A press release from The Center for Food Safety announces that the agribusiness giant Corteva is dropping its “Plant-Killing Pesticide Dicamba Amid Legal Battles, Drift Concerns.”

Dicamba, like glyphosate, is a controversial herbicide widely used in conjunction with crops genetically modified to resist it.  Why controversial?

• It is potentially toxic to adults, children, and pets.
• It drifts long distances and kills “non-target” crops that are not genetically modified—those that are organically grown, for example.

National Pesticide Information Network Fact Sheet on Dicamba has a Q and A.

What are some signs and symptoms from a brief exposure to dicamba?

Pure dicamba is low in toxicity if breathed. If inhaled, people may experience dizziness, and irritation of the nose, resulting in coughing. If you get pure dicamba on your skin, it is low in toxicity, however skin irritation may develop. If you get dicamba in your eyes, it is moderately toxic. If dicamba is swallowed, people have reported symptoms such as vomiting, loss of appetite and muscle spasms. If a large amount is swallowed, diarrhea and abdominal pain have been reported.

Pets may be exposed to dicamba if they come into contact with plants that have been treated with dicamba, either by eating the plants or walking through an area where dicamba was applied. Signs that a dog or a cat may have been exposed to dicamba include shortness of breath, muscle spasms and the animal may produce a lot of saliva. Birds may also be exposed to dicamba by eating dicamba granules and signs include wing drop, a loss of controlled movements, and weakness.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture also has a Fact Sheet.  It reviews damages caused by this herbicide and complaints about it.

Dicamba is a highly volatile chemical that can damage non-target plant species through spray drift and/or volatilization (vapor drift). Misuse of dicamba products may cause serious damage to non-dicamba-tolerant soybeans, sensitive crops, non-crop plants, and endangered species.

The Center for Food Safety press release explains some history:

In June 2020, a federal appeals court prohibited the spraying of dicamba on GE crops, in response to a lawsuit brought by farming and environmental groups led by Center for Food Safety (CFS). The Court ruled that EPA had failed to estimate the “enormous and unprecedented damage” caused by dicamba drift, which triggered strife that “has torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities.” Just a few months later, Trump’s EPA re-approved the dicamba products, made by Bayer and BASF. CFS and allies are back in court challenging this unlawful decision. Press reports suggest Biden’s EPA will allow continued use for at least a year, permitting a fifth year of devastating dicamba drift damage.

In another landmark lawsuit against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and BASF, Missouri farmer Bill Bader was awarded $75 million for dicamba drift damage that devastated his peach orchard.

As Bill Freese, the Center’s director, points out, “If even an agrichemical giant like Corteva is dropping dicamba to avoid liability from the enormous, widely-documented drift damage it causes, what will it take for the Biden Administration to end the use of these hazardous products on America’s croplands for good?”

Bettina Siegel’s Lunch Tray blog had an item recently about a new report on the effects of food dyes on children’s behavior (her blog is behind a Substack paywall, but well worth the subscription).

This report makes it time to talk about food dyes again.  For starters, they have only one purpose: to sell ultra-processed (junk) foods.  Research shows that brightly colored candy, snacks, and sodas are perceived as tasting better than the grey alternatives.  The food industry needs cosmetic food dyes.  We don’t, especially if they are harmful.

The 311-page peer-reviewed report, from the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), is a meta-analysis of animal studies and 27 human clinical trials dealing with the neurobehavioral effects of seven synthetic food dyes on children.

Its conclusion:

The scientific literature indicates that synthetic food dyes can impact neurobehavior in some children… current ADIs [FDA’s Acceptable Daily Intakes] may not provide adequate protection from neurobehavioral impacts in children. For some of the dyes… updated safe levels of exposure would be much lower.

The idea that synthetic food dyes are associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children, but that children vary in their sensitivity to these dyes, is hardly new information.

In the mid-1970s, the physician Ben Feingold associated food dyes with hyperactivity in children and developed the Feingold Diet to improve kids’ behavior.

Much of the evidence for the “Feingold hypothesis” rested on anecdotal reports by parents,

Scientists’ attempts to study the effects of food dyes gave mixed results.  For example, as I wrote in a blog post on March 31, 2011, consider two studies published by Science magazine in 1980:

• Researchers gave pills containing a mix of food additives to 40 children, 20 diagnosed as hyperactive and 20 not.  The children diagnosed with hyperactivity reacted to the food additive challenge but the other children did not (Science 1980;207:1485-87).  But this study used pills rather than foods, mixed additives, and used questionable methods for evaluating hyperactive behavior.
• Researchers attempted to correct for such problems by using two drinks that looked and tasted the same—one contained seven food colors while the other did not.   The study was designed carefully such that neither the kids, parents, or observers knew what the kids were drinking.  The result:  Twenty of the 22 kids showed no reaction to the dyes.  One child reacted to the dyes every time (Science 1980;207:1487-89).

The interpretation?  Some kids may react to food dyes.

This gave the FDA an excuse to do nothing.  But then,

• In 2007, a study in England associating food dyes with hyperactivity revived the issue.
• In 2008, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the FDA to bad food dyes associated with behavioral problems in children.
• In 2009, CSPI updated its Diet, ADHD & Behavior: A Quarter-Century Review
• In 2010, CSPI published Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks.
• In 2016, CSPI published Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes.

Today, the FDA says this about color additives in food:

FDA on color additives in food (2007):

So how safe are they? “Color additives are very safe when used properly…There is no such thing as absolute safety of any substance. In the case of a new color additive, FDA determines if there is ‘a reasonable certainty of no harm’ under the color additive’s proposed conditions of use.”

FDA on whether color additives are safe to eat (2018):

Yes, color additives are safe when they are used in accordance with with FDA regulations…our regulations specify:

• the types of foods in which it can be used,
• any maximum amounts allowed to be used, and
• how the color additive should be identified on the food label.

FDA on whether color additives affect the behavior of children (2018)

The FDA has reviewed and will continue to examine the effects of color additives on children’s behavior. The totality of scientific evidence indicates that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives, but some evidence suggests that certain children may be sensitive to them…Parents who wish to limit the amount of color additives in their children’s diet may check the food ingredient list on labels. Parents should also discuss any concerns with their family physician.

Well good luck with that.  The FDA can and should do better.

The bottom line: Food dyes have no health benefits.  Kids don’t need to be eating ultra-processed foods anyway.  They will not be harmed by avoiding food dyes.

CSPI has produced a lengthy and comprehensive comment on the new report. 

Given all of this, it’s surely time for the FDA to take some action.

I recently received an email from the Soyfoods Council: “If You’re Confused About Endocrine Disruptors, Here’s Why Soy Isn’t One.”

The email explained that “the Soyfoods Council is a non-profit organization, created and funded by Iowa soybean farmers, providing a complete resource to increase awareness of soyfoods, educate and inform media, healthcare professionals, consumers and the retail and foodservice markets about the many benefits of soyfoods.  Iowa is the country’s number one grower of soybeans and is the Soyfoods Capital of the world.”

The email referred to a just-published paper

The Study: Neither soyfoods nor isoflavones warrant classification as endocrine disruptors: a technical review of the observational and clinical data, by Mark Messina,Sonia Blanco Mejia,Aedin Cassidy,Alison Duncan,Mindy Kurzer,Chisato Nagato, et al.  Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, published online: 27 Mar 2021.

Conclusion: After extensive [my emphasis] review, the evidence does not support classifying isoflavones as endocrine disruptors.

Funding: “Funds were provided by the Soy Nutrition Institute and the European Plant-based Food Association to MM and the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis & Clinical Trials Foundation for work related to the development and writing of this paper.”

Disclosures: Mark John Messina receives funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute as its Executive Director. Both Mindy Kurzer and John Sievenpiper are on the advisory board of the Soy Nutrition Institute. Ian Rowland is on the advisory board of the European Plant-based Foods Association. I have disclosed those interests fully to Taylor & Francis, and have in place an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from these positions.

Comment: “Extensive” is an understatement; the paper has 688 references.  This may be overkill, but its purpose is to put to rest any concerns that soybeans might act as endocrine disrupters and, therefore, should be avoided.  The Soy Foods Council, obviously, wants you to stop worrying about this and paid for this review for that purpose.

I’m not particularly worried about soybeans.  As I wrote in What to Eat, I view soy as neither poison nor panacea.  But there is plenty of evidence on both sides.  That’s why paid reviews are not helpful.

Gina A. Warren.  Hatched: Dispatches from the Backyard Chicken Movement.  University of Washington Press, 2021. 

I did a blurb for this book:

Hatched is Gina Warren’s exceptionally thoughtful account of raising backyard chickens from chicks to dinner, with dumpster diving in between–actions that reflect her deep respect and care for the animals we eat and her profound commitment to living ethically.

Here’s what she says it’s about:

Backyard chickens are still on the rise, partially because the style of living they exemplify rebels against modern metropolis ails; in the wake of stresses about increasing urbanization, environmental collapse, GMO foods, and kids growing up with their fingers on screens instead of in the dirt, chickens are an all-inclusive reprieve.  Chicken people tend to have concerns about the environment, industrial food, and the economy of commercial agriculture.  By owning chickens, people perform a feat of micro-resistance against society’s dominant forms of consumption and production and create a counter-narrative to the story that food, something we all require on a daily basis, can only be produced by certain industries in sequestered places.

This book is a welcome addition to others about the backyard chicken movement, a subset of the greater food movement.

It extols the pleasures of getting to know the hens that produce daily eggs, and those of hens scratching around in the grass as compared to those raised in enclosed barns housing 50,000.

Backyard chickens are a privilege.

Plant-based meat and dairy products are big business these days, with startups loaded with investor capital.

Here are some recent items on what’s happening in this food business sector.

• Plant-based meat, egg and ‘dairy’ investment trebles:  Plant-based meat, egg and ‘dairy’ attracted the most alt-protein investment globally in 2020, claims the Good Food Institute (GFI), whose foodservice and supply chain manager Zak Weston is presenting at Food Manufacture’s virtual plant-based protein conference. Read more
• Plant-based treats and nostalgic sweets:  Plant-based bakery ingredients, ice cream and gourmet sweets lead this roundup of the latest food and drink product launches from the past month. Read more
• Plant-based Beyond Meat secures 400 listings across the UK:  Meat alternatives brand Beyond Meat has secured listings for its products in more than 400 retail stores across the UK as part of a significant distribution expansion across Europe. Read more
• Beyond Meat set to return to plant-based chicken this summer, Bloomberg reports:  Just two years after the faux meat maker pulled its frozen strips, the company is poised to reenter the retail category again, but this time with several large competitors.
• Loma Linda Tuno: Plant-based tuna and the benefits of soy:  The start of 2021 saw a record number of plant-based products hit the market. Read more
• Designing products for regional preferences offers growth opportunity in meat-free, says Quorn:  The alternative protein pioneer says meat alternatives need to develop in line with regional preferences in order to gain global share…. Read more  
• Cargill enters JV with vegan fat and blood innovator Bflike for ‘virtually indistinguishable’ plant-based meat and fish alternatives:  Cargill is investing in Bflike, a Dutch start-up the company says will be a ‘new technology leader’ in plant-based meat and fish analogues…. Read more
• Tyson expands plant-based Raised & Rooted line:  Tyson Foods’ plant-based brand Raised & Rooted has added four items: burger patties, a ground beef alternative, bratwursts and Italian sausages. All four are pea-protein-based and have rolled out nationwide.
• Impossible Foods applauds 9th Circuit ruling over safety of its heme, slams ‘anti-science, anti-GMO activist group’ for ‘spreading lies’:  Impossible Foods has applauded a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the FDA’s approval of soy leghemoglobin (aka ‘heme’) – the star ingredient in its plant-based burgers – as a color additive…. Read more
• Nestle to debut plant-based milk in Europe:  Nestle is set to release a line of pea-based milk called Wunda in Portugal, France and the Netherlands, with an expanded rollout in Europe to follow. The line will include three varieties: unsweetened, original and chocolate.
• Brave new ‘animal-free’ world: When animal products are no longer made from animals, what do we call them? (And are they vegan?)  Thanks to advances in synthetic biology, with the right set of instructions, an army of microscopic little food factories (yeast, fungi, bacteria, algae etc) can now make animal proteins without animals, from collagen and egg albumin to whey protein if you feed them sugar and put them in a fermentation tank. But what do we call them? And are they vegan?… Read more

I saw this question on The Lunch Tray, Bettina Siegel’s column on Substack.

Turns out that lots of people have no idea what’s in these things.

That’s what my NYU colleague Jennifer Pomeranz and Jennifer Harris of the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center found in their recent study,  Misperceptions about added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in popular children’s drinks: Experimental and cross-sectional study with U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years)

Their overall finding: Most parents in their survey did not know what was in these drinks.

• 62% could not identify most drinks that contained diet sweeteners, even when shown the information panel with nutrition and ingredient information.
• Parents overestimated the average percent juice content in sugar-sweetened drinks, believing that these drinks contained 22% juice, when they actually contained 3% juice on average.
• Even with the nutrition information and ingredient list on the information panel, 53% incorrectly believed that unsweetened 100% juice and/or juice/water blends contained added sugar.
• Parents were more likely to believe that statements of identity with the words “natural” and “water beverage” meant the drink did not contain added sugar or diet sweeteners and did contain juice, although they are commonly used on children’s flavored water drinks that contain added sugar, diet sweeteners, and no juice.

These drinks are confusing (deliberately, I’m guessing) and it’s understandable why their contents are obscure.

The authors recommendation is a  good one, in my view.

Put on the front label of juice drinks:

• Added sugars (this is currently buried in the Nutrition Facts label)
• Diet sweeteners
• Juice content

Food Navigator reminds me that GMO labeling has not yet been implemented.

Compliance with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) – which requires firms with annual sales of $2.5m to label ‘bioengineered’ foods, beverages, and supplements – is mandatory from January 1, 2022. So is the industry up to speed? It’s a pretty mixed bag, according to labeling experts.

We know that corn, soybeans, and cotton are genetically modified (also canola and sugar beets).

But what about products that you might buy in supermarkets?  Those remain a mystery.

The FDA lists “completed consultations” for genetically modified foods—effectively, approvals—here.  These include Fuji and other apples, potatoes, and squashes, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily in supermarket produce sections.

Confusingly, the USDA has its own list.

• Alfalfa (pdf)
• Apple (Arctic^TM varieties) (pdf)
• Canola (pdf)
• Corn (pdf)
• Cotton (pdf)
• Eggplant (BARI Bt Begun varieties) (pdf)
• Papaya (ringspot virus-resistant varieties) (pdf)
• Pineapple (pink flesh varieties) (pdf)
• Potato (pdf)
• Salmon (AquAdvantage®) (pdf)
• Soybean (pdf)
• Squash (summer) (pdf)
• Sugarbeet (pdf)

It would be nice to have supermarket produce labeled, although the label, as I’ve written previously, is not as helpful as it might be.

I can’t wait to see if stickers like this actually appear on GMO squash, apples, and salmon.  The compliance date is coming soon!

The study: Investigating walnut consumption and cognitive trajectories in a representative sample of older US adults.  Nicholas J. Bishop and Krystle E. Zuniga.  Public Health Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 7 , May 2021 , pp. 1741 – 1752.

Purpose: To estimate the association between whole walnut intake and cognitive change in a sample of 3632 US adults aged 65 years and older.

Method:  This was a secondary analysis of dietary data and health outcome from the Health and Retirement Study and Health Care and Nutrition Study.

Conclusions: “We identified an association between walnut consumption and cognitive function in older adults, although we did not find that walnut consumption was protective against age-related cognitive decline.”

Financial support: This research was funded by the California Walnut Commission.

Comment: Eating walnuts tracks with cognitive function in this sample, but has no particular effect on it.  As I read them, the conclusions put a positive spin on a null finding, a classic example of “interpretation bias.”  The Walnut Commission paid for the study and this interpretation helps to sell walnuts.  I think walnuts are great but wish the California Walnut Commission would stay out of this kind of marketing research.