The epidemic of illness caused by the unusual saintpaul type of Salmonella has now affected more than 800 people, and federal agencies seem more than perplexed about its source. The FDA says tomatoes, and called for their removal from the market, an action with devastating consequences for the tomato industry. But cases are still turning up. Perhaps that is why the CDC thinks maybe something else might be the cause. Salsa? Guacamole? The produce industry is understandably interested and two websites are excellent sources of day-to-day information: the straight-news Packer, and the tell-it-like-it-is Perishable Pundit. Go to the FDA website for updates on the ongoing investigation and also provides lists of tomatoes safe to eat. Part of the difficulty in following this story is that two federal agencies are involved: the FDA and the CDC. The CDC has its own version of events (with useful maps of where the cases are in the U.S.). The USDA , which only deals with animal foods, doesn’t seem to be part of this one. It should be. The ultimate source of this outbreak has to be animal waste. This tomato (?) outbreak is precisely why we need a single food agency to oversee food safety. When, oh when?

Update, July 1: The Wall Street Journal reviews the outbreak and explains why the produce and restaurant industries are so angry.

Update, July 2: The Wall Street Journal quotes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt , saying that because multiple countries and multiple agencies are involved in the investigation, “it shows the need for better cooperation.” No. It shows the need for a single food agency!

Update, July 3: I’ve just discovered USA Today’s nifty time line of the tomato saga.

I subscribe to Advertising Age because its writers are right on top of food trends, the latest of which appears to be encouraging people to eat more often. Fast food chains, it seems, are pushing “Linner,” the eating occasion between lunch and dinner. Take a look at what the suggestions are and take a guess at the calories. This must derive from Taco Bell’s Fourth Meal idea of a year or so ago. You know the rule: the more times a day you eat, the more calories you eat. Actually, the kicker on this one is the link with alcohol–the more times a day you eat, the more beer (or whatever) you drink. Enjoy!

Center for Science in the Public Interest has posted a collection of photos of New York City menu boards with calorie labeling.  Take a look and see what you think of how this requirement is working.

Thanks to Mark Douglas of Culinate.com for sending me his site’s new interactive map of farmers’ markets in the United States.  I have no idea how his group acquired this information but you can type in your community and up pops a list of local markets with maps to find them.  I tried Ithaca, New York, and up popped the terrific local institution right there on the Cayuga inlet.

I am often asked what states are doing about obesity, especially in children. Fortunately, the Robert W. Johnson Foundation makes it easy to answer that question. It tracks state-by-state legislative and other actions aimed at improving diets and physical activity levels. The Foundation’s latest report indicates “growing momentum,” but many “remaining challenges.”

Thanks to Jack for reminding me about my Eating Liberally post in answer to the question: What’s with Japan’s taking everyone’s waist measurements and making everyone who fails the test do something about it?  Interesting idea.  Can’t wait to see how it works out.

If you live in Northern California and want to see the Google campus, here’s a good excuse: attend a fundraiser for Doof-a-Palooza, a prospective TV series for kids that looks like fun. I watched a couple of clips (accessible on the Doof website), and thought they’d be good for grownups too. Sorry to have to miss it but thanks to Joel Moskowitz of UC Berkeley’s Center for Community and Family Health for letting me (and now you) know about it. Doof? Food spelled backwards, of course.

My upstate New York edition of the New York Times today carries a full-page, full-color advertisement from the Corn Refiners Association: “A little sweetness in life is good. And what sweetens a lot of our favorite foods and beverages are sugars made from corn, such as high fructose corn syrup. It has the same natural sweeteners as table sugar and honey. And the same number of calories. But like most foods, sweeteners should be enjoyed in moderation. Please visit our website and learn the facts.”

I went right to the website and took the quiz. If you were wondering why this group would buy an expensive ($80,000?) ad like this, check out question #3: “Which of the following sweeteners is considered a natural food ingredient? (a) High fructose corn syrup, (b) Honey, (c) Sugar, (d) All of the above.”  Aw come on.  You can guess.

The soft drink industry is using the latest research findings to argue that vending machines in schools are not the problem in childhood obesity, and it’s what kids drink at home that matters. The research in question finds that adolescents get 10% to 15% of their calories from sugary beverages. Average intake among 2 to 5 year olds is 176 calories per day; among 12 to 19 year olds it is 356. Overall average intake rose from 240 calories/day in 1988 to 270 in 2004. Doesn’t what kids drink in school influence what they drink at home, and vice versa? Never mind. Try this one: a new meta-analysis - coincidentally (?) sponsored by the American Beverage Association–finds no relationship between consumption of sweetened beverages and body mass index. High marks to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition for printing a rather tough sponsorship note: “The research proposal to the sponsor was approved as submitted, but the sponsor requested that an independent expert on meta-analysis—to be chosen by the authors—review the manuscript…One author (MLS) accepted a position with the sponsor after the first decision letter regarding the manuscript was received.” Could this cozy relationship have anything to do with the way the study was designed and conducted? Just asking.

The Department of Health and Human Services has just released the report of a committee that has just spent the last two years reviewing research on the benefits and risks of physical activity for specific population groups.  Guess what?  It’s good for you!  And to summarize all that research: some is better than none, more is better than less, higher intensity is better than lower intensity.  The “some is better than none” part should be an inspiration to everyone to get out there and start moving.