Wednesday, March 30, 2011

IS YOUR FOOD PACKAGED IN ENDCRINE DISRUPTING B.P.A.'S??

Food Packaging Significant Source of BPA Exposure, New Study Finds

Groundbreaking human study finds removing certain food packaging from diet reduces BPA levels by 60 percent

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 30, 2011
6:21 AM

     CONTACT: Breast Cancer Fund
   Shayna Samuels, 718-541-4785 shayna@ripplestrategies.com;
   Glenn Turner, 917-817-3396 glenn@ripplestrategies.com

SAN FRANCISCO - March 30 - A peer-reviewed study published today in Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that food packaging is a substantial source of exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which laboratory studies have linked to breast cancer, infertility, early puberty, and other serious health problems. In this unprecedented human study, scientists at the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute discovered an average drop of 60 percent in BPA levels when study participants ate a diet that avoided contact with BPA-containing food packaging, such as canned food and polycarbonate plastic.
“This study suggests that removing BPA from food packaging will remove the number one source of BPA exposure,” said Janet Gray, Ph.D., Science Advisor to the Breast Cancer Fund and professor at Vassar College. “The study should serve as a call to action for industry and government to get BPA out of food packaging and to fix the broken chemical management system that allows it to be there in the first place.”
The study, “Food Packaging and Bisphenol A and Bis(2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a Dietary Intervention,” tested the levels of BPA in the urine of five San Francisco Bay Area families who had a high likelihood of regular exposure to food packaging containing BPA (they consumed canned foods and beverages, ate meals outside of the home, used polycarbonate water bottles, and/or microwaved in plastic).

The families were provided with three days’ worth of freshly prepared organic meals with no canned food, and using only glass storage containers. The families’ urine was evaluated while they ate their typical diets, again during the period when they were provided with freshly-prepared meals, and then again after returning to their normal eating habits. While the families were eating the fresh-food diet, their BPA levels dropped on average by 60 percent. Reductions were even more pronounced—75 percent—for those with the highest exposures. When families returned to their regular diets, their BPA levels increased back to pre-intervention levels.
In addition to BPA, participants were tested for phthalates, plastic-softening chemicals that can interfere with reproductive development. Levels of DEHP (a phthalate used in food packaging) dropped by an average of 50 percent during the intervention; and the highest exposures dropped by over 90 percent.
"Our study provides clear and compelling evidence that food packaging is the major source of exposure to BPA and DEHP,” said Ruthann Rudel, lead author of the study and Director of Research at Silent Spring Institute. “The study shows that a fresh-food diet reduces levels of these chemicals in children and adults by half, after just three days."
BPA and the phthalate DEHP are both used widely in food packaging. BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastics and is used in the lining of food cans, and DEHP is an additive used in some food containers and plastic wraps to increase flexibility. BPA and phthalates are both known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals because of their effects on hormone systems. BPA has been shown to mimic the hormone estrogen, and exposure has been associated with effects on the developing brain, reproductive system, and mammary and prostate glands in laboratory studies. Phthalates have been demonstrated to interfere with androgen signaling and male reproductive development in laboratory and human studies.
“The findings of this food packaging study suggest that if the food and food-storage industries reformulated packaging to remove BPA and phthalates, or if there were a federal ban of these chemicals in food packaging, a large portion of the population would experience a rapid reduction in the levels of these chemicals in their bodies,” said Dr. Gray. “Industry and government need to ensure the safety of any substitute chemicals before they are put into use.”
Suggestions from the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute for reducing exposure to BPA and DEHP include cooking at home with fresh foods and making some changes in the kitchen, such as avoiding canned foods, choosing glass and stainless steel food and beverage containers, and not microwaving in plastic. After aggregating the results of tests of 300 canned food products, the Breast Cancer Fund found that BPA especially leaches into canned foods that are acidic, salty or fatty, such as coconut milk, soup, meals (e.g., ravioli in sauce) and vegetables. For additional tips or to download a shopper’s guide, visit www.breastcancerfund.org.
###

FAD: BAN FOOD DYES LINKED TO ADD, ADHD AND OTHER HEALTH DISORDERS!


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 30, 2011
11:07 AM

Strong FDA Action on Food Dyes Urged

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

WASHINGTON - March 30 - I’m glad that after many years of denial, the Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the evidence linking synthetic food dyes to behavioral problems in children. Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and other dyes have no useful nutritional or preservative value; their only function is cosmetic. And by "cosmetic," I mean that dyes are often used to make junk food more attractive to young children, or to simulate the presence of a healthful fruit or other natural ingredient. Surprisingly, even foods that aren’t particularly colorful—such as instant mashed potatoes or pickles—are dyed.
The evidence that these petrochemicals worsen some children's behavior is convincing, and I hope that the FDA’s advisory committee will advise the agency to both require warning notices and encourage companies voluntarily to switch to safer natural colorings. (The FDA isn't asking the committee about a ban.) Having brightly colored Froot Loops, Skittles, Mountain Dews, or pickles or anything else just isn't worth putting any children at risk.
In Europe, a law requires most dyed foods (there are few) to bear a warning notice, which is a powerful incentive for food manufacturers not to use artificial dyes. Last I heard, Europe is surviving quite well. It is to the great shame of many U.S.-based food companies that they are marketing safer, naturally colored products in Europe than in the United States.
###
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.

BRAVO! PRE-EMPTIVE LAWSUIT AGAINST FRANKENSEED PATENTS!!!


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 30, 2011
11:09 AM
CONTACT: Cornucopia Institute
Daniel B. Ravicher, 212-545-5337
Jim Gerritsen, 207-425-7741
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042

Farmers and Seed Producers Launch Preemptive Strike against Monsanto

Lawsuit Filed To Protect Themselves from Unfair Patent Enforcement on Genetically Modified Seed

Action Would Prohibit Biotechnology Giant from Suing Organic Farmers and Seed Growers If Innocently Contaminated by Roundup Ready Genes

WASHINGTON - March 30 - On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed.  The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.
Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States and Canada, in the past, when there are patented genetic material has inadvertently contaminated their crops.
A copy of the lawsuit can be found at:
(http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf)

The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald.  Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it.  The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.
“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed or pollen should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.  “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”
Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed can contaminate and destroy organic seed for the same crop.  For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually impossible to grow as a result of contamination.
Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa also face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops as well.
Monsanto is currently developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.
“Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here.  Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now," stated Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association.  "Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families."
“Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, one of the plaintiffs.  "Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington."
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement.  One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case.
“Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false," added Ravicher who is also a Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Ravicher continued, “Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher.  “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not.  Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”
The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.
-30-
MORE:
Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, “Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified organisms.  Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons.  Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates.  That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment.  To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.  On behalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice.”
Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, “The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation.  Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination.  We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty.  People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance.  We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people.  We must protect the environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and people’s right to non GMO food contamination.”
Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association based in Montrose, Colorado, said, "Today is Independence Day for America.  Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice.  Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here.  Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now.  Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families - and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose.  Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto's genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food."
Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said, “It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops.  Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically certified or into the rapidly growing 'Buy Local' market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement.  We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto.”
David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont said, “Vermont’s farmers have worked hard to meet consumers’ growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food.  It is of great concern to them that Monsanto’s continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and regional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods.”
Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, "For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift.  Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination."
Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems in Victor, Montana, said, “The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain.  If scientists want to study and manipulate them for some supposed common good, fine.  Then we must remove the profit motive. The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation.”
David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, “None of Monsanto’s original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto’s patented genes can blow onto another farmer’s fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto’s team of belligerent lawyers.  Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy.”
Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, “We need the court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny.  Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species.  It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their 'technology,' can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country.  It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland.  It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted.”
ABOUT PUBPAT
The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) is a not-for-profit legal services organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
PUBPAT protects freedom in the patent system by representing the public interest against undeserved patents and unsound patent policy.  More information about PUBPAT is available from www.pubpat.org.
###
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community.  Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.  Their web page can be viewed at www.cornucopia.org.  

Monday, March 28, 2011

TEN YEARS AFTER: GMO CROPS YIELD WIDESPREAD HEALTH DISASTERS, RISING $$$

cracks widen in biotech industry myths

AMSTERDAM / BRUSSELS / MONTEVIDEO / BENIN CITY, 22 February 2011 - Governments are being forced to protect farmers and citizens from genetically modified crops (GM crops) to combat biotech corporations’ stranglehold over farmers, and health scares from escalating pesticide use, according to a new report by Friends of the Earth International. [1]
On the eve of the release of industry-sponsored figures on the adoption of GM crops globally, the research highlights how even pro-GM governments in South America and the United States have been forced to take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of GM crops on farmers, citizens and the environment. [2]
 In South America, the Brazilian Government has launched a GM-free soy programme to help farmers access non-GM soy seeds. In Argentina new research has exposed that the herbicide Glyphosate, used on the majority of GM crops grown worldwide, could have severe negative impacts on human health. [3] This has led to bans on spraying of the herbicide near people’s homes. In Uruguay, local areas are declaring themselves GM-free.

Friends of the Earth International Food Sovereignty coordinator Martin Drago said, “Farmers and citizens in South America are bearing the burden of ten years of GM crops with widespread health disasters and rising costs. The myths on which the biotech industry is built are crumbling.

The havoc wreaked across South America shows that this technology is not compatible with sustainable farming. It is a wake up call for the rest of the world to move towards more ecological methods of farming.”

Widespread resistance to GM crops in the developing world and Europe means that they are only planted on a large scale in a handful of countriesand that over 97% of global agricultural land is GM-free.

Friends of the Earth Europe Campaigner Mute Schimpf said:  "The widespread opposition to genetically modified crops and foods in Europe continues to rise because consumers and farmers can see that they offer no added value and instead create environmental and health risks.

GM crops will hinder, not help the challenge of ensuring we can feed our global population with safe and healthy food."

Friends of the Earth International's report "Who Benefits from GM crops? An industry built on myths" 2011 also finds that:

* A new generation of GM crops designed to promote the use of pesticides Dicamba and 2,4 D, are set for release in the United States. GM companies are promoting these as a solution to the failure of existing GM crops to control weeds and reduce pesticide use.

* Biotech companies, aided by the United States Government, are now looking to new markets in Africa in an attempt to salvage profits (SEE: CASEY LUGAR ACT - Clean Food Earth Woman). The Gates foundation (SEE: CASEY LUGAR ACT -Clean Food Earth Woman) , which funds billions of dollars worth of agriculture projects in Africa, has bought shares in Monsanto, giving the Gates foundation a direct interest in maximising the profits of Monsanto over protecting the interests of small holders in Africa.

* GM crops continue to collapse in Europe. Less than 0.06 percents of European fields are planted with GM crops. Seven EU countries have banned Monsanto's GM maize because of growing evidence of its negative environmental impacts. Three countries banned BASF’s GM potato due to health concerns immediately after its authorisation in spring 2010, and for the first time five member states have sued the European Commission over the authorisation of a GM crop.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

English: Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth International Food Sovereignty Coordinator +44 (0) 7961986956

Spanish: Martin Drago, Friends of the Earth International Food Sovereignty Coordinator, +598 (99) 138559

English, French, Dutch: Marlijn Dingshoff, Friends of the Earth International media coordinator: + 31 (0) 20-6221369


NOTES

[1] See Who Benefits from GM crops: the industry built on myths. http://www.foei.org/en/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2011  
[2] See also Friends of the Earth International 2010 “Who Benefits from GM crops: the great climate change swindle” http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2010/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2010  
[3] Paganelli, A et al. Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling, Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (10), pp 1586–1595, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
Source:
http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2011/cracks-widen-in-biotech-industry-myths

WATER, WATER IS not EVERYWHERE.....


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2011
3:51 PM
CONTACT: Earthjustice
Martin Wagner, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6700
John McManus, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6707
 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Hears Testimony on Freshwater Loss Due to Climate Change

Regional water supplies at risk in many regions of the Western hemisphere

WASHINGTON - March 28 - The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights today heard expert testimony describing the human rights implications of freshwater loss caused by climate change occurring in the Western hemisphere. The panel included a scientist, a farmer from the Bolivian Andes, and an international legal expert.
The hearing was requested in January 2011 by Earthjustice and the Bolivian advocacy group Agua Sustentable.
The commission heard from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth was a coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC assessment, and is the current chair of the Scientific Steering Group of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment under the World Climate Research Programme of the United Nations.
Trenberth said, “Global warming is changing precipitation in the Americas and around the world: rains are becoming more intense increasing risk of floods, but with longer dry spells and increased risk of droughts. Snow seasons are shorter, with less snow pack. Glaciers are melting. The IPCC projects that by 2055, between 80 and 170 million people in Latin America will likely have insufficient water for their basic needs. Water management will be a major challenge for governments in the coming decades.”
Also presenting to the commission today was Alivio Aruquipa from Khapi, Bolivia. His indigenous community is facing the loss of reliable freshwater as the glaciers that provide the community’s dry-season water melt because of climate change. Aruquipa told the commission about climate change-induced glacier loss in his, and other, Bolivian communities. The loss of sufficient glacial meltwater to meet dry-season needs for consumption, sanitation, and irrigation threatens the survival of his community and poses a serious risk to the survival of the language, beliefs, customs, and other elements of Aymara culture.
Mr. Aruquipa said, “Mi comunidad y yo dependemos del Illimani, sus aguas riegan nuestros sembradíos y la usamos para tomar, cocinar y bañarnos como lo hacían nuestros antepasados. El Ilimani cada vez se derrite mas y estamos preocupados por nuestros hijos, ya no tendrán agua para tomar, para regar sus tierras ni para los animales que nos ayudan a preparar la tierra.” [“My community and I rely on the Illimani glacier. Its waters irrigate our crops; we use it for drinking, cooking and bathing as our ancestors did. Every year the glacier melts more, so we are worried for our children—they will no longer have water to drink, to irrigate our lands, or to sustain the animals that help us prepare our fields.”]
Earthjustice International Program head Martin Wagner presented on behalf of Earthjustice and 19 other NGOs. His presentation explains how basic human rights are threatened by the loss of freshwater resulting from climate change.
Wagner told the panel, “The anticipated effects of climate change on access to freshwater throughout the hemisphere will cause human suffering and undermine basic human rights. The nations of the world—particularly those most responsible for climate change—must redouble their efforts to stop climate change and do everything they can to assist the poor and vulnerable communities that will suffer the greatest as a result of these changes.”
Additional Resources
###
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.

ADHD: The LANCET Study on FOOD & KIDS

Effects of a restricted elimination diet on the behaviour of children with ADHD attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (INCA study): a randomised controlled trial

The Lancet, Volume 377, Issue 9764, Pages 494 - 503, 5 February 2011
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62227-1Cite or Link Using DOI

Dr Lidy M Pelsser MSc a Corresponding AuthorEmail Address, Klaas Frankena PhD b, Jan Toorman MD c, Prof Huub F Savelkoul PhD b, Prof Anthony E Dubois MD d, Rob Rodrigues Pereira MD e, Ton A Haagen MD f, Nanda N Rommelse PhD g, Prof Jan K Buitelaar MD g

Summary

Background

The effects of a restricted elimination diet in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have mainly been investigated in selected subgroups of patients. We aimed to investigate whether there is a connection between diet and behaviour in an unselected group of children.

Methods

The Impact of Nutrition on Children with ADHD (INCA) study was a randomised controlled trial that consisted of an open-label phase with masked measurements followed by a double-blind crossover phase. Patients in the Netherlands and Belgium were enrolled via announcements in medical health centres and through media announcements. Randomisation in both phases was individually done by random sampling. In the open-label phase (first phase), children aged 4—8 years who were diagnosed with ADHD were randomly assigned to 5 weeks of a restricted elimination diet (diet group) or to instructions for a healthy diet (control group). Thereafter, the clinical responders (those with an improvement of at least 40% on the ADHD rating scale [ARS]) from the diet group proceeded with a 4-week double-blind crossover food challenge phase (second phase), in which high-IgG or low-IgG foods (classified on the basis of every child's individual IgG blood test results) were added to the diet. During the first phase, only the assessing paediatrician was masked to group allocation. During the second phase (challenge phase), all persons involved were masked to challenge allocation. Primary endpoints were the change in ARS score between baseline and the end of the first phase (masked paediatrician) and between the end of the first phase and the second phase (double-blind), and the abbreviated Conners' scale (ACS) score (unmasked) between the same timepoints. Secondary endpoints included food-specific IgG levels at baseline related to the behaviour of the diet group responders after IgG-based food challenges. The primary analyses were intention to treat for the first phase and per protocol for the second phase. INCA is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 76063113.

Findings

Between Nov 4, 2008, and Sept 29, 2009, 100 children were enrolled and randomly assigned to the control group (n=50) or the diet group (n=50). Between baseline and the end of the first phase, the difference between the diet group and the control group in the mean ARS total score was 23·7 (95% CI 18·6—28·8; p<0·0001) according to the masked ratings. The difference between groups in the mean ACS score between the same timepoints was 11·8 (95% CI 9·2—14·5; p<0·0001). The ARS total score increased in clinical responders after the challenge by 20·8 (95% CI 14·3—27·3; p<0·0001) and the ACS score increased by 11·6 (7·7—15·4; p<0·0001). In the challenge phase, after challenges with either high-IgG or low-IgG foods, relapse of ADHD symptoms occurred in 19 of 30 (63%) children, independent of the IgG blood levels. There were no harms or adverse events reported in both phases.

Interpretation

A strictly supervised restricted elimination diet is a valuable instrument to assess whether ADHD is induced by food. The prescription of diets on the basis of IgG blood tests should be discouraged.

Funding

Foundation of Child and Behaviour, Foundation Nuts Ohra, Foundation for Children's Welfare Stamps Netherlands, and the KF Hein Foundation.

ADHD??? NPR interview, Dr. Pessler did not mince words, “Food is the main cause of ADHD!”

ADHD: It’s The Food, Stupid
 
March 25th, 2011  By Kristin Wartman
Over five million children ages four to 17 have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States and close to 3 million of those children take medication for their symptoms, according to the Centers for Disease Control. But a new study reported in The Lancet last month found that with a restricted diet alone, many children experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. The study’s lead author, Dr. Lidy Pelsser of the ADHD Research Centre in the Netherlands, said in an interview with NPR, “The teachers thought it was so strange that the diet would change the behavior of the child as thoroughly as they saw it. It was a miracle, the teachers said.”
Dr. Pessler’s study is the first to conclusively say that diet is implicated in ADHD. In the NPR interview, Dr. Pessler did not mince words, “Food is the main cause of ADHD,” she said adding, “After the diet, they were just normal children with normal behavior. They were no longer more easily distracted, they were no more forgetful, there were no more temper-tantrums.” The study found that in 64 percent of children with ADHD, the symptoms were caused by food. “It’s a hypersensitivity reaction to food,” Pessler said.
This is good news for parents and children who would like to avoid many of the adverse side effects associated with common stimulant drugs like Ritalin used to treat ADHD—and bad news for the pharmaceutical industry. The National Institute of Mental Health reports that common side effects from the drugs are sleeplessness (for which a doctor might also prescribe sleeping pills) headaches and stomachaches, decreased appetite, and a long list of much more frightening (yet rarer) side effects, including feeling helpless, hopeless, or worthless, and new or worsening depression. But Pessler’s study indicates that up to two-thirds or two of the three million children currently medicated for ADHD may not need medication at all. “With all children, we should start with diet research,” Pessler said.
There are also questions about the long-term effects of stimulant drugs and growth in children. After three years on Ritalin, children were about an inch shorter and 4.4 pounds lighter than their peers, according to a major study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in 2007. A 2010 study in the Journal of Pediatrics disputed these findings, but all the study’s authors had relationships with drug companies, some of which make stimulants. According to Reuters, “The lead author, Harvard University’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, was once called out by Iowa Senator Charles E. Grassley for the consulting fees he has received from such drug makers.”
This is just one example of how the powerful billion-dollar drug industry designs and interprets studies to suit their interests. Since the 1970s, researchers not tied to drug companies have been drawing connections between foods, food additives, and the symptoms associated with ADHD but many have been dismissed or overlooked by conventional medicine. One of the earliest researchers in this field was Dr. Benjamin Feingold who created a specific diet to address behavioral and developmental problems in children. The Feingold diet, as it is now called, recommends removing all food additives, dyes, and preservatives commonly found in the majority of industrial foods.
There are a multitude of credible scientific studies to indicate that diet plays a large role in the development of ADHD. One study found that the depletion of zinc and copper in children was more prevalent in children with ADHD. Another study found that one particular dye acts as a “central excitatory agent able to induce hyperkinetic behavior.” And yet another study suggests that the combination of various common food additives appears to have a neurotoxic effect—pointing to the important fact that while low levels of individual food additives may be regarded as safe for human consumption, we must also consider the combined effects of the vast array of food additives that are now prevalent in our food supply.
In Pessler’s study the children were placed on a restricted diet consisting of water, rice, turkey, lamb, lettuce, carrots, pears and other hypoallergenic foods—in other words, real, whole foods. This means that by default the diet contained very few, if any, food additives.
As I see it, there are two factors at work in this study: One being the allergic reaction to the actual foods themselves and the second being a possible reaction to food additives, or combinations of food additives, found in industrial foods. Both certainly could be at play in the results of this study, although the discussion of Dr. Pessler’s study thus far hasn’t addressed the latter issue.
One theme in the discussion of the story has been skepticism from mainstream media—the recent Los Angeles Times article (the only major daily newspaper to cover the study) was very skeptical, if not dismissive. The author writes, “Previous studies have found similar effects, but, like this one, they all had fundamental problems that made it easy for doctors to dismiss them.” NPR interviewer, Guy Raz asked a question invoking this tone as well, “Now, you’re not saying that some children with ADHD should not be given medication, right?” Pessler does say that there are some children and adults who might benefit from pharmaceuticals but her research indicates that far too many are being medicated unnecessarily—and this is the crux of the story.
The Los Angeles Times article ends on this note: “‘To be sure, the prospect of treating ADHD with diet instead of drugs would appeal to many parents,’ Dr. Jaswinder Ghuman, a child psychiatrist who treats ADHD says. ‘But parents who want to give it a try should be sure to consult their child’s physician first, she warned: ‘It’s not that simple to do appropriately.’”
Call me old-fashioned, but changing your child’s diet seems a lot “simpler” than altering his or her brain chemistry with a daily dose of pharmaceuticals. It does takes patience, trial and error, and commitment to complete an elimination diet—taking a pill to target symptoms certainly requires less effort on the part of the doctors, family and child. While no one is denying that ADHD is a complicated web of symptoms with potentially many contributing factors, why not start by examining the most basic and fundamental cornerstone of our health—the foods (and non-foods) we put into our bodies.
Kristin Wartman is a food writer living in Brooklyn. She has a Masters in Literature from UC Santa Cruz and is a Certified Nutrition Educator. She is interested in the intersections of food, health, politics, and culture. You can follow her on Twitter and read more of her writing at kristinwartman.wordpress.com.

Civil Eats