Tomorrow is Sacramento's 67th annual Armenian Food Festival. There's free admission before 5:00 p.m. You can purchase food from the vendors. It's one day only, Saturday, October 5, 2013 from 11:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. After 5 p.m. there's a $3 charge, but the luncheon hours admission is free. In the evening there's music, dancing, and all day the boutique, great food and a grand raffle.
Enjoy Authentic Armenian Food crafted by the dedicated folks at St. James Armenian Church, A Lovely Gift Boutique, Armenian Music and Dancing and a Grand Raffle. Food served from 11:30 a.m.-8:00 p.m. and music is from 5:00-10:00 p.m. Greek Hellenic Hall, 614 Alhambra Blvd., across from McKinley Park. Admission is free before 5 p.m., then $3. What a great way to spend your Saturday, dining on delicious and reasonably priced food and enjoying the ambience of it all.
The location is at the Greek Hall, 614 Alhambra Blvd, across the street from McKinley Park, Sacramento. Check out the websites, "St. James 67th Annual Armenian Food Festival," and "Food Festivals Sacramento - Sacramento Entertainment & Events." And take a look at the 2011 Armenian food festival in Sacramento on video at the YouTube site, "Armenian Food Festival 2011 Sacramento."
On another note, what are the hottest topics in nutrition?
It's how to correct food misinformation, which can cause various types of controversies as one report says a food is healthy and another says it's something else. This month you'll see a lot of harvest festivals as the growing season of vegetables and fruits changes from summer to winter pickings. So what happens when a new study on a particular food comes out? Do you verify and validate the studies?
What does the average person do when a new study comes out saying that a food has specific health benefits, but then soon after, another study is released noting that the same food has negative health consequences? This type of debate has opened the field of nutrition to debate. What health issues surround studies of soy products, homogenized milk, and margarine?
Food Misinformation and Lack of Disclosure are the Hottest Nutrition Controversy Debates
How does the average consumer with no science training make informed decisions about what foods are healthy for each person or for all individuals? Would the average consumer benefit by a costly test to determine whether one’s genetic signature is helped or harmed by ingestion of a specific food or medicine? Are those tests accurate? Such topics are ripe for debate.
The hottest controversies in nutrition today are lack of disclosure and food misinformation appearing in various popular media—newspapers, general consumer magazines, and the tabloid press. However, three equally important controversies in nutrition actually are science versus nature, childhood obesity, and the ever-increasing type 2 diabetes epidemic in children and adults. Consumers want to know whether what’s on the label is the same as what’s in the food or nutritional supplement.
According to the International Food Information Council (IFIC) nutrition/food safety staff, while there are nutrition controversies almost too numerous to mention, a couple stand out – food ‘myths’ (or misinformation) concerning the safety/health benefits of consuming fish and seafood, especially canned tuna; and continuing misinformation about the safety of low-calorie sweeteners, such as Aspartame. For further information, check out the IFIC’s website.
What are the current most critical debates about nutrition issues and controversies?
The three most critical debates are about hunger versus safer food, childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes risks, and food misinformation, which includes the question of whether what's printed on the label is or is not what's in the container. Let’s look at the debates, theories, and ever-evolving scientific research on health and nutrition at all ages.
According to Dean O. Cliver, PhD, Professor of Food Safety, University of California-Davis, “Insistence on a zero-risk food supply will raise the cost of food disproportionately and cost more lives than it could ever save. Further, ultimate improvements in nutrition still will not yield immortality. We need to deal with hunger, in America and the world, first. Over any reasonable period, not eating is more dangerous than eating.”
According to the opinion of Manfred Kroger, PhD, Professor of Food Science Emeritus, The Pennsylvania State University, “the most important issue in nutrition today is the lack of nutrition knowledge by consumers. This in turn has triggered the epidemic of obesity in our society. It seems that some want to lay the blame for that self-created problem at the doorsteps of the food service industry, food manufacturers, and even agriculture. It is simply self-control and understanding nutritional principles that will help deal with over-eating.”
If lack of nutrition knowledge by consumers could be the most important issue, then food misinformation also could be the next most important current controversy in the field of nutrition. Childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes are big nutrition issues in the news. What’s a big nutrition controversy? It’s the debate about whether technology works for or against nature. The average consumer is told most often in the media that science (or technology) versus nature. Then there’s the debate between nutrition and advertising.
Nutrition and advertising have an inverse relationship
Processed food, such as sugary cold cereals that register high on the glycemic index, and heat-popped snacks are advertised, but not unprocessed raw foods, except on a few satellite stations that cost money for subscription.
Advertising in the mainstream media features drug benefits and side effects rather than food and vitamin or mineral-based health benefits of vegetables and fruits or wild fish from less contaminated waters containing the health benefits Omega 3 fatty acids. Are consumers being informed of what else is important in addition to knowing the glycemic index of foods and an individual’s metabolic body type or response of the genes to food and how to tailor food to the genes and/or metabolic body type?
The problem is, when fresh wild fish costs $16 per pound, people are going to buy canned wild fish for $2 or $3 not knowing whether the fish in the can contains more or less of toxins such as PCBs and mercury than the fresh wild fish on display in the upscale food store. Consumers want to know whether paying less money in a chain-store supermarket or paying more money in an upscale food store will result in products that affect human health differently?
Up for debate, for example, is the controversy over where you buy your wild fish versus farmed fish and how much you pay
Are you paying more money for food with fewer toxins? Is eating wild fish better for your health than eating farmed fish? Why or why not? These are current nutrition controversies up for debate.
Most people like to look at a nutrition time line to see at a glance what nutrition controversies entailed in the past, present, and what will be the next controversy or issue hot for debate by scientists, the media, and the public. You’ll find books touting the Paleolithic Diet and other books cheering the vegetable, fruit, nut, and grain-based Neolithic Diet.
Some medical articles mention numerous warning of the dangers of homogenized milk available after 1920
And you’ll find articles comparing whole fruit to sugary fruit juices. How do you make informed decisions about all the issues and controversies in the field of nutrition today?
Whether you are a parent, teacher, librarian, newspaper reporter, or student at any level looking for hot debates on nutrition issues about which to write, you begin with the basic controversy in nutrition. It’s the competition between science and nature.
One issue is whether nature is better than science and technology
Is technology an overwhelming improvement to health and nature in general? Are chemical solutions to moral problems also an issue? Can science be separated from technology when it comes to food production and distribution? Should it be? Why or why not?
Underneath the umbrella of science is technology. Scientific research needs to be funded by big business and/or the government in order for scientific research to be done on a scale that earns it credibility in the medical journals that have the respect of other scientists and the credible media. Technology is the method by which science applies findings to production of food products for the public.
What are the 10 commandments of nutrition information?
1. Compassion with goals toward healthier trends in nutrition.
2. Safety testing for foods, environments, and supplements.
3. Freedom to substitute healthier ingredients for familiar traditional foods with transfats.
4. Education, science & scholarship as a basis for food choices when using food as medicine.
5. Tailoring foods or medicines to one's genetic/cellular, metabolic, and chemical responses.
6. Affordable organic foods availability and free inquiry regarding choice.
7. Healthy competition in the food supply and demand environment.
8. Property rights to grow your own organic food in public, urban, or private gardens.
9. Democracy and capitalism in the pursuit of healthy eating selections & environments.
10. Education rights regarding nutrition debates, and freedom of speech for all consumers.
What types of visual images cause food-related sensory boredom?
Looking at too many photos or paintings of food can make you tired of that taste without even eating the food. It's called sensory boredom. How Instagram can ruin your dinner, a new study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology says, is by looking at too many food photos because that can make eating less enjoyable. An October 3, 2013 news release from Brigham Young University, "How Instagram can ruin your dinner," warns Instagrammers: you might want to stop taking so many pictures of your food. New research out of BYU finds that looking at too many pictures of food can actually make it less enjoyable to eat.
The study's results may be disturbing if you're a food stylist photographer whose day is spent arranging and photographing food or synthetic food sculptures. It turns out your friend’s obsession with taking pictures of everything they eat and posting it on Instagram or Pinterest may be ruining your appetite by making you feel like you've already experienced eating that food. “In a way, you’re becoming tired of that taste without even eating the food,” said study coauthor and BYU professor Ryan Elder in the news release. “It’s sensory boredom – you’ve kind of moved on. You don’t want that taste experience anymore.”
So if you’re on Instagram all day looking at all of the salads your friends post, you’re probably not going to enjoy your next salad quite as much.
Elder and coauthor Jeff Larson, both marketing professors in BYU’s Marriott School of Management, said what happens is the over-exposure to food imagery increases people’s satiation. Satiation is defined as the drop in enjoyment with repeated consumption. Or, in other words, the fifth bite of cake or the fourth hour of playing a video game are both less enjoyable than the first.
To reveal this food-photo phenomenon, Larson and Elder recruited 232 people to look at and rate pictures of food
In one of their studies, half of the participants viewed 60 pictures of sweet foods like cake, truffles and chocolates, while the other half looked at 60 pictures of salt foods such as chips, pretzels and French fries. After rating each picture based on how appetizing that food appeared, each participant finished the experiment by eating peanuts, a salty food. Participants then rated how much they enjoyed eating the peanuts.
In the end, the people who had looked at the salty foods ended up enjoying the peanuts less, even though they never looked at peanuts, just at other salty foods. The researchers say the subjects satiated on the specific sensory experience of saltiness. Larson and Elder, along with University of Minnesota coauthor Joseph Redden, published their findings in the Journal of Consumer Psychology.
“If you want to enjoy your food consumption experience, avoid looking at too many pictures of food,” Larson explained in the news release. “Even I felt a little sick to my stomach during the study after looking at all the sweet pictures we had.” Then again, Larson said, if you have a weakness for a certain unhealthy food, say, chocolate, and want to prevent yourself from enjoying it, you may want to look at more pictures of that food.
The authors said the effect is strongest the more pictures one views. So, if you’ve only got a few friends who post food pictures on your social media feed, you’re probably OK to keep following them.
“You do have to look at a decent number of pictures to get these effects,” Elder said in the news release. “It’s not like if you look at something two or three times you’ll get that satiated effect.” That’s good news for food-photo enthusiasts, because, let’s be honest, showing everyone the awesome food you’re eating really is cool. You may also wish to check out the results of another study, "Wearing high heels can change the way you shop."