Updates; Chemical-Free Kids

The Feingold Association - a key CFK resource

12.29.09

It was recently brought to our attention that we have overlooked a mention of the Feingold Association at the Chemical-Free Kids web site.

Chemical-Free Kids has long praised the work of the Feingold Association. Our original CFK book contains many mentions and recipes from the Association as well as a foreword from Feingold Association director Jane Hersey.

So we’d like to take this opportunity to mention our omission and give a short overview of what the Feingold Association is all about for those who may not be familiar with its work and also give you a link to its web site.

The Feingold Program is the result of work done by the late Dr. Benjamin F. Feingold, a pediatrician and chief of allergy at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Francisco. He was considered a pioneer in the fields of allergy and immunology, and is best known for making the connection between what we eat and how it affects the way we feel and behave. Since 1976, his work has been continued by a nonprofit organization of parents and professionals called the Feingold Association of the United States.

The association’s program eliminates several groups of synthetic additives: synthetic food dyes; artificial flavorings; synthetic sweeteners such as aspartame, neotame, saccharine, and cyclamates; and three preservatives, BHA, BHT and TBHQ. At the start of the program, salicylates are also removed, but may be added back and tested one at a time. Foods high in naturally occurring salicylates include apples, oranges, tomatoes, and grapes. (Aspirin is also a source.)
The association researches brand-name foods to identify which ones are free of the offending additives and natural salicylates. It also provides comprehensive information and support to guide families though the program.

One of the advantages of the Feingold Program is that parents can test it out in their home, using ordinary foods available in their local supermarket. It allows children to continue to eat most of the things they enjoy, seeking to eliminate from their diet only those that contain ingredients that might be producing their adverse reactions.

Behavioral symptoms targeted by the Feingold Program include such indicators of hyperactivity as excessive wiggling, running and inability to sit still; impulsive and compulsive actions that are apt to be unpredictable, disruptive, destructive or abusive; and emotional problems such as depression, irritability, panic, mood swings and oversensitivity.

A more comprehensive understanding of the Feingold Program and the ways in which it can help children whose problems may be related to dietary and environmental factors can be gained by reading Why Can’t My Child Behave? by Jane Hersey, available at the association web site: http://www.feingold.org

Columnist sounds warning about endocrine disruptors and offers some sound advice for avoiding them

CFK News 12.28.09

Could plastic kitchenware be causing girls to reach puberty at earlier ages than nature intended, and be putting them at increased risk of breast cancer?

It's a question most recently raised by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, who notes that researchers are becoming increasingly concerned about a class of chemicals called endocrine disruptors, which can simulate the effects of estrogen in triggering hormonal change. Suspected sources of exposure to such chemicals include certain plastics, as well as various cosmetics, according to Dr. Alisan Goldfarb, a surgeon specializing in breast cancer, whom Kristof consulted.

So what can we do to avoid such unnecessary and unnatural exposures?

Well, one obvious thing might be to discourage teens from using make-up, which admittedly might be a difficult challenge in our style-driven youth culture. Or, we might go to the trouble of looking for cosmetics without estrogenic compounds (taking into account that "organic" cosmetics aren’t subject to the same rigorous standards as organic foods).

Kristof, however, did have some very practical advice to offer in regard to that kitchenware. Medical experts whom he interviewed on the subject told him that they avoid microwaving food in plastic or putting plastics in the dishwasher, because heat may cause chemicals to leach out," he noted. Another suggestion came from a reminder card he was given at a symposium conducted at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, which listed "‘safer plastics’ as those marked (usually at the bottom of a container) 1, 2, 4 or 5. It suggests that the ‘plastics to avoid’ are those numbered 3, 6 and 7 (unless they are also marked "BPA-free")."

Kristof added that he planned to spend the weekend going through containers in his own home and tossing out those with the offending numbers – which is something that conscientious parents everywhere might want to do as well, without waiting to see whether Congress acts on legislation introduced this month by Representative Louise Slaughter, the only microbiologist in the House of Representatives, that would establish a comprehensive program to monitor endocrine disruptors.

Recall of broth containing MSG when label states NO MSG

CFK News 12.11.09

Del Monte Foods recalled its College Inn No MSG chicken broth this week due to undeclared wheat and MSG. Many food products will state no MSG on the label, however a closer look often reveals that MSG is present in the product.

Check out the Truth in Labeling web site for more on hidden sources of MSG.

Follow the gingerbread man to the toxic fumes

CFK News 12.8.09

In a case of toxic detective work, a group of investigators, while checking homes around Hill Air Force Base facility, near Salt Lake City, Utah, for contamination from a release of toxic chlorinated solvents by the base, turned up a benign-looking little guy giving off plenty of noxious fumes.

The release of two toxic substances from the base, DCA and TCE, had contaminated a shallow groundwater reservoir and the chemical vapor seeped into some surrounding homes. The base installed systems to ventilate the contaminated houses, but in certain ones, the levels of toxic vapors remained high.

A team spearheaded by Utah State University scientist Bill Doucette was called in to investigate why some homes still harbored high amounts of toxic fumes. Doucette’s group went about sampling the air in these homes room by room. Suspecting household cleaners, carpeting, or other consumer items, the team soon zeroed in on a plastic bin of Christmas decorations stored in the basement of the first home it inspected.

Back in the lab, the ornaments were tested and found to be giving off toxic DCA fumes. Sampling the inside of a plastic gingerbread man, they hit pay dirt: it was off-gassing a whopping amount of DCA , a process that the investigators estimated could continue for nearly a year.

Other homes in the area that were still registering high DCA levels were found to contain similar toxic products. Doucette’s team even purchased new ornaments and found some of those were giving off DCA levels as high as the original gingerbread guy.

DCA-laced plastic is not confined to just Christmas ornaments, but was found in a variety of decorative items. DCA is used to harden plastics, not by U.S. manufacturers; the contaminated items were all made in China.

The amounts of DCA given off by some of the decorations “certainly fell within the Air Force Base’s action level,” Doucette said.

A spokesperson for the Utah Department of Health said they have been receiving calls from other states where indoor air testing has revealed homes with detectable DCA levels, and that the Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission has assigned a case investigator to the issue.

Read more details at Science News: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49897/title/Case_of_the_toxic_gingerbread_man

Things you can do now!
Dump the drain cleaner (and we don’t mean down the drain)

CFK News 12.7.09

Drain cleaners are among the most dangerous products you can bring into your home. They are corrosive and can cause blindness if splashed in the eyes and chemical burns if swallowed.

Why not try:
Cleaning the drain with a long, thin plastic device with sharp “hair catchers” running up the sides. The one we have used is called “Zip it” and found online at the Ace hardware site for just $2.99. It works amazingly well, and can pull up enough hair to start a toupee business. Just remember the sides are sharp, and it should be kept out of reach of kids.

Most bathroom sinks and tubs get clogged by hair. The best method of preventing a clogged drain is a good strainer.

Click here to go to "Zip it" product at the Ace Hardware site.

Washington state officials find task of picking top toxins a real challenge

CFK News 12.5.09

If you’re trying to keep toxic chemicals out of your kids’ environment, but not sure where to start, you’re not alone. Sharing your concern and confusion is the state of Washington.

Passing a law in 2008 requiring disclosure from manufacturers if their products contain certain chemicals especially toxic to children, Washington state is now 11 months behind schedule in compiling its “top 50” list.

Carol Kraege, the toxics policy coordinator for the state was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “It’s been quite a bit harder than we anticipated.”

In keeping with provisions of the Children’s Safe Products Act, Washington state officials have identified over 2,000 priority chemicals that cause cancer and can harm fetal development from a list of 80,000. They hope to distill the priority list down to the top 50 -- those that are of greatest concern and also likely to be found in kids’ products.

Once the list is created, manufactures will have to reveal if their products contain those chemicals.

Maine, Connecticut and Minnesota have subsequently passed similar legislation.

Thirteen years of genetically engineered crops equals whopping increase in pesticide use

CFK News 12.3.09

If you thought one of the “selling” points for genetically engineered (or genetically modified) crops was less pesticide use, think again.

The Organic Center’s November report, The First Thirteen Years, uncovers the dramatic increase in pesticide use due to the planting of such crops, over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than conventional planting in 2008, according to the report.

As is noted in Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) often referred to as “Frankenfoods,“ were allowed on the market without safety testing, and their use is thought by many researchers to be a factor in rising allergy rates.

In addition to having unknown allergic and toxic effects (especially in children), GMOs have created disruptions in local agriculture and caused the unchecked growth of “superweeds.”

An easy way to avoid GMO's is to eat organic processed foods, which contain no genetically modified ingredients. For more on the Organic Center report, click here.

Hazardous flame-retardant chemical turns up in baby products, furniture and house dust

CFK News 11.23.09

A discontinued flame-retardant chemical, TDCPP, once used in kids’ pajamas, has surprised researchers by turning up in numerous baby products, household furniture and even house dust.

Phased out of use in children’s sleepwear in the 1980s, TDCPP was reported to be mutagenic in a 1978 article in the journal Science and is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The recent study, featured in Environmental Science & Technology, examined 26 foam samples from over two dozen pieces of furniture purchased in the U.S. from 2003 to 2009 to find out what flame-retardant chemicals are currently being used, and found TDCPP in 15 of them. (In 2004 another flame retardant called penta-brominated diphenyl ether -- now banned -- was voluntarily removed from products after it was linked to low birth weights and reproductive abnormalities).

“I was amazed when I learned that TDCPP was still in use,” said Arlene Blum, co-author on both the 1978 Science paper and the current study. Researchers found TDCPP at levels up to five percent, by weight, in foam-padded furniture, a baby stroller and nursery rocking chair. Other levels of the chemical were found in items for use in a baby’s nursery, including a nursing pillow and changing pad.

So why do we need flame retardants in all these items, anyway? Bob Luedeka, executive director of the Polyurethane Foam Association, states that these chemicals are added to foam material when manufactured to meet the requirements of California’s flame retardancy standard, known as Technical Bulletin 17.

California’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation interprets the standard as applying to upholstered furniture as well as baby products padded with polyurethane foam. But Luedeka was quoted as saying that he disagrees with that interpretation, and believes there is no reason for fire retardants to be used in baby products.

Most likely, items that meets the California standard will be tagged as such, possibly mentioning “Technical Bulletin 17.”

For more information, including a link to the complete study, click here.

Join the Seventh Generation Million Baby Crawl

Testing more than 20 cleaners commonly used in California schools, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected hundreds of air contaminants that were not listed as ingredients by the manufacturer. Findings released this month found that air fresheners, disinfectants and bathroom, floor, glass and general purpose cleaners can fill the air with more than 450 toxic contaminants, including ones linked to asthma and cancer.

The top product for air contamination was Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser, producing 146 toxic air contaminants including fumes of benzene, formaldehyde and chloroform. Another product implicated in the study, Febreze Air Effects (Hawaiian Aloha), didn’t fill the air with Hawaiian breezes, but with 89 detected air contaminants.

The most obvious risk from cleaning products, of course, is that of accidental poisoning. But as the EWG study shows, simply keeping cleaning agents out of children’s reach doesn’t necessarily mean they’re protected from dangerous toxic exposures.

What’s unsafe for babies, it seems, isn’t all that good for grownups, either.

New research published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has found that bisphenol-A, or BPA, whose use in plastic baby bottles has already been banned by Canada, as well as by the state of Minnesota and the city of Chicago, may constitute a significant health risk to adults as well.

One study of 77 Harvard University students found a 69 percent increase in levels of the chemical in their urine after drinking from polycarbonate bottles, as opposed to stainless steel ones. The results of another performed on 1,469 adults by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention led researchers to believe that they may build up in body fat as well.

BPA, which is found in a variety of food and beverage containers, including cans and those made from recycled paper as well as polycarbonate plastic, may increase the risk of developing breast and prostate cancer, heart disease, heart and liver problems, according to some experts.

Such concerns are why one of the responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration’s new chief scientist, Dr. Jesse Goodman, will be “to provide new leadership and take a fresh look at this important issue from a scientific and policy position, incorporating emerging science and appropriate input from both inside and outside the agency,” according to FDA Publis affairs spokesperson Susan Cruzan.

Dr. David Wallinga, director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, has referred to BPA as a “hormone wrecker.” A consortium of environmental groups that tested baby bottles last year found they contained five to eight parts per billion of BPA -- well below the federal safety standard for the chemical, but well above levels that animal research has shown might be harmful.

Where it’s found: Numerous “diet” and “sugar-free” products ranging from soda to yogurt to iced tea and fruit-flavored beverages to children’s vitamins (often under its original brand name, NutraSweet).

Why it’s sinister: This pernicious artificial sweetener, which was accidentally discovered by a researcher for a pharmaceutical company (Searle) who first noticed its sweet taste, has been associated with a wide variety of adverse reactions, many of them serious. These include migraines, vision loss, stomach ailments, and abdominal pains, numbness or tingling of extremities, chronic fatigue, memory loss, seizures, tremors, dizziness, slurring of speech, rapid heartbeat, depression and anxiety and panic attacks. Countless consumer complaints about such problems associated with aspartame use have been logged by the FDA – more than for anything else on the market.

One of aspartame’s key ingredients, aspartic acid, is listed by medical authorities, such as prominent neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock, as an excitotoxin, along with glutamic acid found in MSG. Such chemicals are neurotransmitters that can cause brain cells to die through overstimulation. – a process that particularly threatens children, the elderly and others whose blood-brain barrier is either not fully developed or may have been compromised. Another aspartame ingredient, the amino acid phenylalanine, may reduce levels of serotonin in the brain, which could account for the feelings of depression some users have reported.

Early research on laboratory animals, in fact, indicated that using aspartame might lead to an increased risk of developing a brain tumor. This helped convince scientific advisers to the FDA to recommend that it not be allowed on the market – but their concerns were swept aside by a newly appointed FDA commissioner at the start of the Reagan administration. The decision, it should be noted, was followed by what, according to the Community Nutrition Institute of Washington, D.C., was a ‘dramatic and sustained increase in the incidence of brain tumors in the United States.”

Chemical residues from flea and tick collars
can pose a serious health hazard, study finds

They’ve survived for millions of years, can leap the equivalent of a person jumping over the Washington monument, and can make you and your pet’s life absolutely miserable.

Despite their tiny size, fleas can be a nuisance of gigantic proportions, producing allergic reactions in people as well as pets, transmitting tapeworms and even causing anemia in small and sick animals. To make flea-control matters even more difficult, they can be found both on and off your pet during the different stages of the flea life cycle.

But there’s also a real danger that the cure can be worse than the problem. A recent “first-of-its-kind study” by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) warns that the chemical residues left on the fur of household pets by many flea and tick collars can pose serious health risks to humans and animals alike.

According to researchers for the NRDC, one of the country’s top environmental organizations, “these chemicals are highly hazardous to animals and humans, can damage the brain and nervous system, and cause cancer.”

The group found that high levels of pesticide residue can remain on a dog’s or cat’s fur for weeks after a flea collar is put on the animal, posing a risk of cancer and damage to the neurological system of children up to 1,000 times higher than the levels considered acceptable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Children, the NRDC noted, “are particularly at risk from these pesticides because their neurological and metabolic systems are still developing. They are also more likely than adults to put their hands in their mouths after petting an animal, and so are more likely to ingest the hazardous residues.”

The group found that the residues from two particular chemicals commonly used in flea collars—tetrachlorvinphos and propoxur, which it described as “among the most dangerous pesticides still legally on the market” -- were high enough to pose a risk to both children and adults who play with their pets. It urged that the EPA institute a nationwide ban of products containing these chemicals, and that retailers voluntarily pull them from store shelves for the safety of their customers.

The state of California has already determined propoxur causes cancer calling for consumer warnings, the NRDC report pointed out, adding that the group is suing manufacturers and retailers of flea collars containing it to make them either comply with the law or remove the items at issue.

While such products continue to be sold, however, the group urged the following precautions for families in attempting to control parasites on their pets:

Petition drive aims to rid School Lunch Program of milk from cows treated with growth hormone

While dairy products from cows injected with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, or rBGH, have been banned in many countries and spurned by much of the American public, such products may still be finding a receptive market – in our nation’s schools.

According to the Center for Food Safety, at least 84 million gallons of milk from cows treated with the hormone may have been distributed through the school nutrition programs in fiscal year 2005-2006. That means “about one out of five pints of milk offered in school cafeterias nationwide” may contain the hormone which, in addition to increasing infections and the use of antibiotics in dairy herds, has been linked by some scientists to various types of cancers.

As a result, CFS, along with Food and Water Watch, has initiated a drive aimed at collecting 50,000 signatures on a petition asking Congress to “clarify that schools do have the option to purchase milk from cows that are not treated with artificial growth hormones” as it considers new legislation affecting the National School Lunch Program.

Advance of genetically modified crops repulsed
by scientists, German ban and Brazilian growers

Once seemingly unstoppable, the attempt by the alien agricultural invaders known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to take over the world’s crop production is now being repelled on a number of different fronts.

First comes word of a major setback for the corporate creators of these “Frankenfoods” in their propaganda campaign to convince agricultural policymakers that GM crops produce higher yields. This notion has now been debunked by the Union of Concerned Scientists in a new report entitled “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops.”

"The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven't enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the UCS Food and Environment Program and author of the report, which recommends that Department of Agriculture increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields, including sustainable and organic farming.

In other recent developments, the advance of GM crops, which has been significantly slowed by consumer resistance in various locales, has been further checked in both Europe and Latin America.

According to the Associated Press, Germany has now joined France, Greece, Austria and Hungary in instituting a ban on Monsanto’s MON810, a genetically engineered strain of corn that is the only GM crop grown in Europe., which the German agricultural minister called “a danger for the environment.”

And in Brazil, agribusiness groups including Embrapa, the Brazilian Business of Agricultural Research, have reportedly come out against GM rice." In Rio Grande do Sul, the state where 62 percent of Brazil's rice is grown, Federarroz (Federation of Associations of Rice Farmers) and Farsul (Federation of Agriculture of the state of Rio Grande do Sul) have also registered their opposition, resulting in an unlikely alliance between growers and social movements against the genetically altered crop.

‘Organic panic’ over HR 875 may be unfounded,
but concern over wording isn’t unwarranted

What's the latest buzz on the blogosphere regarding organic food? As you may be aware, it's the supposed threat to organic and local farming posed by H.R. 875, The Food Safety Modernization Act recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (along with a Senate version, S425) that's raised red flags of alarm on a number of web sites and on YouTube.

Could there indeed be any truth to these near-hysterical rumors of a pending crackdown on our right to grow or buy food that hasn't been treated with toxic chemicals?

After first looking over the proposed legislation and then speaking with a number of well-respected organic and consumer advocates, our "take" on the controversy is that the sky isn't falling -- at least not yet. As far as we can determine at this point, the notion that H.R. 875 represents some kind of “food fascism act” intended to implement a hidden agenda of companies like Monsanto to curtail the cultivation of organic food and the freedom to sell locally grown produce is a vast overreaction.

That’s not to say, however, that the language of the proposal being considered and the nature of any new regulatory apparatus it might set up shouldn’t be of some cause for concern, and that we shouldn’t be paying close attention to its evolution -- or, for that matter, playing an advisory role in whatever form it might ultimately take. In fact, one of the chief criticisms of the measure voiced by the people we consulted is that some of the terminology and definitions contained in the current version are much too vague and ambiguous.

The stated purpose of H.R. 875 is to establish a new “Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.” In so doing, the bill aims to strip the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of its current oversight responsibility for food safety in light of the rash of recalls of various commodities.

Much of the suspicion (and indeed, near-hysteria in some quarters) that the legislation has aroused has focused on the allegation that the husband of its primary sponsor, Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro, is a partner in a firm that did consulting work for Monsanto. Rep. DeLauro, however, has posted a denial on her official web site that either her husband or Monsanto (or other agribusiness companies) had any part in drafting the bill, which she adds “is supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming and locally grown foods.”

(Monsanto, as is noted in Chapter 3 of “Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel,” has been primarily responsible for the prevalence of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in most processed foods that contain non-organic soy, corn and canola ingredients, in addition to the widespread use of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) on such crops, which would ordinarily be killed by the chemical had they not been rendered “Roundup-Ready” through genetic engineering.)

The congresswoman also denies that any language in the measure would make it “illegal to grow your own garden” or would result in “the death of organic farming,” and points out that organic agriculture, in fact, falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture rather than the FDA. (Her “myths and facts” sheet concerning the bill can be found at http://delauro.house.gov/files/HR875_Myths_Facts1.pdf .)

“Hopefully most people in the organic community have gotten beyond the conspiracy theories about the genesis and impacts of H.R. 875 that have gotten some much ink of late,” Dr. Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of the Organic Center, noted this week in response to the controversy. “There is real substance in this bill that will clearly advance food safety for the benefit of all. But like any legislation at this stage of the process, it has its share of half-baked ideas and it misses some key opportunities to provide a solid foundation for long-run food safety progress. Continual vigilance is both needed and appropriate as the legislation makes its way through the legislative process, in order to identify, debate, and hopefully eliminate any potential adverse unintended consequences for organic farmers or food businesses, such as placing farmer markets at risk.”

Benbrook also addressed concerns that the bill would gain fast-track congressional approval while the public’s attention is focused elsewhere.“Over the next months, and possibly a year or more” he contended, “this bill will be subjected to several, and perhaps dozens of hearings. It will be dissected and debated, revered and reviled. It will go through several significant transformations before final reconciliation with the Senate-passed bill. Many sections now in the bill will fall by the wayside, others will be changed only modestly, and some new provisions will surely be added.”

Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocate James S. Turner, board chairman of Citizens for Health, concurs that the language of the bill needs to be reworked in order to guard against potential abuse or undue influence from commercial interests. It should be worded, he maintains, so as to "explicitly protect organic food and local farmers' markets and other measures that will promote a locally based, environmentally friendly agricultural policy." To help facilitate that, Turner would like to see a broad-based panel of knowledgeable individuals consisting of scientists, farmers, nutrition and other health experts and concerned citizens called upon for revision of the bill and considered for inclusion in the approval process.

So as overblown and unwarranted as the agitation generated by HR 875 might be, it may also have helped to ensure that this potentially momentous legislation is drafted in a fully transparent and above-board manner that recognizes the sanctity and importance of locally grown organic food to the health of the population.

Ever hear of MACA -- the Mid America CropLife Association? Well, neither had we before this week, when a letter its executive director, Bonnie McCarvel, and program coordinator, Janet Braun, sent to First Lady Michelle Obama last month became public.

The purpose of their correspondence was to “respectfully encourage” Mrs. Obama “to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply” as she goes about planning and planting her garden ion the White House south lawn. “America's farmers understand crop protection technologies are supported by sound scientific research and innovation,” they explained.

In case you’re wondering what the underlying meaning is of such terms as “conventional agriculture” and “crop protection technologies,” just think “pesticides and herbicides,” as well as chemical fertilizers and the methodologies that have largely depleted the nutrients from our food supply.

But, should there be any doubt about the message they were trying to convey, it’s quite evident from the e-mail that reportedly went out to supporters along with a copy of the letter that read, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder."

And if that, in turn, makes you shudder, you might want to sign the petition being circulated by credoaction.com, which brought this letter (and accompanying e-mail) to our attention.

Many children who are thought to be ‘allergic’
to certain foods may, in reality, be fine with them

CFK News 3.27.09

For a growing number of kids these days, certain basic foods -- along with the benefits of whatever essential micronutrients they might contain – are off-limits, due to the prevalence of food allergies that, in some cases, can be life-threatening (nuts and wheat being among the most common examples).

But now, there’s some good news in this regard. Judging from the results of a food challenge study of 125 supposedly “allergic” youngsters presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology conference in Washington, D.C., it appears that many parents’ concerns along these lines may be baseless.

Researchers who conducted the study at National Jewish Health in Denver discovered that more than half of the subjects weren’t really allergic to the foods that allergists had warned parents to avoid.

The discrepancies arose from the nature of the blood tests used to determine whether a specific food may trigger the formation of an antibody called immunoglobulin E (or IgE), which is made by the body in response to specific allergens. But that, it seems, is not necessarily an indicator of an actual allergic reaction.

As one of the researchers, Dr. David Fleischer, noted, "The only true test of whether you're allergic to a food is whether you can eat that food."

That’s why, rather than simply taking for granted that a child is allergic based on blood testing and go to all the painstaking effort to avoid exposure to the food in question (which actually can help exacerbate or prolong an allergy, as some authorities have noted), parents are advised to have additional testing done. These may include skin tests, to see if the allergen causes skin to become itchy at the point of contact, and food challenges, in which small amounts of the food in question are consumed under medical supervision.

Mercury findings the latest “sweet surprise”
in the high-fructose corn syrup controversy

You know what they say about high-fructose corn syrup? The recent “Sweet Surprise” commercials by the Corn Refiners Institute (CRI), aimed at counteracting concerns about the sweetener’s ubiquitous use in processed foods, seemed to imply that since such concerns have no actual basis, the people posing the question couldn’t really answer it themselves.

Should anyone still go along with that premise -- despite all the reasons that consumer advocates have presented why folks should indeed be concerned about HFCS -- here’s what an updated rendition of the conversation in those commercials might sound like:

Or, to be more precise, nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS analyzed in a study published in the current issue of Environmental Health contained detectable levels of the neurotoxic heavy metal.

What’s more, a second study, also performed by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit watchdog group, found mercury in nearly a third of 55 brand-name foods, especially dairy products, condiments and dressings containing HFCS.

The CRI, of course, has attempted to put the best face it could on those findings by claiming that they’re already outdated. "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years,” its president was quoted as responding in The Washington Post.

According to the IATP, however, the industry is still using mercury-cell technology to produce caustic soda that can cause the end product to be contaminated at four of its plants.

Furthermore, according to Ben Lilliston of the IATP, the products tested were "bought off the shelf in the autumn of 2008.”

The bottom line seems to be that food products you buy in which HFCS is an ingredient – and they’re everywhere – may or may not contain detectable levels of mercury at this point. And “(G)iven how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered,” noted David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies.

That’s why the group is calling on both the industry and the FDA “to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply," according to Wallinga.

But another way would be for food companies simply to eliminate the use of HFCS, given all the other problems associated with it (as noted in the CFK Web site in October).
Mercury simply seems to be the latest of the “sweet surprises” we’re in for where this increasingly problematic sweetening agent is concerned.