Currently browsing posts about: Water

Pet food?  Yes, pet food.

I subscribe to Pet Food Industry, an exceptionally intelligent and informative newsletter.

This piece caught my eye: Study: Farmer’s Dog finds fresh dog food boosts hydration more than kibble.

One great thing about this publication is that its writers get right to the point:

Company published research showing fresh diets increase total water intake in dogs compared to dry food.

The Farmer’s Dog announced research showing that fresh diets help dogs stay more hydrated than traditional dry food. The company said the findings are among the first to directly measure total water intake in dogs across different diets.

Farmer’s Dog sells freshly made meals for dogs.

• The study:  Rae Sires, Ryan Yamka, Joe Wakshlag. Feeding fresh food and providing water ad libitum is clinically proven to exceed calculated daily water requirements and impact urine relative supersaturation in dogs. Front. Vet. Sci., 06 November 2025. Volume 12 – 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1675990
• Method: “Ten dogs were used in a single cross-over study design to quantify and compare feeding a fresh food (71.1% moisture) versus a dry kibble food (6.1% moisture) on total daily water consumption (drinking + food moisture).”
• Results: “…dogs consuming the fresh food consumed significantly more total water daily on average per day.”
• Conclusion: “…fresh food can impact urine relative supersaturation and help support hydration in healthy adult dogs or those that are at risk of dehydration and water loss.”
• Funding: “The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This series of studies was fully funded by The Farmer’s Dog. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.”
• Conflict of interest: RS and RY were employed by The Farmer’s Dog. RS and RY are employed within the Research Department of The Farmer’s Dog and conduct nutrition research for potential use in future commercial fresh dog food applications and products.

Comment

Disclosure: I met the founders of Farmer’s Dog years ago when they first started the company, and have followed its progress with great interest. Their company has done well.  Its freshly made meals are not cheap.  To find out what they cost, you have to fill out a lengthy form about your dog.  For the chapter on pet food in What to Eat Now, I invented and filled out the form for a 20-pound, moderately active dog.  Its meals cost $5 a day in 2024 ($1800 a year).

As for this study: it is a standard example of industry-funding, conducted by employees of the funder, with a predictable outcome favoring the sponsor’s product.  A second study compared Farmer’s Dog food to canned food; in this one dogs eating the canned food took in more water.  But the overall conclusion makes perfect sense; if you feed dogs more water, they take in more water.

I’m indebted to a reader, Daniel Wiser, for sending me this item about how US Poultry is honoring Tyson Foods and Perdue Foods for “excellence in wastewater management.”

The US Poultry & Egg Association announces the recipients of the 2025 Clean Water Award: Tyson Foods in Danville, Va., and Perdue Foods in Lewiston, N.C. This annual award honors poultry facilities that demonstrate strong performance in wastewater treatment, water reuse and overall sustainability. Winners were selected by a committee of industry engineers and university experts and recognized at USPOULTRY’s annual Environmental Management Seminar.

He also sent links to these stories:

• PBS News: Wastewater from Tyson meat processing plants is polluting U.S. waterways, report says
• Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Investors Refile Water Pollution Resolution with Tyson Foods
• Environment America: Report: Tyson #1 water polluter among agribusinesses
• Investigate Midwest: Oklahoma’s loophole: How Tyson’s water use goes unchecked
• Department of Justice: Tyson Poultry Fined $2 Million for Violating the Clean Water Act

You can’t make these things up!

Several groups under the auspices of Healthy Eating Research got together to produce this guide for kids ages 5-18.

To summarize:

• • Drink: water or milk
  • Limit: 100% juice (too much sugar), plant-based milk alternatives (except for medical reasons), flavored milk (too much sugar)
  • Avoid: beverages with caffeine and other stimulants, sugar-sweetened beverages, beverages with non-sugar sweeteners

Resources

• Press Release
• Consensus Statement  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Technical Report
• Summary
• Tips for Families
• Provider Toolkit

Translated Materials

• Consensus Statement  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Recommendations Graphic  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Added Sugars  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Caffeine Facts  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]

The headline caught my eye: FDA Publishes Landmark Final Rule to Enhance the Safety of Agricultural Water

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final rule on agricultural water that represents an important step toward enhancing the safety of produce.

This addresses a big problem: contamination of agricultural land growing produce by bacteria in animal waste running off from CAFOs(onfined animal feeding operations), and dairy farms.

As I read it, the new rule requires:

• Annual evaluation of the water system, water use practices, crop characteristics, environmental conditions, potential impacts on water from adjacent and nearby land, and other relevant factors.
• Testing pre-harvest agricultural water.
• Implementation of mitigation measures needed, especially those “associated with adjacent and nearby land uses.”

In the usual way the FDA does these things, farms have roughly one or two years after the final rule is published to comply.

The agency says it “is committed to taking an “educate before and while we regulate” approach to supporting compliance.”

I’m not sure what this means, but this rule can’t be implemented soon enough.

Next: USDA has to do the same thing for water on CAFOs and dairy farms.

Resources

• FSMA Final Rule on Pre-Harvest Agricultural Water
• Factsheet on the Final Rule
• FSMA Final Rule on Produce Safety
• Questions & Answers
• Harvest and post-harvest agricultural water activities.

Here’s something I haven’t yet written about but I’m seeing so much on the topic that it’s due.

Microplastics are small (5 millimeters and much, much smaller) particles that come off of plastic containers, wrappings, and waste.  They are now everywhere and in everything, including oceans, water supplies, food, animals, and us.

Not nearly enough is known about their effects, but early signs are not reassuring.

Some examples:

Bottled water can contain thousands of particles of nanoplastics, research suggests:  Microplastics, which research suggests could be harmful to human health, are well-known infiltrators of a wide variety of food and beverages. Now, researchers have found that nanoplastics, the even smaller offspring of microplastics, are present in stratospheric quantities in bottled water, unbeknownst to us until now…. Read more

Plastic chemicals linked to $249 billion in US health care costs in 2018 alone, study finds: By contributing to the development of chronic disease and death, a group of hormone-disruptive plastic chemicals is costing the US health care system billions — over $249 billion in 2018 alone, a new study found.

Should We Care That We’re Drinking Nanoplastics? A new study this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science tells us that every bottle of water we’re drinking has hundreds of thousands of nanoplastics….Nanoplastics and microplastics are not innocuous, but their risks are poorly understood. They come with chemicals that can be endocrine disruptors and contribute to obesity.

How Plastic Can Harm Your Health: Plastic is everywhere—even in the foods we eat and the beverages we drink. CR’s [Consumer Reports’] recent tests of nearly 100 foods found two types of chemicals used in plastic, bisphenols and phthalates, in a wide variety of packaged foods.

Everything you need to know about plastic pollution:This year’s World Environment Day – the fiftieth iteration of the annual celebration of the planet – is focusing on the plastic pollution crisis. The reason? Humanity produces more than 430 million tonnes of plastic annually, two-thirds of which are short-lived products that soon become waste, filling the ocean and, often, working their way into the human food chain.

Plastic food packaging contains harmful endocrine disrupting chemicals, study confirms: Many plastic food contact materials – plastics that are used in the processing and packaging of food – contain toxic chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system and metabolism, according to a new study published in Environmental Science & Technology.

Microplastics: In January 2019, ECHA [European Chemicals Agency] proposed a wide-ranging restriction on microplastics in products placed on the EU/EEA market to avoid or reduce their release to the environment. A consultation on the restriction proposal was organised from March to September 2019….The proposal is expected to prevent the release of 500 000 tonnes of microplastics over 20 years.

Comment: We should be looking hard at similar restrictions and at methods for reducing use of plastics and phasing them out. This won’t be easy, as discussed in: Microplastic regulation should be more precise to incentivize both innovation and environmental safety.  Is this one more food issue we need to be worried about?  I think it is.

Christy Spackman.  The Taste of Water: Sensory Perception and the Making of an Industrial Beverage.  University of California Press, 2023. 289 pages.

Food Studies scholar Christy Spackman proves that, yes, an entire book—-and a riveting one at that—-can be devoted to how water tastes, thereby explaining how it can be turned into a bland commodity with its non-taste sold at exorbitant cost.

My blurb for it:

After reading this book, I now view tasting water as just the same as tasting food, and so will you.

Here is a brief excerpt:

The tasting work done by the Nestlé team, and subsequent website and print information, paints a specific form of relationship between environment and corporation. Rather than highlighting Nestlé Waters (and one might say, all bottled water producers) as operating via extractive economies that produce PET bottles that then circulate in the environment for millennia in increasingly small particles—the tasting situated Nestlé as a core protector of the environment. Teaching dégustation meant teaching consumers to prioritize terroir, rather than the entire political economy of bottled water production….the stories that emerge through dégustation prioritize attention to long-standing understandings of the relationship between earth, food, and flavor at the expense of more recent environmental impacts of water exploitation. Attending to terroir makes it is easy to miss that the systems and ways in which bottled water is produced are, like municipal water, deeply technoscientific.

Another one:

Frankly, from a flavor perspective, for many people accustomed to the taste of bottled water, or filtered tap water, the ingestible argument DPR presents is pretty exciting. DPR [Direct Potable Reuse—i.e., reclaimed] water directly from Scottsdale’s Tap 2 completely lacks the green, musty flavors that plague so many water producers in the metropolitan Phoenix region. It tastes remarkably—or eerily—similar to many mainstream bottled water brands with its lack of minerality. Current proposals for integrating DPR into municipal water sources anticipate blending the purified effluent with treated water from the regular source. Once regulatory bodies take the step of allowing DPR, in the near future water will still slightly taste of the rivers, lakes, canals, wells, and aquifers it travelled through. Just less so.

Full disclosure: Christy Spackman is a doctoral graduate of NYU’s Food Studies program and we could not be more proud of what she has accomplished.  Read her book, judge for yourself, and enjoy!

Oxygen nanobubbles?  Oxygen in little tiny bubbles?

For this gem I am indebted to an item I read in NutraIngredients-Europe:

Oxygen nanobubble drink found to enhance athletic performance, study suggestsA new study finds the consumption of an oxygen nanobubble beverage significantly improves the time-to-completion of maximal and submaximal exercises performed by male cyclists…. Read more

I went right to the article.

The study: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study examining an Oxygen Nanobubble Beverage for 16.1-km Time Trial and Repeated Sprint Cycling Performance.  Journal of Dietary Supplements. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390211.2023.2203738.

The concept: Athletes need oxygen and water.  Therefore, oxygen-supplemented water should improve performance.

The result: As comparied to placebo, Althletes who consumed the oxygen-nanobubble beverage demonstrated significantly improved performance.

The conclusion:  “An oxygen-nanobubble beverage improves performance during submaximal and repeated sprint cycling, therefore may provide a practical and effective ergogenic aid for competitive cyclists.”

Guess who funded this: “This study was funded by Avrox Technologies Ltd, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG3 3SZ. Avrox Technologies provided the experimental beverages but had no role in study design, data storage, analysis and interpretation.

I wondered what the placebo was and whether study subjects could distinguish the drinks.  The beverages:

were supplied by Avrox Technologies in 500 mL individually sealed bottles and consisted of the same solution containing water, glycerol, glycyrrhizin, lecithin and citric acid. Both beverages have similar organoleptic properties, including taste, aroma, and texture. Previous investigations have indicated that the oxygen nanobubble drink consists of a suspension of lecithin vesicles with a modal diameter of ∼100 nm and concentration 7 × 1012 particles/ml.

The authors deal with my question in their discussion of the study’s limitations:

we did not evaluate the success of our double-blind design, therefore, changes in performance might be somewhat attributed to participants’ expectancy of positive outcomes from their belief that they successfully identified the O₂ beverage…Whilst there were no notable differences in taste, texture or appearance of the O₂ and PLA [not spelled out in the study but must refer to the placebo] beverages, we should have assessed blinding via treatment allocation questionnaires to determine whether participant biases influenced results.

Yes, you should have.

I also wonder whether club soda or Pellegrino might have the same benefit?  Or giving water a good shake?

The Environmental Integrity Project reports on The Clean Water Act at 50.  

The EIP was established by former EPA Attorneys to advocate for stronger environmental laws.

Here’s what this report found:

The bottom line: half of US waterways are badly polluted and “impaired.”

The report recommends that EPA do its job and enforce compliance with existing laws, and Congress pass stronger laws.

Advocates: get to work!