Used under creative commons license from dwinstonfidler.

The multi-million dollar initiative known as AGree released their mission and strategies for transforming food and agriculture policy by 2030 last week. Despite a litany of plans and players involved, it’s still hard to know what to make of AGree.

AGree is the brainchild of nine foundations (with the Gates Foundation far and away the largest) that already fund a variety of initiatives of food and agriculture in the U.S. and around the world. They announced a year ago that they would combine forces and launch “an initiative designed to inform and address food and agriculture policy issues through the direct engagement of diverse groups” to “drive transformational change.”

AGree is led by four co-chairs including former USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, and a diverse Advisory Committee that includes farmers of all sizes and types as well corporate giants like Cargill and DuPont.  AGree has identified four interrelated challenges: meeting future demand for food; conserving and enhancing water, soil and habitat; improving nutrition and public health; and strengthening farms, workers and communities. And last week, AGree announced their five strategic priorities to take on these challenges:

• Redirect and modernize research, education, and extension institutions in the United States and developing countries;
• Ensure vulnerable populations’ access to nutritious food;
• Align agricultural and food production in the United States with improved environmental outcomes;
• Create a stable, legal food and agriculture workforce in the United States; and
• Attract young people to food and agriculture.

The strategies are all laudable, as far as they go. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would “disAGree” with them. And perhaps that’s the problem. The dysfunctions of our current agriculture and food system are not the result of misunderstandings and unintended consequences that we can clear up with stakeholder consensus and research. We have this system because it works well for the most powerful players: agribusiness, banks, the insurance industry and food companies. It was designed this way. Truly transforming it to work for all of us requires acknowledging and challenging this status quo.

Yet, nowhere does AGree mention the increasingly concentrated economic and political power of Big Ag, Big Food and Big Money. This omission takes off the table a number of critically related issues, such as the financialization of agriculture and food, the erosion of democratic control of the food and agriculture system (known as food sovereignty) at all levels, and the damaging effects of market deregulation on farmers, health and food systems worldwide. The exploitation of workers throughout the food chain is mentioned, but it’s buried under the heading, “Creating a Stable, Legal Work Force.” What perspective does that sound like to you?

Despite the presence of some excellent individual advisory council members, it’s hard to see how AGree’s corporate-friendly, inside-the-Beltway approach can yield big, bold thinking, and move beyond the “politics of the possible” in which food and agriculture policy has remained trapped for decades.

Do we need policy research? Absolutely. The transition from an unhealthy and unjust system to one that is democratically controlled and benefits all people calls for major investments to think through the nature and sequencing of policy interventions needed.  But that research agenda is fundamentally different than one aimed at curing all of the symptoms AGree has identified without addressing the fundamental underlying causes.

Likewise, dialogue about our common challenges in food and agriculture is important. Unfortunately, by seeking consensus among stakeholders with very different views and interests—instead of supporting a genuinely transformative movement for change—you often end up with the lowest common denominator. In other words, something that’s hard to disagree with.

Used under creative commons license from swanksalot.

IATP has issued a press statement applauding Representatives Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) for writing  to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and calling for action on antibiotics in ethanol production.

Our latest investigation, Bugs in the System: How the FDA Fails to Regulate Antibiotics in Ethanol Production, is heavily cited in their letter, and it's encouraging to see them addressing the FDA's apparent neglect of their responsibilities. Check out the press statement, posted below, or read up on the IATP investigation that made it happen. Hopefully the FDA will recognize its responsibility and take the actions necessary to correct the situation. Get involved in the fight against antibiotic resistance by signing IATP's latest petition.

IATP applauds lawmakers’ call to FDA for action on antibiotics in ethanol production

FDA neglects responsibility to public health, highlighted by IATP investigation

Just 10 days after the release of IATP’s latest report, Bugs in the System: How the FDA Fails to Regulate Antibiotics in Ethanol Production, Representatives Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) have written to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ask hard questions about whether the agency is doing its job to protect the public in addressing the issue of antibiotic use in ethanol.

As the letter highlights, and as reported earlier by IATP, antibiotics used in ethanol production are ending up in a byproduct known as dried distillers grains (DDGs) that are then sold as livestock feed, contributing to antibiotic resistance, a growing public health threat. Furthermore, according to the report, the FDA is neglecting to enforce its own regulations on antibiotic use in ethanol production while drug companies and the ethanol industry knowingly take advantage and skirt the rules.

“We applaud Representatives Markey and Slaughter’s efforts to zero in on this regulatory failure,” says IATP’s Dr. David Wallinga. “Our antibiotics are too precious to squander through overuse and negligence. We deserve a better, more effective FDA.”

 

Reps. Markey and Slaughter, in their letter to the FDA, write “As the threat of antibiotic resistance expands, we must ensure that the unnecessary use of antibiotics in agricultural animals is minimized and FDA has the ability to limit their use if it serves to protect public health.”

 

Action by the FDA and the ethanol industry is urgent. Especially in light of many major ethanol producers avoiding antibiotic use in favor of safer, non-antibiotic alternatives that do not carry the same public health risks.

Read more about the issue of antibiotics in ethanol production, and the FDA’s responsibility to regulate it in IATP’s latest investigation, Bugs in the System: How the FDA Fails to Regulate Antibiotics in Ethanol Production. For more on the letter sent to the FDA, see the lawmakers’ press release and official letter.

# # #

Used under creative commons license from kun0me.

Titanium dioxide nanowire, magnified 200,000 times.

On April 20, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released for public comment two draft guidance to industry documents, about 25 pages each, on the use of nanotechnology in food and cosmetics products respectively. The incorporation of atomic to molecular-sized Engineered Nanoscale Materials (ENMs) into FDA regulated products is supposed to have benefits both for food manufacturers and consumers. For example, coating food conveyer belts with nano-silicon dioxide should, in theory, prevent pathogen growth, make the belts easier to clean, and reduce the likelihood of contamination of the food carried on the conveyor belts.

Despite manufacturer identified evidence that use of ENMs in consumer products, including food, continues to increase, and despite scientific literature that indicates ENMs may pose significant health risks, the FDA currently does not yet regulate ENMs. Strong final guidance documents can become a basis for subsequent mandatory regulation.

These guidance documents do not respond explicitly to a lawsuit filed by the International Center for Technology (ICTA) assessment, in which IATP is a co-plaintiff. The complaint requires FDA to respond to the May 2006 ICTA, et al. petition to regulate the use of nano-titanium dioxide in sunscreens and other FDA regulated products, including processed foods. On the same day that FDA responded to the lawsuit by finally responding to the petition, it also released the guidances.

IATP joined ICTA and Friends of the Earth in responding to the draft guidance. We strongly urge consumer organizations and the public in general to strengthen the draft guidance by submitting comments. There will be a 90-day comment period once the draft guidance is published in the Federal Register, i.e., a mid-June comment deadline.

The guidance documents are the result of an exceedingly deliberate process that began with a 2007 workshop, a 2008 workshop report and intensive industry-FDA dialogue to produce documents that have “voluntary guidance” and “not for implementation” written on every page. Relative to the demands of the ICTA, et al. petition, these documents do not demand much of ENMs manufacturers, nor of those who incorporate ENMs into FDA-regulated food and cosmetic products.

Generally speaking, the guidance on cosmetics is more specific than the “food substance” guidance concerning the environmental, health and safety issues that form the core of FDA’s statutory duties. For example, the cosmetics guidance suggests that industry may have to revise its toxicology tests when ENMs are added to cosmetics because of the unique properties of ENMs relative to their macro-sized counterparts. FDA advises industry that it may wish to use “tiered testing” of products, which is similar to the EU’s REACH program for registration and testing of chemicals, though REACH isn’t named explicitly. 

The “food substance” guidance advises that industry will have to determine on a case-by-case basis whether use of ENMs results in a “significant manufacturing process change” that would warrant submission of data to FDA for a formal pre-market approval. Much of this guidance is not specific to nanotechnology but is structured in such a way as to outline the legal framework for assessing the safety and regulatory conformity of a food substance, whether or not it incorporates ENMs. The guidance gives examples of cases where “significant process changes” did not affect existing industry determinations that food substances were “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS).

However, in probably the most important feature of the food substance guidance, FDA advises that ENMs “likely would not be covered by existing GRAS” and that industry would have to submit product data with ENMs for a “formal pre-market review.” According to a February 2010 General Accountability Office report, industry self-determination of GRAS, could lead to the non-reporting to FDA of ENMs in FDA regulated products. Therefore, FDA’s announcement that ENMs would not be assumed to be GRAS is a significant step towards regulation. Lack of a formal definition of ENMs that could be applied by all agencies has hindered regulation of ENMs in food and food contact surfaces. Now the FDA has proposed to industry that it should count on a formal pre-market review of data on the nano-scale versions of GRAS designated materials. Consumer organizations, the scientific community and the general public should support this proposal.

Perhaps the least useful part of the food substance guidance concerns the discussion of “self-limiting levels of use,” according to which manufacturers would not knowingly add an ingredient that would make an FDA regulated product unsafe or unfit for consumption. The advice does not address the validity of “self-limitation” when so little is known about the levels of ENMS incorporation present environmental, health or safety risks. Here too, comments are urgently needed to document for FDA the irrelevance of advice on industry self-limitation in the use of ENMs in foods, when so little has been published on the effects of chronic exposure to ENMs in the gastro-intestinal tract.

Used under creative commons license from Patrick Hoesly.

The use of a puzzle piece to symbolize autism was initiated in 1963 by the National Autistic Society.

 

On April 12, IATP staffer Dr. David Wallinga co-published a study online that explores the links between food and autism.

The paper proposes a macroepigenetic model as one scientific approach that allows us as researchers to consider multiple factors, including nutrition and environmental exposure to toxins, and how they can impact our health. Because this is a new approach, we’ve prepared a brief Q & A we hope will address many potential questions.

Q: What causes autism?

A: There is no one cause of autism. Multiple factors in our food and broader environment combine with inherited factors to contribute to autism. All of these factors can play different roles, and can take on various levels of significance in different individuals—all of us are unique in our susceptibility to diseases and disorders, like autism.

In the real world, we are exposed to a complex equation of factors that can ultimately influence our health. As Harvard pediatric neurologist Martha Herbert, M.D. puts it, there is an important difference between “cause” and “risk.” It isn’t even appropriate to talk about a “cause” of autism. Instead, it is more fitting to talk about multiple, interactive risks in our broader environment that may accumulate and contribute to autism. In any child these environmental factors have the potential to modify the genetic susceptibility she or he is born with.

Q: Does consumption of HFCS cause autism?

A: HFCS consumption in and of itself does not cause autism, but this study finds that it may be a risk factor that can contribute to the development of an autism spectrum disorder. Current science indicates that a number of factors likely combine to cause or contribute to the development of autism, including nutrition and other environmental factors, as well as inherited factors.

This study lays out an evidence-based model of how consumption of high fructose corn syrup can impact mineral balance in the body, and subsequently the body’s ability to eliminate toxic chemicals which may contribute to a higher incidence of autism.

Further study on environmental and dietary risk factors for autism is still needed. Because there is no one single cause of autism, we need to invest in research that helps us understand the complex interactions that happen in our world and can cumulatively contribute to the eventual development of autism. HFCS is one potential risk factor that the authors chose to study, but it is certainly not the only risk factor.

Q: How are mineral deficiencies related to autism? 

A: Diets deficient in some minerals, like calcium, can increase the absorption of toxins like lead in a person’s environment, or impair the metabolic processes required to eliminate organophosphate pesticides. Diets deficient in other minerals like selenium, a potent antioxidant, leave the body impaired in its ability to repair the damage to DNA that accrues from living in a polluted environment and consuming mercury and other food contaminants. Diets deficient in zinc can disrupt heavy metal metabolism and excretion.

Q: How does HFCS affect levels of minerals like zinc in the body?

A: In humans, HFCS consumption has been shown to impact the body’s ability to manage the proper balance of certain beneficial minerals in the body. It can lead to zinc loss and copper gain, for example. With the depletion of zinc, the body’s immune system can be compromised and this is when disease takes place. In the case of autism, with zinc insufficiency, the child’s body is unable to correctly produce the protein required to transport and release toxic metals such as mercury and cadmium from the body. Hence, some children with autism tend to accumulate these heavy metals.

HFCS consumption can lead to lower calcium and phosphorus in the body as well. Additionally, when dietary intake of magnesium is low, additional calcium losses can occur with HFCS consumption.

With the depletion of calcium, the body’s immune system is again compromised because the process of producing a key enzyme required for organophosphate metabolism and excretion is impeded.

Q. How are HFCS consumption and mineral levels related to genes?

A. Genes, which are inherited, contain coded information that constitutes the potential instruction book for the function of cells, and therefore the body as a whole. However, the environment surrounding genes—the epigenome—determines whether or when that instruction book gets opened. In other words, the environment determines how or when genes get turned on or off, or “expressed.” 

This study coins the term “macroepigenetics” to describe a model for thinking about how a range of environmental factors, including both toxic chemicals, mineral deficiencies and other nutritional factors, combine to affect gene expression.

Q. How should one weigh the effects of genetic and environmental factors when it comes to autism?

A. While a person’s genes may determine whether they carry the potential to develop autism, the model described in the study suggests that environmental and dietary factors can play a key role in determining whether an individual acquires the traits that we describe as autism.

Q: What is HFCS?

A: High fructose corn syrup is considered a sugar substitute. It is a highly processed sweetener made from corn. Essentially, it is made by processing corn syrup to convert some of the glucose it contains into fructose in order to obtain a certain level of sweetness.

The recipe for making HFCS has sometimes included the addition of chlor-alkali chemicals hydrogen chloride and sodium hydroxide. Chlor-alkali plants manufacture these chemicals using a variety of different technologies, including one called mercury cell production. Unfortunately, the use of mercury cell chlor-alkali chemicals in food manufacturing can lead to mercury residue in the final food product.  While the food industry claims that it no longer uses mercury cell technology, we are not aware of any independent verification of that fact.

Manufactures also may have an incentive to use mercury cell chlor-alkali chemicals because they are known to enhance product shelf life. Mercury residue has previously been found in high fructose corn syrup samples collected and analyzed in 2005 and products made with high fructose corn syrup in 2009 and 2010. Some companies have switched to using chlor-alkali chemicals made using the membrane process, due in large part to consumer sentiment against mercury residue in food.

Q: What is the comparison between autism rates in the U.S. and Italy?

The study compares environmental and dietary factors in Italy, where autism prevalence is low (1 in 1000, or 0.1%) whereas in the U.S. the rate is now estimated to be 1 in 88, more than 10 times higher. This study compares autism prevalence in the two countries using a unique macroepigenetic approach to identify the factors already associated in the scientific literature with increased risk of autism.

Exposure to mercury from several sources such as air pollution, fish consumption and dental amalgam is similar in both countries. Where the two countries differ significantly is in the consumption of HFCS—almost non-existent in Italy—while the average American now consumes 35.7 lbs per year.

Q: Where can I go for more information?

A: Visit the Food Ingredient and Health Research Institute (foodingredient.info) for more information about food ingredient safety, education and research, including the previously published papers by Dufault and co-authors.

You can also download IATP’s report Not So Sweet on HFCS in food products.

References:

1. Case Western Reserve University, “Electrochemistry encyclopedia: brine electrolysis,” (2007). Accessed April 27, 2012 from http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-b01-brine.htm.
2. Renee Dufault et al. “Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar” Environmental Health 8:2(2009) Retrieved from http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2.
3. Martha Herbert and Karen Weintraub, The Autism Revolution: Whole-Body Strategies for Making Life All it can be (Ballantine Books, 2012).
4. Karen Rideout et al. “Comment on the paper by Dufault et al.: Mercury in foods containing high-fructose corn syrup in Canada” Environmental Health (2010-07-21). Retrieved from http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2/comments.
5. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. The EU sugar policy regime and implications of reform, “Sugar Substitutes,” page 5. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR59/ERR59.pdf.