Tag: Nutrition

Casting Wide, Netting Little: The Reel Problem of Aquaculture Regulation

By Melissa Deng*

In my experience, when discussing strategies for combating food insecurity, the conversation often starts with land.  However, discourse around aquaculture, defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as “the farming of aquatic organisms, such as fish, shellfish (bivalves and crustaceans)…and aquatic plants,” has increased amidst concerns of commercial overfishing and finding sustainable protein sources.  As the aquaculture industry continues to grow, fueled by expectations that industrial aquaculture could be the innovative food practice that solves our protein source woes, so does the need for regulation.  Without comprehensive federal regulation of aquaculture, the growing concerns surrounding aquaculture’s practice––including antibiotic use, pollution, and deleterious impact on wild gene pool––may continue leaving the emerging industry in troubled waters. 

Continue reading “Casting Wide, Netting Little: The Reel Problem of Aquaculture Regulation” →

Inedible: Substandard Food in Nursing Homes

An older man eating soup

by Chidera Anthony-Wise*

“No”.

This is the response of a director at an Arkansas nursing home, when asked if she would eat the food served at the facility. 

Food inspection reports cite “rancid meat, spoiled vegetables, moldy fruits and meals, at times prepared in filthy conditions”. Elderly populations are particularly susceptible to foodborne diseases due to weak immune systems, chronic diseases, and immobility, highlighting the need for the utmost nourishing foods. Yet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention between 1998 and 2017, approximately 230 foodborne outbreaks have been recorded in long-term care settings, leading to 532 hospitalizations and 54 deaths. In 2022 alone, there were 1,127 outbreaks nationwide, leading to 555 hospitalizations and 55 deaths. 

This reality begs the question, why is the problem getting worse?

Continue reading “Inedible: Substandard Food in Nursing Homes” →

Are “Superfoods” Really the Superheroes of the Food World? 

by Melissa Deng*

If someone offered you a choice between a regular food and a “superfood,” which one would you pick?  Would your decision change if the superfood cost more?  Maybe you would be more inclined to buy it because it seems like the healthier choice.  I know I have grappled with that dilemma with microgreens––young seedlings of various vegetables and other plants, including broccoli and kale.  

Even just a few years ago, I only knew of microgreens as that extra sprinkle on a sandwich, or a purely aesthetic touch adorning the infamous avocado toasts when they were all the rage.  But about a year ago, I began seeing more on various social media platforms about microgreens  being the next “superfood,” a term which invokes the elevation of microgreens into a higher echelon of food.  That got me interested, and microgreens are now always the star of my grocery list.  It seems like I’m not the only one.  A 2023 study noted that “in recent years, the demand of microgreens has increased due to their nutritional as well as phytochemical components,” which is reflected in the fact that microgreens are now often sold out when I go to the grocery store.  

Continue reading “Are “Superfoods” Really the Superheroes of the Food World? “ →

Yogurt To Be Kidding Me: The Cultured Crisis of Coconut “Yogurt”

By Melissa Deng*

Coconut Cult, Cocojune, Cocoyo –– lately, it feels like these names have taken center stage in the yogurt fridge of large retail grocery stores.  Coconut “yogurts” have been all the rage, fueled by social media buzz and their branding as a vegan alternative to traditional dairy yogurt.   Typically sitting alongside other yogurt competitors in the dairy fridge, Cocoyo touts itself as a “raw coconut yogurt” with “200 billion probiotics.”  A quick search for Coconut Cult on TikTok reveals videos from proclaimed dieticians and ordinary food influencers claiming that in order to reap the full benefits, you can only eat one spoonful of its multi-serve jar a day.  Some content creators lay out other “rules” as follows: don’t you dare use a metal spoon, lest you invoke the wrath of the live cultured probiotics; don’t double-dip (a maxim on its website that appears on some jars); the list goes on.

Continue reading “Yogurt To Be Kidding Me: The Cultured Crisis of Coconut “Yogurt”” →

Safe to Eat? States vs. Feds in the Food Dye Debate

by Candace Yamanishi*

There is a shifting sentiment against the use of synthetic food dyes in the US food supply. As citizen-led advocacy groups have been raising their voices about the health concerns of artificial food dyes, several states have introduced or passed legislation banning or limiting the use of certain synthetic food dyes in food products. These efforts reflect the growing concerns over links between artificial dyes (such as Red No. 3, Yellow No. 5, and others) and potential effects on children’s learning and attention, as well as possible risk of carcinogenic effects. These state-wide initiatives have now captured the attention of the federal government and the larger food industry as a whole. Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains nationwide regulatory authority over food additives, a crucial question emerges: can state bans and restrictions on FDA approved food dyes stand, or will they be preempted by federal law?

Continue reading “Safe to Eat? States vs. Feds in the Food Dye Debate” →

Regional spotlight: Food Equity in Pennsylvania

The following is a guest post by Mallory Hersh* about her work in food equity.

During the pandemic, I had more free time than expected, and began to cook to accommodate my father’s recently-diagnosed food allergies. A few successful dinners later, I was whipping up healthy treats and baked goods in my spare time and delivering them around the neighborhood. 

But as I became more involved in conversations about food–how to source organic ingredients; the best forums for recipe swaps–I became increasingly aware that not everyone had the same access that I did to the foods that I took for granted. In the U.S., more than 34 million people, including 9 million children, experience food insecurity, often lacking consistent access to nutritious meals. Looking to help make a difference, I got involved with my high school’s service club, specifically aiming to spend my time with local community fridges and food pantries. I was selected to be the liaison between my school and Weaver’s Way Community Fridge, a community fridge that was connected to a local grocery store in Ambler, Pennsylvania.

Continue reading “Regional spotlight: Food Equity in Pennsylvania” →

To Eat or Not to Eat: For Consumers in a City Without a Food Allergen Ordinance, The Choice Could Be Life or Death

by Melissa Deng*

For many of us without food allergies, we don’t think twice about choosing to dine at a restaurant or order take-out––often, the biggest concern is picking which restaurant you feel like eating at, what to order, and comparing costs.  But for individuals with food allergies, the choice between dining in and ordering out can mean life or death.  Even so, cities you might think are more “food allergy-friendly” like Los Angeles, which has a colloquial reputation for having a vibrant food scene, may not have an ordinance specifically governing food allergen training in restaurants––even while more than fifty percent of adults with food allergies and over forty percent of children with food allergies in the United States have experienced a severe food allergic reaction (of note is that emergency treatment for anaphylaxis resulting from a food allergic reaction increased by 377 percent between 2007 and 2016). 

What gives?  For starters, the restaurant industry is of course profit-driven, and restaurant associations have a significant impact on lobbying for or against legislation.  From an economic perspective, restaurant management might be wary of the increased costs an ordinance specifically mandating food allergen training would impose, compounded by the fact that the restaurant industry generally experiences high turnover (reportedly, there was a 28% average turnover rate for restaurants in LA last year).  From a legal perspective, restaurants might not want to face increased liability: with an ordinance that mandates training, plaintiffs can more easily make a prima facie case of negligence by showing that the restaurant’s conduct deviated from an established standard of care.  And from a psychological perspective, restaurant staff might have misconceptions about their role in preventing food allergic reactions (for example, believing that the onus falls solely on customers to order a dish that doesn’t have food allergens) and might not realize the potentially fatal consequences, such as anaphylaxis resulting from a food allergic reaction.   What this means is that consumers with food allergies are unfairly subjected to a burdensome and dangerous dining experience where each restaurant chooses which food allergen procedures to follow and to what degree. 

It is precisely this issue that drove us at the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy, in collaboration with a professor and clinical immunologist at UCLA, to begin collecting both hospital-based and anecdotal evidence on instances of food-related anaphylaxis in the city, and pursuing the task of proposing a food allergy ordinance in the City of Los Angeles that will mandate a separate food allergen training for all restaurant employees in the city.  In the beginning stages of the project, we sought to answer two underlying questions: how do restaurants communicate allergen information to their consumers; and are they effectively training their personnel in allergen disclosure for menu labeling or food handling?

Continue reading “To Eat or Not to Eat: For Consumers in a City Without a Food Allergen Ordinance, The Choice Could Be Life or Death” →

In Search of Greener GRAS: How Regulatory Policy has Created the American Diet and How to Fix it

by Trey Catanzaro*

If you ask most Americans what food additives they may “generally recognize as safe,” it is highly unlikely that they would answer “propyl paraben” or “beta hydroxy acid.” Rather, they may say vinegar, olive oil, or black pepper. In fact, when asked about what “generally recognized as safe” means, a national poll found that 77 percent of respondents thought that standard meant the FDA has evaluated the product and determined it to be safe. However, under current FDA regulations, a company may self-determine whether its product is “generally recognized as safe” under FDA guidelines, and then bring it to market without even notifying the FDA as to its existence. In other words, there are currently thousands of chemicals in everyday food that the FDA has no clue even exist. As succinctly stated by the former Deputy Commissioner for Food at the FDA, “[w]e simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals.”

Most chemical additives enter the American food supply due to an exception in FDA pre-market review for ingredients that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). In legislation drafted in 1958 to address the rising issue of additives in food, Congress specifically exempted certain ingredients which were “generally recognized . . . to be safe under the conditions of [their] intended use” from the definition of additives. Therefore, anything determined to be GRAS would not be subject to pre-market review and approval by the FDA. At the time of passing the amendment, the reasoning for the GRAS exemption was so that ingredients that had long been used in foods without apparent harmful effects, such as salt, sugar and other familiar substances, would not have to undergo extensive testing to be used in food products. However, the GRAS exemption continued to expand, eventually permitting companies to self-determine whether their ingredient was GRAS, and giving them the choice of whether or not to notify the FDA of their GRAS determination.

Under the present iteration of the rule, companies’ GRAS determinations are filled with a litany of conflicts of interest. Rather than relying on peer-reviewed data, companies often convene panels of experts to make a GRAS determination. These panels are frequently made up of the same small group of individuals who have made a career out of GRAS panel participation. To put this in perspective, a comprehensive study looked at convened GRAS determination panels from the year 2015 to 2020, and, out of the 732 panel positions available, there were a mere 7 individuals who filled 339 (46%) of these positions. Their determinations of safety are often never sent to the FDA for review. Further, even if a GRAS determination is sent to the FDA for notification, which is not required, and valid concerns are raised about the safety of the product, this does not always preclude the product from coming to market. Companies have the ability to voluntarily withdraw their petitions should they foresee unfavorable results from the FDA’s review. Therefore, after receiving health concerns from the FDA based on its review of a GRAS notification, the company may then withdraw its notification and continue to market the product. The FDA will then issue a letter of withdrawal without acknowledging the safety concerns raised during the review.

Continue reading “In Search of Greener GRAS: How Regulatory Policy has Created the American Diet and How to Fix it” →

Restricted Access to the “First Food”: Dissecting Breastfeeding Injustices 

August was Breastfeeding Awareness Month. But as Chidera Anthony-Wise discusses below, this issue is critical year-round.

by Chidera Anthony-Wise*

Introduction 

The first food countless infants receive upon arrival into the world is breast milk. The health benefits of breastfeeding are remarkable for babies and mothers. Breast milk strengthens nervous system development and ocular ability of infants. Through breastfeeding, antibodies are introduced to infant immune systems, combatting various diseases. Conditions such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 1 diabetes, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) are less likely among babies that are breastfed. Similarly, lactation is associated with a reduced risk in ovarian and breast cancers and type 2 diabetes in nursing mothers. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is strongly recommended to exclusively breastfeed babies for the first 6 months of life and subsequently accompany solid foods with breastmilk for up to 2 years or beyond. Still, there are a plethora of challenges that hinder the adherence to this expert advice. 

Breast milk offers all the nutrients, proteins, and hydration a baby needs for those first 6 months. The release of breast milk is through a “supply and demand” mechanism. If a nursing mother does not have preexisting health conditions that would limit milk production, a full supply of breast milk is dependent on feeding frequency. The provision of formula milk can decrease breast milk supply due to reduced breastfeeding sessions. Despite the WHO recommendation, 2.7 million of the 3.6 million infants born annually in the United States consume formula milk by the age of three months. 

Continue reading “Restricted Access to the “First Food”: Dissecting Breastfeeding Injustices “ →

Edible Vaccines: The Intersection of Agriculture, Medicine, and Regulation

by Chidera Anthony-Wise*

Farmers might just be the new pharmacists. 

Through scientific breakthroughs, plant products can be genetically modified to deliver immunity against diseases. These “edible vaccines” present remarkable possibilities at the intersection of agriculture and biotechnology. 

One such possibility is to assist immunization efforts on national and global scales. Many low-income nations and US cities such as Chelsea, Massachusetts and Hyde Park, New York lack essential access to vaccines due to expensive costs, maintenance challenges, and improper distribution. The use of common fruits and vegetables as vehicles to immunity could, for this reason, be a tool toward achieving equity. In addition to disease protection, edible vaccines can also be used to alleviate malnutrition because highly nutritious foods, such as tomatoes, lettuce, bananas, corn, and rice, are frequently used as host plants. 

History

In the 1990s, Dr. Charles Arntzen and his team spearheaded the production of an early edible vaccine, a surface protein antigen A derived from Streptococcus mutans successfully expressed in tobacco. This edible vaccine has the capability of alleviating infectious endocarditis, or bacteria occupation in the inner lining of the heart. Arntzen and his colleagues went on to develop a heat-labile toxin, B subunit in potatoes to potentially treat hepatitis B. There is a large focus on protein production in relation to edible vaccine efficacy, as antibodies and protective white blood cells are created by the immune system in the presence of spike (S) proteins. Therefore, to showcase that plant-derived hepatitis B surface antigen could generate a mucosal immune response, host plant potatoes have been optimized to become protein-rich. Other edible vaccine examples include transgenic carrots against HIV and E coli, lettuce against malaria, and spinach against rabies.

Continue reading “Edible Vaccines: The Intersection of Agriculture, Medicine, and Regulation” →

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑