Do these three things go together? Celiac, food sustainability, and safety. They should go together, but safety and sustainability could be tagged to most anything these days. So how does or what does celiac disease have to do with food sustainability and safety?
I’m still trying to put them together — for me, it’s an everyday adventure.
I am borrowing some parts of today’s title for this post from the scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. I’ve been reading on Part D. Food Sustainability and Safety. The DGAC is venturing into some new territory by promoting health and sustainability in its dietary guidance, and they link that to policy or policies. There’s even a revised food safety table at the end of the chapter.
The DGAC chose seafood as an example, ” because consumption has well-established health benefits and the 2010 DGAC report highlighted the concern for seafood sustainability and called for a better understanding of the environmental impact of aquaculture on seafood contaminants. ” That’s a mouthful, and you may want to spit it out. As recommendations for “well-established health benefits” come at a cost where “certain seafood species are depleted and marine waters are over fished, while most other species are at the limits of sustainable harvesting. ” Finally, they come to an argument that grabs nutrients and contaminants, parenthetically, of course, and points both towards a “broader ecosystem stewardship.”
There are some great sentences in this chapter; for instance, “…the organically grown vegan diet had the most potential health benefits.” Which is followed by “the organically grown vegan diet also had the lowest estimated impact on resources and ecosystem quality.”
Other sentences just confused me. Here’s one: “Beef was the single food with the greatest projected impact on the environment; other foods estimated to have high impact included cheese, milk, and seafood.” Is the cheese coming from the same place the beef is coming from? Not exactly, but close, very close. Milk — It’s a food rather than a drink? I know milk comes from dairy cows, so beef must come from beefy cows. Does cheese also come from the dairy cows? The quoted sentence could have read that the most and greatest and highest impacting foods are cows, cows, and cows. Cows. I’m also guessing that pigs have made it to an “up there” when considering their, or their farmers, impact on the environment, but that won’t be brought out until pigs can fly and then they’ll be really up there.
In a recent post I mentioned aspartame and the DGAC suggests the FDA regulates aspartame and finds it safe . . . I got this link from the DGAC release and it states how the FDA wants aspartame to be covered — labelled — etc. You should be able to read if the processed foods contains aspartame by reading food labels “Although most commonly associated with low-calorie/low-sugar versions of carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, [aspartame] also is found in low-calorie/low-sugar versions of canned fruits and juices; instant cereals; baked goods; ice cream and frozen ices; candy and chocolate products; jams, jellies, syrups, and condiments; yogurt; and beer. ” Should was the operative word above — per the link the scientific name is used. There are also some weight disclosures in the CFR. Labels will adhere to these disclosures, but, actually, they won’t in all cases. The US has some issues with food labels, so GMOs are not always listed. Aspartame or phenylketonurics containing phenylalanine are generally recognized as safe (GRAS), but, and I quote, “To be cautious, adults and children should be aware of the amount of aspartame they are consuming, given the need for more long-term human studies.” To be even more cautious, ask the children if they are aware of how much aspartame they are consuming. Let me know how aware the children are.
Here are some sentences wagging both the FDA and DGAC dogs:
Under the cancer sub-title: ” Further investigation should be considered to ensure that no association exists between aspartame consumption and specific cancer risk. ”
No association. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Good luck with that one.
Under the preterm delivery sub-title: “The Panel agreed with the authors who concluded that replication of their findings in another setting was warranted.”
Aren’t replications of findings warranted in every scientific experiment?
Under the behavior and cognition, children sub-title: ” in children with attention deficit disorder ”
The kids already have ADD, somehow giving them huge doses of this stuff doesn’t effect the ADD they already have.
Anyone could find fault with this post too. That’s what it’s here for.
Look for the next post, it should be a lot like this one, as I’m still considering much of the 2015 DGAC’s findings and wondering if it will digest.