Consumers concerns are not unfounded, especially since in the last 18 months new studies have suggested serious problems with ingredients and products used in all stages of food preparation that are enough to scare the crap out of you. There is a growing skepticism that commercially prepared foods purchased off grocery shelves are not good for you.
Among industry players, there is often debate about what constitutes good science, with both sides pointing to studies that support their own self-interests. What can be said with some confidence is groups with economic power are able to persuade more people to their side than fringe groups — and none are guaranteed to represent good science, good conscience or truth.
The debate over organics is an excellent example. Most studies have not found significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic products, especially when comparing raw ingredients, leading one to believe that while there may be philosophical differences about land management or care of animals, the end result is no difference to overall health.
However, on May 17, 2010, The Boston Globe ran a story entitled “Research Links Pesticides with ADHD in Children” by Carla K. Johnson, an AP medical writer. She wrote that according to a new study published by The Journal of Pediatrics, the higher the level of pesticides in children's urine, the greater their chances of having ADHD — and 94 percent of the kids tested positive for pesticides. The study didn’t measure where the pesticides came from and recognized the source could include the food they ate, the air they breathed or pesticides used around the home. However, the article also quoted a 2008 Emory University study that found in children who switched to organically grown fruits and vegetables, urine levels of pesticide compounds dropped to undetectable or close to undetectable levels.
More research is needed, but who can fault a family switching to organic produce and other foods, especially since the price gap between conventional and organic is closing?
The rush to skepticism may have all started on Monday, Jan. 26, 2009, when The Washington Post ran an article that stated a study found almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury. Another independent study found mercury contamination in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient.
The results were immediately challenged by Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, who said, “Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents [used in the manufacture of HFCS] mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years.
However, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) told The Minneapolis Star Tribune that four plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia still use “mercury-cell” technology that can lead to contamination.
The reaction seemed to be immediate as manufacturers quietly switched to sugar as their source of sweetening, especially in products geared to kids. Was this a reaction to consumer concerns? Concerns of liability? Maybe a little of both?
Trans fats have been on the radar for some time; on April 16, 2010, United Press International published an article that stated U.S. researchers suggest if Britain banned trans fats, thousands of heart attacks could be prevented. “Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston wrote in the British Medical Journal reducing consumption of trans fats by just 1 percent of total calories would prevent 11,000 heart attacks and 7,000 death annually in England.”
So, how come I couldn’t find one bread, pastry or cake that didn’t contain hydrogenated oils in the bakery department in my local supermarket? And at the same supermarket chain, breads used in sandwiches and pizzas and fried foods found in the deli contained no information about the use of trans fats.
Less than a week later, more bad news made the headlines. On Friday, May 21, 2010, Times Argus Online reported, “This week, Vermont Governor James Douglas signed into law what is considered to be among the country’s most stringent bans of food containers manufactured with bisphenol A (BPA).
“BPA was banned in baby bottles and formula in Canada, Australia and New Zealand last year. Canada was the first country to issue a BPA ban, Denmark recently followed, four U.S. states have issued bands, and France is considering a ban.” Japan has not allowed BPA to touch a food contact service since 1999, states the article.
Concerns about long term affects of BPA include significant disruptions to the body’s endocrine system and it has been linked to cardiovascular disease, intestinal problems, brain-cell connection, problems with liver function testing, interruptions in chemotherapy treatment, etc. BPA also affects sexual development and processes, especially in fetuses, infants and children. Laura Birnbaun, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, stated additional concerns because the affects of BPA may pass from one generation to the next.
Most recently, the FDA reversed its April 2008 finding that BPA was safe and is suggesting more research. Before 2008, was the science good or optimistic? Or has Japan been overly cautious? Can anyone blame a parent who wants BPA-free baby bottles or adults who avoid canned goods and plastic containers?
If deli departments are going to be considered venues for better educated, higher income families interested in healthy foods, alternative products need to be introduced and concerns not lightly dismissed.