05.03.2012 19:35:00
“Ice cream 'could be as addictive as cocaine',” reported the Daily Mail. In a bid to scoop its rivals, the newspaper claimed that new research had whipped up “concerns that the dessert could be genuinely addictive”.
It’s not clear who exactly had these chilling “concerns” over the possible addictive qualities of the frozen snack, but the study in question looked at measures of brain activity in 151 teenagers while they drank an ice cream milkshake. During the scans, teenagers who had frequently eaten ice cream over the past two weeks showed less activity in the “reward areas” of the brain that give pleasurable sensations. This reduced reward sensation was reported to be similar to what is seen in drug addiction as users become desensitised to drugs.
It should be noted that the study included only healthy teenagers of normal weight, and its results may not represent overweight or older people. It also only tested one food, so the results may not apply to other foods.
Unsurprisingly, the study did not directly compare brain responses to or cravings for ice cream with those for illegal drugs. Therefore, while some aspects of the brain’s response may be similar, it is not correct to say that this study has found that ice cream is “as addictive” as illegal drugs.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Oregon Research Institute in the US. Sources of funding were not clear. The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The newspapers focused on the suggestion that ice cream is “as addictive” as drugs. However, it is not possible to conclude this from the study.
What kind of research was this?
This experimental study looked at whether regularly eating ice cream reduces the brain’s pleasurable “reward” response. When we do things that support our survival, such as eating and drinking, the brain gives us a pleasurable reward sensation, reinforcing this behaviour and encouraging it in future. A similar process is also believed to occur in drug addiction, where a person’s reward response to the drug decreases with repeated exposure, leading to a need to take more of the drug.
The researchers reported that people who are obese experience less of a response to food in the reward centres of the brain, which may contribute to over-eating. Repeatedly eating foods with high levels of calories (called “energy dense” foods has also been shown to lead to brain changes that reduce reward response in rats. The researchers wanted to see if a similar thing happens in humans, by looking at whether regularly eating ice cream reduces the brain’s pleasurable reward response to an ice cream milkshake.
What did the research involve?
The researchers recruited 151 adolescent volunteers who were not overweight. They asked them how often they ate ice cream, and carried out brain scans while they drank either a tasteless solution or an ice cream milkshake. They then looked at whether the volunteers who ate ice cream frequently showed less brain activity in the reward centres of the brain when drinking the ice cream milkshake.
The study excluded any individuals who were overweight or had reported binge eating in the past three months, as well as any who had used illegal drugs, took certain medications, had a head injury or a mental health diagnosis in the last year. The volunteers completed standard food questionnaires about their eating habits over the past two weeks, including how often they ate ice cream. They also answered questions about food cravings and how much they liked certain foods, including ice cream. The volunteers also had their weight, height and body fat measured.
Volunteers were asked to eat their meals as usual but not to eat anything for five hours before the brain scan. The researchers then gave them either a sip of chocolate ice cream milkshake or a tasteless solution, and monitored the activity in their brain. Each participant received both drinks in a randomised order. The researchers then looked at what happened in the brain during each drink, and whether this varied depending on how much ice cream the volunteer usually ate. They also looked at whether body fat or energy intake from other foods influenced the response.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that when the volunteers drank the ice cream milkshake, it activated the parts of the brain involved in giving a pleasurable “reward” feeling. Volunteers who ate ice cream frequently showed less activity in these pleasurable reward areas in response to the milkshake. Percentage of body fat, total energy intake, percentage of energy from fat and sugar, and intake of other energy-dense foods were not related to the level of reward response to the milkshake.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that their findings show that frequent consumption of ice cream reduces the “reward” response in the brain to eating the food. They reported that a similar process is seen in drug addiction.
The researchers also said that understanding these sorts of processes could help us understand how changes in the brain may contribute to, and help maintain, obesity.
Conclusion
This brain-scanning study suggests that the brain’s pleasurable reward response to ice cream decreases if it is eaten frequently. There are some points to note:
- The study only included healthy adolescents who were not overweight. Its results may not be representative of overweight or older individuals.
- The study only tested one food, so the results may not apply to other foods.
- Volunteers’ eating habits were only assessed for the past two weeks, and these may not be representative of their long-term eating habits.
- The study did not look at any other food with a discernable taste, only a “tasteless liquid”. It would have been interesting to see whether the reward response with tasting other foods, including less energy dense foods, also diminished over time.
- News reports of this research have claimed that this study shows that ice cream is “as addictive” as illegal drugs, but this is not the case. While the reduced brain reward seen with frequent ice cream eating was reportedly similar to that seen in the use of addictive drugs, the study unsurprisingly did not directly compare brain responses to ice cream and illegal drugs, or their addictive potential.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Ice cream 'could be as addictive as cocaine', as researchers reveal cravings for the two are similar. Daily Mail, March 5 2012
Ice cream as 'addictive as drugs' says new study. The Daily Telegraph, March 5 2012
Links To Science
Burger KS and Stice E. Frequent ice cream consumption is associated with reduced striatal response to receipt of an ice cream–based milkshake. First published February 15 2012
05.03.2012 12:59:01
Editor's Note: This article is the first in a three-part series about health issues linked to nutritional problems in American Indian communities.
The battle with obesity has become one of the most urgent health issues in America today, as over one third of adults and 17 percent of children are now obese. But for Native Americans, this problem is even more dire.
American Indian (AI and Alaska Native (AN adults are 1.6 times more likely to be obese than Caucasians, according to the Department of Health and Human Services'
Office of Minority Health. Almost
33 percent of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives are obese, and over half of AI/AN women are overweight.
As a result, health consequences stemming from obesity, such as diabetes and heart disease, are also common among AI/AN people. Indeed, 16.1 percent of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives suffer from Type II diabetes, which has been closely linked to obesity. This is the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups, according to the
American Diabetes Association.
And diabetes has been identified as a precursor to cardiovascular disease. Heart disease and stroke are the number 1 causes of death among people with Type II diabetes.
In some tribes, diabetes rates are much higher. For example, 50 percent of people in the Pima Indian tribe of Arizona are diabetic.
Now a recent government
report has shown that this problem starts early for Native Americans. Obesity affects one half to one third to of AI/AN children, according to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS , a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report also notes that 20 percent of AI and ANs ages 2 to 4 who are enrolled in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC supplemental nutrition program are obese.
By the time these children reach pre-teen and teen years, many are already developing Type II diabetes, traditionally called "Adult onset diabetes" because it develops over time, usually from high body fat. Now 1.74 in 1,000 American Indian children ages 10-19 have Type II diabetes, compared with a rate of .19 in 1,000 among White children, 1.05 among Black children, and .48 among Hispanic children.
What's behind these alarming statistics? Why are Native Americans affected by obesity and its consequences at higher rates than the average U.S. population and than other ethnic minorities?
Poverty: A Leading Contributor
Access to nutritious foods is more difficult for anyone living in poverty, but this barrier to a healthy lifestyle is magnified among American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. In 2010, more than 24 percent of AI/AN households were below the federal poverty line, compared to 15 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.
Limited funds mean limited access to nutritious foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables or whole grain carbohydrates, which are often more expensive than commodity goods like flour or shortening.
"The bottom line is poverty," confirms Kahti DeWilde, licensed nutritionist and director of the WIC program for the S'Klallam tribe in Port Gamble, WA. "It's lacking the funds to be able to spend money on appropriate foods."
Even getting to the grocery store can be a challenge for people without cars. A high percentage of Native American communities are located in "food deserts," defined as a low-income area where the nearest supermarket is over a mile away, making obtaining fresh foods that much more difficult.
"When you live in poverty and you don't have the money or the transportation, you just stay on the reservation and get what you get and that's that," DeWilde says, explaining the situation at Port Gamble.
Since the nearest grocery store here is over two miles away from most tribal members, many do their shopping at the local gas station's convenience store, whose fresh produce offerings are next to nonexistent. When Food Safety News visited the store, fresh options there included a basket of lemons, some Dole processed fruit containers and a handful of sandwiches. A tribal member says the establishment used to keep a supply of fresh fruits and vegetables, available upon request, but that those goods are no longer available consistently.
The source - who wished to remain anonymous - says that demand for fresh produce is still there and that people often go to the store looking for the occasional head of lettuce or potatoes to round out a potato salad.
And customers would pay for the fruits and vegetables if they were available, notes the source.
"People would buy it. It's cheap. It's the same price as you pay for those Dole containers in there."
The store's deli manager declined to comment.
A final factor in limiting Native Americans' access to healthy foods is that AI/AN households are bigger than the average U.S. household, meaning that breadwinners have more mouths to feed.
"If you're going to the store and you have no food, you're not buying endive, you're buying for your children the thing that's going to feed as many children as possible and make them feel full," says Suzan Harjo, a member of the Cheyenne and Muscogee tribes and President of the Morning Star Institute - a national Native American rights organization.
The Root of the Issue
But the problem of poor nutrition in Native American communities extends back far beyond the immediate obstacle of poverty.
The traditional Native American diet was one that modern-day nutritionists would consider a gold standard - full of lean meats, protein, fruits and vegetables and low in fat, refined sugars and sodium.
Native people hunted, fished and gathered their food from the land.
But then in 1830s and 1840s, under the Indian Removal Act, Native American tribes signed treaties with the U.S. government that relegated them to reservations. This relocation also removed Native people from their usual food sources and the active lifestyle that hunting and gathering required.
By 1890 the government decreed that Native Americans were not allowed to leave their lands to fish, hunt or gather in their usual territories. Instead, they were given government rations of commodities such as flour, lard and sugar.
"Those original commodities were not healthy for the people," explains Fran Miller, Community Nutritionist for the Suquamish Tribe on Puget Sound in Washington State. "They moved to a lot of highly processed foods really quickly. At the same time, they lost that physically active lifestyle that was practiced because they had to be active to hunt and gather and fish. That's why we've seen a rapid increase in obesity and diabetes within the last 150 years or so."
These cheaper, nutritionally empty foods became the new "traditional" for American Indians as they developed a taste for the only foods available to them.
Harjo says she recalls her grandmother eating a lard sandwich.
"People now have a preference for processed foods, high sugar, white flour," she notes. "All of those things that are terrible for you, terrible for all of us, are killing Indians."
The nutritionally devoid "frybread" - made from a deep-fried mixture of flour and lard and eaten with butter, jam or meat and cheese - is the quintessential example of a food derived from government rations, now considered to be a "typical" American Indian food.
"We call frybread a cultural food because it's not traditional," explains Miller. "It was born out of necessity. People got these food packages and they were hungry and they had to figure out what to do with the rations they'd been given."
Frybread is not something Harjo sees Native Americans giving up any time soon. It has become a comfort food.
In an American Indian family where the mother is alcoholic or addicted to drugs - conditions that occur at a higher rate among AI/ANs than among the average population - Harjo says sometimes making frybread is one simple thing she can do for her family. The food becomes associated with happiness.
"A mom who's trying to do a good thing for the children will occasionally make a bunch of frybread and that'll be a good memory," says Harjo. "So a lot of people have a real emotional attachment to frybread because it represented good times."
DeWilde says that instead of trying to get people to eliminate frybread from their diet, she suggests only eating it occasionally, spread out between healthier meals.
Agrees Miller, "People like frybread. It tastes good and it's okay to eat for special occasions, but we make the distinction that it's not something that's part of the normal everyday diet."
----
The second part of this series: "What's Being Done," will be featured by Food Safety News tomorrow, Tuesday March 6.
Graph courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Photo #1 taken by Gretchen Goetz.
The battle with obesity has become one of the most urgent health issues in America today, as over one third of adults and 17 percent of children are now obese. But for Native Americans, this problem is even more dire.
American Indian (AI and Alaska Native (AN adults are 1.6 times more likely to be obese than Caucasians, according to the Department of Health and Human Services'
Office of Minority Health. Almost
33 percent of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives are obese, and over half of AI/AN women are overweight.
As a result, health consequences stemming from obesity, such as diabetes and heart disease, are also common among AI/AN people. Indeed, 16.1 percent of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives suffer from Type II diabetes, which has been closely linked to obesity. This is the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups, according to the
American Diabetes Association.
And diabetes has been identified as a precursor to cardiovascular disease. Heart disease and stroke are the number 1 causes of death among people with Type II diabetes.
In some tribes, diabetes rates are much higher. For example, 50 percent of people in the Pima Indian tribe of Arizona are diabetic.
Now a recent government
report has shown that this problem starts early for Native Americans. Obesity affects one half to one third to of AI/AN children, according to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS , a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report also notes that 20 percent of AI and ANs ages 2 to 4 who are enrolled in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC supplemental nutrition program are obese.
By the time these children reach pre-teen and teen years, many are already developing Type II diabetes, traditionally called "Adult onset diabetes" because it develops over time, usually from high body fat. Now 1.74 in 1,000 American Indian children ages 10-19 have Type II diabetes, compared with a rate of .19 in 1,000 among White children, 1.05 among Black children, and .48 among Hispanic children.
What's behind these alarming statistics? Why are Native Americans affected by obesity and its consequences at higher rates than the average U.S. population and than other ethnic minorities?
Poverty: A Leading Contributor
Access to nutritious foods is more difficult for anyone living in poverty, but this barrier to a healthy lifestyle is magnified among American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. In 2010, more than 24 percent of AI/AN households were below the federal poverty line, compared to 15 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.
Limited funds mean limited access to nutritious foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables or whole grain carbohydrates, which are often more expensive than commodity goods like flour or shortening.
"The bottom line is poverty," confirms Kahti DeWilde, licensed nutritionist and director of the WIC program for the S'Klallam tribe in Port Gamble, WA. "It's lacking the funds to be able to spend money on appropriate foods."
Even getting to the grocery store can be a challenge for people without cars. A high percentage of Native American communities are located in "food deserts," defined as a low-income area where the nearest supermarket is over a mile away, making obtaining fresh foods that much more difficult.
"When you live in poverty and you don't have the money or the transportation, you just stay on the reservation and get what you get and that's that," DeWilde says, explaining the situation at Port Gamble.
Since the nearest grocery store here is over two miles away from most tribal members, many do their shopping at the local gas station's convenience store, whose fresh produce offerings are next to nonexistent. When Food Safety News visited the store, fresh options there included a basket of lemons, some Dole processed fruit containers and a handful of sandwiches. A tribal member says the establishment used to keep a supply of fresh fruits and vegetables, available upon request, but that those goods are no longer available consistently.
The source - who wished to remain anonymous - says that demand for fresh produce is still there and that people often go to the store looking for the occasional head of lettuce or potatoes to round out a potato salad.
And customers would pay for the fruits and vegetables if they were available, notes the source.
"People would buy it. It's cheap. It's the same price as you pay for those Dole containers in there."
The store's deli manager declined to comment.
A final factor in limiting Native Americans' access to healthy foods is that AI/AN households are bigger than the average U.S. household, meaning that breadwinners have more mouths to feed.
"If you're going to the store and you have no food, you're not buying endive, you're buying for your children the thing that's going to feed as many children as possible and make them feel full," says Suzan Harjo, a member of the Cheyenne and Muscogee tribes and President of the Morning Star Institute - a national Native American rights organization.
The Root of the Issue
But the problem of poor nutrition in Native American communities extends back far beyond the immediate obstacle of poverty.
The traditional Native American diet was one that modern-day nutritionists would consider a gold standard - full of lean meats, protein, fruits and vegetables and low in fat, refined sugars and sodium.
Native people hunted, fished and gathered their food from the land.
But then in 1830s and 1840s, under the Indian Removal Act, Native American tribes signed treaties with the U.S. government that relegated them to reservations. This relocation also removed Native people from their usual food sources and the active lifestyle that hunting and gathering required.
By 1890 the government decreed that Native Americans were not allowed to leave their lands to fish, hunt or gather in their usual territories. Instead, they were given government rations of commodities such as flour, lard and sugar.
"Those original commodities were not healthy for the people," explains Fran Miller, Community Nutritionist for the Suquamish Tribe on Puget Sound in Washington State. "They moved to a lot of highly processed foods really quickly. At the same time, they lost that physically active lifestyle that was practiced because they had to be active to hunt and gather and fish. That's why we've seen a rapid increase in obesity and diabetes within the last 150 years or so."
These cheaper, nutritionally empty foods became the new "traditional" for American Indians as they developed a taste for the only foods available to them.
Harjo says she recalls her grandmother eating a lard sandwich.
"People now have a preference for processed foods, high sugar, white flour," she notes. "All of those things that are terrible for you, terrible for all of us, are killing Indians."
The nutritionally devoid "frybread" - made from a deep-fried mixture of flour and lard and eaten with butter, jam or meat and cheese - is the quintessential example of a food derived from government rations, now considered to be a "typical" American Indian food.
"We call frybread a cultural food because it's not traditional," explains Miller. "It was born out of necessity. People got these food packages and they were hungry and they had to figure out what to do with the rations they'd been given."
Frybread is not something Harjo sees Native Americans giving up any time soon. It has become a comfort food.
In an American Indian family where the mother is alcoholic or addicted to drugs - conditions that occur at a higher rate among AI/ANs than among the average population - Harjo says sometimes making frybread is one simple thing she can do for her family. The food becomes associated with happiness.
"A mom who's trying to do a good thing for the children will occasionally make a bunch of frybread and that'll be a good memory," says Harjo. "So a lot of people have a real emotional attachment to frybread because it represented good times."
DeWilde says that instead of trying to get people to eliminate frybread from their diet, she suggests only eating it occasionally, spread out between healthier meals.
Agrees Miller, "People like frybread. It tastes good and it's okay to eat for special occasions, but we make the distinction that it's not something that's part of the normal everyday diet."
----
The second part of this series: "What's Being Done," will be featured by Food Safety News tomorrow, Tuesday March 6.
Graph courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Photo #1 taken by Gretchen Goetz.
05.03.2012 12:59:03
Despite a multitude of warnings about the dangers of drinking raw milk (milk that hasn't been pastuerized , why do some people continue to turn a deaf ear to those warnings, even in light of continued food poisoning outbreaks linked to raw milk?
Could it be the "messenger" -- typically federal and state agencies and public health officials?
A clue to that possibility surfaced in
a recent study, "Motivation for Unpasteurized Milk Consumption in Michigan, 2011," by Paul Bartlett and Angela Renee Katafiasz, of Michigan State University, which appeared in a recent issue of "Food Protection Trends."
In an email to Food Safety News, Bartlett said that what surprised him the most about the results of the survey of raw-milk drinkers was that such a small percentage of them trusted public health officials regarding what food is safe to eat.
Only 4 (or 7.1 percent of the 56 raw-milk consumers who responded to the study's questionnaire agreed with a statement that "in general, they trusted recommendations made by state health officials about what foods are safe to eat." Another 10 (or 17.9 percent indicated they didn't agree with the statement, while another 41 (or 73.2 percent said they weren't sure.
"This lack of trust," says the study, "casts doubt on whether or not consumer education by local or state health departments would be effective in preventing milk-borne disease due to raw-milk consumption."
None of this surprises Mark McAfee, the outspoken co-owner of California-based
Organic Pastures, the nation's largest raw-milk producer. In an email to Food Safety News, McAfee said he has always thought that any area where raw milk is sold should have a huge ultra-red pink sign that says something like: "The FDA says raw milk is dangerous because it has not been processed."
"If that were the case," he said, "sales would skyrocket. No one trusts the Food and Drug Administration or its propaganda."
McAfee said the problem is that "state and federal agencies have cried wolf so many times against raw milk that now any cries that might be an honest attempt to warn of the rare incidence of illness is ignored as hatred against all things FDA."
FDA comes into the picture because the agency doesn't allow raw milk sold for human consumption to be transported across state lines.
That same skepticism about what public health officials and agencies have to say about raw milk kept surfacing in the recent Michigan study. When asked if raw milk should be regulated by the government to ensure quality standards, 27 (or 48.2 percent of the respondents disagreed, while only 9 (or 16.1 percent agreed. Another 17 (or 30.4 percent said they weren't sure.
Along those same lines, some of the raw milk consumers in the study said they generally believe that their producers maintain a higher standard of animal care and cleanliness than does the mainstream dairy industry.
The respondents also took issue with some of the survey's other statements, once again revealing sharp differences of opinion with official government views on the potential health hazards of drinking raw milk. For example, when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "Drinking raw milk increases your risk of getting a foodborne disease," an average of 44 (or 78.6 percent disagreed. Only 6 respondents agreed with the statement, and another 5 (or 8.9 percent of the respondents said they weren't sure. In Februrary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
released a study showing that the rate of disease outbreaks linked to raw milk was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.
In 2010, Michigan had two
Campylobacter foodborne outbreaks associated with raw milk. And last year, 3 probable cases of
Q-fever were reported in people who participated in raw-milk cow-share arrangements, which according to the report, were presumably caused by drinking raw milk. Back in 1947, Michigan became the first state to require that all milk for sale be pasteurized. As such, the sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal in that state. However cow- and goat-share agreements in which people buy a share of a herd and are therefore considered owners of the milk from the herd are permitted through an informal agreement on the part of the state.
Profile of a raw-milk drinker
The Michigan study starts off by acknowledging that "it is largely unknown why some consumers prefer raw milk over pasteurized milk."
As such, one of the goals of the peer-reviewed study was to come up with a some sort of profile of raw-milk drinkers in Michigan and from there, to summarize their reasons for preferring raw milk to pasteurized milk.
The profile that emerged was a well-educated adult in his/her late 20s who typically lives in a rural area. Overall, the ages of the raw-milk drinkers, which included family members, ranged from less than one year to 75.
The profile, which, co-author Bartlett readily says is limited due to the small number of raw-milk drinkers surveyed, contrasts starkly with a profile of raw-milk drinkers in California that emerged in an earlier report, "
Profile of Raw Milk Consumers."
Authored primarily by scientists then at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the report analyzed responses to questions in the 1994 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey that asked respondents about whether they drank raw milk, the amount consumed, the reason for drinking raw milk, and where raw milk was most often obtained.
The researchers found that among the 3,999 survey respondents, 128 (about 3.2 percent reported drinking raw milk the previous year. These raw-milk consumers were more likely that those who didn't drink raw milk to be younger than 40, male, Hispanic and to have less than a high school education.
However, these survey results included any responder who had drunk raw milk in the previous year no matter how much or how little.
One of the conclusions of the California report was that additional research is needed to further refine the profile of raw milk drinkers and determine their risk of adverse effects from drinking raw milk.
The report also said that "Although the role of raw milk as a vehicle in disease transmission has been well-documented, information regarding the prevalence of raw-milk consumption in sparse."
Estimates of the percentage of milk drinkers who drink raw milk range from 1 to 3 percent of the U.S. population, although no one knows for sure since it's too difficult to track the information.
Organic Pastures McAfee was happy to share some information about his raw-milk customers, based on informal studies and polls conducted by the dairy. What surfaces is that 50 percent of the dairy's raw-milk customers are well-educated moms between 20 and 45 years old. The rest of the dairy's raw-milk customers are what McAfee describes as "being all over the place" and can be anyone: young, old, fat, skinny, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, healthy, sick, abandoned by doctors, not wanting to go to doctors, Eastern Bloc immigrants, left wingers, right wingers, no wingers, Tea Party members, and homeschoolers.
"It is everyone," he said.
Why raw milk?
Supporting local farms topped the list of the reasons the Michigan raw-milk survey respondents gave for preferring raw milk, with 48 (or 85.7 of them citing that as a reason. Next came taste, with 47 (or 83.9 percent giving that as a reason. "Holistic health benefits" were cited by 43 (or 76.8 percent of the respondents. Thirty-two respondents (or 57.1 percent said they don't feel processed milk is safe. A majority of the study's raw-milk drinkers shared their beliefs that raw milk was beneficial for relieving digestive problems, intestinal diseases and allergies. Some said they believe raw milk is beneficial for heart disease, neurologic disease, acne, and cancer. Others shared anecdotal claims that when they drink pasteurized milk, they experience symptoms of lactose intolerance, which they said doesn't happen when they drink unpasteurized milk. People with lactose intolerance have a hard time digesting lactose, which is a type of natural sugar found in milk and dairy products. The intolerance occurs when the small intestine doesn't make enough of the enzyme, lactase, which is needed to break down or digest lactose. Symptoms include gas, belly pain, and bloating.
However, a
study out of Stanford Medical School (financed by raw milk advocates not only raised questions about how widespread lactose intolerance really is, but found that raw milk did not confer any benefit over pasteurized milk in relieving symptoms of lactose intolerance. Health authorities say that no matter what benefits might be associated anecdotally with raw milk, the risk of contracting a foodborne disease such as E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or Listeria infection outweighs any of the unproven benefits. They point out that if harmful microorganisms from cow excrement contaminates the raw milk, those drinking it can come down with serious digestive problems, kidney failure, or even death.
In California, labels on raw-milk containers must say: "Raw (unpasteurized milk and raw milk dairy products may contain disease-causing micro-organisms. Persons at highest risk of disease from these organisms include newborns and infants; the elderly; pregnant women; those taking corticosteroids, antibiotics or antacids; and those having chronic illnesses or other conditions that weaken their immunity." The Michigan study also revealed that the average number of years the respondents have been drinking raw milk is 6.1 and that 92 percent of the milk the respondents' families drink is raw milk.
A commitment to purchasing raw milk can be seen in the average number of miles a respondent travels out of his or her way to buy raw milk: 24.2 miles. The average number of pickups of raw milk each month was 4.1.
The study
Questionnaires were sent out to raw-milk producers, 20 of whom agreed to participate in the study. The producers, in turn, were sent survey questions, which they forwarded on to their cow- or goat-share members. Of the 160 questionnaires sent out, 56 were returned.
While the study has been criticized for being self-selecting in that it only questioned people who drink raw milk and biased because it started out with the assumption that it's potentially harmful to your health to drink raw milk, co-author Bartlett told Food Safety News that it was done "for the cost of postage" as a project for a 3-credit course. And, yes, he definitely would have liked to have had a higher response rate and a larger study.
He also pointed out that the hypothesized health benefits of raw milk are difficult to study because it would be unethical to randomly assign people to drink raw milk and others to drink pasteurized milk. Besides which, such a study could not be done blindly because the study subjects would certainly know if they were drinking raw or pasteurized milk (although the Stanford study effectively masked the taste differences with an added flavoring.
More information about raw milk can be found
here.
Could it be the "messenger" -- typically federal and state agencies and public health officials?
A clue to that possibility surfaced in
a recent study, "Motivation for Unpasteurized Milk Consumption in Michigan, 2011," by Paul Bartlett and Angela Renee Katafiasz, of Michigan State University, which appeared in a recent issue of "Food Protection Trends."
In an email to Food Safety News, Bartlett said that what surprised him the most about the results of the survey of raw-milk drinkers was that such a small percentage of them trusted public health officials regarding what food is safe to eat.
Only 4 (or 7.1 percent of the 56 raw-milk consumers who responded to the study's questionnaire agreed with a statement that "in general, they trusted recommendations made by state health officials about what foods are safe to eat." Another 10 (or 17.9 percent indicated they didn't agree with the statement, while another 41 (or 73.2 percent said they weren't sure.
"This lack of trust," says the study, "casts doubt on whether or not consumer education by local or state health departments would be effective in preventing milk-borne disease due to raw-milk consumption."
None of this surprises Mark McAfee, the outspoken co-owner of California-based
Organic Pastures, the nation's largest raw-milk producer. In an email to Food Safety News, McAfee said he has always thought that any area where raw milk is sold should have a huge ultra-red pink sign that says something like: "The FDA says raw milk is dangerous because it has not been processed."
"If that were the case," he said, "sales would skyrocket. No one trusts the Food and Drug Administration or its propaganda."
McAfee said the problem is that "state and federal agencies have cried wolf so many times against raw milk that now any cries that might be an honest attempt to warn of the rare incidence of illness is ignored as hatred against all things FDA."
FDA comes into the picture because the agency doesn't allow raw milk sold for human consumption to be transported across state lines.
That same skepticism about what public health officials and agencies have to say about raw milk kept surfacing in the recent Michigan study. When asked if raw milk should be regulated by the government to ensure quality standards, 27 (or 48.2 percent of the respondents disagreed, while only 9 (or 16.1 percent agreed. Another 17 (or 30.4 percent said they weren't sure.
Along those same lines, some of the raw milk consumers in the study said they generally believe that their producers maintain a higher standard of animal care and cleanliness than does the mainstream dairy industry.
The respondents also took issue with some of the survey's other statements, once again revealing sharp differences of opinion with official government views on the potential health hazards of drinking raw milk. For example, when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "Drinking raw milk increases your risk of getting a foodborne disease," an average of 44 (or 78.6 percent disagreed. Only 6 respondents agreed with the statement, and another 5 (or 8.9 percent of the respondents said they weren't sure. In Februrary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
released a study showing that the rate of disease outbreaks linked to raw milk was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.
In 2010, Michigan had two
Campylobacter foodborne outbreaks associated with raw milk. And last year, 3 probable cases of
Q-fever were reported in people who participated in raw-milk cow-share arrangements, which according to the report, were presumably caused by drinking raw milk. Back in 1947, Michigan became the first state to require that all milk for sale be pasteurized. As such, the sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal in that state. However cow- and goat-share agreements in which people buy a share of a herd and are therefore considered owners of the milk from the herd are permitted through an informal agreement on the part of the state.
Profile of a raw-milk drinker
The Michigan study starts off by acknowledging that "it is largely unknown why some consumers prefer raw milk over pasteurized milk."
As such, one of the goals of the peer-reviewed study was to come up with a some sort of profile of raw-milk drinkers in Michigan and from there, to summarize their reasons for preferring raw milk to pasteurized milk.
The profile that emerged was a well-educated adult in his/her late 20s who typically lives in a rural area. Overall, the ages of the raw-milk drinkers, which included family members, ranged from less than one year to 75.
The profile, which, co-author Bartlett readily says is limited due to the small number of raw-milk drinkers surveyed, contrasts starkly with a profile of raw-milk drinkers in California that emerged in an earlier report, "
Profile of Raw Milk Consumers."
Authored primarily by scientists then at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the report analyzed responses to questions in the 1994 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey that asked respondents about whether they drank raw milk, the amount consumed, the reason for drinking raw milk, and where raw milk was most often obtained.
The researchers found that among the 3,999 survey respondents, 128 (about 3.2 percent reported drinking raw milk the previous year. These raw-milk consumers were more likely that those who didn't drink raw milk to be younger than 40, male, Hispanic and to have less than a high school education.
However, these survey results included any responder who had drunk raw milk in the previous year no matter how much or how little.
One of the conclusions of the California report was that additional research is needed to further refine the profile of raw milk drinkers and determine their risk of adverse effects from drinking raw milk.
The report also said that "Although the role of raw milk as a vehicle in disease transmission has been well-documented, information regarding the prevalence of raw-milk consumption in sparse."
Estimates of the percentage of milk drinkers who drink raw milk range from 1 to 3 percent of the U.S. population, although no one knows for sure since it's too difficult to track the information.
Organic Pastures McAfee was happy to share some information about his raw-milk customers, based on informal studies and polls conducted by the dairy. What surfaces is that 50 percent of the dairy's raw-milk customers are well-educated moms between 20 and 45 years old. The rest of the dairy's raw-milk customers are what McAfee describes as "being all over the place" and can be anyone: young, old, fat, skinny, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, healthy, sick, abandoned by doctors, not wanting to go to doctors, Eastern Bloc immigrants, left wingers, right wingers, no wingers, Tea Party members, and homeschoolers.
"It is everyone," he said.
Why raw milk?
Supporting local farms topped the list of the reasons the Michigan raw-milk survey respondents gave for preferring raw milk, with 48 (or 85.7 of them citing that as a reason. Next came taste, with 47 (or 83.9 percent giving that as a reason. "Holistic health benefits" were cited by 43 (or 76.8 percent of the respondents. Thirty-two respondents (or 57.1 percent said they don't feel processed milk is safe. A majority of the study's raw-milk drinkers shared their beliefs that raw milk was beneficial for relieving digestive problems, intestinal diseases and allergies. Some said they believe raw milk is beneficial for heart disease, neurologic disease, acne, and cancer. Others shared anecdotal claims that when they drink pasteurized milk, they experience symptoms of lactose intolerance, which they said doesn't happen when they drink unpasteurized milk. People with lactose intolerance have a hard time digesting lactose, which is a type of natural sugar found in milk and dairy products. The intolerance occurs when the small intestine doesn't make enough of the enzyme, lactase, which is needed to break down or digest lactose. Symptoms include gas, belly pain, and bloating.
However, a
study out of Stanford Medical School (financed by raw milk advocates not only raised questions about how widespread lactose intolerance really is, but found that raw milk did not confer any benefit over pasteurized milk in relieving symptoms of lactose intolerance. Health authorities say that no matter what benefits might be associated anecdotally with raw milk, the risk of contracting a foodborne disease such as E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or Listeria infection outweighs any of the unproven benefits. They point out that if harmful microorganisms from cow excrement contaminates the raw milk, those drinking it can come down with serious digestive problems, kidney failure, or even death.
In California, labels on raw-milk containers must say: "Raw (unpasteurized milk and raw milk dairy products may contain disease-causing micro-organisms. Persons at highest risk of disease from these organisms include newborns and infants; the elderly; pregnant women; those taking corticosteroids, antibiotics or antacids; and those having chronic illnesses or other conditions that weaken their immunity." The Michigan study also revealed that the average number of years the respondents have been drinking raw milk is 6.1 and that 92 percent of the milk the respondents' families drink is raw milk.
A commitment to purchasing raw milk can be seen in the average number of miles a respondent travels out of his or her way to buy raw milk: 24.2 miles. The average number of pickups of raw milk each month was 4.1.
The study
Questionnaires were sent out to raw-milk producers, 20 of whom agreed to participate in the study. The producers, in turn, were sent survey questions, which they forwarded on to their cow- or goat-share members. Of the 160 questionnaires sent out, 56 were returned.
While the study has been criticized for being self-selecting in that it only questioned people who drink raw milk and biased because it started out with the assumption that it's potentially harmful to your health to drink raw milk, co-author Bartlett told Food Safety News that it was done "for the cost of postage" as a project for a 3-credit course. And, yes, he definitely would have liked to have had a higher response rate and a larger study.
He also pointed out that the hypothesized health benefits of raw milk are difficult to study because it would be unethical to randomly assign people to drink raw milk and others to drink pasteurized milk. Besides which, such a study could not be done blindly because the study subjects would certainly know if they were drinking raw or pasteurized milk (although the Stanford study effectively masked the taste differences with an added flavoring.
More information about raw milk can be found
here.
05.03.2012 12:59:03
Antibiotic resistance remains common among meat-borne pathogens, according to the annual National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System report released late last week.
NARMS, which is coordinated between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and some state laboratories, is meant to serve as a "reference point identifying and analyzing trends in antimicrobial resistance among these organisms."
From January to December 2010, samples of retail chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops were collected and tested for Salmonella. Poultry samples were also cultured for Campylobacter. Some labs also pulled samples of meat and poultry to test for E. coli and Enterococcus.
In all, NARMS collected 5,280 samples from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.
Salmonella serotypes Typhimurium, Saintpaul, and Heidelberg accounted for 44.5 percent of retail meat isolates. The prevalence of Salmonella Heidelberg -- which was the subject of a
massive ground turkey recall and multistate foodborne illness outbreak over the summer -- among all retail meat continued to decrease, according to the report, from 22.8 to 9 percent from 2002 through 2010.
The report highlighted a number of findings that may reinforce what many public health advocates have been arguing for years: that antibiotic use in agriculture is contributing to drug resistance in bacteria. The NARMS report pointed out that third-generation cephalosporin resistance rose in chicken breasts (10 to 34.5 percent and ground turkey (8.1 to 16.3 percent isolates from 2002 to 2010.
This trend was a key factor in the FDA's recent
decision to limit the off-label uses of cephalosporin in food animals.
"It is likely that the extralabel use of cephalosporins in certain food-producing animal species is contributing to the emergence of cephalosporin-resistant zoonotic foodborne bacteria," reads the FDA rule. "Resistance to certain cephalosporins is of particular public health concern in light of the evidence of cross-resistance among drugs in the cephalosporin class."
NARMS also found that 43.3 percent of chicken breast isolates were resistant to three or more antimicrobial classes in 2010 compared to 33.7 percent in ground turkey. More than 29 percent of chicken breast isolates showed resistance to 5 or more classes in 2010. Salmonella Albert was isolated from ground turkey for the first time since 2002 and was resistant to all 8 classes of antimicrobials tested.
Salmonella isolates susceptible to all antimicrobials decreased in pork chops (50 to 35 percent from 2009 to 2010 and multidrug resistance among Salmonella increased among chicken breasts (29 to 35.7 percent and ground turkey (22.3 to 30.7 percent .
NARMs also noted that E. coli -- which is only harmful in certain cases, but can serve as a marker for the level of contamination -- is common in all retail meat products tested in NARMS.
Of 1,840 retail meats tested in 2010 for E. coli, 64 percent were culture-positive for E. coli, with pork chops having the lowest prevalence (39.8 percent and ground turkey with the highest (80.2 percent .
Gail Hansen, senior officer for the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, said the report further backed up the importance of limiting antibiotic usage in agriculture, a move that Pew and a wide range of public health groups have been pushing for years.
"It really does reinforce what decades of research has been telling us about antibiotic resistance," said Hansen, a veterinarian. She noted that NARMS data helped FDA's decision to limit cephalasporins: "I was stuck by how much this [resistance] has gone up."
The full NARMS report is available
here.
NARMS, which is coordinated between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and some state laboratories, is meant to serve as a "reference point identifying and analyzing trends in antimicrobial resistance among these organisms."
From January to December 2010, samples of retail chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops were collected and tested for Salmonella. Poultry samples were also cultured for Campylobacter. Some labs also pulled samples of meat and poultry to test for E. coli and Enterococcus.
In all, NARMS collected 5,280 samples from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.
Salmonella serotypes Typhimurium, Saintpaul, and Heidelberg accounted for 44.5 percent of retail meat isolates. The prevalence of Salmonella Heidelberg -- which was the subject of a
massive ground turkey recall and multistate foodborne illness outbreak over the summer -- among all retail meat continued to decrease, according to the report, from 22.8 to 9 percent from 2002 through 2010.
The report highlighted a number of findings that may reinforce what many public health advocates have been arguing for years: that antibiotic use in agriculture is contributing to drug resistance in bacteria. The NARMS report pointed out that third-generation cephalosporin resistance rose in chicken breasts (10 to 34.5 percent and ground turkey (8.1 to 16.3 percent isolates from 2002 to 2010.
This trend was a key factor in the FDA's recent
decision to limit the off-label uses of cephalosporin in food animals.
"It is likely that the extralabel use of cephalosporins in certain food-producing animal species is contributing to the emergence of cephalosporin-resistant zoonotic foodborne bacteria," reads the FDA rule. "Resistance to certain cephalosporins is of particular public health concern in light of the evidence of cross-resistance among drugs in the cephalosporin class."
NARMS also found that 43.3 percent of chicken breast isolates were resistant to three or more antimicrobial classes in 2010 compared to 33.7 percent in ground turkey. More than 29 percent of chicken breast isolates showed resistance to 5 or more classes in 2010. Salmonella Albert was isolated from ground turkey for the first time since 2002 and was resistant to all 8 classes of antimicrobials tested.
Salmonella isolates susceptible to all antimicrobials decreased in pork chops (50 to 35 percent from 2009 to 2010 and multidrug resistance among Salmonella increased among chicken breasts (29 to 35.7 percent and ground turkey (22.3 to 30.7 percent .
NARMs also noted that E. coli -- which is only harmful in certain cases, but can serve as a marker for the level of contamination -- is common in all retail meat products tested in NARMS.
Of 1,840 retail meats tested in 2010 for E. coli, 64 percent were culture-positive for E. coli, with pork chops having the lowest prevalence (39.8 percent and ground turkey with the highest (80.2 percent .
Gail Hansen, senior officer for the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, said the report further backed up the importance of limiting antibiotic usage in agriculture, a move that Pew and a wide range of public health groups have been pushing for years.
"It really does reinforce what decades of research has been telling us about antibiotic resistance," said Hansen, a veterinarian. She noted that NARMS data helped FDA's decision to limit cephalasporins: "I was stuck by how much this [resistance] has gone up."
The full NARMS report is available
here.
02.03.2012 1:16:27
Hackers demonstrate new wireless attacks against insulin pumps, GE and Masimo ink a new OEM deal and Cardiac Science and Flight Medical launch Class I recalls.
Say hello to MassDevice +3, a bite-sized view of the top three med-tech stories of the day. This feature of MassDevice.com's coverage highlights our 3 biggest and most influential stories from the day's news to make sure you're up to date on the headlines that continue to shape the medical device industry.
If you read nothing else today, make sure you're still in the know with MassDevice +3.
News Well,
Diabetes,
Food & Drug Administration (FDA ,
Health Information Technology,
Insulin Management,
Plus 3,
Recalls,
Wall Street Beat
Diabetes,
Food & Drug Administration (FDA ,
Health Information Technology,
Insulin Management,
Plus 3,
Recalls,
Wall Street Beat
http://www.massdevice.com/news/massdevicecom-3-top-3-med-tech-stories-march-1-2012#comments
04.03.2012 9:00:00
The Android-based platform developed by two industry veterans processes payments, manages inventory and, perhaps most importantly, displays nutritional information that will soon be required the federal government.
Watch video
View full size
VendScreen co-founder Paresh Patel launched
Twenty years later, with
an 1,800-machine vending operation that stretches from Salem to Vancouver, he's about to launch a device that experts say could transform the industry and potentially become standard on all machines.
VendScreen, developed at his Northeast Portland operations base a half-mile from his alma mater, is an Android-based platform that connects vending machines to 3G technology. The touch-screen device accepts payments, displays ads and manages inventory, connecting manufacturers to consumers at the point of sale and giving operators a direct, cloud-based connection to their machines.
But, perhaps most important, it also displays nutritional information, a pending requirement under the
Affordable Care Act of 2010. The new rules stand to cost operators hundreds of thousands of dollars to update the estimated 7 million vending machines across the United States, and gives VendScreen the perfect cue to enter the market.
"Someone is going to win big doing what they're going to do," said Gerry Langeler, a managing director of venture capital firm
OVP Venture Partners. "The only question is -- is it them?"
Other digital products dot the vending landscape. But industry experts say VendScreen is the first platform that tracks inventory, processes credit cards and discloses nutritional facts, all while fitting on existing machines. And because it's based in the cloud, VendScreen can be updated wirelessly, adding new applications as competitors introduce new options. Eventually, the device will be able to accept payments via smartphone.
In turn, VendScreen plans to charge operators 2.75 percent of all sales that go through the machine. Patel and his business partner Glenn Butler, another industry vet, plan to target such brands as Coca-Cola and Pepsi as the devices are added to more and more machines. The technology already has attracted $12 million in venture capital ahead of its targeted April launch at
an industry trade show.
"To me, that's the best kind of venture deal," Langeler said. "You come in at the end of the meeting, you slap your head, and you say, 'Wow.'"
Patel and Butler handpicked VendScreen's first customers and say they've signed two deals worth $5 million in sales. They're beta-testing 500 devices now to prepare for its launch this spring.
"We want to make sure we're disrupting the marketplace in a way that succeeds," Patel said. "We want to make sure we can deliver."
Technological solutions
The path to VendScreen started three years ago at a Gresham Baskin-Robbins, when Patel looked closely at the menu. There, printed next to the ice cream options, were their calorie counts. "They're going to start making us do that too," he recalled thinking.
His small vending operation had served as an applied learning lab while he worked his way through Portland State University and graduate school at the University of Washington. Then, in 1999, it became his full-time job.
He doubled the business year after year, eventually buying out seven area operators. By 2005, he had built
Courtesy Vending into an 1,800-machine operation. "I've watched Paresh's brand of entrepreneurship for a few years," said Angela Jackson, who co-manages the Portland Seed Fund, a local startup incubator. "He owns that space, going back to high school."
Technology, meanwhile, had always fascinated him. At 16, he launched his first business, a desktop publishing service that created business cards. Years later, as his vending operation grew, he started tracking its inventory, down to the chocolate bar, and managed the massive database electronically. The move increased the company's efficiency and boosted its sales. Drivers knew which machines to prioritize and which to skip. "I didn't invest in technology for technology's sake," he said. "I was ultimately looking to solve our problems."
Calorie counts presented a big problem. Vending machine lineups rotate often as operators swap out less popular options with new ones. The only way to account for all the possible snack combinations, Patel thought after that trip to Baskin-Robbins, was a digital platform.
Meanwhile, Butler, who served as chief technology officer for vending-machine-maker
Crane Merchandising Systems, was working on the same problem in Boston. The pair met last year and decided in June to move forward as a team.
Months later, and just hours before they interviewed for one of eight spots with the
Portland Incubator Experiment, they powered on the prototype. They hoped it would work.
It did. As part of Wieden+Kennedy's startup lab, they built the business from the ground up. They met with investors, refined the prototype and pitched to customers.
"We weren't sitting at the computers," Patel said. "We were making deals."
In January, Patel stood before a packed crowd at the Bagdad Theater in Southeast Portland, where hundreds were waiting to hear presentations from the startup incubator's first class.
After making his pitch, he started to leave the stage, then paused. "I have a very exciting announcement to make as well," he said. "Last Friday (Jan. 13 , I signed a term sheet that will commit an investment into VendScreen for $12 million."
He tried to go on, but had to stop until the cheering subsided.
Patel and Butler have declined to disclose any details about the investors, citing Securities and Exchange Commission regulations as the deal closes, though Patel did say the funding is largely local.
Portland investor Nitin Khanna said he is leading the investment round. His
MergerTech firm helps broker deals in the tech sector.
"I looked at the technology ... I immediately said yes," he said. "It's probably the most disruptive technology that I've seen for any industry. In my mind, the single biggest reason is to display nutrition information."
The cost of compliance
When President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, a small section in the landmark legislation stood to wallop the vending industry. It required access to nutritional information before purchase.
For many vendors, compliance would mean adopting stickers or posters to display calorie counts. The Food and Drug Administration estimated that that task alone could cost vending machine operators 14.1 million hours a year to update such information on millions of U.S. vending machines.
It's a costly proposition for an industry already functioning on thin margins. Operators' pretax profits averaged 2.4 percent in 2010, according to the
National Automatic Merchandising Association.
The recession hurt vendors as their corporate clients downsized, leaving fewer workers to buy from machines. Experts pegged the industry's value at $23.2 billion in 2007. By 2010, it had fallen to $19.3 billion, a 17 percent drop.
Last summer,
comments from frustrated vendors poured into the FDA, the agency tasked with implementing the new regulations. A handful said it would push them out of business. Others urged the agency to require manufacturers to print calorie counts on the front of packages that would be visible through machines' glass windows. Some of the nation's biggest brands also weighed in on the conversation, from Starbucks to Kraft Foods, which both make products sold in vending machines.
The FDA has yet to issue final guidelines on when the changes will take effect. Still, manufacturers already are scrambling to figure out how to comply with the rules.
Mark Stein, whose Mark Vend Co. operates 2,000 machines in the Chicago market, said his company plans to switch to a digital product for convenience and aesthetics.
In comments to the FDA, Stein endorsed a separate nutritional information system known as the
Make Informed Nutritional Decisions (MIND touch screen. Unlike VendScreen, the system isn't connected wirelessly to operators. Instead, every machine is updated with memory cards.
Regardless of the system, a digital solution is the only one that makes sense, said Mike Kasavana, a Michigan State University professor who studies the technologies that drive self-service vending machines. He serves as the endowed professor of the industry's trade group, the National Automatic Merchandisers Association.
"You're not really sure if the item that's in A-1 this month is going to be the same item in A-1 next month," Kasavana said. "It's got to be digital."
The college students Kasavana teaches view vending machines as passive, aging devices, he said. Most expect to make their purchases with a debit card, an option that 96 percent of today's vending machines don't afford.
Devices like VendScreen could change those perceptions, making sales that machines wouldn't have otherwise.
"Once you put digital media on the machine, you've changed the whole interface," Kasavana said.
--
Molly Young;
@PDXSmlBizNews
05.03.2012 7:24:11
Reuters - India's Lupin Ltd has received the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval for the generic version of Geodon capsules used to treat schizophrenia, the drugmaker said on Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment