The child of an expert in genetic barcoding decided to apply his father’s teachings to fish in New York. Reuters tells a story from the perspective of “teenage sleuths”:

The two classmates from New York’s Trinity school collected and sent off 60 fish samples to the University of Guelph in Canada. Of 56 samples that could be identified by a four-year-old DNA identification technique, 14 were mislabeled.

In all cases, the fish was labeled as a more costly type, apparently ruling out simple chance. It was the first known student use of DNA barcoding technology in a public market.

White tuna turned out to be Mozambique tilapia, while Mediterranean red mullet was actually a goatfish from the Caribbean.

Hard to reconcile the finer points of these fish with the American habit of sloshing everything into unlabeled/unmarked wasabi and soy sauce.

I wonder what would happen if these prodigies of identity management focused their research on vegetables?

“It bears on a number of issues — food safety, fraud and protection of endangered species,” said Bob Hanner of Guelph, who oversaw the analysis of samples. Other imports, such as meat, could also benefit from DNA checks.

Scientists have catalogued barcodes for about 46,000 animal species so far (www.barcodinglife.org). The barcoders are looking to raise $150 million to create 5 million records from 500,000 animal species by 2014 — or a cost of $30 each.

Strangely enough they only seem interested in animal species. I smell an ulterior motive.

A friend pointed me to an article in Southern Studies that suggests there are new clues in the race to find the cause of massive bee death:

Five years ago, EPA registered a new pesticide known as clothianidin under the condition that the manufacturer — North Carolina-based Bayer CropScience — submit studies about the product’s effect on bees. The NRDC requested those studies from the EPA under the Freedom of Information Act, but the agency has declined to disclose them.

The significance of this has been handled very differently elsewhere. Most of the article seems to be a reprint of information found in The Guardian:

Tests on dead bees showed that 99% of those examined had a build-up of clothianidin. The chemical, produced by Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer, is sold in Europe under the trade name Poncho.

[…]

The company says an application error by the seed company which failed to use the glue-like substance that sticks the pesticide to the seed, led to the chemical getting into the air.

That sounds very conclusive. Why is the US so slow to act? The harm to bees surely outweighs the harm to pesticide companies. The Southern Studies article suggests one of every three mouthfuls of food in America is owed to bee pollination. It does not say how many are owed to pesticides. The Guardian presents two sides of the story:

Bayer has always maintained that imidacloprid is safe for bees if correctly applied.

[…]

Philipp Mimkes, spokesman for the German-based Coalition Against Bayer Dangers, said: “We have been pointing out the risks of neonicotinoids for almost 10 years now. This proves without a doubt that the chemicals can come into contact with bees and kill them. These pesticides shouldn’t be on the market.”

I guess it just depends on whether those regulating the market care more about long term safety and security of the environment, or more about Bayer’s bottom line. France and Germany have banned the pesticides, while the US seems unsure how to manage risk of colony collapse when profits are on the line.

Safety groups in the UK are pressing for a ban on artificial food colors, according to the BBC News:

A food safety watchdog has called for a Europe-wide ban on six artificial food colourings after research found a link with hyperactivity in children.

A total ban on the use of the colours would have to be agreed by the EU.

So the Foods Standard Agency wants UK ministers to push for voluntary removal of the colours by next year.

I love this nugget of wisdom from the agency:

But the FSA added that as there were no nutritional benefits from the additives, there would be no cost or risk to the child in removing them from the diet.

The article quotes a food industry representative who says companies are already working to remove certain artificial color ingredients from food. I guess this is what is meant by a voluntary ban.

Sunset yellow (E110) – Colouring found in squashes
Carmoisine (E122) – Red colouring in jellies
Tartrazine (E102) – New colouring in lollies, fizzy drinks
Ponceau 4R (E124) – Red colouring
Quinoline yellow (E104) – Food colouring
Allura red AC (E129) – Orange/red food dye

I just checked the last entry on Wikipedia, Allura red AC, and found that this was introduced in the US to replace E123 and is derived from coal tar and a South and Central American beetle.

Disgusting.

The other colors listed above are related, and probably have a similar source. All of them are already banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria.

America has not only approved it for food, according to Wikipedia, but also for cosmetics, tatoo inks, and last but not least drugs including…children’s medications!

With no “cost or risk” of removing the dye, and voluntary or legal bans in other countries, why are they still so popular in America? Go figure.

The regulatory body in the US seems lax to me, but an article in the Chemical & Engineering News praises the FDA for “strictly controlled conditions” and “very high standards of purity”. Notice they do not say “healthy”.

No matter where it comes from, any color added to our food is carefully regulated by the Food & Drug Administration to ensure it is safe to eat and is correctly labeled.

Ensure is such a definitive word. Safe to eat?

According to literature provided by Sensient, a major ingredient in the bitter Italian liquor Campari is an exempt dye called carminic acid. This vibrant magenta additive originates from the dried, crushed bodies of pregnant female scale insects called cochineal

I see. Apparently insects qualify as a natural source, so the regulators give them an exemption from being certified but they still have to be approved. It appears the FDA favors blurring the lines, with a cynical view of “natural”, while EU nations are seeking greater safety in their language and for the health of their children.