Internet, let’s talk about science. Specifically, let’s talk about the intersection of science and food. I have two bits of information to share with you: the first is an article on PepsiCo’s new form of salt, just out of the lab, that dissolves more efficiently on the tongue, so that a smaller amount of salt will taste more salty. The second is a TED talk by Dan Barber explaining a method of fish farming used in southern Spain that produces large numbers of tasty fish while actually improving the local ecosystem.
The Pepsi article points out that, while the new salt would mean that the salt content of snacks made by Pepsi, like Lay’s Potato Chips, could be significantly lowered, the effect on the health of Pepsi’s customers would likely be small. The article mentions Sweet ‘N Low, which reduced the amount of calories in food where it was used, but in the long run probably helped us eat more sweet foods and might have made matters worse. As happens so often with food research, Pepsi has, through years of expensive and painstaking research, provided us with a product incredibly similar to one readily and cheaply available in nature, except that it helps us feel better about consuming larger quantities of Pepsi products. I love science, and the idea that people can make anything they think up, simply by methodically working out a solution. But it bothers me that Pepsi employs research chemists to work on something as inane as tastier salt. There are still diseases out there to cure, fossil fuels to replace, or if you aren’t into chemistry, there are oceans to explore, a whole universe to fathom. There are enough exciting, humanity-benefiting goals out there for everyone on the planet to be working on them, let alone everyone with a PhD in chemistry. It’s a terrible waste of talent, and a symptom of how we treat science in our society, but it’s no use moping over where research grants come from.
Which brings me to Dan Barber’s TED Talk. Barber’s lecture centers around a very cute metaphor (the fish he fell in love with) and makes some excellent points about what it means to be sustainable. Barber compares two methods of fish farming, one that relies on external (and kinda gross) feed for the fish, and one that takes advantage of an entire ecosystem to feed the fish and raise better meat, at the cost of a slightly lower output. The first farm initially seemed a model of sustainability. By the traditional metric of fish farm sustainability, the feed conversion ratio (how many pounds of food go into raising one pound of fish), the farm was exemplary (2.5:1), it was also far enough out at sea that the fish waste was able to disperse, instead of concentrating, which is often a problem. As it turned out, this farm was feeding their fish chicken, essentially raising one artificial population to feed another artificial population, and burdening multiple ecosystems in the process. The second farm is run by a biologist who figured out how to cultivate a ecosystem that would essentially raise delicious, relatively disease-free fish all by itself. The fish eat what they would in the wild, and the water that runs through the farm actually comes out more pure than when it got there. Incredible? Totally. Amazing? Yes. Sustainable? Yeah, and it brings up a neat little point: sustainability is actually how the world works, or how it tries to. Sustainability in an industrialized society takes a bit more work, but not as much as you might think. This is where my opposition to food science breaks down. I see no point in figuring out how to make saltier salt, or low-fat ice cream, or brighter-colored tomatoes, but I can’t think of a more noble project for a biologist than creating a fish farm that not only takes pressure off our oceans’ plummeting fish populations, but actually enriches a local ecosystem with its presence. In the end, I’m as excited about the one as I am angered by the other. Pepsi researching saltier salt is a huge waste of time, resources, and talent. Hardly worth the lab coats. Farms that mutually benefit the farmer, the consumer, and the local ecosystem should get Nobel Prizes.
