A new study has found high levels of mercury in fresh swordfish at major grocery chains. Environmentalists say the results should be a wake-up call for the Food and Drug Administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
A new study has found high levels of mercury in fresh swordfish at
major grocery chains. Environmentalists say the results should be a wake-up
call for the Food and Drug Administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
The Mercury Policy Project tested fresh and frozen swordfish from stores in
twenty-two states. The average amount of mercury in the swordfish was one-point-one parts
per million.
That’s higher than the amount the FDA considers safe for
pregnant and nursing women. Michael Bender is with the Mercury Policy
Project, which organized the study. He says the FDA isn’t doing enough to
protect people.
“Why aren’t they removing the swordfish from the marketplace? Over fifty percent of samples are over one part per million, the FDA’s action level, where they can take action… why doesn’t the FDA take action?”
Bender says the FDA should also require warnings posted where the fish is
sold. An FDA official who asked not to be named says the agency is
educating the public about the risks of eating swordfish. She says states
can take additional action such as posting notices if they wish.
The Food and Drug Administration is going back to square one in its attempt to come up with guidelines for fish consumption. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Food and Drug Administration is going back to square one in its attempt to come up
with guidelines for fish consumption. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
A scientific advisory panel indicated the FDA missed the mark in a proposed advisory on
mercury in fish. The agency will try again. Environmentalists are critical of the FDA for
assuming that people regularly eat all kinds of fish when many families usually eat just a few
kinds… with tuna being very popular. Tuna is higher in mercury than some other types of fish.
Gina Solomon is a medical doctor and a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense
Council. She says because fish is healthful food, the FDA should just tell people how much tuna
is safe.
“If you weigh about 140 pounds, you can eat a can of chunk light tuna about every four days and
still be within EPA’s safe level.”
Solomon says because they’re smaller, mercury is a greater problem for kids and unborn children.
She says using the EPA guidelines, it’s clear they should consume even less tuna. Whether new
FDA guidelines make it that clear or simple is yet to be seen.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Researchers with an environmental group have found that farm-raised salmon are contaminated with higher levels of PCBs than wild salmon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Researchers with an environmental group have found that farm-raised salmon are contaminated with higher levels of PCBs than wild salmon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The Environmental Working Group
tested salmon from grocery stores for
PCBs. It found that average levels of
PCBs in farm-raised salmon were
five times higher than in wild salmon.
Ken Cook is the President of the
Environmental Working Group. He
says PCB contamination is serious.
“It’s got a cancer risk associated with
it. It can also cause developmental
problems in children,
so we’re concerned that we have
the farm salmon cleaned up,
get rid of some of these PCBs. And
it won’t be too hard to do.”
Cook says the higher PCB levels
come from the feed for the salmon.
It’s ground up and concentrated fish.
Concentrating the fish concentrates
PCBs, giving farm-raised salmon
higher exposures. The farm salmon
industry indicates that levels are well
within the standards set by the Food
and Drug Administration, but the
PCB levels in the farm-raised salmon
do surpass the stricter guidelines set
by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is
Lester Graham.
Scientists at the USDA Agriculture Lab in Peoria may have discovered a way to protect skin from sun damage without harming the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tanya Koonce reports the new mixture has a soybean or vegetable oil base:
Transcript
Scientists at the USDA Agriculture Lab in Peoria may have discovered a way to protect skin from
sun damage without harming the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tanya
Koonce reports the new mixture has a soy bean or vegetable oil base:
Right now most sunscreens are made from a cream or petroleum base that doesn’t break down in
the water. Two scientists at the Ag Lab in Peoria think they may have a way to remedy that by
using soybean oil and another plant based product called ferulic acid. Joe Lazslo is the lead
scientist who came up with the idea.
“The ferulic acid is present in plants. And if plants were worried about getting sunburned they
already have their sunscreen present. We’re just taking it out of plants and putting it into
soybean oil so that it can then be incorporated into cosmetics or other suntan lotions, that type of
thing.”
Laszlo and his colleague Dave Compton are standing in the lab next to a bottle of Kroger brand
vegetable oil. They use the same soybean oil in the lab you’d buy at the store. Lazslo says it gets
the job done. He says they’ve been working on their so-called soy screen mixture for
more than a year:
“There are many aspects or uses of the process that we are doing right now that are very
environmentally sound. We don’t pollute with this process. All the starting materials and
products are very environmentally benign. That means Soy Screen itself does not accumulate in the
environment. It’s biodegradable. All these types of things.”
Lazslo says most importantly Soy Screen doesn’t build up in the water supply. But because it’s
just barely out of the lab, doctors and other scientists are not willing to weigh in on its pros or cons
for human use. Specifically they are quiet on the dermatological effects – like whether the
vegetable oil-based product clogs skin pores.
But Lazslo says other scientists have found anti-oxidants like ferulic acid prevent wrinkling and protect against the sun’s rays that are known to cause
skin cancer. He says before Soy Screen makes its way into face lotions and other consumer
products licensing companies will have to confirm these claims.
While doctors aren’t ready to sing the praises of Soy Screen, soybean growers are. In the best
case scenario, Soy Screen would require about a million pounds of soybean oil each year. That
just barely scratches the surface
of the 800 million pound annual surplus. But the Soybean Growers Association’s Theresa Miller
says it does have an impact on public perception.
“We always are looking for any new use that might develop. You know as much as anything, of
course getting a product like a soy sunscreen or soy crayons or some of these uses that maybe don’t
mean a lot in terms of bushels, they do mean a lot in terms of public relations. In terms of getting
the word soy out in front of consumers and making them more aware of what all those soybeans out in
the field get used for.”
Soy Screen is likely years away from receiving the FDA’s blessing, despite the perks it may offer
the environment and soybean growers. Co-developer Dave Compton says it takes several years
and several million dollars for the FDA to approve something as a sun block:
“Currently the FDA regulates these active ingredients as “category one” drugs. So you have to have
FDA approval to claim an SPF. So before you will see a packaged retail item with the word Soy
Screen and an SPF we would have to go through an FDA approval of the Soy Screen.”
Compton says in the meantime Soy Screen will likely work its way into cosmetic products that
claim anti-aging effects. He says the money earned from its use in those anti-aging cosmetics will
help defray the cost of the FDA approval process. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m
Tanya Koonce.
Most of the cattle raised in the Great Lakes region spend their lives in a feedlot, fattening up on corn and other grains before becoming dinner themselves… but there’s a growing number of organic farmers looking at putting their cows in the pasture. They say grass-fed beef is a healthy alternative. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Brad Linder has more:
Transcript
Most of the cattle raised in the Great Lakes region spend their lives in a feedlot, fattening up on
corn and other grains before becoming dinner themselves. But there’s a growing number of
organic farmers looking at putting their cows in the pasture. They say grass-fed beef is a healthy
alternative. Brad Linder has more:
(Sound of cows mooing)
Here on Natural Acres Farm in Millersburg, in Central Pennsylvania, 120 cows have their heads
to the ground. They’re chewing on tender shoots of grass instead of ground corn or some mixture
of grain feed.
Steve Shelley is in charge of marketing beef for Natural Acres. He says cows are designed to eat
grass, but most farmers today find it cheaper and easier to buy commercial feed made from grains
like corn.
“You know farmers nowadays. Well that’s the way their dads did it, so they’re doing the same
thing. It’s much easier to go out and dump a bucket of feed into a pen for that animal to eat than
it is for that animal to be out, to get the best benefit from the soil.”
And Shelley says another reason most farmers use grain feed is that it takes longer to raise cattle
on grass. Grain-fed cows are ready for slaughter within a year, but Natural Acres cows can take
six months to a year longer to reach the same size.
But Shelley says that convenience for the farmer comes at a cost to the cattle. Shelley says cows
raised on corn get sick more often than grass-fed cattle. As preventative measures, cows
traditionally have antibiotics mixed in with their feed and require frequent visits from the
veterinarian.
Cows on organic farms are naturally healthier. And since Shelley’s marketing his product to
consumers interested in “healthier meat,” the animals also don’t receive growth hormones or other
chemicals often found in commercial beef.
Natural Acres runs an organic foods shop on-site. But Shelley says the market for such products
is pretty small in rural Central Pennsylvania. Most of the beef isn’t sold here. Instead, much of it
is shipped to restaurants and stores, where people are willing to pay premium prices.
“In a grocery store, you may pay anywhere from a $1.75/pound to $2.00 for a pound of beef.
Retail, we get $4.09.”
Being able to charge more for beef is only one of the perks to raising cattle on grass. The farmers
who raise grass-fed beef don’t have to pay as much to the veterinarian.
“The animals rarely get sick. And I have talked to hundreds of people who raise animals on
pasture.”
Jo Robinson is author of the book, “Why Grass Fed is Best.” She also runs the website
‘eatwild.com,’ which compiles research on grass-fed cattle.
“The big surprise, I think – and this wasn’t known until about 1998 – is that an animal raised on
pasture has five times the amount of cancer fighting fat called conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA.”
Robinson says CLA helps prevent cows from developing tumors. There is some evidence
suggesting CLA has the same effect on humans, but it’s not yet clear if eating grass-fed beef is a
way for people to fight off cancer.
Robinson does point out that CLA is just one of the reasons there’s a growing demand for grass-
fed beef.
“Some people gravitate towards pasture finished meat because it’s free of hormones and
antibiotics. Some people are aware of the nutritional benefits. They like the fact that it’s lower in
saturated fat, higher in omega 3 fatty acids, higher in vitamin E, and a number of other
substances. It’s simply a healthier product all around.”
Robinson says she first started looking for American grass-farmers in 1997, and only found about
sixty. Now, she says, the market has grown to include at least ten times that number, which still
only represents a small portion of the American Beef Industry.
Paul Slayton is director of the Pennsylvania Beef Council, the non-profit organization charged
with promoting the state’s beef industry. Slayton says less than 1% of the state’s beef production
comes from grass farms. But he says those farms do fill an important role.
“I see it being a very viable part of our production in this part of the country, because we have
such an eclectic consumer group. And there are some consumers that just won’t eat anything else
but organic. And somebody’s going to be providing their food.”
As the beef industry is recovering from public concern over mad cow disease and e. coli bacteria,
Slayton says anything that convinces people meat is safe is fine by him.
And as for the taste of grass-fed beef, Steve Shelley from Natural Acres Farm says it might be
more familiar than many people think.
“Many times when I go and do a taste test at a store or something, a lot of the older people, when
they try it, make the comment: ‘This tastes like beef used to taste.'”
Shelley says the meat is leaner and can be tougher if cows aren’t fed a little grain before slaughter.
But Natural Acres is experimenting with different types of grass that might lend a more
consumer-friendly texture to the beef.
Shelley says it’s a combination of taste and nutrition that gets most people interested, even some
people who had given up on commercial beef altogether. Shelley tells one story about a man
who’s wife had banned meat from their house for five years.
“So he bought a hamburger and finally got her to try it, and at the end of the day, he gave me a high five, and he said, ‘I can eat beef
again! She’s given me permission to bring beef into the house!’ Well, that really makes you feel
good.”
So grass-fed beef is entering households that hadn’t seen any beef in a while for environmental
reasons or because of health concerns. While the beef might be a taste of days gone by, organic
farmers are getting better prices for their meat than even in the best of days past.
(moo moo)
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Brad Linder.
People have been eating genetically modified vegetables and grains for several years. Now a genetically altered salmon might be headed for the market. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports that a few hundred seafood retailers are planning to boycott the new fish:
Transcript
People have been eating genetically-modified vegetables and grains for several years. Now, a
genetically-altered salmon might be headed for the market. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams reports that a few hundred seafood retailers are planning to boycott the new
fish:
The genetically-altered salmon grow twice as fast as other farm-raised salmon. The Food and
Drug Administration is deciding if it will approve the fish for human consumption.
If it gets to market, it might be tough to find buyers. That’s because of a boycott organized by
environmental groups.
Julie Francis is a restaurant owner in Cincinnati. She’s joining more than 340 chefs, seafood
distributors and grocers in the boycott. Francis is concerned that not enough is known about the
effect on humans and wild salmon.
“I really, being a chef owner, come from the background of, you know, ‘I want the best fish, I
want the best vegetables,’ and I just, it’s just, in my personality, to be concerned about things like
chemicals, and additives, and different things that we just don’t know, I don’t know that much
about.”
The seafood retailers plan to boycott genetically-altered fish until they feel it’s safe to eat. They
also want the FDA to insure that wild fish stocks won’t be harmed.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
A new study claims the U.S. government is losing billions of dollars by allowing farmers to grow genetically modified crops. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
A new study claims the U.S. Government is losing billions of dollars by allowing farmers to grow
genetically-modified crops. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
The study from the British Soil Association reports the U.S. has increased farm subsidies by 12
billion dollars over the past three years to make up for lower exports. Many European countries
will not allow the import of genetically-modified food. They say it hasn’t been proven to be safe
for human consumption. But U.S. farmers refute the report.
Leon Corzine is a Central Illinois corn and soybean farmer. He says a report criticizing the economics of genetically-modified
crops is nothing more than propaganda.
“If bio-tech crops – just like any other item – if it is not economically viable, they don’t last and
we don’t use them. That’s how I operate on my farm.”
Corzine says there are so many variables in the agriculture industry that it’s impossible to blame
one thing for higher subsidies. He also says while some European countries are turning away
U.S. grain, other countries are increasing their import levels.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
Milk production is big business in the upper Midwest. Now, the president of a biotech company in Wisconsin is milking a herd of cloned cows that he says could give the Great Lakes dairy industry a boost, but there are still questions about the health of cloned cows, and whether the milk they produce is safe for human consumption. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Gil Halsted has the story:
Transcript
Milk production is big business in the upper Midwest. Now the president of a biotech company in Wisconsin is milking a herd of cloned cows that he says could give the Great Lakes dairy industry a boost. But there are still questions about the health of cloned cows and whether the milk they produce is safe for human consumption. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Gil Halsted reports:
(Sound of milk splashing into a sink)
Just outside the milking parlor at the Infigen Dairy a steady stream of milk is flowing from a pipe into a sink. It gurgles down the drain into another pipe that leads to a holding tank. Infigen president Michael Bishop says the milk is perfectly safe and nutritious but when the day’s milking is done he’ll get rid of it.
“Right now that milk is worth 15, 16 dollars a hundredweight and we’re dumpin’ it.”
The milk Bishop is dumping comes from 23 cloned cows. He produced them by removing the genetic material from an unfertilized cow egg and then inserting the DNA from the ear of a cow he wanted to reproduce. The result is a herd of cows that looks uncannily identical. There are no regulations requiring Bishop to dump the milk from his herd. But the FDA has asked all owners of cloned livestock to keep food products from their animals off the market until the agency decides whether or not to regulate them. The FDA is waiting for a National Academy of Sciences report on animal cloning due out later this spring before it makes a decision.
FDA spokesperson Stephen Sundlof says even if the report includes no red flags on food products from clones, the agency may require tests on the milk from cloned cows before it goes on the market.
“That would be to look compositionally at milk from cloned animals and compare that to milk from non-cloned animals to see if there was any substantial differences. But other than that we would likely find that those products were in fact identical to normal milk produced by uncloned animals.”
Michael Bishop is confident the milk his cloned cows are producing is perfectly safe for human consumption. In fact he says he’s already run the kind of test Sundlof is talking about comparing the milk of his cloned cows with the milk from cows at a neighboring dairy.
“Nothing new in the cloned cows… but there were variants in the bulk tank of a neighbor dairy, so it really turns out that the food product is more predictable. It’s gonna be the same in a cloned animal.”
But critics of cloning food say there are still lots of unanswered questions. Infigen isn’t the only company cloning dairy cows and several consumer groups are lobbying the FDA to put some strong regulations in place before milk from any of the diaries using the procedure is allowed on supermarket shelves. Joseph Mendelsen is with the Washington-based Center for Food Safety. He says there are a number of potential health problems for cloned cows. For instance they may be more susceptible to mastitis, and may require more use of antibiotics.
“Are there possibly subtle genetic differences that may affect the nutritional quality of the milk? I don’t think those issues have been looked at and they’re certainly not gonna be looked at with the scrutiny I think that consumers expect if we don’t have a mandatory regulatory system looking at cloned animals and the products derived from them.”
Infigen’s Michael Bishop agrees that regulations to insure the quality of the milk may be necessary, and he’s in favor of labeling the milk from cloned cows so consumers can make an informed choice.
“Americans are used to having choices and I believe they should have this choice. Let’s let science prove one way or the other if there’s a difference and then let’s let the marketplace decide if that product is going to be acceptable.”
Critics of cloning all say labeling should be required for food from cloned animals. But they’re even more concerned about the affect clones will have on genetic diversity. John Peck is the executive director of the Wisconsin-based Family Farm Defenders. He says an increase in the number of cows with identical genes will reduce the range of genetic diversity. And that means, he says, that herds of cloned cattle will be even more likely to face problems from disease and viruses.
“If you’re basically engineering in this uniformity, you’re also engineering susceptibility to catastrophic events, which we’ve seen that with other crops that are genetically engineered or hybrids that are vulnerable to one form of blight or rust or something that comes in from afar. The big question then is, who’s gonna pay for that? You know are the consumers gonna foot the bill when a factory farm of two thousand dairy cows all gets wiped out by one virus?”
But Michael Bishop says his cloned cows will not be any more at risk for disease than the original healthy cows they were cloned from. He predicts that once cloning catches on, farmers running large commercial dairies will begin adding clones to their herds to increase their efficiency.
“Because they’ll actually be able to create a more uniform consistent product from cow to cow to cow, and be able to predict how much hay, how much feed, and exactly what the outcome’s gonna be. Is it gonna be thirty thousand, thirty one thousand, thirty two thousand pounds of milk from the inputs they put in.”
Just
how quickly large dairies turn to cloning for economic advantage though depends a lot on whether the FDA decides to impose restrictions on the milk the cloned cows produce.
For Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Gil Halsted.
Health care providers are struggling with ways to reduce the cost
of medical care. But one money-saving tactic is raising concerns about
patient safety. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson
reports:
Early next year, the nation’s two largest meat-packers will test market
a new product—ground beef that’s been irradiated to kill harmful
bacteria. The Federal Food and Drug Administration approved irradiation
for red meat in 1997, but the meat industry has been moving cautiously.
Companies are unsure whether consumers will accept irradiated meat. The
product got a major test recently in Minnesota. Minnesota Public Radio’s
Mary Losure reports: