inclusion of any specific limits on added dietary sugar (among other concerns) in the newest DGA. The American Beverage Association has submitted public comments for the DGA, suggesting that the WHO-commissioned review lacked scientific evidence and that the setting of Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) is not the responsibility of the DGAC and therefore should be done by other organizations. Similar arguments have been made by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Juice Products Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the Sugar Association among others.

Other groups have tried to take the politics out of what we should eat and focus just on what the science of nutrition says. “Unfortunately, like the earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture pyramids, MyPlate mixes science with the influence of powerful agricultural interests, which is not the recipe for healthy eating,” said Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition and chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)1. HSPH released its own version of MyPlate known as the “Healthy Eating Plate”. This plate featured even more vegetables compared to fruit, an even split between grains and healthy protein, an emphasis on drinking water over dairy, and indicated that healthy oils should also be consumed. It also included a direction to “Stay Active” as a part of a healthy lifestyle. The goal of the Healthy Eating Plate is to give more specific information for a healthy diet in a way that is as clear and intuitive to follow as the MyPlate icon, without influence from the food industry or agricultural policies.

What one eats (and what one does) on a daily basis has a profound impact on one’s overall health and quality of life. “One of the most important fields of medical science over the past 50 years is the research that shows just how powerfully our health is affected by what we eat. Knowing what foods to eat and in what proportions is crucial for health,” said Anthony Komaroff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and editor in chief of Harvard Health Publications1. It will be interesting to see what the recommendations for the 2015 update to the Dietary Guidelines are and what recommendations actually make it into the final document. At the end of the day, what you choose to eat is up to you. However, everyone is entitled to accurate information about the health consequences of their personal food choices. Regardless of how you eat or what diet you follow, we are all human and the basic principles for good health and longevity remain the same for everyone. Like it or not, you are what you eat.


Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 18, 2015 at 9:00 am

Posted in Essays

Tagged with , ,

Science Policy Around the Web – June 27, 2014

leave a comment »

By: Tara Burke

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

Oral Vaccine for Cholera Found Effective in Africa – A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine last month found that two doses of a new oral vaccine, Shanchol, provided 86 percent protection against cholera. Cholera causes diarrhea and dehydration so severe that it can kill. Shanchol is cheaper, packaged in a smaller container and is also easier to administer than the older vaccine, Dukoral. Shanchol, which costs less than $2, was developed with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Donald G. McNeil Jr.)

Researcher Charged in Major HIV Vaccine Fraud Case – Former Iowa State University laboratory manager Dong-Pyou Han had federal charges filed against him after he admitted to falsifying data. This falsification led to million of dollars in AIDS funding with hopes of a breakthrough in AIDS vaccine research. Han faked data that appeared to show promise for an experimental HIV vaccine by spiking samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies. The irregularities of Han’s research were discovered by another laboratory. He could face up to 5 years in prison for making these false statements. Iowa State has agreed to pay back the NIH nearly $500, 000, making up for the cost of Han’s salary. This case is the result of fierce competition to win scarce NIH funding and is a bellwether for desperately needed changes within the peer review funding process that, if not changed, will most likely lead to more and more desperate acts similar or worse than Han’s. (Ryan J. Foley)

U.S., U.K. debate nutrition advice – In an effort to get U.S. and U.K. citizens to eat healthier foods, government-led proposals in both countries are stirring up a lot of debate. In the U.S., The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed changes to the Nutrition Facts label on food products. These labels have not been overhauled since 1993 and since then, there have been substantial changes in our understanding of nutrition. While most people agree that changes need to be made, there is little consensus on specifically which changes should be made. However, one of the main topics of discussion is how to inform consumers about added sugars which many nutritional advocates agree is extremely detrimental to the U.S. diet.  In the U.K., a 366-page report was released recommending that the population consume “free sugar” (added sugars and naturally present sugars such as honey, syrups and unsweetened fruit juices) that’s no more than 5% of their diet. (Jennifer Couzin-Frankel)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – January 26, 2014

leave a comment »

By: Jennifer Seedorff

photo credit: Cat Sidh via photopin cc

photo credit: Cat Sidh via photopin cc

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

Gore Joins UN Backing EU’s 2030 Climate Plan – The European Commission has released its 2030 energy and climate change proposals, including a binding reduction in carbon emissions to 40% below 1990 levels and a non-binding increase to 27% in the share of energy generated from renewable sources.  Environmental groups have strongly criticized the proposal as being too weak to meaningfully impact global warming, and are particularly disappointed by the switch to non-binding renewable energy targets. However, former Vice President Al Gore and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have a more optimistic view of the proposal. Gore said that the Commission “actually moved aggressively forward adopting a binding target for a 40% reduction in carbon”, while Ban said that the Commission’s proposal “has started the ball rolling” for future rounds of climate negotiations.   (Alex Morales)

FDA to Revise Nutrition Facts Labels – Food labels have not dramatically changed over the last twenty years, but knowledge about nutrition and dietary recommendations have changed. The FDA has been working on revised guidelines for food labels for the last decade and has sent its proposed guidelines to the White House, although a release date has not yet been announced. Some of the possible changes to food labels include: modifying the labels to highlight the amount of added sugars; adding the percentage of whole wheat in a food; using units of measurements, which are familiar to US consumers; changing serving sizes to reflect the amount of food typically consumed by a consumer in a single-sitting or including both per serving and per container nutritional content; removing the amount of calories from fat; and moving some nutritional information to the front of packages to make it easier for consumers to find.  (The Associated Press, Mary Clare Jalonick)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 26, 2014 at 10:20 am

Posted in Linkposts

Tagged with , ,