New information keeps coming in about the milk crisis in China. The FDA has issued a warning against consuming Mr. Brown label products and White Rabbit Creamy Candy based on a recall of melamine tainted goods in Taiwan and China.

This is the first indication of the milk crisis affecting our buying habits here in America, so it’s especially important to get our facts straight on this one.

Despite the warnings, the FDA still has found no traces of melamine in any goods entering the United States. These advisories were put out as a precautionary measure since major global food companies have been touched by the ongoing crisis.

They are still on the lookout for any dangerous imports, but so far there have been no hazardous products found or any cases of illness reported in the U.S.  Though some blogs have blown this news wildly out of proportion.

While the situation is still very serious and requires vigilance, all indications show that the FDA is acting responsibly by trying to head off even the remote possibility of unsafe groceries hitting supermarket shelves. They are doing a commendable job thus far.

It’s an unavoidable fact of life that a globalized food market means that we’re never completely isolated from problems on the other side of the world. But it’s important to rely on reliable information to find out what those problems are and how fully they may affect our families.

Organic production standards are based on principles such as sustainability, reducing off-farm inputs and environmental impact and minimizing the use of synthetic materials.

Buying food labelled organic would seem to be an easy way to feed your family more healthy food, right?

Many of health benefits of buying organic are not necessarily due to the product being organic itself.  The diet of those for whom organic is a priority is generally healthier than the average American’s.  I speculate that the typical organoisseur’s daily fare contains much less processed food, less sugars (HCFS, cane or otherwise) and more fresh produce and meat.

Misconceptions about organic abound, such as the quote “organic food has no additives or preservatives“.  Organic food is made with organic ingredients, but there are exceptions for ingredients that cannot be sourced organically.  Organic cheese puffs can quite easily contain additives and/or preservatives.

Organic food is not necessarily more nutritious because it is organic.  Organic junk food is still nutrient-poor.  Organic candy is still sugar-laden.  A person can shop at exclusively Whole Foods and still end up with a really poor diet.

I believe fresh traditionally grown food is usually better than processed food of any kind, organic or otherwise.

Organic has its value and its place, but “organic” is not a substitute for healthy food choices.

Does Eating Local really do any good?  Economic Sense makes the case for increased efficiency of production as a viable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather than eliminating whole types of food.  Revisit our earlier post on the same National Geographic article.

The case of the disappearing supermarket:  From Chow.  Critics argue that San Francisco’s trend away from big supermarkets and toward smaller groceries (like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods) is harmful to those with lower incomes.  Chow maintains “The fact that, in general, high-calorie food is cheaper than fruits and vegetables is entirely unrelated to supermarkets”.

PETA asks Ben and Jerry’s to use human breast milk instead of cow’s milk .  From Barfblog.  Ben and Jerry’s responded by saying, “We applaud PETA’s novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother’s milk is best used for her child.”

Lead warnings from SmartMama. One in 10 children in the United States has blood lead levels about 5 micrograms lead per deciliter of blood according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Here’s a good update on lead sources in children, including a cool device that tests for lead, cadmium and other heavy metals on toys and surfaces.

Make it a Green Halloween:  From Natural Family Online.  A grassroots movement to brand treats and other items that are child/environment/people friendly.  Think outside the candy-box.

Eco-choice:  Toilet Paper or Bidet?  I’m not going to spoil it by answering here.  You’ll have to go to Green Daily’s blog to find out.

This weekend my husband casually mentioned that we should no longer allow our kids to buy chocolate milk from convenience stores because it came from China and was contaminated with melamine. In shock, I took to the Internet to figure out whether my children really were at risk, and, if so, how much and what I should do.

First, this is not some silly food scare. This is every mother’s nightmare. The melamine found in baby formula has lead to wide spread illness and a handful of deaths in that China.

It’s only rational for Moms here in the U.S. to ask if this crisis is going to hit our shores anytime soon.

So what did I find out? Well, first, a blog post by the Washington Post scared the pants off of me.

And the numerous disavowals by companies that there was nothing to fear did not necessarily quell my disquiet.

Although multiple articles about how hard the FDA is working to ensure we are all safe were helpful.

After a lot of research and digging (much of it on the FDA website – a true treasure trove of important information), I realized that the short answer is that we’re safe. Most of the panic has occurred because of some multi-national subsidiaries in China, which have found minute traces of melamine that are far under the permitted amount allowed by the highly-restrictive EU standard.

However, none of the goods sold in China ever find their way into the U.S. To be clear, once this crisis broke the FDA did extensive checks of all incoming baby formulas and they turned up nothing. As of this moment not one child in America is affected by this disaster, nor is it likely that any of our children will be in the foreseeable future.

But some bloggers are trying to tangentially tie this latest incident in with other imports from China. But there are consequences in raising red flags too often and about too many products. When you muddle the line between clearly dangerous imports and those that are safe, the buying public gets panicky and makes decisions without clear and reliable information to go on. Making that distinction is of the utmost importance. It separates a genuine crisis from a scare.

Because, let’s face it: A lot of safe and nutritious foods that we buy for our kids at the supermarket are imported. While it’s crucial to have firm standards with which to judge the quality of the groceries we let inside our homes, these standards have to hold up to the facts also.

A well balanced mind to serve well balanced meals.

Baby Formula

Bloggers

FDA Inspection

Nestle and here

I recently came across a survey of 500 ‘typical’ households in the Midwest done by the University of Nebraska.  They interviewed the primary grocery shopper about her/his attitudes and opinions about locally grown and processed food,  including meat, as well as organic and all-natural .

99% of respondants had purchased locally grown or produced food at one time or another.  The top three reasons for purchasing local were freshness, better taste and supporting local farmers.

The top reasons for purchasing organic or all-natural were no chemicals/pesticides/herbicides/antibiotics, more healthy/nutritious and because they taste better.

The top criteria for purchasing meat locally were:  Food safety, quality of the meat, USDA inspection, tenderness and juiciness.  The terms “grass-fed”, “organic” and “free-range” were ranked last.

Although the survey was performed in 2001, the results are still enlightening today.  Consumers find a taste difference with locally grown food [ever compared a homegrown tomato to one from the store?].  Safety is a concern for meat, but USDA inspection is trusted.  Residue are of concern to those purchasing organic.

Any speculations about how things might have changed in the 7 years since the survey?  Sadly, I’m not sure the average consumer is any more factually informed about those things that concern them than they were 7 years ago  [many of our readers excepted].  In fact, given the amount of propaganda in media as these issues become marketing tools, I’m afraid many are more misinformed than they were 7 years ago.

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA), through its website SweetSurpise.com and a slew of TV and print ads, is stating that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is safe in moderation. While many in the blogosphere have roundly criticized the CRA, few have actually bothered to take note of the message being put forward: HFCS isn’t the poison that consumers think it is.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Huget echoes this assessment:

“I hate to admit it — and don’t get me wrong, I don’t think corn syrup is health food or that the industry has anything but its own best interests in mind — but I think the group is right on this one. The American Medical Association in June issued a report saying there’s not enough evidence to prove that HFCS contributes to overweight, obesity or diabetes any more than other sweeteners. (The report does note that more research is needed.)”

Most of the harshest critiques read more like theater reviews than meaningful health pieces. They come from the perspective that these ads are portrayals of mindless “Stepford Wives” doing the bidding of big corporations. Blogs like MomLogic have even concluded that, somehow, the campaign is trying to convince people that HFCS is the cornerstone of a nutritious diet.

But the principle reason that these ads are important is because of the portrayal of one mother talking to another about how unreliable word of mouth can be on food safety.  Moms shouldn’t accept idle gossip or scary evening news stories about what’s found on supermarket shelves. And if that’s the loudest statement from the CRA’s efforts, why would you want to muzzle it?

The New York Times did an editorial on food irradiation that prompted me to do my own research. It was interesting that they mentioned that “NASA has long fed astronauts irradiated beef”.  Anyway, this is an example of a scary word (radiation) attracting far more attention than some other processes without a scary name.

Several hours of research later, here’s what I’ve got:  Critics say it should not be used because of loss of nutrients, quality and potentially harmful chemical byproducts.  The Organic Consumers Association makes the claim:

Eating irradiated food may make “the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown and other serious problems

There is definitely a yuck factor (”mutations, radiation, etc.”), but is there a danger?

• We lose nutrients when we freeze and can food to preserve it, but nobody is screaming that those processes be disallowed.  Loss of nutrients is no more than, and often less than other methods we use to extend shelf life or make food safer to eat.
• Chemical byproducts seemed to be the most likely real concern to me.  The citations I found that referenced harmful effects of feeding irradiated food were mostly from Japan and Eastern Europe.  The doses of radiation used on the animal feed were one to several orders of magnitude higher than what is used in our food (think Chernobyl and the atomic bomb).  The Institute for Food Technology reviews several research reports on the unique chemical byproducts that may be produced by irradiation.  Even in those that show potential carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects, the lowest exposure amount at which effects are seen is 8000-10,000 times higher than would be consumed in a normal diet.  Levels of benzene and toluene are lower in irradiated beef than in juch non-irradiated fish.  We produce carcinogens every time we grill or burn food.
• Labelling.  Irradiated food must be labelled in the grocery store, when it is a major component.  Spices, flavorings etc. may be irradiated and included without labelling.  Restaurants are not required to disclose use of irradiated food items.

Irradiation is primarily a process used to increase food safety (lowering risk of bacterial contamination) and secondarily to increase shelf life (fresh strawberries last 2-3 times longer if irradiated).  Although I agree that we need to address food safety on the production level, too, there will always be bacterial contamination and if a process reduces risk of food-borne illness without increasing other risks, why not use it?

My bottom line?  I think irradiation is no more likely to decrease food’s value or increase it’s carcinogenicity than most other cooking and sanitation practices.  The food safety aspects are incontrovertible.
Here’s some links and resources  to help you do your own research.

FSIS document explaining irradiation

Iowa State University fact sheet

Some discussions:  Food Production Daily, Health Castle, Ethicurean, Fresh Talk.   Blogher summarizes many blog posts–lots of gut-level distrust, but no solid scientific reasons to reject it.  A great two-sided discussion follows.

I came across a editorial about cloning while doing research for a post on food irradiation.  It leads off with

While Dolly lived a painful, arthritic life and died prematurely, possibly due to the imperfections of cloning,…

I am all for people being able to make choices about their food. If it is the right choice, fear and misinformation are not needed.

The article leads off with the widespread myth that Dolly suffered because she was a clone.  Truth is she had arthritis because she lived on concrete, in a display barn. She died of the same respiratory infection that killed many other animals in her barn, none of which were clones. The other sheep cloned at the same time have lived (and I believe some are still living) a normal, productive life on pasture, including lambing.

I have a question for the authors: If you so blatantly publish things that are not true, why should I believe any of what you write, in particular over what is published by the FDA?

Got distracted by Ike, but here are this week’s gleanings from the web.

TV Food Shows teach bad food hygeine:   A study at Texas Tech of 49 food shows on Food Network found inadequate hand washing, cross-contamination and a number of bad-examples that could lead to food illness.

Identify Greenwashing:  from Ecogeek. A new website claims to scientifically evaluate and report on products and their true “green-ness”.

EPA’s Climate Change Kids Site.  Thanks to Mama Joules for finding this cool site with lots of games and information about climate change and what we can do about it.

Does Sarah Palin have a position on crane poop and fresh peas?:  From Barfblog.  18 people in Alaska fell sick with campylobacter appearing to have gotten it from eating raw peas from field peppered with sandhill crane poop.  What geese can do to a sidewalk, cranes do to a field.  So what IS the practical on-farm food safety system for fresh produce?

There is an uplifting story in the UK newspaper The Times about the 20th anniversary of “Send a Cow”.  The program sent live, pregnant cows to Africa as a way to alleviate hunger and poverty and foster independence. The author, an inaugural contributor 20 years ago, went to see if allegations that the program was keeping Africa poor, were true or not.

Some unique and key aspects make this program more than just a “throw money at it” charity:

• The cows (and their resulting income) are the property of the women in the family,
  

  we find that if the profit from the milk goes to the woman, it will end up back with the family. With the men, we couldn’t be quite so certain.

• The first calf of each gift-cow must be given to a new family, who in turn must gift the first calf of that cow.  In Rwanda, a calf born to a Hutu must be given to a Tutsi family

Still, there have been opponents.

Environmentalists argue that the entire scheme is unsound because not only are bovines poor converters of food, but cows frequently break wind and emit damaging methane. But an independent carbon audit of this entire cow-giving process, gas and all, including the huge amount of fertility returned to the soil, has shown it to be so carbon-friendly that they’re practically in love with it. This, fortunately, spares Send a Cow an embarrassing encounter with the redoubtable Mrs Kibuuka where it says: “Sorry, your six kids will not be going to school after all because your cow farts too much.”

Send a Cow is still an active organization.  Also check out another of my favorite charities, Heifer International .  [p.s.  why not give a cow, sheep or goat as a gift in the name of that hard-to-buy-for person?]