Two 14-year-old New Zealand girls made the news recently when their school science project revealed that Ribena, the popular black currant drink, did not have the high levels of vitamin C it claimed to. According to a story published yesterday in The Guardian, the girls were testing a variety of beverages, expecting to find that the less expensive ones had less vitamin C, when they discovered the opposite. Their results were picked up by a local news show and then eventually a national watchdog group. Today, The Guardian reported that GlaxoSmithKline, the drink's producer, is being fined almost $160,000 for misleading ads, which stated "the black currants in Ribena contain four times the vitamin C of oranges." A GSK press release says that that fact is true "on a weight for weight basis," but also admits that it could be misleading. There's also some discrepancy about the differing vitamin C levels in the concentrate versus the diluted product. On a personal note, I was a Ribena drinker for a while. I think it's tasty stuff. I don't think I ever believed it was good for me, however.

For his science experiment this year, a middle school student from Boca Raton, Florida decided that he would test the effects of energy drinks on blood sugar. He came up with the idea because the drinks are hugely popular with his friends who feel that the drinks give them a "boost" and was already familiar with blood sugar and testing it because his cousin is a diabetic. Lucas Peel's hypothesis was that the drinks with the greatest amount of sugar and caffeine would produce the greatest increase in blood sugar, giving the drinker a burst of energy.

Over the course of about a week, Lucas drank Red Bull, Rock Star, Amp and water, testing his blood sugar levels twice after each of the three times he tried each drink. He found that, contrary to his original theory, it was "the energy drinks with the least sugar [that] increased blood sugar level." Red Bull boosted blood sugar more than any of the other drinks.

Lucas says that he avoids energy drinks and hopes that his project will help some of his fellow students to realize that they are not a good replacement for a real breakfast.

This isn't the first time that a middle-school student has conducted a science project that attracts a far-ranging interest. Earlier this year, for example, a student in Tampa, FL tested samples of water from the toilets at fast food restaurants and compared it to the ice from the soda machines, only to discover that there were more bacteria in the soda machine than the toilet.

In the NY Times last week, professor Brian Wansink talked about some of his research on how people have relatively little concept of what they're eating and usually take visual cues from outside sources, rather than from their own bodies about fullness. He mentioned a test that involved giving participants stale and fresh popcorn in different-sized containers that showed people would eat more from the larger container - even if that was the stale popcorn. That is not the only experiment that he and his colleagues did to support their position, however. They have a whole repertoire of experiments that demonstrate the same results. The tests answered these questions:

• Do even educated eaters fall prey to mindless eating based on container size?
• Does a food or a wine label affect how people feel about their meal and how much they eat?
• How hard is it to correctly estimate portion size based on container size, and how can the shape of a container make you consume more?
• Does how food is described change consumption rates?
• Do visual clues help slow down mindless snacking?

The answer is "yes" to each of these questions and they way they got to that answer in each case was interesting. Re-naming peas as "power peas" got kids to eat more. Educated eaters still binged when given oversized bowls and color-coding chips so people could see exactly how much they were eating helped them to eat less. The tests don't necessarily tell us anything new, but it's always interesting to see how people react in these different situations anyway. In fact, it's sort of tempting to try them out on coworkers in the break room or, if you have a child that needs to do a science project, questions like these could be a good starting point.

It started with a relatively simple question: how do you improve a breadbox? The answer is that you add a UV lighting system that suppresses the growth of mold, extending the shelf-life of a loaf of bread. This is a particularly neat feature if you by preservative-free loaves of sandwich bread that seem to go bad in only two days.

Installing the light into a reflective, brushed-steel breadbox was a relatively simple matter once you have all the necessary equipment (and if you like building things). But the moment of truth came when the modified breadbox was tested against an unmodified box. The breads in the non-UV box molded in 2 weeks; the UV breads did not mold (though they did eventually dry up after several weeks, by which point you should have eaten the bread). Success!

Total cost of the project: $65. Never having to throw away another half-uneaten loaf that turned moldy: priceless.

[via SciFi Tech]

A seventh grader from Tampa recently won her school science fair with an experiment that compared levels of bacteria in the toilets and ice machines of five different fast food restaurants. According to 12-year-old Jasmine Roberts, the toilets contained less bacteria 70 percent of the time. For the toilet samples, Roberts flushed each toilet and then scooped up some water with a sterile beaker. For the ice, she took samples from machines inside the restaurants as well as from ice ordered at each drive-through window. The samples were tested at Tampa's Moffitt Cancer Center where Roberts volunteers. The video that accompanies the story has footage of a graph comparing the bacteria in toilets versus ice. Some of the differences are vast. Unfortunately, Roberts doesn't disclose the names of the restaurants.