-
Asked by alexrive to Andy, Cathie, Jules, Les, Ricarda on 24 Jun 2012.
-
Cathie Martin answered on 24 Jun 2012:
GM food can be produced that is healthier than traditional varieties grown organically. GM food can probably be produced that is tastier than traditional varieties grown organically. Organic cultivation does not ensure that food is healthier, than conventionally cultiated crops. In fact organic cultivation carries risks associated with bacterial contamination as shown by the organically cultivated beansprouts that were contaminated with E.coli in Germany. Organic crops may not always be tastier than conventionally grown crops – that depends largely on freshness when consumed and the varieties being cultivated.
GM foods will never ‘take over’ even if they offer significant advantages for consumers. Consumers should always be offered a choice, whether for organic, conventional or for improved foods that have been derived by GM.
-
-
Les Firbank answered on 24 Jun 2012:
There’s no evidence that organic food is healthier than conventional food. I personally reckon that you can get good tasting food if it is fresh, locally produced from a good farmer and sold by a good shop – whether organic food or not.
Can GM catch up? There’s no evidence that GM is behind anyway: it’s just as healthy as non-GM, and doesn’t taste any different. Also, current GM crops tend to be big commodity foods, like maize and soya, that tend to provide bulk in our diet, such as bread or feed for animals, rather than providing a lot of taste in the way that fresh fruit does. A more interesting question is will many people think that GM tastes better than organic? Who knows?
A lot of scientists are looking at how to make our foods healthier, whether GM or not. You may want to look up ‘functional foods’, a new approach to change some of the food we eat so that it matches the diets we should have for our health … Start with wikipedia … -
Julian Little answered on 25 Jun 2012:
Hi, like Cathie, I don’t automatically subscribe that organic food is always healthy or tasty. You can have healthy or tasty food grown in all sorts of ways. Often, people attribute taste with food that has been grown either locally or which has just been picked, and there is no doubt that a freshly dug potato or freshly picked apple can taste fantastic.
One of the recurring themes in this zone is the need to stop food waste. Now that can mean not buying too much food unless you need it. But it is also true that a tremendous amount of food waste happens through spoilage before it ever reaches a shop or market store. The hotter the country, the worse the spoilage is.
The use of GM technology here can also help. The original FavrSavr Tomato had a modification to stop the tomato ripening. The result was that the tomatoes did not have to be harvested so early to avoid spoilage. And the taste of these tomatoes was fab hence it’s name. These days, the same effect is achieved through advanced breeding. It is being looked at again, however in China and especially India, where even a few extra days would have a massive effect on fruit provision.
Ok, healthiness. How about zero-trans fat producing oils in oilseed rape, or omega3 long chain fatty acIds in soybeans. Neither are theoretical – both are in the field. Does that count?
-
Andy Stirling answered on 25 Jun 2012:
The short answer to this is’yes’. GM could take over. Indeed, it is the powerful global economic forces that are encouraging this, which help make so many folk so worried. Whether the resulting foods would be more tasty, or healthy or better for the environment, is an entirely different question.
We’re all trying to grapple with these wider issues in responding to the many other questions. But this question is particularly good, because it makes us think more precisely about the pressures under which GM could, indeed, ‘take over ‘.
We’re already seeing around the world, ways in which the effects of conventional GM (and the economic forces behind it) can have the effect of ‘locking in’ particular industrial practices in farming. This can easily ‘crowd out’ other kinds of farming practice around the world. The dangers of this are especially acute for organic agriculture.
Comments
Nathan commented on :
@Les, I agree that just because a food is organic doesn’t necessarily mean that it will taste better. But how many of us, especially those in cities, have access to food that is “fresh, locally produced from a good farmer and sold by a good shop”? The only mainstream sources of food I have within any reasonable distance of where I live (in a city) are supermarkets, all of which are large-chain corporations. 1) These supermarkets provide almost no information about where the food is sourced from. “UK-grown” is about as fine-grained as it gets. So I have no way of knowing whether the food is produced by a “good farmer”, or a farmer that douses everything in chemicals to keep the tomatoes shinier longer. 2) These supermarkets don’t provide any choice anyway, so I’m not able to “vote with my feet”. They don’t have one tub of potatoes labelled “from a local UK farmer” and one labelled “from a random farmer in Uzbekistan”. 3) The only choice that generally is available to me is to buy “organic” or not.
How then do you suggest that the average person obtains fresh, tasty food?
“Go to a farmer’s market” is obviously one possible answer, but I don’t think it’s practical in any general sense. Such options are, at least in the cities I’ve lived in, only really luxuries available to those with time, money and enough storage space.
Given the lack of other alternatives, “buy organic” is the only practical option I’ve found to date that at least provides some mechanism for choice.
Les commented on :
Fair point. I agree that if you want tasty, local food, it takes more time to source it, and often more money to pay for it.
I live in Leeds, and there are quite a few good food shops around, including the city market, but they are rarely as convenient as the local supermarkets. Some of these actually tell you which farmer grew some of the products (often the high value food, like soft fruit), but that’s still the exception, although labelling schemes like Red Tractor (I am on their board of directors) and LEAF MARQUE at least tell you that the food is British and grown to certain standards. Also, you need to be careful about organic, which may have been imported.
The reason why this sort of choice is becoming limited is that most people prefer convenience to quality.
Nathan commented on :
@Cathie: “GM foods will never ‘take over’ even if they offer significant advantages for consumers. Consumers should always be offered a choice, whether for organic, conventional or for improved foods that have been derived by GM.”
Isn’t this a somewhat naïve view of the economics of the situation?
1) What consumers *should* be provided with is not what drives market forces – they are driven by profit. And, as I understand it, free market arguments are only really valid in high-competition environments, so as consumers, we are not necessarily able to control our own destinies here.
2) From talking with my own friends and contacts in the US, it is already extremely difficult to buy “non-GM” food (in terms of product and information availability, as well as cost), even if one wishes to make that choice. Doesn’t this suggest that it is certainly possible for GM products to take over?
3) As I understand it, it isn’t really possible for a non-GM product to contaminate a GM product and turn it back into a non-GM product. It is, however, possible in the other direction. Therefore, isn’t there some sense in which cross-contamination will inevitably lead to GM products dominating?
4) Corporations are not generally motivated by altruism and service to humanity, but by profit and performance for shareholders. I wouldn’t like to think of myself as someone who subscribes to conspiracy theories, but off the top of my head, I would think there are at least two clear examples of situations where corporate interests have had a sustained, long-term, some would say controlling influence on public policy determining what consumers should have available or promoted to them: cigarettes and the tobacco industry (fortunately now finally waning), and climate change and the fossil fuel industry (most unfortunately, still extremely relevant). Isn’t it possible that such corporate interests might overwhelm the more pragmatic balance that one might envisage in a scientifically reasonable society?
dingo commented on :
Why do we need GM to produce ‘healthier’ food when conventional breeding does it entirely successfully? see the examples here, with links to external articles:
http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/31-need-gm/12348-introduction
Cathie commented on :
The results from the 5-a-day campaign show just how hard it is to get people to modify their diets and to eat healthy alternatives, such as fruit and vegetables. For the 75% of adults who do not manage to consume 5 servings of fruit and vegetables every day, efforts should be made to enrich the foods that they do eat in essential vitamins and health promoting phytonutrients. This can be done for crops like tomato, and wheat, but only by GM – the natural variation is not available in these crops for breeding to achieve the necessary biofortification, and there are not the economic drivers to support breeding programs for even slight enrichments. For those people that want to avoid GM, obtaining phytonutrients and vitamins from ‘natural sources’ will be preferred option, but for those who cannot or do not want to change their diets, biofortification by GM represents a realistic way of improving the diet, health and quality of life.
joseph110 commented on :
So let me get this right. These consumers who are too conservative to change their diets to eat enough fruit and veg to supply the vitamins they need, will somehow, when faced with a GM purple ‘healthy’ tomato, mysteriously abandon their conservatism and decide to eat… a purple tomato that’s got a GM label. Interesting marketing plan, wonder if I could convince my bank to lend me thousands of pounds to develop it.
Cathie commented on :
People who eat ‘unhealthily’, usually still consume some fruit and veg such as potatoes (as chips, crisps) and tomatoes (pizza, ketchup and even Big Mac). For people on a poor diet one problem seems to be switching from the foods to which they are accostomed to new ones. What people aspire to is to be healthier without having to change anything. By targetting these common foods for biofortification one could have a major impact on health in both developing and developed countries.
The other problem is, of course, cost. But it should be possible to produce biofortified, healthier foods by GM at close to supermarket prices, if the public was to accept the potential of the technology, such that organisations outside of the multinationals could develop and afford to deregulate these products.
joseph110 commented on :
Your response does not address my question: are these unhealthy diet addicts who are too conservative to change their diet really going to eat a purple tomato with a GM label on it?
Mike commented on :
Your use of the ‘purple tomato’ argument seems to be slightly hyperbolic. If we can make the food that people already eat a good deal healthier, then it doesn’t matter whether those people particularly are choosing your, uh, purple tomatoes when they go shopping.
The point is, I think, that GM could provide fresh food options that are healthier, as well as making processed food potentially better for us too.
josh_stride commented on :
First of all, taste is a meaningless indicator – it is so subjective and dependent on so many factors as to be almost entirely pointless. Even when studies emerge that support my buying habits, I choose to ignore them on the basis that another one will most likely be published the following day refuting the findings of the former.
Healthiness is perhaps more objectively measurable. However, genetically modifying food to be more healthy is, once again, a case of shoehorning a GM solution in to fix the symptoms of a problem; while ignoring the root cause, for which the solution is apparent, if not always straightforward. The fact is that people don’t eat a balanced enough diet and nowhere near enough fruit and veg. Are we to imagine that increasing the nutrients in a vegetable they hardly ever eat is going to solve a chronic social problem? Based on the way people consume low-fat products, vitamin supplements, weight-loss pills and the like, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that telling people their cone of chips contains two of their 5-a-day would in fact have adverse effects on their eating habits. But then I suppose we could always genetically modify vinegar to serve as a laxative?
This is the problem with the GM industry: The notion that their products are potential solutions to all problems. It may be difficult to change people’s eating habits, but long term, permanent solutions often are. And what if the same kind of funding, expertise, government support and industry backing went into changing people’s eating habits as goes into developing GMO products? Is it harder to change people’s eating habits than to research, develop, market and sell and a genetically enhanced carrot?
I’m just concerned that too many scientists want to reach for the technological, high-tech solution before properly trying the more obvious. Changing adult eating habits is, undoubtedly, very difficult. However, there has been much more success with children, particularly with programmes such as the Food for Life Partnership. This is where we should be investing our money – helping kids understand the value of a healthy diet, to feel connected to their food and changing the eating habits of the next generation. Modifying potatoes so that chips are healthier sends completely the wrong message and is, inevitably, nothing more than a sticking plaster.
Les commented on :
I agree with the main point, that health is not simply a matter of the nutrition value of a food. It depends on how the food is stored, how it is prepared, and how it fits into an overall diet and lifestyle. Once you get the perspective right, for most people whether food is GM, or organic, will have little if any effect on their health. If someone has a poor diet, improving their access to nutritious foods can obviously help. If GM is used to improve the nutrition of people, then why not? But in richer countries like ours, it’s more a matter of getting a varied diet that includes plenty of fruit and vegetables.
dingo commented on :
The biggest-ever study on organic food shows that organic fruit and vegetables have nutritional advantages over conventional food, containing 40% more beneficial antioxidants and higher levels of beneficial minerals. Organic milk was found to have levels of antioxidants up to 90 percent higher than milk from conventional herds. Organic milk also had higher levels of healthy fatty acids than conventional milk. Leifert, C. et al., “Effects of organic and ‘low input’ production methods on food quality and safety”, paper presented at 3rd QLIF Congress: Improving Sustainability in Organic and Low Input Food Production Systems, University of Hohenheim, Germany, March 20-23, 2007, http://orgprints.org/10482/, accessed September 2008
I wonder why Cathie Martin doesn’t mention this or other studies with similar findings. And what her data is to back up these claims: “GM food can be produced that is healthier than traditional varieties grown organically. GM food can probably be produced that is tastier than traditional varieties grown organically”, although “probably” suggests that this is yet another aspirational claim for GM, ie one without data to back it up.
Cathie commented on :
These reports have not been peer-reviewed, and are not substantiated by intervention studies or even preclinical studies in animals. The concept that dietary ‘antioxidants’ have generic beneficial effects has been discredited because of the low bioavailability of most of these compounds and their extensive metabolism both in the gut and once adsorbed. Large studies do not necessarily mean they are right, and if this presentation was given in 2007, there should be a wealth of publications (peer reviewed) that present the data.
For proven cases of biofortification by GM, start with Golden Rice, for which bioavailability studies are now available, high folate rice, and my own work on tomatoes (Nature Biotechnology, 26: 1301–1308), which was, at least, put through preclinical trials.
As for enhanced flavour, of course whether or not a product has better flavour is dependent on consumers, which was why I added ‘probably’, otherwise we would get into a discussion about whether or not Flavr Savr tasted better (again).
joseph110 commented on :
In fact Leifert’s findings on the organic foods being more nutritious were peer reviewed, according to this: http://orgprints.org/10482/
and published in final form here: Niggli, Urs; Leifert, Carlo; Alföldi, Thomas; Lück, Lorna and Willer, Helga, Eds. (2007) Improving Sustainability in Organic and Low Input Food Production Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the European Integrated Project Quality Low Input Food (QLIF). University of Hohenheim, Germany, March 20 – 23, 2007. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, CH-Frick. http://orgprints.org/10417/
The actual paper of course does not make generic claims for all antioxidants, any more than you did in your article promoting your antioxidant-rich GM tomato as being able to “save your life”: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1084073/How-purple-tomato-save-life.html
And there are plenty of other papers that confirm that organic foods are richer in certain nutrients than non-organic. But I should not have to remind a researcher in this field of this fact.
Les commented on :
Conference papers like this are not regarded as ‘proper’ scientific evidence as they have been peer-reviewed lightly if at all. Scientists use them for early notice of preliminary results. Often, we write papers for conferences so that we can make a better case to our employers and sponsors for cash to attend the conference, so that we can hear what other scientists are doing, swap ideas, make contacts. Conferences help us work together more effectively. But hard evidence should be peer-reviewed in a full refereed journal.
joseph110 commented on :
Interesting, so why does Julian Little repeatedly cite non-peer-reviewed papers by Brookes and Barfoot, 2 consultants to the GM industry, to back up his case for GM crops? eg on this page: /gmfood-zone/2012/06/28/silly-question-but-will-the-genetically-modified-food-be-more-or-less-or-the-same-price-and-cost-as-normal-food/
And Cathie Martin still hasn’t provided the data for the non-GM purple tomatoes having lower anthocynanin levels than the GM ones.
dingo commented on :
Interesting point about preclinical studies in animals–have Golden Rice and your GM tomato been tested in basic toxicological feeding trials in animals? I am not talking of the bioavailability studies, which are a different thing.
Cathie commented on :
Yes, for both Golden Rice and Purple Tomatoes. For the data for purple tomatoes see the supplementary data for the Nature Biotechnology article.
dingo commented on :
@cathiemartin I looked at the supplementary data in the Nature Biotech article on Cathie Martin’s GM purple tomatoes and couldn’t see any toxicological tests described there, only a lifespan measurement. Am I missing something? And is there a reference for toxicological testing on GM Golden Rice?
dingo commented on :
It is not true to say that Leifert’s findings on some organic foods being superior nutritionally were not peer reviewed. Seems they were:
http://orgprints.org/10482/
Les commented on :
See my comment to Joseph 110. I’ve had conference papers “peer-reviewed”, but such a review if often very light, often by the conference organisers, rather than by anonymous, independent scientists, and so are rarely very critical.
Les commented on :
Strong evidence of the dietary benefits of organic food is simply not there at levels that satisfy independent scientific analysis.
See
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&AUTHOR1=Dangour&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&gca=ajcn%3Bajcn.2010.29269v1
and
http://blogs.food.gov.uk/science/entry/the_data_behind_the_review
dina commented on :
What about these studies?:
Wang, S.H. et al., “Fruit Quality, Antioxidant Capacity, and Flavonoid Content of Organically and Conventionally Grown Blueberries,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, published online 1 July 2008, http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2008/56/i14/abs/jf703775r.html, accessed September 2008
Mozafar, A., “Nitrogen fertilizers and the amount of vitamins in plants: a review.” Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1993, 16 (12), 2479-2506.
Mozafar, A., “Enrichment of some B vitamins in plants with application of organic fertilizers.” Plant and Soil, 1994, 167, pp. 305-11.
Brandt, K. and Mølgaard, J.P., “Organic agriculture: Does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods?” J. Sci. of Food and Agric., 2001, 81, pp.924-931.
Heaton, S., Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health. A Review of the Evidence. Soil Association, 2001,
Worthington, V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2001, 7 (2), 161-173.
Organic milk higher in vitamins. BBC News, 7 January 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4153951.stm
Carbonaro, M. et al., “Modulation of antioxidant compounds in organic vs conventional fruit (Peach, Prunus persica L. and pear, Pyrus communis L.),” J. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2002, 50, 5458-62.
Asami, D. et al. Comparison of total phenolic and ascorbic acid content of freeze-dried and air-dried marionberry, strawberry and corn grown using conventional, organic and sustainable agricultural practices. J. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2003, 51, 1237-41.
Mitchell, A. et al. Ten-Year Comparison of the Influences of Organic and Conventional Crop Management Practices on the Content of Flavonoids in Tomatoes. Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry, published online June 23, 2007
“Organic food ‘better’ for heart,” BBC News, 5 July 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6272634.stm
dina commented on :
… and here’s another:
Olsson, M.E. et al., “Antioxidant levels and inhibition of cancer cell proliferation in vitro by extracts from organically and conventionally cultivated strawberries”, J. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2006, 54, 1248-55.
dina commented on :
This review by Dangour et al that Les refers to was somewhat controversial because it chose to ignore the evidence from the biggest ever (EU funded) review of organic foods, which did find that organic foods were nutritionally superior! The full story is here:
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Food_Standards_Agency#FSA_excludes_the_biggest-ever_study_on_organic_food
If the EU study protocol was somehow not good enough, I wonder why the EU used taxpayer money to fund it?
joseph110 commented on :
Might be worth pointing out that Dangour’s study, which Les cites, was not to analyse whether organic food is nutritionally superior (several studies suggest it is) but if organic has health benefits over non-organic. I’d say this is a pretty difficult thing to analyse in such a study and it’s not suprising, given what the authors call the “paucity of available data” on this question and the fact that all the studies had different designs so were hard to compare, that they came out with a verdict of no evidence for nutrition-related health effects from eating organic or non-organic food.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&AUTHOR1=Dangour&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&gca=ajcn%3Bajcn.2010.29269v1
Les commented on :
See another comment I made today. Slight differences in nutrition content of particular foods are very easily overshadowed by how the food is stored and prepared; they may be statistically significant, but not large enough to make a difference to our health.
joseph110 commented on :
We are talking ‘statistically significant’ differences here, not ‘slight differences’, which appears to be a value judgment, out of place in scientific discourse. Granted, they may not make a difference to people’s health in practice, but this does not stop the pro-GM lobby and pro-GM scientists making claims for supposed health benefits of ‘nutritionally enhanced’ GM foods.
dingo commented on :
Statistically significantly higher levels of certain nutrients in organically grown foods are just that; I am not sure what they evidence is that such significant differences are only “slight”. It is an unproven hypothesis to say that such nutritional improvements do or don’t impact health (not enough data looking at this aspect), though if we believe and claim that there is no impact, then that has negative implications for the saleability of the GM ‘nutritionally enhanced’ crops that are constantly promised to us.
joseph110 commented on :
@Julian Little I am sorry but as someone else already pointed out on this forum, the Flavr Savr tomato’s flavour was NOT “fab” but reportedly poor. See: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/crops/a1219w.htm
dina commented on :
With all the stories about GM anthocyanin-rich ‘cancer-fighting’ tomatoes, I thought readers might be interested to know that there is a non-GM version, too:
http://www.digtriad.com/news/health/article/202115/8/Purple-Tomatoes-May-Fight-Cancer-Other-Diseases [Mod’s warning – page contains auto playing video]
This is not altogether surprising, since genetic engineers typically mine the numerous existing non-GM varieties of food crops for useful genes. Often the only genetically modified traits involved are to alter the plant to contain a pesticide or to resist herbicides.
For example, the GM wheat being trialled at Rothamsted, while promoted as an environmentally friendly crop that could reduce insecticide use, in fact contains a herbicide tolerance gene that will enable the usual increases in herbicide use that have come to be associated with GM crops:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Behind_the_GM_Wheat_Trial.php
Les commented on :
HI Dina
Good points here. GM is often used to speed up what can be done in other ways. Thus there are crops that have been developed for herbicide tolerance using both GM and non-GM technology. To me, as someone interested in the environment, they have the same kind of effect and should be treated in the same way. Other people are more concerned with how the plants have been produced (ie GM or non_GM) rather than what the plant is, and what it does.
Cathie commented on :
The problem with the Brazilian purple tomato and the one developed in Oregon, and the Sun Black Italian purple tomato is that although they appear very purple on the outside, cut open they do not have significant anthocyanin levels in the flesh of the fruit. This means that the anthocyanin content is at least 20x lower than in the GM purple tomatoes. None of these non-GM purple tomatoes have been trialled for their health properties even in preclinical studies. The evidence on which the claim that these tomatoes ‘may protect from chronic diseases’ is based comes from studies such as those on the GM purple tomatoes. That’s OK with me, any message that encourages people to consume more anthocyanins is positive, in my opinion. That was why we created the GM purple tomatoes – to show that dietary anthocyanins have some health promoting properties. But the evidence is there only for the GM tomatoes at the moment, not for the non-GM alternatives with at least 20x lower levels of anthocyanins.
dingo commented on :
@cathiemartin Do you have a reference for the data on the non-GM purple tomatoes showing lower anthocyanin levels?
getthetruth commented on :
Usually the variation in any feature of a crop varies much more than whatever the GM trait causes. A specific component might vary say 50% due to the weather and the way it was grown and 20% due to its basic genetic content and than a GM trait might be seen to change it 5%. It means if we were worried about that component its not a worry about what the GM gene is doing. This is why there have been so many false stories on GM traits. Two corn hybrid can vary by 5,000 genes but we freak out about 1 gene
joseph110 commented on :
Changes to ‘1 gene’ can have far-reaching consequences, as anyone who’s compared the very similar genetic makeup of a chimp and a human being can attest. Non-GM crop breeding involves changes in the genes but they are precisely regulated and there are mechanisms in place to prevent foreign genetic material being introduced from other species. GM is designed to enable the transfer of genetic material across species barriers, which would never happen in nature.
As for “freaking out about 1 gene”, can I take it then that you claim that the GM industry’s patents on GM products that were obtained supposedly by just changing one or two genes, are invalid? Patents demand that these GM crops are novel enough to patent, yet when it comes to convincing the public to swallow them, they are no different from ordinary crops?
padraig commented on :
A username of “getthetruth” and saying “we freak out about 1 gene”…. oh yeah highly scientific and rational. This “poster” is merely another one of the GM lobby’s plants to make their industry look good, just like all of the supposed “experts” in blue above who all have ties with the industry.
It’s really disturbing to see how cutesy and “friendly” they try to make such a sinister website that is trying to spread lies about their products that would be an environmental disaster that we don’t want.
padraig commented on :
There is zero reason how or why GM foods could be “just as healthy” as original food. Original food has co-evolved with humans and our ancestors for millions of years, the very idea that you could just splice and dice some things in it and consider is as “much the same” after conducting a few tests, and then conclude that it is just as healthy is just farcical. Adding vitamins won’t help any more than giving people a vitamin pill with it, food is not a glorified multivitamin pill with some added calories and fibre.