nutritionwonderland

Category: Additives

  • Book Review: The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson

    Book Review: The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson

    “Pain in the abdomen. Splitting Headache. Nausea and vomiting. Choking and couldn’t get their breath. Coughing up blood.” Phone calls like these broke the dawn of a fall day in the mill town of Donora, Pennsylvania back in October, 1948. Already two had died and another 18 were soon to follow. The death toll would have been far higher if not for a couple brave firemen filling oxygen tents as quickly as they could. Still, no one was quite sure what was going on. Only later would it be discovered that the thick smog covering this Appalachian valley was due to a severe temperature inversion. Its killer characteristic? Fluoride.

    The Fluoride Deception’s Cover

    Few public health issues in American history have riled people quite like fluoride. Its story is replete with famous figures in American history, dramatic tales from the Manhattan Project, corporate cover-ups, redacted research, shattered careers of those that spoke against it’s use and the tragedy at Donora in 1948. The tide that binds all these accounts together is a fascinating book called, “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. His work paints a picture with enough intrigue to be nominated for an Oscar but remains deftly aware of itself long enough to stay away from hyperbole – most of the time at least.

    Fluoride, The Way Low Down

    The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson

    Bryson takes his readers on an exhaustive journey of the molecule through the eyes of those that have known it first hand. We learn the perils of researching the subject from carefully placed protagonists like scientist Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, whose entire career was derailed by publishing information about fluoride’s neurotoxic effect at disturbingly low concentrations [1], and Kah Eli Roholm, a Danish pioneer in the research of fluoride’s effects and publisher of the groundbreaking work, Fluorine Intoxication [2], back in 1937. Shady, villain-like characters named Dr. Harold Carpenter Hodge and Dr. Robert A. Kehoe act as provocateurs in the background, silently pushing a pro-fluoride agenda with their work – at the behest of the Department of Defense’s Manhattan Project and major fluoride users like US Steel and Alcoa.

    Intrigue is definitely a current running through the text – and it helps readability. Bryson works hard at establishing the links between the industrial uses of fluoride and its eventual role in water fluoridation. His case is circumstantially strong as the middle of the book describes the legal wrangling mill workers would endure to get compensation from corporations using fluorides industrially in the workplace. But what comes away as the most surprising aspect of his account is how the type of fluoride used in water fluoridation is actually just fluosilicic acid, a toxic byproduct of aluminum smelting and other heavy industrial processes. It becomes clear here that the waste is being dumped into the water supply in lieu of having to dispose of it in some other way.

    Given most people’s proclivity for considering fluoride as a beneficial tooth decay reducer, his evidence is both striking and damning. You can reserve judgment temporarily against toothpaste, as it uses sodium fluoride as its preferred molecular combination – not fluosilicic acid, but still take a moment with the thought of people using the water supply as a dumping ground. For just for this insight alone, you would be remiss not to pick up the title. However, for those of you with a scientific nose, it is the moment just after you make the connection between water fluoridation and fluoride’s industrial uses that will both haunt and fascinate you as the book continues. It will also be the moment after which this book’s value to the discussion notably decreases.

    Crying for More, Crying for Less

    Once you wrap your head around the arguments Bryson is making in the book, it starts to fit the vicious battle some people wage against water fluoridation. For the most part, the battle against fluoride is mostly a cold war, although the occasional community, like Southampton in the UK recently, will organize itself in protest of water fluoridation. Frankly, it’s amazing more hasn’t been said here in the US about its use, although there is certainly an underground resistance to its use, spearheaded by the Fluoride Action Network.

    Part of the reason for mass acceptance of fluoridation has been the glowing endorsements given to it by the American Dental Association and the CDC, with the CDC calling water fluoridation ‘one of the ten greatest public health victories of the 20th century‘. The FDA even allows bottled water products that use fluoride to market health benefits from its use.

    Dr. Frederick McKay, the first person to make the connection between fluoride and cavities

    This evolved agency view comes from a series of observations by Dr. Frederick McKay throughout the early 1900s that showed areas in the Western US, where calcium fluoride levels in the water are naturally higher, exhibited stained teeth with far less decay than areas with less fluoride in the water [3]. Landmark studies corroborated these views, especially the 1945 study involving the first test case in Grand Rapids, Michigan that showed adding sodium fluoride to water resulted in up to 54% fewer cavities [4].

    All of this early science on the subject was an issue Bryson mostly avoids, to the book’s detriment. In fact, the way the science is presented is confusing. Fluorides are brought up haphazardly and never fully explained. What are chemical differences between fluoride (the ionized molecule), fluorine (the element), fluoride salts (the compound found in toothpaste), calcium fluoride (naturally found in water) and fluosilicic acid (the waste product often added to fluoridate water)? Given the science we have on fluoride’s neurotoxic effects, could it play a role in the autism epidemic? How does this relate to ADHD, Alzheimer’s, MS – or any neurological disorder for that matter? Fluoride ions have an affinity for calcium in bones, how does fluoridation relate to osteoporosis? The audience desperately needs these type of answers but we never get them.

    What we need is a more nuanced dialogue about the role of fluoride in the body, not less. Bryson should have embraced the controversy a bit more here and explained these different avenues of thinking instead of simply leaving the science of his opposition out of the text. It severely detracts from what this book could be.

    Science Developing Further, Disturbing Conclusions*

    Fluoride science has evolved further since this work was published back in 2006. There are now epidemiological studies examining the role of fluoride and bone fractures, with mixed results in low exposures (like the 1ppm rates CDC aims for in US public water system fluoridation) but more conclusive, damaging results in slightly high 2-4ppm window [5]. It’s still unknown which ethic groups could be most at risk from bone fractures though. More disturbing has been the development of studies that confirm fluoride (along with arsenic) has serious effects on the brain [6, 7, 8], lowering IQ in SE asian children. Again, these effects are seen in the higher 2-4ppm samples of fluoride, rather than the 1ppm exposures most Americans are seeing, but any time a substance causes neurological damage further study should be considered mandatory.

    Advancing from this epidemiological base, one Chinese study group has recently isolated fluoride’s neurotoxic target as the hippocampus in the brain [9, 10], giving future researchers a tangible ‘fluoride pathogenesis’ to work with here. The hippocampus governs many of the higher cerebral functions of humans like memory storage and spatial orientation; any damage to it could cause a number of different, severe neurological issues – similar to the epidemiological observations showing impacts to IQ from SE Asia.

    Even before this new evidence was published, the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences have been reexamining the data surrounding water fluoridation since 2006 . The EPA sets a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for all water contaminants; effectively the MCL is the ceiling and SMCL is the least amount allowed. For fluoride that range has long been 2-4 mg/L in drinking water but the National Academy agreed that skeletal issues were found from fluoride exposures at levels as low as 1.5 mg/L, nearing the CDC’s water fluoridation targets of 1ppm.

    *We would like to note that 1ppm is equivalent to 1mg/L and they are often used interchangeably in the research. It should also be noted the National Academy mentioned they choose not to examine fluoridation’s effects at .7 – 1.2 mg/L – the CDC’s target range – for reasons that go unmentioned but could easily be implied. Further, all figures here are per liter fluoride exposures that downplay the actual fluoride exposures many people will be exposed if they follow the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 3.7L/day water intake recommendation. Taken together, the average CDC fluoridated water range exposure (.95mg/L) multiplied by IOM’s average daily water intake (3.7L) would give the average American 3.515 mg worth of daily fluoride exposure – a figure that falls in the National Academy’s range for concern for skeletal problems and the recent IQ-reducing fluoride exposures from the Chinese study group mentioned above.

    Moving Through the Fog

    We gave you an overview of science surrounding fluoride here because it is complex – and evolving – but the fact Bryson remained silent on the matter, only pounding the conspiratorial angles of this drama, strikes us as foolish. While that makes for a juicy read, storming Alcoa for reparations will not help well-meaning scientists establish fluoride’s true toxicity. Echoing Bryson’s sentiments, we do agree that the industry connections are important to understanding the depths of this story. The fact CDC, FDA and ADA all remain in lockstep behind water fluoridation, even in the face of this new science, is disturbing. And for all we know, the avoidance of fluoride science could have been an editorial decision on his part or his publishing company but, with such charged subject matter, that was an exceedingly poor choice. We just wish he had done more to further the conversation, just as we wished Food Inc. had extended the sustainable agriculture dialogue in a meaningful way (it did not).

    You could easily question Bryson’s objectivity when you read the book but you shouldn’t. Large passages pull from Bryson’s muckraking journalism background and you can almost feel the resentment he has towards those that have fluoridated our water. But he keeps himself in check very well. This stance creates a tone that is both a strength and weakness for Bryson. If you gravitate towards social justice issues, you will soak up this book’s charged approach; the more scientifically minded amongst you might find his angles off putting and his lack of science infuriating. We were somewhere in the middle, we found ourselves enjoying his style but longing for a more exhaustive scientific review somewhere in the text.

    In general, Bryson does a masterful job of weaving political intrigue into an exceedingly readable text considering the subject matter. He creates a story with genuine heroes and villains you may find yourself thinking about long after you put the title down. Experts will surely find fault with Bryson’s work, especially on the scientific front, but if your only exposure to fluoride is the cursory knowledge of its presence in your toothpaste or water, you would be wise to visit this text. We recommend it.

    Additional Resources:

    CDC’s List of New Fluoridated Water Supply Communities (aiming for 75% coverage by 2010):

  • GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?

    GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?

    The public’s biggest concern when it comes to GMOs is their safety. There are a lot of misconceptions about genetic engineering. When pressed on science of GMOs, I have often heard people fear that the genetically modified material in the foods they are eating will somehow mutate their DNA too. While logically it sounds like that makes a bit of sense, scientifically its nonsense. As I explained in my review of the science behind GMOs, the actual genetic material being modified gets thoroughly destroyed in the digestive tract. But that doesn’t mean GMOs are guaranteed to be completely safe to eat – the protein products that the transferred genes encode for or other side effects of an organism creating those proteins could be harmful. So how do we test for and ensure that GMOs are safe? Allow me to introduce you to the complex world of genetic technology regulation.

    Genetically modified foods have a significant image problem and much of that comes from the laissez-faire apparatus that has been put in place to regulate them. Scientists, in effect, over-estimated the scientific sophistication of the public and assumed no one would conflate the genetic modification of plants for humans. How this oversight has played out in the regulatory arena is instructive in trying to decipher some of the hatred pointed at GMOs and other scientific advances that may come to pass.

    Understanding the Regulatory Apparatus

    Fat mice are genetical modified to study the effects of knock out genes

    Right now, there is a lot of variation in the regulatory processes that monitor and label GMOs. Those that are tightest regulated are in the biomedical industry, where strict regulations on animal research in general ensure the ethical creation, treatment and use of GMOs. In the U.S., any procedure on an animal can be preformed if scientifically justified, though that justification isn’t always easy. Animals are regulated and protected under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, published by the National Academy of Sciences.

    Any institution that conducts animal research must have a vet and an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which ensures that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments don’t use more animals than necessary, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the USA. GM vertebrates purposefully bred for research are separately regulated under Public Health Service policies, and all of these regulations are enforced by the USDA, OLAW and the AAALAC. The hoops that researchers have to jump through to make and use GMOs are insane, though not in a bad way – they guarantee good science as well as the control and proper use of genetic technologies.

    The Food Fight

    Staple crops like corn are in question with GMO regulation, thanks to kevin dolley on flickr for pic

    As I alluded to, regulation of GM food is different. There is no worldwide consensus as to how to regulate GM crops or livestock, and depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, the government oversight and opinion varies. In Europe, for example, anti-GM activists are particularly vocal. GM crops are today very rare in Europe. In 2003, the European Union adopted regulations establishing an EU-wide system to trace and label GMOs and to regulate the sale and labeling of food derived from them, although this legislation did put an end to the ‘de facto’ moratorium on approving new GM products for the European market, which had been in place since 1998. Regardless, these strict labeling laws and regulations ensure that GM crops don’t hit stores easily. These include systematic genetic testing for GMOs using DNA barcoding technology and assurance that non-GM crops do not mix with GM ones.

    In the United States, however, GMOs are much more common. The regulation is confusing because the EPA, USDA, and FDA all deal with different facets of GMOs. In short, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. This means that the EPA is responsible for testing and regulating GMOs with pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment, like Bt corn, but not those that are modified only nutritionally or for other reasons like disease resistance. The USDA picks up where the EPA leaves off, including drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or any fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. In general, the FDA focuses more on parts of things, not whole products. A box of cereal containing GM corn is regulated by the FDA, but the whole ear would be regulated by the USDA or EPA. In general, exactly what the FDA regulates with regards to GM foods is uncertain and confusing.

    The GMO Regulatory Framework, note the FDA’s optional role

    To protect the environment and other creatures, the EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides and establishes tolerance and residue levels for them. These regulations aren’t just GM-oriented – there are strict limits on the amount of pesticides applied to crops during growth and production, the amount that remains in the food after processing, licensing for pesticides used and directions for how to use them to meet the EPA’s safety standards. Inspectors periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure compliance.

    When it comes to GMOs, for example, the EPA requires that growers have a license to grow modified crops, and requires those that do also plant 20%-50% unmodified versions to prevent insects from developing resistance to the pesticides as well as provide a refuge for non-target insects. The USDA has all kinds of specialized groups that share responsibility for assessing and monitoring GM foods, including the the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service, which performs the GM food research done by the USDA, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. In general, these groups check whether GMOs harbor pests, act as weeds, or harm native species that surround planted areas, including the effects of escaped GMOs. Depending on their findings, these groups can stop the production or movement of anything deemed unacceptable, and can even destroy anything that is in violation if their regulations.

    Under USDA regulation, a GM plant does not require a permit if it meets six criteria:

    1. Is not a noxious weed
    2. Has whatever genetic material that was introduced stably integrated into the plant’s own genome
    3. The function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease
    4. Is not toxic to non-target organisms
    5. Will not cause the creation of new plant viruses
    6. Does not genetic material from animal or human pathogen

    Once the food is grown and processed somehow to be used in food, it’s the FDA’s problem. In my opinion, it is here, at the FDA level, that the US has failed to adequately regulate and monitor GMOs, and this failure is partly at fault for the negative attitude towards GMOs held by many. By FDA regulations, agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation, including the evaluation of how eating the product affects people. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA’s recommendations after the consultation.

    Could do better with GMOs

    The FDA does not demand special labeling of GM foods, as the FDA contends that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs and are “generally recognized as safe”. The FDA could do a lot better, and needs to. How can consumers trust in a regulatory system that basically says regulation isn’t necessary? Here is where the politicians need to step in and demand more efficient, required testing of GM foods. Doing so might slow down the release of GM products, but it will give the public a reason to trust that when those products are released, that they really are “substantially equivalent.” In other countries there is even more variation in how GMOs are regulated. Some completely ban GMOs, not even allowing them to be tested and evaluated. Others plant them vigorously with no concerns towards their safety. What we need is a worldwide set of regulations that ensures the quality, environmental safety, and lack of adverse health effects of any GMO eaten by people.

    A Quick Run-Down of the Pros and Cons

    To try and explain the entirety of the debate on GMOs would take an entire book or two. But, for your edification, here’s a cliff notes version:

    Potential Benefits of GMOs

    • In Agriculture:
      • Increase productivity by reducing maturation time, increasing resistance to pests, disease, environmental stressors (like drought) or herbicides
      • Enhanced taste and quality, including added vitamins and minerals to increase the nutritional value of foods
      • Other new products and growing techniques that take less space or energy and have reduced environmental impacts
    • Using Animals
      • Breakthroughs in biological and medical technologies through research
      • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency of food animals
      • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
      • Increased nutritional value of food animals
      • Improved animal health including resistance to diseases and parasites
    • To The Environment
      • Bioherbicides and bioinsecticides that have negligable impacts
      • Conservation of soil, water, and energy
      • Bioprocessing of waste, improving waste management
    • To Society
      • Increased food security and nutritional needs met for growing populations
      • Better and more affordable medical treatments for tough or incurable diseases

     

    The Things People Worry About With GMOs

     

    • Safety
      • Potential human health impacts of eating GMOs, including allergic reactions, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers and other unknown effects
      • Potential environmental impacts, including transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms, and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
    • Who Owns It?
      • World food production by a few companies (like Monsanto), and the problems of monopolies on food
      • Increased dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
      • Rich nations getting the majority of the benefits, advances skewed to interests of rich countries
    • Ethical Questions
      • Whether “unnatural” is bad or the violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
      • “Playing God” or tampering with nature by mixing genes among species, particularly animal genes in plants and vice versa
    • Labeling
      • Lack of choice in consumption due to poor or no labelling
      • Mixing GM crops with non-GM crops

    Hopefully, this list, combined with the information above, can give you some basis for your own opinions on GMOs. When arguing about genetic modification, remember that it’s not all about food – this technology is used for far more than Bt crops and fast-growing fish. Now that you have the back story, you can better understand the different sides of the GMO debate.

    The Future of GMOs: My Two Cents

    What lies ahead for genetically modified organisms is uncertain. A lot of it depends on public opinion, which, right now, is extremely negative. There are definitely some concerns with GMOs that need to be addressed, including their potential interactions with wildlife and native plants, the societal issues of who owns GMOs and who benefits from them, and the ability of consumers to make informed decisions when it comes to their food. But it seems that most who dislike the idea of GMOs have few facts and don’t think of the many other uses of GMOs besides Frankenfood. Just look at the list of negatives – almost none apply to GMOs for use in biomedical research. Yet legislation seeks to prevent all GMOs wholesale – laws which would hinder medical advances. Anti-GMO feelings are spurred onwards by those who fear that by altering the genetic makeup of creatures, we are, in essence, playing God. It’s a line of thinking that feels anything unnatural is therefore unsafe – an entire culture of thought that thinks that anything produced by science or technology is automatically bad.

    Let me just share my two cents on this mode of thinking: first off, nothing about our lives is “natural”. We build things out of reinforced steel and other metals that never occur naturally. Houses never form in the wild, nor do clothes. X-ray machines don’t occur spontaneously, nor do heart transplants. So if you’re really dedicated to living naturally, you’ve got to rethink a lot more than GMOs. Secondly, we have been messing with creatures’ genetics and “playing God” for centuries. Over 50 million of us worldwide proudly own the products of this genetic manipulation – you might call them pets. Dogs, for example, have more physical variation within their species than there is in the entire rest of the order of carnivores. In other words, a pug’s skull is more different from a pit bull’s than a mouse’s is from a bear’s. If that’s not some serious genetic manipulation, I don’t know what is. We’ve bred not just different varieties of one species to create ideal plants, we’ve bred together different species, and long before we could do it with genetic engineering. Changing creatures’ genetics to suit our desires is nothing new. Thirdly, the transfer of genes from one organism to a wholly unrelated organism isn’t unnatural. Yeah, I know, the way we do it is, but it’s not like it’s never happened before in nature. Viruses and bacteria donate their genes to other creatures all the time – that’s why their machinery is often used to do genetic engineering. Even the transfer of genes between higher-order animals isn’t unheard of. We’ve found plant genes in sea slugs, for example – which is really, unbelievably cool, by the way.

    I’m not saying that we should all just go out and blindly trust Monsanto and the other GM producers. We shouldn’t just shovel GMOs down our throats and presume they’re safe and better for us. That’s what science is for – to test this kind of thing. Have the lawmakers make stricter regulations regarding the safety evaluation of GMOs. Let scientists study and debate GMOs until they feel like they’re beating a dead FrankenHorse. Let it take years and years for these products to be tested, evaluated, and released. But don’t stop them from being created. Don’t make laws that outlaw the GMOs that are so vital to biomedical research because of fear. The reason Monsanto has a near-monopoly is because we stifle smaller companies and universities from competing with them, competition which is not only healthy but necessary – and we can fix that. In the end, the global benefits of the GMOs of the future are too great to be prevented by idealized notions of a natural world, and this is coming from an ecologist. Progress isn’t a dirty word, no matter what you hear, and we should be excited about the amazing possibilities that ever advancing technologies afford us.

  • GMOs: Frankenfood or Evolutionary Advance?

    GMOs: Frankenfood or Evolutionary Advance?

    While many GMOs are used for other purposes, the most talked about ones are those that end up on our plates. These are the Frankenfoods, the plants and animals being modified for human consumption. Why are crops and animals being modified? What GMOs are currently on the market? What new GMOs are being created? Good questions…

    GM Plants

    The small group of GMOs that are well-known and hotly debated are those used in agriculture. While many seem to argue whether or not they should exist, the fact is genetically modified crops are already all over the place. In 2006, for example, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were farmed in 22 countries by 10 million farmers. Of these, 53% were grown in the United States, where the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) keeps a close watch on the total area of GMO seeds planted. Genetically modified plants totaled as high as 86 percent of corn, 90 percent of the soybean, and 93 percent of upland cotton planted (by area).

    Corn and soy make up a large part of the GMO portfolio, image credit: r-z, flickr

    It’s not just developed nations that are growing GMOs: according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), 90% of the GMO-growing farmers in 2005 were resource-poor farmers in developing countries. So what, exactly, are these farmers planting? The majority are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and alfalfa that carry genes that either make them tolerant to the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate or produce the insecticide Bt toxin, a compound originally from bacteria that is a widely used pesticide by organic farmers.

     

    Current GMO crops

    Why should we want GM foods around in the first place? For one, they have the potential to make the production of certain crops cheaper and even more environmentally friendly. But really, what we have done so far is child’s play compared to what we may be able to do in the near future with GM crops.

    GMO Carrot Art, credit: klar!! on flickr

    On the horizon are a variety of crops that could revolutionize agriculture, and not just in cost-saving ways like insecticides and herbicides. Sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world. Rice is being created which is high in iron and vitamins to supplement the diet of the malnourished masses in many areas. Similarly, scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people.

    Even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepititis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. Just for the record, not all GM crops are made to be eaten; some trees, for example, are being modified to produce plastics, of all things. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

    GM Animals

    Most genetically modified animals are used for scientific research, as I explained in the first segment of this series. But GM animals don’t just live in labs. The first GM animals for commercial sale were glow in the dark zebra fish, now quite popular in freshwater aquariums (you might call them GloFish). GM animals aren’t just for show, though – some are making their way onto our dinner plates. Like for their floral counterparts, the use genetically modified animals as food is hotly debated.

    Top is GMO salmon, bottom is regular salmon. The fish are the same age, credit: natuurinformatie.nl

    Right now, the most likely GM animals on the verge of wide-scale sale are fish. Fish are becoming more and more popular as a source for protein. By 2015, it’s expected that the world demand for fish and fish products will expand by 50 million tonnes to over 180 million tonnes per year. That is a lot of fish. As worldwide fish stocks continue to collapse, it’s expected that much of this will come from aquaculture, and GM fish are ready to swim into the market through these farms. Aquabounty Inc., for example, has developed genetically modified salmon called AquAdvantage™, which are capable of reaching maturity twice as fast as their unmodified counterparts. Similarly, transgenic sockeye salmon have been given an extra growth boost, as have transgenic carp and tilapia. These animals have yet to hit supermarket shelves because of concerns not only for their safety to humans but also their ecological safety to their wild counterparts should some escape.

    Already, non-transgenic farm fish pose threats to some species of fish, and studies have found that the offspring between enhanced and wild fish are compromised compared to natural offspring. Those in favor of GM fish, however, say that these farms can be restricted to land-locked areas to reduce risk, that the GM fish can be sterilized, and that the benefits of these faster-growing fish overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. Fish aren’t the only animals being modified for food. Farmed mammals, too, are being genetically modified. Cows are being created which increase the calcium content of their milk by producing more casein proteins.

    Pigs are popular targets: some are being cloned to produce omega-3 fatty acids which are normally found in fish, and separately others are being modified to express a phytase which breaks down phosphorus to reduce the environmental impact of their feed. Pigs are even being engineered to contain high vitamin C levels. Transgenic chickens now express an enzyme so they can eat lactose-containing feed, widening their possible food options. While these animals aren’t for sale yet, either, they have the potential to make meats more affordable, more environmentally friendly, and more nutritious. Unlike plants, GM animals are not widely available or currently on supermarket shelves. However, that is expected to change in the near future, once further tests have been done to determine their safety.

    GM Foods and Us

    The major concern that most of us have is whether GM crops are safe. It is, literally, a billion dollar question. The vast majority of the anti-GMO platform is that they’re not. The main basis of this opinion is that because GMOs contain genes that produce proteins otherwise never found in a given food, they are likely to be dangerous. For example, foreign protein products may cause allergic reactions in people.

    Soybeans – a common GMO

    A case often cited as proof that GMOs are inherently dangerous is Pioneer Hi-Bred’s GM soybeans that were being developed in the ’90s. Pioneer Hi-Bred introduced genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans to increase the level of sulphur-rich amino acids. While the product was intended for animal feed, not human consumption, it became clear during testing that the nut protein that was being transferred was an allergen to humans. Because of this, the company discontinued development. People also believe that, since many plants are being engineered to produce pesticides, the overall consumption of these health hazards will be increased if GMOs are eaten regularly.

    As it stands, the science is mixed, but most supports that these foods do not cause adverse health affects. Feeding trials have found little to no toxic effects and studies have documented that GM foods have the same nutritional qualities as unmodified versions. Perhaps the most supportive evidence of GM crops’ safety, though, is simply that we’ve been eating them for 15 years in the US and have yet to see population-wide adverse effects. Despite the evidence towards their safety, public support for GM crops remains low, and many say that we can’t really know whether they’re safe with the tests that are done now.

    To that end, there is a lot of variety in the regulations and studies of the effects of eating GMOs (I’ll explain that in my next post). Many, including myself, believe that more rigorous and standardized testing is necessary, as it would build consumer confidence in the safety evaluations and lead to much wider spread acceptance of GM foods.

    The GM Debate

    While I understand the worry about Frakenfoods, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture. DNA is a part of our diet. We eat millions of copies of thousands of genes every day, most of which science has yet to determine the products of. We breathe in even more microorganisms and other microscopic creatures that have all kinds of unknown proteins in them, and we rarely stop to worry if they will have an adverse impact on our health. Moreover, we do eat many of the genes being transferred around between GM species. The fact is, most proteins get chewed up beyond recognition in our stomachs (this is why most health supplements don’t actually work).

    We must take the debate about the development of GMOs very seriously, and critically analyze the risks that come with them. But at the same time, we must also avoid being hysterical about the issue, and tackle the assurance of their safety with science and reason instead of rhetoric. To that end, we must ensure that they are safe via thorough testing and regulation. What are we doing about that?

    Next post I’ll explain the complex system that is GMO regulation, particularly in the US, so you can have a better idea about what analysis GM products go through before they end up on supermarket shelves.

  • Is Child Obesity the Parent’s Fault?

    Is Child Obesity the Parent’s Fault?

    Childhood obesity is becoming a hot topic in health circles, even to the point of being called an epidemic. Experts estimate that 20% of children between the ages of 6 and 17 are overweight, predisposing them to terrible diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Why have the world’s children ballooned over the past hundred years?

    Ice Cream Adds Up! (thanks to flickr user lepiaf.geo)

    Part of the problem is the popularity of fast food restaurants and cheap, fattening foods readily available at the grocery store. Policy makers have tried to tackle the problem at a variety of angles, promoting better package labeling and restriction or outlawing of the worst offending foods. Reformers have even targeted the meals provided by schools (efforts which have vastly improved the quality and nutrition of school meals), but the problem extends much deeper. Any nutritionist will tell you that healthy eating starts at home, and that is exactly where the problem now lies for the world’s children.

    It turns out that the vast majority of parents are failing their kids, at least when packing them lunch. When Dr. Charlotte Evans and colleagues form the University of Leeds surveyed children’s packed lunches in the UK, they found that only 1 in 100 met the standards for nutritional value set by government agencies. In the UK, 50% of students pack their own lunches, and the findings of this study might explain part of why 1 in 6 of them are obese.

    The research was done at the request of the UK’s Food Standards Agency, whose School Meals Review Panel (SMRP) has dictated what’s good and what’s not for schoolchildren since 2005. The government, at the urging of the panel, has restricted schools from serving foods high in salt, fat and sugar or made with poor-quality meat, and established mandatory food items such as protein-rich options, low-fat starch choices, dairy products, fruit and vegetables in the daily diet of students fed by the schools. But the board does not control the meals of the kids who bring their own, so the FSA wanted to know how the meals of these students measured up to the SMRP’s standards.

    Researchers randomly selected primary schools throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and selected one class of 8 to 9 year olds from each school. All and all, almost 1,300 lunches were examined by a trained administrator, who went through the lunch and had the child go through a lunch box questionnaire. The administrator also weighed the lunch before and after to determine how much the kid ate.

    What They Found

    Most lunches contained sandwiches, sweet treats, snacks and sweetened drinks, and the kids ate 76% of what they were given. Few contained vegetables, milk or fruit juice. Of the 1294 lunches examined, only 14 (1.1%) met all of the standards for school meals and 66 (5.1%) met five or more. Fewer than half met the standards for energy, saturated fat, non-milk extrinsic sugars, non-starch polysaccharides, sodium, vitamin A, folate, iron or zinc. Interestingly, the researchers found that girls consumed more vegetables than boys.

    The results were sobering.

    As the authors write, “since 2004, there may have been some improvements in the nutritional profile of packed lunches due to changes in the composition of some manufactured foods; however, there have been no improvements in children’s packed lunches in terms of the types of food provided.”

    While it might save some cash to pack lunches instead of paying for cafeteria food, you’re not doing your family any favors if you don’t pack a healthy meal. Studies have shown that kids that grow up with bad nutritional habits have a hard time breaking them later in life, so how you feed your kids has a dramatic impact throughout their years.

     

    Kids Going to School…with lunches! from flickr user photomequickbooth

    To learn more about how to pack the right kinds of meals, check out the School Food Trust’s website or ask your doctor what your child needs nutritionally. Here’s some examples of the good and the bad as described by a parent pamphlet explaining the UK’s 2007 update of the school lunch standards (view pamphlet here):

    Good Choices to Eat:

    • Filled sandwiches, rolls, baguettes, bagels, pittas and wraps
    • Toasted sandwiches and paninis
    • Breakfast cereals with lower fat milk
    • Jacket potatoes, pasta and rice salads
    • Salads and vegetable sticks with dips
    • Yogurts/fromage frais
    • Fruit – all types including tinned (in juice) and dried
    • Combination of nuts, seeds and dried fruit (with no added salt, sugar or fat)

    Good Choices to Drink:

    • Plain water (fresh tap water, still or sparkling bottled water)
    • Skimmed or semi-skimmed milk
    • Pure fruit or vegetable juices
    • Soya drinks enriched with calcium
    • Yogurt or milk with artificial sweeteners or less than 5% added sugar

    Bad Choices to Eat:

    • Sweets/chewing gum (including sugar free)
    • Chocolate bars
    • Bars/biscuits containing or covered in chocolate
    • Processed fruit bars
    • Cereal bars
    • Chips and related products, like tortilla chips, potato sticks, puffs, crackers, corn chips, pretzels, breadsticks
    • Rice crackers, bombay mix, salted popcorn
    • Cakes, pastries, sweets

    Bad Choices to Drink:

    • Flavored waters
    • Squash/cordials
    • Sweetened fizzy drinks like sodas and lemonade
    • Sports drinks
    • Diet drinks

    Reference: Evans CE, Greenwood DC, Thomas JD, & Cade JE (2010). A cross-sectional survey of children’s packed lunches in the UK: food- and nutrient-based results. Journal of epidemiology and community health PMID: 20089755

  • California First State To Ban Trans Fats

    California First State To Ban Trans Fats

    Effective January 1st, 2010, California became the first state to ban restaurants from using trans fats in restaurants. While similar bans have been enacted in New York City and a few other cities in the US, this is the first time that trans fats are being banned from an entire state.

     

    Schwarzenegger Acts…

    The legislation was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2008, giving the state’s 88,000 restaurants a little time to nix trans fats from their cooking. Under the new law, restaurants, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities” will, in the preparation of any foods, have to discontinue use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats. It will cost cooks anywhere from $25 to $1,000 for a violation. Bakeries aren’t immune, either, and have to purge the trans fats from deep fried yeast dough and cake batter by 2011.

     

    Nutrition scientists have been warning of the dangers of trans fats for years now. While other dietary fats have redeeming qualities, trans fats seem to have none. They’re almost entirely man-made, created by adding hydrogens to other fats. This process, called hydrogenation, turns oils into the semi-solid margarine and other products that are associated with trans fats. These trans fats are useful because they have a longer shelf life, are hard enough to stay solid at room temperature, and yet can even be malleable cold. Unfortunately, there’s a big cost for those benefits.

    Trans fats, in general, are bad for you. They raise your risk of diabetes and heart failure, particularly by raising “bad cholesterol” levels in the body. But they don’t stop there. They not only raise LDL (bad cholesterol) levels, they lower HDL cholesterol levels – the good ones. In 2006, a scientific review of fats from the New England Journal of Medicine stated clearly that:

    “from a nutritional standpoint, the consumption of trans fatty acids results in considerable potential harm but no apparent benefit.”

    The damning evidence against trans fats comes from a study of 120,000 female nurses from 1976 to 1990. The Nurses’ Health Study found that the risk of coronary heart disease nearly doubled for every 2% increase in trans fat calories consumed instead of carbohydrates. Considering the same increase in risk takes a 15% increase in saturated fats and that eating the other unsaturated fats actually lowers heart disease risks, there seems to be no reason to eat trans fat at all. And if that weren’t bad enough, trans fats have also been linked to liver problems and even infertility.

    Many hail the new legislation banning them in the most populous state in the union as a step in the right direction for the American public. The incoming president of the American Heart Association, Dr. Clyde Yancy, is one of its biggest fans. “I think the potential here is real for a far greater understanding of the harms of trans fats, and to encourage more states to do the same,” he said when asked about the law’s enactment. Governor Schwarzenegger, too, has commended the state for its efforts.

    “California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats,” the governor said in a statement. “Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California.”

    Many of the state’s restaurants had already dumped trans fats from their menu, cracking under the pressure of consumer demand. National chains like Wendy’s, Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and KFC have already started removing trans fats. But other restaurants are finding it harder to switch, as non-trans fat oils are harder to come by and far more expensive. Smaller restaurants have stated that the ban will force them to raise their prices significantly.

    While this new ban will make eating out healthier for Californians, it’s only a small step towards the state’s overall health. Trans fats can still be found all over in Cali’s grocery stores and supermarkets, as the ban doesn’t apply to packaged foods. Hopefully, the anti-trans fat movement will continue to gain momentum, and these unhealthy fats will become less and less prevalent in all of our foods. Kudos to California!

  • Plastic Troubles: Phthalates and Plasticizers

    Plastic Troubles: Phthalates and Plasticizers

    Plastic is a buzzword lately but mostly for the wrong reasons.  Medical studies have lined up against the ubiquitous substance and the seas have filled with the jetsam and flotsam of our plastic society.  Yet, if there was one compound responsible for this situation more than any other, phthalates might just wear the crown.

    Chemistry

    Phthalates make plastic, well, plasticy. Many consumer goods are made up of very hard plastic compounds that do not allow finished products to move as required, like the PVC piping you find in many modern homes or the casing to your internet router.  And with a little phthalate magic added into the chemical mix, those PVC molecules that were once rigid in the pipes of your home are now free to form the flowing plastic carpet you often find beneath your feet.

    Phthalates keep Fish Oil Omega3’s in place – thanks to flickr user Deco Fernandes

    In fact, these molecules are so unique and helpful, they have found their way into almost everything we use.  Personal care products, mechanical lubricants, paints, modeling clay, shower curtains, food containers and wrappers, even children’s toys all have some phthalates mixed in.  Health care items like the coatings of prescription pills and supplements are also guilty.

    The magic of phthalates is that they allow the larger polymer plastic molecules to slide against one another more easily.  Phthalates move so well because they do not bond directly those large molecules, leaving them roam about in some cases.  Roaming phthalates leech away from their plastic motherships, leading to that new car smell, paint fumes and the heavy offgausing associated with new flooring.

    Health Risk Debate

    With the volume of phthalate in existence, our exposure to such materials is obviously high. Our main exposure is from what we eat but inhalation and absorption through the skin are also important factors.  Some scientists suggest that children are so regularly exposed to the plastic that they contain levels up to 20X what is known to be safe [1].  Part of the reason so little has been done about phthalates is that no one is perfectly sure what ‘safe’ really is.  So, the real debate with phthalates at this point has to do with quantity required to cause damage.

    Suggested exposures depend heavily on body weight and stage of life.  On study gave a rough estimate 5-20 micrograms of phthalates per kilogram of body weight, with higher exposures in younger populations [2].  Other studies suggest that we really aren’t quite sure what the exposure levels are, and consequently all of this needs more study [3].  We do know that phthalates have been shown to cross the placenta and transfer from mother to fetus and such exposure has been linked to risk factors and the inital stages of prostate cancer and to changes in emotional stability as adults, all things we could do without.

     

    Newborns are at the greatest risk, thanks to flickr user michelleannb

    Scientists classify phthalates as definite endocrine disruptors, a class of chemicals that throws off the body’s hormone signaling system.  Studies have shown high doses can cause birth defects in rats and even deformities in people.  Phthalates in particular are singled out from other plastics as a very possible epidemiological reason for the lower sperm counts seen across men in the Western world.

    Such bold claims come from correlations found between phthalate exposure and young boys with shortened “anogenital distance”, decreased penis size and improperly descended testicles [4], all major public health issues facing 21st century policy makers.  Prenatal exposure was also shown to negatively effect reproductive development in young boys.

    Youngest at the Greatest Risk

    But of any one study, Pediatrics really turned the heat up on phthalates back in early 2008 when they reported that 81% of all infants had significant phthalate exposure from simple household items like shampoos, lotions and powders [5].  Most troublesome was the way in which researchers deduced how young infants might have the highest exposure: by simply being kids.  From the study (-ed emphasis mine):

    Children have unique development and behavior that may predispose them to higher exposure susceptibility. When children are born, they immediately develop hand-to-mouth behaviors. They cannot move on their own and are therefore exposed predominantly to ambient air exposures, oral ingestion of breast milk/formula, and [skin] exposure to specific infant care products. As infants develop, they begin to move around, crawl, and have increased hand-to-mouth behaviors with the potential for increased exposure to phthalate sources in the environment.  But its not just children who have to worry, there is concern with adults too as phthalates have been linked to cancerous activity in adult cells.

    Since this publication, the EU and the state of California have effectively banned many phthalates from the consumer market, with California more conservatively banning them from toys and children’s products.  These bans have been especially contentious because unsafe exposure levels remain unknown and, more importantly, the size of the industry in question.

    The Political Dimension

    Despite growing concerns and widespread exposure, phthalate exposure continues almost completely unabated in the United States.  One of the cardinal organizations responsible for this is the American Chemistry Council (ACC).  This group’s name spoofs the largest and arguably most respected scientific organization in the world – the American Chemical Society (ACS) – but it obeys a very different master: corporations.

    The ACC represents all of the plastic companies and it obviously disagrees that phthalates cause problems.  They have been way out in front of this debate, publishing smears against phthalate detractors as recently as 2005 in prestigious medical journals.  They have even built a special website just for phthalates – http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/ – and convened a “The Phthalate Esters Panel” to examine the facts through the warped lens of plastic manufacturers.

    The ACC does show that a wide range of products depend upon phthalates, from vinyl siding to medical devices and raincoats.  Other important uses like duct tape and protection films for food products have all benefited society.  But the ACC stance ignores scientific progress being made by their own members.

    Plastics without harmful phthalates have already been developed and deployed by major chemical companies like Dupont, with high customer satisfaction in some of the most demanding industrial environments.  Phthalate-free plastic welding is now also possible.  So it’s clear the innovations to move past phthalates are here today, giving manufacturers a bridge into the future of safer plastics from previous technologies like PVC.  What lacks are proper market forces or government regulation in the US to make the change occur.

    Steps To Take

    Here are some of the most basic steps you can take to protect yourself from this plastic:

    • -Let new carpeting/vinyl flooring off-gas while you are not present
    • -If painting, use proper ventilation to avoid excessive phthalate exposure
    • -Buy new electronic items that are RoHS compliant (a European standard that bans some phthalates)
    • -Buy consumer products in steel/glass when possible
    • -Purchase newer toys for kids, as many companies must comply with California’s ban on phthalates

    Small consumer purchases add up, so take account of what you are buying and try to avoid bendable plastics when you can.

  • Truvia and PureVia – A Window to the Past or the Future?

    In the coming weeks, we will be examining two new sweeteners called Truvia and PureVia that are being released into the American food supply in the first half of 2009.  They are derivative of a naturally sweet plant called Stevia, which has been used around the world for quite some time now to sweeten drinks and native dishes.   But before we dig deeply into the science around the new Stevia-based sweeteners, we think it would instructive to learn the history of synthetic sweeteners in America – as the past is usually the best predictor of the future.

    Back to the Future

    Harvey Wiley

    To understand Truvia and PureVia, you need to wind back the clock – all the way back to the 1900s.  Here you will meet a man named Harvey Wiley, a sugar chemist with Germany ancestry and deep roots in the American academic system.  He came to Washington in 1906 to become the Chief Chemist at the Department of Agriculture shortly after famed author Upton Sinclair dropped “The Jungle“, a scathing of the meat packing industry, onto the American public.  These developments were creating an environment ripe for change.

    During that same time, physicians were starting to recommend reduced-sugar diets to help some of their patients.  This advice was based on an unexplainable (no longer) link between being overweight, inactive, having diabetes, and ‘debilitation’ in general.

    As it turns out, our former president Teddy Roosevelt was just such a patient.  His doctors recommended jumping onto the newest artificial sweetener of the day, saccharin (today – Sweet ‘n Low), to reduce his sugar intake, presumably to prevent diabetes.

    Realizing the President was regularly consuming the additive, Wiley, ever the scientist, took immediate issue.  Here is an exchange between the two as they discuss potential actions against the additive [emphasis mine]:

    “I immediately said to the President: “Everyone who ate [it] was deceived. He thought he was eating sugar, when in point of fact he was eating a coal tar product totally devoid of food value and extremely injurious to health.”
    “You tell me that saccharin is injurious to health?” Roosevelt retorted.
    “Yes, Mr. President, I do tell you that,” Wiley replied.
    “Anybody who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot,” Roosevelt sternly answered.

    Towards Regulation

    Wiley was quite obviously a man of a different sort.  Anyone brave enough to get in a President’s face is not short of courage.  That same courage caused Wiley to take a different route. He and a brave group of human guinea pigs, nicknamed the ‘Poison Squad’, went about testing food additives – including saccharine, borax and formaldehyde – by ingesting them and reporting on what happened.   This group of hardy souls was only allowed a controlled amount of water & food while they ingested chemicals (‘in a hygienic environment’ of the day) and collected all their excrement for examination.

    Crude as it was, Wiley’s Poison Squad were conducting the first food additive studies. These theatrical studies were reported widely across the media, especially in the Washington Post – building Wiley’s magnanimous character.  These events, coupled with ‘The Jungle‘ finally culminated in the passage of the Pure Food Act of 1906 that established the FDA and Wiley as the ‘Father of Pure Food‘.

    As Upton Sinclair, the ardent socialist, famously noted about his Jungle treatise intended to stoke a populist backlash against unsafe labor conditions,

    “I aimed at the public’s heart and, by accident, I hit it in the stomach.”

    Meat Packing, cerca 1906 – Sinclair’s target

    And The Lobbying Begins

    Passage of that act led to more professional research programs designed to test the food additives – namely saccharin.  Wiley’s work quickly identified food containing saccharin as ‘adulterated’ – akin to a modern-day FDA ‘not GRAS‘ labeling.  From his April 29th, 1911 Food Inspection Decision 135 [emphasis mine]:

    “At the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts has conducted an investigation as to the effect on health of the use of saccharin.  The investigation has been concluded, and the referee board reports that the continued use of saccharin for a long time in quantities over 3/10ths of a gram/day is liable to impair digestion; and that the addition of saccharin as a substitute for cane sugar or other forms of sugar reduces the food value of the sweetened product, and hence lowers its quality.

    Wiley, et al. continue:

    “If the use of saccharin be continued, it is evident that amounts of saccharin may readily be consumed which will, through continual use, produce digestive disturbances.  In every food in which saccharin is used, some other sweetening agent known to be harmless to health can be substituted, and there is not even a pretense that saccharin is a necessity in the manufacture of food products.”

    Shortly thereafter, a pattern familiar to all 21st century citizens began.  An attorney representing the saccharin manufacturing corporation, Sherman Brothers, published a threatening letter to the New York Times, emphasizing the cost benefits of saccharin while claiming that the amount of saccharin required to do damage was significantly higher than anyone would consume in a single bottle of soda.  From the Times piece [emphasis mine]:

    “Saccharin today is almost exclusively used in soft drinks, “pop,” soda water, etc., and reduces the cost of the same.  3/10ths of a gram of saccharin – the quantity declared by the Remsen board to be innocuous – will sweeten thirty bottles of pop or soda water; and it therefore appears to be a physical impossibility for any person to absorb a dangerous quantity.  With sugar advancing in price, with a saccharin in moderate quantity approved by the highest scientific authority in the land, I am at a loss to understand the animus of the editorial article above referred to.”

     

    How the mighty have fallen…

    Only a year later in 1912, the newly formed FDA reversed their position, claiming the sweetener was safe.  This pattern would play out many more times.

    The battle of saccharin would take a breather for awhile but resurface in the late 1960′s after a studies unearthed 1940′s era research from the FDA that showed how saccharin caused bladder cancer.  A flurry of research started up again and a move by the FDA to ban the substance gained momentum in 1977 after watching saccharin formally banned in Canada.  Instead, the US congress blocked the ban and a warning label was issued instead.  That lasted until 2000 when it too was dropped for unclear reasons.  Subsequent scientists have spoken out about the additive but as of February 2009, it remains readily available in the United States.

    What are we to think?

    This now common back and forth policy is attributable to the way in which money sways political fervor, not as if this revelation should be news to you.  It nonetheless bears repeating because we are about to welcome still two more additives, Truvia and PureVia, into our lives in the coming months.

    The saccharin debate has stretched nearly 100 years but it is just one of many chemicals to suffer such a tumultuous fate – rGBH, DDT, Aspartame and most recently the plastic additive Bisphenol A have all followed this similar path.  Each is worth their own story but the take home point is the same – additives come with consequences.  All of these wonder chemicals come with side effects, some of them quite severe.

    Cheers or Jeers?

    And that brings us back to Truvia and PureVia – and why they may finally break this cycle.  The hope with the newest agribusiness additives is that they are actually based on something in nature – Stevia – so the thinking goes that they may bring the promise of a reduced calorie sweetener that does not impair people’s health.  None of the artificial sweeteners currently for sale can legitimately make that claim today.

    The characters surrounding these various debates constantly changes but Wiley and Roosevelt would largely find the song remains the same – nearly 100 years later.

    NOTE: This article is the 1st part of a series about Truvia and PureVia. You may want to read the next two parts to better understand this issue:

    Part 2: Truvia and PureVia – The Science
    Part 3: Truvia and PureVia – The Controversy of Stevia