A California federal judge has ruled that General Mills may continue to label its Nature Valley granola bars as “natural,” despite tests which showed they contained traces of the chemical glyphosate, the main ingredient in the herbicide RoundUp and a multitude of other weedkillers. [1]
Judge Michael Davis dismissed a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit consumer groups Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America, and Beyond Pesticides, which alleged General Mills was misleading buyers by claiming the granola bars were “Made with 100% natural whole grain oats.”
The groups said third-party laboratory testing detected 0.45 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate in the granola bars, and believed oats were the culprit.
The case was thrown out by Davis last week, who noted in the dismissal order that the amount of glyphosate was permissible under law, even for certified organic foods.
The EPA’s tolerance level for cereal grains is 30 ppm, and food labeled “organic” can contain chemical pesticide residue of less than 5% of that amount.
Davis also said that even if the oats contain trace amounts of glyphosate, the groups had not alleged that the oats, themselves, were not natural.
He wrote:
“The packaging does not state that the product. as a whole, is ‘100% natural’.”
He added:
“It is implausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that a product labeled as having one ingredient — oats — that is ‘100% Natural’ could not contain a trace amount of glyphosate that is far below the amount permitted for organic products.
There is no dispute that the products were made with whole grain oats that, themselves, are ‘100% Natural’. Even if the glyphosate traces are present on the oats, there is no allegation that the oats, themselves, are not natural. The packaging does not state that the product, as a whole, is ‘100% Natural.’
It is not plausible that a representation that one ingredient in a product — in this case, oats — is ‘100% Natural’ means that the product as a whole does not contain traces of synthetic ingredients. Plaintiffs cannot claim a breach or misrepresentation based on a warranty that defendant never gave.” [2]
What is “Natural” Anyway?
In the fall of 2015, the FDA opened a public comment period for people to share their thoughts on what the word “natural” means, as it pertains to food products, because there is no set definition. Food companies commonly toss terms around like “natural,” “all-natural,” and “made with natural ingredients” but make no effort to specify what they mean.
General Mills has had legal problems pertaining to its Nature Valley bars in the past, including in 2014, when, as part of a settlement, it was required to remove the label “100% Natural” from more than 20 of its products because the bars contained high fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), and other synthetically-produced ingredients.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
A study made headlines after stating that there is no way of knowing just how much sugar consumption is too much, and the methods used to create dietary sugar intake limits are flawed.
CNN’s headline reads: “How much sugar is OK? Paper adds to debate.” Hmm, not really. The study was funded by the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a nonprofit with ties to Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, Mars, and Kraft Foods. [1]
There’s not much of a debate when the companies funneling money into research make soda, candy, and processed foods.
The Claims
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that people consume no more than 10% of their daily calories from sugar. It’s much easier to consume that amount than you might think. Drinking just 1 can of soda can put you over the recommended limit. So it’s not surprising that Coca-Cola – yet again – has its tentacles in a study hinting that you might be able to consume even more of the sweet stuff.
Study author Bradley Johnston, a clinical epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, says those recommendations “are not trustworthy.”
Johnston reviewed the studies and methodology used to create the guidelines. He doesn’t disagree that people should limit their sugar intake, but he says there is no solid answer to the question: “How much is too much?”
Johnston says:
“Sugar should certainly be limited in the diets of children and adults, no question.”
The epidemiologist argues that there is no convincing evidence to support cutting sugar intake to 10%, or even 5%.
He explains:
“There’s a lot of uncertainty about the thresholds that appear in guidelines. What’s happening is that guideline panelists are making strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence.”
Source: McMaster University Daily News – Bradley Johnston
The paper reviewed 9 sugar-intake guidelines from around the world, including the WHO’s guideline and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which were updated in 2016.
Furthermore, Johnston argues, current guidelines on dietary sugar do not adhere to standards set by the American non-governmental organization Institute of Medicine in 2011.
He says:
“Although our findings question the specific sugar recommendations from guidelines produced by leading authorities, the findings should not be used to justify high or increased consumption of sugary foods and beverages.
… results from our review should be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” [2]
What in the Hell is Going on Here?
Johnston and his colleagues seem to have arrived at some relatively benign conclusions. They don’t recommend that people start eating more sugar. They don’t even really suggest that eating more sugar might be safe.
So what in the hell is going on here?
If there is one thing the 2016 political season taught us, it’s that planting even the smallest doubt in people’s minds can have an overwhelming effect. That is what’s going on here.
The likes of Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, and Kraft are trying to plant doubts in people’s minds. And why wouldn’t they? It’s good for business. Inevitably, at least a few people will have that extra piece of chocolate, that extra glob of mac ‘n’ cheese, or 1 more can of soda because, after all, no one is sure how much sugar is bad for you.
Source: Business Insider
There will be people who get duped, but Johnston’s conclusions haven’t duped many scientists. They see what’s going on here, and they’re calling him out on it.
Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University who was written extensively about the soda industry, says:
“This is a classic example of industry-funded research aimed at one purpose and one purpose only: to cast doubt on the science linking diets high in sugars to poor health. This paper is shameful.” [1]
Dr. Dean Schillinger, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco who wrote an editorial accompanying the study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, says:
“In essence, this study suggests that placing limits on ‘junk food’ is based on ‘junk science.’ Studies are more likely to conclude there is no relationship between sugar consumption and health outcomes when scientists receive financial support from food and beverage companies.” [2]
Gosh, y’think? The sugar industry in the 1960’s paid Harvard scientists to downplay the link between sugar consumption and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the cause instead. It worked magically. Fat became the enemy of health, and the market was soon flooded with all sorts of low-fat and non-fat foods. And those foods generally contain about 20% more sugar than full-fat products.
In the study, the researchers wrote that “the rationale and evidence used to make each recommendation were inconsistent.” [2]
Baloney, says Schillinger. For one thing, he explains, the researchers reviewed guidelines published over a 20-year period. It’s no surprise that they found inconsistencies, as “science evolves over time.”
According to Schillinger, Johnston and his crew failed to even use proper research methods in their work. He says:
“In addition, their claims regarding the low quality of guidelines are based on the application of inappropriate metrics.”
He says that one of the methods the “scientists” used in the paper “is the wrong tool for the job and virtually guaranteed that they would falsely conclude that guidelines are of low quality.”
He also cites the sugar industry-fat debacle of the 60’s, calling it a “major limitation.”
“Added sugars not only provide unnecessary and ’empty’ non-nutritious calories but also appear to affect unique and specific unhealthy metabolic pathways that contribute to obesity and diabetes and heart disease, irrespective of calories.
We are in a public health war against diabetes, and we need to create smart strategies to win this war and prevent needless suffering and death. This is serious business.”
There is no doubt that the added sugars pushed on buyers by Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, and Kraft, are causing disease, limb amputations, and deaths, Schillinger says.
“Nearly all experimental studies that examined whether eating added sugars contributes to obesity and [Type 2] diabetes-related outcomes show a cause-and-effect relationship.” [1]
Johnston swears that he, and ILSI, have good intentions:
“We hope that the results from this review can be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” [3]
If the spoonfuls of added sugar don’t make you sick, the veiled attempts at making more money off of the poor health of the average buyer just might.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The U.S. food industry is notorious for poisoning the very consumers who drive their multi-billion dollar enterprise, even spending millions against their right to informed consent (truthful GMO labeling). So, is it any wonder that this deregulated and increasingly deranged juggernaut is experimenting on its own customer base by exposing them to trillions of toxic nanoparticles?
Whereas previous cell research has established that titanium dioxide (TiO2) is cytotoxic (cell damaging),[2] this is the first study of its kind to find exposed cells undergo a ‘phenotypal’ transition from normal to cancerous cell traits, including an increased rate of cell proliferation and a decrease in programmed cell death – hallmark features of precancerous and/or cancerous cells associated with ‘immortalization.’
Owing to the fact that the researchers tested human gastric epithelial cells, a type of stomach cell in direct contact with material we eat, and considering the broad range of drug, personal care and food products nanoparticle TiO2 is commonly used within, the toxicological implications of these findings are deeply concerning.
We Are Already Eating Titanium Dioxide
TiO2 is a naturally occurring oxide of titanium, and has a wide range of industrial applications as a “whitening” pigment in plastics, ceramic glazes and paints. It is used in sunscreens as a UV absorbing “sun protection factor,” due to its high refractive index. Most of our risk of exposure comes from its use in toothpaste, drugs and excipient-heavy supplements as a pill coating, and food products, including even milk (to ‘improve’ appearance and texture).
Indeed, given that TiO2 is found in thousands of consumer products, the odds are that you are already being exposed to a significant quantity of them on a daily basis. As reported by Everydayhealth.com, “You ingest around 100 trillion nanoparticles every day, researchers at Binghamton University and Cornell University say.”
So, what are some common brands who use it? Nanotitanium is found in products produced by Jello, Nestlé, M&M’s, Mother’s, Mentos, Albertson’s, Hostess and Kool Aid.
Below is a table from the 2012 E Magazine article “Eating Nano” revealing its presence in common U.S. packaged goods.
(Click to enlarge)
Is Titanium Dioxide Regulated?
Much like present day radiobiological risk assessments for technologies like mammography were developed long before the discovery of DNA, making it impossible to comprehend their DNA-damaging properties at that time, present day biosafety regulations of TiO2 were determined long before the advent of nanotechnology. In both cases, the true harms of these technologies were — and still are — greatly underestimated.
As a result of this information gap, TiO2is currently classified as ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS) by the FDA, regardless of format. Remarkably, the FDA still allows titanium dioxide in sunscreens “at concentrations of up to 25 percent alone and 2 to 25 percent in combination with any proposed Category I sunscreen active ingredient” without considering the toxicity differential of particle size.[3]Considering that concentrations as low as 0.001% by weight have been found to exhibit clear cytotoxicity within exposed cells,[4] the biosafety regulations governing TiO2 are as great as 5 orders of magnitude or higher less stringent than they should be to protect the consumer.
Nanoparticles are so small they are below the threshold of visibility. This is one reason why they are used for sun protection factor, as 100 nanometers or smaller particles will not leave the white pasty appearance on the skin associated with larger particles. What you can’t see, however, is still there – and in the case of nanotitanium, may slip through the surface layers of our skin into more sensitive tissues, as well as our blood stream. This is also why, if you use sunscreen, you should make sure the ingredients say “non-nanoparticle” when describing titanium dioxide or zinc oxide. And this rule applies to purportedly ‘natural’ brands as well.
The fact that farm incomes have come under increasing pressure over the past couple of years should come as little surprise to our readers (for those who missed our latest update, see: "Midwest Farm Bubble Continues Collapse As Farm Incomes Expected To Crash In 2017"). Unfortunately, at least according to Bank of America"s Global Ag Chemical team led by Steve Byrne, farmers shouldn"t expect a reprieve any time in the near future.
As BAML points out, the grain commodity farmers of the U.S. are locked in a vicious cycle, the result of which is a perpetually oversupplied market. To summarize the key takeaways, farmers continue to plant so long as cash profits are positive (because depreciation isn"t a real cost and who cares about returns on capital anyway...silly finance people) while yield growth continues to outpace demand growth which leaves markets perpetually oversupplied and commodity prices well below what would be required to provide a normalized profit level for farmers. Meanwhile, since farmers seem to be incapable of unilaterally reducing supply, an external supply shock (e.g. a weather-related event) seems to be the only hope of the industry ever normalizing again.
With that, here is a little more detail on the vicious ag cycle per BAML...
Yield growth per acre continues to average 1-2% per annum...
Yields continue to improve with no sign of abatement as seed technology improves and farmers utilize better information technology (precision ag) to gain better understanding of acreage and maximize yield potential. While weather can disrupt yields year-to-year, directionally yields have improved at a 1-2% CAGR for corn, soy and wheat since 2000. In our view, this will continue to place deflationary pressure on crop prices longer-term, particularly given the extent to which global yields trail yields in more developed ag economies.
...which continues to drive new record highs in production despite an already weak pricing environment.
Global corn production is similarly heading for a new record high in 2016/17, up 7% YoY and driven mostly by an almost equally big rise in yields. The US 2016/17 crop that was just harvested looks especially strong. Concerns over whether ear filling was impeded by the hot and dry summer weather are now fading as the harvest is done and the USDA revised up its yield estimate by 1% to 11.01mt/ha in November. Meanwhile, in LatAm farmers are currently planting for the 2016/17 harvest and production looks even stronger, up 26% on presumed yield normalization and exacerbated by a 7% increase in acreage.
Meanwhile, global corn demand is expected to recover somewhat in 2016/2017 but no where near the expected 7% supply increase.
Global corn demand growth slowed to just 2% per annum in the past two years, due to a drop in global pork production. Corn is the staple diet of the word’s more than 1bn pigs. The decline in pork production was mainly caused by an environmental crackdown in the Chinese farming sector, and the country’s pork production fell by 3% in 2015 and another 5% likely in 2016.
Then in March 2016, China ended its domestic corn price floor, giving relief to pig farmers, and corn demand started picking up again. Corn demand from pig production will continue to rise structurally in the years to come on the ramp-up of new modern mega farms in Northern China. Overall global corn demand can recover to 3% growth this market year (2016/17) and hold up at 2-3% growth annually in the years to come, in our view. However, we have started to see signs of slowing feed demand as elevated corn prices have led to substitution to other feeds, in some instances. Global feed demand levels will be key in determining the aggregate corn demand picture.
All of which is expected to keep global grain stocks at all time highs for the foreseeable future...
World carryout corn stocks are likely to finish 2016/17 at a record high, with stock-to-use ratios up marginally from the year prior. There is debate over the level of Chinese stocks, with estimates ranging from China’s corn reserve estimate of 270Mmt vs USDA estimate of ~110mn mt. The USDA expects Chinese corn production to decline by ~3% in 2016/17, and inventory levels to decline by ~8% in 2016/17 after swelling from 81mn mt in 2013/14 to 110mn mt in 2015/16. Recent policy aimed at reducing production out of lower-yielding regions could also help alleviate China’s elevated inventory position. Media reports have also indicated more than 900 companies have applied for import quotas for 2017, which could be supportive of global prices. USDA data suggests soybean inventories in China remain elevated as well and account for over 20% of global stocks (Chinese stocks to use ration remains well over 100%). China accounts for over 60% of global soybean imports, and thus inventory levels in China are a key factor in gauging global demand expectations. A clear indication of a drawdown in Chinese soybean stocks could provide price support, in our view. Nonetheless, China’s inventory levels, trade data and policy direction will remain key components of corn and soybean prices in the coming year.
And, of course, as long as cash margins remain positive then farmers keep planting...which doesn"t do much for that weak pricing environment.
Farm income, planted acres of row crops, and commodity prices all peaked in 2012 following the prior decade long super-cycle. Prior periods of ag credit cycle downturns lasted 5 years (68-72) and 9 years (83-91) while ag business cycle downturns have averaged 2 years since 1960. Inflation adjusted crop prices have been declining for over 100 years as gains in productivity (+1-2%) and acreage expansion (0-1%) outpace gains in demand (1-2%). New technologies such as precision agriculture and gene editing could accelerate productivity gains in the medium term. Cyclical upside could occur from increased demand for protein, reduced supply from marginal acres, or a weather event.
We expect cash margins for corn, soybeans and wheat to collectively be slightly higher than the prior year, but well below the ~2007-2014 profitability boom amidst elevated prices. We expect crop commodity prices for each to remain low amid elevated global stocks. Profitability will also likely remain a challenge and at similar levels to prior year levels exacerbated by elevated leverage, with US farm debt to net cash income at its highest level since 1984.
In our view, cash margins may have room to fall before seeing a rational supply response. Margins are still above breakeven levels that occurred 15 years ago (1999-2003) and not at levels that could drive meaningful changes in farmer behavior, such as walking away from land rent or simply not planting acres in a given year.
But, at least farmers have that whole trade war with Mexico to look forward to...luckily Mexico is just our second largest corn importer...
In our view, the risk of a trade war with key importers of US crops remains a key risk for the US ag economy. Trade with China (14.8%) and Mexico (13.6%) represent top destinations for US ag export demand. Additionally, a potential border adjustment tax could significantly inflate fertilizer prices and together with lower grain prices could further impair farmer margins. Potential reform to the Renewable Fuel Standard is also a downside risk for US growers given 40% of domestic corn demand is derived from ethanol. A stronger USD resulting from proposed policies would also be a headwind for US growers. Washington will remain critical for agriculture with upside risks being the status quo and downside risks being more meaningful.
It"s pretty rough when your only hope of making money in your chosen profession will come only after a devastating weather event that may or may not force you into bankruptcy.
