Friday, April 21, 2006

Food Sciences

I confess: I was jonesing for some Peeps.

You know, Peeps. Those marshmallow chicks in bright colors that make their ubiquitous appearance around Easter. With a consistency somewhere between old chewing gum and new Styrofoam, and a shape that resembles an actual chick the way that Tofurkey resembles a Thanksgiving bird, they appear in every drug store for a few weeks in the spring, then disappear just as fast. Thankfully, an associate had bought a couple of boxes to give to her husband. As had her mother. Also her sister. And her sister-in-law. Net net, she was overrun with the things. So with the holiday over, she brought them in and put them by the printer in the office, where I dove in.

But as I stuffed one into my maw, I wondered if I was doing myself any harm. Let’s face it: they have little taste, are shelf stable for 2 years and add absolutely no nutrients to your diet. So are they animal, vegetable or mineral? Has anyone really looked into the minutia of this foodstuff/object? Turns out others have wondered this as well, and subjected them to an exhaustive battery of tests.

Back in 1988, researchers at Emory University ran the candy through numerous trials. Among others, they froze them in liquid nitrogen, heated them in an oven and put them in a vacuum chamber. In nearly every case, about what you would expect to happen happened: they were seriously dented but not destroyed. Their results confirmed why, to quote the researchers, “Peeps are rarely found in polar regions” and why “Peeps are poorly equipped as fighter pilots.”

Just why would scientists at a major center for knowledge (OK, probably a bunch of bored graduate students with some time on their hands after a night of hard partying) expend the effort to make these discoveries? Probably just a one-time thing, right? Well, it turns out that others have the same kind of insatiable curiosity, resulting in a huge body of “scientific” research into other innocuous elements of our everyday lives.

Take T.W.I.N.K.I.E.S., a project conducted at Rice University. The acronym, derived from the snack of the same name, stands for “Tests With Inorganic Noxious Kakes In Extreme Situations.” Following standard scientific protocols, “Each test consisted of two Twinkies. One Twinkie acted as the control, and was not touched during the course of the experiment. The other Twinkie was subjected to various stimuli and its reactions recorded, photographed.” And just to make sure there would be no questions asked should the Nobel committee call, “After each test, the control Twinkie was consumed to ensure that it would not be inadvertently used in another experiment.”

And the experiments themselves? To test the effects of gravity, the cakes were taken to the sixth floor and dropped, with their resulting condition noted. To test its solubility, they were immersed in water. And in the resistivity test, electrodes were attached and electrical current was passed through them. Since the cakes passed no current, the researchers concluded that, “If you want to electrically isolate a room from static or higher voltage electricity, you can simply line it with Twinkies.”

Then there’s the research that has been done concerning SPT-based combustion. SPT, by the way, stand for Strawberry Pop Tarts. This contribution to the scientific compendium was based on the accidental observation that this prepackaged pastry, when stuck in a toaster, could be made to “emit flames like a blowtorch.” Not wanting to take the claim at face value, a researcher in Texas conducted an experiment, documenting every step from preparing the sample (“A SPT was removed from the box and its protective packaging and carefully placed into the toaster slot”) to extinguishing the resultant flames (“A reluctant research assistant sprinkled baking soda on the flames. The reluctance was understandable given the potential for premature SPT ejection.”) Among the conclusions: “We believe that frosted SPTs may successfully produce even larger torches. Further research in this area is warranted.”

Other foodstuffs have been suggested to equally rigorous scientific study. One enterprising individual did a distribution analysis of those conversation hearts that you find on Valentine’s day, the ones with the cute sayings. She discovered that there are roughly 70 sayings represented in the typical 283 piece 9 ounce bag. Top sayings included “Dream Girl” (9 occurrences), “Wise Up”(8) and “Write Me”(7). She also noted that “a single serving size is 40 pieces. We believe that is also the current World Record for ‘Most Conversation Hearts Consumed in One Sitting.’”

It keeps on going. Almost no product is immune from someone poking, prodding or otherwise testing it. Turns out that a yellow squeeze bottle of French’s Mustard is good for approximately for 80 hot dogs at an average of 5 grams of mustard per hot dog. A pair of Duracell D cells lasts in a flashlight for 116 hours.  There are four thousand, eight hundred and two Cheerios in a box.  And the average distribution of M&Ms over 10 packs shows that orange is the most common color at 24%, while yellow is the least common at 12%.

Yes, you can say that these are people with way too much time on their hands. You can wonder why their tuition (and probably some of your tax dollars) are being used in pursuit of this lunacy.  But as I reached for another Peep, I appreciated the fact that someone took the time to examine more closely this blob of sugar that makes its appearance but once a year. And let me tell you… after eating two, that’s plenty often enough.

-END-

Marc Wollin of Bedford has can resist eating anything unless it has sugar in it. His column appears regularly in The Record-Review and The Scarsdale Inquirer.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Sweet Smell of Success

In the 1996 movie “Michael” John Travolta plays a down-to-earth angel landed in the Midwest. Hardly your stereotyped heavenly being, he’s a drunk and a prankster, swears a bit and is somewhat of a ladies man. Even so, he has a certain disarming manner that makes people want to be around him. And he turns out to have one particular irresistible quality that attracts both men and women alike: he smells like warm chocolate chip cookies.

While that may be some people’s idea of the ideal cologne, others have a more sophisticated view. Walk down the cosmetics aisle of any major retail outlet, and your nose will be assaulted by a hundred different scents. Many carry revered and storied names from the fragrance and fashion industry, such as Chanel and Dior. Others have become modern classics, like Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein. But the latest interlopers have a pedigree that runs less to several decades of high style, and more to several issues of People magazine and high scandal.

That’s because the fragrance industry has discovered that the future lies not with Park Avenue matrons buying Estée Lauder and Elizabeth Arden, but with X-gens, teens and tweens clamoring for Paris and Britney. While the overall market for perfumes tips the scales at over $25 billion, premium products are growing at rates over a percentage point lower than mass-market ones. With that trend showing no signs of abating, companies are trying to turn more celebrity scents into dollars and cents.

It’s a smart business decision for all concerned. The stars get to trade on their one true asset, their names, stroking their egos and extending their brands with a minimal amount of effort. The companies get a product with a pre-made market base in the form of the fans, who have demonstrated their penchant to use their disposable income for non-essential purchases. And fans get a connection to a glamorous lifestyle, the same way that the smell of new car makes you think you’re driving a Jaguar even if you’re in a Chevy.

To be sure, celebrity perfumes are hardly a new invention. Twenty years ago Elizabeth Taylor had “White Diamonds” and Cher had “Uninhibited.” You didn’t even have to be alive to cash in. The estate of Marilyn Monroe had their own scent, because “After all, there’s a little Marilyn Monroe in every woman.” There was even a Michael Jackson perfume which never made it to market, and featured a hologram of Michael himself (pre major plastic surgery).

But it took Jennifer Lopez in 2001 to show what could be done with a dollar, a dream and some aromatic essence. Her “Glow” fragrance tallied $18 million in its first month, hitting $47 million in under six. She continued to kick nose and take names, ending her first year in the spritzer with a reported $100 million in sales.

Experts say part of the appeal of J. Lo’s products is that she didn’t just lend her name, but professed to be “intimately involved” in the creation, design, production and marketing of her offerings. She described the perfume as “fresh-sexy-clean … what I want for myself.” And the curvy shape of the bottle for Glow calls to mind Lopez’s prime asset, her derrière.  In other words, purchasers aren’t just getting a perfume, but rather, as Fashion magazine aptly points out, buying “a 50-millilitre representation of all that is J. Lo.”

Seeing the goldmine of their own fans sitting there just waiting to capture a sniff of stardom, a bevy of other notables have come to market touting their own personal aromas of heaven. There’s Britney Spears and “Curious,” described as a “floral scent of Louisiana magnolia blended with jasmine.” Paris Hilton has “Paris Hilton,” which smells like “frozen apples entwined with mimosa blossoms.” And like its namesake, “Donald Trump: The Fragrance” is as over the top as they come: "Bright citrus notes are sparked with hints of refreshing mint. Cucumber notes, fluid and fresh, are complemented by crisp herbaceous accents of black basil. Next comes a masculine blend of select green and aromatic notes that includes extracts from the sap of an exotic plant. It finishes with warm woody undertones and spicy notes.” No doubt about it: this one should be fired.

Taking it one step further, made-for-media star Jessica Simpson created a fragrance described as not just aromatic, but edible. Her “Taste” product brings to mind white chocolate and coconut cream. But users be warned: in one episode of her recent show “Newlyweds," Simpson had to keep licking the product during a photo shoot.  Viewers might have noticed that she spent half the time in the bathroom throwing up. Yes, it might have been the stomach flu she professed to have, but then again...

Lest you think the market is saturated, guess again. Kylie Minogue, the 37-year-old Australian pop singer, has a scent ready to be released shortly. Also in the pipeline are fragrances from Hilary Duff, Victoria Beckham, author Danielle Steele, Mariah Carey, Nicole Richie, Antonio Banderas, Maria Sharapova, Shania Twain and even the TV series Desperate Housewives. 

Just to make sure no demographic is being overlooked, even rock and rollers of all stripes are looking to cash in. Paul Stanley, the lead singer for KISS, says that the band's upcoming fragrances for men & women will be "Unrepentantly sexy, and a little naughty". And goth-rocker Marilyn Manson is toiling and troubling over a witches brew to be released later this year. No word as to whether it will contain bat’s blood or eye of newt, but according to the singer, “It will be androgynous in the spirit of Salvador Dali."

So regardless of your taste or sensibilities there is likely to be a scent that you can call your own. And while they may differ as to whether they are based on floral or spicy notes, all these potions do have one thing in common: the underlying aroma is the smell of money.

-END-

Marc Wollin Bedford prefers the smell of fresh air over any perfume. His column appears regularly in The Record-Review and The Scarsdale Inquirer.