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.

US Representative Sam Farr recently posted some interesting data on food safety in America:

Three Committees with jurisdiction over food safety legislation continue to hold hearings. The Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture held a hearing to review the legal and technological capacity for full traceability in fresh produce while the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight held a hearing regarding the Recent Salmonella Outbreak: Lessons Learned and Consequences to Industry and Public Health. The Agriculture Appropriations Committee on which I sit will hold hearings in September on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) amended budget request asking for an additional $125 million in spending and an additional 259 employees relating to its food safety mission.

While I don’t’ believe it will happen this year, it likely will occur in the next Congress. There have been ninety-five (95) different bills introduced in 110th Congress just to let you know of the myriad of ideas being discussed to reorganize the 15 federal agencies collectively administering at least 30 laws related to food safety as identified by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Streamlining and modernizing this system is paramount if we are ever to achieve accountability while maintaining a safe and wholesome food supply.

I have not had time to digest the details, so I wonder first of all if anyone has proposed that the food safety systems report under Homeland Security.

I had no idea this was even an issue, but apparently the lawsuit has been going on for three years and that is after a prior settlement with fast-food companies over the same violations. The Associated Press reports:

California sued H.J. Heinz Co., Frito-Lay, Kettle Foods Inc., and Lance Inc. in 2005, alleging they violated a state requirement that companies post warning labels on products with carcinogens.

The companies avoided trial by agreeing to pay a combined $3 million in fines and reduce the levels of acrylamide in their products over three years, officials said.

The FDA says the dangers of high doses of acrylamide in food were only just discovered in 2002. Here are the top five food types documented in 2006, with a mean AA intake greater than 0.027 kgbw-day:

1. French Fries
2. Potato Chips
3. Breakfast Cereal
4. Cookies
5. Brewed Coffee

Interesting that the lawsuit started when the data seems to have first become available. Must be more to the story. Also interesting that most employers in America provide chips and coffee to staff. Do they know they are killing them slowly with carcinogens?

I often go to a place now that keeps unlimited amounts of cheap processed breakfast cereal out in plastic tubs, and serves transfat products in baskets. I tried to explain the risk to facilities, but they said they had to buy whatever was cheapest. Sadly, I found it impossible to explain the irony of this insecure perspective. Until the harm is real and present, staring them down in the face and threatening their pocketbook, they play dumb.

The lack of warning or information from the FDA has been noticed elsewhere. A CSPI story from 2002 highlights a more global view of health and safety:

Today is the first day of a three-day closed meeting in Geneva of experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) to discuss the health ramifications of the acrylamide discovery, which has since been confirmed by the British, Swiss, and Norwegian governments. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) though, has been standing on the sidelines of what is fast becoming a major global debate, according to CSPI, which today called on the agency to treat acrylamide with greater seriousness.

“The FDA has been strangely silent about acrylamide,” CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson said. “It should be advising consumers to avoid or cut back on the most contaminated and least nutritious foods while more testing is done across the food supply. The FDA also should be intensively investigating ways of preventing the formation of this carcinogen.”

California is suing, not the federal agencies. The story from 2002 did not make the big news, as far as I can tell, despite the impact to American national security as explained in 2002:

The amount of acrylamide in a large order of fast-food French fries is at least 300 times more than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows in a glass of water. Acrylamide is sometimes used in water-treatment facilities.

“I estimate that acrylamide causes several thousand cancers per year in Americans,” said Clark University research professor Dale Hattis. Hattis, an expert in risk analysis, based his estimate on standard EPA projections of risks from animal studies and limited sampling of acrylamide levels in Swedish and American foods.

With the EPA backing down from protection of consumers and wildlife, to favor industrial self-regulation, one can only presume states and citizens are on their own here to battle with those who would do them harm. Cheers to California for taking a stand on an important issue, just like breach notification laws.