Total Pageviews

Traceability for improved freshness and lower cost: Walmart’s produce plan for the future




The retailer’s new plan aims to improve labeling and tracking.













When Walmart acts, the food industry notices. So when the retailer announced a produce traceability initiative (PTI) mandating standard case labels including GTIN, lot/batch#, voice pick code and pack or sell by date, Food Engineering wanted to know more. 





We spoke with Tom Kozenski of JDA Software about Walmart’s efforts to implement Produce Traceability Initiative standards and what it could mean for the future of fresh produce retail. 





Kozenski says proper labeling and tracking will provide improved product freshness and give all parties greater inventory visibility and control, lowering overall supply chain costs.








FE: Obviously, this is not the first demand Walmart has made of its suppliers. Do you have a feel for how many already comply?



A: It is only a small percentage today. I estimate 10 percent or less are fully compliant. I expect that the other 90 percent will struggle to be ready by the 2014 Walmart deadline. Adoption by other retailers will help accelerate supplier adoption. Walmart predicts 60 to 85 percent of other retailers will embrace PTI by the end of 2015.









FE: This demand means Walmart suppliers need more than just label-printing software to execute proper compliance. Are most ERP systems up to this?


 A: Yes, they are. This type of inventory identification had been going on for years in many industries. But it is a new concept for fresh produce.









FE: Do most producers have ERP systems that can tie in track-and-trace, label printing and supply chain systems?


 A: No. This is new ground for producers. Until now, they have not been required to support this type of program for fresh produce.









FE: Are there any “software-as-a-service” applications (SaaS) that let produce suppliers get a program together without breaking the bank?


 A: There may be some “slap-and-ship” products that can support manual processes, but these types of products can be error prone. Accurate, real-time data is critically important when it comes to QA, recalls, and item freshness tracking. Companies need to evaluate how they can utilize integrated solutions that are able to accurately capture data and electronically share it with their partners and customers.










FE: Walmart isn’t waiting for FSMA. What do you see in the Walmart program that will, in the end, make produce safer?


A: On its face value, the PTI program will make produce safer across the entire supply chain. Products will be properly identified, showing the source of each item. But the program does not address the need for proper quality control prior to the distribution of fresh produce. I think that is where FSMA regulations will help.










FE: What are the costs for producers that don’t have a coordinated (integrated) system? Can you break the costs down by which modules/programs may need to be added to come up to spec?



 A: The costs will vary. An integrated system would include modules for production planning, order management, quality control & recall, inventory management and EDI. This is a dramatically different approach than using only a slap-and-ship product.









FE: How will these Walmart demands help with products that have several ingredients from a number of countries or states?




A: Actually, these PTI demands relate to fresh produce and are not related to manufactured foods, so ingredients are not necessarily tracked. There are other solutions used by process manufacturers that track the ingredients that make up a finished good, the lot code and expiration date of the ingredients, and the supplier/source of the ingredients.





Produce suppliers have until November 1, 2013 to comply with Walmart’s new traceability requirements or they risk having product rejected as out of spec.





As VP, industry strategy for JDA Software, Tom Kozenski is responsible for driving the product direction of JDA’s Warehouse Management and Workforce Management solutions for both the manufacturing and retail sectors. 





Kozenski joined JDA as part of the JDA/RedPrairie merger in 2012, where he worked for 17 years.



Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to Food Engineering Magazine.





 

Wayne Labs has more than 20 years of editorial experience in industrial automation. Before joining Food Engineering, he served as a senior technical editor for Omega Engineering Inc. In addition to feature articles, Wayne covers FE’s Manufacturing News, Dry Processing and Field Reports (case histories) sections and writes FE’s twice monthly TechFlash e-newsletter. Email: labsw@bnpmedia.com







RESERVE YOUR SPOT @ IPO GLOBAL PINEAPPLE CONFERENCE IN COSTA RICA (November 01, 2013) ...




















Click on link to reserve your spot at the IPO Global Pineapple Conference in Costa Rica on November 01, 2013:


http://globalpineappleconference.eventbrite.com/








Confirmed Speaker List:





COUNTDOWN : 108 days until IPO Global Pineapple Conference in Costa Rica ...

















Click on the link and keep track of the days remaining ....


 http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20131101T10&p0=225&msg=IPO+Global+Pineapple+Conference





Register now for the IPO Global pineapple Conference:


http://globalpineappleconference.eventbrite.com/







Follow updates on the IPO BLOG (The Pineapple Express) :




http://i-pineapple-a.blogspot.com/






Environmental Justice, Equitable Development and the Spartanburg Story





 By 3p Contributor |






 July 15th, 2013







Spartanburg, South Carolina






Vibrant. Healthy. Secure. Discarded. Toxic. Trapped. 



Which words would you rather use to describe the community where you live, work or own a business? 



If the last three words were apt descriptors, how many years would you need to turn things around? 



And if reinvestment were successful, how many of your community’s original residents and businesses would still be there to benefit?







These questions are being answered in community development projects around the country. 





The most striking example is an effort lead by ReGenesis, a community-based environmental justice organization. 






ReGenesis partnered with public and private sector entities to transform the Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods of Spartanburg, South Carolina. 





Over a 15-year period, the ReGenesis Environmental Justice Partnership leveraged over $250 million on reinvestment and development opportunities that benefit existing residents and their business neighbors. 







So how did it happen? And how did local industry and businesses go from being adversaries to welcomed partners?








Equitable development


For many environmental justice neighborhoods, the impacts of cumulative pollution problems and the presence of vacant and contaminated properties are only two of a host of quality of life challenges for residents.






 These communities also suffer from disinvestment as jobs, businesses and wealth migrate away, leaving behind struggling schools, lack of access to healthy, affordable food, unemployment and underemployment, higher rates of crime, low property values and unhealthy housing conditions.





Adding insult to injury, when market conditions change and outside reinvestment picks up again, rising property values and large scale development projects can displace long-term residents depriving them of the benefits of revitalization.






Equitable development is a planning approach that prioritizes and pursues development that benefits current residents and contributes to neighborhood resilience and quality of life. 






Like Spartanburg’s ReGenesis, many environmental justice groups are using toxic sites as a pivot point to tackle larger quality of life concerns in order to create sustainable and livable communities. 





Using tools that create affordable housing, improve health equity, create economic opportunity and attract amenities such as neighborhood-oriented commercial districts and green space, equitable development partnerships can produce economic benefits that extend beyond residents to local government and private sector partners as well.







The Spartanburg story


After years of disinvestment, the 1990s found the Arkwright and Forest Park neighborhoods struggling. Urban renewal in the 1970s had decimated the community’s formerly vibrant commercial core of 70 black-owned businesses. 




Economic revitalization initiatives that were improving the downtown areas of Spartanburg had not reached these communities. The only road into the communities was frequently blocked by standing trains, isolating them from other areas of the city. In addition, many residents had health concerns which they suspected were related to the presence of two hazardous waste sites and an active chemical manufacturing plant. 





These suspicions created high levels of tension and mistrust between community members and their industrial neighbors: a municipal landfill, an abandoned fertilizer plant and an active chemical manufacturer.





 In addition to their health concerns, community residents also complained of noxious odors and waste pond overflow into residential areas.





In 1997, Harold Mitchell, a long-term community resident, founded ReGenesis. 





As efforts to assess and clean up contaminated sites began, ReGenesis represented neighborhood interests. 




Soon, the organization saw an opportunity to expand discussions with local government and environmental agencies to include equitable neighborhood revitalization. 




In 2000, the ReGenesis Environmental Justice Partnership was formed by representatives from ReGenesis, Spartanburg County, and the City of Spartanburg to promote equitable development for Arkwright and Forest Park.







Over the next decade, the Partnership worked with local residents to identify quality of life priorities for redevelopment and attracted millions of dollars for revitalization. Beginning with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency for site cleanup and redevelopment planning, the partnership has leveraged over $250 million dollars for neighborhood reinvestment.






Achievements include:



the establishment of the ReGenesis Community Health Center (which has grown to include five facilities and serves migrant health as well as school and behavioral health initiatives),




the launch of the C. C. Woodson Community Center, a green recreational facility that received an award from the National Planning Council for Innovative Financing, 



and




the creation of job opportunities for neighborhood residents in construction and at the nearby chemical manufacturing plant.






In addition to these significant successes, the partnership organized the purchase of two properties that are pivotal to revitalization. 





Ownership of these key properties has helped bolster redevelopment plans, support and funding.




However, as forward momentum built in the community, the mistrust between community residents and local industry looked like it might keep entities like Rhodia, Inc. and Vigindustries from working with the Partnership. 





Rhodia, Inc. operates an active chemical manufacturing plant, which many community members initially felt was a land use that was incompatible with their plans for a revitalized and healthy community. Vigindustries is the owner of an inactive fertilizer plant property where contamination is currently being addressed directly adjacent to community residences.






Over several years, through formal and informal discussions, including a facilitated dialogue between Rhodia, Inc. and ReGenesis, the local community and industry have worked hard to find common ground and rebuild trust. The facilitated dialogue has been the catalyst for building trust and relationships between Rhodia, the impacted community and other local stakeholders. According to Mitchell, “When most industries call themselves a good neighbor, they are thinking primarily about being a neighbor in the business community. Rhodia is now focused on being a good neighbor to their fenceline community. They are investing in their fenceline community instead of investing in costly legal battles over environmental impacts.”








Today, most neighborhood residents have toured the Rhodia plant and Rhodia is partnering closely with the community through monthly meetings. Rhodia has completed beautification projects on their property to create a buffer between the plant and adjacent residences, offered job training programs to community residents, and hired residents to work at the plant. Additionally, Rhodia adjusted plant operations to address noxious odors, lower loudspeaker noise and lessen light pollution at night. Every year, Rhodia hosts a barbecue for community residents and supports the annual ReGenesis Health Center’s Back to School Health Fair, which serves over 3,800 kids. As a result of these efforts, Rhodia’s public image has improved greatly.








Rhodia and ReGenesis have also worked on several transportation-related projects that are mutually beneficial for the plant and neighborhood residents. Rhodia worked with ReGenesis to start discussions with CSX that have resulted in policy changes which restrict the amount of time trains block the entrance to the neighborhood. Additionally, the completion of a new access road has provided a vital second entrance to the community and ensures that emergency vehicles and personnel can reach residents and Rhodia’s chemical plant in a timely fashion when the primary entrance is blocked by a train.






The Partnership has also worked with Vigindustries to develop a land use plan for the former fertilizer plant site; plans include a public golf course and a solar farm. 





The Partnership already has a relationship with The First Tee, a junior golf program, and hopes to use the course to teach leadership skills to neighborhood children and make them competitive for golf-related college scholarships. 




The Partnership is also currently in discussion with the local energy company to identify opportunities to generate revenue from the solar farm that would benefit the adjacent neighborhoods.






As a result of the hard work and commitment of both ReGenesis and local industry, relationships that were once defined by open hostility have transformed into relationships of mutual respect and partnership. Rhodia, Inc. and Vigindustries are now integral partners in and beneficiaries of the restoration of the neighborhoods they call home.







This article highlights the important work between the ReGenesis Partnership and local industries, but this work could not have been as successful without the efforts of the many other partners, including local, state and federal agencies, foundations, technical support from a number of colleges and universities, and EPA and the South Carolina Department of Environmental Control. 






Later this summer, the ReGenesis Leveraging report will be released by the University of South Carolina, Upstate. 





This report will provide greater detail on the accomplishment of this effort as well as the holistic benefits that are now a reality.







Sarah Malpass is an Associate Planner at Skeo Solutions where she specializes in collaborative planning and design services in the areas of Superfund site reuse and area-wide brownfield revitalization. She has a special interest in facilitating collaborative problem solving processes that help environmental justice communities identify equitable development solutions and create a foundation for healthy, vibrant community life.

[image credit: Joe Plocki: Flickr cc]





Is Sugar Really Toxic? Sifting through the Evidence

 









By Ferris Jabr 



| July 15, 2013 |








Credit: Lauri Andler (Phantom), via Wikimedia Commons








Our very first experience of exceptional sweetness—a dollop of buttercream frosting on a parent’s finger; a spoonful of strawberry ice cream instead of the usual puréed carrots—is a gustatory revelation that generally slips into the lacuna of early childhood. Sometimes, however, the moment of original sweetness is preserved.





 A YouTube video from February 2011 begins with baby Olivia staring at the camera, her face fixed in rapture and a trickle of vanilla ice cream on her cheek.



 When her brother Daniel brings the ice cream cone near her once more, she flaps her arms and arches her whole body to reach it.








Considering that our cells depend on sugar for energy, it makes sense that we evolved an innate love for sweetness.





 How much sugar we consume, however—as well as how it enters the body and where we get it from in the first place—has changed dramatically over time. Before agriculture, our ancestors presumably did not have much control over the sugars in their diet, which must have come from whatever plants and animals were available in a given place and season. 






Around 6,000 BC, people in New Guinea began to grow sugarcane, chewing and sucking on the stalks to drink the sweet juice within. Sugarcane cultivation spread to India, where by 500 BC people had learned to turn bowls of the tropical grass’s juice into crude crystals.






 From there sugar traveled with migrants and monks to China, Persia, northern Africa and eventually to Europe in the 11th century.






For more than 400 years, sugar remained a luxury in Europe—an exotic spice—until manufacturing became efficient enough to make “white gold” much more affordable. 






Christopher Columbus brought sugarcane to the New World in 1493 and in the 16th and 17th centuries European powers established sugarcane plantations in the West Indies and South America. 





Sugar consumption in England increased by 1,500 percent between the 18th and 19th centuries. By the mid 19th century, Europeans and Americans had come to regard refined sugar as a necessity. 







Today, we add sugar in one form or another to the majority of processed foods we eat—everything from bread, cereals, crunchy snacks and desserts to soft drinks, juices, salad dressings and sauces—and we are not too stingy about using it to sweeten many raw and whole foods as well.








By consuming so much sugar we are not just demonstrating weak willpower and indulging our sweet tooth—we are in fact poisoning ourselves according to a group of doctors, nutritionists and biologists, one of the most prominent members of which is Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco, famous for his viral YouTube video “Sugar: The Bitter Truth.” 




A few journalists, such as Gary Taubes and Mark Bittman, havereached similar conclusions. 





Sugar, they argue, poses far greater dangers than cavities and love handles; it is a toxin that harms our organs and disrupts the body’s usual hormonal cycles. 





Excessive consumption of sugar, they say, is one of the primary causes of the obesity epidemic and metabolic disorders like diabetes, as well as a culprit of cardiovascular disease.




 More than one-third of American adults and approximately 12.5 million children and adolescents in the U.S. are obese. 




In 1980, 5.6 million Americans were diagnosed with diabetes; in 2011 more than 20 million Americans had the illness.







Credit: Romain Behar, via Wikimedia Commons







The argument that sugar is a toxin depends on some technical details about the different ways the human body gets energy from different types of sugar. 





Today, Americans eat most of their sugar in two main forms: table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. A molecule of table sugar, or sucrose, is a bond between one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule—two simple sugars with the same chemical formula, but slightly different atomic structures. 




In the 1960s, new technology allowed the U.S. corn industry to cheaply convert corn-derived glucose intro fructose and produce high fructose corn syrup, which—despite its name—is almost equal parts free-floating fructose and glucose: 55 percent fructose, 42 percent glucose and three percent other sugars. 






Because fructose is about twice as sweet as glucose, an inexpensive syrup mixing the two was an appealing alternative to sucrose from sugarcane and beets.







Regardless of where the sugar we eat comes from, our cells are interested in dealing with fructose and glucose, not the bulkier sucrose. Enzymes in the intestine split sucrose into fructose and glucose within seconds, so as far as the human body is concerned sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup are equivalent. The same is not true for their constituent molecules. Glucose travels through the bloodstream to all of our tissues, because every cell readily converts glucose into energy. In contrast, liver cells are one of the few types of cells that can convert fructose to energy, which puts the onus of metabolizing fructose almost entirely on one organ. The liver accomplishes this primarily by turning fructose into glucose and lactate. 






Eating exceptionally large amounts of fructose taxes the liver: it spends so much energy turning fructose into other molecules that it may not have much energy left for all its other functions. 



A consequence of this energy depletion is production of uric acid, which research has linked to gout, kidney stones and high blood pressure.






The human body strictly regulates the amount of glucose in the blood. Glucose stimulates the pancreas to secrete the hormone insulin, which helps remove excess glucose from blood, andbolsters production of the hormone leptin, which suppresses hunger. Fructose does not trigger insulin production and appears to raise levels of the hormone grehlin, which keeps us hungry. 






Some researchers have suggested that large amounts of fructose encourage people to eat more than they need. 





In studies with animals and people by Kimber Stanhope of the University of California Davis and other researchers, excess fructose consumption has increased fat production, especially in the liver, and raised levels of circulating triglycerides, which are a risk factor for clogged arteries and cardiovascular disease. 





Some research has linked a fatty liver to insulin resistance—a condition in which cells become far less responsive to insulin than usual, exhausting the pancreas until it loses the ability to properly regulate blood glucose levels. 







Richard Johnson of the University of Colorado Denver has proposed that uric acid produced by fructose metabolism also promotes insulin resistance. 




In turn insulin resistance is thought to be a major contributor to obesity and Type 2 diabetes; the three disorders often occur together.







Because fructose metabolism seems to kick off a chain reaction of potentially harmful chemical changes inside the body, Lustig, Taubes and others have singled out fructose as the rotten apple of the sugar family. When they talk about sugar as a toxin, they mean fructose specifically. 





In the last few years, however, prominent biochemists and nutrition experts have challenged the idea that fructose is a threat to our health and have argued that replacing fructose with glucose or other sugars would solve nothing. 





First, as fructose expert John White points out, fructose consumption has been declining for more than a decade, but rates of obesity continued to rise during the same period. Of course, coinciding trends alone do not definitively demonstrate anything. 





A more compelling criticism is that concern about fructose is based primarily on studies in which rodents and people consumed huge amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose each day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet in which the vast majority of sugars were pure fructose. 




The reality is that most people consume far less fructose than used in such studies and rarely eat fructose without glucose.







Credit: Thamizhpparithi Maari, Wikimedia Commons








On average, people in America and Europe eat between 100 and 150 grams of sugar each day, about half of which is fructose. 




It’s difficult to find a regional diet or individual food that contains only glucose or only fructose. Virtually all plants have glucose, fructose and sucrose—not just one or another of these sugars. 





Although some fruits, such as apples and pears, have three times as much fructose as glucose, most of the fruits and veggies we eat are more balanced. 






Pineapples, blueberries, peaches, carrots, corn and cabbage, for example, all have about a 1:1 ratio of the two sugars. 







In his New York Times Magazine article, Taubes claims that “fructose…is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone.” 




This is not really true. 




Although potatoes and white bread are full of starch—long chains of glucose molecules—they also have fructose and sucrose. 




Similarly, Lustig has claimed that the Japanese diet promotes weight loss because it is fructose-free, but the Japanese consume plenty of sugar—about 83 grams a day on average—including fructose in fruit, sweetened beverages and the country’s many meticulously crafted confectioneries. 




High-fructose corn syrup was developed and patented in part by Japanese researcher Yoshiyuki Takasaki in the 1960s and ’70s.






Not only do many worrying fructose studies use unrealistic doses of the sugar unaccompanied by glucose, it also turns out that the rodents researchers have studied metabolize fructose in a very different way than people do—far more different than originally anticipated. Studies that have traced fructose’s fantastic voyage through the human body suggest that the liver converts as much as 50 percent of fructose into glucose, around 30 percent of fructose into lactate and less than one percent into fats. 




In contrast, mice and rats turn more than 50 percent of fructose into fats, so experiments with these animals would exaggerate the significance of fructose’s proposed detriments for humans, especially clogged arteries, fatty livers and insulin resistance.





In a series of meta-analyses examining dozens of human studies, John Sievenpiper of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and his colleagues found no harmful effects of typical fructose consumption on body weight, blood pressure or uric acid production. 




In a 2011 study, Sam Sun—a nutrition scientist at Archer Daniels Midland, a major food processing corporation—and his colleagues analyzed data about sugar consumption collected from more than 25,000 Americans between 1999 and 2006.







Their analysis confirmed that people almost never eat fructose by itself and that for more than 97 percent of people fructose contributes less daily energy than other sugars. They did not find any positive associations between fructose consumption and levels of trigylcerides, cholesterol or uric acid, nor any significant link to waist circumference or body mass index (BMI). 





And in a recent BMC Biology Q&A, renowned sugar  LucTappy of the University of Lausanne writes: “Given the substantial consumption of fructose in our diet, mainly from sweetened beverages, sweet snacks, and cereal products with added sugar, and the fact that fructose is an entirely dispensable nutrient, it appears sound to limit consumption of sugar as part of any weight loss program and in individuals at high risk of developing metabolic diseases. There is no evidence, however, that fructose is the sole, or even the main factor in the development of these diseases, nor that it is deleterious to everybody.”






To properly understand fructose metabolism, we must also consider in what form we consume the sugar, as explained in a recent paper by David Ludwig, Director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center of Boston Children’s Hospital and a professor at Harvard. Drinking a soda or binging on ice cream floods our intestines and liver with large amounts of loose fructose.






 In contrast, the fructose in an apple does not reach the liver all at once. All the fiber in the fruit—such as cellulose that only our gut bacteria can break down—considerably slows digestion. Our enzymes must first tear apart the apple’s cells to reach the sugars sequestered within. “It’s not just about the fiber in food, but also its very structure,” Ludwig says. “You could add Metamucil to Coca Cola and not get any benefit.”





 In a small but intriguing study, 17 adults in South Africa ate primarily fruit—about 20 servings with approximately 200 grams of total fructose each day—for 24 weeks and did not gain weight, develop high blood pressure or imbalance their insulin and lipid levels.








To strengthen his argument, Ludwig turns to the glycemic index, a measure of how quickly food raises levels of glucose in the blood. Pure glucose and starchy foods such as Taubes’s example of the potato have a high glycemix index; fructose has a very low one. 





If fructose is uniquely responsible for obesity and diabetes and glucose is benign, then high glycemic index diets should not be associated with metabolic disorders—yet they are. 





A small percentage of the world population may in fact consume so much fructose that they endanger their health because of the difficulties the body encounters in converting the molecule to energy. But the available evidence to date suggests that, for most people, typical amounts of dietary fructose are not toxic.








Credit: Jan Homann, Wikimedia Commons








Even if Lustig is wrong to call fructose poisonous and saddle it with all the blame for obesity and diabetes, his most fundamental directive is sound: eat less sugar. 





Why? 





Because super sugary, energy-dense foods with little nutritional value are one of the main ways we consume more calories than we need, albeit not the only way. 





It might be hard to swallow, but the fact is that many of our favorite desserts, snacks, cereals and especially our beloved sweet beverages inundate the body with far more sugar than it can efficiently metabolize. Milkshakes, smoothies, sodas, energy drinks and even unsweetened fruit juices all contain large amounts of free-floating sugars instantly absorbed by our digestive system.





Avoiding sugar is not a panacea, though. A healthy diet is about so much more than refusing that second sugar cube and keeping the cookies out of reach or hidden in the cupboard. What about all the excess fat in our diet, so much of which is paired with sugar and contributes to heart disease? What about bad cholesterol and salt? “If someone is gaining weight, they should look to sugars as a place to cut back,” says Sievenpiper, “but there’s a misguided belief that if we just go after sugars we will fix obesity—obesity is more complex than that. Clinically, there are some people who come in drinking way too much soda and sweet beverages, but most people are just overconsuming in general.” 






Then there’s all the stuff we really should eat more of: whole grains; fruits and veggies; fish; lean protein. 




But wait, we can’t stop there: a balanced diet is only one component of a healthy lifestyle. 




We need to exercise too—to get our hearts pumping, strengthen our muscles and bones and maintain flexibility. Exercising, favoring whole foods over processed ones and eating less overall sounds too obvious, too simplistic, but it is actually a far more nuanced approach to good health than vilifying a single molecule in our diet—an approach that fits the data. 






Americans have continued to consume more and more total calories each year—average daily intake increased by 530 calories between 1970 and 2000—while simultaneously becomingless and less physically active. 



Here’s the true bitter truth: Yes, most of us should make an effort to eat less sugar—but if we are really committed to staying healthy, we’ll have to do a lot more than that.









About the Author: Ferris Jabr is an associate editor focusing on neuroscience and psychology. Follow on Twitter @ferrisjabr.





http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20130715
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)