The complexities of Golden Rice

A supefood to aid in reducing global malnutrition – or a plague on local agriculture?

There is widespread opposition to genetically modified foods – and yet there are real issues of food insecurity, malnutrition, hunger and famine, particularly as climate change accelerates across the globe. Is there an ethical, ecological, and beneficial way to improve the lives of the poor in developing regions, by enhancing the nutritional quality of staple food crops, such as rice?

Golden Rice is a variety of rice that was genetically engineered in the 1990s via the insertion of two genes that switch on production of beta-carotene, to generate a nutritionally fortified food. Beta carotene is converted into vitamin A when metabolized by the body. Golden Rice was viewed as a potential tool to combat deficiencies in Vitamin A in developing regions across the world, particularly where local populations are highly dependent on rice. White rice provides a significant proportion of the daily caloric intake for over half the world’s population, in countries such as Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam and the Philippines.

While virtually unknown in the western world, Vitamin A deficiencies are an ongoing global public health issue, particularly affecting children in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. In some regions, young children are weaned on rice gruel, made from white rice, which lacks essential nutrients. The World Health Organization estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 children who consume diets deficient in Vitamin A become blind each year, and half of these die within a year of losing sight. Vitamin A deficiencies also contribute to respiratory and intestinal infections in children, as well as slowing bone development.

Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Back in 2000, Time magazine featured Golden Rice on their cover with the caption: “This rice could save a million kids a year.” Alas, it wasn’t so simple. As a genetically modified food, Golden Rice is “weighed down with all the political, ideological and emotional baggage that has come to be associated with GMOs – stultifying government overregulation, fear and hostility, and criticism,” reports Foreign Policy.

And yet, there are powerful supporters. The World Bank has recommended that staple crops be fortified with micronutrients to combat malnutrition across the globe. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supports the development of genetically modified crops as an aid in fighting food insecurity. More than 100 Nobel laureates publicly supported the introduction of the genetically modified Golden Rice. However, challenges remain. Before Golden Rice can be introduced, government regulators in each country must analyze the data and declare it safe for human consumption. Canada and the United States approved Golden Rice in 2018, and the Philippines was the first Asian country to approve it, in 2019. Soon afterward, this approval was challenged in Philippine courts, and later re-approved, as government officials declared it a “powerful tool of science to feed the future.”

“The story of Golden Rice thus makes for a sad and maddening tale of scientists being repeatedly thwarted in their attempts to invent, improve, breed, field-test, and disseminate a potentially lifesaving food.”

Foreign Policy Magazine 2019

Golden Rice is vehemently opposed by groups such as Greenpeace and the Earth Island Institute for a variety of reasons. Primarily, they fear that its introduction will decrease agricultural biodiversity and serve as a “Trojan horse,” to open the door to more widespread industrial farming with genetically modified crops. They believe that profits are more likely to be reaped by large international corporations, so that foreign companies will dominate local markets, with small family farms more likely to falter. They also propose that the genetically modified seeds will cross-breed and spread inadvertently, cross contaminating local fields of rice crops.

And of course, regional malnutrition can not be attributed to the deficit of a single nutrient or vitamin, but rather the lack of regular access to a varied and nutritious diet. There are of course, larger socioeconomic, political, and cultural issues at play, as well as local wars and climate issues. Greenpeace claims that Golden Rice is “environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health and could compromise food, nutrition and financial security.” In addition, UNICEF already has an effective and inexpensive oral Vitamin A supplementation program in place, which can reportedly, improve a child’s chance of survival by 12 to 24 percent.

In fact, Golden Rice was not developed for profit. In 2004, the company Syngenta renounced commercial interest in the product. It was announced that the rice would be given free to subsistence farmers, who can save seeds to replant from year to year.

Countering other issues raised by detractors, Ingo Potrykus, professor of plant sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and one of the early developers of Golden Rice, has written, “Emotions are the problem, not rational discourse.” Potrykus believes that opposition groups have waged a war of propaganda against scientific research. In his paper “Golden Rice and Beyond,” he addresses the arguments raised by Greenpeace and others, noting that, “It fulfills an urgent need by complementing traditional interventions. It presents a sustainable, cost-free solution, not requiring other resources…. Industry does not benefit from it. Those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged. It is given free of charge and restrictions to subsistence farmers.”

In their article “Allow Golden Rice to save lives, ” Wu et al argue: “Those who oppose transgenic or genetically modified organisms raised concerns that led policymakers to delay the approval of the technologies. One argument relates to biotechnology company profits. But because the Golden Rice technology to the public sector is available at no cost for humanitarian uses, this concern is irrelevant.” They conclude, “The tragedy of Golden Rice is that regulatory delays of approval have immense costs in terms of preventable deaths, with no apparent benefit.”

Even so, controversy continues, with proponents avidly advocating for each side. More research is needed to settle the environmental, economic and dietary consequences of widespread use of such modified crops. Production of Golden Rice will remain limited across the globe for the foreseeable future.

—

References:

“The true story of the genetically modified superfood that almost saved millions,” Foreign Policy, October 2019

“The Golden Rice Project” News updates on the Golden Rice project

“Golden Rice and Beyond,” Ingo Potrykus, Plant Physiology March 2001

“Genetically Modified Organisms: The Golden Rice Debate,” NYU Langone Health

“The Golden Rice Tale” by Ingo Potrykus, AgBioWorld

“Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content.” Nature Biotechnology April 2005.

“Why we Oppose Golden Rice” Earth Island Journal October 9, 2020

“In a grain of golden rice, a world of controversy over GMO foods.” NPR March 2013

“Allow Golden Rice to Save Lives,” F. Wu, J. Wesseler et al. PNAS December 2021

To supplement – or not to supplement?

Over half of adult Americans report regularly taking one or more dietary supplements (1). Usage increases among older adults, with those over 60 years of age more likely to consume vitamins. What do people generally take? The most commonly used are multivitamin-mineral supplements, followed by Vitamin D, Omega-3 fatty acids, and Vitamin C, as well as Calcium supplements (especially for older adults). A significant percentage of adults (13.8%) report taking four or more supplements.

Vitamins are big business; the revenue from vitamin and supplement manufacturing topped $36 billion in the United States alone for 2021, and the industry is growing at approximately 3% per year (2). Average spending on vitamin and mineral supplements totals around $15 per month for U.S. adults, even more if you include protein shakes and bars, as well as weight loss and herbal products.

However, it is widely debated if such supplements are actually necessary. Many doctors and medical sites make claims such as “if you stick to a healthy and balanced diet, you don’t need a daily multivitamin.” One Johns Hopkins scientist published an editorial, “Enough is enough: Stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements,” after reviewing the latest research. Indeed, several large randomized studies fail to show any overall benefit from taking multivitamin supplements. There were no statistical effects observed regarding mortality or incidence of chronic disease, such as cancer or heart disease (3).

There were no statistical effects observed regarding mortality or chronic disease.

In particular there was also no evidence that any such pills can effectively slow cognitive decline among older adults (4). The supplement with the most scientific basis is probably fish oil, which can promote heart health (5). Another exception is folic acid for pregnant women, as well as calcium and vitamin D supplements for those suffering from progressive bone loss due to osteoporosis.

Part of the powerful allure of vitamins has deep historic roots. In an era when nutritional deficiencies were more commonplace, vitamins certainly did prove useful in preventing diseases such as scurvy, beriberi, pellagra and rickets. One powerful influencer was Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, who famously pushed Vitamin C as a cure for the common cold and cancer, a finding later disputed by further research. “Although study after study showed that he was wrong, Pauling refused to believe it,” reports The Atlantic in The Vitamin Myth. In the U.S., supplements are not regarded as medicine; therefore, they do not need to be proven effective. The FDA only mandates that they are not harmful. However, supplements can’t claim to cure, treat or prevent specific diseases.

Supplements can’t claim to cure, treat or prevent specific diseases.

Within the industry and the media, there are often widespread, misleading (or overstated) claims about the health benefits of nutritional supplements. Perhaps the most overstated claims can be found in supplements promising weight loss and muscle building – as well as “immune support,” increased energy and renewed brain health. Consider also that the majority of supplements have not been tested, particularly on children or pregnant women.

Most people take vitamins out of fear that they are not getting essential nutrients from food, to increase their energy level – or out of a desire to age better. Many people simply believe they are better off “safe than sorry.” For a relatively small cost and little effort, they desire to buy some degree of health insurance. And, for the most part, vitamins don’t hurt – and some may help (even if in some cases due to the placebo effect). However, certain supplements do have side effects.

Certain supplements do have side effects.

Excess intake of fat-soluble vitamins, such as A, D, E or K can accumulate in the body, with the potential over time of liver damage, or bone loss. An over-abundance of vitamin C or zinc can be associated with nausea, diarrhea or stomach cramps (6). Furthermore, vitamin K can inhibit the ability of blood thinners to function effectively. Excess iron can damage the liver (7), while vitamin E supplements were found to increase the incidence of prostate cancer (8). Excess vitamins (C and E) can reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy. An extensive alphabetic listing of vitamin and herbal supplements and possible side effects can be found on the National Institutes of Health website.

Consider also that many widely consumed, processed foods such as fortified cereals, granola bars, bread products and yogurts are also enriched with vitamins. The contribution of these fortified foods should be considered when evaluating the nutrient intake of children and adolescents (9).

Nevertheless, there are a multitude of websites and books, with endless lists of suggested vitamins. For instance, the National Institute on Aging lists recommended supplements for older adults, including vitamins D, B6, B12, A, C, K, as well as calcium, magnesium, potassium, and folate, listing appropriate foods that contain these vitamins as well. And yet, they note, “As with vitamins, if you eat a varied diet, you will probably get enough of most minerals.”

“As with vitamins, if you eat a varied diet, you will probably get enough of most minerals.”

What about Gummies?

Particularly among young adults and children, gummy vitamins have become wildly popular. Gummies are vividly-colored, chewable vitamins that often have a fruity flavor. They are generally made of gelatin, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, coconut or palm oils, along with beeswax or carnauba wax – and artificial colorings and flavors. Carnauba wax, which comes from canauba palm trees, is used to give products a shiny, waterproof quality (it coats M&Ms as well as Skittles). There are now plant-based alternatives to gelatin, such as pectin and carrageenan (10). The convenience of gummies tends to encourage vitamin use among people who wouldn’t otherwise take vitamins, or those with difficulty swallowing pills. Some people object to the chalky taste of chewable vitamins.

The convenience of gummies tends to encourage vitamin use.

The downsides of gummies: they contain added sugars or sugar alcohols; their flavor is due to addition of sucrose, erythritol, mannitol and other artificial sweeteners (11). Some gummies now claim to be sugar free, but they have typically replaced added sweeteners with citric acid (which can act to erode tooth enamel). Pantothenic Acid, also known as vitamin B5 can have side effects, such as muscle or joint pain, nausea, abdominal pain or constipation.

Let’s take a look at one popular gummy vitamin: MultiVites from Vitafusion. A serving size consists of 2 gummies, which contain 3 grams of sugar. While this is not a lot of sugar, it is one more contributor to overall sugar intake, especially when given to children, accompanied by sugary cereal and juice.

Nutrition facts for MultiVites gummies

Since gummies are specifically designed to be appealing in color and taste, there is the potential for over-consumption, particularly among children who may view them as chewable candy. There are also added manufacturing challenges for gummies; tests by ConsumerLab indicate that some gummies fail to contain the listed quantities of vitamins and minerals – and some contain impurities as well (12). Since the ingredients are more likely to degrade in a gelatinous base, the manufacturers tend to add in more than the listed amount (12). According to a 2017 analysis, four out of five gummies contained more or less than their listed quantities. In fact, gummies were the “most likely kind of supplement to fail testing.” (13). There have been isolated incidences of overdoses of vitamin A from children consuming gummies (14).

Parents of children who are picky eaters are most likely to be concerned that their kids are not getting sufficient nutrition. Even so, chewable vitamins are probably a better choice for children, because they tend to have a more consistent vitamin content (15), fewer fillers such as sugar, corn syrup or gelatin, and they are less likely to pose a danger of overconsumption. Most importantly, children should not come to associate vitamins as treats.

In any case, a well-balanced diet – though challenging to achieve – is far more important than ensuring that children – and adults – consume daily vitamins.

Resources/further reading:

(1) CDC Dietary Supplement use  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db399.htm 

(2) IBIS World Industry Statistics https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/vitamin-supplement-manufacturing-united-states/

(3) Vitamin and Mineral Supplements: Do we really need them? US National Institutes of Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309636/

(4) Is there really any benefit to Multivitamins? Johns Hopkins Medicine https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/is-there-really-any-benefit-to-multivitamins

(5) Should  you take Dietary Supplements, NIH News in Health https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2013/08/should-you-take-dietary-supplements

(6) Getting too much of vitamins and minerals, WebMD https://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/effects-of-taking-too-many-vitamins#1

(7) Dietary Supplements: What you need to know, National Institutes of Health https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/list-all/

(8) Should you take dietary supplements?  https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2013/08/should-you-take-dietary-supplements

(9) Fortified foods are major contributors to nutrient intakes in diets of U.S. children and adolescents, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267213016092?np=y%20

(10) Manufacturing innovations drive gummy supplement production https://supplements101.net/manufacturing-innovations-improve-gummy-supplement-production/

(11) What to know about gummy vitamins. Web MD https://supplements101.net/manufacturing-innovations-improve-gummy-supplement-production/

(12) Is there cause for concern with “gummy vitamins?”  ConsumerLab.com https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/is-there-a-cause-for-concern-with-gummy-vitamins/gummy-vitamin-concern/

(13) Do gummy vitamins work? Here’s what experts say, Time Magazine https://time.com/5549874/do-gummy-vitamins-work/

(14) Risk of vitamin A toxicity from candy-like chewable vitamin supplements for children National Library of Medicine https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16882846/

(15) Chewable vs Gummy vitamins: which is better for you? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1688284

Beyond imperfect produce: a gallery of oddly warped and deformed carrots

Perhaps you are accustomed to buying perfect, uniformly-shaped carrots in a modern supermarket. However, home gardeners often pull up carrots that are not just imperfect, but absolutely deformed. They may appear twisted, warped, almost mutated, with knots, multiple roots, branched roots – and what may look like tentacles or arms. Some appear alien enough to scream when they are pulled from the ground!

My personal favorite, looks like it just marched out of the ground:

Why do carrots grow this way? The most common reason is that the carrots are growing in overly compacted, clay-rich soil. Such dense, heavy soil tends to divert the roots from growing straight down. Tiny pebbles or soil clumps may also present physical obstructions for the roots to grow around. The simple solution is to highly amend your soil with compost and till the soil before planting. Sifting the soil can help eliminate clods. Also, avoid walking on the garden beds, as this will compress the soil. Carrots need light, aerated soil to grow well. It may be advisable to grow the carrots in raised garden beds, if the soil is particularly bad (as ours is!).

For proper growth, mild temperatures are preferable (between 60 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit). In addition, soil pH should ideally be between 6 and 7 (slightly acidic to neutral) to maximize growth.

An excess of nitrogen in the soil has also been correlated with excessive branching of carrot roots. Too much nitrogen may lead to lush green growth above and stubby carrots below. You may need to adjust the fertilizer used on your garden plants. Another common problem: cracked carrots may result from insufficient – or irregular watering. This may happen if the soil dries out, and a heavy rain occurs. Waterlogged soil is not good for the carrots either.

Overly dense planting of seeds or seedling transfers can also result in warped carrots, if they are competing for space, water or nutrients. Plantings need to be thinned if too many are growing closely together. Plus, old growths should be removed each year.

An additional cause of branching carrots is the presence of root-knot nematodes, microscopic parasitic worms which can stunt plant growth or cause knots or bumps or hairy galls on the carrot roots. Rather than treating these with toxic chemicals, a gardener can take care of such pests by adding beneficial nematodes. One further possibility is phytoplasma aster, a bacterial disease that is often spread by leafhopper insects. This often leads to yellowing of the carrots. There is no real cure for this type of infestation, so it is advisable to control leafhopper insects instead.

Not to worry. These misshapen carrots are still edible. Where do you think that baby carrots come from? Chop them up and use them in salads, casseroles and stews.

All of these carrots grew in our garden in Southern California. Yet… these deformities don’t just happen in carrots. Witness a potato grown in our garden as well:

In the end… nature isn’t perfect, but we can still enjoy the bounty of our gardens.

Unless… the aliens actually have arrived and are sprouting in our gardens…

Processed foods: the good, the bad and the not so good

Nearly seventy years ago, Swanson and Sons over-estimated the amount of turkey they would need for the upcoming Thanksgiving holidays, resulting in an excess amounting to 260 tons of frozen birds (1) sitting in refrigerated railroad cars and a quandary about what to do with it. According to the apocryphal story, when a Swanson company executive on a Pan Am flight was served dinner on a metal tray, he had an epiphany about how to distribute their turkey over-supply. Left-over frozen turkey was combined with peas, a dab of mashed potatoes and gravy, served on partitioned disposable aluminum trays, and marketed to American consumers. “Just heat and serve!”

Thus was born the classic TV dinner of the 1950s (2). Sales reached ten million in the first year alone. TV dinners may not have been the healthiest addition to the American dinner table, but they did help reduce meal preparation time for women who were increasingly seeking jobs outside their home.

In our busy lives, many of us continue to look for convenience in food preparation, turning to pre-prepared, ready-made, packaged or processed foods. Of course, the array of choices in frozen foods has vastly expanded since the early days of bland TV dinners. Indeed some options are relatively healthy, and quite a few are vegetarian, even vegan, such as the Healthy Choice Vegan Curry Bowls, and many do offer substantial protein and fiber.

Certainly, nutritionists widely advise to cut back on processed foods in our diets. Such foods (along with fast foods) have most likely played a significant role in the rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes over the last few decades. Indeed, dietary factors appear to make the largest contribution to cardiovascular disease mortality (3). Research indicates that over-consumption of ultra-processed foods in childhood may be linked to weight gain in adulthood. And yet, for most of us, avoiding processed foods is challenging – or simply impossible.

The term processed foods includes a huge range of foods – and not all are unhealthy. Processed foods include anything that has been canned, cooked, frozen, dehydrated, pasteurized, fermented, dried, milled, fortified with vitamins, or combined with preservatives, colors or added flavor enhancers. Certainly canning, bottling and freezing many foods is essential to extending the shelf life of food and allows a wider range of foods to be transported without spoilage or bacterial growth. Pasteurization of milk and cheese has vastly reduced incidences of food poisoning. Breads and breakfast cereals may be fortified with vitamins and added fiber, while milk may have added vitamin D and calcium.  In addition, minimally processed foods, such as canned beans, bagged spinach or packaged tofu have been packaged for convenience, without substantial alterations in nutritional content.

Indeed processing has been critical to making food safer and more widely available to an expanding population around the globe. The fact is that most of us do not live near agricultural areas – or have ready access to farmer’s markets.

However, many of the manufacturing procedures of the food industry do substantially alter the nutritional and vitamin content of the food. In addition, processing frequently involves the addition of ingredients such as preservatives, laboratory-created flavors, artificial colors, and emulsifiers, as well as unhealthy quantities of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, salt as well as fats, particularly trans fats. They are typically low in fiber, and provide an abundance of highly refined carbohydrates. Some researchers have further classified foods as “ultra-processed” if they have incorporate flavor-enhancing additives, dyes or stabilizers, in addition to added sugar, salt or oils.

Consumption of ultra-processed foods, such as hot dogs, pizza, chips, candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, starchy breakfast cereals, sweetened yogurt, canned soups, and frozen dinners (think chicken nuggets), has increased worldwide, and now make up 25 to 60% of food worldwide. Most of these foods are highly deficient in dietary fiber and vitamins.  As much as 90% of the sugar in the diet of Americans comes from processed or ultra-processed foods. These processed foods are associated with a higher glycemic response. Trans fats can contribute to high cholesterol levels and inflammation. Such foods may also contribute to digestive problems, such as  irritable bowel syndrome. There are some indications that even prenatal exposure to processed food may “impact a child’s subsequent risk of developing obesity, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia.” Clinical trials suggest that people who regularly consume a diet rich in ultra-processed foods tend to eat an average of 500 extra calories a day – and gain more weight.

In addition, industrially processed vegetable oils – such as canola oil, soybean oil or corn oil – are typically high in omega-6 fatty acids, which are linked to increased incidence of cancer. Instead, you want to select oils high in the healthier omega-3 acids. Similarly, margarine is a processed food engineered through hydrogenation to mimic butter. This processing increases the trans fat content. Be careful that such products can be labeled as free of trans fats, as long as a single serving contains less than 0.5 grams of trans fats.

And the food selections specifically marketed to children are often particularly unhealthy. For a mid-day meal, selections such as Smucker’s “Uncrustables” offers a frozen, pre-made, individually packaged peanut butter and grape jelly sandwich, which is richer in sugar than fiber. Their advertising urges: “Snack anywhere, anytime with a grab-and-go Uncrustables sandwich.” When teaching, I often saw students pull out a package of “Lunchables” which is an easy convenience food for a busy parent to toss in the school lunchbox. Yet, it consists of nothing but salty crackers, processed meat and processed cheese.

However, rather than a fresh apple, orange or banana in the lunch box, there may also be a side of “Fruit Snacks”, which basically consist of fruit puree, combined with corn syrup, corn starch, gelatin, artificial colors and flavors, along with carnauba wax. Of course, an occasional snack is one thing, but consumption of such foods on a regular basis may train the taste buds of children to find healthier, more fiber-rich options less appealing.

For dinner, frozen fish sticks and breaded chicken nuggets are marketed as more appetizing to the taste buds of a picky child. Consider the frozen dinner, All Star Chicken Nuggets from Kid Cuisine, which consists of chicken nuggets, macaroni & cheese, combined with corn and a fudge brownie, packaged in kid-friendly colors, displaying a cartoon character. It contains 16 grams of fat (including 4 grams of saturated fat), 25% of the daily recommended allotment of sodium, and 17 grams of sugar. Another selection from Kid Cuisine is advertised as “All American Chicken Nuggets,” also combined with mac & cheese. Notice the consistent absence of any green vegetables. And – corn does not count as a vegetable (4). Unfortunately, these selections are all too similar to the offerings in many American elementary school lunches. It seems probable that a child raised on these salty, sugary, processed foods has a greater likelihood of selecting such (fast) foods as an adult.

For a more detailed analysis of the impact of processed foods on our diet, read Best Before: the Evolution and Future of Processed Food, by Nicola Temple, which also looks toward the future of lab-grown meat and 3D printed food.

It’s a matter of making common sense choices and checking the ingredient list. In particular check the grams of added sugar, as well as high fructose corn syrup. Sugar may also be listed as honey, agave, dextrose, fructose, malt syrup, coconut sugar, or molasses. In addition, look for refined carbohydrates and trans fats. Ultra-processed foods are generally low in fiber and often have unhealthy fats.

Most selections are common sense:

-Yogurts: try to choose one with little added sugar. Be careful when selecting low-fat yogurt, as the fat has often been replaced with added sugar.

-Breakfast cereals: choose one with whole grains and little added sugar. Do we really need artificial colors, such as the vividly dyed Fruit Loops?

-Bread: choose one with whole grain as the first ingredient and little added sugar.

-Crackers: choose ones made from whole grain.

-Peanut butter: choose one that doesn’t have added oils or added sugar.

-Orange juice: choose one with little added sugar. Why choose pulp-free when the pulp adds fiber to your diet?

-Pizza: one slice can give you your daily suggested allotment of salt. They are typically made with refined flour and processed cheese and meats, with few vegetables.

-Canned soups: check the salt content.

In general, some processed foods to limit or eliminate altogether include microwavable popcorn, fruit snacks, instant ramen noodles, granola bars, flavored nuts, and processed meats (5).

As a consumer, you have an over-abundance of choices, however many of the processed options have been specifically engineered to appeal to our taste buds and our natural desire for foods rich in sugar, salt and fat. All of which our cavemen ancestors specifically craved due to their rarity. Some of these junk foods appear to hijack the pleasure centers of our brain (6).

Of course, it takes time and effort to do due diligence on the nutritional content. But it is certainly worth the effort, as the food industry is doing their utmost to sway your choices.

Resources:

1. How 260 Tons of Thanksgiving Leftovers Gave Birth to an Industry, Smithsonian Magazine
2. Too Many Thanksgiving Turkeys One Year Gave Birth to the Classic TV Dinner,  Tijana Radeska. Vintage News. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/22/tv-dinners/

3. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1451

4. Is corn a fruit, a vegetable or a grain? Popular Science https://www.popsci.com/is-corn-fruit-vegetable-or-grain/

5. Why Processed meat is bad for you. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-processed-meat-is-bad

6. Neurobiology of food addiction. https://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2010/07000/Neurobiology_of_food_addiction.3.aspx

7) Ultraprocessed foods make make you eat more, clinical trial suggests https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/ultraprocessed-foods-may-make-you-eat-more-clinical-trial-suggests

Why not insects?

The Eco-Friendly Food of the Future?

I remember visiting a nature festival at our local botanical garden when my children were of elementary age. One booth offered a chance to sample mealworms – sautéed, I believe, in olive oil and garlic. One of my kids gave them a try and swallowed… without too much of a grimace.

And why not? Entomophagy (the eating of insects) was certainly widely practiced among our ancestors, extending back to prehistoric times. By some estimates insects may have made up as much as ten percent of the diet for many early peoples, particularly in times of shortages or drought. Indeed, pictographs and cave paintings depict the collection of insects, while the Bible refers to food consisting of “locusts and wild honey.” (Matthew 3:4). Leviticus 11:22 says that “of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.” First century Roman scholar Pliny wrote of nobles eating beetle larvae. Among the indigenous people of North America, beetles have long been roasted over campfires and eaten like popcorn. Grubs are widely eaten by Aboriginal tribes of Australia.

Indeed, with the coming emergence of swarms of Brood X cicadas across the eastern and southern parts of the United States, some are asking if the insects are edible. Recipes online claim that that cicadas can be stir-fried, marinated or roasted; their taste has been described as somewhat “nutty or similar to that of chicken,” with an added crunch. And apparently young cicadas (nymphs) taste better than full-grown adults. See Cicada-Licious, an online cookbook by Jenna Jadin of recipes for preparing cicadas for your table. Cicada-Rhubarb Pie? But… don’t be too quick to add these to your list of recurring meals; the next batch of cicadas won’t arrive for another seventeen years.

Nearly two thousand insect species are consumed worldwide (1), largely in tropical countries (where insects tend to achieve larger sizes and grow year-round). They have long been considered a ready source of protein. Beetles and caterpillars are among the more commonly eaten insects, particularly in Africa and South America, though ants, termites, crickets, grasshoppers, cicadas and locusts are also consumed. The leafcutter ant is consumed in regions of Columbia and Brazil. Larvae of the palm weevil are consumed in Asia and Latin America, and even stink bugs are eaten in some Asian and African countries. Deep-fried grasshoppers are found in street markets of Thailand. Wasp larvae are considered a delicacy in parts of Japan. Many of these insects are gathered from the wild, while others are farmed or grown in controlled environments.

As the global population heads toward nine or ten billion by 2050 – with populations becoming increasingly urban – additional food and protein sources will be essential to avoid severe food shortages worldwide. Climate change will undoubtedly present challenges for agricultural sustainability and force population shifts, as well. Raising insects requires substantially less capital investment and land than livestock, and may prove more accessible to smaller family-owned farms in developing countries. And insects reach maturity in a matter of days, rather than months or years for livestock.  Thousands of offspring result in rapid and reliable population growth. These topics are introduced in the BBC video: Why insects are the missing link in our food system:

Insects are environmentally friendly, a highly sustainable food source, with minimal impact on land and water use, as well as causing little air pollution (No cow farts!). Livestock are responsible for as much as 14% of methane and greenhouse gas production worldwide (2), as well as being major contributors to water pollution, soil erosion and deforestation.  In contrast, crickets require only 2 kg of feed for every kilogram of body weight (3), less than one-tenth of the amount needed for cattle. In addition, insects are much less likely to be vectors of transmission of disease to humans, certainly of special concern after the Covid pandemic of 2020.

Consider that nearly 30% of agricultural crop production goes to feed livestock. Insects may prove useful as animal feed for aquaculture and livestock, an alternative to widely added soymeal or fishmeal One U. S. startup, Beta Hatch converts mealworms into protein-rich food for animals such as poultry, swine and farmed fish. They also recycle frass (insect droppings) as rich fertilizer for agriculture. Jiminy’s offers dog food that combines powdered cricket protein with plant-based ingredients.

Insects can be considered a superfood; they are high in protein and healthier unsaturated fatty acids. They are high in fiber, B-vitamins, carotenoids and minerals, such as zinc and iron.  For instance, crickets offer a complete protein source, with all essential amino acids, with 205 grams of protein per kg (4).

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued a two hundred page booklet, Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.

While there is widespread distaste – or even cultural taboo – among many western cultures, we should remember that we do consume honey and beeswax, while carmine (a red dye produced by insects) has long been used as food coloring. Certainly, the agave worm (a larvae) can be found in Mexican tequila. Like it or not, you’ve most certainly already eaten insects. The FDA lists allowable levels of insects in processed foods (5). For instance, peanut butter is allowed to contain an average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams of product, while canned or frozen spinach can contain an average of 50 or more aphids or mites per 100 grams of product.

However, few people are looking to ingest larvae or grubs for a tasty treat. Rather, insects are generally cooked and then ground into powders to be used in processed food. Ground crickets are now available in protein bars, such as those from Exo Protein, where the crickets are flash frozen, roasted and milled into a powder, which they call “The closest thing to a perfect protein source this planet has ever seen.”  Paleo-friendly as well! Or you could try “Planet-Friendly” Dark Chocolate Crickets or you could bake with cricket-infused flour, as in the Chocolate Chip Cricket Cookie Mix, available on Amazon.  Possibly even try a bug burger!

Two avid proponents helping to envision a sustainable future of edible insects include Bugible, a blog which offers updates on “the wonderful world of eating bugs” and Brooklyn Bugs: “We are edible insect ambassadors.”

And there are financial incentives: A 2020 report by Barclays estimates that the edible insect industry could be worth as much as $8 billion by 2030, noting that relatively high prices remains one of the biggest obstacles. Insects remain a niche market, particularly among those seeding paleo and ketogenic diets. Barclays notes that markets “could soon be swarming with small brands disrupting the landscape and acting as catalysts for change within the food industry (9).

And since insects can be raised in small spaces, with little water and minimal waste, they may prove essential to space exploration and planetary colonization. Insects may prove an important resource to efficiently feed our astronauts as they venture out into the great beyond.

Taking our insects with them…

—

Resources:

(1) Edible insects contributing to food security? Agriculture and Food Security

(2) A neglected protein-rich ‘superfood’ BBC.com 

(3) Edible Insects: Future prospects for food and feed security

(4) A history of eating bugs the clever root.com

(5) FDA Food Defect Levels Handbook

(6) BBC Video: Why insects are the missing link in our food system

(7) Usefulness of the insect food in the long-term space stay.

(8) How entrepreneurs are persuading Americans to eat bug protein

(9) Insect protein: Bitten by the bug

(10) Insect food in space, R. Kok, A. van Huis, Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, Jan. 11, 2021

Synthetic Grass: a solution to brown lawns – or a health concern?

Recurring drought in California has led to parched fields, brown lawns, and drying reservoirs, with no end in sight. Severe water restrictions are in effect, with mandatory cuts of 25% in many areas.

Homeowners are restricted to watering two to three times a week, threatened with steep fines for over-watering. The California legislature called for the removal of 50 million square feet of lawn across the state. Lawns are particularly thirsty, accounting for over a third of urban water use. Each square foot of live grass can guzzle 55 gallons of water a year. With the incentive of generous rebates ($2 to $3.75 per square foot) for ripping out those lush green lawns, many homeowners are replacing turf with drought-friendly or native plants or cacti; others layer mulch, bark, pebbles or gravel. But of course cactus and gravel don’t make a friendly surface for children’s play or games of soccer.

Increasingly homeowners are choosing artificial turf — though it is banned in some areas, such as Pasadena and Glendale. Business is booming for turf companies, who say their product is much improved over the stiff AstroTurf of old — developed by Monsanto in the 1960s and most famously installed in Houston’s Astrodome.

Newer products are softer and more grasslike. Synthetic turf is marketed as a water-saving, weed-free alternative, safe for pets and children’s play areas, as well as for year-round, all-weather sports fields and putting greens. But it’s not cheap. The average cost per square foot can run $7 to $10, fully installed. It requires a drainage layer and multi-layer backing system, with a granular infill. Replacing a basic 15′ by 20′ area (300 square foot yard) could run $2100 to $3000.

Typically the turf is made of plastic polymers consisting of polyethylene fibers. Some such as SYNLawn  are more environmentally friendly than traditional petroleum-based polymers, using biobased polymers from soybean oil, with added ‘Celceram’ (a recycled product from coal) to add strength and durability. The infill for artificial turf consists of sand or more typically tiny black granules — pebbles of Crumb Rubber from pulverized recycled car and truck tires — which gives it more bounce, particularly for use on athletic fields. New crumb rubber must be periodically added. There are organic alternatives for infill, such as coconut fiber and cork.

Environmental and Health Concerns

Synthetic turf is not without controversy. Certainly the faux turf does require less water and maintenance, with decreased use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and no need for gas-powered, carbon-emitting lawn mowers. Plus grass clippings are one of the largest components of municipal solid waste. Yet plastic in the fake grass (frass to some) will decompose over time, leaching chemicals into soil and storm water. Tests of the leachate water from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection found levels of zinc, manganese, and chromium harmful to aquatic organisms. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservatism conducted a study of leached chemicals from crumb rubber found zinc, aniline and phenol released above groundwater standards. Whereas natural grass filters rainwater, synthetic turf may lead to excessive water runoff during heavy rainfall. In addition, artificial turf does not support natural biodiversity; it forms an ecological dead zone. Nothing eats it or lives on it.

The artificial turf may heat up the yard as much as 80 degrees (F) hotter than natural grass, leading to unpleasant rubber odors, and the potential for heat-related illness. The fields can become so hot that they need to be watered to cool them to acceptable levels.

Artificial turf has an expected lifespan of 8 to 20 years. Where will the carpet-like sheets go afterward, but to disposal at the local landfill? One football field may contain 120 tons of crumb rubber pellets. Some fear that we are creating a future solid waste problem. The turf companies currently making money off sales will most likely be out of the picture by the time this becomes a significant issue.

Is it safe? The Synthetic Turf Council consistently maintains that the surfaces are safe, but the EPA and Consumer Product Safety Commission have undertaken only “limited” studies, and have said that more testing needs to be undertaken. The crumb rubber used for infill contains heavy metals and chemicals such as benzene, benzothiazole, chromium, cadmium, mercury, lead, halogenated flame retardants, carbon black, and polycyclic aromatic compounds, among others listed by the EPA. This particulate matter may be absorbed through direct skin contact, ingestion or inhalation. Gases and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted and may be inhaled as the material heats up in the sun. Benzothiazole (BZT) is one of the compounds that easily volatizes from rubber; it “exerts acute toxicity and is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer.” In particular, rubber dust gets on athlete’s or children’s hands, where it can be ingested. According to USA Today, several studies have found “potentially harmful lead levels in turf fibers and in rubber crumbs,” exceeding the federal hazard levels of 400 ppm for lead in soil (which is already significantly higher than California’s standard for lead in soil, 80 ppm.

Consider that artificial turf is used in thousands of sports fields across the country, from professional football stadiums to high school arenas as well as elementary and preschool playgrounds. There are particular concerns for athletes who spend significant time in close contact with artificial turf. There are some indications of allergic responses. How is the turf sanitized of bodily fluids (saliva, blood, sweat, vomit or urine), as well as animal droppings from birds or dogs? Some manufacturers use antimicrobial chemicals bound to the plastic polymer, but these silver-based compounds break down as well. Artificial turf can cause abrasive wounds and scrapes for athletes impacting the surface. In addition, the black beads (turf bugs) get in the clothes, hair, skin, nose and mouth of athletes playing on the surfaces. They are tracked home after becoming embedded in clothes, shoes and socks.

There are individual cases of athletes, particularly goalkeepers, with cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma and thyroid issues, but no systematic statistical correlation between artificial turf and cancer. In her Science News article, Science may get sidelined in artificial turf debate, Beth Mole notes that, “a closer look at the data may ease many fears; they show that artificial turf is generally safe.” And yet there are well documented health risks to tire fabrication workers exposed to chemicals and dust from rubber. The Penn State Center for Sports Surface Research has collected links to a number of scientific studies on the human health issues of synthetic turf “A natural experiment is being conduced in which thousands of children are being exposed on playing fields to rubber, said David Brown, former chief of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health at Connecticut’s Department of Health.

New Jersey’s fact sheet, Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards, summarizes health concerns and states that, “Issues of toxicity, movement, heat, cost, friction, sanitation, lifespan, maintenance, warranty, disposal costs, odor, loss of habitat, combustibility, should be thoroughly addressed before any decision to purchase is made.” New York City and the Los Angeles Unified School District stopped installing crumb rubber fields in parks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that comprehensive conclusions on health could not be reached without additional data.

Artificial turf is marketed as safe for pets. If there are concerns for humans, what about pets, who may spend much of their life walking and lying on a synthetic back yard? When they lick their paws, they certainly consume traces of rubber and plastic. And they track particles into the house as well. On a sizzling summer day, the turf may become uncomfortably hot for dogs to walk on as well.

What to do when the data is unclear? The New Jersey Environmental Council data sheet concludes, “When it comes to synthetic turf, the most sensible approach may be to follow the precautionary principle of assuming something involving chemicals is hazardous until scientific evidence proves that it is not.” That may be an over-reach, however, in cases that involve the well-being of children, it is better to err on the side of safety. Nevertheless, it is clear that more data and scientific testing are needed to fully understand potential health and environmental impacts of synthetic turf. However, basic precautions involve limiting play time on hot days, removing rubber pellets from clothing, and washing hands thoroughly after contact with synthetic turf surfaces.

Further reading:

The Use of Recycled Tire Materials on Playgrounds and Artificial Turf Fields, EPA report.

A Scoping Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds, 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards, New Jersey Work Environmental Council Fact Sheet.

Synthetic Turf: Health and Environmental Impacts, Penn State Center for Sports Surface Research.

Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root, by Luz Claudio, Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2008.

Benzothiazole Toxicity Assessment in Support of Synthetic Turf Field Human Health Risk Assessment, Journal of Toxicity and Environmental Health, Gary Ginsberg, Brian Toal and Tara Kurland, July, 28, 2011.

Frequently asked questions, answered by the Synthetic Turf Council.

Science may get sidelined in artificial turf debate, by Beth Mole, Science News, April 21, 2015.

How safe is the Artificial Turf your child plays on? NBC News Oct. 8, 2014

Feds promote artificial turf as safe despite health concerns, USA Today, March 16, 2015.

Examining Artificial Turf’s Environmental Issues, by Carol Van Dam Falk, The Connection, January 2013

Artificial Turf: Exposures to Ground Up Rubber Tires – Athletic Fields, Playgrounds, Garden Mulch, Environment and Human Health

Toxic Turf: Movement grows against synthetic turf by Jennifer McKim and Christina Jedra. Huffington Post, May 9, 2015

Triclosan in your personal care products

Increased public fear of harmful germs has led to widespread use of consumer products advertised as “antibacterial.” One of  the most common antibacterial compounds is Triclosan — added to soaps, hand washes, and even toys and toothpaste, to slow the growth of bacteria, fungi, and mildew.

Triclosan is a synthetic organic chemical, specifically a chlorinated aromatic compound, 5-Chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorphenoxy)phenol. Triclosan was originally developed for hospital use, as a bactericidal surgical scrub for medical professionals. It was registered as a pesticide back in 1969. A similar compound, Triclocarban, is also used as an antimicrobial agent, particularly in bar soaps.

For the last thirty years, triclosan has been widely added to personal care products such as deodorant, antibacterial soap, hand soap, body wash, facial cleanser, toothpaste, mouthwash, acne cream, shaving gel, skin lotion, and some cosmetics, including foundation, bronzer and lipstick.  Triclosan is also added to home care products as diverse as cutting boards, mops, air filters, carpets and blankets. It is embedded in fabric, used in items of clothing such as socks and shoes. It is also added to plastic, where it can be found in toothbrushes, computer mouse pads, and even toys.

For example, Dial Gold Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap, shown to the left, lists Triclosan as the active ingredient — in order to achieve “the gold standard for antibacterial protection.” Note that other hand sanitizers do not contain triclosan, rather listing alcohol as the active ingredient.

For a more extensive list of individual products, see Products that Contain Triclosan. Read the labels of the products you purchase; triclosan should be listed as an active ingredient.

Controversy over Health Effects

Is Triclosan harmful? The health effects of triclosan are in dispute, but there’s little doubt that you have been exposed to triclosan in everyday products. In a 2004 study, CDC scientists detected triclosan in the urine of 75 % of of the 2,500 individuals tested. Other tests have found triclosan in blood and breast milk. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that, “Triclosan is not known to be hazardous to humans.” But there are concerns that triclsan may be a endocrine disruptor — affecting hormonal levels of testosterone and estrogen, and it is suspected that it may affect thyroid function. Human studies are difficult; most of these studies have been undertaken on laboratory animals. For rats, long-term exposure to triclosan resulted in a decrease in thyroid hormones.

Researchers found that exposure to triclosan resulted in tadpoles with lower body weight and deformed limbs. In addition, triclosan may contribute to the antibody-resistant bacteria. It may also be associated with a weakening of the immune system, and may be linked to cancer cell growth, and decreased fertility. See the EPA Risk Assessment data sheet and Triclosan: What the Research Shows.

Residues of triclosan have been found in indoor dust samples. The compound is also washed down household drains to enter our sewage systems and waterways — where it can be spread throughout the environment, and enter the food chain. Triclosan has been shown to be toxic to phytoplankton and shrimp. Sediment samples from freshwater lakes across Minnesota tested positive for triclosan, as well as toxic chlorinated triclosan compounds — formed when triclosan undergoes a chemical reaction in wastewater treatment plants. Canada has declared triclosan toxic to the environment.

Due to increasing public pressure, some manufacturers are voluntarily eliminating triclosan from their products.  Companies such as Johnson and Johnson  and Proctor and Gamble have committed to reformulating their products to phase out triclosan. Minnesota issued a ban on personal care products containing triclosan.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has long been involved in efforts to remove triclosan from the marketplace; in 2010 the NRDC sued the FDA to force it to take action. In fact the FDA originally proposed removing triclosan from certain consumer products back in 1978. Note that the chemical’s use in food and cosmetics is regulated by the FDA, while the EPA oversees its use in fabrics and sealants. The European Union banned the chemical from food and all products that come into contact with food.

Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is revisiting the issue of triclosan’s safety, and under a new rule released in December 2013 the FDA will require manufacturers to provide evidence that the compounds triclosan and triclocarban are effective and not harmful to consumers.

A look at one product

Let’s zero in on one particular product: Colgate Total toothpaste contains 0.3% triclosan, which the company claims is helpful in fighting germs that can lead to plaque and gingivitis. Colgate’s international website advertises that its unique formula uses a copolymer to bind triclosan to the dental surface: “The Gantez copolymer enables Triclosan to continue working in the mouth for up to 12 hours. Without the copolymer, Triclosan would be rapidly lost form teeth and gums, reducing its clinical effect.” The Colgate-Palmolive Co stands by its product: “The safety of Colgate Total has been reviewed by the U.S. FDA and regulatory agencies in Europe, Canada and Australia, all of which have approved triclosan as a safe ingredient in Colgate Total.”

Most other toothpastes, such as Crest and Aqufresh are free of triclosan.

Colgate cited 80 clinical studies involving thousands of people, and at one time called Total “the most significant advancement in home dental care since the introduction of fluoride.” Triclosan was approved for use in Colgate Total back in 1997. Its 35 page application listed toxicology reports, only recently released by the FDA.  And yet, the FDA’s approval relied largely on company-funded research to demonstrate that the compound was safe for human use. Even so, the application showed images of fetal bone malformations in laboratory animals.

See a timeline of this regulatory process and the article — Colgate Total Ingredient Linked to Hormones, Cancer Spotlights FDA Process — from Bloomberg News.

What can you do? 

Read ingredient lists, and try to purchase products that don’t contain triclosan or triclocarban. Avoid antimicrobial and antibacterial products, wherever possible.  Note that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finds no evidence that antibacterial washes help stop the spread of germs, as compared to washing with soap and warm water. But note that you need to wash and scrub your hands for 24 seconds to reliably remove microbes from the surface.

Follow-up:

EPA Triclosan Facts

Triclosan: What the Research Shows

Why is soy lecithin in your processed foods?

Soy lecithin is a nearly ubiquitous food additive, found in a great many processed foods and personal care products on the market today. A few commonly-used examples include cooking spray oil, salad dressings, mayonnaise, margarine, ice cream, bread, tortillas, cookies, soups, chocolate, candy, chewing gum, protein and granola bars, tea bags, cough drops, skin lotion, lip balms, cosmetics, and medicines, as well as paints, textiles, lubricants, waxes and animal feed.

Even if food products don’t specifically list soy lecithin, they may be marked “Contains soy.”

Chemically, soy lecithin is an emulsifier, meaning that it takes polar and non-polar ingredients that would not normally mix (such as oil and water), and helps them to homogenize and remain mixed. This is due to the fact that the lecithin molecule has both hydrophilic (water-loving) and hydrophobic parts. Soy lecithin is particularly useful in stabilizing oily mixtures such as salad dressings and mayonnaise. It serves the same purpose in candy bars to keep the fatty cocoa butter mixed with the cocoa and dairy – to enable a smooth, velvety mouth feel. It also helps prevent the crystallization of sugar in chocolates.

Soy lecithin also functions as a surfactant to reduce the surface tension of water. For this reason it is added to foods to allow substances to mix more smoothly in water without clumping. In baking, soy lecithin is used as a conditioner to make the dough easier to work with. Similarly, it is found in some tea products – to prevent the ground tea from clumping. It functions as a thickener in soups.

Soy lecithin has lubricant properties, and is used as a moisturizer in lip balms, cosmetics, lotions, and many other personal care products on the market.

Soy lecithin is rich in the essential nutrient choline, and used as a dietary supplement to support liver function, neurotransmission, cardiovascular health, muscle development and healthy metabolism. There is some research indicating that soy lecithin helps lower cholesterol levels. 

In modern innovative cooking techniques such as molecular gastronomy, soy lecithin has found new uses — to make light, airy foams and mousses out of nearly any water-based liquid – such as coffee. Here it acts as a stabilizer to make the foam last longer. See: How to make a soy lecithin foam using an inversion blender. 

What exactly is lecithin? The molecular formula of lecithin is C₃₅H₆₆NO₇P. Lecithin, found in the cells of living organisms, was first discovered by the French chemist Maurice Gobley in 1850; it is an oily substance, a mixture of phospholipids and oil. Chemically, a phospholipid has two hydrophobic fatty acid chains and a hydrophilic end consisting of a phosphate group — linked by a glycerol molecule.

Lecithin can be derived from soybean oil or egg yolks; it is also present in peanuts, wheat germ and canola oil. Soy lecithin is most widely used because it is inexpensive, a byproduct of soybean oil production (soybean prices are kept low, partly due to federal price supports).

Are there valid concerns about soy lecithin? Soy itself is a common allergen, but the soybean allergen is associated with the protein fraction of the bean. Since the majority of the protein is removed during the processing of soy lecithin, it does not typically induce allergic reactions. Yet, some claim to have allergies even to soy lecithin — and try to avoid even products such as chewing gum.

Many people express concerns about genetically modified soy – or remnants of the agricultural pesticides used while growing soybeans. There are some indications that  soy may exhibit estrogenic effects, acting as an endocrine disruptor. This certainly warrants further research.  In addition, there have been studies on the exposure of pregnant rats to soy lecithin, which may be associated with sensorimotor deficits in offspring.

Lecithin is approved for human consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the status GRAS — “Generally Recognized As Safe”. The European Union allows it as a food additive.

Should you worry? Unless you never touch processed food, you will simply not be able to avoid soy lecithin and other additives. Small amounts are probably not going to harm you. Our concern should be over the large number of products that we regularly consume or use on our body which contain soy lecithin. When necessary, seek alternatives. Consumers need to be informed — and get in the habit of reading labels.

For more information: Soy Lecithin Fact Sheet

Contaminants from fast food packaging

We’re all well aware of the unhealthy nature of most fast food, frequently high in salt, saturated fats and added sugars. Now it appears that there is another cause for concern: the wrappers used to package that food. These paperboard boxes or waxy wrappers, designed to repel water and grease, are often impregnated with fluorinated chemicals that may be toxic. This is worrisome, not just due to health consequences for humans, but also for the potential environmental impact after disposal, when these chemicals may leach into soil and groundwater.

A recent study, Fluorinated Compounds in U.S. Fast Food Packaging, released in the February 2017 issue of Environmental Science & Technology Letters, tested wrapping materials using particle-induced gamma ray emission spectroscopy to detect the presence of fluorine.

The researchers positively identified the synthetic chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in about half the samples of food wrapping. After testing over 400 samples, Laurel A. Schaider et al. identified  PFAS in 56% of dessert and bread wrappings, 38% of sandwich and burger wrappers, and 20% of the paperboard containers (such as french fry or fried chicken boxes or pizza boxes), as shown in the illustration (above) from their research paper. Their testing included wrappers from food chains such as Carl’s Jr., Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Subway, Wendy’s and Taco Bell. In contrast, paper cups showed negligible levels of PFAS.

Note that their research did not investigate whether these chemicals are transferred to the food products themselves. This question warrants further investigation. Yet, PFAS have been consistently detected in samples of human blood. For further background, see the EPA’s Research on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).

These manmade organic molecules, PFAS, or more generally, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), are chains consisting of carbon and hydrogen, where fluorine atoms substitute for hydrogen. Teflon is an example of a perfluorinated compound. The strong flourine-carbon bond gives the molecules their stability, resistance and durability. Because they do not easily degrade or break down readily, the substances tend to persist in the environment.

These compounds are found in many surfactants, such as nonstick coatings on cookware, as well as protective, stain-resistant coats applied to carpets, upholstery and waterproof clothing. They may be in some dental floss and cosmetics, as well as microwave popcorn bags. They are essential in foams used to fight fires. Their use in outdoor gear, such as Gore-Tex, has been opposed by Greenpeace in their Detox campaign — for hikers and snowboarders inadvertently slough off residues into pristine wilderness areas, as well as into urban sewage during laundry.  See Greenpeace’s Chemistry for any weather: Tests of outdoor clothes for perfluorinated toxins.

Animal studies have linked exposure to PFAS to reproductive and developmental problems, as well as obesity, decreased fertility, suppressed immune function and increased risk of cancer. PFAS have been associated with changes in hormone levels, as well as altered liver, thyroid and pancreatic function. PFAS also tend to bioaccumulate, or build up in the body over time.

Dave Andrews, of the Environmental Working Group, reports that, “The FDA has approved 20 next-generation PFCs specifically for coating paper and paperboard products used to serve food. These chemicals have not been adequately tested for safety, and trade secrets mean that, in some cases, the limited safety data submitted to the EPA does not publicly disclose the identify of the specific chemicals or even the companies submitting them for approval.” Greater transparency is called for, particularly involving our food supply and packaging.

An unfortunate episode exposed humans living in Parkersburg, West Virginia to elevated levels of fluorinated chemicals during the 1990s, when leaks from a nearby DuPont factory allowed chemicals to enter the public water source. An extensive article, Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia, by Maria Blake, discusses this episode in detail.

After cows and children in the Parkersburg area starting becoming severely ill — and “the water in the creek turned black and foamy” — a federal lawsuit was filed in 1999. DuPont factory workers frequently reported bouts of nausea and vomiting, which they referred to as “Teflon flu.” Further investigation revealed that the chemical giant, DuPont, had dumped thousands of tons of sludge containing perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) onto a nearby landfill as well as into unlined pits which fed into the town’s drinking supply. DuPont’s own research had found that the chemicals were linked to birth defects, cancer and liver problems in animals. DuPont paid a fine, settled a class action suit and established filtration plants in nearby water districts. And there are still thousands of personal injury suits awaiting trial. Note that DuPont has rigorously denied all charges of wrongdoing. The Teflon Toxin: DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception, by Sharon Lerner in The Intercept, provides a more thorough look at the environmental and legal issues of this case.

Some fast food restaurants switched to the paper-based wrappings in an attempt to be more ecologically sensitive and reduce reliance on the environmentally unfriendly styrofoam containers. As evidence has accumulated, over two hundred scientists from around the world recently demanded curbs on the use of fluorinated compounds, in order to limit their release into the environment. In the Madrid Statement, the European Union has taken steps to regulate and restrict the use of fluorinated compounds.

Further toxicology testing is needed and greater industry regulation is required, though that is unlikely with the current U.S. administration. The FDA should intervene to impose tighter restrictions on the use of fluorinated compounds in consumer products. We also need more extensive investigation to identify safer alternatives. Greater public awareness can enable people to exert pressure on manufacturers and restaurants — and to make more informed consumer choices.

From Apples to Skittles: Wax on your food

What about food waxes?

Some fruit such as apples and plums produce their own natural waxy coating, called the cuticle, to help retain moisture and to form a barrier to prevent microorganisms from entering the fruit. About half of this natural wax is removed when produce is washed and scrubbed to remove dirt and chemical residues. Prior to packaging, food processors often apply wax to the surface of produce.

These commercial waxes are routinely applied to many fruits and vegetables to help preserve and protect them during shipping and storage. These waxes help prevent moisture loss, limit bruising and spoilage, improve appearance, inhibit mold growth, and extend shelf life. Aesthetics matter in the marketplace; consumers are drawn to shinier, glossier produce. Dyes may also be added to improve appearance.

Foods commonly waxed include: apples, oranges, tangerines, lemons, peaches, bananas, melons, avocados, cucumbers, tomatoes, bell peppers, eggplant, turnips, cassava and potatoes. Waxes are typically applied by dipping, brushing or spraying the produce. The amount of wax applied is small, perhaps a drop or two per item.

These waxes are edible; they must meet U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) regulations for food additives, and have been declared safe for human consumption. Produce that has been so treated must be labeled. Signs may read: “Coated with food-grade vegetable, beeswax, or lac-based wax or resin to maintain freshness.”

These waxes are typically esters of fatty acids combined with long-chain alcohols. Some of these coatings are synthetic (petroleum-based), while others are natural. These include: vegetable (from sugar cane or soy), as well as carnauba (from carnauba palm leaves), or bayberry wax (from bayberry fruit). Others originate from insects: beeswax and shellac (from the female lac beetle). Organic produce will not be coated with synthetic waxes, but may include shellac or carnauba wax.  These are the waxes most commonly applied to apples. The waxy coating is typically not visible, but may turn white if the produce has been subjected to excessive heat and/or moisture. 

Note that these waxes are not digestible by humans. We lack the ability to break down or absorb these waxy compounds.

The FDA does not recommend using detergent to remove wax. “FDA recommends washing fruits and vegetables under running water just before eating, cutting or cooking. FDA does not recommend the use of soap, detergent, or commercial produce washes” — according to the FDA’s website. However, you can use a 50-50 mixture of vinegar and water to remove the wax. Of course, the surest way to remove wax is to peel the fruit.

Some snack foods and candies, such as M&Ms, Skittles, Gobstoppers, Fruit Chews, Tic Tacs and Good ‘n Plenty are also coated with carnauba wax — which gives them a glossy finish.

Carnauba Wax

Called the “Queen of Waxes,” as well as Brazil wax and palm wax, carnauba wax comes from the leaves of the tropical palm, Copernicia prunifera (copernica cerifera), native to Brazil. It is a complex mixture of aliphatic (waxy) esters, hydroxyl esters and cinnamic aliphatic diesters, along with free acids, free alcohols, hydrocarbons and resins.

It is also used in shoe polishes, furniture polish, automobile wax, and a coating for dental floss. Carnauba wax is widely used in the pharmaceutical industry to coats pills, and make tablets easier for patients to swallow. The coating adheres because the wax is insoluble in water. It is also the hardest of the commercial vegetable waxes.

Carnauba wax is used in the cosmetic industry in mascara and eye liner. It imparts the gloss to lip gloss and lipstick. Making Cosmetics labels it a “Non-gelling thickener, viscosity and consistency enhancer (provides good texture and stability due to high melting point), emollient and moisturizer, good skin protectant properties.” Its high melting point allows lipstick to resist melting, particularly if left in your purse in a hot car.

For those who make their own cosmetics, carnauba wax is even available on Amazon, where it is advertised: “Natural thickener with softening effect.”

Safety Issues

The European Food Safety Authority (ESFA) reaffirmed the safety of carnauba wax at current usage levels, with its toxicity within the margins generally classified as No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs). Their Scientific Opinion states: “The panel considered that carnauba wax would be predicted to not be significantly absorbed from the diet and that if hydrolyzed its main constituents could be absorbed and incorporated into normal cellular metabolic pathways. Based on the available data nd the lack of structural alerts on carnauba wax it was concluded that there is no concern for genotoxicity for carnauba wax. Subchronic and reproductive and developmental toxicity studies did not show adverse effects related to carnauba wax intake. No chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity studies were available on carnauba wax.” No data was obtained with respect to allergenicity, hypersensitivity, or intolerance. The ESFA concluded, “Overall the Panel concluded that long-term toxicity data on carnauba wax were lacking and therefore did not establish and ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake).”

And yet, the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for carnauba wax lists the product as “Very hazardous in case of ingestion”. No doubt this was determined for lab rats who ingested substantial quantities of carnauba wax. But note that data for carcinogenic effects, mutagenic effects, teratogenic effects and developmental toxicity are listed in Section 3 as “Not available.”

What exactly is an Acceptable Daily Intake? How much carnauba wax might a person ingest in a year? There seems to be little data on long-term toxicity for carnauba wax.

 Best ways to wash produce

Wax can be removed from fruits and vegetables by washing in warm water and scrubbing with a brush. A study by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station indicated that friction was more important than water temperature in removing residues.  Produce with nooks and crannies such as broccoli or cauliflower or lettuce should be soaked in clean cold water for several minutes. For more about washing produce, see Food Safety Facts.

There are commercial washes such as Fit Fruit & Vegetable Wash — which claims to be 100% Natural and able to “remove 98% more pesticides, waxes, people-handling residues and other contaminants vs. washing with water alone.” The ingredients include Purified Water, Oleic Acid, Glycerol, Ethyl Alcohol, Potassium Hydroxide, Baking Soda, Citric Acid, and Distilled Grapefruit Oil. Fit is available as a spray bottle and soaking solution. Instructions call for the consumer to spray the solution to completely cover the produce, rub for one minute (or let sit for 2 to 3 minutes), then rinse under running water. For produce with irregular surfaces — such as broccoli or cauliflower — it is recommended to soak the items in diluted Fit for 2 to 3 minutes, then rinse.

Are these products necessary? The FDA’s website states: “Wash all produce thoroughly under running water before eating, cutting or cooking. this includes produce grown conventionally or organically at home, or purchased from a grocery store or farmer’s market. Washing fruits and vegetables with soap or detergent or using commercial produce washes is not recommended.”

Personally, I keep a spray bottle of 50-50 water and vinegar handy for washing fruits such as apples.