Junk Diet Rewires Rat Brains

We know junk food can change the way bodies are shaped. Now, a study finds that those irresistible sweet and salty concoctions may also change the way brains are wired—at least in rats.

Researchers divided rats into two groups—one labeled Cafeteria, the other called Chow. Both groups got a typical rat food diet, but the Cafeteria rats also got a bonus: meat pies, cakes and cookies.

Both rat groups gained weight. But the Cafeteria rats gained significantly more than the Chows did—nearly half a pound more, which is a big body burden for a rat. But more important, over two weeks time the Cafeteria rats seemed to care less and less about even seeking out a balanced diet. This new behavior endured even after the rats were returned to their more healthy fare. The study is in the journalFrontiers in Psychology. [Amy C. Reichelt, Margaret J. Morris and R.F. Westbrook, Cafeteria diet impairs expression of sensory-specific satiety and stimulus-outcome learning]

The researchers think junk-food diets cause lasting changes in the rewards circuits part of the brain—which plays a big role in decision-making. So if you’re a regular cookie eater and the next time you mindlessly reach for a cookie you wonder why you can’t help yourself—well, it could be because you’re not in charge, your rewired brain is.

Junk Diet Rewires Rat Brains

9:59 PM brain, health, junk food, sweet

How big food brands are boosting profits by targeting the poor

Sometimes there's only the illusion of cheapness at dollar stores. (Tony Gutierrez/AP Photo)

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's a good deal.

Several of America's largest food manufacturers have been shifting their retail strategy, selling less of their packaged foods in traditional grocery stores and more of those foods in dollar and discount stores, according to a recent Reuters story. Kraft, which sells Veveeta sauce, has turned its attention to the cheaper retailers. So too have General Mills and Campbell's Soup.

"We're in the business of feeding all American families, and that's where consumers are going," Tom Lopez, vice president of growth channels at Kraft, told Reuters on Thursday.

That's mostly true. Packaged food sales havebeen lagging at supermarkets—sales of packaged food were flat last year, largely because of a trend in which Americans are opting for fresher alternatives at the grocery store. Dollar stores have been the rare exception—food sales at discount stores have greatly outpaced their higher priced counterparts, prompting chains like Dollar Tree to add more room for food products. General Mills' sales at discount stores rose by nearly 10 percent last year.

But there's a reason why large food companies are selling more of their packaged foods to America's poor: they have figured out a way to do it at a much higher profit margin.

In order to offer the facade of affordability, manufacturers like Kraft are selling food in smaller packages. These granola bars, sauces, cereals, and prepared mealslook like they cost less, but actually are far more expensive on a per ounce basis, according to Reuters.

Shrinking package sizes allows Kraft to reach higher profit margins on products, though it won't sell as many as it would in a larger store. For instance, a 12-ounce package of Velveeta Shells & Cheese cost $2.50 at the a Dollar Tree store in New York City. Meanwhile, a 2.4 ounce cup cost $1.25. That's 21 cents an ounce versus 52 cents an ounce.

There are caveats, of course. Charging less per ounce for bulkier packages is nothing new: entire business models—say, Costco's—are predicated on that strategy. Packaging is often a significant contributor to price, making it difficult if not impossible to change size and price on a similar scale. Bulk sellers make up for smaller profit margins by selling more product.

So long as the people you're selling to are actively deciding whether or not to stock up at a discount or buy only for the week at a sight mark-up, it's just a value proposition. But it's unclear whether most of the people who shop at dollar stores have that luxury. In fact, it's doubtful. As Dollar General's chief executive Rick Dreiling said on a recent earnings call, "the low to middle income consumer who is our core customer continues to look for ways to manage her budget."

In other words, people go to Dollar General to save, because they have to. And according to this Reuters story, they're buying food that looks cheaper but is ultimately costing them more.

How big food brands are boosting profits by targeting the poor

9:59 PM food business, food profit, targeting poor

Junk Diet Rewires Rat Brains

We know junk food can change the way bodies are shaped. Now, a study finds that those irresistible sweet and salty concoctions may also change the way brains are wired—at least in rats.

Researchers divided rats into two groups—one labeled Cafeteria, the other called Chow. Both groups got a typical rat food diet, but the Cafeteria rats also got a bonus: meat pies, cakes and cookies.

Both rat groups gained weight. But the Cafeteria rats gained significantly more than the Chows did—nearly half a pound more, which is a big body burden for a rat. But more important, over two weeks time the Cafeteria rats seemed to care less and less about even seeking out a balanced diet. This new behavior endured even after the rats were returned to their more healthy fare. The study is in the journalFrontiers in Psychology. [Amy C. Reichelt, Margaret J. Morris and R.F. Westbrook, Cafeteria diet impairs expression of sensory-specific satiety and stimulus-outcome learning]

The researchers think junk-food diets cause lasting changes in the rewards circuits part of the brain—which plays a big role in decision-making. So if you’re a regular cookie eater and the next time you mindlessly reach for a cookie you wonder why you can’t help yourself—well, it could be because you’re not in charge, your rewired brain is.

Junk Diet Rewires Rat Brains

9:53 PM brain, health, junk food, sweet

Poll shows giant gap between what public, scientists think

The GAP Between Scientist views And Public Views

we are not talking about underdeveloped or developing countries. This about very developed countries. The views of common public is totally different from that of the scientist of the country.

Why there is a huge gap in their views ? Is the knowledge is not properly reached the public ? Or public is not ready to change from what they beliefs ?

What ever may be the case, it directing towards some new level of discussion. The science s for public life, it suppose not to end with publishing discoveries, rather the public should be educated and must give confident to them to change their mind set. This is very much required for the fearsome world of this generation. If this is the case of highly developed nations, I am not dare enough to think about the situations in developing and under developed countries. So think of it ... and read further to find the real statistics-- and realize the ocianic gap between public and scientist. 

.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The American public and U.S. scientists are light-years apart on science issues. And 98 percent of surveyed scientists say it's a problem that we don't know what they're talking about.


Scientists are far less worried about genetically modified food, pesticide use and nuclear power than is the general public, according to matching polls of both the general public and the country's largest general science organization. Scientists were more certain that global warming is caused by man, evolution is real, overpopulation is a danger and mandatory vaccination against childhood diseases is needed.

In eight of 13 science-oriented issues, there was a 20-percentage-point or higher gap separating the opinions of the public and members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, according to survey work by the Pew Research Center. The gaps didn't correlate to any liberal-conservative split; the scientists at times take more traditionally conservative views and at times more liberal.

"These are big and notable gaps," said Lee Rainie, director of Pew's internet, science and technology research. He said they are "pretty powerful indicators of the public and the scientific community seeing the world differently."

In the most dramatic split, 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe. And 68 percent of scientists said it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public.

Ninety-eight percent of scientists say humans evolved over time, compared with 65 percent of the public. The gap wasn't quite as large for vaccines, with 86 percent of the scientists favoring mandatory childhood shots while 68 percent of the public did.

Eighty-seven percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity, while only half of the public did. The figures for scientists are slightly different than past academic studies because of wording of the question and the fact that AAAS members include many specialties, but they tell the same essential story, said Pew associate director Cary Funk.


In this Monday, Oct. 31, 2005, picture, a harvester works through a field of genetically modified co …

What to do about climate change is another issue. Nearly two-thirds of scientists favored building more nuclear power plants, but only 45 percent of the public did. But more of the public favored offshore drilling for oil and fracking than scientists did.

More than four out of five scientists thought the growing world population will be a major problem, but just less than three out of five members of the public did.

Pew polled 2,002 adults in August and did an online survey of 3,748 AAAS members in the fall. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the public and 1.7 percentage points for the scientists.

In 2009, Pew asked only a handful of questions like these to both scientists and the public and the gap hasn't changed much since, Funk said.

"On the whole, as compared to most members of the public, scientists are likely drawing from a larger scientific knowledge base — and thinking more scientifically — about each of these issues," George Mason University communications professor Edward Maibach said in an email. "Therefore, their views appear to be more in line with a completely dispassionate reading of the risks versus the benefits."

Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS, said the gap between the way the public and scientists look at issues is a cause for concern.


A sign from an environmental group pushing a bill proposing man …

"Science is about facts; science is not about values," Leshner said. "Policies are made on facts and values and we want to make sure that the accurate, non-distorted facts are brought in to any kind of discussion."

The trouble is that scientists don't think the public knows the facts. The survey said 84 percent of the scientists said it is a major problem that "the public does not know very much about science" and another 14 percent said it is a minor problem.

And 97 percent of the scientists criticized the educational system. Three-quarters of the scientists said not enough science and math education is a major problem and another 22 percent said it was a minor one.

"It's not about being smart or dumb," Leshner said. "It's about whether, in fact, you understand the source of the fact and what the facts are."


Online:

Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/

American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/

Journal Science: http://www.sciencemag.org


Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears

Poll shows giant gap between what public, scientists think

2:03 PM energy, GM crops, Nuclear plants, public view, scientist