High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Mercury

High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Toxic Mercury, Says Research (opinion)

(NaturalNews) New research published in Environmental Health and conducted in part by a scientist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has revealed that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury.

That means that many of the products using HFCS may also be contaminated with mercury. Carbonated sodas are sweetened with HFCS, as are candy bars, bread, salad dressings, pizza sauce, fruit drinks and thousands of other grocery items.

Mercury is so highly toxic that it causes severe neurological disorders. It can also result in the loss of hair, teeth and nails as well as muscle weakness, loss of kidney function, emotional mood swings and memory impairment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur...) (P.S. Somebody please update this Wikipedia page with this latest research about HFCS being a source for mercury exposure, too.)

The highest level of contamination found in the study was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.

That's because the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day! So just by eating the standard American diet of processed foods, consumers are right now potentially exposing themselves to exceedingly high levels of mercury that far surpass the safety limits set by the EPA.

Buy groceries, get free mercury!

High-fructose corn syrup is used in almost everything, it seems. A second study conducted by the same researchers reveals that nearly one-third of all grocery items sweetened with HFCS were contaminated with mercury.

Eating some sweetened yogurt? Mercury!

How about some salad dressing with HFCS? Mercury!

Want some ketchup on that burger? Mercury!

In fact, mercury is found in thousands of grocery products sold across the world right now. And it's no exaggeration to say that mainstream consumers of popular food items are likely suffering from widespread mercury poisoning (especially if you add in the mercury exposure they're getting from dental fillings).

Where does all the mercury come from?

Most people don't know how high-fructose corn syrup is really made. One of those processes is a bizarre chemical brew involving the creation of caustic soda by exposing raw materials to pools of electrified mercury in a large vat. Through this process, the caustic soda gets contaminated with mercury, and when corn kernels are exposed to this caustic soda to break them down, that contamination is passed through to the HFCS.

Another toxic chemical, glutaraldehyde, is also used in the production of HFCS. It's so toxic that consuming even a small amount of it can burn a hole in your stomach.

But don't worry: The Corn Refiners Association insists that HFCS is a "natural" ingredient, and their Chicago-based PR firm Weber Shandwick is now also claiming that HFCS has been declared "natural" by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It hasn't really, of course, but that doesn't stop the press releases from claiming it has. (If you think a liquid sugar processed with glutaraldehyde and contaminated with mercury is "natural," then you've been duped. There's nothing natural about a processed food ingredient made with toxic chemicals.)

A Weber Shandwick representative calls me every time I post an article about HFCS, by the way, usually with demands that I remove the entire article. I've invited the Corn Refiners Association to a phone interview to defend their position that HFCS doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, and to answer questions about whether HFCS is really "natural." So far, they have declined to be interviewed. It seems they don't want to face real questions from an honest journalist who refuses to be censored by powerful corporations.

One thing I've got to say about the Corn Refiners Association is that they have a well-funded PR machine running around the internet trying to make everybody remove stories that say anything negative about HFCS.

I've noticed that the Corn Refiners Association is a master at spinning the truth. For example, the president of the CRA, Audrae Erickson, said this in a statement responding to the mercury findings: "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years."

Well sure, that's true. But what is Erickson NOT saying? She's not saying that ALL the HFCS is made without mercury. She just says that somewhere in the industry, somebody is using a mercury-free version of the caustic soda. That doesn't mean all the HFCS is mercury free, yet if you don't read her statement carefully, you might be misled into thinking that. Her statement, in fact, leaves open the possibility that 99% of all HFCS might still be manufactured using mercury.

Note carefully that Erickson does not say all HFCS sold in the U.S. is free from mercury. Instead, she makes a clever statement that results in most readers assuming that's what she means. The CRA is well known for using this kind of language spin tactics.

NaturalNews challenges the CRA to state that all HFCS is free from mercury (see below).

The HFCS fairy tale

The CRA isn't just in the business of pushing HFCS, by the way. It's also in the business of denial. For example: Virtually everyone who understands holistic nutrition agrees that HFCS promotes diabetes and obesity. But in much the same way that Big Tobacco executives once swore that "nicotine is not addictive," the Corn Refiners Association insists that high-fructose corn syrup does not promote diabetes or obesity.

So don't worry about the mercury in your HFCS. Or the other toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. That's all natural, we're supposed to believe. And high-fructose corn syrup is a healthy, wholesome, all-American sweetener grown without pesticides by poor Midwestern farmers who have given their lives and souls to create a sweeter, happier America.

Or at least that's the fairy tale version of the story. In reality, HFCS is created by corporate agriculture giants using toxic pesticides and herbicides on the crops who subject their corn to numerous toxic chemicals in the creation of this potentially mercury-contaminated processed sweetener that promotes tooth decay, obesity, diabetes and possibly even neurological disorders thanks to the mercury.

Yum. I can't wait to gobble down another chocolate candy bar sweetened with this stuff...

Politics at the FDA

There's an angle on this story that nobody is yet reporting. The lead author of this study, Renee Dufault, used to work for the FDA. In fact, she investigated the use of mercury at chlorine plants, where the manufacturing process results in the chlorine being contaminated with mercury. With chlorine being dumped into the public water supply, this is obviously a health concern.

Renee Dufault retired from the FDA last year. Only now, nearly a year after her retirement, has she dared to release her findings about mercury and high-fructose corn syrup.

Can you guess why? As an employee of the FDA, there's little question she would have been pressured into silence about the HFCS mercury contamination issue. A lot of powerful corporations that wield steady influence over the FDA would not be happy to see the truth come out about HFCS and mercury. So she waited until after retiring from the FDA to go public with these findings.

In fact, Reuters is now reporting that Dufault told the FDA about her findings, but the agency did nothing to act on them. Is anybody really surprised?

Lies about mercury

The Corn Refiners Association, predictably, is attacking these study results, claiming "This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance..."

That's because the samples used in the study were taken in 2005. The CRA seems to imply they've cleaned up their act since then and are now using a mercury-free process (see statement from Erickson, above). But note that the CRA carefully avoids claiming all HFCS is free from mercury. Their official reply to the Environmental Health article is a perfect example of corporate doublespeak: http://www.corn.org/mercury-HFCS-st...

Specifically, note that the statement avoids promising that all HFCS meets the FDA's definition of the term "natural" or that all HFCS is free from mercury.

NaturalNews challenges the honesty of the Corn Refiners Association in making these seemingly deceptive statements. We request that if the CRA is really to be believed, it must publicly state that all HFCS sold in America today is free from mercury and that all HFCS meets the definition of "natural" as described by the FDA.

Don't hold your breath on that. I can already tell you the CRA will never make such statements because it knows they would be provably false. The truth is that last thing the CRA wants to make public, in my view. I think it's really in the business of creating the illusion of truth through clever P.R. tactics.

Did the CRA know about the mercury contamination of HFCS?

But let's give the CRA the benefit of the doubt for a minute here. Let's suppose that right up to 2005, HFCS was routinely contaminated with mercury, but now suddenly it's all mercury free.

Doesn't anybody wonder why didn't the CRA recall the mercury-contaminated HFCS when it became aware of the issue?

If all HFCS is now manufactured in a mercury-free process (which is highly doubtful, by the way), then that means at some point the CRA must have realized HFCS was contaminated with mercury and it made a decision to switch to a mercury-free process. Why was the public never warned about the pre-2006 mercury in HFCS? And why weren't foods containing HFCS recalled from store shelves due to their mercury content?

If the CRA's present-day statements are to be believed, it means the group must have been aware of the mercury contamination of HFCS through 2005 and yet it did nothing to make that fact known to the public.

So even if HFCS is free from mercury today, the CRA has a lot of explaining to do. The group either knew about the mercury contamination and did nothing to warn the public, or it didn't know about the mercury contamination, putting it in a position of remarkable ignorance about the safety of a product it has routinely claimed to be "safe" and "natural" for many years.

So which is it? Is the CRA run by liars, or just fools?

My offer for a phone interview with a CRA representative remains open. If anybody from the CRA wants to get on the phone with me and defend HFCS, the door is wide open. You know how to reach me.

Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece. All statements are my own opinion and are obviously not agreed to by the CRA, which vigorously defends the safety of HFCS. Almost as if their jobs depended on it, come to think....

Alaska's Toxic Paradise

Northern Exposure
Sarah Palin's toxic paradise.
Sheila Kaplan and Marilyn Berlin Snell, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, October 22, 2008

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=96470ac7-2c43-4643-9703-ec3776ba5b10
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=96470ac7-2c43-4643-9703-ec3776ba5b10

There's no reason to doubt Sarah Palin's sincerity when she talks about her commitment to family and--more specifically--special-needs kids. When she introduced her son, who has Down syndrome, to the audience at the Republican convention, the family tableau drew cheers. And she issued a promise. "To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message for you," she told the crowd. "For years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters, and I pledge to you that, if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

Unfortunately, as governor of a state with a birth-defect rate that's twice the national average, and which has the gloomy status as repository of toxic chemicals from around the world, Palin has pursued environmental policies that seem perfectly crafted to swell the ranks of special-needs kids. It's true that Alaska's top leaders have placed industry wishes over environmental protection for years. But, instead of correcting this problem, she's compounded it. Peer into her environmental record, and Palin ends up looking a lot like George W. Bush.

In the past 20 years, research has shown that exposure to some metals and to chemicals such as pesticides, flame retardants, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can cause birth defects and permanent developmental disorders both prenatally and in the first years of childhood. And Alaska is vulnerable to some of the worst environmental pollutants out there. In a state whose wealth depends on the exploitation of its natural resources, the toxic byproducts of mining and energy development, such as arsenic, mercury, and lead, are particular problems. Alaska Natives, such as the Inuit people, eat a diet that is heavy in fish, seals, and whales--animals that are high on the food chain and therefore more likely to be contaminated with high doses of PCBs and mercury. And the state is vulnerable not only to homegrown pollution, but also to industrial pollution: Trace gases and tiny airborne particles are contaminating the polar regions, carried there on
atmospheric and oceanic currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The mess of pollutants in Alaska has clearly taken its toll. In general, the state has double the national average of birth defects. While the causes are unknown, environmentalists point to the region that includes the North Slope, an area slightly larger than Minnesota, where most of Alaska's oil is produced. The byproducts of oil production can cause serious nervous system disorders, and the North Slope and its environs, home to Alaska Natives and itinerant oil workers, has the highest prevalence of birth defects in the state--11 percent--compared with 6 percent statewide and 3 percent nationwide.

Palin, however, has not addressed these concerns. Her administration irked environmentalists in February 2008, when it opposed legislation that would have given parents at least 48 hours' notice before schools were to be sprayed with pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Currently, parents get 24 hours, which the bill's proponents say is not sufficient for parents who want to arrange to keep kids out of school for a few days after the chemicals are applied. Palin's administration argued that the bill was too restrictive and would force schools to notify parents before cleaning toilets with disinfectant--which, supporters say, is not true. In the same month, members of Palin's administration testified against language in legislation that would have banned polybrominated diphenyl ethers--a flame retardant that, studies show, harms the developing brain.

Then, in the summer of 2007, Palin allowed oil companies to move forward with a toxic-dumping plan in Alaska's Cook Inlet, the only coastal fishery in the nation where toxic dumping is permitted. The Bush administration initially OK'd the companies' request to increase toxic releases, but the permits could not be issued without Alaska's certification that the discharges met the state's water-quality standards, says Bob Shavelson, executive director of Cook Inletkeeper, an organization founded to protect the area's watershed. Palin complied. "Palin's Department of Environmental Conservation issued that certification [based on] the long-discounted notion that 'dilution is the solution to pollution'--turning the federal Clean Water Act on its head and actually increasing toxic pollution," Shavelson says.

Palin next took on the Clean Water Initiative, also known as Proposition 4, which appeared on the Alaska ballot on August 26. The measure would have limited the runoff of toxic metals--known to cause developmental and birth defects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--from all mining operations, but it was aimed at stopping the proposed Pebble Mine, a huge mining proposal that was controversial for its potential impact on Bristol Bay, the world's largest commercial wild salmon fishery (for which Palin's oldest daughter was named). The project had been in the works for years, and, when she ran for governor in 2006, Palin told the Alaska Journal of Commerce that, if the mine was green-lighted, "there will be remediation from now to eternity." Once in office, though, environmental concerns took a backseat. In a TV interview six days before the vote, Palin said, "Let me take my governor's hat off for just a minute, and tell you
personally, Prop 4--I vote no on that." Alaska's mining industry parlayed Palin's face and words into an advertising blitz--and came from behind to defeat it.

Palin's latest anti-environmental effort also came in August, when she attempted to block California's plan to curb its air pollution. The Golden State is trying to reduce its toxic emissions with a port fee that would pay for pollution-reduction projects around the state. Arguing that it would hurt Alaska's economy, Palin asked California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the proposed legislation.

Finally, Palin was pushed by environmental activists and Alaska Natives to pressure the military in its cleanup of one of the most contaminated sites in Alaska--but the state didn't act. This was on the old Northeast Cape Air Force base on remote St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea--one of the state's closest spots to Russia. When the military closed its operations in the 1970s, it left thousands of barrels of toxic waste, containing solvents, fuels, heavy metals, pesticides, and PCBs, a group of toxic organic chemicals that have persisted in the environment. For the past few years, the Army Corps of Engineers has been slowly cleaning up parts of the site and claims it will leave it safe. (One federally funded study still in progress by the state's premier watchdog on chemical pollutants, Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), tested the local water and got a reading that was more than one thousand times the level that the EPA considers safe. "If
the Corps of Engineers want to fill up their canteens in there, they are welcome to it," says Kathrine Springman, the toxicologist who did that study. "Actually, I wouldn't want them to drink it ... anymore than I would ask them to drink Drano.")

But critics say the Army is taking too long, and that its plan will leave too many untreated chemicals, PCBs in particular, at the site. According to Pamela Miller, ACAT's executive director, Palin should have used her powers as governor to forge a better cleanup plan. "Certainly this was also a pattern in the Murkowski administration, but, under Palin, it's gotten worse," she said. "Her administration has done nothing to work with the military to avoid possible contamination." Scientists have also opposed the Army's plan, saying it will leave the area dangerous.

Supporters note that Palin did boost school spending for children with the most severe disabilities, but, in general, the Alaskan government under Palin has done nothing to protect those children and future generations from the toxic stew that the state has become. "She doesn't have a good understanding of the science," says Ruth Etzel, who until recently was research director at the Alaska Native Medical Program in Anchorage. "What she tends to do is talk about personal responsibility as the key to good health."

Andrea Doll, a Democratic state representative from Juneau, says she tried to get Palin interested in her bill on flame retardants early on: "I told her about the bill. She totally was not interested in any way, shape, or form. It was that look on her face--that 'don't even go there' look."

Sheila Kaplan is an investigative reporter who divides her time between Washington, D.C., and Northern California. Marilyn Berlin Snell is a San Francisco-based investigative journalist. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Is Organic Agriculture Polluting our Food with Heavy Metals??

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2198756/

Rusted Roots

Is organic agriculture polluting our food with heavy metals?

By James E. McWilliams
Posted Monday, Sept. 8, 2008, at 12:02 PM ET

---

If I'm reading the banana peels correctly, the prospects for organic agriculture have never been better. Indeed, the most recent batch of bananas I bought came adorned with a "certified organic" sticker that confirmed the virtue of my purchase. It explained, "When you purchase organic produce you are taking part in the HEALING of our land."

This makes intuitive sense. Conventional agribusiness, after all, is a chemically dependent, resource-intensive venture that contributes to global warming, aquatic "dead zones," and massive land degradation. Organic systems, by contrast, restore soil health, foster biodiversity, and recycle organic matter rather than lading the land with synthetic chemicals. Whereas conventional agriculture follows the law of supply and demand, organic agriculture follows what its founder, Sir Albert Howard, called "the law of return." Potential waste, according to this dictum, ends up enriching the soil.

The law of return, however, has a loophole. One issue frequently overlooked in the rush to embrace organic agriculture is the prevalence of excess arsenic, lead, cadmium, nickel, mercury, copper, and zinc in organic soil. Soil ecologists and environmentalists—and, to some extent, the concerned public—have known for more than a century that the synthetic pesticides of conventional farming leave heavy metals in the ground. But the fact that you'll find the same toxins in organic soil has been something of a dirty little secret.

The implications of this fact cannot be overlooked. The human body naturally contains trace amounts of heavy metals, but when they accumulate faster than the body can excrete them, several serious health problems can follow, including cardiovascular and neurological disorders as well as kidney and liver damage. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the U.S. Public Health Service, cites fruit and grain consumption as the leading cause of lead exposure in the general population. Lead exposure has been proven to cause severe anemia and permanent brain damage. It's not yet clear whether organic (or conventional) soil contains enough of these metals to pose a genuine risk to human health. But continuing research on this topic weighs heavily on the future of what we've come to assume is a sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture.

Scientists have known since the 1920s that organic fertilizers used by farmers to supplement conventional systems—composted animal manure, rock phosphates, fish emulsions, guano, wood ashes, etc.—further contaminate topsoil with varying concentrations of heavy metals. Organic advocates, who rely exclusively on these fertilizers, remain well aware of the problem today, although they rarely publicize the point.

No one is saying that organic soil has higher heavy-metal counts than conventional soil as a rule—scientists have not conducted enough research to make such a determination. Still, some evidence indicates that organic soil can, in some cases, be more contaminated. George Kuepper, an agriculture specialist with the National Center for Appropriate Technology, observed in a 2003 report that composting manure actually concentrates the fertilizer's metal content, which could lead to greater levels of the contaminants in organic soil.

Recent studies have lent Kuepper's concern tentative support. For example, in 2007, researchers conducted an analysis of wheat grown on various farms in Belgium; based on the results, they estimate that consumers of organically grown wheat take in more than twice as much lead, slightly more cadmium, and nearly equivalent levels of mercury as consumers of wheat grown on conventional farms.

Beyond the comparative impact of organic vs. conventional systems on the soil's heavy-metal concentration, there's the question of how easily these trace elements enter crops. Although the research here is also relatively thin, what has been done suggests that the problem of plant uptake is equally serious in both organic and conventional systems. For example, 14 percent to 28 percent of New Zealand's cattle (destined to be organic beef) were found to have kidney cadmium levels exceeding limits set by the New Zealand Department of Health because of a diet of plants grown in contaminated soil. Similarly, a 2007 study of Greek produce found that organic agriculture does not necessarily reduce the cadmium and lead levels in crops. As it turned out, "certified" organic cereals, leafy greens, pulses, and alcoholic beverages had slightly less heavy-metal contamination than conventional products, but "uncertified" organic products had "far larger concentrations" than conventional ones.

These findings might be preliminary and inconsistent, but pressure is mounting on the organic community to take action. Under rules set by the USDA's National Organic Program, responsibility has been left to the individual farmer to manage plants and animals in a way that does not contaminate crops with heavy metals. The question of how to monitor that responsibility, however, is complicated by the fact that there are as yet no federal limits on heavy-metal concentrations applicable to all fertilizers.

Organic farmers thus work with broad suggestions rather than concrete federal regulations. They're routinely forewarned by organic watchdog groups such as the Organic Trade Association about dangerous levels of copper and arsenic in poultry manure. They're reminded of proper "nutrient management planning" and encouraged to experiment with the relationship between soil pH levels and rates of heavy-metal contamination. They're advised to test soil regularly for heavy metals and to adjust fertilizer combinations and relative nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium levels in the soil when metal concentrations rise. A handful of states—California, Oregon, Washington, and Texas among them—have established loose legal guidelines. But the fact remains: The decentralized sprawl of information about fertilizers and heavy metals fosters a far-flung approach to the problem.

The Organic Materials Review Institute, a nonprofit organization that provides certifiers with an independent review of products intended for organic use, is working to change this situation by framing a standard of fertilizer use. OMRI officials have evaluated models from Canada, Washington state, and the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials. Initially, the organization established regulations that, according to Patty Martin, director of Safe Food and Fertilizer, would have been like "driving a hazardous waste truck into organic agriculture." After her 2006 testimony, however, OMRI revised its recommendations to include a somewhat more stringent set of limits on heavy metals in fertilizers.

No matter how they end up, OMRI's guidelines may ultimately come to naught. Scientists are currently documenting another cause of heavy-metal pollution in global agriculture. "Atmospheric deposition"—the transfer of pollutants from the air to the earth—has nothing to do with organic practices per se but is, rather, the result of industrial processes beyond the farmer's control. Farmers already know that fertilizers are not the sole source of heavy-metal contamination. They've inherited a landscape once pummeled with arsenic and lead insecticides. Heavy metals can leach from wooden fences treated with copper chromium arsenate and from lead paint on houses. But the idea that these contaminants can come directly from the air takes all this to a more bewildering level.

Mercury from tooth fillings incinerated with humans corpses and magnesium dust blown east from the Gobi Desert can now join heavy-metal residues wafting from smelting plants and arsenic from coal mines to contaminate soil. Needless to say, airborne contaminants don't land on conventional farms alone. As atmospheric deposition grows more widespread, the difference between organic and nonorganic farming will become ever smaller.

Fortunately, complete despair may still be avoided. Consider this: Plant biologists are working to genetically modify a fern plant that, when ashed and dusted on soil, is capable of sucking up zinc. The dust can then be gathered so the recovered zinc may be recycled and put to better use. Of course, in order for bioremedial technologies such as this to move forward, the dichotomy between organic and conventional agriculture will have to be collapsed, a sober view of organic agriculture will have to be adopted, and we'll have to read the banana leaves with greater skepticism.

James E. McWilliams is the author of American Pests: Our Losing War on Insects From Colonial Times to DDT and an associate professor of history at Texas State University.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2198756/