nutritionwonderland

Blog

  • Truvia and PureVia: The Controversy of Stevia

    In our final view of Truvia and PureVia, we take a look at the political history of stevia – the base of rebiana, opinions of some of the major players in this debate and offer our final views on the subject.

    NOTE: This article is the 3rd part of a series about Truvia and PureVia. You may want to read the first two parts to better understand this article:

    Part 1: Truvia and PureVia – A Window to the Past or the Future?
    Part 2: Truvia and PureVia – The Science

    A History Spent in the Shadows

    Stevia, before processing

    The plant stevia provides the rebiana sweetener found in both Truvia and PureVia.  Originally, stevia was used, in its whole leaf form, as a prized sweetener of the indigenous Guarani people throughout Paraguay in South America.  It did not find fame in the modern, western food supply until Japan began cultivating and using it in diet soft drinks (including Diet Coke) during the 1970s, a process that continues today.  Building on that success, stevia began to be sold throughout the world, including the United States, during the 1980s.  Its path from here has since become mired in controversy.

    Stevia was officially banned from sale in the US as a sweetener in 1991, driven from the market after an anonymous safety petition led the FDA to conclude that it was an unsafe food additive.  The FDA has declined to release the petitioner’s affiliation, although it is suspected to be someone with links to aspartame – a popular artificial sweetener that had just come to market in the 1990s.

    Because of the 1991 decision, an ‘Import Alert‘ was then issued by the FDA maintaining that information regarding stevia leaves – the same source of Truvia and PureVia – was [emphasis mine]:

    “…inadequate to demonstrate its safety as a food additive or to affirm its status as GRAS” (GRAS = Generally Recognized as Safe, FDA speak for labeling that recognizes a product’s safety).

    This position is at odds with just about every other natural food in existence.  Because the FDA has no mandate to test real foods, it makes little sense why this decision was made.  Any food ‘in common use’ before 1958 was automatically grandfathered into being deemed GRAS, and so – with stevia’s history of being safely used as a sweetener in South America for centuries – it clearly qualified.

    We contacted the FDA but they declined to comment on this position.

    A Change in Position

    Japan’s Truvia

    Stevia was completely banned from the United States until 1994, when the the Congress passed legislation that allowed stevia to be used solely as, ‘an herbal supplement’.   Interestingly though, the sweetener was still banned from being sold as a sweetener.  This contradictory stance established in 1994 – where stevia remained banned from sale as a sweetener but remained for sale as a supplement – continues clear into today.

    The closest we can get to a followup opinion from the FDA on the matter doesn’t come for another 8 years.  From the FDA’s now discontinued magazine named, appropriately enough, “FDA Consumer Magazine“, this was the only other mention of stevia on the FDA’s website for almost 15 years [emphasis mine]:

    Another product, stevia, is derived from a South American shrub. Though it can impart a sweet taste to foods, it cannot be sold as a sweetener because FDA considers it an unapproved food additive. “The safety of stevia has been questioned by published studies,” says Martha Peiperl, a consumer safety officer in FDA’s Office of Premarket Approval. “And no one has ever provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance [stevia] is safe.” Under provisions of 1994 legislation, however, stevia can be sold as a “dietary supplement,” though it cannot be promoted as a sweetener.

    Ms. Peiperl of the FDA is referring to the idea that one of the two sweeteners in stevia called steviocide, might cause mutations in the DNA of people who eat it regularly.  As we reported in our scientific review of rebiana, the studies that suggested stevia was mutagenic were widely dismissed because the amount of stevia required to cause the defect was so far in excess of what anyone could ever possibly consume.

    They say OK to stevia

    Stranger still, after a large review of scientific literature, the World Health Organization declared in 2006 that stevia is completely safe and even potentially beneficial for people with hypertension (WHO).  That opinion was further codified at the 69th annual JEFCA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) conference (.pdf link), where stevia was recognized as being non-mutagenic.

    Clearly, quite a few scientists could have “provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance [stevia] is safe” in Ms. Peiperl’s words.  The only problem was that the FDA never asked to reevaluate stevia, for what are likely political reasons from what we have seen so far.

    Another Policy Switch

    In December 2008. the FDA opened yet another chapter in this debate and declared that rebaudioside A (rebiana) – the other sweetener found in stevia – was GRAS.  Somehow, ABC News broke this story:

    From the official GRAS approval letter:

    The subject of the notice is rebaudioside A purified from Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) Bertoni. The notice informs FDA of the view of Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill) that rebaudioside A is GRAS, through scientific procedures, for use as a general-purpose sweetener in foods, excluding meat and poultry products, provided that food standards of identity do not preclude such use, at levels determined by current good manufacturing practices (cGMP).

    Obviously aware of yet another policy contradiction, the FDA puts out a one-line statement in the GRAS notice about stevia, the plant that remains banned as a sweetener [emphasis mine]:

    The rebaudioside A that is the subject of GRAS Notice No. GRN 000253 is a highly purified component of the stevia plant. As such, FDA notes that the GRAS notice for the use of a specific purified component of stevia, such as rebaudioside A, and FDA’s response do not necessarily apply to the uses of other stevia products.

    The wording of this final statement here is especially interesting because the FDA is leaving the door open for yet further interpretation.  If this decision ‘does not necessarily apply’ to other uses of Stevia, companies that want to use stevia in their products may be able to petition the FDA for yet another policy change. Regardless, despite rebiana being approved as GRAS, stevia can still only be sold as a dietary supplement, not as a sweetener.

    From the Peanut Gallery…

    Nutrition Wonderland repeatedly tried to get in touch with different offices inside of the FDA to clarify their contradictory positions regarding stevia and rebiana but our calls were never returned.  Without a direct comment from the FDA, we can only speculate as to what was happening with regard to their policy – but that position really isn’t that hard to ascertain from the evidence.

    How the mighty have fallen…

    Based on the financiers of the rebiana studies (Cargill and Coca-Cola), the speed with which this decision was made and the history of stevia, we are left to conclude that rebiana- and consequently Truvia and PureVia – were simply approved because of who petitioned the FDA.

    Now, the FDA’s ruling does not mean that rebiana is not safe – but then again we don’t know that it is completely safe.  It’s hard what to know here.  We do know one thing though – with giants like Coca-Cola, Cargill, PepsiCo and Merisant banging at the FDA’s door, it becomes pretty obvious that there was little chance rebiana would be kept out of the market, regardless of what the science said.  The FDA’s position on stevia has never (well, post 1991 at least) sided with science.  This decision brings into question many of the other food additives that the FDA has approved, namely aspartame – whose makers may have been active in getting stevia banned.

    Nutrition Wonderland also contacted the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a reputable food watchdog, who was cautiously optimistic about Truvia back in June 2008 in a WebMD article.  They have since dramatically reversed their position based largely upon new information from a report put out by UCLA showing why rebiana and stevia in general is unsafe.  You can view it below:

    We read over its arguments as to why rebiana is unsafe in this report but they are not as convincing as CSPI would have you believe.  While rebiana is not fully tested, this report finds fault with nearly every study published to date on the subject of stevia.  Its hard to buy into the idea that this much bad science was performed.  Nutrition Wonderland has extreme doubts about the Truvia-sponsored science we thoroughly discussed in our earlier review but the safety of stevioside seems well proven, based on its use in Japan for over 30 years.  Additionally, this report may have been performed at the behest of CSPI itself, making us leery of its findings as much as we are leery of Cargill’s.

    We contacted the CSPI repeatedly to make sense of their changing positions but they have not made a public statement to us regarding this situation.

    Final Words about Stevia > Rebiana > Truvia/PureVia

    In general with food, we see a destructive pattern with each refined product brought onto the market place.  Whole grains reduce the risk of heart disease while refined grains increase it.  The fructose in honey helps the body, while the fructose in HFCS has been linked to obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance.  Cold pressed natural oils dramatically reduce inflammation, while heavily refined hydrogenated oils promote inflammation – and chronic disease.  Why refined rebiana would be better for us than the whole leaf stevia has not been explained.

    Cheers or Jeers?

    There is some reason to think extracts of stevia, specifically stevioside, could prove extremely beneficial in a refined form but Truvia and PureVia do not contain any of that material.  Both sweeteners are proprietary formulas containing the largely untested rebiana and large amounts of erythritol, another non-caloric sweetening agent.  In fact, by volume, Truvia and PureVia have more erythritol than they do rebiana.  There is still no science testing Truvia and PureVia themselves, which would show how these two sweeteners (rebiana and erythritol) metabolize together.

    More than anything, Nutrition Wonderland strongly believes these sweeteners were developed so that the companies involved, especially Cargill and Merisant, could own the intellectual property behind stevia – in effect owning the food.  Cargill released some justification for all this trouble, if you don’t mind very corporate video:

    It would have been far easier to just use stevia for commercial food production – but, since you cannot patent a natural food, this opportunity was overlooked in our opinion.  This pattern of using the intellectual property of food for profit is well established across the 21st century agribusiness industry, modeled after highly successful power plays by chemical giants in the sale of GMO seeds.

    We have doubts about the sponsored science involved, doubts about the motive of this product in general and deep suspicions as to why stevia remains banned from the marketplace.  Truvia and PureVia may in fact be perfectly safe – and preliminary science shows that to be the case – but far more research on these new sweeteners is required.  Even still, we will probably never know the truth.  It is now the American public’s turn to be the guinea pigs for another agribusiness experiment.  You can easily opt out of this debate – as we are – by enjoying any of these safe sweetening options:

    • regular stevia sweetener ‘supplements’
    • blackstrap molasses (unrefined)
    • organic agave nectar
    • brown “turbinado” cane sugar (avoid brown sugar from sugar beets as they are now GMO)

  • The Science Behind Truvia and PureVia Sweeteners (Rebiana)

    The FDA recently announced that they have cleared a new, zero calorie sweetener called rebaudioside A (rebiana) for sale in the US, calling it ‘safe for use in foods and beverages‘.

    NOTE: This article is the 2nd part of a series about Truvia and PureVia. You may want to read the first part to better understand this article:

    Part 1: Truvia and PureVia – A Window to the Past or the Future?

    As a result of this decision, two products featuring the new sweetener are coming to market – Truvia and PureVia.  Truvia was jointly developed between the soft drink maker Coca-Cola and agribusiness giant Cargill while PureVia was developed by PepsiCo in partnership with artificial sweetener industry veteran Merisant (under the proxy Whole Earth Sweetener Company).

    The Coca-Cola Company has already announced products, including Sprite Green and Odwalla Mojito Mambo and Pomegranate Strawberry Juices, that will be for sale in 2009 containing the additive Truvia.  Not to be outdone, PepsiCo will put PureVia in Sobe Zero Calorie Life Water and Trop50 – a new low calorie orange juice slated for March 2009 release.

    The idea of a real, zero calorie sweetener has been a goal of many agribusiness giants for some time but have Truvia and PureVia been adequately tested?   Nutrition Wonderland has gone through the science surrounding these new sweeteners and spoken with some major industry players to get the scoop.  We have found some positives and some serious negatives, which we will review here.

    Starting From the Beginning

    Truvia and PureVia contain mostly the same chemical formula, as you can see in our chart below.  Both are mostly made of two sweeteners, erythritol and rebiana (called Reb A in PureVia).  Erythritol is a substitute low calorie sugar-alcohol sweetener developed by the French company Cerestar who was later purchased by Cargill.  Sugar-alcohols are not really sugars; they require adding hydrogen to sugar molecules so the body ignores them.  Erythritol is a favorite because it supposedly does not cause as many stomach aches as other similar sweeteners.

    It was FDA approved back in 2001 based on contract science, some of which was sponsored by Cerestar itself [1,2].  The World Health Organization also reviewed erythritol and found it to be safe.  Little other science exists on the subject.

    We could spend more time on erythritol but there is not much new to report about it.  It has not been extensively used (up until now), it has not been extensively studied and it was approved quite awhile ago now.  It is a bit of a sweetener dark horse, if you will.

    PureVia vs. Truvia – Fight!

    PureVia, but not Truvia, adds in another sweetener called isomaltulose – another supposedly safe sweetener with just a little contract science behind it.  It is derived from regular sucrose to create a sweetener with a longer sustained energy release in the body.  The FDA gave this one a green light back in 2006 at the behest of German sugar giant Sudzucker AG.  Again, it has seen very little use in the American food supply and we just don’t know very much about it scientifically beyond the fact that it does not harm teeth and does not cause stomach aches.

    The Stevia Flower, photo by Ethel Aardvark

    The other major component of Truvia/PureVia, rebiana, comes from a small herb plant called stevia.  Stevia originally comes to us from South America – where it has been used medicinally for centuries by indigenous people.  Rebiana sweeteners represent the first commercial applications of stevia in the United States but not the first in the world.  Another sweetener derived from stevia – called stevioside – was developed by the Japanese in the late 1970s and now controls 40% of the sweetener market in Japan.  Consequently, what we scientifically know about stevia is mostly based on stevioside, not rebiana – a problem we will see throughout this discussion.

    The Concensus on Stevioside

    The science we do have about stevia has only come about recently – in the last 20 years or so.  Despite very few (if any) reports of adverse reactions in the Japanese population from stevioside, some studies found that it was mutagenic, that is it could mutate the DNA of rats.  These findings were later dismissed in scientific literature multiple times when it was shown only extremely large amounts – far larger than anyone could consume – created the mutation.

    Subsequent study of stevioside’s medical effects have found it confers significant health benefits to those who use it medicinally.  Improved immune system regulation [1,2,3] and improve glucose absorption in the body [1,2],  have led some researchers to suggest stevioside:

    “may have the potential of becoming a new antidiabetic drug for use in type 2 diabetes”

    Even further, stevioside helps regulate cholesterol and triglycerides [1,2], which means it may treat metabolic syndrome (also known as syndrome X).

    On the whole, these findings suggest stevioside has major benefits but what about rebiana?

    The Rouge Rebiana

    If you follow any of those study links above, they will dump you into the PubMed scientific database.  The US National Institute of Health (NIH) requires all studies they fund (which is a considerable number) to publish their studies into this database.  Logically, we first looked for Truvia and PureVia here.

    Pubmed, an amazing resource

    A search for either sweetener nets zero search results, as of February 2009 (feel free to try it yourself, click here) – despite all the stevioside research.  However, searching for rebiana nets us 49 very recent results, presumably the ones the FDA used to clear this product (compared to 181 for stevioside).

    Diving through the search results leads us to a special supplementary release in July 2008 by The Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal called “Rebaudioside A: An Assessment of Safety”.  As an aside, it should be noted this release perfectly coincided with Coca-Cola’s first PR campaign that released Truvia to the public with a lavish promotion at Rockefeller Center in New York City last summer.  Below is some footage of the event:

    As for the science in this tome, we find a total of 11 research articles published about rebiana.  One of them [#12] is a review of the toxicity of stevioside , which, as we covered above, we declared safe by a decent battery of tests.  Two others [#2, #11]  deal with the development of rebiana from the stevia plant, both casually suggesting the toxicology information of stevioside should equally apply to rebiana – a dubious claim at best considering how little research has been done on the later.

    However, another study in this group [#5] actually demonstrates that the two sweeteners are relatively similar.  They based this statement on how quickly they are absorbed by the body as you can see in this chart:

    Results from study #5 in the rebiana review

    While it seems convincing, this report did not use a control group or use any kind of statistical analysis to determine if the slight difference in absorption between the two sweeteners was statistically significant.  Further, the study used about 20% (.8 mg/kg) more rebiana than stevioside in its test, a factor that is sure to skew results.  Their observations also omitted an important data point when observing stevioside at the critical 1 hour mark.  Not to mention, the time schedule on the main graph in the report is misleadingly constructed to show each observation as having occurred in hourly succession (when in fact no observations were made in hours 2 or 3).  This science is very poor in quality and, not surprisingly, funded by Cargill.

    Another one of the studies [#4] dealt directly with the toxicity of rebiana by super-dosing rats and observing them.  Most rats ended up eating significantly less food and consequently attaining lower body weight as they aged, consistent with other megadose sweetener studies.  But, most importantly, the rats did not die from rebiana so we could count that as a good thing.  Methodology in this study was far more convincing than the previous study – controls were used and statistical significance was achieved.  Still, the result of this study – that rebiana produces appetite suppression, should be followed up with additional study, something the authors do not call for.  Again, you should note that this study was funded by Cargill which may have influenced the lack of a call for additional study, though this is a minor critique.

     

    Follow the money – its not hard

    Rebiana: The Human Studies

    Two of the remaining studies deal with people instead of mice, so they should carry the most weight in your mind.  The first, [#6] in rebiana study supplement] tested rebiana against blood pressure and found high dosed patients maintain the same blood pressure in a randomized, double-blind placebo trial, the best type to use.  We can say a few bad things about this study but nothing ridiculously major; it was only 4 weeks long, it did not test against people who already have high blood pressure (a substantial portion of the population), and, again, Cargill funded the study.  Overall, this is encouraging but it is only the first study of its kind so its hard to draw too much from it.

    Controversial little shrub, eh?

    The other human study deals with rebiana and how it effects people with type II diabetes..  The study uses a megadose, 7X what a heavy user would probably ingest, and followed a little more than 100 patients for about 4 months.  Results of this placebo study show no severe effects on blood pressure or blood sugar.  However, there was one case of hyperglycemia – that is too much glucose in the blood stream – but in a group of diabetics, something like this seems likely to happen during a 4 month period of time.  And let’s not forget to mention that some Cargill money managed to squeeze its way into the study.

    In a way, this particular finding was a bit of a disappointment.  There was hope that rebiana would treat diabetes much like it is suspected stevioside can but this is the second study to disprove that.  The first study on this topic showed that rebiana was not able to deliver any of the metabolic syndrome reducing effects of stevioside, so a consensus is forming.  A few others studies show rebiana helps regulate glucose, but there is still much more investigation necessary.

    First Thoughts

    The studies we have about rebiana – and consequently Truvia and PureVia – are a mixed bag.  As we showed, some demonstrate safety, some show risk.  None really deal with potential side effects, an issue with a product that will find its way deep into the food supply.  Most surprisingly though, absolutely no published studies have actually tested Truvia or PureVia themselves.  This is probably because the sweeteners themselves were not ready in advance to be tested but we must ask why the American public is being silently asked to bear that burden.

    It would appear rebiana (along with erythiritol and isomaltulose) present little risk to people with high blood pressure and type II diabetes but in the world of science, your opinions are an extension of the crowd.  In a sense, you are only as good as those that have come before you.  With rebiana, there is no concensus, no crowd – so there is no way we can give any type of authoritative opinion on it yet.  The crowds surrounding erythiritol and isomaltulose are even more sparse.

    That’s all a problem with a new product and one the makers of Truvia and PureVia have done very little to assuage.  While most of these studies appear to verify that rebiana et al., do not have toxic effects, they are all very short term and funded exclusively by industry.  It is beyond unlikely that any study funded by Cargill is going to show rebiana and Truvia to be anything but the safest sweetener ever to arrive on planet earth.  Having said that, some of their studies do appear to demonstrate safety of rebiana but it so hard for us to believe these results with so much of their own money on the table.

    Now, lets give Truvia and PureVia a little credit here.  This is the first sweetener product(s) developed by an agribusiness interest that is not purely a chemical.  A real plant is involved here and that is the first time that has ever happened.  Not only that, the stevia plant shows some rather amazing medical benefits.  So, for a brief moment, let us congratulate Cargill and Merisant for at least starting with something very beneficial found in nature.  That is a MAJOR step in the right direction.

    Still, major questions persist.  When will Truvia or PureVia actually be tested?  How can we trust science sponsored by the same people who will gain from its results? What makes this better than just using regular old stevia?

    In our next and final view of Truvia and PureVia, we will talk about how all of this science relates to stevia’s controversial past, discuss some of our conversations (and lack thereof) with government/NGO players and finally present our view on the best way forward with these sweeteners.

    Please read Part 3 of the Truvia/PureVia series:
    Part 3: Truvia and PureVia – The Controversy of Stevia
  • Mailbag: Clare Island Organic Salmon Omega-3s

    Mailbag: Clare Island Organic Salmon Omega-3s

    Credit, Steve 2.0 (flickr)

    Periodically, readers write into Nutrition Wonderland about issues we cover and we respond back to them.   This is a new column we will try to feature as we move forward – send all questions to [email protected] to be featured in the mailbag.

    Michelle from Virginia writes:

    I read with great interest your 12/08 article on the Nutrition Wonderland website entitled “Organic Fish Standards Announced by the USDA” – very informative and I learned some new and interesting facts regarding the subject.

    However I found your article while in search of a more specific question, and I’m hoping you can direct me to a source for answers.

    My local grocery store carries the Clare Island Organic Salmon from Ireland brand. I’ve learned from you and others that the level of omega 3 in wild vs farm raised salmon is largely based on the diet fed the fish. I’d like to know if the organic fish raised by this company are fed a diet that results in a higher level of omega 3s? Specifically, how does the level of omega 3s in this fish compare to that of wild caught Alaskan salmon?

    I went to the company’s website (https://mowi.com) and could not find any information about the omega 3 content of this particular product. Do you know of another, unbiased source of this information?

    Thank you so much. And keep doing what you do – we depend on folks like you!

    Michelle-

    Glad you found the organic fish information helpful.

    This statement from the parent company gives us some insight into the brand [emphasis mine]-

    Clare Island Organic Salmon are provided with special diets that contain only organic, natural ingredients and are free of genetically modified products. Phaffia, a yeast based pigment, ensures the salmon have that natural salmon-pink colour.

    There is an interesting way to look at this statement – only organic ingredients implies that these fish are only eating vegetables, not other fish and krill like wild fish would.  We know this because there still are no wild fish farms that produce smaller fish for the salmon to eat.   Clare island is part of a large firm called Marine Harvest, and large firms tend to cut corners on quality.  We also know they are probably using GMO-free corn probably and not using pink dyes.  Both of those are good steps but nutritionally, corn gives a higher omega 6:3 ratio so you are missing out there.

    Generally, salmon in colder waters will have more fat and better fat – which is logical if you think about it.  Its cold so they are trying to protect themselves from the cold with more fat by eating more krill – which is their main source of omega-3s naturally.  That’s why wild Alaskan salmon is your best bet.

    You probably aren’t hurting yourself with the farm raised product but a wild Alaskan salmon would do you better.  I find that trader joe’s offers a nice product as does whole foods.  You can also try to buy in bulk online straight from Alaska if you have a freezer to store it in.

    The Weston A. Price foundation publishes a great shopping guide that can help guide you to the right foods – they are only $1 each.  Unfortunately its not online but I have one and highly recommend it – there are fisheries listed in there.

    Here is the order form:
    https://www.westonaprice.org/get-involved/#gsc.tab=0

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

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

    Back to the Future

    Harvey Wiley

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

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

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

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

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

    Towards Regulation

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

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

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

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

    Meat Packing, cerca 1906 – Sinclair’s target

    And The Lobbying Begins

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

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

    Wiley, et al. continue:

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

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

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

     

    How the mighty have fallen…

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

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

    What are we to think?

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

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

    Cheers or Jeers?

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

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

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

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

  • Book Review: The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD

    Book Review: The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD

    A recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the death rate from heart disease has fallen by over 50% during the period from 1980-2000.  The authors concluded that the dramatic drop can be equally attributed to medical advancements in treatment and better management of heart disease risk factors, respectively.

    Cholesterol Myths in Detail

    While this large decline is great news, the heart disease situation remains more mixed than it first appears.  Of the roughly 340,000 deaths avoided since 1980, only about 82,000, or 24%, can be attributed to cholesterol management (using the now standard IMPACT statistical model (pdf)), despite the relentless National Cholesterol Education Program that was begun in 1985 at the behest of the NHLBI.  More worrisome, another large study states that 70% of the decline in deaths came in people that still have heart disease.  Other doctors also point out that any drop in heart disease deaths does not mean there is a drop in new cases of heart disease.

    Translation: we still have a lot of work to do.

    Closer to the “Truth”

    The perception of reality can mean different things to different people.  To some, those numbers above mark an unbelievable success – a triumph of science over nature.  To other researchers, those same numbers reveal troubling contradictions about the actual causes of the disease.

    And that’s where the questions started for Uffe Ravnskov, MD.

    Does cholesterol cause heart disease or do they merely have an association with each other?  How do HDL and LDL relate?  What role do high fat foods really play?  What if all of those studies about cholesterol were wrong?

     

    The Heart Disease Decline since 1950

    Dr. Ravnskov, a founding member of  the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, takes all those positions and goes even further in his book, “The Cholesterol Myths” published by NewTrends Publishing.  One part detective mystery, one part conspiracy theory, Ravnskov tears through piles of medical studies digging towards the “truth.”  His thesis is rather simple: cholesterol does not cause heart disease.  We put emphasis on the word cause for good reason: Ravnskov’s entire argument hangs on tearing apart the correlation-versus-causation dichotomy.  For the most part, he succeeds but at a cost to his text.

    A Myth Unraveled?

    The Book

    Ravnskov lays out his attack into a series of myths he wants to dispel for readers.  Some myths are bold like “High-fat foods cause heart disease” while others are down right incendiary, especially when he claims to bust the myth that “the cholesterol campaign is based on good science.”  Putting down the entire research community is good way to get attention and attention he received.   This book was publicly burned on Finnish television upon publication.  So much for reasoned debate.

    Once you get past the burnings, you will see this work is undeniably strong on laying out a solid foundation in science for those who aren’t so inclined.  Ravnskov meticulously breaks down the correlation-versus-causation argument in a way that lends itself to being understood.  You will definitely understand the difference between the two, even if you only manage to make it twenty pages into the text.

    Cholesterol Myths really shines when it sticks to deeply interpreting studies findings within the scientific paradigm Ravnskov sets up.  His work goes to great lengths to uncover shoddy science in some of the landmark cholesterol-heart disease studies.  In some cases, Ravnskov uncovers pure gold for his readers.  Case in point, one of Ravnskov’s first myths deals with a study examining the Masai people, an indigenous people who did not consume a western diet, for a diet-heart disease connection.  From Page 36 [emphasis added my own]:

    “Professor Mann studied a much greater number of hearts and aortas from Masai individuals of all ages and found that the coronary vessels of the Masai were just as atherosclerotic as those of US citizens, perhaps even moreso.  But severe sclerotic changes [in Masai], so-called raise lesions, were rare; the sclerotic changes in the Masai were situated inside the vessel walls, leaving the inner surface of the vessels smooth.  And in the 50 hearts he studied there was no evidence that myocardial infarction has occurred in any of them.”

    Moments like this really let Ravnskov’s investigatory skills shine; he masterfully dissects the cannon of cholesterol research like few other authors we have ever read.  And during these infrequent moments in the text, you can see what this book could really be – a true guide to the future of heart disease research  – but ultimately that is not this text.

    At its best, Cholesterol Myths is a scathing review of literature instead of a gateway to where this literature should guide the national discussion.  Instead of using his knowledge to lead us into a more beneficial discussion on heart disease, Ravnskov exhausts his mental energy on tearing down cholesterol.  At times, I found myself hoping he would direct that massive brain of his towards constructing a new paradigm in which we could view heart disease.  Don’t hold your breath for that one.

    Instead, Ravnskov frequently leaves the reader to infer ulterior motives about each study he rips into, all without ever saying it explicitly, a sort of intellectual dishonesty that I did not appreciate as a reader.    Additionally, the book’s nine myth sections overlap and repeat each other often.  Invariably, he finds problems with about every major study that shows a relationship between cholesterol and heart disease.

    From the beginnings of Myth 6, you can see a familiar line of reasoning repeated throughout the book:

    “It is extremely difficult to design even the initial steps of a scientifically acceptable trial.  The standards of science are high, however.  In fact, they are so high that, even if we manage to select a test group and a control group with almost identical risk factors for heart disease, we must remember that almost identical and absolutely identical are not the same thing, and that we will never know all the factors that may, or may not, contribute to the development of the disease in these people.”

    While he is technically correct, studies that contain a control group mitigate these confounding factors.  No study will ever be perfect but we can’t use that as an excuse to dismiss significant research findings completely.  Ravnskov is wise to highlight study oversights but that does little to forward the heart disease dialogue.  Arguments like the above really dog this book in our opinion – and they appear far too often.

    Where we go from here

    Simply addressing heart disease as a cholesterol problem has not brought the world any closer to eradicating it.  Ravnskov’s arguments about the sometimes flimsy science surrounding cholesterol theory are an extremely valuable addition to this discussion.  His commendable goal of educating the public on the many problems with the singular cholesterol argument was accomplished ten times over in this volume.  Even a casual reader of this work comes away from it with a better understanding of the scientific method and heart disease in general – and that is a welcome development.

    Still, Cholesterol Myths misses the larger target in our opinion.  After destroying cholesterol in his book, Ravnskov does not forward any additional theories on the causes of heart disease.  This may not seem like much of a problem but it is in the scientific world.  The best theory ‘wins’ out in science because it can explain the most behavior present in a given situation; it need not explain all of the behavior.

    With a chronic disease like heart disease, it has already been well established in scientific literature that many factors, like stress and inactivity, contribute.  Only one of these factors, cholesterol, is ever considered in this text – and in that way this book is attempting to topple a myth that simply does not exist anymore.  Even, more, Ravnskov may thoroughly debunk cholesterol as a singular cause of heart disease but he freely admits there is a correlation between the two.

    From Myth 2 in his work:

    “Table 2B shows, in accordance with many other studies, that more heart attacks occurred among those with the highest cholesterol levels.  The differences were not impressive, however, considering that the figures were not adjusted for anything but age….”

    Major studies controlling for various factors show somewhere between 10-33% of the total heart disease death rate decline can be attributed to cholesterol reduction, depending on the country in question.  While this doesn’t prove cholesterol singularly causes heart disease, it definitely shows cholesterol is somehow involved.

     

    Heart Disease Decline Factors, Credit: NEJM

    And thats just the problem for us.  These conflicting facts often leave us in the lurch during Ravnskov’s elaborate presentations, knowing cholesterol plays some role with heart disease but not truly being the cause.  Admittedly, uncovering the cause of heart disease may be beyond the scope of his book but Ravnskov’s omission of a more comprehensive theory looms largely over this book.

    Overall, this book is a necessary addition in the discussion about heart disease.  Ravnskov’s book should be read by anyone with a critical eye and a curiosity about the origins of heart disease.  But it could have been so much more.

  • Piven Sickened by Sushi’s Mercury

    Piven Sickened by Sushi’s Mercury

    Actor Jeremy Piven announced yesterday that he will leave the David Mamet play Speed-the-Plow because he has a mercury level running almost six times that of a normal person.

    Piven complained of fatigue and exhaustion since the play’s opening, which was back in early October. His doctor, Dr. Carlon M. Colker of Peak Wellness in Connecticut, said that all of Mr. Piven’s routine medical tests came back at acceptable levels, but, after reviewing what he knew about Piven – who liked to consume sushi sometimes twice a day – Colker decided to check Piven’s mercury levels.

    Jeremy Piven

    The results showed Piven was suffering from fatigue related to significant mercury exposure. He apparently decided to push on and continue to perform in Speed-the-Plow but that decision proved too ambitious. Later in the week, Piven was hospitalized for severe exhaustion after which his condition and his removal from the play was relayed to the production staff.

    Tough Crowd

    Public reactions were quick and sharp. Piven’s history as a bit of a Hollywood playboy have haunted him as this situation has unfolded. Some claim his departure is merely an excuse to leave the rigorous schedule Broadway demands. The playwright Mamet had this to say about his former star:

    “I talked to Jeremy on the phone and he told me that he discovered that he had a very high level of mercury. So my understanding is that he is leaving show business to pursue a career as a thermometer.”

    With the Hollywood mud flying, Dr. Colker went on ABC’s Good Morning America to try and clear the air for Piven.

    “We were very transparent about the fact that [Piven] had a mercury level that was shockingly high. It was almost six times the upper limit of the allowable reference range. He had very severe symptoms of fatigue and exhaustion at the beginning of the run of the show. We were basically going to tough it out and see how it went. I [Colker] acquiesced and let him go ahead and do that as we initiated treatments that were trying to get his mercury levels down.”

    Colker continued:

    “His symptoms had progressed, the neuromuscular fatigue began to come into play and, at that point, I would be remiss if I didn’t say ‘I think you need to step away from this’. Keep in mind, Jeremy is known as an absolute iron-horse when it comes to Hollywood and acting….It was up to me to step in and pull the reigns back in.”

    Mercury Toxicity – The Larger Story

    So the big question everyone wants to know is whether or not Piven is telling the truth or lying about the severity of his condition. Admittedly, the preliminary stages of mercury poisoning would be one of the easiest conditions to fake because, initially, it only exhibits itself in very strange ways that could easily be dismissed. General neuropathy (numbness), profuse sweating, raised heart rate and general fatigue are the most likely outward manifestations. Any of those conditions by themselves or even taken together can be casually dismissed, but they shouldn’t.

    Recall that in Dr. Colker’s interview above he mentioned the condition of “neuromuscular fatigue” and how it was starting to take a toll on Piven. What the good doctor was really talking about is the way mercury disrupts brain-to-muscle signaling.

    A synapse, where mercury attacks

    When Piven is out on stage, his brain, like yours, fires incredibly specific signals to key muscle groups so that he can perform. Neuromuscular junctions are where the brain ‘hands off’ its commands to the muscles – and this is where mercury comes into play.

    Mercury inhibits a key, relay neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, disrupting the way it normally binds and signals brain-to-muscle messages throughout the body. Bad signaling means the body has to work much harder to perform basic functions, resulting in an exhausting and seemingly unexplainable fatigue from which Piven was likely suffering.

    Beyond this initial stage of damage, mercury also severely disrupts the foundation of thought – neurons. The brain operates much like the microprocessor in your computer by firing a rapid symphony of tiny, neuronal-electrical signals throughout your body. Mercury can lay waste to the machine of your mind by literally tearing apart the electrical signaling equipment in your brain.

    Specifically, mercury ions bond with tubulin, the protective coverings that surround the electrical impulse-generating neurofibrils of each neuron. Those mercury ions cause the tubulin to literally disintegrate. Any neuron close enough to the mercury exposure suffers this fate. Worse yet, mercury’s fat solubility means that it tends to settle in the brain because the brain is the fattiest thing in your body, believe it or not. This video below shows just how destructive mercury is inside the body:

    Left untreated, severe mercury exposure can cause far greater problems by narrowing the field of vision, completely stopping all muscle function and even driving the afflicted to insanity – resulting in a fatal, tortured paralysis called Minamata’s Disease. Lest we forget, mercury plays a role in neurological disorders like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and likely autism.

    Minimata – The final stage (Credit W.E. Smith)

    Obviously, Piven was a long way from any of these diseases but his extremely elevated mercury body burden makes it completely plausible that his fatigue was caused by the mercury from his sushi habit. Piven’s conditions of extreme fatigue and exhaustion that required a hospital stay fit the profile of mercury exposure very well. It is also highly unlikely a credentialed doctor would go on national TV, risk his career and lie about his patient being hospitalized. Considering all this, there is a very good chance Piven is telling the truth.

    Where does all this mercury come from?

    Beyond the Hollywood finger pointing, Piven’s condition is important because it could have easily been anyone else who casually enjoys eating fish that finds themselves in this same position. The real question for you needs to be why fish have so much mercury in the first place. The answer has far less to do with Hollywood’s trendy sushi joints and far more to do with West Virginia’s coal mines.

    Coal, the enemy of every climatologist worried about global warming, also pollutes our environment with significant amounts of mercury. The exact amount is hard to calculate but a 2005 statement by the EPA suggests at least 48 tons are released into the US atmosphere annually. Remember, this doesn’t even count China, who is estimated to open one or two new coal power plants every week.

    The mercury flying out of all these coal power plants is chemically transformed by bacteria into methylmercury once it finally falls back to the ground, often many miles from where it was emitted. Mercury first creeps into the water supply where it is absorbed by aquatic microorganisms. From here mercury works its way up the food chain in a process known as bioaccumulation.

    Your source for mercury

    The smallest sea creatures, plankton, feed off the microorganisms, which are later swallowed by bottom dwelling fish. These smaller fish get eaten by larger fish which are eventually eaten by human beings, transferring mercury up the food chain. Not surprisingly predatory fish like shark, swordfish and tuna that sit atop the aquatic food chain have the highest mercury concentrations (see a full list here). When we eat these fish, our bodies rapidly absorb the methylmercury – and we all find ourselves in a situation not too dissimilar from Piven.

    This situation could be different. Many techniques and technologies currently exist that can take out 95%+ of the mercury emitted from coal power plants. Such a move would have dramatic, positive benefits across our society but regulatory agencies like the EPA have been extremely slow in promoting new standards for typical reasons like bureaucracy and corruption. Ironically, the EPA has recently been publicly criticizing the FDA for its lax guidance of mercury laden-fish, the pot calling the kettle black if ever such a situation existed.

    Still, the push for coal remains strong. Let’s hope Piven’s high-profile nature helps to create a real discussion about getting mercury out of the world’s coal plant’s, waterways, fish and our bodies.

  • Organic Fish Standards Announced by the USDA

    Organic Fish Standards Announced by the USDA

    ast week, the USDA announced their first organic guidelines for fish. The new guidelines uphold some of the traditional mainstays of organic agriculture, like banning the use of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides and GMO feed in some instances while weakening other provisions at the same time.

    Most notable in the new guidelines is the inclusion of a loophole that allows aquaculture farms to obtain up to 25% of their feed from unregulated wild seafood stock (see the NOSB draft literature). The loophole does specify that organic producers use ‘sustainable’ wild seafood as the feed for their fish stocks but does not go so far as to require 100% organic feed. This is the first time ANY livestock producer (NOTE: the USDA classifies fisheries as ‘livestock’) has been allowed to include any non-organic feed into their own animal’s feed.

    A beautiful sockeye salmon

    Additionally, these new guidelines allow all types of fish to be raised in open-water pens in the ocean which allows water from the fish farms to filter into neighboring aquatic environments, a move that could allow both species and disease to jump from the farms into the ocean.

    Largely, this new protocol targets commercial aquaculture farms, because of their explosive growth and the desire of many farming interests to label their products with an organic sticker. The protocol does very little to clear up the controversial issue of whether or not wild-caught seafood is organic or not.

    What They are Saying

    Initial reaction from aquaculture farmers was largely positive while environmental and consumer groups were enraged, as might be expected. Large firms like Cooke Aquaculture remained largely silent on the issue, a possible indication that the decisions made by the USDA were in their favor.

    On the other side of the coin, NGO firms like The Consumer’s Union, who publishes of Consumer Reports, expressed deep displeasure with the new guidelines, saying that the USDA’s decision ‘will undermine consumer confidence in the entire organic marketplace‘.

    The Living on Earth Show, spoke directly with Food & Water Watch about the open-net pen provision in the new USDA guidelines. This is a great audio interview covering this environmental issue in-depth.

     

     

    Listen to the Interview

    (A Transcript is also available)

    Why all the fuss?

    The new ‘green’ in organics

    The reason for the wildly varied opinions on organic fish boils down to dollar bills. Organic sales are estimated to reach $23.6 billion dollars in 2008, another year of double digit growth despite the terrible economy. If you factor in natural foods, that number jumps to almost $33 billion. From 2005-2008, these products grew at 67.6 percent, annualized at 18.8% year-over-year [source: Grist]. These type of revenue gains are usually reserved for high-tech start-ups, not food producers. The power levied by the ‘organic’ title is immense in the marketplace.

    Growth like this is being fueled by consumer demand but also by the premiums most producers can command for their goods. Price premiums on organic food range from as little as 5% to as much as 200%, depending on the product. Because food is typically a very low margin good, even a 5% premium would attract significant agribusiness interest. This has been a major factor in the meteoric rise of the organic food industry and the continued push for new organic foodstuffs, like the new fish standards.

    Organics net tremendous sales by galvanizing the fractured buying public around a variety of causes ranging from environmental concerns to food safety issues and general wellness. Even though organic food buyers are a wildly diverse group, they appear to agree on one thing – tough organic standards. In the Food Poll conducted by the Consumer’s Union, 93% of the buying public said any fish labeled organic should only be fed organic feed and an equally impressive 90% said organic farms should recover their waste and not pollute the environment.

    The USDA’s Precious

    Such loyalty and power of the organic moniker comes from the fact that, up until now, organic labeling has required farmers to adhere to extremely tough guidelines, like the 100% organic feed guidelines for all livestock producers and 5 year waiting periods where no pesticides could touch farmland before a single product could be certified organic.

    The process, by which products are physically labeled as organic, was once an afterthought in the market but that occurred long before these goods carried such revenue generating power and marketing glow. Companies are now fully aware of the premium their products command once they have been certified organic and, sometimes, desperately seek that certification.

     

    The Future of Organic Fish

    Organic fish is a complicated concept even without the vast, monied players described above pushing their weight around. Obviously, no fish ‘organically’ grows in an aquaculture pen out in nature, so if we want to be true organic purists, no fish farm products could ever be called organic. The USDA may be setting up a nutritionally complicated system where wild, non-organic fish are the most desirable, followed by farmed-organic fish and rounded out by typical farmed non-organic fish products. Other products find themselves in a similar bind.

    Herein lies the problem.

    We have ask ed a government agency to draw a very particular line about a subject to which there is no general consensus to begin with. Is a salmon in a fish pen natural? Is a mercury laden wild tuna more nutritious than a PCB-filled farm raised tilapia? What guidelines can be imposed to obtain a truly wild, organic fish of any kind?

    Open-pen aquaculture may have proven detrimental effects on the environment but that does not mean that the fish inside that environment cannot be produced organically, in theory at least. There are even new urban aquaculture methods being developed that go far beyond the aims of these rules. Watch the future below:

    Aquaculture can be done correctly, sustainably and even with a beautiful flare. These images come from architect Benedetta Gargiulo’s vision for fish farming in Central London:

    Inside sketch of a London Fish Farm, credit: Pruned

    Architectural Plans for a London Fish Farm, credit: Pruned

    The NGO crowd is probably right in saying that these new organic fish standards are too weak on the environmental front but aquaculture will advance in ways unknown, despite the rules.

    Regulation becomes more of a spirit-of-the-law versus the letter-of-the-law situation. In spirit, organic products seek to make agriculture more natural and sustainable while organic rules seek to impose strict guidelines on how to best achieve that goal – and we believe these new USDA standards advance that goal if not succeeding entirely.

    More Nutritious Fish from Organic Rules

    Wild salmon, yum

    In our opinion, the real untold story with the regard to the new, organic fishing standard, is what these new rules will mean for nutrition. This new ruling should create a dramatically more nutritious farm raised protein product, which is very important considering the growth of aquaculture.

    Nutritionally speaking, wild cold water fish (like salmon) are the best sources of fish because they contain a wide array of micronutrients and are in better overall health while alive. Based on what we know of protein development in fish, this enhanced nutritional profile is directly related to the diet of the fish while they are alive. Wild fish eat a varied diet more closely related to what they should ideally be eating, resulting in a better ratio of essential fatty acids Omega-3 and Omega-6.

    Humans need to get those essential fats in a 1:1 ratio in their diets for optimum health but, typically, most Americans now get 15-20X more Omega-6 than Omega-3, promoting inflammation in the body. This is why so many people are urged to take an Omega-3 supplements and eat fish but the idea of fish as a source of Omega-3 is currently being degraded by bad farming practices.

    Studies show that farm-raised salmon have dramatically lower amounts of Omega-3 and have higher amounts of PCB contamination than their wild counterparts. Another recent study shows farm raised tilapia and catfish have a fat profile not too dissimilar from hamburger meat or bacon.

    Yes, he is.

    The reason for this weaker nutritional profile is simple: both these fish and most farm animals are eating the exact same diet of refined corn products which creates this inferior fat ratio. Hard as it is to believe, most farmed fish eat nothing but the corn germ by-products of high fructose corn syrup production. This diet turns the salmon gray, which requires them to be artificially colored pink by products like DSM’s CAROPHYLL. Even worse, most of those corn products are GMO varieties that have their own set of issues.

    So, let’s give the USDA a little credit here. While open-pens are regrettable, organic fisheries will be eliminating GMO corn altogether, banning the use of artificial coloration (I believe) and mandating that 25% of these organic fish’s feed are from sustainable wild fish stocks. This should provide the consumer with a noticeably more nutritious protein product in organically farmed seafood.

    The big omisson on the part of the USDA, in our opinion, was not the open-net pen allowance but rather the failure to recognize which species of fish are carniverious (like salmon and tuna) or vegeratarian (like catfish and tilapia) and then REQUIRE organic aquaculture to feed their species appropriately. There is always room for improvement and we hope the USDA puts monied interests aside and notes ALL critiques for future revisions to the standard.

  • Purple Tomatoes Go GMO to Cure Cancer

    Researchers at John Innes Centre in the UK have used successfully created a purple tomato by using genes from the common snapdragon flowering plant. Tomatoes natively possess the genes required to make themselves purple but normally these genes lie dormant. By inserting borrowed genes from the snapdragon plant, the researchers engineered the tomato to activate the usually dormant genes. The tomato plant was designed intelligently with promoter sections of DNA inserted in front of the snapdragon genes, so that the tomato plant would only turn its ripening fruits purple and not its leaves.

    The desire to turn a tomato purple may appear quixotic at first but there is merit to this endeavor. Colors in produce indicate the presence of flavonoids, beneficial compounds known for their antioxidant activity. Specifically, deep red-blue-purple coloring indicates the presence of anthocyanin, a flavonoid widely found in fruits like blackberries, black currants and cranberries but not in significant quantities within regular tomatoes themselves. Seeing as tomatoes are one of the most commonly consumed types of produce, scientists sought to bring together the best of both worlds by infusing this flavonoid into tomatoes, which turns them purple in the process.

    Anthocyanin to the rescue?

    Anthocyanin and the berry fruits that contain it have received quite a bit of attention in the research world because of their ability to inhibit the growth of cancer cells. Berry juices containing anthocyanin have been shown to destroy stomach, prostate, intestine and beast cancer cells.

    Human studies have been mixed however. Initial results from a study of ten high-risk pre-cancerous patients show dosing with berry compounds reduces oxidative stress. Another larger, controlled study had twenty women drinking cranberry juice but found little evidence of quantifiable benefits from drinking the juice over a two week period.

    Still, scientists are excited about their purple tomatoes.

    “This is one of the first examples of metabolic engineering that offers the potential to promote health through diet by reducing the impact of chronic disease and certainly the first example of a GMO with a trait that really offers a potential benefit for all consumers.” said Professor Cathie Martin of the John Innes Centre [https://www.jic.ac.uk/], who participated in the research.

    “The next step will be to take the preclinical data forward to human studies with volunteers to see if we can promote health through dietary preventive medicine strategies.”

    What does it all mean?

    From a scientific standpoint, Professor Martin makes an excellent point; this is the first proactive use of genetic manipulation to improve the nutritional characteristics of a food. Up until now, most GMO ‘advancements‘ have been made in addressing the genetic weaknesses of large foodstuff monocrops, like soy and corn, that allow greater quantities of the crop to be grown. The team at the John Innes Centre has successfully genetically modified a major food product for the benefits of health, not crop yields. This is a welcome development in a world suffering from a modern malnutrition epidemic.

    Purples Tomatoes, care of the John Innes Centre

    However, the scientific studies surrounding anthocyanin – the purple maker – do not give us the guidance we would hope for. If simply dosing with anthocyanins retarded cancer, we would be seeing those results come out in the trade journals. For now, we just haven’t seen those results – if anything we have seen the opposite.

    Some of this can be explained by examining the nature in which nutrients actually become absorbed into the body. These processes appear to be incredibly complex but, generally speaking, we know the nutrients found in foods require other nutrients to be sufficiently assimilated. Studies bear out this idea, like findings that correlate a decrease in cancer with a diet heavy in antioxidant fruits and vegetables while juxtaposed against the fact supplementation with singular antioxidant vitamins seems to have no positive health effect. The basic idea is that nutrients require each other, in very specific amounts, to create the symphony of good health.

    What will decide whether the purple tomatoes becomes a significant contribution to the world of health lies in how the discovery is handled from here. If these tomatoes are adequately and rigorously tested both in vitro (in the lab) and in vivo (in people) for safety, we could really have a development that significantly improves the well being of millions of people, especially those with a genetic predisposition to cancer. Any additional intake of beneficial flavonoids into the Western diet, currently riddled with excessive amounts of fat and sugar, would be welcome.

    Our Reservations

    Purple Tomatoes, in action – John Innes Centre

    We wonder whether scientists are taking a very ‘Rube Goldberg-esque’ approach to a technically simple problem. Designing a fancy, purple tomato is definitely a good way to get more flavonoids into the Western diet but the inclusion of more blueberries and raspberries, which require no genetic modification, would accomplish the same thing. This is an awfully large mouse trap, so to speak.

    Our other major concern is one of history. If we let the recent past be our guide for the future, the purple tomato could very easily become another weapon in the hands of agribusiness. For generations, farmers have conducted defacto genetic engineering by choosing to breed the most prolific plants on their farms but that world has long ceased. Genetic modification of crops by large corporations is the new norm and, unfortunately, GMO seeds carry with them an especially troubled past. Often, these modified seeds have been used as a bargaining tool against farmers, ironically enough.

    The Monsanto company, who has conducted the lion’s share of the development behind the GMO revolution, understandably wants to collect on their sizable investment in the space. We take up no arms against that principle but the disgraceful tactics Monsanto has employed over the years creates great hesitation. Profiting from technological advancements is part of what makes capitalism work but extorting the world’s farmers via the food supply is simply not tolerable.

    In Conclusion

    Instead, we would like to see the public/private partnership between the John Innes Centre and the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council continue into the future. We believe this model offers the most promise for the development of a better food supply. Open licensing of the purple tomatoes’ genetic code could be a welcome step instead of the now common draconian smoke and mirrors act that accompanies nearly every GMO product brought to market.

    In short, the proof will be in the pudding. Which path the purple tomato takes will make all the difference. Good luck little guy; we fear it will be a rough road for you from that greenhouse to our plate.