1 / 91

Food Fads, Facts, and Politics How to Sort Them Out

Food Fads, Facts, and Politics How to Sort Them Out. Thomas J. Montville. Learning objectives:. sort and evaluate claims and counter claims. identify common elements of food fads and what makes them attractive to public.

ethan-bernard
Download Presentation

Food Fads, Facts, and Politics How to Sort Them Out

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Food Fads, Facts, and Politics How to Sort Them Out Thomas J. Montville

  2. Learning objectives: • sort and evaluate claims and counter claims. • identify common elements of food fads and what makes them attractive to public. • understand the role of “the best available science” in the regulatory arena. • gain confidence in “sorting out the numbers.” Montville, IFT 2004

  3. Food Fads, Facts, and Politics How to Sort Them Out Montville, IFT 2004

  4. Preservatives Pesticides Irradiation Sweeteners Food Will Kill You - NOT Montville, IFT 2004

  5. It’ll Cure You - Not

  6. Food Fads: • Have kernel of truth • Easy to understand • Marketable (or exploitable) • Provide simple solutions to complex problems Montville, IFT 2004

  7. What’s the harm in food fads? • False sense of security -Bigger risks ignored (BPA vs Obesity, GMO vs Hunger • Health Risk and Death -Peru stops chlorination, 11,000 cholera deaths -DDT could prevent 3-6 million deaths/year • Counter-productive Actions - Mercury-Limited risk, but reduced consumption of all fish by everyone - Listeria- expensive regulations that do little to decrease # of illnesses -Environmental damage: packaging vs. additives, erosion instead of GMO’s

  8. Food Fads, Facts, and Politics How to Sort Them Out Montville, IFT 2004

  9. The Facts Never Speak for Themselves “We do not see things are they are, we see them as we are.” -Anais Nin Montville, IFT 2004

  10. Different groups see things differently. • Media – need a story • Activists – need a cause • Lawyers – need more money (and thirst for justice) • Regulators – power and politics • Business – profit, avoid over reg. • Individual Scientists – need funding Montville, IFT 2004

  11. The problem with “facts”…. • facts can be dull • facts require interpretation especially statistics “The % of childhood deaths caused by cancer has increased steadily over the last 100 years.” A true statement, but what does it mean? Montville, IFT 2004

  12. Per cents are ratios! Absolute number of cases/100,000 deaths: Infectious disease , infant mortality , industrial accidents , malnutrition  Absolute number (cases/100,000 deaths) Cancer Therefore %due to cancer . Montville, IFT 2004

  13. CSPI’s “Riskiest Foods” • Leafy greens: 363 outbreaks involving 13,568 reported cases of illness. • Eggs: 352 outbreaks with 11,163 reported cases of illness. • Tuna: 268 outbreaks with 2,341 reported cases of illness. • Oysters: 132 outbreaks with 3,409 reported cases of illness. • Potatoes: 108 outbreaks with 3,659 reported cases of illness. • Cheese: 83 outbreaks with 2,761 reported cases of illness. • Ice Cream: 74 outbreaks with 2,594 reported cases of illness. • Tomatoes: 31 outbreaks with 3,292 reported cases of illness. • Sprouts: 31 outbreaks with 2,022 reported cases of illness. • Berries: 25 outbreaks with 3,397 reported cases of illness. Montville, IFT 2004

  14. An Opportunity Missed: ‘Ten Riskiest Foods’ over thelast 20 years. America Misses Out On a Rational Discussion About Risk www.perishablepundit.com Montville, IFT 2004

  15. 1)The decision to rank by number of outbreaks or even number of illnesses makes no sense. Not normalized to consumption. Oysters ranked fourth— but per capita US consumption of oysters is less than a fifth of a pound per year. In contrast, Americans ate 8.8 lbs. per person/per year of lettuce. - Oysters are actually safer than oysters. 2) The list was released in the context of CSPI pushing the Senate to pass the Food Safety Modernization Act. Includes only FDA foods. 3) The list conflates minor problems with major problems, about 60% of the foodborne illness outbreaks on leafy greens are related to norovirus. In house v outhouse sources. Montville, IFT 2004

  16. 4) The ranking is done by number of outbreaks, not the number of illnesses or serious illnesses. 5) The list conflates cooking issues with product issues. 6) Many of the “risky” items are not risky at all. Potato v potato salad 7) The list is highly deceptive because it does not account for changes in production processes over the last 20 years. Montville, IFT 2004

  17. “No news is good news.”“Good news is no news” Montville, IFT 2004

  18. Fact CDC’s Top Ten Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century Include: • Control of Infectious Disease -pasteurization • Decline in Coronary Heart Disease -risk factor modification • Safer and Healthier Foods –decreased microbes, fortification • Healthier Mothers and Babies – nutritional factors Montville, IFT 2004

  19. Food Fads, Facts, and How to Sort Them Out Politics Montville, IFT 2004

  20. Scientists can wait until all the data are in. Activists can demand action based on emotion. Government regulators must act using “the best science available,” but must also act within Congressional mandates. Montville, IFT 2004

  21. Regulations result from • “the best science available” • economics • practicality • compromise FDA uses Food Advisory Committee Montville, IFT 2004

  22. An important digression on “number literacy” One can’t explain what one doesn’t understand. Montville, IFT 2004

  23. Leading Causes of Death with Dietary Components • Heart Disease: 31% • Cancer 23% • Stroke 7% *61% of deaths have a dietary component (?)

  24. Leading Causes of Death with Dietary Components * Rounded (Why?)

  25. Leading Causes of Death with Dietary Components 256,000 / 900,000 x 100 = 28% of deaths from diet6=

  26. On the basis of total US deaths? 256,700 / 2,500,000 x 100 = 10%

  27. Regulatory Units = Scientific Units 1 ounce = 28 grams 28,000 milligrams (mg) 28,000,000 micrograms (ug) 1 g = 0.000000037 ounce g/kg =1 ppb = 0.00000074 ounce/pound (one tenth of a millionth of an ounce) 1 person per billion = 6 people on earth!

  28. ppm is tiny – 1 inch in 16 miles ppb is tinier- 1 cent in ten million dollars Montville, IFT 2004

  29. Who wants to be a millionaire? Montville, IFT 2004

  30. Who wants to be a billionaire? Montville, IFT 2004

  31. Who wants to win a book? Montville, IFT 2004

  32. Leaving numbers and going back to the lecture: Seemingly logical inferences often are not. Furfural causes cancer Bread contains furfural Eating Bread Causes Cancer Montville, IFT 2004

  33. Eating Bread Causes Cancer Does Eating Bread Causes Cancer? Montville, IFT 2004

  34. “The dose makes the poison.”Dose = concentration x intake The #1 Rule of Toxicology: Prevalence does not = hazard (#/100,000,does not give concentration) Occurrence does not = hazard (only that something happened) X % greater than permissible level does not = hazard (permissible level = 100 x no effect level. “No permissible dose” also misleading.)

  35. Hazard = probability x severity Montville, IFT 2004

  36. Bis-phenol A • Prevalence • Amount • Perception 7 7 1, 3, 5, 7 have Bis A - old info? Montville, IFT 2004

  37. Eating Bread Causes Cancer Does Eating Bread Causes Cancer? Montville, IFT 2004

  38. Does eating bread cause cancer? • 1 slice white bread contains 167 µg of furfural. • Rodent carcinogenic dose of furfural = 197,000 µg/kg/day. • Equivalent human dose, 150 lb person • = 82,600 slices of bread per day.

  39. We now return to and two case studies Politics Montville, IFT 2004

  40. Very important concept, NOEL = No Observable Effect Leveli.e. The level at which nothing happensNOEL divided by 100= Provisional Max. Tolerated Daily Intakei.e. PMTD is 1/100 of the NOEL Montville, IFT 2004

  41. Case Study 1 Patulin in Apple JuiceWould limiting patulin in apple juice to50ppb protect public?(FDA Advisory Committee) NoObservableEffectLevel (NOEL) = 0.3 mg/kg bodyweightper week Add 100-fold safety factor Provisional Max Tolerated Daily Intake (PMTDI) = 0.43ug/kg bw per day Montville, IFT 2004

  42. Case Study 1 Patulin Data Analysis Without regulation All age groups 90% of population consumes < 0.22 ug/kg bw/day Below PMTDI, No need for regulation 1-2 year olds 90% of population consumes < 15 ounces juice consumes ~ 1.3 ug/kg per day Above PMTDI Regulation needed

  43. Case Study 1 Food Advisory Committee Concerns Input/out put data 15 ounces seemed “low” What is consumption beyond 90%? Is it enough to protect 90% of the children? Mix of “regular” and “baby food” apple juice? Montville, IFT 2004

  44. Case Study 1 Patulin Data Analysis Withregulation (i.e. excluding juice with >50 ppb) 1-2 year olds: 90% of population consumes < 0.67 ug/kg per day This level is down from 1.3 ug/kg/d w/o regulation, but still higher than 0.43 ug/kg per day PMDTI.

  45. Case Study 1 • FDA Regulatory Conclusion: • 50 ppb in juice gives adequate protection • • “All Age” lifetime consumption gives 400-fold safety factor. • • 1-2 year old exposure slightly > PTDI, • but has 64-fold safety factor. • 1- 2 year old exposure levels occur for limited part of • lifetime, therefore acceptable. • Testing methodology would not support limit <50 ppb.

  46. Case Study 2 Mercury in Fish (Health and Welfare Canada) Montville, IFT 2004

  47. Charge to Food Advisory Committee “…evaluate (in light of all the relevant literature about … consumption/exposure, … body burdens, hazard, and consumer messages) whether the … advisory on methylmercury is adequate to protect the health of those who follow … (it).” Montville, IFT 2004

  48. Mercury in Fish - Issues • What constitutes “adequate protection?” of what population? • There is an established benefit to eating fish. (Remember those -3s?). • EPA has an advisory for “recreational” fish, FDA has an advisory for “commercial” fish. • Correlation of fish concentration, hair concentration, blood concentration, and “adverse health effect.”

  49. Case Study 2 Confusing mix of apples, oranges, and beans

  50. Case Study 2 A woman that eats 12 ounces of fish with an average mercury concentration of 0.12 ppm (per week) has ten-fold safety factor. Montville, IFT 2004

More Related