I Wish I Were Far From the Madding Crowd

August 23, 2010

Sept. 15 meeting on Breast Cancer and the Environment, Washington, DC

The Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Breast Cancer and the Environment will hold its third meeting in Washington, DC, on September 15-16, 2010.  The afternoon session on the 15th will be open to the public.

The agenda for the public session includes invited presentations and a brief opportunity for public comment.  One of the invited presenters is the executive director of the Silent Spring Institute, which conducts and sponsors research on the links between the environment and breast cancer, other environmental health issues, and green chemistry.  Silent Spring maintains science review databases and other tools on the environment and breast cancer.

Its publications include the Guide to Breast Cancer Cohort Studies and

Self-reported chemicals exposure, beliefs about disease causation, and risk of breast cancer

Zota, A.R., A. Aschengrau, R.A. Rudel, and J.G. Brody. 2010. Self-reported chemicals exposure, beliefs about disease causation, and risk of breast cancer in the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study: a case-control study. Environmental Health, 9:40. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-9-40
Abstract, Article, Press Release

Attending the IOM meeting

If you’re interested in attending the IOM meeting or commenting you should probably contact the Institute beforehand. (You can register for the meeting online.)

They’ve listed the contact information on the meeting page, but below is the information as of today:

Activity Contact Information

For More Information Contact

Ashley McWilliams

Phone: 202-334-1910
Fax: 202-334-2862
E-mail: BreastCancerandtheEnvironment@nas.edu

Mailing Address

Keck Center
W726
500 Fifth St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
This Institute project is sponsored by Susan G. Komen for the Cure®.  Links to the two previous meetings and background material can be found on the project page. (Susan G. Komen for the Cure® also sponsors the Silent Spring Institute’s science review databases.)

April 18, 2010

Sugar is sugar … or not?

If you’ve followed any of the discussion about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) vs. sucrose, you’ve probably heard representatives of the soft drink industry and HFCS refiners repeatedly say that fructose is no different than sucrose and that they’re metabolized the same (which, according to more and more research, is debatable).  I’ll get to that a little further on.

How much sugar we’re consuming

Amber Waves article “Behind the Data: Estimating Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners.” (April 2003)

Amount of HFCS and refined sugar delivered to food and beverage manufacturers in 2001

Intake levels represent the difference between total deliveries of calorie sweeteners for food and beverage use and estimated losses
Graphics from http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April03/Indicators/behinddata.htm

Make note of that 31.1 teaspoons per day figure for 2001.  (Daily intake in teaspoons = average annual intake in pounds / 365 days per year x 16 ounces per pound x 28.3495 grams per ounce / 4.2 grams per teaspoon.)

Think about the last item in that formula.  If the label on a box of cereal says 9 g of sugars, that means that a single serving contains 2 tsps of sugar.  A 12 oz. soda containing 39 g of sugars contains more than NINE teaspoons of sugar.  You get the idea.

According to Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, 1970-2005 (see references), for 2005 it was down to 30 teaspoons per day.

What does this tell us?

Several points, one, representatives of the Corn Refiners Association and beverage manufacturers are right when they say that whether it’s fructose or sucrose doesn’t really matter.  If you’re consuming almost 4 times the amount of added sugars you should be, you are going to have problems!

Two, sucrose contained in beverages begins to undergo hydrolysis once it’s bottled and separates into its component parts (that is, fructose and glucose).  So in many cases when you’re drinking a sugar-sweetened soda you’re not drinking sucrose in solution, but sucrose, fructose, and glucose.  If enough time goes by most of the sucrose turns into free fructose and glucose.

A number of studies have shown that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose, but other studies seem to indicate that’s not as much of a concern, except possibly in two cases: one, when the ratio of fructose to glucose consumption is high, or in cases of high consumption of calories.  I would say that we have a combination of those, a relatively high ratio of fructose to glucose consumption (look at the relative amounts of HFCS to refined sugars used by beverage manufacturers!) together with consuming too many calories from sugar.  (And remember, that’s just the average amount.  Some people are consuming even larger amounts of sugar.)

Background on high fructose syrups

I recently came across a very interesting article, coauthored by John S. White, who is, or at least has been, a consultant to the Corn Refiners Association.

“Manufacturing, composition, and applications of fructose.”  L. Mark Hanover and John S. White.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1993, v.58(suppl.), 724S-732S.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/5/724S

The article describes the manufacturing and refining process of HFCS (or, as the authors call it, HFS), the composition of various grades of HFCS (as well as crystalline fructose and crystalline fructose syrup), functional properties and uses, and regulatory status.

What I found so fascinating about this particular article though, were these bits of information scattered throughout it.  According to the authors , HFS-42 (that is, HFCS that is 42% fructose) was the “first generation syrup of commerce.”  (p.726S)

They go on to note that :

Japanese and US manufacturers were producing HFS containing 55% fructose by the late 1970s.  HFS-55 was adopted by the carbonated-beverage industry and became the predominant sweetener in colas by late 1984. (p.726S)

On p. 727S, a table showing the typical composition of the various grades of fructose (ranging from 42% all the way up to 80% and 95%).

  • HFS-42 is 42% fructose, 53% dextrose (i.e. glucose), and 5% oligosaccharides
  • HFS-55 is 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% oligosaccharides
  • HFS-80 is 80% fructose, 18% glucose, and 2% oligosaccharides
  • HFS-95 is 95% fructose, 4% glucose, and 1% oligosaccharides

One of the minor differences between HFS-80 and HFS-95 is that they, unlike the other two, contain less sulfated ash and no sulfur dioxide.  (Okay, the HFS-42 and -55 contain only 2 parts per million.)

The crystalline fructose and crystalline fructose syrup are both 99.5% or greater fructose.

What is interesting is that the authors note, p. 731S, that HFS-55 was being used in colas by late 1984, but that in 1988 the FDA had “proposed to recognize the long history of safety for fructose and reaffirm the GRAS status of HFS as a direct human food ingredient.” (FDA, 1992, 21 CFR 182.1866)  GRAS = “Generally Recognized As Safe” (for particular uses of a substance), CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

They go on to note: “The petition is specific for HFS-42, but may include HFS-55 on review of its additional processing steps.”

I’m not a lawyer, but to me that sounds like HFS-55 had not actually been approved for use as a direct human food ingredient at the time that cola manufacturers were starting to use it.  (I guess they must have just done that after the fact.)

HFS-55 vs. HFS-42

“The carbonated beverage industry is the largest user of HFS-42 and -55.” (p. 729S)  HFS-42 is primarily used in non-colas and HFS-55 in many colas, though colas can also be made using more HFS-42.  (See the graphic above about the use of sugar vs. HFCS by food vs. beverage manufacturers.)

In 1993 more than than 90% of energy-containing carbonated beverages produced in the U.S. were sweetened with HFS.

If I understand Hannover and White correctly, before 1984 most colas apparently were sweetened with HFS-42 and after 1984 with HFS-55.  In other words, the HFCS had approximately a 13% increase in the amount of fructose in it after the switch.

More importantly, the ratio of fructose to glucose changed from 42:53 to 55:42.  Why is that important?

Fructose malabsorption

Too much fructose in the diet can cause irritable bowel syndrome and other gastrointestinal problems.  However, studies have found that the problems are reduced when fructose is consumed with glucose.  (A certain percentage of the population is more prone to this, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue for most people.)

This is where you run into the problems of fructose metabolic products related to metabolic syndrome.   (The results of some studies also suggested that fructose malabsorption and metabolism problems were more likely to be associated with copper deficiency.)

Is HFCS the biggest problem?

I was going to say that HFCS is not the innocent player some portray it to be, then I realized that’s not really accurate.  The use of HFCS is not in and of itself the problem; the problem is food and beverage manufacturers putting it in almost every food and beverage they can.  It’s cheaper than refined sugar.  And most fast food places and restaurants reportedly make a higher profit margin off of soft drinks.  Once HFCS was introduced soft drink ingredients became so inexpensive that a lot of places started offering free refills.  I’m sure someone has brought that up before, but perhaps free refills are one of the main contributing factors to the increase in obesity (!?).   When people had to pay for a second glass of soda, they drank less.  Sorry, I don’t have a citation for that, but that seems obvious.  (Okay, I had to check.  I did a search on Google Scholar on +”obesity epidemic” +”free refills” and got 21 hits.   Google Scholar searches the scientific literature and books, as opposed to the entire Web.)

One example (with excerpt containing search terms):

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

H Basciano, L Federico, K Adeli – Nutrition & Metabolism, 2005 – biomedcentral.com
in humans and animals, but the emphasis on fat reductions has had no significant benefits relative to the obesity epidemic. bombarded by huge million-dollar advertising campaigns for soft drinks, offered extra-extra-large serving sizes with free refills.

Apparently this is known as “portion distortion.”

Put that together with chronic overconsumption of sugar (regardless of whether they’re fructose or sucrose), unbalanced diets (deficiencies in vitamin D?), and not as much exercise as we should be getting.

Then throw in genetics, add a good dose of epigenetics in the form of gene-environment interactions, and you have all the conditions for development of metabolic syndrome and an obesity epidemic.

More on this in another post.

References

Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, 1970-2005, by Hodan Farah Wells and Jean C. Buzby, Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-33) 27 pp, March 2008, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB33/

April 2, 2010

Metabolic syndrome and exposure to persistent organic pollutants

Take a spoonful of sugar, add a pinch of chemicals that accumulate in fatty tissue, and voila, metabolic syndrome! So while Dr. Lustig may be on to something, it looks like fructose might not be the only thing to blame for the obesity epidemic.

The reason why persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a problem is that they can bioaccumulate in fatty tissue.  (If fructose causes metabolic syndrome as Dr. Lustig says, and metabolic syndrome results in increased obesity, which in turn means more fatty tissue, and more fatty tissue can absorb more POPs, we would seem to have started a rather vicious cycle.)

The Editor’s Summary explains why the findings of this study are especially important (emphasis added).

The authors conclude that exposure to POPs through a diet high in fatty fish is capable of inducing insulin resistance and impairing both lipid and glucose metabolism. Furthermore, they found that n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids failed to counteract the harmful metabolic effects of dietary POP exposure. This finding is important because the presence of n-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish oil has been reported to have a wide range of beneficial effects, including protection against high-fat diet–induced insulin resistance. The authors conclude that there is a need to continue efforts to limit human exposure to dietary POPs even in foods containing protective factors such as polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Persistent Organic Pollutant Exposure Leads to Insulin Resistance Syndrome, Jérôme Ruzzin et al. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(4) Apr 2010.

Related EHP news item:

Chew on This: Persistent Organic Pollutants May Promote Insulin Resistance Syndrome

Are PET plastic bottles a source of endocrine disruptors?

PET (or PETE) bottles are the ones with the recycling number “1″.  (For a list of all the numbers and a description of the various plastics (and what they’re used for), see the Resin Identification Codes chart at the American Chemistry Council.)

Polyethylene Terephthalate May Yield Endocrine Disruptors

Leonard Sax, Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(4) Apr 2010.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is the material most commonly used to make the clear plastic bottles in which bottled water is sold. PET bottles are also in widespread use as containers for soda beverages, sports drinks, and condiments such as vinegar and salad dressing. PET bottles are also commonly used for the packaging of cosmetic products, such as shampoo, particularly when such products are sold in clear plastic bottles.

From the Editor’s Summary

Sax suggests that the phthalate content of PET bottles, if present, might vary as a function of the acidity of the product and the temperature and duration of storage. Sax also makes the observation that other nonphthalate chemicals such as antimony, which is used as a catalyst in the polycondensation of PET, might also contribute to the endocrine-disrupting activity of products stored in PET containers.

Note: McDonough and Braungart comment on the use of antimony in the manufacture of polyester in Cradle to Cradle.

Article contents

Cites “Exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds via the food chain: Is packaging a relevant source?” by Jane Muncke, Science of the Total Environment, Volume 407, Issue 16, 1 August 2009, Pages 4549-4559 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.006.

March 31, 2010

More industrial infrastructure problems (Cradle to Cradle, pt. 4)

McDonough and Braungart.  Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.

Design problems with “universal” design solutions

  • One size fits all
  • Products are designed for worst-case scenarios (guarantees widest possible market–also reflects assumption that nature is “the enemy”)
  • Logic of brute force – make universal solutions “fit” local conditions through chemical brute force & fossil fuel energy

Natural systems rely on energy from the sun, but people extract and burn fossil fuels without energy of harnessing local natural energy flows.
Burning fossil fuels leads not only to greenhouse gases and global warming, but production of particulate matter, which can cause respiratory and other health problems.

You wouldn’t want to depend on savings for all of your daily expenditures, so why rely on savings to meet all of humanity’s energy needs?

Culture of monoculture

  • Diversity is treated as a hostile force and a threat to design goals
    “Brute force and universal design approaches to typical development tend to overwhelm (and ignore) natural and cultural diversity, resulting in less variety and greater homogeneity.”
  • Modern urban areas replace natural land cover with asphalt and concrete
  • Conventional agriculture

Native plants help prevent erosion and provide habitat for insects and birds, some of whom are natural enemies of crop pests.  Loss of pests’ natural enemies results in an increase of pests (and monoculture can become vulnerable to widespread destruction if the wrong pest gets introduced, whether that be insects, fungi, etc.)

Increase in pests has led to increase in use of pesticides, which in turn has led to increase in pesticide resistance.

Super weeds

Here’s a link to the ABC News story on pigweed, “Super Weed Can’t Be Killed” (Oct. 6, 2009):

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8767877

(The pesticide industry’s basic reaction: “You dumb farmers!  You need to use additional herbicides and not just Roundup.”)

Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds: Can We Close the Barn Door? (Weed Science Society of America)
Researchers say cost-competitive management techniques can slow weed resistance to the herbicide and improve crop yields

And Monsanto’s take on this – http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/science/weed_management.pdf

And now there are reports that Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt cotton (Bacillus thuringiensis) is failing because pink bollworms in India are developing Bt resistance as well.

Hmm, maybe if Monsanto hadn’t bred glyphosate-resistant plants (Roundup Ready!), thereby encouraging farmers to use more Roundup, we wouldn’t have this problem.  It kind of infuriates me that they’re now saying, “We knew this would happen!  We tried to warn people!”  If they knew that, why did they go ahead and develop genetically-modified (GM) plants in the first place?

The problem according to McDonough and Braungart?  Simplified systems actually require more maintenance because they can’t survive without intervention.

Economics

Activity equals prosperity

McDonough and Braungart note that the 1991 Exxon Valdez oil spill actually increased Alaska’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).    They note that GDP only takes one thing into account, economic activity.  They note that:

…if prosperity is judged only by increased economic activity, then car accidents, hospital visits, illnesses (such as cancer), and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity.

They note that loss of resources, cultural depletion, negative social and environmental factors, and reduction of quality of life can all be negated by a simplistic economic figure.

Crude products

The authors define these as products that are not designed particularly for human and ecological health because they are unintelligent and inelegant.  Because little attention is paid to the design of products, we end up with what they call “products plus.”  You get the item or service you wanted, plus additives you didn’t ask for and didn’t know were included.  For example, examining a number of high-tech products, they discovered that during use they off-gassed carcinogens and/or chemicals that cause birth defects.

They claim that high-tech products are usually composed of low-quality-materials, including cheap plastics and dyes that would be banned in Europe or the U.S., but are used in materials made in developing countries where their use has not been banned.

As a result of emissions from these “crude products,” indoor air quality is often more contaminated than outdoor air.  They cite a Scientific American story by Wayne R. Orr and John Roberts, “Everyday Exposures to Toxic Pollutants,” Feb. 1998, that notes that levels of toxic chemicals found in households were high enough to trigger a formal risk assessment at a Superfund site.

They note that even products designed for children can contain high levels of toxic chemicals which can be absorbed.  Not only can these include carcinogens, but they can also include chemicals that stress children’s bodies and also weaken the immune system, making children more susceptible to cancer-causing chemicals and other stressors.  Citing Our Stolen Future, they note that many of these chemicals can also disrupt the endocrine system and that only a small fraction of industrial chemicals have been tested for their effects on living systems.

They say that it might be tempting to try to turn back the clock, but that

the natural materials to meet the needs of our current population do not and cannot exist.

Also, even “natural” products are not necessarily safe and healthy.  (Some of the strongest poisons are natural in origin.)

A Strategy of Tragedy, or a Strategy of Change?

McDonough and Braungart argue that the poor designs created by today’s industrial infrastructure are not sustainable.  They say that most industrial methods and materials are unintentionally depletive.  (That might be true for agricultural practices, but I don’t actually see how they can say that about resources like petroleum and coal.  We clearly know that we’re depleting such resources.)

So how they propose we get out of this cycle of what they call intergenerational remote tyranny?

At some point a manufacturer or designer decides, “We can’t keep doing this. We can’t keep supporting and maintaining this system.” At some point they will decide that they would prefer to leave behind a positive design legacy.  But when is that point?

We say that point is today, and negligence starts tomorrow.  Once you understand the destruction taking place, unless you do something to change it, even if you never intended to cause such destruction, you become involved in a strategy of tragedy, or you can design and implement a strategy of change.

They then note that many people probably think such a strategy already exists.  After all, don’t a number of “green” and “eco-efficient” movements already exist?

Isn’t such a strategy viable?  (The short answer, No.)  In the next chapter, they make an argument for “Why Being ‘Less Bad’ Is No Good.”

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.