The Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition introduces a new “double” food pyramid designed to aid consumers with selecting foods that contribute to a balanced diet and are sustainable for the environment.

The Double Food Pyramid was released more than fifteen years after the US Department of Agriculture developed and released the first Food Pyramid to illustrate how to achieve a nutritionally balanced diet.

As seen in the infographic above, the left diagram illustrates the suggested intake for each respective food group in increasing order as the reader moves down the pyramid, while the right diagram shows the corresponding ecological impact.

According to the Barilla Center,

From “Double Pyramid” can be observed that the food which is recommended more frequent consumption, are also those with minor environmental impacts. Conversely, foods for which consumption is recommended less frequent, are also those that have most impact. In other words, this developing new food pyramid shows the coincidence, in one model, two different but equally important goals:health and environmental protection.

View the full interactive infographic here.

Barilla Center

Parents worry more about their children being murdered than much more widespread health problems such as obesity, a survey suggests.

The findings, in a YouGov poll of 1,244 parents, contrast with data showing the risk of a child being killed by a stranger is a million to one.

The risk of severe health problems for children due to lack of exercise is one in three, figures have suggested.

The latest figures show walk-to-school rates have fallen to a new low of 48%.

The survey for charities Parentline Plus and Living Streets is being published as part of a campaign to get more children walking to school.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

There's always a little part of you that says my child might be that one in a million”

End Quote Valerie Outram Parent counsellor

Both charities argue that parents can increase activity levels using measures such as walking to school instead of using a car.

Of the parents polled by YouGov for the charities, 30% said they most feared that their child would be abducted or killed by a stranger, while a further 30% feared they would be hurt in a road traffic accident.

But only one in 20 picked concerns about poor health in later life due to the child's levels of physical activity.

The chief executive of Parentline Plus, Jeremy Todd, said stranger danger and road traffic accidents were real concerns to some parents of primary school children who chose to drive their children to school.

The parenting counsellor for the charity, Valerie Outram, said she could understand why parents perceived the risks in this way.

"Even if you presented statistics that said it's not really very likely that this would happen, there's always a little part of you that says my child might be that one in a million and I just don't want to be taking that risk," she said.

All time low

It was also about the long-term nature of the risk, she added.

"Just because a child is a bit podgy doesn't mean they are going to die early, but if they get morbidly obese - it's a different matter," she added.

The chief executive of Living Streets, Tony Armstrong, said the number of children walking to school had dropped to an all-time low.

The latest figures, which are for 2008, suggest 48% of primary age children walk to school.

"It's certainly not wrong for parents to fear road accidents or abduction, but it is wrong that fear for children's health is put on the back burner, especially when the statistics show that there is more chance that their children will suffer long-term health problems from obesity," said Mr Armstrong.

The poll also suggested many parents underestimate how much exercise their children need.

The government recommends they do at least seven hours of physical activity a week.

According to the research, 68% of boys and 76% of girls are not meeting that recommendation.

It was in 1994 that, under the provisions of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, all food companies were required by law to begin using the Nutrition Facts label. By today’s wireless, hybrid, organic, GPS-enabled, touch-sensitive consumer product standards, would anyone argue that a 16-year-old anything isn't practically and hopelessly fossilized?

The current Nutrition Facts label was originally based on Recommended Dietary Allowances dating from 1968(!)--a time when low- or fat-free foods still only numbered in the dozens--and has remained unchanged for 16 years.

Given the advances in nutritional science and its ensuing impact on the American public’s diet, as well as the continuing efforts of both the U.S. Department of Health, the FDA and food companies to help consumers make better/healthier eating decisions, isn’t it time to bring the Nutrition Label into a new light--a cleaner, more concise and informative light?

As a passive observer/consumer, I have followed the unending gyrations of the FDA as it grapples with how to develop a new labeling system for both the front and back panels of packages. As a designer, I believe it shouldn't be that difficult to create a simple, unbiased and meaningful solution--one that doesn’t require consumers to bring a magnifying glass and calculator with them when they go food shopping.

 I’d like to offer the following prototypes to the FDA. They take the current thinking for nutritional labeling to the next level and show how information design can work effectively to help consumers make better and healthier choices.

The Information Hierarchy: The first thing consumers should look at is the serving size/serving per container, as they are the true indicators of how much a consumer should be eating. (Click any image to view it larger)

Language Simplification: Use meaningful/simplified language such as, "Control" (Portion Control, Calorie Control, Target Control) to empower consumers to take charge of their health.

Graphic Details: Use colorful icons that provide clear, easy communication, as well as a legible, contemporary font.

Good Stuff vs. Bad Stuff: Separate nutrients into "More of These" (with a plus sign) and "Less of These" (with a minus sign). It helps distinguish the good stuff from the bad and reinforces the notion of less versus more.

Phone app and website: Taking this a step further, consumers would be well served to locate a Nutrition Facts app and website that can be accessed through their cell phones to help them make smart nutrition decisions. It's just what the doctor ordered.

There is a new social entrepreneurial movement afoot, which seeks to find cures to some of the world's most challenging diseases. Medical entrepreneurship is, in my view, the very best hope we have for accelerating the pace of finding medical cures. A good example and arguably the pioneer of this movement is Michael Milken's Prostate Cancer Foundation. Milken has taken on a decidedly entrepreneurial approach to providing capital and human resources to accelerate the pace of research into cures for cancer, particularly that of the prostate. From 1999 to 2006 we have seen a 25% drop in the death rate for prostrate cancer. There is little doubt that Milken's leadership has been one of the greatest catalysts in this improvement.

Another leader in the movement is Henry McCance, who co-founded, the Cure Alzheimer's Fund, which I first wrote about last year. The Cure Alzheimer's Fund is another example of a cure accelerator, an organization using a venture approach towards medical research. Out of full disclosure, I recently joined the Cure Alzheimer's Fund's advisory board. And while I care deeply about diseases such as Alzheimer's, I am mostly fascinated and hopeful that a more maverick VC-like business model applied to the search for medical cures will be a better approach to solving some of the big medical challenges we have.

The medical research model as we know it today is broken. Why? Three words: insufficient, inefficient, and ineffective. This is both the big problem and the big opportunity for medical entrepreneurship. Today's model is insufficient because typically 1% or less of the amount spent each year on diseases goes towards cure research, with the balance going to caring for people with the disease. Alzheimer's, for example, costs our country hundreds of millions of dollars each year, yet we spend just one cent out of every $4.00 available towards a cure. That is an astonishing 400x delta. The story is similar for diabetes and cystic fibrosis. While care is obviously critical, we need more dollars to go to finding the cure — or the country is at great risk of a healthcare-induced bankruptcy. Henry McCance and Professor Bill Sahlman of Harvard Business School recently gave an excellent overview of this at Venture Summit East and I draw on many elements of their talk in this blog post.

The current research model is highly inefficient because researchers spend too much time writing grants. By our estimates at the Cure Alzheimer's Fund, the very best researchers in the field spend up to 30% of their time writing grants, and should they win the grant they may have to wait months or even a year to get the funding. As well-intended and needed are organizations such as NIH (National Institute of Health), there is an embedded trade-off between the robustness of review and the approval of grants to new and innovative projects. Imagine any venture capitalist going to Netscape or Yahoo to validate funding to Google or expecting an entrepreneur to spend a third of his time writing a business plan and then waiting a year for funding. This is the frustration that many of the best researchers in our country feel.

Finally, the medical research model is ineffective because it is, by design, risk averse with regard to the projects it pursues. Grant proposals that win funding are usually those that seek out small, incremental discoveries — it is the very nature and policy of the grant making bodies to look for ideas that slowly build on existing knowledge. Breakout ideas are not able to happen under an incrementalist research model. Even worse, as we've heard anecdotally from some researchers, some people write grants for questions whose answers are already known.

Pioneers of the medical entrepreneurship movement are taking bigger risks on researchers, asking them to focus their energies on the initiatives that have the largest potential impact as opposed to those that would get traditional grant funding. They are also doing so faster. Milken's Prostate Cancer Foundation, for example, makes awards based on applications that are limited to five pages and has a 90-day turn-around time. FasterCures has become a think tank and resource-sharing center for this new approach.

Focus on the big ideas that can lead to the big goal of curing a disease, eliminate bureaucracy, and give smart people more capital, faster, and you have a formula for change. What proof exists that the change is positive? Thousands of lives have been saved by the advances in prostate cancer understanding by medical innovators in that field. The Cure Alzheimer's Fund was recognized last year by Time Magazine for one of the top ten medical breakthroughs of the year for work that identified over 100 genes associated with the disease.

Across multiple diseases, researchers have been conditioned to make progress with bond-like returns. While some of this is necessary, it cannot be sufficient. As in any portfolio, we cannot maximize returns if we hold all our eggs in one big conservative basket. We need to invest more behind higher risk initiatives that can yield equity-like returns, and hopefully real cures.

If you didn’t already know it, biking and walking are really good for you. Thanks to a new study released by the Alliance for Biking and Walking (and funded by the CDC) we now have the data to prove it. There is a lot of great information in the study and I recommend you check it out. But for those of you on the fly, a few highlights:

-Less than 10% of all trips are made by bike or foot

-From 2000-2007 the number of commuters who bike to work increased by 42%

-States with the highest levels of cycling and walking have the lowest levels of adults with hypertension, obesity, and diabetes

-New Yorkers (not a big surprise) make more of their trips by foot or bike than any other state- almost 19% of their trips

-North Dakota, South Carolina, Delaware and Mississippi tied for last place– only about 5% of trips are made by foot or bike

One quandary (and a reason many people stay in their cars) is that study also shows cyclists and pedestrians are at a disproportionate risk of being killed. Not a big surprise when you consider that less than 2% of the federal transportation budget is allocated towards walking and biking. Savvy policy makers might consider the public health benefits (and corresponding impact on health care budgets) when divvying up the monies next time around.

Organic products meet stringent standards

Organic certification is the public’s assurance that products have been grown and handled according to strict procedures without persistent toxic chemical inputs.

Organic food tastes great!

It’s common sense – well-balanced soils produce strong, healthy plants that become nourishing food for people and animals.

Organic production reduces health risks

Many EPA-approved pesticides were registered long before extensive research linked these chemicals to cancer and other diseases. Organic agriculture is one way to prevent any more of these chemicals from getting into the air, earth and water that sustain us.

Organic farms respect our water resources

The elimination of polluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching, done in combination with soil building, protects and conserves water resources.

Organic farmers build healthy soil

Soil is the foundation of the food chain. The primary focus of organic farming is to use practices that build healthy soils.

Organic farmers work in harmony with nature

Organic agricultural respects the balance demanded of a healthy ecosystem: wildlife is encouraged by including forage crops in rotation and by retaining fence rows, wetlands, and other natural areas.

Organic producers are leaders in innovative research

Organic farmers have led the way, largely at their own expense, with innovative on-farm research aimed at reducing pesticide use and minimizing agriculture’s impact on the environment.

Organic producers strive to preserve diversity

The loss of a large variety of species (biodiversity) is one of the most pressing environmental concerns. The good news is that many organic farmers and gardeners have been collecting and preserving seeds, and growing unusual varieties for decades.

Organic farming helps keep rural communities healthy

USDA reported that in 1997, half of U.S. farm production came from only 2% of farms. Organic agriculture can be a lifeline for small farms because it offers an alternative market where sellers can command fair prices for crops.

Organic abundance – Foods and non-foods alike!

Now every food category has an organic alternative. And non-food agricultural products are being grown organically – even cotton, which most experts felt could not be grown this way.

Its better for your health & for the environment!