STATE COLLEGE -- Marion Nestle, the international authority on how Americans eat is small, slim and garbed in New York black, an easy figure to spot among this sea of unisex jeans and flannel shirts interspersed with a few Amish suspenders and pale cotton dresses.

		To see Nestle's "In Praise of the Organic Environment," go to: www.globalagendamagazine.com/2005/marionnestle.asp.

"This is not going to be a lecture about food biology," the New York University professor of nutrition, food studies and public health tells the 1,500 assembled for the annual conference of the Pennsylvania Association of Sustainable Agriculture, a group of farmers who practice growing crops with the minimum amount of artificial fertilizer, pesticides and hormones.

"It is about the way people think about food."

Seventy-six million of us are getting sick, she says, 325,000 going to the hospital, and 5,000 dying each year from unsafe food, largely because corporations choose profits over safety.

In 2002 her "Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health" ignited a national debate. In it she details how lobbying, advertising and the co-opting of experts influence dietary choices detrimental to our health.

In 2003 her "Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology and Bioterrorism" examined food-contamination-caused illnesses and described the gulf separating governments and food-makers from consumers when the dialogue is health risk.

She is just back from Davos, Switzerland, for the annual World Economic Forum, attended by global business chefs, heads of state, media moguls and movie stars -- Richard Gere was on her plane.

"People at Davos were so suspicious of organics," she says. " 'Isn't it a hoax to raise prices?' they'd say. 'Isn't this another consumer fraud?'

"I'd say, 'No, you don't understand. I am making a fundamental criticism of the existing food system.'

"I came from Davos thinking what I am doing is not good enough. I need something better [in a climate where] adding a minuscule amount of whole wheat to Cocoa Puffs or adding vitamins to candy is [presented as] making it better.

"Kraft and all the big companies are trying to make their products look healthier. An Oreo has been reduced by a meaningless 3 calories. But a 'serving' seems to have been reduced by 50 calories -- because it is now two cookies instead of three. 'Lose 10 pounds the heart-healthy way,' the corn flakes version of Total claims. Read the fine print and see that on 1,400 calories a day, anyone can lose plenty of weight.

"Trans fats, whole grains and low carbs are other calorie distractors. When I complain about sugary kids' cereals, the makers say, 'Oh, the cereal is just to get kids to drink milk.'

"The food pyramid seems to be dead, and let it rest in peace. The guidelines for it run 70 pages. The language reminds me of setting up my DVD player. It is wordy because it resists direct advice, like 'eat less sugar' that would be an affront to the sugar industry.

"And huge portions: Large portions have more calories. If I could only get that one concept across!"

Food safety is relative. People know, for example, how sick they may get from rotten meat. From genetically modified genes, they have no idea.

Thus food safety enters into the realm of politics. Food companies use science-based evaluation to count the number of cases, severity of illness, hospitalizations and deaths. They then balance costs vs. benefits.

The consumer uses a value-based approach to decide whether the risk is voluntary or imposed, visible or hidden, understood or unclear, familiar or foreign, natural or technological, mild or severe. Considering these factors, the consumer balances risks against what Nestle calls "dread and outrage."

An example is genetically modified (GMO) foods, quickly dubbed "Frankenfoods" by consumers.

To the consumer, the GMO risk is imposed because GMO foods are not labeled. GMOs are not visible; their effect is unclear, exotic and technological in nature. So the public's anxiety is elevated.

From the industry standpoint, GMO-related illnesses, hospitalizations, deaths or harm to the environment have not been proven. So the risk is worth taking. A much bigger risk might be lawsuits related to obesity.

The scientific community and consumers talk right past each other, Nestle says.

"What's your problem?" the industry says.

"I just don't like it," the consumer says.

What would help? What should industry do to deal with the dread and outrage?

Nestle says companies need to earn consumer confidence. "I see no signs of much of this happening. Globalization is the big culprit."

She tells consumers to make these demands:

Labeling. "Industry's resistance to food labeling is only feeding the public's fear. ... Genetically modified foods need to be segregated. Customers need to be able to make a choice whether to buy them or not."

Government oversight. A single food regulations agency is essential. Overlapping and unclear authority within the federal bureaucracy now make for "breathtaking irrationality," Nestle says. The Department of Agriculture regulates dehydrated chicken soup, but the Food and Drug Administration regulates dehydrated beef soup. The FDA regulates chicken broth, while the USDA regulates beef broth. And yet although the FDA is responsible for the safety of three-quarters of our food supply, it does not appear on the Homeland Security organizational chart.

Effective traceability. "A recall of contaminated hamburger recovered only 400 of 400,000 pounds."

Farm-to-table safety procedures. Countries that have them have fewer food-poisoning problems. "The food industry resists basic safety steps that would be effective against bioterrorism and general food contamination." The United States uses a meat inspection system unchanged since 1906 that is based on visual examination. It is not designed to detect bacteria.

Nestle is furious that the burden of food safety has been transferred to consumers. "Those little food-handling labels on meat are a warning that the store isn't taking responsibility. 'If only people would learn how to cook their meat properly,' the industry says, shifting responsibility. There has been amazingly little public outrage."

Nestle, who says she came late to organics, urges people to understand they will pay more for safer food. As it is, she says, Americans spend less for their food as a percentage of income than any other country.

Mass-market food is cheap, "but we pay for environmental cleanup and health costs."

"It's a wonder people don't get sicker. They can thank God for their good immune systems."

Her new book is intended to help consumers make informed grocery store decisions and understand food's connection to the environment and politics.

In general she found things worse than she anticipated. Stores were dirty and poorly supplied, and she was shocked by the poor condition of water in New York City because of things like pesticide runoff.

"I am amazed how little organic meat is out there. But you can find 'natural,' produced by all the biggest suppliers. It is grass-fed, has no antibiotics or hormones. It is not inspected to the same extent as organic, but it is a step toward raised consumer consciousness."

She did a lot of research in supermarkets, just asking questions. She found no one in Wegmans, a highly regarded supermarket chain, who could tell her which fruits were GMO. The fish carried no warnings about mercury. "I guess pregnant women are just supposed to know it's full of mercury."

What does it come down to?

"We need to target societal means to counter food industry lobbying and marketing practices, as well as the education of individuals.

"Vote with your fork. Ask the people at your supermarket for what you want. Ask the meat manager. They'll get it if it will sell."

---

Correction/Clarification: (Published Feb, 25, 2005) The name of Marion Nestle, author, New York University professor and food safety activist, was omitted from the lead paragraph of this story on her talk before the Pennsylvania Association of Sustainable Agriculture in Feb. 24, 2005 editions.