Tag: scientific

USDA Guidelines Questioned

  • Professor Paul Marantz says even a small error in the federal food guidelines can have a big public health impact. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Some people say the government is partly to blame for America’s obesity problem – because of the federal dietary guidelines. Julie Grant reports on efforts to improve how the government offers nutritional advise to Americans.

Transcript

Some people say the government is partly to blame for America’s obesity problem – because of the federal dietary guidelines. Julie Grant reports on efforts to improve how the government offers nutritional advise to Americans.

You’ve probably seen those colorful food pyramids they put out, the ones that tell you how many servings to have of each kind of food each day. Those recommendations are used by schools, nursing homes, and the federal food stamp program to design menus.

Robert Post works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which puts out the food pyramid.

“IT’S THE CORNERSTONE FOR BUILDING HEALTHY EATING PATTERNS. CHOOSING THE RIGHT AMOUNTS OF FRUITS, VEGETABLES, GRAINS, MILK PRODUCTS, AS WELL AS PROTEIN SOURCES SUCH AS MEAT AND BEANS.”

Post says people need to know how to get all the nutrients they need, without over-indulging in foods they don’t need.
That’s why the guidelines also set specific limits on things like salt and fat.

But some researchers think the guidelines actually have the potential to cause harm.

Paul Marantz is professor of epidemiology and population health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
He doesn’t think the guidelines should give specific recommendations about how much fat and salt people should eat.

“THOSE SEEM TO CARRY PRECISION THAT IMPLIES THAT WE HAVE A GREATER DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE THAN WE ACTUALLY DO, SO PICKING THESE NUMBERS AND REQUIRING THAT PEOPLE HUE TO THESE GUIDELINES IS A PROBLEM.”

Marantz says even a little bit of error in the food guidelines can have a big public health effects.

He and his colleagues wanted to find out the potential impact of past dietary guidelines.

They looked at 1995, when the nutritionists were telling people to avoid fat.

“MOST OF US REMEMBER IN THE OLD FOOD PYRAMID THAT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO AVOID WAS FAT AND ONE COULD EAT GRAINS AND PASTA AND BREAT AND THE LIKE WITHOUT CONCERN.”

Marantz says Americans did eat more pasta and bread – that added lots of calories, and lots of weight.

His research, which was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found what Marantz calls a ‘strong correlation’ between the dietary guidelines against fat and obesity in Americans:

“CORRELATION IS BY NO MEANS CAUSATION. WE CANNOT INFER FROM THIS THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF DIETARY GUIDELINES THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING THE EPIDEMIC OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY. BUT THE CONNECTION IS STRONG.”

Marantz wants the government to give general advice for healthy eating, but not specific guidelines. He gives the example of sodium. Marantz says no one really knows how much salt is appropriate for each person. But there’s a push to put specific limits on sodium in the new guidelines.

Robert Post of the USDA says anything that gets into the 2010 recommendations will be based on what he calls the Gold Standard of scientific evidence. He says a committee of nutritional experts has been meeting for two years to create the new guidelines…

“WE CAN BE ASSURED THROUGH THIS VERY INTENSIVE REVIEW OF SCIENCE AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IT PROVIDES THAT THE CURRENT ADVISE ON CARBOHYDRATES FOR EXAMPLE IS BASED ON THE LATEST RESEARCH.”

Post says any recommendations for fat and sodium will also be based on the preponderance of current science. The committee is expected to make its recommendations this summer, and new dietary guidelines should be published by the end of the year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: The White House’s Science Guy

  • Holdren was previously the Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. (Photo courtesy of the National Academy of Sciences)

President Obama’s Science and Technology advisor is John P. Holdren. He is the “science guy” in the White House. Lester Graham talked to him about science and climate change. Here’s an excerpt of that conversation:

Transcript

Graham: Different polls have shown the general public is becoming increasingly skeptical about whether climate change is real and whether burning fossil fuels is contributing to it, ignoring that the bulk of science says climate change is solid and if anything indicates that climate change is happening faster than first predicted. What can be done about that?

Holdren: Well I think scientists have to get better at telling the story about what we know about climate change and what that knowledge is based on. In other words, what we know and how we know it. Willingness to get out there and slug it out in the arena of public debate and dispute is not universal in the scientific community, and we have to live with that, but scientists who’ve been willing to do that have done a service. It’s unfortunate that they occasionally get castigated for speaking their minds freely and candidly in public, but that’s part of being, in a sense, a public scientist—of working on scientific issues that have major ramifications for public policy and being willing to talk about it.

Graham: President Barack Obama promised to protect scientific research from politics. He wanted guidelines in four months from taking office. We recently reported it’s been more than a year now, and still, no guidelines. The Union of Concerned Scientists says the president should finish explicit written policies on things like protecting scientists who become whistle-blowers. When we did the story, we contacted your office, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and we didn’t get any comment. Would you care to comment about that now?

Holdren: Sure, when the president issued his memorandum on scientific integrity on march 9th of last year, he actually enunciated at that time a set of principles, and those principles are already a solid basis for ensuring scientific integrity. What has not been forthcoming yet from my office, and for that I take responsibility, is a set of more detailed recommendations about how to proceed in some of the difficult questions that come up. Like the need of an agency to be sure that it is relying on the best peer-reviewed science, and the desire of every scientist in the agency to be able to express his or her own opinion. There are real tensions there. That has proven to be a more difficult task than I or the president realized at the time he issued the deadline for completing those, and the result is we missed a deadline, but we will be coming out soon with those additional guidelines.

Graham: How soon?

Holdren: I would guess in the next couple of months.

Graham: On energy policy, environmentalists are disappointed the Obama administration is encouraging the idea of clean coal technology, and a new generation of nuclear power. I’m not saying you’re not spending more on solar and wind, but I’m asking why not take all those dollars from clean coal technology and nuclear, and put it all into these green renewable that the environmentalists like.

Holdren: I think we need a diversity of options for addressing the energy challenges we face. You never want to put all of your eggs in one, or only a few, baskets. Today in this country we get 50% of our electricity by burning coal, we’re going to continue to do that for some time to come. It is, therefore, appropriate and necessary that we improve the technologies with which we burn coal in order to substantially reduce the environmental harm that comes from that. We get 20% of our electricity in this country from nuclear energy, and it’s one of the ways that we can get electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. There is no free lunch; that doesn’t mean we should do nothing, we should be working to improve all of these technologies, and then use the mix that makes the best sense in terms of all of the relevant characteristics—the economic ones, the environmental ones, the social ones.

Graham: John P Holdren is President Obama’s science and technology adviser, and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Thanks for the time.

Holdren: Thanks very much.

Related Links

Whitman Gives Insights on Cabinet Choices

  • Christie Todd Whitman, who was appointed to head the EPA under George W. Bush, says just because you're leading the EPA, that doesn't mean you get to choose who staffs it. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

The big environmental agencies of
the government will soon have new leadership.
Rebecca Williams reports those agency leaders
might not have as much control as you’d think:

Transcript

The big environmental agencies of
the government will soon have new leadership.
Rebecca Williams reports those agency leaders
might not have as much control as you’d think:

President-elect Barack Obama is putting together his Cabinet and appointing
agency leaders.

One former Cabinet-level official says it’s great working with the President,
but you don’t always have as much power as you’d like.

Christine Todd Whitman was appointed by George W. Bush to run the
Environmental Protection Agency.

She says just because you’re leading the EPA, that doesn’t mean you get to
choose who staffs it.

“You have recommendation ability. Obviously the Administration always
has those must-hires. People they want to put in, people they feel they owe
positions to, people they think have good backgrounds.”

She says when she was in charge there was tension between the EPA and the
White House.

Critics of the Bush White House say political appointees have interfered
with scientific findings. They’re hoping that changes with the Obama
Administration.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

White House Bars Science

  • Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there's no way to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered wildlife, so don't going looking for one. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:

Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there’s no way
to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered
wildlife, so don’t going looking for one.

In other words, that ice melting in the arctic causing polar bears so much difficulty?
Don’t try to use science to blame coal-burning power plants in the U.S.

Jeff Ruch is with Public Employees for Envrionemental Responsibility. He says this new
rule is the Bush administration’s way of making sure more coal-fired power plants can
be built.

“The Bush administration is doing everything they can to smooth a way to site an
additional 20 plants in the near term from their point of view, before they leave office.
And that’s an awful lot of greenhouse gases and that’s where the fight is.”

This ruling will likely be overturned in the courts, eventually – but probably not before the
coal-burning plants have been approved.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Women Scientists Still Facing Career Barriers

A new report concludes women scientists at universities still face career barriers that most men don’t. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story:

Transcript

A new report concludes women scientists at universities still face career barriers that most men don’t. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story.


A program developed by the National Science Foundation looks at efforts to advance women in scientific careers. Leaders of the program have just published a paper in Science Magazine that concludes women scientists are making some gains on campus, especially in the biological sciences.


University of Wisconsin – Madison professor Jo Handelsman co-authored the report. She says at some universities thogh, many women still face hostile climates, lack of training opportunities, and unconscious bias. Handelsman says both men and women may hold the same biases.


“So a lot of people have assumed that if there’s a woman on the search committee or a woman making decisions, then there isn’t going to be a prejudice against women, and that simply isn’t true.”


Handelsman says one goal is to make academic hiring and tenure committees aware of the issue, so they can ask themselves if they’re holding all candidates to the same standard.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Teachers Criticized for Evolution Lessons

  • Some teachers are struggling with teaching evolution because some disagree on religious grounds. (Photo by Elliot Jordan)

Science teachers in high schools and middle schools are on the front lines of the culture wars. Conservative Christians and others are confronting them about teaching evolution in the classroom. At the same time, teachers are learning about the growing body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Science teachers in high schools and middle schools are on the front lines of the culture wars. Conservative Christians and others are confronting them about teaching evolution in the classroom. At the same time, teachers are learning about the growing body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:


Some science teachers got a chance to attend a major science conference recently. Researchers from around the world were in Akron, Ohio to present findings and learn about advances in evolutionary biology. The conference was organized by people studying the dramatic transition whales made when they moved from the land to the water.


It’s only been a few years since Ohio even allowed the concept of evolution into the state’s high school academic standards. Those standards are the basis for the state graduation test that students must pass to get a diploma.


Even though it’s part of the state curriculum, many science teachers get the brunt of complaints from students and parents who oppose teaching evolutionary theory.


THOMAS: “I did have a student come to me and literally say, ‘I cannot sit in this classroom and listen to what you’re talking about.’ And I said, ‘Why not?’ And she said, ‘Well, I’m a Christian, I can’t listen to this.’ I said, ‘Well, I’m a Christian too, so where’s the problem?’”


GRABERT: “Well, I’ve had a number whose fathers are ministers come in and tell me how I need to teach the class, and I have to talk about creationism and I just share with them what we have to teach and how the curriculum is.”


STONE: “There’s a point when you just sort of have to tell the kids, This is what you need to know to pass the test to get out of high school. So, sit down, listen, learn the facts you need to know. I’m not saying you have to believe what I say, but this is what the state says you need to know to get out of high school.”


These are teachers from rural, suburban, and city school districts but they are all dealing with this issue. They try to stay up to date on new scientific evidence to defend their classroom lessons. That’s part of the reason they’re at this science conference.


(Sound of lecture)


This day’s activities are geared toward schoolteachers. The world’s top researchers on whale evolution are explaining their latest findings. Ann Sowd teaches honors biology at Hoover High School in North Canton, Ohio.


“It’s important to be at workshops like this so that you can, as a high school teacher, be really accurate with your teachings and understand what the evidence for evolution is and why it’s really- what we do know about how organisms change over time. Because the worst thing that can happen is you’re inaccurate and then someone comes with the opposing argument and you don’t know what you’re talking about.”


The teachers are hearing from scientists from all kinds of disciplines from anatomy, to functional morphology, to geo-chemistry. The scientists are showing how their discoveries and analyses fit together and provide a picture of the evolution of the whale as it moved from land back to the ocean.


But one leading researcher says the schoolteachers need more than just new scientific research to defend their lessons in the classroom. Howard University anatomist Daryl Domning says students who question evolutionary evidence are often looking for answers that lie beyond the realm of science. But Domning says teachers often respond with the latest research and recent fossil discoveries.


“And then they’re amazed that it doesn’t convince them. Because even though they’re raising questions about scientific evidence, they’re really not passionate about the scientific evidence. They’re passionate about ‘what is the meaning of my existence?’ and until you get down to that level and surface those concerns and show that hey, evolution doesn’t mean there’s no meaning to your existence, on the contrary, it can mean all these things, it means there’s more meaning then you thought there was maybe, only then is there a way of breaking through this pattern of talking past each other, which is what we’ve been doing for thirty years here.”


Domning says teachers can help students and parents understand that accepting the evidence of evolutionary theory doesn’t have to undermine religious faith.
He encourages teachers to tell students they can believe both at the same time, to point them to places where they can get more information, and to quickly get back to the science lesson.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Gum-O-Flage Cloaks Hunters This Season

  • Deer hunters try their best to prevent deer from sensing their presence - from hiding atop platforms to wearing camouflage clothing. (Photo by Alan Mead)

In much of the region, deer hunting season is in full swing. Hunters are taking to the woods doing their darndest to keep deer from spotting them. Now, an avid deer hunter has taken camouflage to another level. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley explains:

Transcript

In much of the region, deer hunting season is in full swing. Hunters are taking to the
woods doing their darndest to keep deer from spotting them. Now, an avid deer hunter has
taken camouflage to another level. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley
explains:


Neil Brentl says hunters know when a deer smells you.


“They make a very, very distinct like, huff sound, and you know. Every hunter knows
the sound. When you hear it, you almost wanna get out of your tree because you’re done.”


Brentl says that powerful sense of smell is a deer’s first line of defense. A few years
ago, Brentl’s brother suggested that perhaps the deer were sensing Brentl’s breath. The
idea for “gum-o-flage” was born.


“I took, like a regular gum, actually, like Bubble Yum, and chewed all the flavor out of
it, and added pine needles to it believe it or not. And I found that it was working.”


Brentl says the gum isn’t scientifically proven to work. But he says he hopes to have some
tests done soon. He says so far, “gum-o-flage” has been a hit with hunters in Upper Wisconsin.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Christina Shockley.

Related Links

Holy Grail of Great Lakes Shipwrecks Found?

  • For a long time, anything any diver salvaged could be claimed as his or her own. Since the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, anything divers find on public land remains public. But a new discovery may bend some rules. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:

Transcript

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:


Of the thousands of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, the wreck of the Griffin is probably the most legendary. For a few reasons. She was built by somebody legendary – French explorer Rene-Robert Cavalier Sieur de La Salle, she was the first European ship to sail the Upper Great Lakes… and she was the first to sink. Actually, she sank on her maiden voyage in 1769, not exactly one of La Salle’s bigger success stories. But the mystery she left behind is pretty big – and it has pretty well flummoxed Great Lakes historians for hundreds of years. Shipwreck scholar Steven Herald is the director of the Manistee County Historical Museum.


“The Griffin loaded its first and only freight cargo downbound at Green Bay, and there has never been a reliable report of anyone who has seen the vessel since. It left Green Bay and disappeared totally.”


Did she run aground? Sink to the bottom of Lake Michigan? No one knows, But Steven Libert, a long-time shipwreck hunter, thinks he might have found a clue. What he’s excited about appears to be a long, wooden pole sticking out of the sand in about 80 feet of water in northwestern Lake Michigan. It doesn’t look like much. But Rick Robol, the attorney for Libert’s company Great Lakes Exploration, says tests indicate it could date back to the 17th century. And it could be part of a ship.


“Great Lakes Exploration does not know at this point what is there. And it does not know whether in fact it is the Griffin or not. Certainly if it were the Griffin, it would be a very substantial find.”


Great Lakes Exploration has filed suit in federal court seeking salvage rights to the site. But the site is in Michigan waters and the state has filed a motion to have the case dismissed. State archaeologist John Halsey says whatever there is should belong to the public, not a private company.


“They have the money to go out and look, they have the money to go out and find, but what they don’t have is the permission to bring stuff up. That’s where the rubber meets the road.”


The state argues the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 gives any state title to historic wrecks in its waters. Before its passage, pretty much anybody in a rubber suit could salvage shipwrecks. And they did – the evidence is rusting out in garages across the country. The federal law sought to protect these historic sites – which, in the cold fresh water of the Great Lakes, are often well-preserved time capsules. But Wisconsin shipwreck researcher, Brendon Baillod, says a number of cases have already shown the law is full of technical loopholes if you have the money and time to challenge it.


“We have a lot of wrecks that are open game legally. It really is up to the judge who gets the case before them.”


If Great Lakes Exploration does clear the legal hurdles, the next question will be academic. What should happen to their findings? Attorney Rick Robol says it all depends on what’s there.


“Really, shipwrecks have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are some shipwrecks that may best remain in situ, that is, on site, and there are other that should be recovered. It’s impossible to determine what’s best for a particular wreck without first scientifically studying it.”


At this stage, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the site contains the remains of a ship or just a pile of very old scrapwood. But preservationists such as historian Steven Herald, argue anything of historical value should really just be left there.


“I’m a great one for leaving it where it is and studying it in as much detail as possible. The easiest way to preserve it is to keep it there.”


One thing is certain, any excavation would likely involve many years and millions of dollars. Oh, and there’s another possibility too, if in fact the Griffin is found. Technically, the vessel still belongs to France, which was in charge around here after all at the time of La Salle’s adventures.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sally Eisele.

Related Links

Scientists Speak Out Against Bush Administration

  • A group called Scientists and Engineers for Change is touring battleground states, campaigning against the Bush Administration. (Photo by Emanuel Lobeck)

A group of prominent American scientists, including 10 Nobel prize-winners, will bring a campaign against the Bush Administration to key battleground states in the region. The group says the President has misused and marginalized scientific research. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

A group of prominent American scientists, including 10 Nobel prize-winners,
will bring a campaign against the Bush Administration to key battleground states
in the Great Lakes. The group says the President has misused and marginalized
scientific research. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:


The political advocacy group formed last week is called Scientists and Engineers for
Change. Stanford University professor Douglas Osheroff is a member. He won the Nobel
Prize for physics in 1996. He says the Bush Administration is compromising scientific integrity.


“Having scientists reporting to middle-level bureaucrats who simply don’t have the background
to assess what the scientists are saying and he, of course, has essentially put a gag order
on scientists that are paid by the government directly. They are really not free to say what
they want.”


Osheroff also says President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s ties to the oil industry have
led them to minimize evidence of climate change.


Members of the Scientists and Engineers for Change will speak in Battleground states
like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania this month.


The group has no direct ties to Senator John Kerry’s campaign. The Bush campaign hasn’t
responded to the group’s claims.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Canadian Groups Concerned About Water Withdrawals

  • Groups like the Pembina Institute worry about water sustainability as the Great Lakes receive little new water and government officials both in Canada and in the U.S. discuss Annex 2001. (photo by Jenn Borton)

Canadian environmental groups are concerned that a new plan to regulate water withdrawals from the Great Lakes basin would allow too much water to be removed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

A Toronto researcher says most communities are underestimating a potential source
of cheap electricity – raw sewage. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


University of Toronto professor David Bagley collected waste water at a North
Toronto water treatment plant. He took the sewage into his lab, dried it and
then burned the solids to see how much energy they produced. He estimates the
energy produced from sewage at three treatment plants could produce more than
100 megawatts of electricity. That could be enough to keep a small town going
for a year. But Bagley says few take advantage of this resource.


“Our measurements show that there’s enough energy that we should be able to
completely offset the electricity needed to run the plant, and have extra
left over the send back to to the grid.”


Bagley finds communities are reluctant to invest in the equipment they’d
need to convert sewage into power. But he’s hoping to to design a cheaper
and more efficient system so more people can get the most out of their sewage.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links