Factory Formed Fats

There’s a lot of hubbub about getting rid of trans fats, but not much news about what companies are replacing those trans fats with exactly. If you thought healthy, natural fats would replace chemically hydrogenated ones, think again.

Now I've Learned my ACBs

A. Irradiated food has not been proven safe

Speaking about 2-ACBs, the toxic molecules formed during irradiation of foods, Peter Jenkins, policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety proclaimed, "If any other food additive had as much science about health risks stacked up against it, the claim that it is safe would be laughed at" (source 1). 2-ACBs have been shown to cause “many and varied health problems in animals fed irradiated foods, including premature death, mutations and other genetic abnormalities, foetal death and other reproductive problems, immune system disorders, organ damage, stunted growth and nutritional deficiencies” (source 1). 2-ACBs are man-made chemicals – they have never been found in nature.

2-ACBs have been found in numerous [irradiated] foods that contain fat, including beef, chicken, pork, eggs, cheese, fresh- and salt-water fish, salmon, shrimp, mangoes and papayas. The types of fat from which 2-ACBs derive -- such as oleic, palmitic and stearic acids -- are contained in nearly all foods [emphasis added].

In one study, researchers found 2-ACBs in chicken that was irradiated 13 years earlier [emphasis added]. 2-ACBs are so easily detected and can be formed at such low radiation doses that they are often used as chemical "markers" to determine whether food has been irradiated. The European Union, for example, has officially adopted this technique to determine whether fat-containing foods have been irradiated (source 2).

Also, scientists discovered that they could not adequately account for most of a dose of 2-ACBs fed to rats. While very small amounts of 2-ACBs were detected in the fat of rats, most of the chemicals could not be recovered, implying that they are either stored in other parts of the body or transformed into other compounds (source 1).

C. It takes generations to prove safety

An increase in concentration of a mutagen in food by irradiation will increase the incidence of cancer . . . It will take four to six decades to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in cancer due to mutagens introduced into food by irradiation . . . When food irradiation is finally prohibited, several decades worth of people with increased cancer incidence will be in the pipeline (source 2).

or even worse, these cause-effect findings might be obscured by “background noise” because:

If food irradiation is adopted prematurely, research on its health effects will be hampered. Widespread use of the technology will make it impossible to detect any but the most obvious of adverse effects, because it will be impossible to define a control population for purposes of study [emphasis added]. (Quote from Donald B. Louria -- chairman of the preventative medicine department at the New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. Quotation from June 1990, Vol. 46 No. 5, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).

B. US Legislation is Lax

The EU only allows irradiation of “dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings,” while the US allows irradiation of meat, eggs, wheat, and fruits and vegetables, in addition to herbs, spices, and seasonings. Now the FDA plans to loosen labeling requirements so that irradiated food can be labeled as “pasteurized”.

How to Avoid Irradiated Foods:

BUY ORGANIC. Especially meat products and eggs, but also fruits and vegetables, wheat, and spices. Concerned about the fidelity of the organic label? Buy local whenever possible.

PREPARE YOUR OWN FOODS. Pre-packaged and prepared foods are exempt from labeling if only some of the ingredients are irradiated. For similar reasons, avoid eating in restaurants and cafeterias.

"Pasteurized" Will Mean "Irradiated"

Orwell said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

What comes to mind? I think of white-washing, spin, and euphemisms; if you want to paint a pretty picture of something that is perhaps not so pleasant, don’t you pick your choice of words carefully? For example, instead of calling jumping out of an airplane (before we open the parachute) “free-falling” we coin it “sky-diving.” We say “Operation Enduring Freedom” instead of . . . .

In George Orwell's 1984, newspeak is a political language designed to narrow the range of thinking among the citizenry to the point that they lack the terms to think for themselves. "Freedom" is defined as slavery and "slavery" as freedom. That should convince everyone to be happy slaves. It is not surprising that those who direct wars would want to narrow the thought of the nation behind them to thoughts of acceptance and support. (source)

And what about the assault on our food system? It appears the FDA is getting in on the linguistical disinformation act, as they are proposing to allow irradiated foods to be labeled as “cold pasteurized,” “electronic pasteurized,” or other yet-to-be-determined terms rather than “irradiated.” So even while the FDA is proclaiming food irradiation to be safe, they are attempting to downplay, in the marketplace, how our food has been “sanitized.”

Consumer confusion over labeling changes has been considered, in a calculated manner. In the words of the FDA’s Assistant Commissioner for Policy, Jeffrey Shuren:

In the short run, there may be increased consumption of irradiated food if those consumers who do not want irradiated food do not equate the alternative term with irradiation.

In other words, there won't be any public information campaigns over the label changes. I have posted several times about the health concerns of irradiated foods and I am adamant that consumers be educated and informed.

Simultaneously the FDA proposes to drop the requirement to label some foods as irradiated. Here is the proposal in its entirety:

only those irradiated foods in which the irradiation causes a material change in the food, or a material change in the consequences that may result from the use of the food, bear the radura logo and the term "irradiated," or a derivative thereof, in conjunction with explicit language describing the change in the food or its conditions of use.

Conditions of use? Now you are going to tell me how to prepare my own food too?

But don’t despair, because here is a nugget of sage advice embedded in all of this:

firms will only start using irradiation if they believe doing so will increase profits.

So there you go – vote with your money. Buy organic! To qualify as organic, a food cannot be irradiated.

The FDA will allow public comment for 90 days (ends July 3, 2007). To read the proposal, search their site for FDA-2007-0189-0001. Your result will be a page from which you can open the 16 page PDF. Here are the FDA’s instructions for commenting:


You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2005N-0272 by any of the following methods: Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following ways:• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.• Agency Web site: http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. Written Submissions Submit written submissions in the following ways:• FAX: 301-827-6870.• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the Electronic Submissions portion of this paragraph. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No. 2005N-0272 or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htmand insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the Search box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Information Collection Provisions: Submit written comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974.

More on Mercury Woes

If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know how I feel about methylmercury-polluted fish, but this article (that I have quoted below) fleshes out a few more details and considerations, for those of you who are interested. Until we reduce our consumption of goods that cause the release of mercury into the environment (here is a list – the auto industry is the largest source), we have merely managed to push our pollution to the far corners of the globe, as well as on to everyone's dinner plate.

The health risks posed by mercury contaminated fish is sufficient to warrant issuing a worldwide general warning to the public -- especially children and women of childbearing age -- to be careful about how much and which fish they eat. That is one of the key findings comprising "The Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution" published today in a special issue of the international science journal Ambio. . . .

Methyl mercury levels in fish-eating birds and mammals in some parts of the world are reaching toxic levels, which may lead to population declines in these species and possibly in fish populations as well. . . .

Increased mercury emissions from developing countries over the last 30 years have offset decreased emissions from developed nations. . . .

New evidence indicates that methylmercury exposure may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly in adult men. . . .

The concentration of methylmercury in fish in freshwater and coastal ecosystems can be expected to decline with reduced mercury inputs; however, the rate of decline is expected to vary among water bodies, depending on the characteristics of a particular ecosystem.

Critical Analysis of Food Irradiation

In addition to potential cancer promotion due to products formed by irradiation of fat in foods (see my ongoing rant in the previous post), there are further concerns linking food irradiation to cancer risk.

Amazingly, it seems most vitamins remain intact after irradiation, with the distinct exception of Vitamin D and folate, both of which are diminished by irradiation. Interestingly enough, a lack of both sufficient vitamin D and folate are linked to an increased risk of cancer.

This association [of high vitamin D and calcium levels with low cancer rates] remained significant after adjustment for age, daily cigarette consumption, body mass index, ethanol consumption, and percentage of calories obtained from fat (source).

There is overwhelming evidence that folate is protective against cancer.

Collectively, the evidence from epidemiologic, animal and human studies strongly suggests that folate status modulates the risk of developing cancers in selected tissues, the most notable of which is the colorectum. Folate depletion appears to enhance carcinogenesis whereas folate supplementation above what is presently considered to be the basal requirement appears to convey a protective effect (source).

There appear to be several mechanisms whereby irradiated foods could increase a consumer’s risk of cancer. If irradiated produce starts hitting the market, in a big way, I recommend vitamin D and folate supplementation, at the very least.

Fear & Genotoxins

There has been a lot of positive press lately about the purported food safety benefits of irradiated foods. Very little attention has been given to skeptics, at least few have been allowed to flesh out their arguments with cold, hard facts. As a result, I feel I need to share with you the work of a prominent toxicologist from the Univeristy of Texas, William Au, who present a well-informed voice of dissent.

Forgive me for lengthily quoting from a court document, wherein he presents expert testimony against the construction of a fruit irradiation facility in Hawaii, but I felt this was highly relevant to the recent interest in irradiating produce. I have attempted to bold-face information I find particularly informative, for those of you who would prefer to skim through it.

1. The use of radiation to treat produce destined for human consumption for fruit flies and other agricultural pests should be evaluated for health concerns very carefully. Radiolytic products are formed during the irradiation of food (Schubert, 1969). Some radiolytic products are unique to the food irradiation process, and there are scientific data indicating their potential health hazards. More research is needed on the products that are unique to the irradiation process.
2. A recently-discovered unique class of radiolytic products that are generated from the irradiation of fat-containing food is 2-alkylcyclobutanone (2-ACB) with saturated and monounsaturated alkyl side chain: 2-decyl-, 2-dodecyl-, 2-dodecenyl-, 2-tetradecyl- and 2-tetradecenyl-cyclobutanone (Miesch et al., 2002). Studies have confirmed the presence of 2-ACBs in irradiated mango and papaya, two types of fruit proposed for processing at the Pa’ina Hawaii facility, should it be approved (Ndiaye et al. 1999; Stewart et al., 200).
3. Since 1998, concern regarding health hazards from the consumption of irradiated food has been focused on the toxicity of 2-ACB. Using in vitro assays, 2-ACB has been shown to be genotoxic and mutagenic (Delincee and Pool-Zobel, 1998; Delincee et al., 1998; Delincee et al., 2002; Burnouf et al., 2002). 2-ACB has also been tested in experimental animals. In one report (Horvatovich et al., 2002), laboratory rats were fed a very low concentration of 2-ACB in drinking water, and the absorption and excretion of the chemical were monitored. The study showed that less than 1% of the administered chemical was excreted in feces. A portion of the chemical crossed the intestinal barrier, entered the blood stream and accumulated in the adipose tissues of the animal. It follows that consumption of irradiated food for a long time can cause accumulation of toxic 2-ACB in the adipose tissues of human consumers.
4. The recent findings by Raul et al. (2002) raises a high level of concern. In the study, Wistar rats received a daily solution of 2-tetradecylcyclobutanone or 2-(tetradec-5’-enyl)-cyclobutanone and a known colon carcinogen (azoxymethane [AOM]). Observations were made at two distinct intervals. At three months after initiation of the exposure, no significant changes in the number of pre-neoplastic colonic lesions were observed among the rats (all were exposed to AOM). At six months, however, the total number and the overall size of tumors were markedly increased in the 2-ACB-AOM treated rats as compared to the ethanol-AOM control rats. This demonstrates that compounds found exclusively in irradiated dietary fats may promote colon carcinogenesis in animals treated with a known carcinogen and identifies a new area of toxicity that neither the U.S. Food and Drug Administration nor the World Health Organization has yet examined.
5. A promoting agent does not usually cause cancer by itself but alters cellular functions (Zheng et al., 2002; Yamagata et al., 2002). The unique concern with promoters is that they can significantly enhance the carcinogenic effects of known carcinogens (Hecker et al., 1980; Slaga, 1983; Langenbach et al., 1986). Experimental animals that are treated with both promoters and carcinogens develop tumors much earlier and have more tumor nodules than animals treated with the carcinogens alone. Animals treated with the promoters alone would not develop tumors more often than the untreated animals.
6. Colon cancer (as was discovered in the rat study on 2-ACBs) is a serious health problem in humans, causing approximately 60,000 deaths per year in the United States. Consumption of improper diet is a major cause for colon cancer: foods that are high in fat especially from animal sources, meat cooked with high heat, charred meat, and food with high content of aromatic/heterocyclic amines (Colon cancer folder in the American Cancer Society website – http://www.cancer.org/; Lang et al., 1986; Vineis and McMichael, 1996). Consumption of the improper diet together with food that contains 2-ACB, which acts as a tumor promoter, can increase the risk for the development of colon cancer. Under this scenario, individuals who would normally outlive the risk for colon cancer might develop the cancer.
7. Numerous other peer-reviewed published reports have long indicated the mutagenic activities of irradiated foods fed to mammals (Anderson et al., 1980; Bhaskaram and Sadasivan, 1975; Bugyaki et al., 1968; Maier et al., 1993; Moutschen-Dahmen, et al., 1970; Vijayalaxmi, 1975, 1976, 1978; Vijayalaxmi and Rao, 1976; Vijayalaxmi and Sadasivan, 1975). While the health concerns for consumption of irradiated food simply cannot be considered to have been resolved conclusively (Louria, 2001), the data indicate that consumption of irradiated food can cause genotoxic effects and therefore health hazards in the population. Moreover, there may be subpopulations, such as children, who are most susceptible to toxic effects of irradiated food. Strong reasons exist for considering children generally to be especially susceptible to toxic materials (Au 2002).
8. In the final analysis, the only thing certain about the impacts on human health associated with the consumption of irradiated food, including the papayas, mangos, and other produce proposed to be processed at the Pa’ina Hawaii facility, is that it is the subject of considerable scientific debate. A recent article I co-authored summarizing the controversy over this issue (Ashley et al., 2004) is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference.

I find it interesting that Exhibit “C” was not, in fact, to be found attached, even while Exhibit “B” was clearly included, but after a little sleuthing, I found the abstract for the document, titled “Health concerns regarding consumption of irradiated food.”

Food irradiation is being promoted as a simple process that can be used to effectively and significantly reduce food-borne illnesses around the world. However, a thorough review of the literature reveals a paucity of adequate research conducted to specifically address health concerns that may directly result from the consumption of irradiated food. . . . As a result of this review, the authors conclude that current evidence does not exist to substantiate the support or unconditional endorsement of irradiation of food for consumption. In addition, consumers are entitled to their right of choice in the consumption of irradiated versus un-irradiated food.

This man is truly worth his weight in gold (Au). ;)