Maybe Food: Why What We're Feeding Babies Is Iffy at Best

By James J. Gormley

About 60 percent of the brain/neurologic-boosting effects of breast milk are due to the concentration of omega-3 DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and arachidonic acid (AA).

Despite the demonstrated advantages of breastfeeding vs. standard-formula-feeding, James W. Anderson, M.D., told me way back in 1999 that, in the U.S., "The DHA content in breast milk has gone down 67 percent in the last 60 years. The DHA levels in the breast milk of American women is 50 percent less than those of European women, and about 66 percent less than those of Japanese women."

Studies have also shown that infants fed formula supplemented with DHA and AA exhibited: improved mental development; better visual acuity; and significantly lower blood pressure at age six (which may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease later in life).”

Although the United Nations' World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report in 1994 calling for the inclusion of DHA in all infant formulas, it took seven years for the U.S. FDA to allow DHA and arcahidonic acid. And the situation was not much better internationally.

On September 2004, I testified before Codex’ Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) at the FDA headquarters, during which I argued that while DHA was listed as an “optional component” for infant formula it should be a required ingredient. I, and others, also pointed to other problems with what was allowed in infant formula around the world, such as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and very low-quality fats.

As to why HFCS would have ever been allowed in baby formula, as usual follow the money. In 2008, the Corn Growers Association was said to have spent $20 to 30 million on an 18-month public (dis)service ad campaign targeting mothers with the message that high-fructose corn syrup is just fine for toddlers and children.

While it appears that some headway has been made on infant formula, both here in the U.S. and internationally (e.g., high-fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated fats are no longer commonly found, or at least not labeled as such), serious problems still exist.

My recent trip to the infant-formula aisle was somewhat of an eye-opener for me. Apparently, “corn syrup solids” is the first or second ingredient in most infant formula and saturated-fat-packed palm oil (50% saturated fat) and coconut oil (90% saturated fat) are still major ingredients.

Unfortunately, challenges to babies’ health are not limited to infant formula, since sweetened juices are widely used in place of, or in alternation with, formula. Not a good thing.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Nutrition Committee on Nutrition (1999-2000), “Historically, fruit juice was recommended by pediatricians as a source of vitamin C and an extra source of water for healthy infants.” According to the Academy, the facts however are these:

1. Fruit juice offers no nutritional benefit for infants younger than 6 months.
2. Fruit juice offers no nutritional benefits over whole fruit for infants older than 6 months and children.
3. Fruit drinks are not nutritionally equivalent to fruit juice.
4. Excessive juice consumption may be associated with diarrhea, flatulence, abdominal distention, and tooth decay.

As daunting as are the problems associated with the ubiquity of unhealthful choices for infants, toddlers and very young children, we have a backdrop of global obesity that has more than doubled since 1980, according to the WHO, which also notes that over 40 million children under age 5 were overweight in 2010, a number which I think is extremely conservative.

As a global natural products industry, we can feel just pride in having steered over 54 of the world’s governments to require folic acid fortification, which has contributed to thousands fewer babies being born with devastating neural tube defects. We can also point to the inclusion of DHA and AA in many infant formulas around the world, which has helped the cognitive and visual development of so many children.

But there is much work to do on behalf of the babies of future generations. Natural ingredient makers can make higher quality ingredients a more attractive option for makers of formula and all of the various fortified foods and beverages for the little ones.

One approach to making natural-source ingredients more desirable is to work with existing finished product partners in developing and engaging a committed customer base of consumer activists, potentially via organizations that focus on infant and toddler development, such as (but not limited to) ZERO TO THREE, which can spearhead petition drives and letter-writing campaigns directed to the big formula and baby-food manufacturers (perhaps through such platforms as Change.org).

Because once the “bad stuff” becomes a public relations’ liability and a market negative, formula makers may well be poised to rapidly reformulate the offending products and to avidly consider the advantages of your premium, optimal nutritional ingredient or pre-mix.

Look what happened to non-recycled paper and BPA---they’re heading the way of the Dodo bird.

Looks like it’s time for the infant food giants to evolve.
[Note: Adapted from an article which originally appeared in Natural Products INSIDER Supplement Perspectives]

A New Year’s Resolution: We Will Make Our Voices Heard in 2011!

By James J. Gormley

Courtesy of NOW Foods

The late William F. Buckley, Jr. ─ yes, the William F. Buckley of Firing Line, The National Review and the editorial column “On the Right” ─ once wrote:
 

“We are all increasingly anxious in America to be unobtrusive, we are reluctant to make our voices heard, hesitant about claiming our right; we are afraid that our cause is unjust, or that if it is not unjust, that it is ambiguous; or if not even that, that it is too trivial to justify the horrors of a confrontation with Authority; we will sit in an oven or endure a racking headache before undertaking a head-on, I'm-here-to-tell-you complaint.”

In addition to being hesitant to speak up about issues that are important to us ─ such as challenges to health and health-freedom on Capitol Hill ─ very often people do not know how to start or where to start in order to tackle these issues.

Here are a few of the main reasons why people don’t take action on health-freedom issues (including battles relating to dietary supplements):

1. They are not even aware of the issue.
2. They are aware of the issue, but they are not sure the source (organization or website) from which they learned of the issue is credible or well informed.
3. They are aware of the issue, and they are sure of the source, but they don’t know what the next step to take is, whether it is a phone call to a town, city, county, state or U.S. elected official.
4. They are aware of the all of the above, but they assume that “other people” will call in or write or act, so they don’t have to because others are presumably already taking action.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION NO. 1:

I WILL BE AWARE OF THE ISSUES

It is our responsibility as health conscious consumers and natural products advocates to regularly visit the websites and blogs of those organizations that are the most credible (more on this in resolution number 2 and the Gormley Take-Away, below), to sign up for e-newsletters and regular updates, and to friend or “like” those organizations on Facebook and Twitter. Join these organizations’ discussion groups, and regularly participate in posting comments on issues and posts. Ask questions, learn, ask more questions. Soon you will be a super-informed advocate.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION NO. 2:
I WILL GET MY INFORMATION FROM HEALTH-FREEDOM ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CREDIBLE AND EFFECTIVE

Aside from organizations that are shills for big money interests in one segment of industry ─ not common, to begin with, and less likely now given stricter FCC rules re blogs ─ most health-advocacy and health-freedom organizations are well-meaning although not necessarily well informed. Sometimes a health-freedom group will intentionally use scare tactics to get consumers activated on a specific issue or campaign, never a good or ethical approach. If an organization consistently (or constantly) sends out “The sky is falling” announcements and calls to action, this group may be non-credible and not trustworthy.

I remember one group’s representative with whom I sat down at the July 2005 Codex meeting in Rome coming out with a press release (and e-mail blast) saying: “All supplements are now banned!!!” I challenged the person about this after I saw the blast go out and asked why his group said that, knowing full well that this is not at all what went down. He said that his organization thought it was important to get people activated! (I assume to donate money to an emergency “battle” fund). So be selective as to which groups you get your information from, especially if they are also always asking you to donate money and are always in “crisis mode.”

RESOLUTION NO. 3:
I WILL CONSIDER TAKING INFORMED, CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION ON ISSUES AFFECTING ME, MY FAMILY, MY COMMUNITY AND MY COUNTRY

If we are linked in to credible health advocacy organizations, most likely they will regularly recommend specific actions, which will typically involve reading an issue summary and then submitting on online letter (or petition signature) to elected officials related to the question at issue. Typically, by filling out an online form with one’s Zip code and other contact information, the correct officials’ names will be automatically generated. However, another way to verify who your legislators are (at the state and national level) is to visit USA.gov. For non-elected officials (such as at the FDA or FTC), you can contact the agencies directly.

RESOLUTION NO. 4:
I WILL NOT ASSUME THAT OTHERS WILL TAKE ACTION BUT WILL TAKE ACTION MYSELF ON IMPORTANT ISSUES IN 2011
Just as with voting, being an informed, active and participatory citizen is essential to protecting and advancing democracy. As Mr. Buckley sagely noted, we must be obtrusive, we must be committed and we must be assured in claiming our rights. By being knowledgeable and informed about the issues, we do not need to worry about our message or our cause being construed as ambiguous. We must question “Authority” since authority is merely power lent to agencies and officials to carry out the public will and to fulfill the public good.

Gormley Take-Away:

Some reputable organizations to consider finding out more about include (but are not limited to):
Alliance for Natural Health/AAHF
Citizens for Health
Citizens Speaking Out for Health
National Health Federation
Organic Consumers Association

Codex—U.S. and global implications

By James J. Gormley
Codex Alimentarius is Latin for “food code” or “food law”. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is one of the international bodies recognized by both international treaties and the World Trade Organization (WTO) for establishing global food standards.

According to the advocacy organization Public Citizen, recent international trade agreements have caused a radical change in the impact of Codex. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1994 and other treaties have altered the nature of Codex standards by “designating Codex as the international body” establishing internationally recognized food safety standards for use in trade.

After global trade negotiations in 1994, several international agreements were established, agreements that were intended to blur the lines of distinction among different national regulatory requirements regarding public health and food safety and to eliminate barriers to international trade.

According to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, “Codex standards are considered scientifically justified and are accepted as international yardsticks,” wrote the New Zealand authority in 2001. WTO member standards that differ from Codex standards may be challenged as trade barriers if they only allow lower levels that serve to restrict trade.

Critics Voice Concerns
According to the Center for International Development at Harvard University: “These measures are criticized by some who claim the agreements are too invasive and deny them sovereignty of domestic regulation. Others assert that the agreements do not go far enough and domestic regulation is often a form of protectionism. Developing countries protest that the standards promoted in the agreements lack their input and are dominated by the interests of developed countries.”

“In the highly contentious debate over genetically modified foods,” wrote the Center, “some non-governmental organizations argue that these agreements” make it hard for countries to make their own decisions as to, for example, simply banning or allowing GMOs for sale in their country.

Others have criticized Codex’ use of the same standards that apply to toxic chemicals and environmental hazards with food and dietary supplements.

Some observers have said that Codex’ application of the precautionary principle—banning something because it might be harmful—is hypocritical: it is applied to dietary supplements, where it is not needed, but it is not applied to toxic additives, where it is needed.

Other issues at stake
Codex is looking at what forms and potencies of vitamins and minerals should be allowed for international trade, allowing individual nations to restrict other forms and potencies. Codex does not currently address other ingredients used in dietary supplements.

Calls for inclusion of DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid), and exclusion of partially hydrogenated fats and high fructose corn syrup, in infant formula standards have seemingly fallen on deaf ears, as have many other issues, say some, including concerns about GMOs.

Sustainability is another issue on the Codex horizon that may impact how some U.S. companies operate in terms of ingredient sourcing and also in terms of rising global demand for eco-friendly harvesting and production.

So how does Codex affect me?
Codex can affect you in a few ways:
1. Its guidelines regarding risk assessment have the potential to support low potencies for nutritional ingredients; that impacts what is available on store shelves if the U.S. products have had to be dumbed down based on low potencies allowed in Europe and supported by Codex. Large companies that export rely on economies of scale that will encourage them to formulate for the broader world market with restricted forms and potencies.

2. There is the real risk that the US government may copy some of these foreign and international trade standards as maximum levels for its own citizens, thus restricting our right to buy the full range of currently available dietary supplements.

3. Codex’ foot-dragging on GMOs and unhealthful ingredients (such as trans fats and high fructose corn syrup) will encourage functional food and beverage manufacturers to continue to use these controversial cheap, fattening and sweetening substances.

Gormley Take-Away: While Codex apologists are telling you we have nothing to worry about and “the sky is falling” alarmists are saying that we have everything to worry about, very real concerns and opportunities, such as those outlined above, could get lost in the shuffle. Solution? Stay tuned to what our industry associations are saying about Codex but also stay tuned to what credible consumer health advocacy organizations are saying (such as Citizens for Health). That way, you will have different perspectives that are not always 180 degrees apart and which, together, offer you a balanced view, whether pro, con or wait-and-see.

IADSA miasma

By James J. Gormley
Nine additives have been adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) at levels proposed by the Brussels, Belgium-based International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplements Associations (IADSA).

The following (mainly synthetic) additives have all been adopted as part of the official Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) at IADSA’s recommended levels of use in food supplement products: acesulfame potassium; aspartame; castor oil; cyclamates; neotame; polysorbates; polyvinyl alcohol; saccharin; and sucralose.

The result, which came at the recent Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome, follows an active campaign by IADSA to push for the final adoption of these additives.

Last year, at meetings of both the Codex Additives Committee and the Codex Commission, IADSA managed to prevent the deletion of four additives including erythrosine, a cherry-pink/red synthetic coal tar dye banned for most uses in Norway and the US. IADSA also reportedly played a role in “successfully [raising] the levels of an additional three—BHA, BHT and carnauba wax.”

Most of the additives that IADSA has been campaigning for are far from natural and, in some cases, are either banned in certain countries (e.g., erythrosine) or are associated with negative and toxic effects.

For example, aesulfame K stimulates insulin secretion, possibly aggravating reactive hypoglycemia. In several rodent studies, it also produced lung and breast tumors, leukemia and chronic respiratory disease, even when less than the maximum doses were given. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for aesulfame K indicates that it may be toxic to kidneys and the liver.

Cyclamates were banned as carcinogenic by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and by Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Finland in 1969.

As far as neotame goes, like aspartame, some of the suggested concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of a formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and an excitotoxic amino acid.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund’s Chemical Scorecard, polyvinyl alcohol is suspected to be toxic to the gastrointestinal system and the liver and is a neurotoxin. Its main uses are as an adhesive or thickener in latex paints, hairsprays and glues; as a fiber reinforcement in concrete; and to help make Elmer’s glue.

Although the hazard warning regarding cancer was lifted for saccharin in 2001, questions about sucralose’s adverse effects are multiplying and there is a 2006 Citizen Petition calling for the FDA to revoke the approval of this compound due, in part, to reported adverse effects. Sucralose is a highly processed chemical sweetener manufactured with chlorine in a factory in McIntosh, AL, in a process that releases such toxins into the environment as cyclohexane.

Of course for every report questioning safety and asserting dangers, manufacturers of these synthetic chemicals will produce volumes of supportive data and folders bursting with positive scientific and regulatory opinions—so I am not going to waste your time, here, by attempting to issue a battery of specific challenges regarding these artificial compounds.

What I would ask is this, however:
1. Are US natural products companies truly in support of the use of artificial and synthetic chemical additives?
2. Are international organizations, such as IADSA, properly representing the will of the US dietary supplement industry, or of European “pharma-tritional” interests by pushing for these chemical additives?

If the answer is ‘no’ to either of these questions (or to both), then I would invite you to speak with your colleagues, vendors, suppliers and customers and to insist that organizations which claim to represent you do, in fact, just that.

If the answer is ‘yes’ to either or both of these questions, however, then I think we, as an industry, have much larger questions—and problems—to consider than these.

Are we truly the natural products industry—which embraces and encourages natural choices, natural ingredients and sustainable practices—or are we “the chemicals industry” that just so happens to have some natural products and ingredients.

I sure thought I was joining the former in early 1995 when I entered the health-food industry, as we called it then.

What about you?

[adapted from an editorial which originally appeared in the July 2007 issue of Nutrition Industry Executive magazine]