nutritionwonderland

Category: Featured

  • 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.

  • Where are Africa’s Farming Superheroes? A Look at African Child Malnutrition

    Where are Africa’s Farming Superheroes? A Look at African Child Malnutrition

    My first article on Nutrition Wonderland focused on the food crisis in East and Sub Saharan Africa and how the use of better agro technology and programming could enhance regional food production, through programs like the Backpack Farm Initiative I’m involved with. As this series expands, I want to shift your perceptions of a food crisis away from the image of the starving child to that of new opportunities crucial in changing the way we respond specifically to childhood malnutrition.

    Inside the Numbers of Malnutrition

    Living in Kenya, I have become numb, maybe even blind to the incredible malnutrition statistics you probably hear all the time, even though I see real life examples walking through the streets of Nairobi every day. Unfortunately, these figures are a reality; they are a legitimate part of the story of Africa’s food insecurity and humanitarian crisis, as is the role of the international community and food aid.

     

    The face of malnutrition, for better or worse – image credit, MSF (Doctors Without Borders)

    Young children, like the ones I often see in Kenya, need a broad array of nutrients – 40 in all – to maintain normal health and grow into adults. Without them, children become malnourished, a condition the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates includes 178 million children worldwide, five million of whom will succumb to malnutrition.

    I’m Even in Africa!

    According to UN data, some 24 million people in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia and parts of Uganda now need food aid and other humanitarian assistance, up from 20 million earlier in 2009. This does not include the humanitarian crisis in Darfur or Southern Sudan where 1/3 of the population is starving.

    Since May 2009, the number of young children in need of emergency assistance in the Horn of Africa has increased by nearly one million – an increase of nearly 25%. According to Save the Children, who primarily works in a rural population heavily dependent on relief food, many children are eating only one meal a day – usually of corn porridge. This poor diet does not provide them all of those 40 vital nutrients they need to grow. Their brains and bodies then suffer permanent damage creating new cycles of poverty and economic stagnation in future generations.

    “Children are on the brink of death… The numbers of malnourished children coming to our feeding centers is going up and up and we expect it to get worse,” Catherine Fitzgibbon, Save the Children’s deputy director in Kenya.

    Funding Meals, Depends on Who You Talk With

    Despite increasing humanitarian needs in the Horn of Africa, aid agencies like UNICEF and World Food Program (WFP) are faced with funding shortages. By the end of September, UNICEF had only received a third of the $189 million to support its emergency operations to support six countries of East Africa.

    World Food Programme, a major player in this world

    WFP says funding shortages continue to affect aid flights to Africa and price speculation in the cereals markets impact their ability to buy adequate grain supplies. Within 7 days in Kenya last fall, the price for a metric ton of white maize skyrocketed from $258 USD to $310 USD and the price is then reach $334 by December.

    Even if we weren’t seeing a lack of funding or rising prices, cash aid does not necessarily translate into nutrition. Not everyone agrees on what we are paying for. Food aid should include foodstuffs fortified with micronutrients and animal protein but does not always get delivered that way. Between 2004 and 2007, only 1.7% of interventions reported as ‘development food aid/food security’ and ‘emergency food aid’ that actually addressed nutrition needs.”

    Another organization, the London-based think-tank International Policy Network understands these issues well and delivers a slightly different viewpoint. They feel that the “real causes of hunger and food insecurity are not even on the agenda” and cite restrictions on trade between countries as a factor undermining agricultural investments, especially in the commercial sector.

    Trade subsidies as well as wealthy nations’ purchasing quotas to boost their own farmers are also often cited as factors frustrating efforts to fight hunger in the developing world. No one should expect food aid to tackle these thorny policy issues but the development of strategic policies attracting agriculture investment that also addresses malnutrition should be looked into.

    And one more data point for you to consider: a recent MSF report points out that the level of child and maternal under-nutrition “remains unacceptable” throughout the world; 90 percent of the developing world’s chronically undernourished or stunted children live in Asia and Africa.

    View the MSF report:

    When asked about aid in general, MSF said the following:

    “The emphasis is more on quantity rather than quality, and rarely does the food aid target the most vulnerable groups: children under five, pregnant women and lactating mothers,” says Stéphane Doyon, of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) aka Doctors Without Borders.

    This is a situation I know we can improve upon.

    A Shift in Thinking

    One of these new ways in the aid world is fostering cooperation with the commercial sector to incubate investment in new food production. In November 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced a deal with the Islamic Development Bank for $1 billion in funding to help develop agriculture in poor countries that belong to both organizations. Unfortunately, this program will not offset the $44 billion needed to fund emergency relief programs which commercial programs do not impact – but it’s a start.

    Even with tremendous contributions like that from the Islamic Development Bank, real questions remain. Knowing that cash does not always result in supplying quality, “nutritious” food aid and there isn’t even enough cash to feed everyone, then how do we make a substantial impact on East Africa’s food insecurity and malnutrition?

    The Answer: Africa’s Farming Superheroes

    With an estimated 80-100 million rural farmers in East Africa, I believe implementing practical and sustainable rural farming schemes should be an urgent point of discussion with key stakeholders in the UN, NGO, governments, commercial development corporations and the commercial finance sector. These sentiments have recently been mirrored by organizations such as AGRA, Bill & Linda Gates Foundation, FAO, IFAD and many others. Of course, implementing these commitments remains challenging.

    The Tools for African Farming are in the Backpack Farm Bag

    While policy can have a positive influence, the international community needs to support practical production schemes as the first step on a long road to establishing sustainable food security in East Africa, Sub Saharan Africa as well countries plagued with conflict like Afghanistan and Pakistan. While I and others believe commercial development schemes offer practical solutions, the ethics of such programs must also be developed. Standards must encompasses more than just new production quotas or we will accomplish little more than new neo-colonial development schemes which lease large tracks of Africa’s land producing export crops with little if any benefit to the food and nutritional needs of Africa’s neediest communities.

    I will continue to advocate for developing socially responsible, sustainable, and commercial food production models like the Backpack Farm Agriculture Program. This month, my team published the results of an independent impact study documenting the production rates of 8 regional food crops on 12 acres (5 HA) of the BPF production scheme. We can now mimic commercial rates of food production with a rural smallholder farmer. Now we need to focus on documenting social impact and development of new value chains designed to feed a country and not just a village. We hope to translate this impact to the UN, NGO and commercial farming community proving that sustainable food production can be accomplished through strategic commercial partnerships.

    Obviously there is not one single, simple answer to Africa’s food crisis but more than dialogue must be initiated. The commercial sector has the capacity to leverage socially responsible agriculture production schemes which directly impact the poor. We must be creative and support social entrepreneurs who are looking beyond profitability to what the poorest consumers in the world really need and how they will also contribute to help feed not only themselves but the world.

  • Nutrition Wonderland Launches Mobile Site for iPhone, Pre and Droid

    Nutrition Wonderland Launches Mobile Site for iPhone, Pre and Droid

    Nutrition Wonderland fans – great news for those of you on the go and want to read our information.  We have recently launched a completely new mobile site, optimized for touch-enabled devices like the iPhone, Palm Pre, Motorola Droid and Google Nexus One.  The site’s new URL is….drum roll please: http://nutritionwonderland.com

    The mobile site works like magic – you don’t even know its there…

    I know, you were hoping for some mobile specific domain but we’ve done you one better here.  Our site will auto-detect your mobile phone platform and redirect you to the new  mobile site.  It is designed to be navigated by your fingers rather than a mouse so anyone familiar with a smartphone should feel right at home.  All the articles are fed into the system at much larger font size, so you don’t need to do that multitouch magic to read them anymore.  You can even comment via your mobile phones!

    Enjoy the new site – we would like to thank the good people at Brave New Code for their amazing software magic that makes most of this possible.  Any donations you can send their way would surely be welcome.  Let us know what you think.

  • 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.

  • Genetically Modified Organisms: The Back Story

    Genetically Modified Organisms: The Back Story

    The Publishing Journal

    Recently, a reinterpretation of an original Monsanto GMO study was published in the International Journal of Biological Studies which appeared to demonstrate that some aspect of Monsanto’s GMO corn – potentially just additional pesticides – was causing kidney problems in their reexamination of the data.  This study was widely proclaimed to be the first published study from by an independent group of Monsanto’s GMO corn (which it was not). None the less, the findings have generated a good bit of conversation on the issue of GMOs and their safety record.

    It was way back in the 1970s – almost 40 years earlier – that scientists discovered the machinery and mechanisms that made the direct genetic modification of all kinds of organisms possible.  The idea of genetic manipulation is centuries old, as humans have been planting, breeding, and changing creatures for thousands of years.  However, the onset of genetic engineering suddenly widened the possibilities far beyond what our ancestors could have imagined – plant genes in animals, animal genes in bacteria!

    Gregor Mendel was doing genetic manipulation back in the 1800s on pea plants, although it was a more imprecise ;)

    But what do most people really know about GMOs?  Probably not that much.  I’m not trying to be insulting – the fact is that both sides of the GMO argument don’t give the back story. They throw out random statistics and statements to try and sway the masses without citing the science. GMOs are synonymous with crops like Bt corn, as if the only creatures ever genetically modified are plants. But, for example, did you know that there are GMOs being sold in pet stores? Do you know how GMOs are made, or what other uses they have?

    This subject is complex – so complex I have prepared a three part series that helps explain what is going on underneath the heated debates.  This first piece will explain the technology and its widespread use in science. The second installment will then focus on how genetic modification applies to the food supply, and finally, the final post in this trilogy will review the regulatory structure in place to ensure GMO safety. Without further ado, let’s begin exploring what GMOs are, and how they are being used today.

    First off: What Are GMOs?

    A “genetically modified organism” is any creature whose genetic material has been altered by people using genetic engineering techniques. This usually involves the introduction of a particular gene to a creature which didn’t have it before. Genes are the pieces of DNA that act as blueprints for the thousands of proteins that form the building blocks of life. Proteins provide structure, allow for communication between body parts, and act as enzymes that carry out a cell’s function in the body.

    DNA, the target of genetic manipulation

    In general, “genetic engineering techniques” refers to recombinant DNA technology. How does it work? Well, recombinant DNA technology uses the cell’s natural process called recombination to introduce new genetic material into a cell.

    Normally, when an animal makes its sexual cells, called germ cells (like sperm and eggs), the maternal and paternal DNA in the cell undergo recombination, where bits and pieces from mom’s chromosomes replace ones on dad’s, and vice versa. This genetic shuffling allows the organism to create hundreds of germ cells that are completely, 100% unique. I won’t get into the evolutionary explanation right now for why this is good, but trust me, the more variety in a creature’s offspring, the better, which is why our cells do this.

    What GMO scientists do is take advantage of the system already set up in cells to swap around chunks of DNA. There are a number of methods for how to get the DNA in the cell, including hijacking virus machinery, using small, circular bacterial DNA rings called plasmids, creating pores in cell membranes using electric current, or even directly injecting it (there are really, really tiny needles).

    In general, scientists expose cells to the desired DNA and whatever vector is being used to get it into the cells, and some cells incorporate the DNA in a useful manner such that the desired protein is produced without altering other functions in the cell. That’s harder to achieve than it sounds. The scientists then use various methods to choose those select cells, and breed them into a population of GMOs.

    GMOs as a Process

    When making a genetically modified microorganism (GMM), the process is easy – once they’ve got their microbe carrying the desired gene, they’ve got their population. Plants, too, tend to be fairly easy to grow after recombination, though the DNA addition itself can be difficult because their cells have what are called cell walls that make it harder to get DNA into the cell. For animals, the genetic modification is usually done on some kind of stem cell or germ cell, which then has to be implanted into a pregnant mom to be born. The GMO is then bred with other non-GMOs (“wild-type”) to produce offspring that act as carriers, having one copy o fthe desired gene, which are then further interbred to produce a creature with two copies.

     

    I won’t give you my genes, promise!

    The advances in genetic technology over the past few decades have been enormous. What was once a blind process that just hoped to get a gene into a given spot can now be targeted precisely, if we have the genome of the creature mapped. We can create genes that can be turned on at specific times or in specific tissues, that glow to tell us where they are, or even can be removed at will later on.

    Make no mistake – there is nothing imprecise about this science. The transfer of genes is highly specific. No matter how long someone works on or eats Bt corn, they will never, ever have the gene incorporate into their tissues – it just doesn’t work that way. These techniques are widely used by all kinds of scientists all over the world, and no one has suddenly “caught” whatever gene(s) they’re working with. While there may be uncertainties about genetic technologies, how to do it in a way that ensures the change only occurs in the desired organism isn’t one of them.

    GMOs as a Danger

    What is possibly dangerous about this technology is that there isn’t anything keeping these altered, or “transgenetic” organisms from breeding with their non-modified counterparts, thus spreading the transferred gene (transgene) into wild populations. Scientists intentionally breed GMO/non-GMO organisms do this all the time in medical research, for example to create mice with one copy of an altered gene, to determine how being heterozygous (having two different varieties of a gene) affects the organism – but these are unlikely to spread in any way as they are strictly controlled and kept in labs.

    GMO GloFish you can find at your pet store, thanks to flickr user JustBeinSmickletz

    When GMO organisms, by default, are grown where they can interact with other organisms (like in the case of crops), there is a chance that these transgenes will be spread from GMO to wild species. What the dangers of this are, exactly, aren’t entirely known, but in general, changing the genetics of wild populations of animals has the potential to have many ecological impacts.

    Some of these have been identified – for example, the offspring of GM fish and wild-type fish are less viable, so a release of GM fish into streams could doom the local population of a species. But most are amorphous and still untested – like whether having pesticide genes in plants has any lasting effects on the soil they’re grown in or the flora and fauna that surround them.

    Sometimes, affecting other animals is actually desired: scientists are working on releasing a kind of modified mosquito which is resistant to the parasite which causes malaria, and are hoping that these resistance genes spread throughout the mosquito population where malaria is most deadly. But in general, the effects that transgenes have on others species that interact or that eat the modified organism are still being evaluated by scientists.

    What are GMOs used for?

    While people debate about GM corn, the truth is that genetically modified foods are but one of many areas where GMOs are used, and one of the smallest. Most GMOs never go near our tables, and yet they are vital to our every day lives in ways most of us don’t even realize. The big use of GMOs is Scientific Research.

    By far the most varied and consistent use of genetic engineering is for biological and medical research. They are not just a neat tool to study biology, they are an essential one. Scientists use genetic engineering to eliminate certain genes altogether within an organism, modify genes by turning them off or on, alter their location, or add copies of specific genes from other organisms. These uses are important tools in all kinds of biological research, including developmental biology, sensory biology, and medical science. The use of GMOs in research cannot be overstated.

    Science relies on GMOs extensively, thanks to Horia Varian

    Perhaps the field that most uses GMOs, however, is biomedical science. GMOs are central to the study of disease and the development of new vaccines, antibodies, and pharmaceuticals. For example, the life-saving insulin that diabetics must have is produced by a transgenic strain of E. coli, as it has been for over 20 years. The ability to use GMMs like E. coli to produce pharmaceuticals has revolutionized the industry, making some cheaper and safer, not to mention more environmentally friendly. Instead of harvesting large numbers of an animal or plant to extract a medicine, we can engineer a bacteria to make it for us.

    More current research is looking into using GMOs to produce vaccines, including one for HIV. Other amazing projects include modifying peanut proteins to protect those with peanut allergies from reacting to them and engineering bacteria to prevent cavities in teeth instead of promoting them.

    We’re not just talking about genetically engineered microbes. Transgenic animals are being used much like bacteria to produce pharmaceuticals. While bacteria are great, they are unable to produce certain proteins that require processing by more complicated mammalian systems. While fairly new, research into pharmaceutical production in transgenic animals is already showing promise. In 2009, the US FDA approved ATryn, an anticoagulant, which is produced in the milk of goats.

    Cute mice, vital for understanding health and disease in humans – thanks to e3000 for the pic

    Transgenic animals are vital to many fields of medical research, not just pharmaceutical production. Most diseases are partly caused by our genetic makeup and over 10,000 diseases are caused by a mutation in a single gene. GMOs allow us to create animal models that can be used to study and understand these diseases, leading to the development of treatments, and every drug that eventually ends up in human clinical trials passes first through these animal models.

    Gene knockouts (often in mice) allow researchers to delete specific genes, revealing their hidden functions in the body. Introducing other, novel genes (often from humans) allows scientists to study proteins in a living system without crossing the ethical lines of human research. Much of the research on proteins is done through GM methods, and these studies help us understand how our bodies work at the smallest levels. Studying proteins can lead to understanding diseases and even possible treatments. These methods are so used by biologists that knockout and overexpression models are basically required to get physiological research published in high-impact journals like Science or Cell.

    These studies don’t just help understand pathways in cells. Studies into the proteins involved in Anthrax’s pathogenic behavior have not only led to a vaccine but are leading to specific inhibitors that can be taken after exposure to prevent death. Soon enough, the threat of Anthrax as a bioterroist agent will be nullified. Indeed, counter-bioterrorist research relies on GMOs.  Transgenic animals are also vital in the emerging research into antibodies, which are quickly rising as a highly safe and effective way to treat a variety of diseases and pathogens. Because antibodies are specific to single compounds, they are an effective and safe way of removing problematic things from our bodies. Until now, antibodies have been hard to use because we naturally produce such small amounts of them. GMOs, however, allow us to produce much larger quantities. Because of GMOs (mostly mice), over 30 fully human antibodies that are produced by other animals have begun clinical trials.

    GMOs in Gene Therapy

    Perhaps the most up-and-coming role for genetic engineering in biomedical research is its use in gene therapy. Gene therapy uses GM viruses to deliver genes directly into our cells, allowing us to produce products that treat or cure disease. It’s already being used to create diseases caused by lacking genes like severe combined immunodeficiency, but medical scientists predict that gene therapy will explode in the coming century.

    Gene therapy may be used to cure a wide range of incurable, genetic diseases, and while it’s hotly debated, it may even be used to cure disease in germ cells and embryos in the future. Because gene therapy affects a person’s genetics directly, it has the potential to revolutionize the way we treat disease, stopping damage at the source instead of trying to patch it up afterward.

    I could go on and on about how GMOs have revolutionized biology because the uses of GMOs in research are endless. Catchy phrases like “Just Say No to GMOs” are leading consumers to believe that all GMOs are bad and to support legislation that bans them altogether. Suffice it to say that any complete ban on GMOs would devastate the medical and biological sciences. There are no alternative methods or ways to work around genetic engineering – it is vital to the modern study of biology and disease, period.  But what does this all have to do with food? We’ll learn more about that in my next piece about GMOs.

  • 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

  • Alzheimer’s Disease as Type 3 Diabetes – The Glucose Connection

    Alzheimer’s Disease as Type 3 Diabetes – The Glucose Connection

    Glucose is the main energy source in all living cells, regardless if those cells are idly growing in a petri dish in a lab, in the leaf of your household plant, or one of the billions networked within the human body.

    In animals, cell get energy by directly eating foods with sugar, or by digesting more complex starches, such as the carbohydrates found in pasta and rice, into the simpler sugar, glucose, which is then easily absorbed into the bloodstream. But how the body handles those sugars – and how many sugars you bombard yourself with – can have wide ranging implications.

    The process is more complicated than you might think, as shown in the figure below.  So let’s take a closer look at exactly how glucose gets into cells – and how that could eventually lead to alzheimers.

    Understanding Glucose

    After chowing down on your favorite meal, glucose is literally coursing through your veins.  Being a small molecule, glucose is rapidly shuttled around the body.  It makes its way out of our blood vessels, and moves into the tissues of our body, primed to deliver energy to hungry cells.  But despite its ambition, it can’t cross the cell membrane to get to the inside of cells where it’s converted to energy.  Special proteins, called glucose transporters, line cell membranes and help pass glucose from the outside to the inside of cells.  There are several different types of glucose transporters found throughout in the body — for instance, GLUT-1 is found in erythrocytes (red blood cells) and the endothelial cells that line blood vessels.  GLUT-3 is found in neurons.  GLUT-4 is found in fat and muscle cells.

    Most glucose transporters simply simply act as a conduit, allowing glucose to passively move through the cell membrane.  But GLUT-4, the transporter found in fat and muscle cells, is rather unique, because it must be activated by the hormone, insulin.  The process goes something like this: the pancreas, sensing the glucose rush in the bloodstream after a meal, sends the hormone insulin to the rescue.  When near a muscle cell, insulin binds to a membrane protein called an insulin receptor.  This binding sends a chemical message to the GLUT-4 protein that it’s time to start letting glucose in.

    The Balancing Act of Glucose Transport at the Cellular Level

    The Balancing Act of Glucose Transport at the Cellular Level

    Most cells don’t require a constant source of glucose.  Rather, they can store an energy reserve as glycogen, giving us a backup boost of fuel after we’ve burned through all the available glucose.  You’ve inevitably heard the expression “hitting the wall” during a distance running competition, like a marathon.  Physiologically, “hitting the wall” means you’ve burned through all the glucose AND glycogen in your body, and now you’ve got to convert fat to energy, which is a much less efficient process, and leads to extreme fatigue.

    Diabetes

    Now that we have a basic understanding of how glucose acts in the body, let’s shift our attention to what can go wrong with this pathway.

    Diabetes, a disease affecting millions of people, occurs when something goes wrong with the insulin-glucose interaction in cells.  In Type I diabetes, there is simply not enough insulin circulating in the bloodstream.  Tissues that have GLUT-4 transporters, which require insulin to get glucose into cells, starve.

    Type II Diabetes Pathogenesis

    Type II Diabetes Pathogenesis

    In Type II diabetes, cells have become insulin-resistant, or “insensitive” to insulin.  This means that there is plenty of insulin in the bloodstream to go around, but either the hormone can’t bind to the insulin receptor, or once bound, there is no chemical message sent from the insulin receptor to the glucose transporter to start allowing glucose to enter.  The pancreas, sensing there is still a large amount of glucose in the bloodstream, releases more and more insulin, compounding the situation.

    In both Type I and Type II diabetes, the high level of glucose in the blood can damage organs such as the heart, the kidneys, or the eyes, just to name a few.  But as we’ve previously discussed, an increase in glucose circulating in the blood also means that there is an elevated level of insulin meandering through our body.  Although insulin’s primary function is to signal to GLUT-4 transporters that it’s time to move some glucose across the cell membrane, insulin is a hormone with far-reaching biological effects.  Let’s see what happens to my organ of choice, the brain, when levels of glucose and insulin skyrocket.

    Sugar and the Brain

    Now let’s talk about how energy is supplied to neurons, because it is a bit different than most cells in the body.

    Approximately 20% of our resting metabolic rate goes to power our brains.  This means our brains require more energy at rest than all of the muscles in our body, or our heart and kidneys combined.

    Energy in the brain must be supplied by a constant source of glucose, since limited stored energy in the form of glycogen exists.  When glucose levels in the blood drop too low, neurons will eventually stop functioning, and brain damage occurs.

    Given that insulin is required for glucose uptake in other parts of the body, early studies sought to determine if insulin had any effect in the brain. In 1979, researchers showed that the level of insulin in the brain determined how much food a group of monkeys consumed, but they could not produce a direct link to how insulin worked in the brain.

    Later studies found large amounts of both the GLUT-1 transporter, which carries glucose from the blood steam to brain tissue, and the GLUT-3 transporter, which moves glucose into neurons.  Since both the GLUT-1 and the GLUT-3 do not need insulin to initiate the process of moving glucose from one place to another, we prematurely concluded that glucose metabolism in the brain has nothing to do with insulin.

    It turns out that our initial thoughts were way off.  Fast-forward to present day, where we now know that neurons need insulin to survive.  We’ve actually identified several areas of the brain with neurons that have insulin receptors.  Two particular areas with insulin receptors, the cerebral cortex and hippocampus, are heavily involved in memory formation and organization.

    The hippocampus also has GLUT-4 insulin-dependent transporters, which are shuffled around to maximize glucose absorption in neurons when an animal is learning a new task.  Other studies have shown that glucose metabolism in the cortex is at least partially controlled by insulin.  Injection of insulin caused an increase in glucose uptake in the cortex, presumably due to either activation of GLUT-4 transporters, or by insulin stimulation of neurons that increased the need for cellular fuel.

    Is There a Link Between Diabetes and Alzheimer’s Disease?

    In Alzheimer’s Disease, funky, abnormal protein clumps collect in the brain.  Physicians and researchers call these protein clumps neurofibrillary tangles or amyloid-beta plaques, depending on whether they’re actually inside cells, or in the space between neurons.  Whether the proteins themselves are the cause or the result of the disease is still unclear.  Regardless, we know that Alzheimer’s Disease causes neurons to die, which leads to cognitive problems, such as memory issues and confusion.

     

    Alzheimer’s Victim

    Given the finding that glucose metabolism in the brain is not entirely independent of insulin, and the surge of Type II diabetes, scientists have developed an interest in how sugar acts on on brain diseases.  There are two lines of thinking when it comes to the link between Alzheimer’s Disease and diabetes.  The first says that the elevated levels of insulin, as seen in Type II diabetes, may cause Alzheimer’s Disease.  Studies point to insulin in causing neurofibrillary tangles to form inside of cells, as well as affecting the processing of the amyloid precursor protein, which form those senile plaques in between cells.

    The second theory of Alzheimer’s Disease and diabetes says that Alzheimer’s Disease is not caused by the increase in insulin from Type II diabetes.  Rather, there is improper insulin handling occurring directly in the brain.  People are calling this ‘Type III Diabetes’.

    A group at Northwestern University, led by neurobiologist William Klein, is leading the research behind this new potential form of diabetes that has its sights set on the brain.  The Northwestern group believes that small peptides, called amyloid-beta derived diffusable ligands (ADDLs), break away from senile plaques, and attack cells.  These ADDLs have been shown to remove insulin receptors from the brain, thereby impairing the synapse, which is the area where neurons connect to each other.  Klein’s group showed that certain drugs, which increased insulin sensitivity, eliminated the harmful effects of ADDLs on neurons, which according to Klein shows that ”bolstering insulin signaling can protect neurons from harm“.

    So Now What?

    For years, sugar has been the silent killer, slowly chipping away at our body’s sensitivity to insulin, and contributing to the obesity epidemic.  We still don’t have enough evidence to say for sure whether there is a direct link between Alzheimer’s Disease and diabetes.  But the fact that glucose- and insulin-signaling irregularities cause problems in the brain creates yet another reason to restrict the sugar and refined carbs in our diets.

  • 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!

  • The Truth About Organic Farming

    The Truth About Organic Farming

    When I reviewed FoodSmart, I made a quip about how organic food might not be as good for you as you might think. I promised I’d explain myself, so I am doing so.

    Just what does organic really mean?

    In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped around 30% to about $52 billion (2008 dollars) worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for Certified Organic. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the planet from the evils of conventional agriculture – a complete win-win. And who wouldn’t buy organic, when it just sounds so good?

    Here’s the thing: here are a lot of myths out there about organic foods, and a lot of propaganda supporting methods that are rarely understood. It’s like your mother used to say: just because everyone is jumping off a bridge doesn’t mean you should do it, too. Now, before I get yelled at too much, let me state that I’m not trying to say that organic farming is bad – far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are much better for the soil and environment than conventional monocultures. Instead, I only want to point out that not everything is as it seems. So here are some of the myths of organic produce, and the realities behind them.

    Myth: Organic Foods Are Free From Pesticides And Harmful Chemicals

    The number one reason that I hear as to why to eat organic foods is that they have no pesticides or harmful compounds. I hate to burst your bubble, but that’s simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?

    NCFAP shows ‘natural’ pesticide use is dramatically higher than conventional produce

    So was I, when I first learned this from my boyfriend. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio (a farm which isn’t organic simply because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year, though they use absolutely no pesticides). The local organic farms, he explained, spray their crops all the time with a variety of chemicals. I didn’t believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn’t keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 [1]. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

    The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They’re organic by certification, but you’d never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

    “They’re organic by the letter, not organic in spirit… if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were getting ripped off.”

    What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be as bad if not worse than synthetic ones 2.

    Rotenone, still for sale despite its health effects – its ‘natural’ though

    Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“. However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking the mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and killed many species, including humans. Rotenone’s use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year because it is approved for fisheries management use as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species. The point I’m driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you wouldn’t want sprayed on your food.

    Just this year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union’s safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it has yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foods produced in 2007 that were tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels – and these are of pesticides that are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits 8. The scary truth is that you’re exposed to bad chemicals every day when you drink water out of a plastic bottle (see our series Plastic Troubles if you want to learn more).

    That said, those who do eat organic can take to heart that many smaller farms use few to no pesticides, and overall, organic foods do usually contain lower levels of pesticides than conventional foods. If, as time wears on, we find that the pesticides used by modern agriculture are more dangerous than we think, then it may be a good thing that so many of us are eating Certified Organic.

    But, there is another problem: even those organic farms which really do use less or no pesticides aren’t necessarily producing food that is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli. One study found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones 9. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers. Many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of anti-microbial agents, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.

    In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. My boyfriend’s family farm, for example, is “conventional,” but they use absolutely no pesticides, synthetic or otherwise. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever. It’s best if you know your source, and a great way to do that is to buy locally. Talk to the person behind the crop stand, and actually ask them what their methods are if you want to be sure of what you’re eating.

    Myth: Organic Foods Are More Nutritious

    Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for 50 years now.

    Food Standards Agency (UK) said 50 years of science disprove organics are healthier than conventionals

    Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 10. These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, β-carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity – none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).

    “This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the ‘organic’ market,” said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings11.

    Simply put by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, “there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that organic food in general is more or less safe or nutritious than conventionally produced foods” 12.

    Furthermore, while up to 43% of organic consumers buy organic foods because they believe they “taste better” than conventionally produced crops, studies have found that people can’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests 13.

    So organics are not better for us and we can’t tell the difference between them and non-organic foods. There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn’t one of its pluses.

    Myth: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

    As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least not necessarily.

    Vectobac – a BT containing pesticide used in organic agriculture

    True, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been universally found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do.

    But then hypocrisy steps in. Organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals; making rice flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds, for example.

    But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that it’s far less productive. Organic farming yields only around 80% the amount of conventional methods (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!). Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. But what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of untouched habitats. And organic farming has another spacial price – by relying on natural fertilizers, it requires more land for the animals that produce those fertilizers. Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs combined. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 10% or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?

    The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats all together. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. And in the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial. But presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

    The Battle Rages On

    Mix it up to stay happy people!

    The point of this piece isn’t to vilify organic farming; it’s merely to point out that it’s not as black and white as it looks. Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future. Until organic farming can produce crops on par in terms of volume with conventional methods, it cannot be considered a viable option for the majority of the world. Nutritionally speaking, organic food is more like a brand name or luxury item. It’s great if you can afford the higher price and want to have it, but it’s not a panacea. You would improve your nutritional intake far more by eating a larger volume of fruits and vegetables than by eating organic ones instead of conventionally produced ones.

    What bothers me most, however, is that both sides on the organic debate spend millions in press and advertising to attack each other instead of looking for a resolution. Organic supporters tend to vilify new technologies, while conventional supporters insist that chemicals and massive production monocultures are the only way to go. This simply strikes me as absurd. Synthetic doesn’t necessarily mean bad for the environment. Just look at technological advances in creating biodegradable products; sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are both useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible, as crazy as that idea may sound.

    But I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally. It continues to bother me that both sides refuse to discuss the idea of a middle ground.

    As it stands now, to be honest, if you want to eat the healthiest food for you that has the least environmental impact, buy local produce. Smaller farms, like the one owned by my boyfriend’s family, often use less pesticides and take better care of their land and crops. Also, one of the biggest environmental impacts of both conventional and organic farming is the transport of foodstuffs to the consumer. Even the most ecologically responsible farms have to ship their products to grocery stores. By buying foods produced locally instead, where we can talk to the growers and learn exactly what is in the food we’re buying, we can dramatically reduce the impact of agriculture on our environment and still get meals jam-packed with nutrition. See? There is a win-win solution after all!

    References

    . National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, National Pesticide Use Database. Available from http://www.ncfap.org (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
    . Gold, L., Slone, T., Stern, B., Manley, N., & Ames, B. (1992). Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities Science, 258 (5080), 261-265 DOI: 10.1126/science.1411524
    . Rotenone: Resource Guide for Organic and Disease Management. Cornell University. Available at www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/11rotenone.php (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
    . Caboni, P., Sherer, T., Zhang, N., Taylor, G., Na, H., Greenamyre, J., & Casida, J. (2004). Rotenone, Deguelin, Their Metabolites, and the Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease Chemical Research in Toxicology, 17 (11), 1540-1548 DOI: 10.1021/tx049867r
    . EFSA 2009. Pesticides used in organic farming: some pass and some fail safety authorization. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
    . Reasoned opinion of EFSA prepared by the Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) on the 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues. EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 305, 1-106
    . Consumer Reports 1998. Organic produce. Consumer Reports 63(1), 12-18.
    . FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (2000). Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999. Available at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
    . Mukherjee A, Speh D, Dyck E, & Diez-Gonzalez F (2004). Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. Journal of food protection, 67 (5), 894-900 PMID: 15151224
    . Dangour, A., Dodhia, S., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., Lock, K. & Uauy, R. 2009. Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature. Food Standards Agency (UK).
    . EFSA 2009. Study finds no additional nutritional benefit in “organic” food. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
    . NZFSA 2009. Safety of organic food. Food Focus February 2009. New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA). Available from: www.nzfsa.govt.nz (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
    . Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach Nutrition & Food Science, 32 (4), 153-157 DOI: 10.1108/00346650210436262

  • Deja Vu? FTC Sizes Up Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity

    Deja Vu? FTC Sizes Up Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity

    The breath of the obesity epidemic being witnessed in the United States is troubling.  Some states now show that over 30% of their respective populations are obese, with many of these metrics still growing.  Worse, the epidemic’s fastest acceleration has been in its youngest demographic: children (although that may finally be slowing).

    FTC Sizing Up Conference Logo

    Theories have been entertained to determine what is causing the obesity problem in children.  Sedentary activities like video games and television regularly are brought out to the whipping post as the cardinal reason for the rapid rise but another view, that of food marketing to youth, has received increasing attention.  That attention culminated in a summit put together by the FTC called Sizing Up.

    For older readers in our audience, this may seem to be a cruel reminder of the history behind this issue.  Back in 1978, the FTC made a move to ban just this type of advertising before it was stripped of that very ability by Congress later in 1980.  Fueled by the obesity epidemic, the FTC felt compelled to revisit the issue some 30 years later.  Nutrition Wonderland also felt compelled to attend the star-studded event (by government standards at least), with Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the US Health and Human Services department giving the keynote – and plenty of other notable attendees present.

    The View From Above

    Secretary Sebelius opened the conference with a keynote speech that was both informative and defensive.  She took her audience through some of the statistics about obesity, the most striking is that it will cost the US an estimated $350-400 billion dollars by 2020 to address the obesity epidemic if it continues to grow as it has in the past.  Remember those numbers are in 2005 dollars and inflation will likely raise that cost another 40-50%.

     

    A 2008 Map of Obesity Rates in US by State, note that red is +30%

    Her other thoughts were focused on what the FDA is doing to counteract the problem of advertising food to minors.  Namely, the FDA is doing a comprehensive review of what they term as ‘front of package labeling‘ (FOP).  This concept deals with all the eye candy food marketers use to indicate how healthy their products are – especially in the cereal industry.  The industry sponsored Smart Choices program, which the industry was doing to coordinate their nutritional packaging information (deemed a debacle by the agency), was the unspoken focus of much of the attention here.  FDA regulators are moving towards creating a new standard to be applied across the industry that will supersede the self-regulatory efforts of industry up until this point, welcome news to consumers – but this was about the point at which welcome news ended.

    Evidence is Beyond Compelling


    Major research presented at the conference following Sebelius did not really uncover anything new.     It reinforced findings that TV advertising is directly causing overeating with a variety of interesting approaches taken by the research teams around the world to prove this point.  Some looked at the ads themselves on TV and how that influenced behavior while other approaches studied the psychological effects of newer ‘advergames’ on the internet children play.  Whatever the method, the message was clear: all this advertising was having a major effect on children’s eating behaviors, pushing them to eat more often and lower quality foods then they would otherwise.

    Childhood Obesity Up Close

    Still, this part of the FTC conference actually had a good speed to it and they quickly went through all the research.  In many ways, the research phase of the conference felt like a warm-up and, if you think about it, this makes sense.  The whole premise of the FTC is to protect the consumer so the mere fact they are holding a conference on the subject assumes there is a serious problem with the way foods are being marketed to children.

    What was disappointing, however, was the way all this information was presented – in FTC’s own building! – with very little commitment to action.  We understand the desire to present the information but if the FTC, a consumer protection agency, calls a conference on a subject, there must a scientific consensus that action needs to be taken.  We found this portion of the conference incredibly counterproductive.  You just don’t get a many opportunities with the best minds in one room – why waste it presenting information everyone was already familiar with, especially with no commitment to action following those presentations?

    How Free is this Speech?

    The High Court, by laura padgett on flickr

    Getting more to the actual issues at hand was the second phase of the conference.  The FTC called together some very bright lawyers to interpret how the 1st amendment applies to childhood advertising by food companies. What may at first sound trivial – how free speech applies to advertisements – is, in fact, crucial to understanding what regulators can legally do in this situation to limit these destructive ads.  The short answer: very little.

    The core of the problem is that the Supreme Court views corporations as people, dating from a distant 1880s decision that created the idea of ‘corporate personhood’.  With that view, the Supreme Court has routinely held the view that corporations are fully entitled to the same free speech rights anyone of us would have.  This softened a bit as it crystallized into a set of legal standards to see if the corporate speech qualifies for protection via a case in 1980s called Central Hudson. The four part test looks like this (notice how each step is interconnected):

    • (1) whether the speech at issue concerns lawful activity and is not misleading;
    • (2) whether the asserted government interest is substantial; and, if so,
    • (3) whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted; and
    • (4) whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.

    The Balancing Act

    Applying these standards has proven difficult.  The FTC’s ability to make industry wide advertising bans was stripped in the 1980s so individual legal action against each TV spot, referencing the above Central Hudson test, would be required.  Obviously, that avenue is nearly impossible, which makes the Congressional decision to tie the FTC’s hands an invitation for more of this behavior.  The situation is compounded by separate corporate speech cases that have been challenged against Central Hudson, thereby strengthening the original decision and how it might be used to defend against childhood obesity.

    With the idea that food industry “advocacy is not fraud,” Martin Redish, a professor of law at Northwestern University that has written more than ten books on the first amendment, shows, convincingly, that there is a defense for industry here hidden away here inside the First Amendment.

    His view is that corporate speech is a slippery slope, even with the Central Hudson 4 step tango. He takes a strict constructionist view of the first amendment here: the second any type of agency from the government makes the choice that certain types of communication from a ‘person’ can be regulated you undermine the entire basis of the first amendment – which is the free expression of ideas.

    Using Redish as a crutch, the following speaker Dan Jaffe, executive Vice President of Government Relations (read: lobbyist) for the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) threw his two cents into the mix, in a much less convincing package.  He presented his case on whether or not to ban childhood advertising and – surprise surprise! – he felt that the government should leave the whole thing alone because corporations are entitled to free speech, echoing Redish.

    Further, Jaffe reminded us, the prestigious Institute of Medicine evaluated the issue of obesity and “restricting free speech was not in their list of recommendations.”  The ANA itself has launched a bunch of initiatives to show they are trying to get their act together but the measure rang hollow, especially at conference that was specifically aimed at curtailing their very activities.  Jaffe immediately reminded us of an old saying from Mr. Upton Sinclair:  “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”  Enough said.

    Yet another view of the first amendment was presented by David Yosifon of Santa Clara University and I found his argument the most compelling on this panel.  He focused on the concept of power economics and the efficiency of the market – basically arguing that information is so overwhelming and so sneaky that it is not truly information being communicated in a just manner, effectively failing the first point of the central hudson test.  In essence, the consumer does not have the ability to do decide on the efficacy of the argument being made, especially since they are so young.  “Puffery” is name he gave to the practice of corporations sliding messages into advertisements and it seems apt to apply that here.

    The Long and Winding Road

    We can tell you this much from these speeches (which were excellent): Dr. Redish presented the first amendment as so flexible in regards to corporate personhood that it would not make sense for the FTC to repeat their defeat in the 1980s of trying to get childhood advertising banned.  If you go further into the issues presented here today, you get the overriding sense that the Supreme Court is forcing consumers to act on their own behalf.  This idea really does speak to the ideal of what America is about but its blind to the reality facing our society.

    When our youngest people are being assaulted by subliminal messages to eat, embedded in a distribution model that is almost invisible to them, the first amendment can not – and should not – apply.  Free speech is limited in many ways.  You can’t scream ‘fire’ in a theatre full of adults, why should you be able to whisper ‘eat Froot Loops’ into a kid’s head ten times a day?

    Everyone on either side of the issue clearly understood the connection between the way these ads aimed at children are literally targeting their subconscious behaviors, training them into obese eating machines before they even possess the ability to make conscious decisions.  How this could not be construed as violating one tenet of the Hudson test is beyond us.

    Time to Walk that Walk

    The practice is simply gross, there are no others words to describe it.  But shame doesnt get very far with multinational companies – and the FTC of all organizations should know  this.  The real emphasis seems like it should be put into creating a legal framework from which the FTC can actually create binding regulations to limit the practice, or at least rules on how as to not harm consumers.  As so often is the case, the buck really stops with Congress as they write the laws and would have to directly address corporate personhood or give the FTC back the industry-wide banning abilities it took from them in 1980.  The history is especially interesting:

    Seeing as this is not a legal blog, the details of how this would be implemented are outside our areas of expertise, but the continued use of the first amendment as a way to turn America’s youth into obese zombies should be off the table.  Even industry, with their feigned attempts at creating self-regulatory mechanisms, seems aware of the contradiction here.

    So, we left this conference, like so many others, wondering what the goal was.  Networking is admirable inside any industry but the FTC is a special unit of the US government tasked with protecting consumers.  They herded the best minds in the world into one room, where everyone is keenly aware of how these junk food ads are creating obese kids, and did nothing.  It would seem a far better use of everyone’s time would to bring these experts together to a multi-day conference where the end goal is produce a concrete way to eliminate these ads – one that involved the appropriate Congressional subcommittees who could act on the issue.  Nothing at this conference brought us any closer to that reality.