Earlier this year I wrote about Florida’s new health initiative. The fact that they call the original “Healthy Florida First” but then use the URL “exposing food toxins” gives bad feelings. The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) released reports on three food categories – bread products, baby formula and candy. They claim to have tested these foods for toxins and have published lists of foods and brands with numbers (reported in parts per billion, ppb) corresponding to each category. They were not very transparent about the tests used, but it is becoming clearer that the methodology used it was doubtful.
Alarm report
I’ve written about fear mongering in the food space for decades. Sometimes it’s subtle (a “free from” label on the package) and sometimes it’s more blatant. This is often part of the process of creating fear. Perhaps at some point along the way it has appeared profitable to certain groups to scare consumers about the safety of our food supply.
A report like the one released by the FDOH could give the illusion that this is the first time any of these foods have been tested for heavy metals or that the agency is providing new information. In fact, the FDA already monitors the safety of the US food supply and regularly tests food for heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.
Perhaps the inclusion of candy in this FDOH report was intentional, as many would place sweets in an “unhealthy” category. Of course we don’t need to eat candy, but it’s part of our food supply and it’s something that can bring some joy to someone’s day. Would I agree that children are exposed to too much sweets in their daily lives? Yes, I would. They are at school, at after school events, at parades and parties, at sporting events, etc. But you shouldn’t feel scared or guilty about having a little sweet treat or allowing your child to. Is your child’s health at risk if he eats some sweets? Probably not, but the FDOH report seems to send that message.
Risk VS Risk
I’ve written about risk and danger before, and I really hope that consumers are starting to understand these basic principles of toxicology. Identifying a hazard is not enough to determine whether that hazard puts you at “toxic” risk or has a negative impact. Indicates danger possible damage. A hazard is the possibility that the hazard will cause harm.
Think potholes. A pothole is a hazard. Risk is the possibility of potential adverse effects of the pothole. The risk changes depending on whether you drive over it, around it, or if it’s deep enough to cause any damage to your car, for example.
The same could be said about sweets. Eating a few pieces is not a risk. Eating an entire bag in one sitting has the potential to be. Exposure to a potential toxin does not mean the risk is high enough to cause problems. It is very bold of the FDOH to publish these lists of foods (infant formulas, breads and candies) and warn consumers with the language “Exposing Food Toxins”. Especially when it refers to something as simple as a loaf of bread a parent can use for their children’s lunch boxes.
Methodology Issues
According to FDOH, food samples were analyzed using an EPA method to test for trace metals in the soil. This is not the correct application of test a food, and it matters. The method, called “EPA Method 6010D,” is an environmental sample method that determines inorganic metals in an environmental matrix, such as soil. However, testing for a food matrix uses a different method. Generally, when a sample is analyzed, multiple samples are taken to obtain a series of results that can be averaged.
The Florida reports are very confusing and inconsistent. It is unclear whether FDOH took multiple product samples or compared different product lot numbers to get their results. For the candy report, they use numbers expressed in parts per billion (ppb), but it’s not clear what the percentage is for that number. Nor is it obvious how they determined the “safe eating portion”. The way with him information on infant formula presented is even more confusing and unhelpful to the average consumer. The FDA’s actual safety limits for infant formula are described as micrograms per day (for example, arsenic safety limits are set at 10 micrograms per day for infants). FDOH lists residues in “parts per billion” for each category, so what does that mean?
But Why?
The final question is: Why does Florida do this testing? The FDA is already working tests on heavy metals in food. Actually, the “Closer to Zero” The program aims to ensure the food safety of infant formulas. And what are the possible unintended consequences of such exposure? Will it scare parents away from certain infant formulas? Will they water them or not feed their baby the nutrition it needs? Is this a “health first” plan?
There is always a nuance in any science or art. However, the United States has always had strong agencies that monitor food safety and the environment. I am concerned that some of the cuts in these programs have been cut too much. I am also concerned about consumer fear and distrust of the scientists who work for these types of agencies.
