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.

If you are interested in edible insects—and who is not—this fabulous FAO report examines the safety implications of their farming and production.

As explained in the executive summary:

Until recently edible insects have been collected mainly from the wild but farming insects for human as well as animal consumption is now on the rise. Their high fecundity, high feed conversion efficiency, and rapid growth rates make insects viable and attractive candidates for farming. In addition, they can be reared in small, modular spaces, making it feasible to raise them in rural as well as urban farm settings.

After reviewing the environmental and nutritional benefits of insect production, the report continues:

However, the benefits of this emerging food source must be weighed against all possible challenges: for instance, any food safety issues that could pose health threats to consumers….This publication covers some of the major food safety hazards that should be considered, including biological agents (bacterial, viral, fungal, parasitic) as well as chemical contaminants (pesticides, toxic metals, flame retardants)….
concerns. Food safety risks can be higher when insects are harvested from the wild and consumed raw.

The moral: cook your insects!

An article in Food Navigator—Asia got my attention:  “A study by researchers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China has found that the levels of iron, chromium, cadmium and nickel in fish caught from the Red Sea exceeded the levels recommended by various authorities such as the EU, FAO, and WHO.”

Heavy metals are not just in baby foods (see post from a couple of days ago).

Now they are a problem in Red Sea fish.

This is no surprise.  Recall the enormous effort needed to  extract the 1300-foot container ship, Ever Given, from the banks of the Suez Canal.

Hundreds of ships going through the Red Sea and the Canal every week, all of them dumping waste water.

An article in the Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences observes that the Red Sea environment is heavily contaminated with heavy metals; these accumulate in fish muscles.

The concentrations of Cr, Fe, Ni and Cd, analyzed in this study were higher than other heavy metals due to the overloading of industrial waste and the disposal of the water from Jeddah. Mn, Cu, and Pb concentrations, however, were far below the levels recommended by various authorities…It was concluded that the fishes captured from Jeddah Coast, Red Sea, are still safe for human consumption, but the amount consumed should be controlled under the FAO/WHO guidelines.

So–it’s up to you to protect yourself from contaminated fish.

How about international shipping policies that restrict what ships can dump into international waters?

I read in DairyReporter.com that Danone reports an increased score in it B-Corporation certification.

I am interested in the B-Corporation phenomenon.

B Corporations are required to include social values—along with the usual profit motives—as established goals.

Society’s most challenging problems cannot be solved by government and nonprofits alone. The B Corp community works toward reduced inequality, lower levels of poverty, a healthier environment, stronger communities, and the creation of more high quality jobs with dignity and purpose. By harnessing the power of business, B Corps use profits and growth as a means to a greater end: positive impact for their employees, communities, and the environment.

What is that one unifying goal?  “We envision a global economy that uses business as a force for good.”

Certified B Corporations are a new kind of business that balances purpose and profit. They are legally required to consider the impact of their decisions on their workers, customers, suppliers, community, and the environment. This is a community of leaders, driving a global movement of people using business as a force for good.

B Corporations promise:

• That we must be the change we seek in the world.
• That all business ought to be conducted as if people and place mattered.
• That, through their products, practices, and profits, businesses should aspire to do no harm and benefit all.
• To do so requires that we act with the understanding that we are each dependent upon another and thus responsible for each other and future generations.

Companies are assessed and rated on social value criteria.  They must achieve 80 of 200 points to be certified.

Food companies are among those certified as B corps

I’m not sure how this plays out in practice, but this certainly appears to be a step in the right direction.

If we want to encourage this effort:

• Support food companies that sign up to be B corps.
• Urge other food companies to join.
• Hold them all accountable.

I’ve written previously about the alarming findings of toxic heavy metals in baby foods.  These toxins are in all foods, but are particularly harmful to infants and young children, a situation that calls for immediate FDA action to set limits on the amounts these foods contain.

The FDA has a Q and A on this issue.  It has also issued previous guidance.

• Metals and Your Food
• What FDA is Doing to Protect Consumers from Toxic Metals in Foods
• What You Can Do to Limit Exposure to Arsenic
• Arsenic in Food and Dietary Supplements
• FDA Makes Available Results from Testing of Infant Rice Cereal for Inorganic Arsenic

In response to many complaints, the FDA has now issued a plan for action:  “Closer to Zero.”

Translation: the agency will propose action levels (limits on allowable amounts), consult with stakeholders, finalize the limits, and then evaluate how the whole thing works to reduce intake levels.

Timeline: It plans to do this starting now, with the aim of finishing the process by 2025.

The FDA must not consider limiting toxic metals in baby food to be urgent.

No wonder some members of Congress have introduced la bill to force the FDA to set limits for the most common toxic metals within a year.  It suggests what those limits should be: 10 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in baby food (15 ppb for cereal); 5 ppb for both cadmium and lead (10 ppb for cereal); and 2 ppb for mercury.

While all this is going on, what are parents to do?

Suggestions from Harvard Health

The FDA is working on doing better monitoring and regulation of heavy metals in commercial baby foods. In the meantime, it’s nearly impossible to know which are completely safe and which aren’t. Babies don’t need solid foods until 6 months of age. At that time it’s perfectly fine to give them soft table foods instead of baby foods. You can also make your own baby food, using steamed or naturally soft foods and a blender. (Storage tip: you can pour a homemade puree into an ice cube tray and freeze it, and then just grab the cubes you need each time.)

Suggestions from Healthy Children

• Give your child a wide variety of different foods (the more natural colors, the better).
• Vary the grains. As mentioned above, it’s best to limit rice and rice products (check labels — rice is in a lot of foods marketed for babies, like “puffs”). Try barley, oats, and other grains. When cooking rice, it’s best to cook it in extra water and drain that water off, and to use white basmati and sushi rice, which have less arsenic.
• Check your water. Old pipes can contain lead, which can leach into drinking water.
• Avoid fruit juices. Not only can they increase the risk of cavities and obesity, but many commercial juices also contain heavy metals.
• Make healthy fish choices. Fish contains nutrients that are very healthy for the developing brain, but some fish can contain unhealthy amounts of mercury. Stay clear of big, predatory, long-living fish like swordfish, shark, or albacore tuna; it’s better to choose fish like cod, light tuna, salmon, or pollock.

In the meantime…

• The lawsuits!  At least 69 had been filed as of April 29.
• The New York Attorney General is also looking into this.