With a science-hostile Congress moving into Washington next month, now – before reactionary attempts to turn back the nascent clock – is a good time to revisit the benefits of stem cell research.

By way of a quick review, work here in the United States is still in a relatively embryonic stage, so to speak, as it was only in March 2009 that President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13505 – “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The EO revoked one signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, as well as Presidential statement in 2001 that limited federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells. Obama’s order instructed the Director of NIH to “develop guidelines for the support and conduct of responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”

It’s that last bit about the law where the new Congress has the ability to stop and reverse forward motion. Here’s a primer on the progress and opportunities we stand to lose if backward thinkers have their way:

1.  Cures for common diseases

Topping the list is the role that stem cell research and regenerative medicine might – most researchers, in fact, say will likely – play in developing cures for disease that might otherwise be incurable. (Note that: otherwise incurable.) Here’s a short list:

• Parkinson’s Disease
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Heart Diseases
• Diabetes
• Cancer

Know anyone suffering from something on this list? Most people do. And how about this recent headline from the peer-reviewed journal Blood, a publication of the American Society of Hematology: “Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR5 32/32 stem cell transplantation.” Know what that means? Yeah. The AFP reported this just yesterday: “A US cancer patient who received a stem cell transplant has been cured of HIV.” Stay tuned on this one.

2. Reversing birth defects

Studies are showing that by injecting stem cells directly into the brain, neural birth defects may be reversible. This research into treating birth defects is pretty new, but teams have been developing therapies for rodents with real or simulated birth defects in the brain, says MIT’s Technology Review. “Even though most of the transplanted cells did not survive, they induced the brain’s own cells to carry out extensive repairs.”

3. Repairing stroke damage

Science Daily reports that according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, neural cells from human embryonic stem cells “helped repair stroke-related damage in the brains of rats and led to improvements in their physical abilities after a stroke.” This is big news. “The great thing about these cells is that they are available in unlimited supply and are very versatile,” said a senior scientist on the project. “The neural cells the group generated grew indefinitely in the lab and could be an ongoing source of cells for treating stroke or other injuries.”

4. Dealing with spinal cord injuries

Just this fall, a patient suffering from a spinal cord injury was injected with two million human embryonic stem cells. “The hope,” says CBS News Healthwatch, is that “one day this treatment may help the paralyzed walk again.” The procedure took place at the Shepherd Center spinal cord and brain injury rehabilitation facility in Atlanta. The idea is that the cells will become specialized nerve cells which can then be injected directly into the injured area of the spinal cord.  If the treatment works, the progenitor cells will produce new oligodendrocytes (cells that produce myelin, which allows impulses to move along nerves) in the injured area of the patient’s spine, allowing for new movement.

5. Organ repair and replacement

Growing whole organs and critical tissue is a seemingly sci-fi scenario that’s a lot closer than we think – with the help of stem cell research. This new technology could make possible “a virtually inexhaustible supply of organ replacements, thereby doing away with the need to wait for organ donors and removing the risk of rejection.” Entire hearts, lungs, etc., aside, tissue generation has an entire host of curative possibilities.

6. Burn victim relief

Here’s an area where there’s already been a significant payoff as cultivated stem cells are today being used to generate skin grafts. Also, patients whose eyes have been damaged in chemical accidents have had their sight restored using their own stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research plays a significant role helping scientists understand and put to use adult stem cells, as well.

7. Developing new drugs

New drugs can be tested on stem cells to test safety before testing on humans, or even animals, for that matter. In fact, as CNN reports, some researchers are saying embryonic stem cells could end animal testing altogether. Says one expert, “It could save a lot of time and effort of taking the wrong drugs through, or it may allow drugs through which are lost at an early stage, because they affect the animal cells but don’t have an effect on human cells.”

8. (If the science isn’t enough) It’s the economy, stupid

States that support stem cell research have seen significant corporate investment and job creation. Estimates in California, for example, are that $1 billion in investment in stem cell research is not unreasonable. The commercial potential is overwhelming, according those who are in the business.

9. It’s the economy, stupid II

Oh, and don’t we have a little problem with healthcare expenditures in this country? Don’t most experts believe that the amount of money we’re paying out as a society for the sick and dying is going to bankrupt us if action is not taken? How about more healthy people? Seems like something we should be looking into.

10. (If the economics isn’t enough) It’s just the right thing to do

Stem cell research is inherently innovative and efficient, and a practical and a conscious demonstration of caring for those who are sick. These people are not only taxing the system, but they are taxing themselves and their families with trauma and anguish. Scientific progress and human quality of life are inexorably linked in our times and acting to improve and care for the entire system, the whole connected fabric of our existence, is a moral imperative. Consider that more than 100 million Americans suffer from ailments and diseases that may be cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Alleviating human suffering. It’s the right thing to do.

Image: kaibara87

I have a friend who refers to the Standard American Diet by the acronym SAD.

This is an apt description indeed. Think about it. We have more colorfully packaged choices on the shelves of our supermarkets, more new flavors of cereal, crackers, and chips than we know what to do with, more fortified, functional foods than ever. Yet, as a nation, we get sicker every year. Diet related diseases are epidemic, especially among young people. In fact, children today are the first generation expected to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. And it’s all related to our SAD. With all of our medical knowledge and wealth, how did this come to pass?

According to Marion Nestle, Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU and author of the classic book, Food Politics, the problem is that our heavily subsidized, highly efficient food industry produces too many calories – twice as many as we need. Because of this surplus, food companies must work hard to get us to EAT MORE. Hence the millions of dollars in advertising spent every year to get us to Supersize It.

Though Food Politics was published back in 2002, it’s just as relevant today. Besides advertising, the Food Industry influences our diets in many ways that most of us are not even aware of.

1. Food industry lobbyists influence USDA’s food guidelines.

Chapter 2 of Food Politics provides readers with an instructive history of the development of the USDA Food Pyramid and how food industry lobbyists influenced the final product. For example, meat and dairy producers did not like the implication inherent in the pyramid design that some foods were better than others. They preferred a design that presented each food group as visually equal. The food industry spent over a year fighting the design and wording. In the end, the pyramid won out, but the meat and dairy industries succeeded in getting many minor changes made. The biggest change was that, instead of recommending a straight number of servings (2-3), the wording was changed to “at least 2-3 servings” to encourage people to eat more.

2. Food industry sponsorships

The food industry regularly sponsors research studies, nutritional journals and conferences, and sometimes, entire university departments. How much does this corporate money influence the findings and recommendations of research? Surveys cited in Food Politics show that researchers often have financial or professional ties to the companies they are researching, which certainly creates the impression of bias. And when food companies use the findings of a study in its advertising, as a way to sell more product, the appearance of bias is even harder to ignore. Also, when a corporation has an exclusive partnership with a university research department, as is becoming more common, there is a very real concern that these partnerships will interfere with academic freedom.

3. Endorsements and labeling rackets

When professional societies develop partnerships with food companies in order to provide nutritional information to consumers or develop labeling schemes for certain foods, the net outcome is not always good for consumers. Food Politics offers many examples of this phenomenon, including one in which the American Heart Association charged food companies enormous fees to be a part of its Heart Check labeling program. The program resulted in the labeling of foods like pop-tarts as heart healthy. Such labeling schemes that isolate one aspect of a food product, such as cholesterol, while ignoring sugar content and other less healthy aspects of the food in question, only confuse consumers. The program was eventually discontinued and fees returned.

4. Revolving doors

When industry executives get jobs in government things tend to go the way industry wants them to. This happens in every sector (think banking!) and the food industry is not an exception. Two recent examples of revolving door appointees in the Obama administration include Dr. Islam Siddiqui, chief agricultural negotiator and former lobbyist and vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, a US trade association representing the major manufacturers, formulators and distributors of crop protection and pest control products. In September Catherine Woteki was named Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at the USDA. Previously she served as global director of scientific affairs for Mars, Inc., where she managed the company’s scientific policy and research on matters of health, nutrition, and food safety.

5. PR

Remember the Smart Choices labeling scheme, an industry-driven label designed to make consumers think that Froot Loops are healthy? An earlier example given in Food Politics is that of Nestle’s efforts to convince women in developing countries that formula is better for babies than breast milk. When its reputation in the US suffered as a result of these efforts, the company hired a well-known PR firm to help it out of the mess. The book includes a chart that outlines the company’s actions including issuing opinion papers on the subject, sponsoring conferences, and urging journalists to write favorable articles on the subject of formula feeding.

6. Lawsuits against critics

Remember Oprah vs. The National Cattleman’s Association? Have you heard of the veggie libel laws that exist in 13 states? The prospect of an expensive lawsuit can really have a chilling effect on anyone considering speaking out against a specific food or production practice.

7. Marketing to children and in schools

Not only do packaged and fast food companies spend millions to target children through advertising on television, in magazines, on the Internet, through movie product placements, and toy campaigns, they also have an incredible grip on the visual space inside schools. Food Politics outlines how companies use advertisements in hallways, on buses, and in teaching materials to reach children. And also how club and sports teams sponsorships, contests, school meal programs, and “pouring rights” contracts get company logos and products in front of children. If you don’t know what a pouring rights contract is, it’s a program in which a packaged good or soft drink company gives cash-strapped schools money for sports and other programs in exchange for an exclusive right to sell their products in the school.

I caught up with Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, over email and asked her a couple of questions about the current landscape of food politics.

Q: How have things changed for better or worse since you wrote Food Politics?

A: “The Food Movement!  When I wrote the first edition of Food Politics, all people talked about was personal responsibility. Now just about everyone understands that the food environment discourages healthful eating.”

Q: What do you think of the USDA and FDA under the Obama administration?

A: “The USDA has a complicated job. Historically it has favored industrial agriculture. That has not changed, but Vilsack has introduced new initiatives that favor organic and local producers. That’s a start. USDA’s work is governed by the Farm Bill and advocates for sustainable agriculture need to start working now to get that bill to do a better job.”

Q: What is the biggest hot button issue emerging today in food politics?

A: “It depends on what concerns you, I suppose. Mine is election campaign laws, the root of corruption in our political system.”

To keep up on developments in food politics, check in on Marion’s blog.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Ben McLeod

I live in Arizona, a hot and arid land, not generally thought of as a farmer’s paradise, and especially not a place that would produce any highly nutritious, medicinal food that could feed the world. But it can.

Like other arid landscapes around the world, Arizona is rich in mesquite. Yes, you’ve heard of mesquite barbecue and mesquite honey, and this is the tree from which those products come. Mesquite’s rock-hard seed pods were stone ground by native Sonoran people and eaten as a staple for centuries before anyone showed up with wheat, rice or grocery stores.

Because of its sweet, caramel-like flavor and high nutritional value, I’ve been using mesquite powder in my smoothies and desserts for a while now. Mesquite’s sweetness comes from fructose, which makes it ideal for diabetics, and people who want to avoid gluten can bake with mesquite flour.

Benefits of Mesquite:
High in protein.
Good quantities of calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron and zinc.
Rich in the amino acid lysine.
An ideal sweetener for diabetics (it is fructose based).
Can be used as a gluten-free flour for baking.

Not to mention, this humble tree grows like a weed, thrives in poor soil and needs very little water.

So why aren’t there more mesquite orchards in our dry southwestern states? Simply because there hasn’t been a demand. Most mesquite powder comes from South America, but I was thrilled to find locally grown mesquite at my town’s farmer’s market. The Arizona Mesquite Company might be the only commercial mesquite orchard in the country.

So give this incredible desert food a try and better yet, buy it American.

Image: kretyen