A survey by Consumers Union finds a huge majority of respondents to want more inspection of domestic and imported foods, better country-of-origin labeling, and labeling of genetically modified and cloned foods. Me too.
Oh great. So now trace amounts of melamine are turning up in infant formulas made by all the big makers. The amounts – 0.1 to 0.2 ppm or less – are way too low to be harmful, says the FDA. This seems logical, but does this mean that trace amounts of melamine are in everything? And it would be good to know what concentration of melamine mixed with cyanuric acid – or uric acid – is safe. I can understand why the FDA might not want to get into all this but I wish the Associated Press could have gotten this information without having to file a freedom-of-information-act request.
Updates: Here’s the more circumspect account in the New York Times, and a skeptical commentary from LawyersAndSettlements.com. The Washington Post (November 29) reported specific figures: The FDA tested 87 infant formula products and has results for 77. Of these, it found melamine at levels of .137 and .14 parts per million in Nestle Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron in liquid form. It also found cyanuric acid at levels between 0.245 ppm and 0.249 ppm in Enfamil Lipil with Iron (Mead Johnson Nutritionals/Briston-Myers Squibb). These are very low levels.
I am hearing rumors that the melamine crystals that caused kidney blockage in Chinese infants are not the same as the ones that harmed cats and dogs last year. The crystals in pets’ kidneys were formed of melamine and its by-product, cyanuric acid. The ones in infants seem to be made of melamine linked to uric acid. Fortunately, these are not nearly so lethal.
Uric acid is not a contaminant. It is a normal breakdown product of components of DNA and RNA, excreted in urine. Babies – and adults – normally excrete uric acid through the kidneys. Really, eating melamine is not a good idea and putting it into pet food, animal feed, or human food is nothing short of evil.
The City University of New York Campaign Against Diabetes and the Public Health Association of NYC have produced a new report: Reversing Obesity in New York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility of Unhealthy Food. I especially like the clear statements of arguments – on both sides – of doing something about stopping junk food marketing, especially to kids. This report should be useful for advocates who want to influence policy. Thanks to Lauren Dinour, Liza Fuentes, and Nick Freudenberg for writing it.
Yes Virginia, there is indeed a trade association for everything and omega-3 fats have their very own. This one is hard at work trying to get the FDA to approve a full health claim (as opposed to the current qualified claim) for omega-3 fatty acids and heart disease risk. The FDA now allows this statement: “Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease” (my emphasis). I can understand why the omega-3 industry wants something stronger. Health claims, as I keep insisting, are about marketing, not health.
In the wake of the melamine scandals, the FDA sent 8 inspectors to open offices in three Chinese cities. According to Food Chemical News (FCN), China announced that it would be sending inspectors to the U.S. FCN speculates that this may mean that tensions between the two countries are mounting, particularly because FDA officials “never mentioned the new Chinese inspectors in scores of press releases publicizing the opening of the upcoming China offices.”
It’s a whole new media world out there and I can’t say I’m adjusting to it easily. On Wednesday this week, a couple of techies came to my office with a laptop at which I stared while questions emerged from it. The result? It’s on the website of Meet the Bloggers. They also seem to have posted parts of the interview on YouTube here and also here. Electronically challenged as I am, this does take some getting used to. But enjoy!
Actually, they are more or less here already, but the USDA National Organic Standards Board has just given them a big OK. According to yesterday’s Food Chemical News, the Board approved (13 to 1) a rule to allow “farmed carnivorous fish to eat meal and oil derived from sustainably wild-caught fish — a practice to be phased out over 12 years until non-organic fish feed is no longer needed” (huh?). It also approved a more controversial recommendation (the vote was 10 to 4) to “allow use of open net pens in organic aquaculture, but with restrictions to prevent escapes of farmed fish and recycling of nutrients. Net pens would only be allowed in specified areas to avoid lice contamination.”
USDA-approved agencies have been certifying farmed fish as organic for several years now, so the Board was forced to take a stand on this question. As I have mentioned in previous posts on this topic (and written about extensively in What to Eat), organic rules are supposed to be about the conditions of production.
Since when is ocean water organic? And isn’t feeding “sustainably wild-caught fish” to farmed fish something of an oxymoron? The producers of farmed fish are desperate to be able to market them as organic. So isn’t this move more about marketing than about producing fish sustainably and healthfully?
While we are on the subject of marketing, I’ve just gotten a press release from a company selling what it says is the first certified organic bottled water. Since when is water not organic? And what’s so special about this one?
The National Organic Program says it welcomes feedback and comments. Here’s where to send them.
