2011년 6월 30일 목요일
신라면 블랙 체험기 - 한줄 요약 그 돈 내고 안 사먹는다.
라면 하나 때문에 시끌시끌하다.
국민라면이라는 신라면이 블랙이라는 이름을 뒤집어쓰고 나타나서 라면 시장 판도를 흔들고 있다. 뭐 거기까지는 그져 마케팅이려니 봐줄 수 있다. 그런데 공정거래위원회가 또 나섰다.
설렁탕 한그릇의 맛과 영양을 그대로 담고 있다는 신라면 블랙의 주장이 과대광고라는 것이다. 그래 뭐 거기까지도 이해할 수 있다. 원래 기업들이 자기들 제품이 최고라고 늘 호들갑을 떠니까. 그런데. 오늘 서울대학교 식품영양학과 교수라는 사람이 매일경제신문에 칼럼을 싣었다. 제목은 "라면이 설렁탕이라면" 이 양반의 주장은 가격도 저렴하고 맛과 영양도 좋은 신라면 블랙에 공정위가 과도한 잣대를 들이대서 "창의적인 기업활동"을 저장한다는 것이다. 더구나 교수의 주장은 공정위가 "일반 라면에 비해서 영양성분은 유사한데 가격이 너무 높게 책정되었다"는 주장에 대해서 황당하다는 입장을 보이며 식품가격은 영양성분이 아니라 맛과 품질이라는 주장을 펼친다. 식품영양학과 교수가 이런 주장을 이렇게 해도 밥그릇이 유지되는걸 보면 기업의 로비는 정말 끝이 없나보다.
그래서, 시끄러운 신라면 블랙 테스트에 나섰다. 그들이 주장하듯이 정말 맛과 품질이 좋은지.
대충 구성은 위와 같다. 우골설렁탕 스프 1개, 양념분말 1개, 건더기 1개. 원래 신라면 스프에 사리곰탕면 스프를 하나 추가한 구성과 똑같아 보인다.
본격적으로 신라면 블랙을 끊이기 시작한다. 뭐 다들 아시다시피 라면을 맛있게 끊이기 위해서는 스프를 먼저 넣고 물 온도를 최대한 높인 후 면을 짧은 시간에 삶아 내야 맛있다.
먹기 직전의 신라면 블랙의 모습. 원래 신라면 보다 덜 빨간 것을 제외하고는 아직까지 외견상으로 비슷하다. 이제 본격적인 테스트
다 먹었다. 양은냄비에 기름때가 붉게 끼는 것 역시 신라면과 똑같다. 그런데 맛은.......
우선. 너무 느끼하다. 사리곰탕면을 드셔보신 분들을 잘 아시겠지만 곰탕 특유의 느끼한 맛이 가득하다. 신라면 블랙이 사리곰탕면에 비해서 갖춘 미덕은 덜 짜고 매콤한 신라면 특유의 스프맛이 살아있다는 점이다. 신라면 블랙의 장점을 꼽자면 MSG로 불려지는 화학조미료가 덜 사용된 것 같다는 것이다. 입을 얼얼하게 만드는 그 맛 (그 맛이 없으면 서운해 하는 분들은 MSG 중독이다.)이 약하다. 약한 것이지 없는 것은 아니다. 신라면 봉지에는 MSG를 사용하지 않는다는 표시가 있는데 신라면 블랙 표지에는 그런 내용이 없는 걸로 봐서 사용되었을 것이다. 무슨무슨 맛 베이스 라는 이름으로.
자 이제 영양표시를 살펴보자
나트륨을 잘 보시라. 신라면 블랙 하나를 끊여먹으면 하루 섭취해야할 나트륨의 97%를 섭취하게 되는 것이다. 농심은 친절하게 표준 조리법대로 조리하면 국물포함 100g에 나트륨은 370mg이라고 설명한다. 그러니까 국물을 안 마시면 나트륨 과 섭취를 막을 수 있다는 얘기다. 하지만, 그게 가능한가? 면 먹고, 밥 말아먹고, 김치나 최소한 단무지라도 먹어 줘야하는 라면 식사를 고려한다면 그건 불가능하다. 그러니까 신라면 블랙 드실 분들은 면만 건져서 먹고, 김치나 단무지도 짠 맛을 빼고 먹어야 설렁탕 한 그릇의 영양을 아낌없이 드실 수 있는 것이다. 아참! 설렁탕 먹을 때 깍두기 국물 부어서 먹어야하는데...그건 어쩐다.
라면 드시는 분들이 식품표기를 제대로 살펴볼 일은 별로 없겠지만, 그래도 꼼꼼히 봐야한다. 왜냐구? 난 소중하니까. 나머지 표기를 살펴보자.
보았는가? 식품첨가물의 홍수다. 농심이 자랑하는 사골분말은 원산지도 없다. 혼합제제는 도대체 뭐가 사용되었는지 알 수가 없다. 각종 분은 원재료에서 나온 것이 아니라 무슨무슨 맛 풍미분이다. 그거 아는가? 바나나맛 우유에는 바나나가 안들어간다는 사실을? 그러니 육수맛조미베이스는 육수가 없다는 뜻이다. 그리도 도대체 라면에 카라멜은 왜 넣는거야?
신라면 블랙에서 가장 마음에 안드는 점. 한문이 너무 많다. 라면 이름 신라면을 알게된 것도 오래걸렸는데, 라면에 대한 소개가 다 한문이다. 자 다음사진을 보고 자신의 한문실력을 테스트 해보시길
(정답공개)
고온쿠커로 진공농축한 우골을 듬뿍
각종야채를 저온농축한 분말사용
오늘 같이 테스트에 임했던 사람들의 결말
“그 돈 내고 신라면 블랙 안 사먹는다.”
이유는 느끼하고, 어정쩡한 맛이다. 한마디로 맛이 없다.
호주 과학자들 유전자조작 밀 식용실험 거부
Scientists reject human trials of GM wheat
Belinda Tasker, National Medical Correspondent
June 27, 2011
AAP
A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.
The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.
The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.
But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.
The CSIRO has dismissed their concerns, insisting no decision has been made on if or when human trials will begin.
In a letter to the CSIRO's chief executive Megan Clark, the scientists expressed their "unequivocal denunciation" of the experiments.
"The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable," the letter said.
"The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact address the health risks GM plants raise.
"The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks."
Among the signatories were Dr Michael Antoniou, of the gene expression and therapy group at King's College London School of Medicine, and Professor David Schubert, from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California.
The scientists said they were concerned that the CSIRO had inadequately described the biological and biochemical make-up of the GM wheat being used in the trials.
They said that, based on previous research, GM food products had been shown to be prone to having multiple effects, including damaging the health of animals which had eaten them.
They believed the CSRIO's animal feeding trials of up to 28 days were "completely inadequate" to assess such risks.
But CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said animal trials of the GM wheat, which began in 2005, were still continuing.
"No decision has been made as yet to undertake human trials," he told AAP.
"It's still something that we are considering."
Mr Morgan said many studies carried out in the past 15 years had shown GM foods had no detrimental impact on human health.
The CSIRO's trials were trying to determine whether the new type of GM grain had health benefits for people with conditions such as colourectal cancer and diabetes, he said.
Greenpeace food campaigner Laura Kelly said GM experts recommended that long-term animal feeding studies of two years should be carried out before human testing to evaluate any carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural and reproductive dysfunctions.
"This is the first generation of Australian children that will be exposed to GM in food for a lifetime," she said.
"If Julia Gillard doesn't stand up to foreign biotech companies, soon they'll be eating it in their sandwiches and pasta, even though it has never been proven safe to eat."
© 2011 AAP
Brought to you by
2011년 6월 28일 화요일
[Rio+20-AgFood] Agriculture in the Climate talks]
기후변화 회의 중에서 농업이 논의되고 있습니다.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 의 논평입니다.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 의 논평입니다.
June 27, 2011Agriculture to feature as a key issue on the Road to Durban: opens up critical debates
ShareThis
Shefali Sharma blogged from Bonn, Germany climate talks. See her presentation from IATP's official side event for more.As the UNFCCC negotiations came to a close Friday evening (June 17) in Bonn, the stage was set for a heated fight on agriculture as governments head to Durban for COP 17. South Africa, as well as the United States, have indicated that they would like to see agriculture as a “deliverable” in Durban.There are nonetheless numerous issues of contention to be resolved: what the defining focus of agriculture should be in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA ) under the negotiating agenda “cross-sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions” (linked to the Convention Article 4, para (c)[1]); whether parties will agree to launch an agriculture work program in the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) and when; if so, what the scope of prioritizing adaptation and food security would be; and what role carbon markets and agriculture offsets will play in emissions reductions and accounting loopholes.Agriculture, a critical issue for the food security of the planet, food sovereignty of communities and governments, opens up a pandora’s box in the UNFCCC. For instance, it could instigate a WTO fight in the UNFCCC since mitigation of emissions related to livestock (methane) and nitrous oxides (fertilizer) pit one country’s production processes against another’s. It also initiates a debate about the environmental integrity and economic feasibility of soil carbon accounting on agricultural lands and appropriate incentives for agroecological investment in the sector. In addition, soil carbon offsets to feed carbon markets would require the aggregation of thousands of hectares and thousands of farmers. Social and human rights impacts in developing countries and environmental and financial costs of devising monitoring reporting and verification (MRV) systems geared for carbon accounting and thus carbon offset credits must be vetted for their appropriateness.Countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States will include agriculture in their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Both are also part of the 34-member Global Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases launched at the margins of Copenhagen when the agriculture text was first introduced in the LCA. Spearheaded by New Zealand, the United States, Canada and other developed countries, the alliance now “provides a framework for voluntary action” and has grown to include developing country members. It is composed of three research groups covering croplands, paddy rice, and livestock, but also two cross-cutting issues: soil carbon and nitrogen cycling, and inventories and measurement.According to a new study by the Stolkholm Environment Institute, Annex 1 countries accounting loopholes “more than” negate the emissions reduction pledges they have made to get us to a 2 degree goal of global warming. The rise in emissions due to carbon accounting loopholes and their subsequent impact on food production and farming systems must therefore also be an integral part of discussion on agriculture and climate change.What happened in Bonn?Agriculture first came in with a mitigation focus as in draft decision “J” in the LCA text in Copenhagen under the umbrella of article “I.b.iv” of the Bali Action Plan referred to as “cross-sectoral approaches.” Given the overloaded agenda of the UNFCCC negotiations, only a handful of countries have actively participated in agriculture discussions since the end of 2009—namely the agriculture export dominated “Umbrella Group” countries of New Zealand, Canada, Australia, but also Switzerland and the United States. From developing countries, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Philippines, Thailand, Bolivia have been active in the debate at different times. Saudi Arabia also remains engaged on this issue given that oil and energy are critical elements of “cross-sectoral” mitigation actions. In Bonn, India and African countries also engaged on this issue.While the agriculture chapter was taken out of a final Cancún outcome, it emerged again in Bangkok this spring largely as an agenda fight: where best to put agriculture in the LCA. New Zealand and Canada proposed a direct SBSTA work program or a broader discussion in the LCA outside of 1.b.iv, while the G-77 insisted that the framework of the Bali Action Plan be adhered to and thus agriculture should remain under 1.b.iv.Much of the discussion in Bonn (see my other recent blog from Bonn), as in Bangkok, centered on an agenda fight—New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland lobbied that agriculture be directly included in the SBSTA agenda and a work program be launched. Failing its adoption in the Bonn SBSTA, they proposed that it be included as a SBSTA work program in SBSTA 36 (June 2012). They also pushed to address address agriculture within the LCA in “additional matters” rather than under “cross-sectoral approaches” so as to remove references to trade in previous agriculture drafts. In the end, the G-77 fought hard to keep agriculture under cross-sectoral approaches, where they felt a general framework for cross sectoral approaches needed to be developed balancing all sectors, including bunker fuels. New Zealand and others wanted to launch the work program and/or deal with agriculture outside of cross-sectoral approaches to avoid a trade discussion. They also asserted that they wanted to address both adaptation and mitigation regarding agriculture.In the end, agriculture did not enter the SBSTA agenda but remained in “cross sectoral approaches.” Large parts of the new Bonn text remain unchanged from August 14, 2010 (pg 70), however new language was added by Brazil, India, Bolivia and Saudi Arabia, backed by other developing countries such as China and others. A struggle continues between developing and developed countries on the language around trade.New language clearly stressed agriculture adaptation as the priority for discussion, followed by objections to carbon markets and mitigation offsets in developing countries (Bolivia):Recognizing that adaptation for developing country Parties is the outmost priority and that market-based mechanisms, particularly offsets, for mitigation in the agriculture sector will not achieve the necessary emission reductions due to, inter alia, non-permanence, additionality and leakage.Other new language stressed the importance of the sector to development priorities (Brazil):[…] sector-specific actions in the agriculture sector should not limit the ability of developing country Parties to pursue economic and social development and poverty eradication, and, to that end, that it is essential that cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific action in the agriculture sector are undertaken in a manner that is supportive of an open international economic system.And in paragraph 4:[Decides that cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions in the agriculture sector shall be based on the best available science, taking into account fully differences between agricultural systems regarding geographic, economic and social conditions and specific national development priorities and circumstances, in particular of developing country Parties, in accordance with equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and in the light of the fact that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties.]Unilateral trade measures on agriculture by developed countries was a primary concern to the G77 including India and Brazil. India proposed new specific language:[…] developed country parties shall not impose unilaterally any technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures or market-based mechanisms on any grounds related to climate change, including stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations, emissions leakage and/or the cost of environment compliance, that will have a negative effect on trade in agriculture from developing countries.In addition, new and critical linkages to agriculture mitigation, climate change and food price rises was also made by the net food importer, para. 3 ( Saudi Arabia):[Decides that cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions in agriculture shall not lead to increases in the prices of agriculture products, and shall not threaten food security in any way]Consensus in the run up to Durban or at Durban will likely be difficult. However, it is also clear that the World Bank wants to ramp up its engagement on agriculture by convincing African governments in particular, that agriculture could be a lucrative opportunity to attract carbon finance (see Guardian coverage of IATP research on the Bank’s Biocarbon project). With talk about “partnership,” “readiness” and “early action,” it appears that the World Bank and others would like to launch a similar process with agriculture as REDD. There seems to be a hope that, as in REDD, pilot projects can create a political momentum for carbon markets to include soil carbon. This is likely to be a tough sell to sound investors given the numerous difficulties the carbon market is facing today and with the carbon price crashing.Regardless, Annex 1 countries are heavily advocating for carbon markets and various associated financial instruments as “innovative sources” of carbon finance in an area of negotiations called “Various approaches […]” through which sectors such as agriculture can be included. A similar move continues in the LULUCF discussions with the draft text proposing to consider the expansion of the CDM to include “additional land use, land-use change and forestry activities.” The CDM currently only includes afforestation and reforestation activities and limits these LULUCF credits to 1 percent of total CDM credits.There was also a big fight on what the general framework on cross-sectoral approaches should be and on bunker fuel. This means that there are three simultaneous fights under the “cross-sectoral approaches" agenda—none of which are resolved. One option out of four proposed for a general framework says “approaches and actions shall be of a voluntary nature” while others make no mention of this. The fourth option proposes “no need for a general framework.”Democratic deficit in discussions about agriculture and climate changeThe Eastern Africa Farmers Federation, and umbrella platform of over 20 million farmers in Eastern Africa and PACJA, a network of 300 African civil society organizations issued a joint declaration on the eve of the Bonn talks regarding agriculture and climate change. Among other issues, they highlighted the democratic deficit of the UNFCCC discussions on agriculture, which to date, have completely ignored the perspective of small-scale producers and civil society organizations. The Joint Declaration states:[...] farmers organizations and other civil society organizations [must] play a central role in the design, implementation and review of all climate-related policies, including national adaptation plans of action (NAPAs) and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and in the formulation of all sectoral, national, regional and international policies affecting [their interests].The declaration continues:We express our concern over the handling of agriculture issues in the UNFCCC negotiations. Inadequate consultation has taken place at both the national and international level with farmers and other members of civil society. We are concerned with attempts to create new agendas to address agriculture in UNFCCCC subsidiary bodes as distracting attention from the urgent need for compensation and finance for adaptation and for measure to address loss and damage and response measures that undermine rural poor communities in developing countries, including perverse subsidies. We believe that discussions in the UNFCCC must be based on prior extensive consultation with rural communities if their rights and interests are to be protected.They call for a development approach, centered on food security and rural livelihoods with full consultation on national, regional and global levels and one which includes a variety of organizations in addition to UNFCCC such as the FAO, UNEP and others.Finally, as this debate picks up, the key body that coordinates all food agencies response to food security, the Committee on Food Security has also commissioned its high-level panel of experts to conduct a study on the impacts of climate change on food security and nutrition, including the challenges to adaptation and mitigation. The CFS’s leadership will be an important contribution to getting the right focus on climate and agriculture with food security at the center. Unlike the UNFCCC where civil society is increasingly excluded from the proceedings, the CFS allows all stakeholders to participate in its deliberations, making it a much more representative space to lead the discussions on agriculture and climate change.—Shefali Sharma
[1] Parties shall “promote and cooperate in the development, diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce, or prevent anthropogenic emissions […] in all relevant sectors including the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry, and waste management.”
Shefali SharmaInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Geneva Office15 Rue des Savoises1205 Genevatel: +41227890724fax: +41227890733
2011년 6월 27일 월요일
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)