BPA Still Safe Until Proven Otherwise?

Study links BPA exposure in womb to behavior problems in toddler girls

By Dina ElBoghdady, Published: October 24

A chemical used widely in plastic bottles, metal cans and other consumer products could be linked to behavioral and emotional problems in toddler girls, according to a government-funded study published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

After tracking 244 Cincinnati-area mothers and their 3-year-olds, the study concluded that mothers with high levels of bisphenol A (BPA) in their urine were more likely to report that their children were hyperactive, aggressive, anxious, depressed and less in control of their emotions than mothers with low levels of the chemical.

While several studies have linked BPA to behavioral problems in children, this report is the first to suggest that a young girl’s emotional well-being is linked to her mother’s exposure during pregnancy rather than the child’s exposure after birth. Girls were more sensitive to the chemical in the womb than boys, maybe because BPA mimics the female hormone estrogen, which is thought to play a role in behavioral development.

The results add to a growing body of research that suggests exposure to BPA poses health risks in humans. While the federal government has long maintained that low doses of BPA are safe, the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies are taking a closer look and investing in more research about the chemical’s health effects.

In the Cincinnati study, the authors cautioned that their results could have been skewed by the eating habits of the mothers observed. For more than 40 years, BPA has been used to make plastic bottles and the lining of metal-based cans. It’s possible that mothers who ate a lot of packaged foods simply didn’t eat enough nutrients essential for brain development, said Joe M. Braun, the study’s lead author.

None of the children exhibited behavior outside the normal range, said Braun, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health. But they behaved worse than children whose mothers had relatively low traces of BPA in their urine, he said.

The results were based on urine samples from the mother (two during pregnancy and one at birth) and urine samples from their children taken at ages 1, 2 and 3. The mothers then filled out surveys about their children’s behavior at age 3.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, dismissed the study, saying it has “significant shortcomings” in design and its conclusions “are of unknown relevance to public health.”

The group cited the study’s small sample size as one drawback. Braun said it’s difficult to conduct this type of research with a larger group.

Several experts who track the issue said they would like to see the study repeated with another group of children.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the sample size is reasonable and its results support studies that show similar effects in animals. The challenge with observational studies such as this one, she said, is that the effects are subtle and, therefore, tougher to tease out.

“These are not the kinds of effects that hit you over the head,” Birnbaum said. “We’re not looking for missing arms and legs.”

Birnbaum’s group and the Environmental Protection Agency funded the study.

Meanwhile, she said, the marketplace has spoken.

Due to consumer pressure, some companies have voluntarily removed the chemical from products or started offering BPA-free alternatives. A number of states and cities, including Maryland, have banned BPA in some children’s products. France has taken action to prohibit BPA use in food packages altogether, but the ban has not yet taken effect.

Earlier this month, the American Chemistry Council petitioned the FDA to ban the use of the chemical in baby bottles and sippy cups. The group said the chemical hasn’t been used in those products for years, but that the ban would help clear consumer confusion. The council maintains that BPA is safe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-links-bpa-exposure-in-womb-to-behavior-problems-in-toddler-girls/2011/10/24/gIQA6ihRDM_story.html

Food Labels

Nutrition rating, labeling system proposed

By Dina ElBoghdady, Published: October 20

A symbol, such as a check mark or a star, should be displayed on the front of every food item and beverage sold in grocery stores so harried shoppers can judge nutritional value at a glance, according to a government-sponsored report released Thursday.

In the report, a panel of experts from the Institute of Medicine told federal regulators that the epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases warrants a single rating system to help consumers sort through nutritional information. The panel devised a labeling plan intended to be simple enough for kids to use. But it’s unclear what regulators will do.

The food and beverage industry, which launched its own labeling initiative this year, immediately resisted the plan, arguing that consumers do not want the government to interpret information for them. But the panel concluded the opposite. It cited the success of the Energy Star ratings for appliances and five-star safety ratings for cars.

“Simply providing information about healthy choices has not consistently translated into changes in dietary behavior,” said Ellen Wartella, head of the panel and a professor of communications, psychology and human development at Northwestern University.

Under the panel’s plan, products would be graded in three categories — added sugar, sodium and fats. If the sodium level is acceptable, for example, the product would get a point (or check mark, or maybe a star). The same goes for the added sugar and fats, for a maximum of three points or symbols for each product.

Some products may earn no points. For instance, a sugary soda may have low levels of sodium and fat, but it would not be eligible for points because of its high sugar content, the group said.

Also, the calorie count would have to be displayed in familiar measures, such as “per cup.”

The appeal of this method is that it does not require consumers to have a deep knowledge of nutrition, said Matthew Kreuter, one of the panel members. “You just need to understand that three [symbols] is better than two, two is better than one, and one is better than zero,” said Kreuter, a health communications professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

The Food and Drug Administration, which co-sponsored the study, has been pressing for a front-of-package label since 2009. Back then, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg decried the barrage of sometimes inaccurate slogans displayed on food. Her criticisms came soon after the industry launched its now-defunct Smart Choices program, which gave its trademark green check mark to sugar-laden foods such Froot Loops.

Since then, the industry has launched a new program known as Facts Up Front. Under that voluntary initiative, food makers display nutrients that should be limited (such as fat) and some that should be encouraged (such as fiber.) But they do not rate products.

“Consumers have consistently told us that they want more information in a clear and easy-to-use format,” said Scott Faber, a vice president at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which helped launch the effort. “What they don’t want are summary symbols that make judgments for them.”

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the panel’s proposal is far more promising than the industry effort. But it’s not flawless, he said. For instance, a diet soda would get three points under this system, even though it contains artificial coloring and other chemicals.

But the FDA and its partners, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who co-sponsored the study, may not get the chance to act.

“The reality is that even if the FDA wanted to do something, it would take a few years to implement the plan,” Jacobson said. “If the Obama administration departs next year, kiss the whole effort goodbye.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nutrition-rating-labeling-system-proposed/2011/10/20/gIQAp8Dg1L_story.html

Blue Berries

Berry happy the local blues are in

By David Hagedorn, Published: June 21

It’s time to indulge in locavore blueberries, those sapphire superfood dynamos rich in antioxidants, imbued with vitamins C and E, high in fiber, low in calories.

A dream come true, right?

As if to dampen the glee of blueberry lovers everywhere, the watchdog Environmental Working Group recently ranked blueberries No. 10 on its 2011 Dirty Dozen list of conventionally grown domestic fruits and vegetables that contain the highest levels of pesticides. It’s the second time they’ve cracked the top 12.

Not surprisingly, the Alliance for Food and Farming, a group representing producers’ interests, contends that EWG’s numbers are misleading and that, in general, the pesticides used on blueberries are within USDA safety limits.

The best strategy for consumers, says EWG senior analyst Sonya Lunden, is to ask your local farmers about how they grow their produce. The proliferation of farmers markets has made that increasingly easy to do, and, in the case of two Maryland blueberry growers, I’ve done the legwork already.

Arthur James, 63, co-owns Washington County’s Blueberry Hill with his 33-year-old son, Michael. Ewald August, 76, owns Moody Blues Farm in Baltimore County. Both men — white-haired, earnest and with compelling personal histories — sell extraordinary northern highbush blueberries at markets in the Washington area. James is a certified organic grower; August is not.

At age 21, James was drafted, went to Vietnam and returned two years later seriously wounded, settling in Clear Spring, Md., on secluded mountain land that offered privacy. At17, August began a long corporate career with A&P, eventually becoming a produce buyer.

Approaching 50 and realizing he’d need something to do once his career ended, August bought his 20-acre farm in Windsor Mill near Baltimore in 1984. It proved a wise strategy; unable to adapt to a computerized corporate environment, he retired in 1996.

An early attempt at farming began with planting 3,500 Christmas trees and ended when deer ate the tops off all the trees. After that, August thought he’d try blueberries, an interest he’d acquired when traveling to Texas, Florida and New Jersey as a buyer. In 1991, he bought his first plants.

On a hot, sunny May morning, we stroll his 2¹ / ₂-acre plot of neatly rowed, four-foot-high bushes packed with green berries. August claims he did not really know what he was doing when he started out 20 years ago.

“I bought 25 Bluecrop (a variety that ripens mid-season) plants the first year and then 75 more and just stuck ’em in the lawn. I had good connections in the produce business, and this fellow from Variety Farms in New Jersey sent me a box of 300 cuttings about 1 year old, each about six inches with bare roots.” They were Dukes.

They “are just about the best berry there is,” he says. “Bright, big, juicy and sweet, but with some sour in the back. When they turn from green to blue, they pick up another third in size.”

By 2008, August had 500 bushes. He got 250 more in 2009 and another 250 in 2010. Each bush can yield 10 to 35 pints of berries.

“It wasn’t until two years ago that they really proliferated,” says August. He credits that to a combination of irrigation (from a system he installed then), mulch, proper pH and brutal pruning down to the crown, cutting out about 25 percent of old wood every year.

Blueberries thrive with lots of water at the roots — hence the importance of mulch — and in acidic soil with a pH between 4.5 and 5. The pH of August’s loamy soil is not that low, so in addition to conditioning it with Canadian peat moss, he fertilizes with ammonium sulfate.

“I use what the USDA recommends (for non-organic growers). I think that’s what makes my bushes so full, but it’s also the big thing that doesn’t make me organic,” August says. He also sometimes uses Bonide, a chemical insecticide, to spray his bushes at the end of the season, when they are “sick puppies.”

The subject almost pains August. He talks about his bushes as if they were his children.

“I’d never spray the fruit. If you use [the pesticide] to the right degree, with discretion and care, it can be beneficial,” he contends. “I really don’t know about the organic products, but I’d like to learn about them.”

Arthur James planted his first blueberries in 1980 and now has about 800 bushes. Even if the acidic soil on his acre near Fairview Mountain weren’t already perfectly suited for blueberry cultivation, James says, he would never use chemicals to lower the pH.

“I had a horrible experience with chemicals for seven months [in Vietnam]. I saw what Agent Orange did, defoliating whole jungles. Triple canopies. I know how sick I was and others with chloracne and jungle rot,” James recounts. “Three of my friends died.”

At first glance, James’s bushes seem helter-skelter and overgrown, with weeds creeping up their stalks. But as you walk up the slope on which they’re planted, the layout of rows becomes evident. At the base of each bush are the grass clippings, sawdust, horse manure and straw that fertilize it.

They must be doing something right. Blueberry Hill was one of 12 farms invited to bring the product that best represented them to the annual congressional picnic, held at the White House last week. Michael James brought blueberries.

The younger James, who graduated from Cornell University in 2001 with a degree in agriculture, runs Blueberry Hill, which now includes three acres of land his father bought in 1996, about three miles away. He has grown the business, which supports his family plus two full-time and three part-time employees, by building a high tunnel (unheated greenhouse) that extends the growing season and expanding into five farmers markets a week, up from one. He says growing a wide range of crops is essential.

“Blueberries are in for maybe a month and a half, so we need something to sell the rest of the time,” he says.

For blueberry lovers, however, that month and a half is nirvana.

On a recent Saturday at Moody Blues, Ewald August and his wife, plus a few helpers, had picked and packed 500 pints of berries to be sold at the Bethesda Central Farm Market the next day.

August says that what makes his berries so sweet and flavorful is the fact that, unlike Blueberry Hill, he doesn’t refrigerate them.

When I first developed the blueberry recipes that accompany this article, I used North Carolina berries purchased at Whole Foods Market, because Moody Blues berries weren’t yet ripe. When I retested with August’s fruit, the very berriness of my blueberry lemonade intensified, and the lemony compote on my summer couscous pudding popped.

In all fairness, I cannot discount the significance of one particular ingredient that could well have swayed my objectivity: the halo effect of having created a relationship with the farmer. When I finally tasted Blueberry Hill berries — grown on a mountainside, they are just ripening now — I scarfed them up without even washing them. (Of course, you should always rinse fruit well under cold running water, but note that EWG tested their fruit samples after they had been washed. On 20 percent of those samples, by the way, there was zero pesticide residue.)

Maybe I was predisposed to prefer the local product, but I cannot deny that August’s berries had a bright bloom about them that the North Carolina ones did not. The Dukes’ back-of the-palate tartness perfectly suited them to the mignonette dressing I created for a savory salad of grilled scallops, corn and feta cheese nestled in an arrangement of bright red butter lettuce, radicchio and arugula. Their plumpness and juiciness made them perfect foils in blueberry fritters, practically rendering their dipping sauce superfluous.

One noticeable organic/non-organic difference: price. August gets $3.50 per pint; Blueberry Hill charges $5 for a half-pint.

August, basically a hobbyist retiree, reckons his blueberries probably put him in the red. Still, he plans to plant 1,000 more bushes in the fall. That way, he says, he might be able to make some money at it.

“I kinda look at it like a future thing,” he says. “But I don’t think I’m gonna live that long.”

Hagedorn will join today’s Free Range chat at noon: live.washingtonpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/berry-happy-the-local-blues-are-in/2011/06/15/AGp9SYeH_story.html

Blueberry Lemonade With Ginger and Basil

The Washington Post, June 22, 2011

• • Course: Beverage
• • Features: Fast

Summary:

Ginger and basil add a bit of zing to this summer cooler, which is especially refreshing when mixed with club soda. Served on the rocks with gin or vodka, it makes a terrific summer cocktail; straight up, it’s a smasheroo Blue-tini. Garnish with a bamboo skewer that holds blueberries and a few basil leaves.

MAKE AHEAD: The base mixture can be a made a few days ahead.

Makes 6 cups

Ingredients:

• • 1 pint blueberries, stemmed and rinsed, plus more for optional garnish
• • 1 cup sugar (may substitute the sweetener of your choice, such as Splenda)
• • 1 cup plus 1 quart water
• • 1/2 cup basil leaves, packed, plus more for optional garnish
• • Two-inch piece peeled ginger root, cut crosswise into thin slices
• • Finely grated zest and freshly squeezed juice of 2 or 3 lemons (about 2 tablespoons zest and 1/2 cup juice)

Directions:

Combine the blueberries, sugar and 1 cup of the water in a medium saucepan over medium heat; cook for 2 to 3 minutes, stirring, until the sugar has dissolved and the berries just begin to burst.

Transfer to the blender, along with the basil, ginger and lemon zest. Puree until smooth, then strain into a pitcher, pushing on the solids with a rubber spatula to extract all of the liquid. Discard the solids.

Add the remaining quart of water and the lemon juice to the base mixture.

Serve over ice. Garnish with blueberries and basil leaves, if desired.

Recipe Source:

From Sourced columnist David Hagedorn.

170 calories, 0g fat, 0g saturated fat, 0mg cholesterol, 0mg sodium, 45g carbohydrates, 2g dietary fiber, 41g sugar, 1g protein.

Tested by David Hagedorn for The Washington Post.
E-mail the Food Section at food@washpost.com with recipe questions.

Nutrition Facts
Serving size: Per 1-cup serving
Calories: 170
% Daily Values*
Total Fat: 0g	0
Saturated Fat: 0g	0
Cholesterol: 0mg	0
Sodium: 0mg	0
Total Carbohydrates: 45g	15
Dietary Fiber: 2g	8
Sugar: 41g
Protein: 1g

*Percent Daily Value based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.
Total Fat:	Less than	65g
Saturated Fat:	Less than	20g
Cholesterol:	Less than	300mg
Sodium:	Less than	2,400mg
Total Carbohydrates:		300g
Dietary Fiber:		25g

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/recipes/2011/06/22/blueberry-lemonade-ginger-and-basil/