One of the lessons of 9/11 was supposed to be greater centralized management of intelligence to improve security in America. It would seem that the salmonella outbreak is proving how well the US government has learned and adapted to the challenge.

The the Associated Press reports that fingers are pointing all over the place, and the industries losing money want answers:

One agency probably zeroed in on tomatoes too early, the committee concluded, while a second failed to tap industry and states’ expertise in trying to trace the source of the contamination.

To the chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the case reminded him of “a Keystone Kops situation.” An investigation that should have taken hours or days instead has stretched on for weeks and months, he said.

This is just the detection side of things. Imagine if a TSA-like approach is used from now on for prevention…

Several lawmakers said the fact that no single agency is in charge may be part of the problem. The CDC is responsible for identifying the pathogen and the type of food that has been contaminated; the FDA is supposed to trace the outbreak to its source.

A single agency? Surely people can figure out how to collaborate? That is the message from outside the government as well:

Thomas Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Produce Association, suggested that public health officials might want to tap outside sources.

“We’re not asking to run the investigation, but there’s an abundance of knowledge in the industry that can help protect public health,” he said.

Not sure I would trust the UFPA, given how tasteless and uniform-looking the tomatoes are in America. Even so, they should certainly be allowed to assist with investigations. Collaboration is good. Compliance and governance is good. Too bad people have such a hard time working together on this.

Separately, the FDA rejected the Mexican government’s assertion that U.S. investigators had erred in identifying irrigation water at a Mexican pepper farm as a possible source of contamination. Mexican authorities said Thursday the sample their U.S. counterparts called “a smoking gun” came from a tank that had not been used to irrigate crops for more than two months.

Have to keep all this in mind the next time I speak about using centralized management and correlation tools. Federation of information is probably the better answer for massive data-sets spanning organizational boundaries.

Disclaimer: I hate corn syrup with a passion. When I eat anything with corn syrup, I feel sluggish and groggy. It makes it hard for me to think and work, let alone do anything physical. I avoid the stuff like the plague.

How did I find this out, you ask? About eight years ago I worked at a startup that provided unlimited access to packaged food. There were snack bars and candy, as well as drinks, in huge abundance. I decided one day to eat nothing but one type/brand a day to see what would happen to my body.

Shortly after beginning the experiment, I noticed that I struggled to get my work done when I ate certain foods. Using the binary method (eliminating half and seeing if the results persist) I quickly narrowed the problem down to things sweetened with corn syrup.

Luna bars, for example, have no corn syrup. I could eat them all day and feel absolutely fine. Cliff bars also lack corn syrup. Powerbars, on the other hand, and Balance bars both made me so tired and unfocused that I had to extend deadlines in order to get my work completed.

Right, enough of my personal opinion on this awful disgusting substance. The FDA announcement tells me that I am correct in my assumptions:

Products containing high fructose corn syrup cannot be considered ‘natural’ and should not be labeled as such, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said.
The decision is likely to cause a massive stir in the food and beverage industry, where a discreet battle has been raging over the status of the controversial sweetener.

What really bothers me is that virtually every soda in the United States is laced with this stuff. I just came back from Canada, and there is not a drop in the same brands. Want safety from a can of Coke, go to Canada. If you drink the American variety, you are literally poisoning yourself with a non-natural sweetener that will do real harm to your health and productivity. Well, in my opinion of course, but it seems I am not too far from the facts on this one.

…in response to an inquiry from FoodNavigator-USA.com, the regulatory agency examined the composition of HFCS, which it said is produced using synthetic fixing agents.

“Consequently, we would object to the use of the term ‘natural’ on a product containing HFCS,” the agency’s Geraldine June said in an e-mail to FoodNavigator-USA.com. June is Supervisor of the Product Evaluation and Labeling team at FDA’s Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements.

[…]

“The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term ‘natural’,” said Geraldine June.

“Moreover, the corn starch hydrolysate, which is the substrate used in the production of HFCS, may be obtained through the use of safe and suitable acids or enzymes. Depending on the type of acid(s) used to obtain the corn starch hydrolysate, this substrate itself may not fit within the description of ‘natural’ and, therefore, HCFS produced from such corn starch hydrolysate would not qualify for a ‘natural’ labeling term,” she concluded.

Bottom line is that virtually all packaged foods in America are full of corn sweeteners, and you have to be extremely cautious if you want to eat something truly natural and healthy. The Ethicurian has an excellent summary of the issues. For example, they show a shift in public opinion that is impacting the more sensible brands:

Hansen’s says that 30% of consumer calls it received were asking for a change from HFCS to a more natural sugar. “Consumers asked and we listened,” is how one executive put it. This response is a refreshing change from the typical corporate doublespeak along the lines of “public pressure had nothing to do with our decision, it was planned long ago.”

Compare that with the perspective of the 900 pound gorilla:

The biggest driver of HFCS’s rise was the beverage industry, which nearly eliminated the use of sugar in its products in the early 1980s. I consulted several books about the history of Coca-Cola (including “For God, Country and Coca-Cola” and “Secret Formula”) and it appears that the change from sugar to HFCS was not a big deal within the company. There was a little bit of resistance from someone who had been with Coke for almost 60 years, but in the end the management could not resist the enormous financial benefits of the switch. “Secret Formula” claims that the savings from replacing 50% of Coke’s sugar with HFCS were $100 million per year in the early 1980s.

Good luck trying to tell Coca-Cola that you would prefer natural ingredients and the old recipe. They are sure to have put some of the $100 million a year in savings toward a lobbyist or PR firm ready to fight:

The researchers “give the impression that high-fructose corn syrup is the secret reason Americans are all obese, and that is patently false,” says Stephanie Childs of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, a trade group representing Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo and others.

“High-fructose corn syrup is very similar to sugar in its chemical makeup. We are overweight and have an obesity epidemic because we have an imbalance in how many calories we consume and how many we burn,” she says.

Very similar but NOT THE SAME. Did I mention how much I hate corn syrup? I do not blame it for obesity, I find it a disgusting chemical that impacts my quality of life. I am happy that there are alternatives to chose from, and I hope that others can try living without it to see if they find similar benefits. That would be the real taste test. Jones soda seems to have figured this out. Hopefully more brands will follow.

Uniqueness and patterns in penguin breast feathers have been used by a video surveillance system to monitor tens of thousands of the birds, according to the BBC:

Professor Barham said: “We set a camera up in a location where the penguins will regularly walk past on their way to or from the sea.

“Every image that the camera processes is then sent back to a computer.”

The software has been trained to recognise if there are any penguins in the camera’s field of vision. If there are, it looks at the spot patterns to determine whether it is a bird that it recognises or new penguin. It then records and ID number and the date, time and location of the sighting.

How do the scientists prove uniqueness? Naturally the system will be soon discussed in terms of leopards, zebras, cheetahs and other patterned animals. Even if humans do not have uniquely patterned feathers or fur, it seems to me this technology will eventually make its way into correlation engines that can track a suspect with certain features and provide a single storyline across multiple cameras. On the other end of the spectrum, pun not intended, humans are getting more savvy at using infrared LED to completely disguise themselves from night-vision surveillance. This defensive maneuver might prevent identification of the person, but a pattern-matching system perhaps would still be able to track and report on that person’s movements.

While the privacy debate continues around video surveillance, the BBC also reports that audio surveillance has started to be integrated into camera systems:

Dr David Brown, from the University of Portsmouth, said: “The visual-recognition software will be able to identify visual patterns but for the next stage we want to get the camera to pivot if it hears a certain type of sound.

“So, if in a car park someone smashes a window, the camera would turn to look at them and the camera operator would be alerted.

This seems a reduction of usefulness, in some ways, as sounds are often a distraction more than an aid. If you read the article you will find some optimism for pattern-matching technology. For example, the researchers plan to be able to detect breaking glass versus other sounds. They do not mention if someone throwing a bottle would actually be a simple defensive measure to divert the camera. And what if you throw the bottle at the same time that you break a window?

I would love to test these systems.