The FDA has issued its boringly titled Southwest Agricultural Region Environmental Microbiology Study (2019 – 2024).

The report seems designed to be boring.  Its subject, however, is anything but.

Let me do some translating (in Italics).

• “The study was designed to improve understanding of the environmental factors that may impact the presence of foodborne pathogens in the Southwest agricultural region.”  [Leafy greens contaminated with pathogenic bacteria make lots of people really sick, undoubtedly because they come in contact with CAFOs, confined animal feeding operations].
• “Samples were collected from irrigation waters, soil, sediments, air/dust, animal fecal material, wildlife scat, and other sources across approximately a 54 mile (7,000 acres) area of the southwest growing region.” [It’s about time the FDA did this].
• “Special attention was given to the geography of the study region and the types and locations of agricultural and other adjacent and nearby land use activities relative to produce production areas.  For example, there is a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) with more than 80,000 head of cattle and an associated compost operation in proximity to some of the produce production areas studied. [Oh.  What a surprise].

The investigation’s findings

• “STEC [Shiga toxin-producing E. coli] can survive in the air and that dust can act as a transfer mechanism for both pathogens and indicator organisms (e.g. generic E. coli) from adjacent and nearby land to water, soil, and plant tissue “[toxic bacteria spread from CAFOs by air and dust].
• “The research team repeatedly observed that generic E. coli concentrations and STEC prevalence and isolation frequency increased as irrigation canal water flowed past an adjacent livestock and compost operation” [toxic bacteria spread from CAFOs by water].
• “…birds and other wildlife do not appear to be significant sources of STEC or E. coli O157:H7 ” [blaming wild birds for contaminating leafy greens is not going to work].
• “STEC strains detected in water, sediment, and plant tissue harvested from our research plots genetically matched strains isolated in air samples providing evidence that bacteria in air can transfer to other locations and surfaces.”  [Toxic bacteria get around easily].

The conclusions

Having proven that CAFOs contaminate air, soil, and water with toxic bacteria, the report concludes:

The preliminary results of this study stress the interconnectedness between people, animals and the environment and serve as an important model for how to foster productive dialogue among diverse stakeholders to improve food safety.

Comment

Foster dialogue?  They have to be kidding.  CAFOs need to be held responsible for the waste produced by their animals.  Human wastes are not allowed to be released untreated into the environment; neither should animal wastes.

Here is food safety lawyer Bill Marler’s comment.

The Department of Health and Human Service’s Inspector General has reported on its investigation of the FDA’s mis-handling of infant formula shortages a couple of years ago: The Food and Drug Administration’s Inspection and Recall Process Should Be Improved To Ensure the Safety of the Infant Formula Supply.

I see this as a direct result of Helena Bottemiller Evich’s reporting in Politico—the power of the press, indeed (she now writes Food Fix, to which I subscribe, and where she discusses this report).

In an earlier report, she detailed the history of FDA’s inspections of the Abbott laboratory and the agency’s surprising delay in getting Abbott to do a “voluntary” recall.

She, justifiably, takes some credit. 

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler also had questions about the quality of production and FDA’s surprising lack of action.

What this is about

Infants who are not breastfed are completely dependent on infant formula. In 2022, contaminated powdered formula from Abbott Labs was associatied with the illness or deaths of several infants,  Despite earlier complaints from whistleblowers about poor sanitation at Abbott plants, the FDA was slow to advise not using this formula.

At the time of the FDA advisory, one infant was ill with Salmonella Newport, and four were ill with Cronobacter sakazakii ); of these, two died—a shocking tragedy.

What the report says

The Inspector General summarizes the findings:

• FDA had inadequate policies and procedures to identify risks to infant formula and respond effectively
• FDA took more than 15 months to address a February 2021 Abbott facility whistleblower complaint. I
• FDA did not escalate an October 2021 whistleblower complaint to senior leadership
• FDA did one inspection 102 days after a whistleblower complaint was received.
• FDA did not initiate an infant formula recall under its FDA-required recall authority.

Why didn’t the FDA act?

One reason was probably because “FDA could not confirm that the Abbott facility’s products caused the infant illnesses or deaths because clinical isolates for the infants were not available or whole genome sequencing was not a match to the Abbott facility Cronobacter investigation findings.”

Another is likely to be inadequate staffing, but a third, I’m guessing, has to do with the culture of the FDA, which increasingly appears captured by the industries it is supposed to be regulating.  The infant formula industry is highly concentrated and Abbott made something like 40% of it—even more reason to make sure the company was taking scrupulous care about safety.

The report instructs the FDA to do better.  Let’s hope.

To stay in good standing as Registered Dietitian-Nutritionists, members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics must complete a certain number of continuing education credits.  Here’s one way to get them (sent to me by a member who wishes to remain anonymous).

Here’s what they need to learn to earn them:Comment

Did participants learn about the cons of Splenda (and artificial sweeteners in general) as well as the pros?  One can only hope.

Chuck Schwerin.  Ghosts of Glencoe.  North Country Books, 2024.  472 pages.

I don’t usually recommend books here that are not about food politics.  This one, a rare exception, has only the most tenuous connection to the theme of this blog.

It is set in a fictional location much like the North Country School, a boarding school for teenagers near Lake Placid and the Adirondacks.  The school was one of the first to adopt an Edible Schoolyard project, still going strong.

I am making the exception because Chuck Schwerin is my next-door neighbor in Ithaca.  I had no idea he was writing a novel.  When he asked me to read the manuscript for a blurb, I didn’t know what to think.  What if I hated it?

Fortunately, I did not.  I could not put it down.  It is one fabulous adventure story.

Here’s my blurb:

Ghosts of Glencoe is a thrillingly plotted, utterly authentic coming-of-age story of what we can all learn from wilderness, at any age. I cared what happened to these characters, and couldn’t stop reading until its most satisfying conclusion.

I’m not a mountain person but I know plenty of people who are.

They would rather be climbing peaks than doing anything else, regardless of weather, rocky terrain, or mortal danger.

This book captures that sense, through the actions of teachers and students at the fictional Glencoe school, all of them human in their own unique ways.  You get to know these people well.   You care about what they do, the decisions they make, and the consequences of their decisions.

It’s a terrific read—just the thing for a summer vacation.

Enjoy!

Addition

There is an audio book.  Access at Kobo Books here.

The World Food Programme announced the new 2024 report. 

I last wrote about this project in 2021.

Progress?  Not this year.

As Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres says in his introduction, “Humanity can and must do better.”

Yes, but how?

Advocate!  Protest! Insist!

VOTE!

There is much discussion these days of the complexity of causes and consequences of excessive gain body fat.  This review addresses the history of what is known—and not known—about obesity., by someone who has been studying it for decades.

Bray GA. Obesity: a 100 year perspective. Int J Obes (Lond). 2024 May 7. doi: 10.1038/s41366-024-01530-6.

His conclusion:

Obesity is both a public health issue and an individual challenge
As noted during the discussion of the Fogarty Center Conference in 1973, the public health community was already aware of the health-related risks associated with obesity even before the explosion in prevalence occurred after 1975. The ensuing pandemic of obesity with some people developing obesity, but not others, challenges modern medicine and public health. As Hippocrates said more than 2500 years ago: “Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, judgment difficult.” The challenge for those of us working in the field of obesity is that there is more to uncover to fully understand and be able to effectively treat people with obesity.

The paper has 137 references.  If you want to learn what the debates are about, this is a great place to begin.

This seems to be a slow news week so I’m going to get caught up on research papers I think worth reading.

I first heard about this study from this video, from Dr. Greger’s newsletter announcement (I subscribe).

Here’s the study: Ornish D, et al.  Effects of intensive lifestyle changes on the progression of mild cognitive impairment or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.  Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy volume 16, Article number: 122 (2024).  https://alzres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13195-024-01482-z.

It put 50 or so people in their 70s or older on “an intensive multidomain lifestyle intervention compared to a wait-list usual care control group” for 20 weeks.

People on the lifestyle intervention—diet, exercise, stress management, group support—did better.

The first author, Dean Ornish, runs a lifestyle modification program.

Comment: Wouldn’t this be terrific!  At the very least it is further evidence for the health benefits of a largely (not necessarily exclusively) plant-based diet.  Eating plant foods is strongly associated with prevention of any number of undesirable conditions.  The Alzheimer’s Association already recommends the DASH or Mediterranean diet patterns; both are plant based.

Eat your veggies.  Do so cannot hurt and might help—a lot.

I learned about this study from this account.

Probiotics may improve vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women: A specific combination of probiotic strains may restore vaginal microbiota and relieve vaginal distress in postmenopausal women, according to a new study from Italian probiotic manufacturer SynBalance…. Read more

High marks to indicating industry sponsorship right up front.

The study: Efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum PBS067, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BL050, and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus LRH020 in the Amelioration of Vaginal Microbiota in Post-Menopausal Women: A Prospective Observational Clinical Trial. Nutrients 2024, 16(3), 402; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16030402.

Method: “Subjects were supplemented with a probiotic product containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum PBS067 (DSM 24937), Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BL050 (DSM 25566), and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus LRH020 (DSM 25568; all from SynBalance Srl, Origgio, Italy)…Women were asked to consume 1 capsule/day, away from meals, for 4 consecutive weeks. Assessments of health status were carried out at the starting point of the study (T0), after 4 weeks of oral probiotic supplementation (T1), and after a 4-week follow-up.”

Results: “Clinical outcomes revealed a decrease in menopausal symptoms. Significant improvements were observed across various parameters…Moreover, the probiotic intervention facilitated the restoration of vaginal microbiota, evidenced by an increase in lactobacilli abundance.

Conclusion: “the combination of these specific probiotic strains, previously clinically tested in childbearing-age women, showed to be effective also for post-menopausal women.”

Conflicts of Interest: “Authors P.M. and D.F.S. were employed by the company Synbalance Srl. Authors E.V., A.M. and A.C. were employed by the company Wellmicro Srl. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Comment: Employees of the company making the probiotic supplement conducted this uncontrolled observational study.  The supplement made study subjects feel better and improved their microbiomes.  But compared to what?  The study had no control group.

In addition:  While we are on the subject of probiotics, I’m quoted in a New York Times article about probiotic supplements in beverages.

Prebiotic sodas aren’t likely to harm your health, Dr. Nestle said, but it’s also not likely that they’ll be beneficial.

“Really, if people are concerned about their microbiome, they need to eat vegetables,” Dr. Nestle said. “Vegetables would do wonders.”