Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The Sordid History of U.S. Food Safety Highlights the Importance of Regulation

News Feed
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

It was common in the 1800s for people to consume milk containing formaldehyde, meat preserved with salicylic acid and borax, and “coffee” filled with ground up bones and charred lead.The 19th century was largely unregulated, especially when it came to food. “Medical historians always call that period the century of the great American stomachache,” says Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer Prize–winning science journalist and author of the 2018 book The Poison Squad: One Chemist's Single-Minded Crusade for Food Safety at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.Food adulteration and the use of harmful ingredients were not even illegal because there were no laws around food safety or purity in the U.S. It wasn’t until 1883 that a former Purdue University chemist, who had just become chief chemist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, started investigating fraud involving foods and drinks: Harvey Washington Wiley and a small group of his colleagues experimented on young men who became known as the “poison squad.” The researchers exposed these men to various questionable foods and observing the effects. Wiley’s methods were somewhat unorthodox—by modern standards, perhaps unethical—but it was the first attempt to gather data for any sort of regulation of an industry that was sickening and killing many people.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Others aided the crusade for better food safety, including journalist and activist Upton Sinclair, author of the 1905 novel The Jungle, which famously exposed the horrific practices of the U.S. meat industry; food manufacturer Henry Heinz; and cookbook author Fannie Farmer. As a result of these efforts, in 1906 Congress finally passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, the latter of which became known as the “Wiley Act” and “Dr. Wiley’s law.” These laws contained strict regulations over the conditions under which meat was produced and eventually laid the groundwork for the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. The laws were not perfect, however, and there have been several attempts to refine these regulatory powers over the decades since.Today the food industry continues to push back against federal regulation. Recently U.S. congressional representatives introduced the Food Traceability Enhancement Act, which would exempt food retailers from many of the rules the FDA uses to track outbreaks of foodborne illness. If the act passes, it could significantly impede the FDA’s ability to find the source of such outbreaks, which can be deadly.Scientific American spoke with Blum about the history of food safety in the U.S. and the way that history continues to inform our relationship with food regulation today.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]What was the status of food safety in the 19th century?The U.S. was really slow to the food safety game. There were regulations in Europe and in Canada before we actually took this up. There was just an incredible amount of 19th-century U.S. resistance to the idea of the federal government, as someone said, becoming the “policeman” of your stomach. And so that whole American ethos of “nobody tells me what to do,” individual rights, all of those things really played into it, as well as enormous industry resistance.Then along came Harvey Washington Wiley. How did he launch federal oversight of food in this country?I describe him as a “crusading chemist”—I sometimes call him a “Holy Roller chemist”—who was absolutely passionate about the idea that we needed to do something to make the American food supply safer. He had been the first professor of chemistry at Purdue University at a time when it only had six faculty members, including the university’s president. He had studied deceptive food practices when he was in Indiana. And when he came to the federal government, he was head of what was then called the Bureau of Chemistry at the USDA. He launched the federal government, for the first time in its history, into looking at the idea of food safety and food integrity. There were people who did it at the state level, but at the national level, there was no scientist looking at it.In 1883, when my guy Wiley arrives at the USDA, there are fewer than a dozen chemists at the agency. They’re responsible for all the agricultural chemistry issues in the U.S.—everything from pesticides to crop growth to soil quality. He tells them, Now we’re going to test the integrity of the American food supply. And they do it! Starting in the 1880s, this tiny group of chemists starts doing a series of reports that have the very boring title of “Bulletin 13.” And the chemists look at dairy, and they look at canned vegetables, and they look at coffee and tea, and they look at wine and beer and spices and processed meats. And they really take apart the processed, industrialized food system of the U.S. And across the board, they find really, really bad things.What were some examples of the questionable food practices they found?Some of it was just fraud. There was, like, 90 percent adulteration of spices. If you were buying cinnamon, you were buying brick dust. If you were buying pepper, you were buying dirt or charred and ground rope. If you were buying coffee, sometimes you were just buying ground shells. People would grind up bones and charred lead into coffee. If you got flour, you got gypsum. If you got milk, you got chalk or plaster of paris. And actual milk was full of horrible bacteria—there was no pasteurization; there was no refrigeration. People started putting preservatives such as formaldehyde in milk; the milk started killing people around the country. All of this was completely legal. No one could ever be prosecuted for any of this.That’s pretty horrifying. What motivated Wiley to take action?There’s no requirement to honestly label anything [at this time]. So you see Wiley starting to say, There are so many of these additives in food, such as formaldehyde and salicylic acid, which causes the lining of your stomach to bleed, and all these other things. Why can't we just tell people what’s in the food so they know how many times a day they’re eating these products? There’s absolute industry resistance to this. Nothing passes. Wiley goes to Congress. Nothing happens. In the entire 19th century, [hardly any] federal regulation regarding food safety or drink safety or drug safety gets through Congress, which is pretty much owned by industry at this point.So what did Wiley do about it?Wiley ran what the Washington Post called these “poison squad” experiments, in which he experimented with young workers at the USDA and put these different additives in their food and poisoned them, essentially. The whole science of epidemiology, the science of public health, is so in its infancy at this point. His poison squad experiments had a control group—he had two groups that all consumed the same foods and drinks, but one group got these additives, and one of them didn't. It’s super primitive to us today, but it was really forward-looking and kind of methodical. It was a completely illegal experiment by today’s standards; they’d be, like, running you out of town now.But it wasn’t just Wiley and his poison squad, right? Weren’t there other people crusading for the cause of food safety at that time?You have what was called the pure food movement. Wiley did a lot of talking to women’s groups. Women couldn’t vote at that time, but he thought they were very politically organized and powerful. So he went and worked with a lot of women’s groups who crusaded for the cause. He found some friendly manufacturers such as [Ketchup entrepreneur] Henry J. Heinz. And there’s this start of a push toward at least public recognition that food is unsafe. In the cookbooks of the time, you have cookbook writers such as Fannie Farmer saying, Okay, I’m going to tell you to put coffee in this recipe—just be aware that it’s not going to be coffee, or, You should not put milk in the food of sick people because it’s so dangerous.Upton Sinclair, a socialist writer, writes this book, The Jungle. It was first published in the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason as a call to arms about the plight of the worker. And he finally gets a New York City publisher to agree to publish it. Because he had gone and embedded himself in the stockyards of Chicago, he has all this incredible description about how horrible meat processing is and the mold that’s growing on the meat that still goes into the potted ham and the disease and the rotting animals that go into the sausage. The publisher sends fact-checkers to Chicago to make sure that this isn’t all just bullshit, and the fact-checkers come back, and they say, It’s even worse than he says. A copy was sent to President Theodore Roosevelt. The book becomes this big explosion. Nobody cares about the plight of the worker. There's that famous quote from Upton Sinclair, “I aimed for the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”So what did Roosevelt do about the situation? How did it lead to Congress passing food safety regulations?There’s such a storm about The Jungle that Roosevelt sends his own fact-checkers to Chicago. And the crazy thing about that visit is that the meat-packers know they’re coming. The meat-packers clean up the stockyards. And these fact-checkers come back, and they also go, “It’s even worse than in the book.” Roosevelt then goes to Congress, which is entirely in the pocket of the meat industry, and says, I want a meat inspection act. If you don't give me a meat inspection act, I’m going to publish this report.He ends up publishing about six to eight pages of this report, which was almost 100 pages. Those six pages are so explosive that every country in Europe cancels its meat contract with the U.S.. And at that point, the packing industry goes, Oh, my God, we’re going to have to have a meat inspection act. And so the Federal Meat Inspection Act goes through Congress.What did the Federal Meat Inspection Act do?The act has got a ton of teeth in it. The meat industry has to actually pay to help inspect the meat; the meat inspectors have real power in the factories. It’s got a lot of funding built in. There’s a powerful recall apparatus built into the meat inspection act. And in this kind of storm of legislative outrage over the food supply, the Pure Food and Drug Act passes, but because it has been a political football for 20 years, it’s a mess, and there’s not a good funding apparatus. It’s got a lot of problems in terms of how you actually measure and enforce toxic substances in food, and that difference haunts our regulatory system today.Even today, under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the USDA inspects meat-processing factories. It inspects about 10 to 20 percent of the food processing in the U.S., and it has almost the exact same budget that the FDA gets to inspect the other 80 percent of food. And a legacy of the difference between those two acts persists—one act was driven by a huge scandal that was incredibly powerful and had the backing of industry, and one was dragged over the line with industry hostile to it, working almost from the beginning to undo all of its better applications.Bring us back to the present. How does the legacy of these food regulation laws continue to affect us today?The Pure Food and Drug Act was eventually replaced by the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which created the modern FDA. There have been multiple [attempted] amendments since then to the FDA’s power, such as the Food Traceability Enhancement Act. But the fundamental weakness of the powers of the FDA to enforce safety measures in food, drugs and cosmetics—that still underlies our system in terms of both funding and in terms of some of the enforcement mechanisms we see today.To be fair, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 were paradigm-shifting laws. It was the first time in U.S. history that the government said, Yes, we’re in the business of protecting consumers. All of the consumer-protective things that followed—the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the modern FDA—all of those agencies are built on those two laws. I mean, they made a huge and important difference.So, despite industry pushback, all of these government regulations of our food supply have made Americans safer.There’s no borax or salicylic acid added to our wine and beer. We’re not using arsenic as green food coloring. We’re not using red lead to make cheddar cheese look a little more orange.If I could persuade people not to think of regulation as a pejorative term, my life’s work would be done.

Author and science journalist Deborah Blum describes how an Indiana chemist kicked off the first major food regulation in the U.S.

It was common in the 1800s for people to consume milk containing formaldehyde, meat preserved with salicylic acid and borax, and “coffee” filled with ground up bones and charred lead.

The 19th century was largely unregulated, especially when it came to food. “Medical historians always call that period the century of the great American stomachache,” says Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer Prize–winning science journalist and author of the 2018 book The Poison Squad: One Chemist's Single-Minded Crusade for Food Safety at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.

Food adulteration and the use of harmful ingredients were not even illegal because there were no laws around food safety or purity in the U.S. It wasn’t until 1883 that a former Purdue University chemist, who had just become chief chemist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, started investigating fraud involving foods and drinks: Harvey Washington Wiley and a small group of his colleagues experimented on young men who became known as the “poison squad.” The researchers exposed these men to various questionable foods and observing the effects. Wiley’s methods were somewhat unorthodox—by modern standards, perhaps unethical—but it was the first attempt to gather data for any sort of regulation of an industry that was sickening and killing many people.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Others aided the crusade for better food safety, including journalist and activist Upton Sinclair, author of the 1905 novel The Jungle, which famously exposed the horrific practices of the U.S. meat industry; food manufacturer Henry Heinz; and cookbook author Fannie Farmer. As a result of these efforts, in 1906 Congress finally passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, the latter of which became known as the “Wiley Act” and “Dr. Wiley’s law.” These laws contained strict regulations over the conditions under which meat was produced and eventually laid the groundwork for the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. The laws were not perfect, however, and there have been several attempts to refine these regulatory powers over the decades since.

Today the food industry continues to push back against federal regulation. Recently U.S. congressional representatives introduced the Food Traceability Enhancement Act, which would exempt food retailers from many of the rules the FDA uses to track outbreaks of foodborne illness. If the act passes, it could significantly impede the FDA’s ability to find the source of such outbreaks, which can be deadly.

Scientific American spoke with Blum about the history of food safety in the U.S. and the way that history continues to inform our relationship with food regulation today.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

What was the status of food safety in the 19th century?

The U.S. was really slow to the food safety game. There were regulations in Europe and in Canada before we actually took this up. There was just an incredible amount of 19th-century U.S. resistance to the idea of the federal government, as someone said, becoming the “policeman” of your stomach. And so that whole American ethos of “nobody tells me what to do,” individual rights, all of those things really played into it, as well as enormous industry resistance.

Then along came Harvey Washington Wiley. How did he launch federal oversight of food in this country?

I describe him as a “crusading chemist”—I sometimes call him a “Holy Roller chemist”—who was absolutely passionate about the idea that we needed to do something to make the American food supply safer. He had been the first professor of chemistry at Purdue University at a time when it only had six faculty members, including the university’s president. He had studied deceptive food practices when he was in Indiana. And when he came to the federal government, he was head of what was then called the Bureau of Chemistry at the USDA. He launched the federal government, for the first time in its history, into looking at the idea of food safety and food integrity. There were people who did it at the state level, but at the national level, there was no scientist looking at it.

In 1883, when my guy Wiley arrives at the USDA, there are fewer than a dozen chemists at the agency. They’re responsible for all the agricultural chemistry issues in the U.S.—everything from pesticides to crop growth to soil quality. He tells them, Now we’re going to test the integrity of the American food supply. And they do it! Starting in the 1880s, this tiny group of chemists starts doing a series of reports that have the very boring title of “Bulletin 13.” And the chemists look at dairy, and they look at canned vegetables, and they look at coffee and tea, and they look at wine and beer and spices and processed meats. And they really take apart the processed, industrialized food system of the U.S. And across the board, they find really, really bad things.

What were some examples of the questionable food practices they found?

Some of it was just fraud. There was, like, 90 percent adulteration of spices. If you were buying cinnamon, you were buying brick dust. If you were buying pepper, you were buying dirt or charred and ground rope. If you were buying coffee, sometimes you were just buying ground shells. People would grind up bones and charred lead into coffee. If you got flour, you got gypsum. If you got milk, you got chalk or plaster of paris. And actual milk was full of horrible bacteria—there was no pasteurization; there was no refrigeration. People started putting preservatives such as formaldehyde in milk; the milk started killing people around the country. All of this was completely legal. No one could ever be prosecuted for any of this.

That’s pretty horrifying. What motivated Wiley to take action?

There’s no requirement to honestly label anything [at this time]. So you see Wiley starting to say, There are so many of these additives in food, such as formaldehyde and salicylic acid, which causes the lining of your stomach to bleed, and all these other things. Why can't we just tell people what’s in the food so they know how many times a day they’re eating these products? There’s absolute industry resistance to this. Nothing passes. Wiley goes to Congress. Nothing happens. In the entire 19th century, [hardly any] federal regulation regarding food safety or drink safety or drug safety gets through Congress, which is pretty much owned by industry at this point.

So what did Wiley do about it?

Wiley ran what the Washington Post called these “poison squad” experiments, in which he experimented with young workers at the USDA and put these different additives in their food and poisoned them, essentially. The whole science of epidemiology, the science of public health, is so in its infancy at this point. His poison squad experiments had a control group—he had two groups that all consumed the same foods and drinks, but one group got these additives, and one of them didn't. It’s super primitive to us today, but it was really forward-looking and kind of methodical. It was a completely illegal experiment by today’s standards; they’d be, like, running you out of town now.

But it wasn’t just Wiley and his poison squad, right? Weren’t there other people crusading for the cause of food safety at that time?

You have what was called the pure food movement. Wiley did a lot of talking to women’s groups. Women couldn’t vote at that time, but he thought they were very politically organized and powerful. So he went and worked with a lot of women’s groups who crusaded for the cause. He found some friendly manufacturers such as [Ketchup entrepreneur] Henry J. Heinz. And there’s this start of a push toward at least public recognition that food is unsafe. In the cookbooks of the time, you have cookbook writers such as Fannie Farmer saying, Okay, I’m going to tell you to put coffee in this recipe—just be aware that it’s not going to be coffee, or, You should not put milk in the food of sick people because it’s so dangerous.

Upton Sinclair, a socialist writer, writes this book, The Jungle. It was first published in the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason as a call to arms about the plight of the worker. And he finally gets a New York City publisher to agree to publish it. Because he had gone and embedded himself in the stockyards of Chicago, he has all this incredible description about how horrible meat processing is and the mold that’s growing on the meat that still goes into the potted ham and the disease and the rotting animals that go into the sausage. The publisher sends fact-checkers to Chicago to make sure that this isn’t all just bullshit, and the fact-checkers come back, and they say, It’s even worse than he says. A copy was sent to President Theodore Roosevelt. The book becomes this big explosion. Nobody cares about the plight of the worker. There's that famous quote from Upton Sinclair, “I aimed for the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”

So what did Roosevelt do about the situation? How did it lead to Congress passing food safety regulations?

There’s such a storm about The Jungle that Roosevelt sends his own fact-checkers to Chicago. And the crazy thing about that visit is that the meat-packers know they’re coming. The meat-packers clean up the stockyards. And these fact-checkers come back, and they also go, “It’s even worse than in the book.” Roosevelt then goes to Congress, which is entirely in the pocket of the meat industry, and says, I want a meat inspection act. If you don't give me a meat inspection act, I’m going to publish this report.

He ends up publishing about six to eight pages of this report, which was almost 100 pages. Those six pages are so explosive that every country in Europe cancels its meat contract with the U.S.. And at that point, the packing industry goes, Oh, my God, we’re going to have to have a meat inspection act. And so the Federal Meat Inspection Act goes through Congress.

What did the Federal Meat Inspection Act do?

The act has got a ton of teeth in it. The meat industry has to actually pay to help inspect the meat; the meat inspectors have real power in the factories. It’s got a lot of funding built in. There’s a powerful recall apparatus built into the meat inspection act. And in this kind of storm of legislative outrage over the food supply, the Pure Food and Drug Act passes, but because it has been a political football for 20 years, it’s a mess, and there’s not a good funding apparatus. It’s got a lot of problems in terms of how you actually measure and enforce toxic substances in food, and that difference haunts our regulatory system today.

Even today, under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the USDA inspects meat-processing factories. It inspects about 10 to 20 percent of the food processing in the U.S., and it has almost the exact same budget that the FDA gets to inspect the other 80 percent of food. And a legacy of the difference between those two acts persists—one act was driven by a huge scandal that was incredibly powerful and had the backing of industry, and one was dragged over the line with industry hostile to it, working almost from the beginning to undo all of its better applications.

Bring us back to the present. How does the legacy of these food regulation laws continue to affect us today?

The Pure Food and Drug Act was eventually replaced by the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which created the modern FDA. There have been multiple [attempted] amendments since then to the FDA’s power, such as the Food Traceability Enhancement Act. But the fundamental weakness of the powers of the FDA to enforce safety measures in food, drugs and cosmetics—that still underlies our system in terms of both funding and in terms of some of the enforcement mechanisms we see today.

To be fair, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 were paradigm-shifting laws. It was the first time in U.S. history that the government said, Yes, we’re in the business of protecting consumers. All of the consumer-protective things that followed—the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the modern FDA—all of those agencies are built on those two laws. I mean, they made a huge and important difference.

So, despite industry pushback, all of these government regulations of our food supply have made Americans safer.

There’s no borax or salicylic acid added to our wine and beer. We’re not using arsenic as green food coloring. We’re not using red lead to make cheddar cheese look a little more orange.

If I could persuade people not to think of regulation as a pejorative term, my life’s work would be done.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Cutting Food Waste Would Lower Emissions, but So Far Only One State Has Done It

A study out in Science this month finds that states' attempts to cut the amount of food waste going into landfills are rarely succeeding

Kay Masterson has always wanted to make her Boston-area restaurant more sustainable, partnering with an organic farm to get some vegetables close by and offering reusable containers for customers' takeout. When Massachusetts was weighing whether to block restaurants from dumping food waste into landfills, her restaurant started composting without waiting on a law.Right away, there were challenges: $3,000 a year for bins and pickup. Busy dishwashers could contaminate an entire bag of compostable materials by missing a single butter packet. And customers in the habit of just chucking their leftovers needed signage to get uneaten food into the right place.Masterson's operation figured out those problems, but she knows not everyone will.“What’s hard is knowing that the restaurant industry is such a difficult industry, it’s been such a challenging few years. Our costs are constantly going up,” Masterson said. “People give up.”The difficulty of cutting food waste has spoiled several states’ attempts to ban it, and only one — Massachusetts — has actually succeeded, according to a study this month in the journal Science. Massachusetts did it by building one of the most extensive composting networks in the country, inspecting more often, keeping the rules simple and levying heavy fines on businesses that don’t comply, the study found.Ioannis Stamatopoulos, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the study's authors, said organic waste laws in the other key states examined — California, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont — appeared to have little effect.“I was surprised by how extreme the results were," Stamatopoulos said.To get a picture of how a state’s waste ban was working, the researchers corresponded with state agencies and filed public record requests to gather information about what was sent to a landfill or burned in the years before and after legislation was phased in. Then they used statistics to predict the amount of waste that should have been generated, and compared that to reality.Ning Ai, an associate professor of urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois Chicago who wasn't involved in the study, had reservations about making too much of its findings due to the imperfect data. She said she thinks food waste bans can be effective, but said they shouldn't be the only way states try to cut back on waste. States can redistribute food that may be past its expiration date but is still OK to eat, or divert food headed to landfills to animals instead, for example.Weslynne Ashton, a professor of environmental management and sustainability at the Illinois Institute of Technology who also wasn't involved in the study, was more impressed, calling it “a very comprehensive analysis on a very complex problem.”“I think what they demonstrate is that having a policy is fine, but unless you have the infrastructure and the incentive and a way to enforce compliance, then you’re not really doing anything,” Ashton said.That's something state waste management officials know firsthand. Rhode Island, for instance, first instituted its commercial waste ban in 2016. The state made a significant investment in an anaerobic digester, a facility used to convert food waste into biofuels, that could take in food diverted from landfills. But they had a harder time converting people's behavior. Rhode Island is now working on an updated solid waste management plan slated for completion by 2026. “I think without without investment in education and enforcement, you will get so far,” said David McLaughlin, who works on sustainability initiatives including organics diversion at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. “I think that needs to be a part of it. And thus far it hasn't been."The researchers also found California to be one of the states whose effort to cut food waste failed. California depends on local governments to meet food waste diversion goals. About two years ago — after the time period the study evaluated — the state started evaluating jurisdictions. If they aren't complying, the state makes a plan to make them do so. But penalties on businesses themselves are up to the discretion of the local government, and fines for businesses that aren't complying could only take effect starting this past January.California is also one of the only states to have passed legislation targeted at food waste from individuals as well as commercial sources. About 60% of food waste in landfills comes from commercial sources, but the other 40% comes from households, the researchers said.Ashton, the IIT environmental management professor, thinks cracking down on businesses who refuse to change their behavior could be more important than enticing change by providing outreach, resources and education about reducing food waste.“Unfortunately, I think the threat of enforcement and fines — it is very effective,” she said.Follow Melina Walling on X, formerly known as Twitter, @MelinaWalling.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Gavin Newsom signs ban on artificial food dyes in school snacks and drinks. What to know

Certain synthetic food dyes are linked to behavioral issues in kids. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law to ban them in school snacks by 2028.

In summary Certain synthetic food dyes are linked to behavioral issues in kids. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law to ban them in school snacks by 2028. Many brightly colored kids’ snacks and beverages will disappear from California schools under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Sunday that bans certain artificial food dyes from K-12 campuses. Starting in 2028, six common food dyes will no longer be allowed in food sold at schools because of concerns that they cause behavior and attention problems in some children. The banned dyes are: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. Artificial food coloring production in the U.S. has increased more than six-fold since the Food and Drug Administration first issued safety regulations in the 1930s. Although initial studies indicated that artificial colors were nontoxic, recent research has linked eating foods containing synthetic dyes to hyperactivity and trouble concentrating, particularly among children. This legislation builds on a first-in-the-nation law Newsom signed last year to ban the sale of food containing four food additives common in candies and baked goods, and are thought to be harmful. That law applies to food sold anywhere in California, while this year’s legislation focuses solely on school nutrition. “The reason it makes sense to focus on schools is because that’s where a lot of those behavioral and hyperactivity issues are going to compound,” Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs with Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy group that co-sponsored the legislation. “If you know there are kids in these schools that have a sensitivity to these dyes, and it makes it harder for them to concentrate, then you are not creating the most conducive learning environment for those kids.” Several state legislatures are considering bills similar to California’s. The federal government, however, has not updated its safety standards. “California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, the Democrat from Encino who authored the law. Packaged food manufacturers opposed the food dye restrictions, saying that the FDA — not California — is the appropriate food safety regulator.  “The approach taken by California politicians ignores our science and risk based process and is not the precedent we should be setting when it comes to feeding our families,” said John Hewitt, a senior vice president at Consumer Brands Association, which opposed the measure. The organization represents major food manufacturers, such as Coca Cola and J.M. Smucker. What does the science say on food dyes? Managing risk of harmful chemicals can be tricky, and California is no stranger to considering controversial legislation that attempts to reduce exposure.  An early version of the law Newsom signed last year to ban certain food additives was derided by critics as a “Skittles ban” before lawmakers amended it in a way that excluded the dye in the popular candy. Meanwhile, cancer warnings that are required by a 1986 law known as Proposition 65 are often criticized for creating consumer confusion and spurious lawsuits.  But advocates say federal regulations don’t move as quickly as science, requiring state lawmakers to take initiative. California’s environmental hazard research agency published a 300-page report assessing the risk of synthetic food dyes in 2021. The conclusion: The studies used by the FDA to develop safety standards did not assess neurological outcomes that have since been associated with food coloring. Those papers, which are between 35 to 70 years old, instead looked for physiological toxic effects, such as weight gain or decreased liver function in animals. More recent research, including clinical trials, show links between eating dye and behavioral problems in children at much lower doses than the FDA’s current allowable limit. “We all agreed that the weight of evidence supported an association, and that the current acceptable daily intakes for some of the dyes set by FDA may not adequately protect against behavioral or neurobehavioral outcomes,” said Asa Bradman, a public health professor at UC Merced who worked on the state’s risk assessment. “And you know, that’s kind of a bombshell.” Hewitt from the Consumer Brands Association said packaged food manufacturers stand by the FDA guidelines. “It’s unfortunate the scientifically proven, safe ingredients have been demonized without a scientific basis,” Hewitt said. But Bradman said the industry hasn’t been able to discredit any of the newer research — it has only pointed to the original studies, which are outdated and not appropriate for assessing behavioral changes. Dyes in juice, soda and ice cream Children are the most vulnerable to the adverse effects associated with food coloring, in part, because they’re more likely to eat foods and beverages that are dyed. Even medications for children, such as cough syrup and vitamins, are manufactured with synthetic dyes. Kids are also more susceptible because their brains are still developing, and their body weight is smaller compared to the amount of dye consumed, research shows. Juice, soda, icing and ice cream cones are major sources of exposure among kids.  Poverty and race also increase exposure risk, the state’s report found. Black children and women of childbearing age ingested significantly more food coloring than other ethnic groups. The foods that contain the most dye are “poor quality junk food,” Bradman said. Most  schools already have healthy food programs aimed at reducing them on campus. This legislation would help encourage schools to serve even healthier foods, he said. Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Force companies to report their food waste, say leading UK retailers

More than 30 businesses have written to the environment secretary calling for mandatory reporting of wasted foodFood companies should have to report how much they throw away as a first step towards reducing the vast amounts of edible food squandered in the UK, a group of prominent businesses have said.About a third of the food produced globally every year is binned, much of it before it reaches the consumer at a cost of almost £22bn annually to the UK economy. Continue reading...

Food companies should have to report how much they throw away as a first step towards reducing the vast amounts of edible food squandered in the UK, a group of prominent businesses have said.About a third of the food produced globally every year is binned, much of it before it reaches the consumer at a cost of almost £22bn annually to the UK economy.Environment secretary Steve Reed has said he wants to see less waste of all kinds. Photograph: Ian Forsyth/Getty ImagesThere is also a heavy environmental toll: food waste globally contributes up to a 10th of greenhouse gases.More than 30 food businesses, including supermarkets and food producers, have written to the environment secretary, Steve Reed, calling for mandatory reporting of wasted food.They argue that forcing companies to confront the reality of how much they produce and what happens to it will spur better behaviour, including more efficient processes and increased efforts to reuse surpluses.Reed has spoken repeatedly of his desire to see a “circular economy”, with less waste of all kinds. The government has a target of halving food waste by 2030, but has yet to set out new measures to meet it. The Observer understands that ministers are willing to consider placing a duty on companies to report their waste.Jamie Crummie, co-founder of Too Good to Go, an online service that lets restaurants and food retailers advertise last-minute surplus food at a discount to consumers, organised the letter to Reed, along with the British Retail Consortium (BRC).Jamie Crummie, co-founder of Too Good to Go, helped organise the letter to the environment secretary. Photograph: Too Good to GoHe said compulsory reporting would be a vital first step and would allow everyone – consumers as well as the government and other businesses – to judge how careful, or profligate, suppliers were in comparison with their peers.“Food waste is one of the largest contributors to climate change,” he said. “In the UK alone, we throw away 10.7m tonnes of food annually. We are delighted to see the environment secretary set out the creation of a zero-waste economy as a priority. In line with this ambition, and with the support of more than 30 businesses from across the food sector, we hope to see swift implementation of mandatory food waste reporting to ensure transparency and accountability when it comes to our food.”The letter is signed by several of the UK’s biggest supermarkets, including Tesco, Waitrose, Aldi, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer, as well as the BRC, which represents shops. Food producers including Nestlé, Princes, Innocent Drinks, Yoplait and Yo! Sushi are also on the list.Mandatory reporting, as envisaged by the signatories, would not be imposed on farmers, but every company above a certain size in the food chain beyond the farm gate.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSome food producers are already using new techniques such as AI to make their supply chains more efficient and cut waste, as well as more traditional methods such as donating still-edible surpluses to food banks.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “The amount of food we waste is a stain on our country. We are working with business to drive down food waste and make sure food is put on the plates of those in greatest need. This includes supporting surplus food to be redistributed to charities and others that can use it and on programmes to help citizens reduce their food waste.”The letter’s signatories are also working with MPs to raise awareness of the problem. Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, who is also vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, said: “The number of meals that are simply thrown away in the UK each week is deeply concerning. To reduce food waste across the board, we first need to move beyond the throwaway culture we have become far too used to.“That’s why we are pushing to work with businesses by putting in place the right incentives to cut back on waste and overconsumption.”

11 Foods Experts Say Can Boost Your Brain Health And Help Ward Off Dementia

“Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest."

Most people know which foods to avoid for a healthy heart. Yet, do you often think about the foods you eat and how they affect the brain? It’s been scientifically proven that diet can influence brain health. “The brain represents about 2% of our body weight, but it consumes about 20% of all of our calories,” said Dr. Robert Melillo, a brain researcher, clinician, autism expert, and founder of The Melillo Center in Long Island, New York. “The brain uses more calories than any other organ in our body; what we eat can have a big impact on our brain.”Diet and nutrition are essential to keep the brain healthy. “Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest,” said Dr. Brett Osborn, a board-certified neurosurgeon and the chief of neurosurgery at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Jupiter, Florida. “Just as we care for our bodies through exercise and a balanced diet, nurturing our brains through the right foods is essential for a vibrant and youthful mind.”Although scientists still don’t know what causes Alzheimer’s disease, a type of dementia, many think diet and environmental factors play a role. One study in the journal Neurology, published in November 2022, showed that increasing foods high in flavonoids showed it lowered the chances of developing dementia. “The two major groups of factors driving Alzheimer’s are reduced energetics —blood flow, oxygen saturation, mitochondrial function and ketones — and increased inflammation from various pathogens, toxins and metabolic disease,” explained Dr. Dale Bredesen, a neuroscience researcher and neurodegenerative disease expert. “Diet and environmental factors impact both energetics and inflammation, by multiple mechanisms, and therefore play key roles in both Alzheimer’s and treating cognitive decline.”According to Dr. Philip Gold, the chief of neuroendocrine research and senior investigator at the National Institute of Mental Health, “The key positive environmental influences include exercise, which is extremely important, level of education, and cognitive ‘exercise’ throughout life.” Getting sufficient sleep is also key. “Adequate sleep is also critical because, in part, it is during sleep that the brain repairs itself,” he said. Regularly eating foods that are not good for you can have negative consequences on both the body and the brain. “An unhealthy diet may negatively impact gut microbiota, leading to inflammation and potentially influencing the brain,” Osborn said. “Obese people ― most of whom have an unhealthy gut microbiome ― are at a marked risk for the development of Alzheimer’s dementia,” he added.So which foods are the most beneficial for brain health? The experts break it down below.Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesGood news for fans of avocado toast (and eggs!).AvocadoLove eating guacamole, mashing avocado on toast or dicing it into a salad or rice bowl? Avocados have healthy monounsaturated fats, and according to Bredesen, “These help to reduce vascular disease, and provide excellent energy for the brain, without the problems associated with simple carbs or saturated fats.”BroccoliWhether you like broccoli steamed with melted cheese on top, in stir-fries or as a veggie you sneak into your smoothie, you may want to find more ways to enjoy this crunchy vegetable. “Broccoli is a cruciferous vegetable that contains compounds like sulforaphane, which have been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health,” Osborn said. A 2019 study published in the journal Brain Circulation shows sulforaphane is an important antioxidant, and has anti-inflammatory properties that shows potential to protect the nervous system and reduce the burden of pervasive diseases on the body. BlueberriesIf you like to add blueberries to your morning bowl of yogurt, your brain will thank you. “Blueberries contain flavonoids, which are neuroprotective and have been shown to increase neuroplasticity and cerebral blood flow,” said Lynn A. Schaefer, Ph.D, a board-certified clinical neuropsychologist in Long Island. A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published in Nutritional Neuroscience in 2022 showed older adults who consumed wild blueberries had an increase in processing speed, suggesting blueberries may slow down cognitive decline.And these small berries are full of antioxidants, including anthocyanins. Osborn says anthocyanins can “help protect the brain from oxidative stress and inflammation.” He eats blueberries daily, either in a smoothie or on top of a salad.EggsEggs are known for being a good protein option, especially for those who are vegetarian or follow a plant-based diet. And there’s another reason to celebrate eggs: the yolk contains choline. Choline is an essential nutrient and important to produce acetylcholine. “Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that is very important for the parasympathetic nervous system, and important for memory,” Melillo explained. Choline is found in different foods, but the highest concentration is in egg yolks. According to Gold, “Critical to normal cognition, acetylcholine neurotransmission is pronouncedly decreased in Alzheimer’s disease.”Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesSalmon is a fatty fish that's high in omega-3 fatty acids.Fatty fishSalmon, sardines and mackerel are examples of fatty fish that contain omega-3 fatty acid. “These essential fats are crucial for maintaining brain health and have been linked to improved memory, mood regulation, and reduced risk of cognitive decline,” Osborn said. Omega-3 fatty acids are also important for creating new nerve cells and protecting brain cells from damage, according to Gold. Leafy greensDoctors and nutritionists encourage patients to eat more leafy greens because they are packed with nutrients. “Leafy greens such as spinach and kale are packed with vitamins, minerals and antioxidants,” Osborn said. “They promote healthy brain function by reducing inflammation and improving cognitive performance.” Magnesium is an important mineral in leafy greens — Melillo says it helps relax the body, lowering blood pressure and the effects of stress. TunaTuna is a low-fat fish and contains the amino acid tyrosine, an important component for producing neurotransmitters in the brain. “Tyrosine is used for making dopamine and norepinephrine, two of the main neurotransmitters in the brain,” Melillo explained. “Dopamine is more of a left brain neurotransmitter and norepinephrine is more of a right brain neurotransmitter.” Tuna also contains high concentrations of creatine. “Creatine facilitates the entry of water into brain and muscle cells to prevent their dehydration,” Gold said. TurmericSpices provide plenty of flavor and as a bonus can have important compounds that the body needs. Turmeric is a common ingredient that is grated or chopped fresh, or used as a powder in curries. “Turmeric, which contains curcumin, is remarkable in that it has anti-inflammatory effects, and also binds to both the amyloid and tau associated with Alzheimer’s disease, so it has multiple mechanisms to support brain health,” Bredesen said.A study published in the journal Molecules in February 2023 showed curcumin to be antimicrobial and neuroprotective in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease. GingerAnother spice used in both fresh and powdered form is ginger. “Ginger is a potent anti-inflammatory agent that has been shown to enhance cognitive function,” Osborn said. “The antioxidant effects are also thought to protect neurons against oxidative stress that underpin neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.”Ginkgo bilobaGinkgo biloba is known to enhance memory and cognitive function. “It is believed to improve blood flow to the brain and protect brain cells from oxidative damage,” Dr. Osborn. “Some research supports its potential benefits in age-related cognitive decline.”Fermented foodsFermented foods, such as kimchi, kefir, kombucha, sauerkraut and yogurt may also be beneficial for the brain. “Research has established that the brain and gut communicate through the nervous system as well as through the immune system,” Schaefer said. “Therefore, changing the bacteria in the gut with probiotics and prebiotics, and not overdoing antibiotics, may play a role in improving brain functioning.”According to Osborn, “Foods that cultivate a healthy microbiome will likely serve as ‘medicines’ to remedy or slow the onset of all age-related diseases, including those affecting the brain.”

Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

The common food dyes — blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6 — have been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms and other items made with certain synthetic food dyes will be expelled from California public schools, charter schools and state special schools under a bill signed into law Saturday by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Assembly Bill 2316, which will go into effect starting Dec. 31, 2027, spells the end for snack foods that contain the dyes known as blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. All are common industry staples that can give foods unnaturally vibrant colors in an effort to make them more appealing. “Our health is inextricably tied to the food we eat,” Newsom said in a statement. “Today, we are refusing to accept the status quo, and making it possible for everyone, including school kids, to access nutritious, delicious food without harmful, and often addictive additives.” The chemicals have been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, according to the bill’s authors, who cited a 2021 report from the California Environmental Protection Agency. They expressed hope that the new law can have ripple effects beyond the Golden State.“California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who introduced the legislation.The new law “sends a strong message to manufacturers to stop using these harmful additives,” he added in a statement.Flamin’ Hot Cheetos contain three of the six newly forbidden chemicals: red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. The ingredient list for M&Ms includes those three dyes as well as blue 1 and blue 2.Other food items that could disappear from cafeterias and school vending machines as a result of this law include Cheetos, Doritos, sports drinks and sugary breakfast cereals such as Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch.For Gabriel, the bill is personal. He told The Times in March that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child. His son also has the neurodevelopmental disorder.Last year, Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation ban on food additives found in popular cereals, candy, sodas and drinks, including brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3. That law will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations.California lawmakers hope the bans will prompt manufacturers to reformulate their recipes.AB 2316 faced opposition from the American Beverage Assn., the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Confectioners Assn. The groups said food additives should be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not evaluated on a state-by-state basis. But how or when the FDA will take action on the issue remains to be seen, said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the law.“The FDA should certainly also take action on these dyes, but that’s no reason to wait to make sure that kids in California are safe,” Benesh said after the bill passed the Legislature. “There are plenty of alternatives to these chemicals,” Benesh said. “I think it’s on industry to find a way to reformulate and market their foods without using chemicals that may hurt our kids.”In addition to the ban on food dyes, Newsom also signed a bill that aims to standardize information about the expiration dates on food products. AB 660 is designed to give consumers more clear and consistent information about the freshness of their food in the hope that it will reduce food waste.“Having to wonder whether our food is still good is an issue that we all have struggled with,” the bill’s author, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), said in a statement. The enactment of this bill is a “monumental step to keep money in the pockets of consumers while helping the environment and the planet.”Erica Parker, a policy associate with Californians Against Waste, which co-sponsored the bill, said the legislation will get rid of the confusion consumers face when examining products that have the words “sell by,” “expires on” or “freshest before” printed on their packaging. The result of that confusion “is a staggering amount of food waste. Californians throw away 6 million tons of food waste each year — and confusion over date labels is a leading cause,” she said in a statement when the bill was sent to Newsom’s desk.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.