Guest Blogger: Leslie Hatfield of the Green Fork blog on the FDA and Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup

There are so many good green bloggers out there I wanted to introduce you to another blogger that I really enjoy reading. Leslie Hatfield is the freelance editor of the Green Fork blog and serves as media consultant for Eat Well, a NYC-based nonprofit program which promotes the sustainable food movement and helps people find good food through their online directory of farms, restaurants and other outlets of locally-grown food. Leslie has also contributed to Edible Chesapeake and The Ethicurean.  

"Our Melamine: There’s Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup, and the FDA Has Known for Years"

Maybe Jeremy Piven didn’t get mercury poisoning from fish at all — according to the results of this new study released by the Institute for Agriculture and Trace Policy (IATP), the actor may well have been sickened by soda or candy or anything that contains high fructose corn syrup, which, if you eat processed food in this country means, well, just about anything.

Foodies and nutritionists alike have been griping about high fructose corn syrup for years, and the industry has responded with an “astroturf” campaign and a level of secrecy generally reserved for the military officials or secret societies (see Corn Refiners’ Association president Audrae Erickson’s stonewalling performance in King Corn).

Of course, I wouldn’t want to show my hand either, if the making of my product could be described as undertaking a small “Manhattan Project” (see eye-glazing production info here). But as it turns out, the HFCS industry has been hiding some major skeletons in its closet — according to the IATP study (pdf), over 30% of products containing the substance tested positive for mercury.

What makes this news truly shocking is not just that the manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup would put consumers’ health at risk, but that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew about the mercury in the syrup and has been sitting on this information since 2005.

Here’s the connection, according to the IATP press release (pdf) announcing the study: The IATP study comes on the heels of another study, conducted in 2005 but only recently published by the scientific journal, Environmental Health, which revealed that nearly 50 percent of commercial HFCS samples tested positive for the heavy metal. Renee Dufault, who was working for the FDA at the time, was among the 2005 study’s authors.

Here’s how the mercury gets in there, according to Janet at the Ethicurean:

How did the heavy metal get in there? In making HFCS — that “natural” sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton likes to call it — caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.

And here’s more from the press release:

“While the FDA had evidence that commercial HFCS was contaminated with mercury four years ago, the agency did not inform consumers, help change industry practice or conduct additional testing.”

And on why it matters:

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms,” said IATP’s David Wallinga, M.D., and a co-author in both studies. “Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.”

In China, heads might roll over a scandal like this one, at least if the country received global attention for its allowing corrupt health officials’ greasy palms come before, um, public health.

Of course, in this country, the FDA’s neck is safe. But what about the health of American consumers? Let’s see the Corn Refiner’s Association try to spin this one.

Originally posted on January 27th 2009 on the Green Fork blog.

Drum roll please:  The Corn Refiner's Association rebutal...as stated in a press release entitled HFCS Mercury Study Outdated; Based on Discontinued Technology, “This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance. Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances,” stated Audrae Erickson, President, Corn Refiners Association. “For more than 150 years, corn wet millers have been perfecting the process of refining corn to make safe ingredients for the American food supply.” The full press release can be read here.  

Not sure how that explains the results of the IATP study that found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods bought off the shelves in 2008 contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.

I think the corn has just spun off the cob.  

What is Truvia?

Today our food is over-processed and contains artificial ingredients and sweeteners. Reading the ingredients labels on most foods in the supermarkets makes me feel illiterate, Dimonowhat? Polyglycolichuh?

Years ago everything contained sugar.  Then saccharin (Sweet'N Low) came into vogue as a "dietetic" alternative to plain cane or beet sugar--remember TaB?  Then, when that was found to cause cancer the big switch was to aspartame, (NutraSweet or Equal).  In 1999 sucralose was introduced to the market and the Splenda symbol appeared on every processed, low calorie food on the market--my husband, until recently used Splenda in his coffee everyday.

So when I heard that Cargill, the company that in March, CondeNast Portfolio listed as one of "The Toxic Ten" (one of the worst corporate polluters in America) and Coca Cola, who has basically put America on an intravenous (IV) line of high fructose corn syrup, were coming out with a new sweetener, you can bet I was a little skeptical.  Like we need another zero-calorie, chemical, no-value sweetener on the market.  

Well, this new sweetener is called Truvia. Truvia is made of rebiana, a sweetener derived from the leaves of stevia plant.  Native to South and Central America, stevia is grown for its sweet leaves.  The stevia extract turns out to be more than 300 times sweeter than sugar. Stevia leaves are harvested and dried, and are steeped in fresh water in a process similar to that of making tea. According to Cargill and Coke, Truvia is a natural sweetener. However, what the companies fail to explain is how the steeped leaves then get to the consumer in a bag looking like a table sweetener.  It must be processed in some way, no? So I am not sure how natural Truvia really is.

Cargill and Coke are currently waiting FDA approval to sell stevia as a sweetener. It is currently only allowed to be used as a supplement in the U.S. -- supplements are not regulated by the FDA, and as such are not widely accepted by the public.  Stevia has been used in Japan for over 100 years.

Wanting to know more about Truvia,  I jumped on the opportunity to listened in on a "webinar," (web conference call), with Coke and Cargill last week. The call included Leslie Curry, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Director for Cargill Food and Ingredient Systems, Zanna McFerson, Business Director for Cargill Health & Nutrition and Dr. Rhona Applebaum, Vice President & Chief Scientific and Regulatory Officer for The Coca-Cola Company.  These were basically hired cheerleaders for Truvia.  

What did I learn from more than 30 minutes listening in?  Almost nothing.  Coke and Cargill have done safety studies on the use of rebiana.  The companies say that it is safe to eat. I'm dubious.  I do not think that any of these tests look at the actual amounts consumers consume. Coke and Cargill have big commercial hopes for Truvia beyond just liquid crack, I mean Coke. Think ice cream, yogurt, cookies, and more -- all hitting our sweet tooth cravings.  If these wonderful companies have their way, many Americans will be taking in stevia or Truvia in nearly every meal and snack they eat.  That impact of that amount of Truvia on the body can not really be determine without many years of studies.  

To find out more about stevia, I did some digging on the internet. I was curious as to why stevia was banned in the U.S and Europe as a sweetener but Japan has used it for decades. From my research, it appears that stevia is actually a better substitute from the chemical processed sweetners (asparatame and sucralose) on the market today.  More importantly, what I discovered about the politics behind this sugar-substitute was very interesting.  

In the 1980's numerous companies in the U.S were interested in using stevia in their products. In 1991, the FDA banned the importation of stevia for use in foods.  According to numerous papers that I read, this was at the request of NutraSweet (owned by evil Monsanto who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, genetically engineered seeds, sacchrin, aspartame, nuclear weapons, and human growth hormones in milk cattle).  The power of Monsanto kept stevia out of the country banning it for almost 20 years.  By the way, the FDA ignored published studies on the dangers of aspartame prior to its approval by the agency.  God bless the United States of Corporate America!

Now I do not trust any of these companies, Monsanto, Cargill or Coke, but from what I have read and heard, Truvia may not be all bad. Cargill and Coke are ramping up farming and production of stevia in South America and China. If Truvia is truly a natural zero calorie sweetener then it could become huge. We could see fields of stevia all over the world.  This could be good and bad.  It would bring money to some communities that need it, and it could also wreak environmental havoc due to poor farming practices.  According to the Truvia website, the plant will not be grown organically.  As stated, "While rebiana is natural and comes from a plant, it is not certified or grown organically at this time.  That could happen in the future, depending on consumer demand."  The idea is to have an "all-natural" zero-cal sweetener, and they are not growing it organically?  I don't get it.  Why not do it right from the beginning?  These are two companies that generate billions of dollars of year, and will probably have the exclusive rights to use this "wonder sweetener" and are not going to grow it organically?

Crazy.

Beyond that, this whole thing gets me wondering.  If stevia was blocked from our consumption by Monsanto nearly 20 years ago, and its better for us than chemicals like aspartame and saccharine, then what else has have we been denied for the almighty dollar?

No more plastic bags for IKEA

Back in February I wrote about how Whole Foods was "greenwashing" their consumers with their 100% Recycled Paper Bag initiative.  Well, no "greenwashing" for IKEA. 

Back in March 2007, IKEA set a goal of reducing its US store's plastic bag consumption by 50%. Thats from 70 million to 35 million plastic bags. At that time IKEA began to offer its consumer the option of buying a reusable bag for $0.59 or a plastic bag for $0.05, with all proceeds the company received for the purchase of their plastic bags over the past year going to American Forests, a non-profit dedicated to conservation, to plant trees to restore forest and help reduce CO2 emissions. 

Now one year later and IKEA has discovered that their consumers are not interested in plastic bags.  Over 92% of IKEA shoppers preferred reusable or no bags at all.  So as a result, IKEA will not longer offer plastic bags to their consumers, as of October 1, 2008.  So it is reusable or nothing!

"The success of this program truly demonstrates that our customers care deeply about our global home and that we can all work together to be sustainable and environmentally responsible." said Pernille Spiers-Lopez, president, IKEA North America.

 

IKEA UK went plastic bag free in June 2007.  Leave it to the Europeans to be way ahead of us. IKEA Australia stopped in December 2007.  

Way to go IKEA! Now can you get your products to last more than a year?

How "green" are your personal and household products?

When my youngest son was only a few months old, a friend sent me an email warning me about baby products that include 1, 4-Dioxane, an Environmental Protection Agency identified carcinogen. This compound has been known to causes cancer in lab animals and now I find out its in Johnson & Johnson Baby Wash.  Once I found out about this I quickly stopped using this soap and found one that was not on the EPA list.  That was almost a year and half ago.  

Now a new study released last week by the Organic Consumers Association revealed that the carcinogenic 1, 4-Dioxane was found in nearly 50% of leading "organic" personal care products tested.  The study included a test of more than 100 organic and natural soaps, shampoos, lotions, and other products from some of our favorite "green" companies including Jason Pure, Natural & Organic, Kiss My Face, Method, Seventh Generation and 365 - Whole Foods private label. Forty-seven of the products tested had detectable levels of 1,4-Dioxane. 

Are you kidding me? Nearly half of the "green" products tested had a cancer causing compound in it!  We kind of expect this from the traditional, industrial products, but from household and personal care products advertised as natural, green and organic, no way! 

"For companies to knowingly or carelessly put a carcinogen into commerce in this day and age is barbaric, I think, particularly products that have the moniker of natural or self-proclaimed organic,"  stated consumer advocate and leader of the study David Steinman in the Los Angeles Times.

According to the Organic Consumer Association, the petroleum based product, ethylene oxide, is used in many product to make them milder and 1,4-Dioxane is a by-product of ethylene oxide. In addition to being known to cause cancer, 1,4-Dioxane is also suspect kidney, neuro and respiratory toxicant. It is also a leading groundwater contaminant.  

So what are we to do? Well, any USDA certified organic product does not contain 1,4-dioxane because companies are not allowed to use ethylene oxide or any other synthetic petroleum chemical modification.  So look for the USDA Organic Seal on the products. A full list of all products tested and the levels of 1,4-dioxane can be downloaded here.  This document also includes a list of ingredients to avoid.

The Organic Consumer Association is working hard to push the organic personal care industry to stop misleading consumers and is leading a movement called "Coming Clean."  They are pressuring the USDA National Organic Program, Organic Trade Association and the industry to adopt strict national organic standards for personal care products. Currently 485 business have sign in support.  On May 14th the Organic Consumer Association and Dr. Bonner's filed a "Cease and Desist" letters to many of the companies who tested positive for 1,4-Dioxane.  Let's hope all this pressure makes a change in the right direction. 

Milk labeling: I rather be confused.

I don't know about you, but shopping for milk is very confusing.  It used to be it was either skim, 1%, 2% or whole milk.  Now when you go to the market and read the labels each brand is touting something different.  Pasteurized, ultra-pasteurized, homogenized, organic, no antibiotics, no hormones, ultra-pure, no rBST, no rBGH, fortified with vitamin A & D added, lactose-free, DHA Omega-3, the list goes on. 

But at least we have a list of items to decipher.  Maybe not for long if Monsanto gets their way. Monsanto, the maker of Posilac, an artificial hormone that stimulates milk production, would like to change the labeling law on milk.  We recognize this hormone as rBST or rBGH (recombinant bovine somatotropin). Many milk companies now label their milk stating that no rBST (or rBGH) were used on their cows but they also have to add the statement: The FDA has found no significant difference between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST treated cows. Confused? 

Monsanto feels if the FDA deems it safe then why should milk be labeled that no rBST/rBGH were used.  Safe?  If it is so safe, why is the hormone banned in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most of Europe?

Well to be fair to Monsanto, they are not directly trying to change the law, it is a group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (Afact).  But who is Afact? As reported in the New York Times, Afact was formed by Monsanto and a consultant that has Monsanto on their client roster, in addition to a marketing/pr firm whose founders were former Monsanto executives, and were hired to work on Posilac. 

Last year, Monsanto asked the FDA and Federal Trade Commission to crack down on milk labels. And for once these agencies refused.  So Monsanto has taken their fight to the states. Label change bills have come up in Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Vermont and Missouri.  Pennsylvania, the fifth largest dairy state in the nation, actually banned the no rBST labeling but rescinded the law when consumers and some dairies complained.  Ohio passed a law that stating milk labels are not allowed to say rBST free.  In Indiana, a bill was introduced banning rBST-free labeling. It passed in the Indiana House Agriculture Committee but was never brought to the full house because the state representative did not have enough votes for it to pass. But dairy farmers in Indiana are pushing it because they use rBST.  Kansas just introduced a similar bill. 

Just to give a a little background on Monsanto.  This is the wonderful company that brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, genetically engineered seed, sacchrin, aspartame, nuclear weapons, and growth hormones. The Environmental Protection Agency list Monsanto as a potentially responsible party for 56 Superfund sites in the US.  Who knows how many sites they have contaminated around the world.

If Monsanto has its way, Ben & Jerry's would have to change its advertising campaign that their ice cream doesn't contain the synthetic growth hormones made by Monsanto.  Currently Ben & Jerry's is fighting these labeling laws.  As they state, "We believe that rBGH, a genetically engineered hormone given to dairy cows to increase their milk productions, is a step in the wrong direction toward a synthetic, chemically-intensive, factory-produced food supply.  It also raises the risk of serious health problems in cows.  That's why we've worked with our dairy suppliers to make sure they do not use rBGH on their herds. And it seems like it shouldn't be a secret."

When it comes to the labeling of our foods, I rather be provided with as much information as possible so I can make my decision.  Confused or not, the more information the better. 

To label or not, what do you think?

The truth about Whole Foods "new" 100% recycled bag initiative

In January Whole Foods announced that it would stop offering its customers plastic bags by Earth Day 2008 (April 22).  While I initially commended the company for taking such a great initiative to reduce our landfills and stop clogging our waterways of plastic, they are now proudly offering their customers 100% recycling paper bags.   100% recycled? You mean the bags are made from the paper we put on our curbside?  

Whole Foods, let's be honest. Yes you are a great company, and sell great products, but this claim is deceptive to your consumer who think of you as the authority on everything good for you and the environment. 

As child of a printing family, the 100% recycled paper bags now offered at Whole Foods got me thinking. Growing up, I used to go to my dad's printing plant and see paper scraps left over from the printing process being sent back to be recycled. This was standard practice.  

So when I went food shopping recently at Whole Foods and saw the paper bags, I had to question it.  100% recycled, really?  What percentage is really from waste from the consumer? Or curbside recycling?

Well, according a Whole Foods public relations representative, the recycled fiber content is 40% post consumer and 60% post industrial (waste).  She stated, "we (Whole Foods) are excited to be moving away from any virgin fiber materials in our paper bags."

Post consumer? Post industrial?  What does that mean?  Well, listen-up.  

Post-consumer waste is paper that has been purchased and used by the consumer (you and me) and recycled by the municipal and private sector recycling system -- curbside recycling. What we the public accept has the definition of recycled.

Post-industrial waste is otherwise known as pre-consumer waste.  It is the reintroduction of manufacturing scrap (trimmings from paper production) back into the manufacturing process. Basically it is the paper made out of paper trimmings and scraps left over from the manufacturing process. Just like I saw in my dad's printing plant more than 20 years ago.  

Pre-consumer, or as Whole Foods calls it post-industrial, is used in the manufacturing industry and in the traditional sense, is not considered recycled. For decades, pre-consumer paper waste has been recycled.  The paper was never marked recycled because manufacturers never got credit for it. But in the 1980's when the demand for recycled paper began to rise, producers began to claim pre-consumer waste as recycled fiber.  However, there had been no change in their manufacturing practices.   

Paper grocery bags are customarily made of pre-consumer (post-industrial) recycled paper -- from 40-90% of the material.  So in reality, Whole Foods is not doing anything new.  It is basically a "green" public relations stunt to make them look better in the marketplace.   This is a practice known as "greenwashing" and as a committed environmentalist, I find it a bit offensive.

Forty percent post-consumer waste, that is it?  A company like Whole Foods who has based their entire brand and position in the marketplace as being better for you, better for the environment, can do better or a least be honest about their claims.  Nowhere on the bag does it reveal any of this information.  

Come on Whole Foods, give us the Whole Truth.

To learn more about federal guidelines for the use of environmental marketing claims go to the Federal Trade Commission site.