I collect things like this—examples of food company marketing alliances with health and nutrition organizations that by all rights should be advising their members and clients not to eat much of the company’s products.  This one promotes mega-size Pepsi to raise funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This particular treasure comes from a blogger, Joe Tower, who runs a business—“Selfish Giving”—that helps companies do cause marketing.  This one crosses a line, even for him:

I’ve said this before: I don’t have a problem with nonprofits and fast-serve chains doing cause marketing. What I do have a problem with is when fast serve chains like KFC encourage consumers to buy products that directly contribute to the health conditions – in this case diabetes – they are supposedly trying to prevent by partnering with the cause in the first place….What was JDRF thinking? I’m not sure, but I’m calling them today to see if I can find out!

Here are excerpts from the response from JDRF:

We appreciate your concerns and your questions about the banner promoting a JDRF fundraising activity at KFC. Please understand that the fundraiser in question is a local initiative in Utah involving a single KFC franchise owner with a personal type 1 diabetes connection.That said, JDRF values its supporters, both individual and corporate, and their efforts to raise funds to support research aimed at improving lives and curing type 1 diabetes. JDRF carefully reviews national partnership opportunities to ensure that they are appropriate prior to joining corporate campaigns to raise funds.

Regarding this particular promotion, we understand that one of the criticisms has been the association with a sugary product, which many have associated with contributing to diabetes. It’s important to note that JDRF supports research for type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease that results when the immune system attacks the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, therefore requiring a child or adult with the disease to depend on insulin treatment for the rest of their lives. It is a common misconception that type 1 diabetes is caused by obesity or eating too much junk food or sweets.

Finally, JDRF does not endorse any particular products, nor any particular diet. People with type 1 diabetes should work with their healthcare team to determine a diet that works best for them. JDRF fully supports people living with type 1 diabetes engaging in healthy eating habits and lifestyles.

–Gary Feit, National Manager, External Communications, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

As I find myself saying again and again, you cannot make this stuff up.   And how does Pepsi, now promoting itself as a wellness company, feel about this?

[Thanks to David Schliefer for sending]

Update June 17: I hear rumors attributed to a Pepsi V.P. that the promotion is “no longer running.”

For an instant tutorial in U.S. food politics, take a look at this Washington Post map of where agricultural subsidies go.

Presidents have been trying to get rid of subsidies for decades, but they also want to be reelected.  Will Obama succeed where others have failed?  We shall soon see.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has just published its 2011 guide to the most and least pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables.

The #1 “dirtiest”?  Apples.  The remedy?  Buy from the EWG “clean 15” list or buy organic.

The “dirty dozen” list, in order: Apples, Celery, Strawberries, Peaches, Spinach, Imported nectarines, Imported grapes, Sweet bell peppers, Potatoes, Domestic blueberries, Lettuce, Kale/collard greens.

The “clean 15” list of foods with the least pesticides: Onions, Sweet corn, Pineapples, Avocados, Asparagus, Sweet peas, Mangoes, Eggplant, Domestic cantaloupe, Kiwifruit, Cabbage, Watermelon, Sweet potatoes, Grapefruit, Mushrooms

How much should you worry about pesticides on foods?  As one reader asked,

Is it better to eat conventional fruits (cherries, berries and apples) and other veggies (peppers) that are on the “dirty” vegetable list or forego them altogether?

This is not an easy question to answer.  EWG recognizes that the science linking pesticides to health problems is limited (this is an understatement).  EWG bases its rankings on data published by USDA and FDA.  It considers:

• Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides
• Percent of samples with two or more pesticides
• Average number of pesticides found on a single sample
• Average amount (level in parts per million) of all pesticides found
• Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
• Total number of pesticides found on the commodity

EWG explains that its

Shopper’s Guide is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties of the risks of pesticide exposure and gives shoppers confidence that when they follow the guide they are buying foods with consistently lower overall levels of pesticide contamination.

Most available research supports the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables regardless of their pesticide loads.  Ken Cook, the president of EWG says:

We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic,” says Ken Cook, president and founder of Environmental Working Group. “But people don’t want to eat pesticides with their produce if they don’t have to. And with EWG’s guide, they don’t.”

By EWG calculations, you can lower your pesticide intake by 92% if you avoid the dirty dozen.  No wonder.  How’s this for an observation: “Hot peppers had been treated with as many as 97 pesticides, followed by cucumbers (68) and greens (66).”  Who knew?

Where is the produce industry in all of this?  EWG reports that produce trade associations are working hand-in-glove with the pesticide industry to attempt to keep information about these chemicals out of the public eye.

I wish more research existed on the dose-response effects of pesticides and on their long-term effects on health, especially in children.  I cannot imagine that pesticides are good for health.  In high doses, they are demonstrably harmful to farm workers.

But what about the low doses on fruits and vegetables?  Here, the evidence for long-term harm is weak, uncertain, and unhelpful.

What to do?

On the personal side: if you want to avoid eating pesticides, you can stick with the EWG 15.  Washing produce before eating it is always a good idea even if it doesn’t get rid of all of the chemicals (USDA studies are done on washed produce).  When in doubt, buy organic.

As for the political, if ever there was a situation where more research was needed, this is it.  And isn’t it time for industrial food producers to find ways to use fewer pesticides?  Let the produce trade associations know that you don’t like their defense of potentially harmful chemicals and that you much prefer organic.

Addition, June 16: For anyone interested, here are the USDA’s pesticide announcements for the new data:

Press release

Consumer factsheet

Report executive summary

 

 

For years, as Tom Philpott recounts on his new food and agriculture blog for Mother Jones, public health advocates have fretted about the use of arsenic-containing drugs to kill intestinal parasites and promote growth in chickens.

One such drug is roxarsone, made by Pfizer. Its arsenic is in the organic (carbon-containing) form, which is less toxic than the inorganic form.

But, as the New York Times explained, evidence has been accumulating that the organic form can change into the more toxic, inorganic form, a known carcinogen.

As reported in Food Safety News,  the Center for Food Safety, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and several other consumer and agriculture groups petitioned FDA to ban the drug three years ago.

Last week, the FDA announced that the agency had done its own feeding tests.  Chickens fed organic roxarsone had higher levels of inorganic arsenic in their tissues.  The FDA got Pfizer to “voluntarily” withdraw the drug from the market.

The surprise here is not the FDA’s delay in dealing with this drug.  The big surprise is that the FDA did its own testing.  As the Times put it:

The F.D.A. once routinely conducted its own studies of animal and human drugs, but limited budgets led the agency to eliminate much of its scientific and laboratory capacity over the years. The roxarsone study is a triumph for agency scientists but one unlikely to be repeated very often. The agency asked for $183 million in additional funds for food safety efforts next year, but House Republicans have instead proposed cutting $87 million.

Drug companies cannot be expected to do their own testing if there is any chance that the tests will show something not in their best interest.  If independent federal agencies don’t do these kinds of studies, who will?

I can remember when the FDA housed a group of researchers doing outstanding work on food allergies in the 1990s.  The FDA closed down that lab when it was given additional responsibilities by Congress with no additional funding.

The FDA is a public health agency.  Its job is to protect the public against unsafe food contaminated with bacteria or antibiotics such as roxarsone.  The agency gets high marks for taking this on.  And Congress needs to support the FDA’s research mission.

 

German authorities now say that  sprouts grown on an organic farm in Lower Saxony are the source of their E. coli O104:H4 outbreak, now responsible for more than 30 deaths and 3,000 illnesses, 750 of them severe kidney disease.

The epidemiological studies point to sprouts after all.

Sprouts, as I mentioned in an earlier post, are a prime suspect in microbial outbreaks.   They have been implicated in many outbreaks in the United States.  This is because sprouts are sprouted from minute seeds that are hard to clean, as shown in this microscopic view:

 

 

 

As Food Safety News explains in a long discussion of this problem, the seeds need to be dumped in bleach to kill bacteria.  It’s also a really good idea to test the wash water to make sure it is free of pathogens.

The seeds are sprouted in water at room temperature, “a warm, moist climate — just perfect for a bacteria’s social life and subsequent reproduction.”

The FDA has been aware of this problem for a long time, as shown by this brief chronology:

• 1999: The FDA issued “nonbinding guidance” on growing sprouts.  This caused the ever-vigilant Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to file a petition arguing that guidance rules for sprouts needed to be mandatory.
• 2004: The FDA wrote a “note” to producers and shippers of sprouts stating that it was aware of 27 outbreaks of microbial illness due to sprouts and urging producers to follow the voluntary guidance procedures.
• 2004: The FDA followed up by issuing safety guidance for growing sprouts in retail establishments.  These were voluntary, of course.
• 2004: California health officials produced a slide presentation on the hazards of sprout production, urging producers to follow safety guidelines.
• 2005: The FDA announced public meeting to discuss the science of safe production of sprouts as a basis for beginning a rulemaking process for mandatory safety procedures.
• 2009: The FDA issued a warning about consuming alfalfa sprouts.

The Food Safety Modernization act passed last year finally gives FDA the authority to require food safety controls for sprouts.

The German outbreak ought to be a wakeup call for this industry in the United States.  Sellers of bean sprouts market them as health foods but say little about how unsafe they are if eaten raw.

It also ought to be a wakeup call for consumers.  If you aren’t absolutely sure the seeds come from a clean source, cook your sprouts.

I know I said I was done with USDA’s MyPlate, but some of the later commentary is not to be missed.

Steven Colbert, for example, has an interesting take on it (that’s his quote):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so does the pseudonymous “Ruth Bourdain” (no, I have no idea who she or he might be, but I wish I did):

There.  That looks better.

 

 

I’ve had lots of questions from readers about aspects of the devastating E. coli outbreak in Germany and thought it might be useful to round them up and tackle them all at once.

Does anyone understand why this toxic strain of E. coli seems most deadly in women?

It is not clear that these bacteria are more virulent in women than in men.   What seems to be happening is that women are more likely to have eaten salads.  Epidemiologists say that if women are more affected than men in an outbreak, the culprit is likely to be something in salad.  If men are more affected, the source is likely to be meat.

Is it possible it’s from run off from a factory farm, as with the 2006 spinach E. coli outbreak?

That outbreak was traced to a farm in California, but the outbreak E. coli strain was never found on that farm.  It was found at a cattle crossing a mile away.  Did the bacteria get to the spinach through a change in the water table (or runoff), through the droppings of wild boar, or through farm workers?  Nobody really knows but the favorite theory seems to be wild boar (I have my doubts, as I discuss in my book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, 2010).

My question again is can the contaminants be rendered ineffective through high heat cooking, as in stir fry?

Definitely.  Heat kills bacteria, and quickly.  If you are worried about spinach or any other vegetable, drop it in rapidly boiling water for a minute or less.

What is the best way to protect yourself from foodborne illness, especially from fresh produce?

The only way to be 100% sure is to cook food and eat it piping hot.  Short of that: wash your veggies!  Always.  In tap water.  Tap water is chlorinated and will kill most pathogens.  But—and it is a big but—these toxic forms of E. coli are capable of making sticky biofilms that cannot easily be washed off.  Cooking is the only way to be absolutely certain.

What is your feeling about irradiation?

I also discuss irradiation in my book, Safe Food. Lots of people love the idea because it’s an effective kill step.  It is a little rough on lettuce and other leafy greens, however.  Most of all, it’s what I call a late-stage techno-fix.  It fixes the problem after the damage has been done and assumes that no system can be put in place to produce food safely.  But food can be produced safely, and should be.  I love quoting Carol Tucker Foreman on the topic of irradiation: “sterilized poop is still poop.”

Couldn’t it still be sprouts?

It sure could.  As I discussed a couple of days ago, sprouts are always suspicious because they have been responsible for so many other outbreaks.  But they did not turn up as an item in the epidemiologic investigations, when tomatoes, lettuce, and cucumbers did.

Will they ever find the real source?

Only if they are lucky.  It’s now late in the game, although new cases are still reporting in.

Did the Germans botch the investigations?

I can’t tell from here.  Some Americans think they did, and badly, and the Spanish are furious about the destruction of their produce industry.   But I think it’s too soon to judge.  These investigations are difficult at best and the German health care system is, by all reports, highly decentralized.  I want to withhold judgment until more facts are available.

Does Germany have adequate food safety laws?  And, do they enforce them?

I don’t know the specific answer to this.  In general, food safety laws in Europe are more comprehensive than ours.  They have single food safety agencies and farm-to-table rules that we are only just beginning to have.  But the countries are smaller and can do rules like those much easier than we can.   And they have experienced fewer serious outbreaks.  That may be why their reporting systems are not as advanced as ours.

How will the German outbreak affect food safety in America?

It’s hard to say at this point.  Congress seems determined to weaken federal regulatory agencies and cut them off at the knees.  To me, this seems like a dangerous strategy.  I think we need much stronger food safety regulation.  The safety incidents in the last few years provide plenty of evidence that some companies cannot be trusted to produce food safely on their own and that the industry is incapable of policing itself.

That’s where government has to step in.  Congress gave the FDA the authority to require all food producers to produce food following standard safety procedures.  The companies ought to be doing that anyway.

I’m having a hard time figuring out what’s going on with the German outbreak.  How do I find out what’s really going on?

I don’t read German well enough to follow the German press accounts, so I rely on secondary sources.

The Robert Koch Institute, the German equivalent of our CDC, publishes updates translated into English.

Food Safety News has daily updates on many aspects of this outbreak.  It sent a reporter to Germany to cover the events.

Bill Marler also does daily updates on his blog.

Jim Prevor, the Perishable Pundit, has just posted a lengthy discussion of the outbreak from the point of view of the U.S. produce industry.

And for the science, Foodborne Pathogens & Disease.

 

On May 26, the New York Times published a report of a new study on causes of obesity.  The study examined changing rates of physical activity in the workplace. Its conclusion?  Sedentary work is a major cause of rising rates of obesity in the United States.

The shift translates to an average decline of 120 to 140 calories a day in physical activity, closely matching the nation’s steady weight gain over the past five decades, according to the report.

Eric Schlosser and I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out a few flaws in that argument.  The Times did not publish our letter, but here it is:

To the editor:

It makes sense that sedentary work is a factor in the current obesity epidemic (May 26). But it cannot be an important cause. The changing American workplace cannot explain why the obesity rate among the nation’s preschoolers has doubled in recent years and that among elementary schoolchildren has tripled.

The rise in obesity worldwide is linked to the embrace of the American diet, not to a decline in manufacturing.

In China, childhood obesity has increased at least five-fold since 1985.

Simplest explanations are usually best. Reversing obesity means eating less and making healthier food choices.

It also means making it easier to do that by setting policies that promote smaller portions, lower prices on fruits and vegetables, restrictions on marketing food to children, and healthier school meals.

Of course, an increase in well-paid manufacturing jobs would help too.

—Marion Nestle and Eric Schlosser