Kids cereals still too sugary.  According to Consumer Reports, 11 top kids cereals have as much sugar as a glazed donut, and two are more than 50% sugar by weight.  Best bets for fiber and low sugar? Cheerios, Kix, Honey Nut Cheerios (all General Mills), and Life (Quaker Oats).

 The Organic Milk Debate: Is big the same as bad? Consumers and activist groups are saying yes.  Do industrial-scale organic farms violate the intentions of the organic laber, or is it the next step in bringing organic to the masses?

Eating Healthy on a Budget:  Lots of links and tips in this post from BlogHer.  I’m still a fan of more fresh, less processed, more home-grown and home-cooked.

Bill of Rights for Young Athletes.  From Arizona Mama.  Not food-safety related, but relevant to all of us who have school-age children involved in athletics or any other myriad of activities.  Hitting home for me in particular is every child’s right (athlete or not) to be treated with dignity.

Yo-Yo powered i-phone charger.  From Ecogeek.  Several times cooler, more convenient, and better for the environment than a solar powered charger.  Not sure you’ll be seeing this one the market any time soon, but it’s a fun idea!

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.

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.

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?

Can an Organic Girl go corporate without selling out? A really thought-provoking piece from Ethicurean. From grass-roots to becoming the Martha Stewart of the organic empire, is MaryJane still for real?

What belongs in a Farmer’s Market? Stuff from farms, right? Ahhhh, if only it were so simple! from Slowfoodblog. We get complaints about not enough variety at our local market in the dog-days of August. Would we be better off buying from the San Antonio produce terminal or sticking to our “home-grown only” rule?

Food Safety Consumer Survey: Through Food Law Prof Blog. The results of a 2006 telephone survey of consumers says that 56% of respondents thought one was more like to get food poisoning from eating at a restaurant than from eating at home.

Bagged Lunch Safety Tips. From Natural Family Recipes blog, just in time for the start of school.

Cow Poo Powers Carnival Ride. From Ecogeek. At the California state fair, the Barnyard Animal Train is powered by locally produced biogas made from dairy cow manure. Local, sustainable AND educational! How much better can you get?

As a local foodie, small producer and farmer’s market vendor, I found myself in an odd position in my last post; defending Monsanto. Although I think Monsanto has a less-than-great track record in the PR department, as a scientist, it was relatively easy to post on the facts. As I cruised the internet looking for blogs, articles and op-ed pieces on rBST, most of what I read about why we should oppose the use of rBST was scientifically unfounded and sometimes completely at odds with reality. There are some legitimate concerns about the use of the product, and (believe it or not), there are also some legitimate reasons to support its continued availability.

So, here’s some issues to think about:

Is it ethical to remove from the marketplace a product that is scientifically safe, but has significant public opposition, if its removal raises the prices of a basic foodstuff? Remember that those most adversely affected are likely to be the least vocal and least politically represented. If rBST is withdrawn from the market place, will it also have a corresponding increase in milk prices?

Who bears the cost when farmers use lower efficiency production methods in favor of other factors such as sustainability, animal welfare, or organic? Dairy farmers use rBST because it lowers their cost of production per gallon of milk. I suspect that the first “rBST-free” brands may have paid a premium to farmers for foregoing the use of the product. But, as major processors became “rBST-free”, they simply imposed a restriction on the product’s use without any change in compensation to the producer.

What is the meaning behind the “rBST-free labels“? Last time I researched it, many claims such as “our milk is produced from cows not treated with rBST” had minimal checks to make sure the producers were not using the product. Milk bearing the label is very likely produced on large-scale dairy farms, and no more likely to be organic, pastured, or local than non-labelled milk. And finally, it has been shown to have no less “hormones” than non-labelled milk.

Optimal versus maximal production: Whether it be through the administration of rBST or traditional selection for extreme milk production, there is no doubt that the extra production comes as some costs. Productive life of dairy cattle (the length of time they remain in the milking herd before they become salvage beef) has decreased dramatically as pounds of milk produced per cow have increased. rBST increases production, as does selective breeding. What is optimum? Is it the same as maximum?

So, before you make your purchasing decision based on that “rBST-free” label, or demand that Monsanto pull the product from the market, make sure that your reasons are sound and you are getting what you pay for.

Monsanto recently issued a press release announcing they are divesting of the rBST product. Monsanto states they are not removing the product from the market, but rather looking to offload the business to a different company. In this first of several posts on rBST, I’ll try to provide some scientific background.

rBST or recombinant bovine somatotropin is a synthetically produced hormone that is identical to a hormone produced in the pituitary gland of cattle. In cattle, BST is present in milk at about 10 parts per billion, whether they receive rBST or not. BST is broken down by the digestive tract when milk is consumed. Even when injected directly into pituitary glands in humans, the BST hormone has no effect (this was tried when BST was first discovered, thinking it might be a way to treat growth hormone deficiency in humans).

The FDA’s review of the product, including levels of IGF-1 and BST in the milk concluded that rBST was safe and that milk from rBST-treated cows was indistinguishable from non-treated animals. Much of the original data submitted to the FDA has been subsequently validated in other research.

The recent JADA paper we discussed here also found no biologically meaningful differences in rBST-free, traditional and organic milk. In fact, the few statistical differences were often in a direction counter to what opponents of rBST would have us believe.

A study at Cornell University concluded that the use of rBST reduced the carbon footprint of milk production. It does this through increasing the efficiency with which cows convert feed to milk. Less feed per gallon = less poop, less greenhouse gas and less cows needed per gallon.

Given all the “rBST-free” labels appearing on the shelves though, there is obviously some controversy here: Wikipedia presents a reasonable summary of the rBST issues. The use of rBST does increase mastitis (inflammation of the udder), although this is similar to what is seen in high-producing dairy cows that are not treated with rBST. So, the question is more of how high the production rate is, than of rBST.

Scientifically, I don’t believe there is any food safety reason to base your milk choices on rBST status of the cows that produce it.