December 3, 2011
Should you worry?
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Appeared in:
- Vall-E-Vents, Sierra Club Newsletter San Fernando Valley, Mar/Jun 2012
- E-Magazine as Fooled by Food Dyes, Mar/Apr 2012
- Fullerton Observer, Mid Dec 2011, p 9
Not all synthetically dyed foods are this obvious
Perhaps you round out your child’s lunch with popular, healthy-sounding extras like cereal bars, fruit roll-ups, mixed fruit cups, cheesy snacks and fruit drinks. However, unless you’re in the habit of carefully screening product labels for artificial ingredients, you’re probably unaware that synthetic food dyes are likely packed into that lunchbox too. A single item might contain as many as four or five.
While people have used dyes derived from spices and minerals to enhance the appeal of foods for centuries, most of us don’t know that modern synthetic food dyes (aka artificial food colors) are manmade concoctions from petroleum and that a controversy swirls around their usage because of several studies suggesting they worsen symptoms in at least some children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The connection to ADHD prompted Britain to pressure food companies and restaurants to phase out synthetic dyes by the end of 2009, and the European Union now requires that products containing certain dyes sport a warning label saying the food “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”
Not so in the U.S. where an advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just concluded in April 2011 an inquiry into the safety of synthetic food dyes and decided there was insufficient evidence to warrant tightening of regulations. The inquiry was prompted by a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to ban all synthetic dyes in foods based on research suggesting they pose risks of cancer and allergic reactions, as well as hyperactivity in children.
Read the rest of this entry »
4 Comments | 
diet, health, science, sustainable living, toxics | Tagged: ADHD, artificial food dyes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, CSPI, FDA, food colorings, synthetic | 
Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
June 13, 2009
“Hot” Food Controversies That Labels Do Not Disclose
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Appeared in:
- Val-E-Vents, Sept. 2010
- Santa Monica Daily Press, Oct. 26, 2009, as Food Labels Don’t Disclose Everything to Consumers.
- Fullerton Observer, Mid Oct. 2009, page 10.
- Southern Sierran, Sept. 2009, as Caveat Shopper: You Can’t Always Trust Those Food Labels.
Full disclosure on food labels is more critical as controversial food processing practices become commonplace. Photo courtesy of illuminating9_11 at flickr.com.
As the food supply is increasingly altered by controversial practices like liberal use of antibiotics, genetic engineering and irradiation, food labels take on greater significance as shoppers’ only link to how products are produced. Depending on what issues matters most to consumers, what labels do not say can be more meaningful than what they do.
To get a handle on contentious food processing techniques that food labels don’t disclose, it’s helpful first to understand what is mandated. Oversight is split between the USDA, which enforces labeling on meat, poultry and some egg products, and the FDA, which covers most other foods.
Most foods sold in grocery stores are required to sport an “information panel” that lists:
- the ingredients
- Nutrition Facts detailing the calories, fats, protein and other nutrients
- the manufacturer, packer or distributor.
Major Food Allergens (e.g. peanuts), relevant inspections (like USDA) and special handling instructions (such as “Keep Refrigerated”) must also be declared.
However, providing Nutrition Facts on raw foods, like fruits and vegetables, seafood, meat and poultry, is only voluntary but is often posted anyway on the display case.
Fish labels must also specify whether it is wild-caught or farm-raised and, for the latter, if colorant was added to the feed to turn their naturally gray flesh pink. In California, a previous requirement that canned tuna carry a warning label about the potential dangers from mercury was struck down in the State Superior Court in 2006.
Antibiotics
Groundbreaking legislation, which would have made California the first state to prohibit feeding antibiotics to healthy livestock meant for human consumption, was voted down on June 3 (SB 416, Florez). This practice is employed routinely at large-scale industrial cattle, hog and poultry operations to hasten growth and prevent the spread of disease.
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | green business, health, politics, science, sustainable living | Tagged: antibiotic resistence, antibiotics, bacteria, beef, California, COOL, country of origin, diet, factory farms, FDA, Florez, food, food additives, food bourne illness, food iradiation, food labeling, food labels, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically modified, industrial, livestock, meat, microorganisms, pathogems, pigs, poultry, SB 416, swine, USDA | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
April 1, 2009
Appeared in:
- Vall-E-Vents, July 2010.
- Fullerton Observer, May 2009, page 10
- Orange County Progressive as Don’t Worry About Swine Flu When You Can Worry About Nanotech, May 2009
- Orange Coast Voice newspaper blog, April 2009
Alarms Sound Over Safety of Nanotechnology
by Sarah S. Mosko, Ph.D.
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes exhibit unique properties. Photo courtesy of PEN.
For the nine in ten Americans who know next to nothing about nanotechnology (NT), there is little time to waste in getting up to speed because, ready or not, the ‘NT revolution’ is well underway with new nano-engineered consumer products entering the market weekly.
Another reason, as voiced by consumer protection, health, and environmental organizations, is that NT products are being sold without adequate safety testing and government oversight.
The actual number of NT products in commerce is unknown because there is no labeling or reporting requirement. However, over 800 have been tabulated by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), an online inventory of manufacturer-identified NT goods funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. In 2007, at least $147 billion in global manufactured goods incorporated NT, encompassing such varied products as cosmetics, clothing, food, food packaging, and dietary supplements. PEN estimates that figure will reach $2.6 trillion by 2014.
Nanotech Basics
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | California, health, politics, pollution, science, sustainable living, toxics, wildlife | Tagged: AB935, California, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, carbon nanotubes, Colin Finan, cosmetics, environment, EPA, FDA, food additives, food supplements, Mike Feuer, nano, nano foods, nano-engineered, nano-engineered foods, nano-engineered products, nanoscale, Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, nanosilver, nanosilver pollution, nanotechnology, nanotube, NT, PEN, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Samuel Luoma, science, sustainable living, sustainable technology, technology, toxic chemicals, Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
November 1, 2005
Appeared in
- Vall-E-Vents, the San Fernanado Valley Sierra Club Newsletter, Nov-Dec., 2005.
Thirsty Californians Trash the State
(#5 Plastic Plague Series)
by Sarah S. Mosko, Ph.D.
We all need to kick the bottled water habit and see it for the environmental hazard that it really is. Illustration by Willis Simms.
Is bottled water earth-friendly?
Single-serve bottled water comes in #1 PETE (or PET) plastic bottles, whereas the 1-gallon containers are #2 HDPE plastic. The five-gallon jugs at the office are yet a different plastic, #7 polycarbonate. All three are made from petroleum or natural gas, do not biodegrade, and are thought to last at least a hundred years in the environment. Plastic bottles harm the environment throughout their life cycle.
We all know that petroleum/ natural gas extraction is environmentally costly. Also, toxic chemicals are used or produced in the manufacture of plastic bottles. For example, Bisphenol-A (BPA), a building block of polycarbonate plastics, is known to mimic estrogen and cause reproductive abnormalities when lab animals are exposed as fetuses. Migration of BPA from bottles into water has been documented, and BPA has built up in the environment to the extent that elevated levels are measured in seafood as well as human tissues.
Californians’ thirst for bottled water has contributed heavily to an overall decline in beverage container recycling, down from 70% in 1990 to 55% in 2003. A paltry 16% of #1 PET water bottles Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | California, health, plastics, sustainable living | Tagged: bisphenol-a, bottled water, California, contaminants, energy, environment, FDA, green business, HDPE, health, lnadfill, PETE, plastics, pollution, recycling rates, science, sustainability, tap water | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
November 1, 2005
Appeared in
- Orange Coast Voice as Is Your Bottled Water Safer?, May 2007, page 5.
- Vall-E-Vents, the San Fernanado Valley Sierra Club Newsletter, Nov-Dec., 2005.
Is Bottled Water Really Safer? Billions of Plastic Bottles Harm the Environment
(#4 of the Plastic Plague Series)
by Sarah S. Mosko and Stuart Moody (Green Sangha)
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food product, whereas tap water is EPA-regulated. Surprisingly perhaps, FDA rules are not necessarily stricter.
Bottled water has become a symbol of our culture, whether it is the 5-gallon jug at the office or the single-serve bottles we lug around every time we leave the house. We have been led to believe that bottled water is better for us than tap water, but is it? And, what impact are all those plastic bottles having on the planet?
Is bottled water really safer?
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food product, whereas tap water is EPA-regulated. Surprisingly perhaps, FDA rules are not necessarily stricter. For example, the FDA does not prohibit low levels of fecal bacteria in water while the EPA does. Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | energy, green business, health, plastics, pollution, science, sustainable living, waste | Tagged: bisphenol-a, bottled water, California, contaminants, energy, environment, FDA, green business, HDPE, health, landfill, PETE, plastics, pollution, recycling rates, science, sustainability, tap water | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
Boogie Green 