Dangers from modern agricultural practices-Food safety compromised?

Safety of agricultural produce is of paramount importance when it comes to evolving standards that will not compromise on human health. Internationally there is a great awareness regarding what ought not to be present in foods raised through industrial agriculture and in spite of measures that force the agri-industry to adopt safe cultivation practices, there are frequent reports regarding food poisoning and slow acting toxins contributing to adverse human impact. Though there are hundreds of chemicals available to the farmers for fertilization and crop protection, many countries try to regulate their use by banning those proved to be harmful and others that can be used at levels prescribed by relevant laws. What is not realized by layman is the dangers posed by these chemicals coming in contact with him through contamination of water and the land. Use of antibiotics and hormones in animal production as well as in raising fish through aquaculture and fish farming adds another dimension to the dangers posed to human beings and the environment. According to a recent report, modern analytical tools are exposing the presence of many chemicals in food and water which might be new or already in use but not assessable by conventional techniques. This report exposes the dangers and challenges posed by these so called "emerging contaminants".  

"The most well-documented impacts of agriculture runoff on human and ecological health are primarily related to nutrient pollution in water, where nitrogen and phosphorous from fertilizers cause oxygen-starved "dead zones" in water. Now, scientists and government agencies are also examining the impacts of agriculture runoff as a significant source of emerging contaminants, substances that may pose a health risk when they enter food or water systems. Emerging contaminants (ECs) — which include hormones, antibiotics, steroids, nanomaterials, human pharmaceuticals, and personal care products — are difficult to measure or identify, but they pose special threats to human and ecological health. However, few regulations prevent agriculture operations from releasing ECs into the environment. "Emerging contaminants are a perfect example of how regulations are behind the technology," said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, "We are releasing contaminates from agriculture when we still do not fully understand them, and our current regulations do not keep us safe from them."

Organic food industry which started humbly two decades ago is becoming the darling of the consumer precisely for the reason that people want to avoid "unknowns" in their foods by preferring to eat crops raised with use of no chemicals or with least chemicals. Now that more sensitive and reliable instruments and methods are emerging which expose the presence of many chemicals, even in trace concentrations, in food and water, gaining entry intentionally or unintentionally, Organic foods are bound to be adopted by more and more people who care about their health and that of their families. WHO and FAO must revisit the safety issues and modern food and agri-industry practices to make the standards stricter and more enforceable to safeguard the health of the population as well as the environment. Standards must keep in pace with progress in technology for which regular and periodic reappraisals are necessary.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

NON-CALORIC OBESOGENS-NEW REVELATIONS OF SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS

Is the world becoming a scary place to live considering the plethora of risks and dangers humans face to day in their eternal search for more pleasure and convenience? If all the contradicting, often confusing reports that come in their way, are taken at their face value, there appears to be a sense of inevitability that future is going to be more and more insecure for the denizens though not many realize the lurking dangers ahead. If the food industry, the retail industry, government and the consumer community do not pull up their socks, world is hurtling towards a catastrophe of gigantic dimension. For example obesity is making a nation like America present a grotesque picture of its population as more than 30% of them are obese by definition and consumers have to bear a lot of responsibility for this undesirable transformation. But the contribution by the industry is also not too small to be ignored. From marketing junk foods, loaded heavily with "empty" calories to using thousands of chemicals in the food during processing the industry plays a "dirty" role in seducing the citizens to the portfolio of products it offers. Bis-Phenol A, an additive in many plastic packaging materials and lining materials was ubiquitous by its presence in the blood and urine of more than 90% of the population in the US, is now discovered to be an obesogen causing weight increase in many people, even under normal food consumption protocol. Here is a take on this issue.    

"One of the most common of these obesogens, as they have become known, is bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, the ubiquitous chemical found in everything from the lining of cans to the paper that most receipts are printed on. Research suggest that it's in the urine of upwards of 90 percent of Americans—evidently at levels high enough to cause harm. According to University of Missouri biologist and notorious BPA researcher Frederick vom Saal, it also affects how the body deals with fat. "BPA reduces the number of fat cells but programs them to incorporate more fat, so there are fewer but very large fat cells, vom Saal recently told Environmental Health Perspectives. "BPA exposure is producing in animals the kind of outcomes that we see in humans born light at birth: an increase in abdominal fat and glucose intolerance." A study released last week by University of California-Irvine researchers further implicates BPA in the obesity problem—and raises even greater suspicion about a related compound called bisphenol A Diglycidyl ether, a combination of of BPA and something called epichlorohydrin, this World Health Organization report explains. It's through BADGE that BPA makes it into in food-can linings. UC-Irvine biologist Bruce Blumberg, who co-authored the study, explained to me in an email that the BPA that ends up in our food through can linings gets there when BADGE breaks down into its components. Blumberg and his team found, though, that BADGE in its whole state is an even more potent obesogen than BPA—and its effects are independent of BPA. Both BADGE and BPA can trigger preadipocytes—which are known as "pre-fat cells" because they can either lie dormant, copy themselves, or turn into fat—to become fat cells. The Cal-Irvine researchers tested the effects BADGE and BPA have on stem cells, our bodies' cellular building blocks that can differentiate into the whole variety of human cells. They found that while BADGE can turn stem cells into fat cells at tiny doses, BPA doesn't have that effect at all. The result surprised Blumberg and his team, because they went into the study assuming that BADGE wasn't an obesogen. How small are the doses at which BADGE does its dirty work? Blumberg told me that the stuff can induce stem cells to become fat cells at levels as low as 3 parts per billion. That's way, way below the level the FDA has declared the "no observed adverse effect level" for BADGE, which is 15 parts per million, Blumberg wrote in an email".

The fact that BPA and BADGE even at  a level, as low as 3 parts billion can induce fat synthesis in fat cells will have far reaching implications. The FDA insistence that BPA does not pose any danger to consumers, probably may need a revisit immediately in the light of the above findings. Polycarbonate feeding bottles, extensively being used till recently and continued use of bottles made from polycarbonate base for packing drinking water have been implicated as important sources of BPA and the quick action response by the industry in voluntarily stopping the use of these containers is indeed welcome. Industry was successful in finding suitable replacements for them. Same is true with can linings, another important source of BPA with the industry developing suitable replacements. As of now it is very difficult to come to any conclusion whether BPA really poses any grave danger to consumer health in the light of concerted action by the packaging industry and the food processing sector in withdrawing these risky material for food contact application. The stand of FDA that BPA does not pose any health risk needs will have to be reconsidered in the light of above findings. If more than 65% of Americans are overweight as per the current yardsticks and if more than 90% of them show significant levels of BPA in the blood and urine, food alone might not be wholly responsible for the situation and chemicals like BPA and other obesogens may have to shoulder some blame too.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

OMNIPOTENCE OF PLASTICS-NEW FINDINGS WITH UNCERTAIN RAMIFICATIONS!

It is no wonder that modern society is called a "plastic society" because of the omnipotence of plastics in all walks of life and practically every day the exposure is continuous and substantial. While use of these synthetic plastics in non-food applications may not pose very serious health challenges, the so called food grade plastic wrappers and other materials coming in contact with food are never considered absolutely safe. The protocols of testing plastics and standards and specifications in place in many countries give one a false sense of security while using plastics, though there is nothing in the world that can be considered absolutely safe. After all life is a fine balance between risks and benefits one must face to live comfortably. It is against this background that a new finding released recently in the US raises serious concerns about plastics continued use, indicating an urgent need to moderate the exposure through substantially reduced exposure.

"In a study published last year in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers put five San Francisco families on a three-day diet of food that hadn't been in contact with plastic. When they compared urine samples before and after the diet, the scientists were stunned to see what a difference a few days could make: The participants' levels of bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to harden polycarbonate plastic, plunged — by two-thirds, on average — while those of the phthalate DEHP, which imparts flexibility to plastics, dropped by more than half. The findings seemed to confirm what many experts suspected: Plastic food packaging is a major source of these potentially harmful chemicals, which most Americans harbor in their bodies. Other studies have shown phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates) passing into food from processing equipment and food-prep gloves, gaskets and seals on nonplastic containers, inks used on labels — which can permeate packaging — and even the plastic film used in agriculture. The government has long known that tiny amounts of chemicals used to make plastics can sometimes migrate into food. The Food and Drug Administration regulates these migrants as "indirect food additives" and has approved more than 3,000 such chemicals for use in food-contact applications since 1958. It judges safety based on models that estimate how much of a given substance might end up on someone's dinner plate. If the concentration is low enough (and when these substances occur in food, it is almost always in trace amounts), further safety testing isn't required. Meanwhile, scientists are beginning to piece together data about the ubiquity of chemicals in the food supply and the cumulative impact of chemicals at minute doses. What they're finding has some health advocates worried. This is "a huge issue, and no [regulator] is paying attention," says Janet Nudelman, program and policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund, a nonprofit that focuses on the environmental causes of the disease. "It doesn't make sense to regulate the safety of food and then put the food in an unsafe package." How common are these chemicals? Researchers have found traces of styrene, a likely carcinogen, in instant noodles sold in polystyrene cups. They've detected nonylphenol — an estrogen-mimicking chemical produced by the breakdown of antioxidants used in plastics — in apple juice and baby formula. They've found traces of other hormone-disrupting chemicals in various foods: fire retardants in butter, Teflon components in microwave popcorn, and dibutyltin — a heat stabilizer for polyvinyl chloride — in beer, margarine, mayonnaise, processed cheese and wine. They've found unidentified estrogenic substances leaching from plastic water bottles. Finding out which chemicals might have seeped into your groceries is nearly impossible, given the limited information collected and disclosed by regulators, the scientific challenges of this research and the secrecy of the food and packaging industries, which view their components as proprietary information. Although scientists are learning more about the pathways of these substances — and their potential effect on health — there is an enormous debate among scientists, policymakers and industry experts about what levels are safe. The issue is complicated by questions about cumulative exposure, as Americans come into contact with multiple chemical-leaching products every day. Those questions are still unresolved, says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, part of the National Institutes of Health. Still, she said, "we do know that if chemicals act by the same pathway that they will act in an additive manner" — meaning that a variety of chemicals ingested separately in very small doses may act on certain organ systems or tissues as if they were a single cumulative dose. The American Chemistry Council says there is no cause for concern. "All materials intended for contact with food must meet stringent FDA safety requirements before they are allowed on the market," spokeswoman Kathryn Murray St. John says. "Scientific experts review the full weight of all the evidence when making such safety determinations." When it comes to food packaging and processing, among the most frequently studied agents are phthalates, a family of chemicals used in lubricants and solvents and to make polyvinyl chloride pliable. (PVC is used throughout the food processing and packaging industries for such things as tubing, conveyor belts, food-prep gloves and packaging.) Because they are not chemically bonded to the plastic, phthalates can escape fairly easily. Some appear to do little harm, but animal studies and human epidemiological studies suggest that one phthalate, called DEHP, can interfere with testosterone during development. Studies have associated low-dose exposure to the chemical with male reproductive disorders, thyroid dysfunction and subtle behavioral changes. But measuring the amount of phthalates that end up in food is notoriously difficult. Because these chemicals are ubiquitous, they contaminate equipment in even purportedly sterile labs. In the first study of its kind in the United States, Kurunthachalam Kannan, a chemist at the New York State Department of Health, and Arnold Schecter, an environmental health specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, have devised a protocol to analyze 72 different grocery items for phthalates".

If the above report is rubbished as is the usual practice one can feel pity for the inhabitants of this planet! While individual chemicals that are found in foods leached out from the containers may be relatively safe as per prevalent assessment protocols, what about their cumulative intake and long term effect on human body? Honestly no body knows. It is true that having come to the present situation banning all plastics totally through government policy is not a feasible alternative but every step needed to be taken to reduce the exposure must be considered. Voluntary shunning of these materials may be desirable but number of votaries for such an approach may not be many. As for industry a world without plastics is unthinkable. Recent reports that in the UK families are spending more to buy gasoline than that spent on food must come as a rude shock and reveals the mindset of people about the relative priority between cozy transportation and healthy food! Probably these ominous trends must galvanize the world community regarding the urgent need for deploying safer alternatives to unsafe fossil fuel based synthetic plastics. There are many alternatives already developed but it needs tremendous courage, far vision, sagacity and missionary zeal to bring about a change in this field.    

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS- NEW ALARMS BEING RAISED

A report some time back implicated uncontrolled pollution of Thames River in the UK with birth control pills, for the fish to change their sex with females predominating over males! It is known that estrogens present in water can be endocrine disruptors causing fertility problems and other adverse health effects. While well protected water supply systems are supposed to be free from such contaminants, most of the population exposed to untreated or semi-processed water are in danger of consuming significant levels of estrogens and other endocrine disruptor that can have undesirable health implications. Recent studies, though some what limited in its scope, have highlighted this problem more succinctly. It is scary to imagine that improper sewage treatment and stable nature of the estrogen contaminant can affect the fertility in human beings. This is especially true in many developing countries where open defecation is so common and natural streams and rivers are exposed to contamination from human waste. Unfortunately no worth while study has been carried out in this area so far in these countries.

"Amber Wise, Kacie O'Brien and Tracey Woodruff note ongoing concern about possible links between chronic exposure to estrogens in the water supply and fertility problems and other adverse human health effects. Almost 12 million women of reproductive age in the United States take the pill, and their urine contains the hormone. Hence, the belief that oral contraceptives are the major source of estrogen in lakes, rivers, and streams. Knowing that sewage treatment plants remove virtually all of the main estrogen -- 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) -- in oral contraceptives, the scientists decided to pin down the main sources of estrogens in water supplies. Their analysis found that EE2 has a lower predicted concentration in U.S. drinking water than natural estrogens from soy and dairy products and animal waste used untreated as a farm fertilizer. And that all humans, (men, women and children, and especially pregnant women) excrete hormones in their urine, not just women taking the pill. Some research cited in the report suggests that animal manure accounts for 90 percent of estrogens in the environment. Other research estimates that if just 1 percent of the estrogens in livestock waste reached waterways, it would comprise 15 percent of the estrogens in the world's water supply".

it is time that a concerted effort is made to assess the situation vis-à-vis the extent of presence of estrogens in public water bodies in countries like India. Naturally one assumes that exposure to natural elements and action of soil organisms would have broken down these harmful substances before reaching the water bodies. In a lighter vein one may ask why the fertility rate is so high in most developing countries if the water consumed by the population has high levels of anti-fertility estrogens originating from human and animal wastes? Similary has any one estimated the presence of estrogen like substances in organically grown produce materials as natural fertilizers are used for raising the crops? Probably these issues need some clarification through further scientific efforts.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com