The FDA sat on 2005 evidence of mercury-tainted high-fructose corn syrup

[seafan]

The FDA sat on evidence of mercury-tainted high-fructose corn syrup (with a hat tip to BuzzFlash)

According to a study completed in 2005, HFCS is commonly tainted with mercury. Investigators found mercury in 9 of 20 HFCS samples -- 45 percent. The FDA has known about this since 2005, but has done nothing with the evidence. The lead author of the investigation was an FDA researcher and recently went public, publishing the findings in a peer reviewed journal. (Note that several years ago, then-Sen. Barack Obama introduced legislation--which failed--that would have forced the chlorine industry to phase out mercury.)

Here's the original story:


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/26/132619/467">Some heavy metal with that sweet roll?

Posted by Tom Philpott at 2:04 PM on 26 Jan 2009

High-fructose corn syrup rose from obscurity to ubiquity starting in the late 1970s, borne up by an informal public-private partnership between grain-processing giant Archer Daniels Midland and the federal government. For me, HFCS is at best a highly processed, lavishly subsidized, calorie-heavy, nutritional vacuum.

.....

Now comes news that makes even an HFCS cynic like me do a spit-take over my home-brewed morning coffee. Turns out that HFCS is commonly tainted with mercury -- a highly toxic substance -- according to a peer-reviewed report published by Environmental Health (abstract here; PDF of the must-read full text here.)

The Environmental Health study draws on samples of high-fructose corn syrup taken straight from the factory. But no one drinks the stuff straight. What about, say, cookies sweetened with HFCS? The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy plucked HFCS-containing products from supermarket shelves and tested them for mercury. The result?

Overall, we found detectable mercury in 17 of 55 samples, or around 31 percent

Traces of mercury turned up in name-brand products from makers including Quaker, Hunt's, Manwich, Hershey's, Smucker's, Kraft, Nutri-Grain, and Yoplait.

That a ubiquitous industrial-food ingredient such as HFCS should be tainted by mercury is bad enough. But it gets worse. The FDA has apparently known about this since 2005 -- and done nothing to publicize it or change it.

In 2005, EH study lead author Renee Dufault was an FDA researcher. At that time, she conducted the tests now cited in the EH report. Her results found mercury in 9 of 20 HFCS samples -- 45 percent.
She doesn't comment on why, but the FDA apparently did nothing with her results in the years since they emerged. She retired from the agency in March 2008 -- and evidently decided to go public. She deserves praise for the decision to publish her work -- essentially blowing the whistle on what looks like an egregious attempt to hide key information from the public.

So how does mercury work its way into our the food industry's favorite sweetener? It finds its way into Pop Tarts and the like through the stunning array chemicals required to transform corn into a cane sugar substitute. (As you read the following list, marvel that the FDA recently ruled that manufacturers can label HFCS-sweetened foods "natural.") According the the EH study:

Several chemicals are required to make HFCS, including caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, alpha-amylase, gluco-amylase, isomerase, ilter aid, powdered carbon, calcium chloride, and magnesium sulfate.

Two of those charming-sounding chemicals -- caustic soda and hydrochloric acid -- can contain traces of mercury.

Caustic soda and hydrochloric acid are made through the same processes that produce chlorine. It can be done in one of two ways. The first involves pumping saltwater through a vat of mercury. The stuff produced this way is known as "mercury grade."

.....

Not only did the FDA fail to inform the public of HFCS's mercury problem; food manufacturers that use HFCS may have been in the dark, IATP reports.

There is one hopeful tidbit from the highly disturbing Environmental Health and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy studies. Several years ago, then-Sen. Barack Obama introduced legislation that would have forced the chlorine industry to phase out mercury.

That bill failed. I hope the new Congress revives it. And I hope the Obama FDA investigates precisely why the agency sat on information that could have saved consumers from mercury exposure. The officials who made that decision -- as well as the HFCS industry, led by Archer Daniels Midland -- must be held to account.

(See link for the full report and several related links)


I avoid HFCS like the plague.

[aquart]

1. Mostly, but not always. My god, what a mess!

It's in my favorite peanut butter, dammit.

[seafan]

2. Smucker's Organic Creamy Peanut Butter has no HFCS.

Give it a try! :9

[bkkyosemite]

3. Frickin murderers! Mercury is the worst poison on this planet. The amalgam in peoples teeth have

mercury in them and gutta purcha used for root canals. This has to stop! We are getting cancer and other debilitating diseases from our foods and even our teeth. This is being pushed under the rug at our health's expense. No wonder we need medical insurance.

[trotsky]

4. All mercury exposure should be minimized, yes.

However according to page 14 of the IATP report, the highest concentration of mercury was in Quaker Oatmeal to Go - at 350 parts per trillion. Tuna, one of the highest "natural" mercury-containing foods, has a concentration of 1-2 parts per million. Comparing the two, if my math is correct, shows that tuna contains roughly 3000-6000 times more mercury than the most contaminated product they found.

I do not doubt this is an issue - however if you pardon the pun, I think there are much bigger fish to fry.

[seafan]

6. Considering the bigger picture with HFCS (links to kidney disease, obesity, effects in diabetics)...

... and now linked to mercury exposure, as Bush's FDA has hidden this information from Americans since 2005.


Avoiding HFCS is one of the best general health decisions a person could make, imho.


Sugary sodas linked to kidney disease., Environmental Health News, December 2, 2008


Diabetes fears over corn syrup in soda, New Scientist September 4, 2007


High-fructose corn syrup fueling obesity epidemic, doctors say, Knight Ridder, December 4, 2005

[trotsky]

7. So you really have nothing to say about the factual data.

It's all about panic and fear.

[seafan]

8. The facts are exactly what I am interested in:

Here are some facts in the pdf report that caught my eye:

With respect to product labeling, FDA requires food manufacturers to list on the food product label ingredients in descending order of weight from most to least <19>. For example, HFCS is commonly listed as the first ingredient in chocolate syrup on the product label, therefore all that can be known is that of all the ingredients in chocolate syrup, there is more HFCS in the product than any other ingredient. Product labels listing HFCS as a first or second ingredient may contain detectable levels of mercury if the HFCS was manufactured with mercury grade chlor-alkali chemicals.

As part of the review process for this article, the authors contacted manufacturers for more information on the % concentration of HFCS in their products and the common response back from manufacturers was that this information is proprietary.

With the reported average daily consumption of 49.8 g HFCS per person, however, and our finding of mercury in the range of 0.00 to 0.570 µg mercury/g HFCS, we can estimate that the potential average
daily total mercury exposure from HFCS could range from zero to 28.4 µg mercury. This range can be compared to the range of total mercury exposure from dental amalgam in children reported by Health Canada <20>. In the report issued by Canada, daily estimates of total mercury exposure from dental amalgam in children ages 3-19 ranged on average from 0.79 to 1.91 µg mercury. Canada and other countries do not recommend the use of mercury amalgam in pregnant women or children.

Current international food processing standards allow 1.0 µg mercury/g caustic soda <21, 22> and there is no standard for mercury in food grade hydrochloric acid. Both of these chemicals may be used to make HFCS. The FDA has approved HFCS for use as an added sugar in food products but a review of food product labels reveals that it is often added to a product in addition to sugar presumably to enhance product shelf life.

Regardless of its intended use, it is imperative that public health officials evaluate this potential source of mercury exposure, as HFCS is presently ubiquitous in processed foods and therefore significantly consumed by people all over the world. Mercury in any form – either as water-soluble inorganic salt, a lipid-soluble organic mercury compound, or as metallic mercury- is an extremely potent neurological toxin <23>.

Mercury regulation varies from country to country. While the US government only regulates methylmercury in fish, several other governments regulate all forms of mercury in all foodstuffs. In the US, the current action level of 1 µg methylmercury/g fish or seafood was set in 1977 during court proceedings of the United States of American v. Anderson Seafoods, Inc. <28>. The data used to determine the action level in fish came from a poisoning incident that occurred in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime in 1971-1972.

With daily per capita consumption of HFCS in the US averaging about 50 grams and daily mercury intakes from HFCS ranging up to 28 µg, this potential source of mercury may exceed other major sources of mercury especially in high-end consumers of beverages sweetened with HFCS. Food products that contain a significant amount of HFCS should be tested for mercury contamination in the end product and the public should be informed of any detections. Clearly, more research is needed to determine the extent of mercury exposure in children from mercury contaminated HFCS in food products.

Mercury accumulation in the body is cumulative over lifetime, and is passed on via the food chain. The processing of HFCS appears to be a significant source for ingested mercury that has not been well-publicized, perhaps by design.

[trotsky]

17. Here's a much less fear-oriented link.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/latest-scare-du-jour-mercury-in-hfcs.html

Bottom line evidence. Notice how this study only reported having detected mercury in HFCS, but didn’t measure the mercury level in a single person or child — they left it to our imaginations to assume that detectable levels in our foods meant dangerous levels in our bodies. There is no credible support to fear that the mere presence of mercury — in a fraction of a part per million — in HFCS, and other foods we regular eat, is dangerous.

The final reassuring proof comes from CDC tests of the actual amounts of mercury in our bodies. Since 1999, NHANES has studied mercury levels in our bodies and found that even in the most vulnerable groups of Americans, women and children, we don’t have values anywhere near actual unsafe levels.

The level used for safety regulations has an enormous built-in safety margin. To arrive at this level, they took the level where there was no observed effect at all in the most sensitive of the population with a lifetime of exposure — a level nearly ten times that found in most American women — and added another ten-fold safety cushion to that. This safety cushion is not a threshold where there is any possible actual risk to health — even though it’s used by those trying to scare us to define “high.”

I've said that mercury is a bad thing. I support its removal from as many products and industries as possible. But using scare tactics and misinformation is NOT the way to go.

[pnwmom]

29. Your source has a right-wing, pro-industry bias.

I'd rather see you cite a refereed journal article, such as the article from Environmental Science that I cited below.

[trotsky]

34. Oh, please.

JFS has had no sponsorships or funding to date. Please consider supporting JFS to enable it to continue.

I see no justification for your accusation of bias - but then just dispute the facts of the blog post. Go ahead.

[Celebration]

52. LOL, she writes for the CEI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Szwarc

Szwarc's writing frequently criticizes what she takes to be the faulty science and exaggerated fears of the environmental and natural food movements. Szwarc has written for the Competitive Enterprise Institute's magazine, CEI's Monthly Planet, TCS Daily and other online and print journals. Some of her articles include “To Panic or Not to Panic? Farmed Salmon: Anatomy of a False Scare,”<4>; "Fever Pitch on Mercury Fears"<5>; "The fear factor: benefits of safe, healthful fish lost in sea of methylmercury concerns"<6>; "Using the Most Vulnerable" (regarding phthalates)<7>and "Fear for Profit" (biotechnology controversy)<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation<3><4>. (More details below.) CEI cites its major issues of concern as Environmental Policy, Regulation and Economic Liberty, Legal and Constitutional, and Health and Safety. Among the methods used to implement the organization's agenda are various press releases and policy papers, testifying at governmental hearings, suits against various governmental agencies, paid advertising, editorial and op-ed pieces, open letters, books, and NGO operations. CEI's most recent television ad campaign, entitled A Bright Future For Some, focused on energy policy and global warming, criticizing policies advocated by former Vice President Al Gore. The CEI ad aired nation-wide in March and April, 2008.

Uh, do you think a Democrat would write articles for them?

http://cei.org/node/21478

In December 2008, President-elect Barack Obama nominated Dr. John P. Holdren to be White House Science Adviser. The White House Science Adviser heads the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which “serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government,” according to the OSTP web site.

John Holdren’s 40-year record of outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices makes him unfit to serve as White House Science Adviser. The Senate should not confirm his nomination.

[trotsky]

53. Yes, others have already attacked the person.

Read the article, and argue the facts. The claims she makes are easily verifiable - if you find an error, please let me know.

[Celebration]

54. "less fear oriented link"

Dubunking global warming denier types isn't worth my time.

:rofl:

I call it a non source. It just isn't a reliable source. I am not going to waste my time debunking the CEI either.

[trotsky]

55. I will bookmark this for the next time right-wing antivaccination sources are used.

I assume you will join me then, in condemning the source consistently?

[Celebration]

56. I promise THIS

I will never knowingly link to a right wing source. If someone else links to one, I won't bother debunking that either. It is all a complete waste of time.

The reason that I pointed out her link to the CEI was because nobody else in this thread noted that. If they had, I would have just left it alone. I am not the vulture type.

[trotsky]

57. Oh, and additionally:

Here are the facts from the post. If you can point out how any of them are wrong, or even "biased," I'd appreciate it.

1) The study posited exaggerated consumption of HFCS.

This claim, however, incorrectly used industry supply and production data from the Market and Trade Economics Division at the USDA’s Economic Resource Service to extrapolate actual dietary consumption among Americans. ERS data has been repeatedly been shown to be faulty and to wildly exaggerate what people really eat. For example, as we know, it doesn’t account for exports and only estimates waste.

So - is she wrong? Did the study use a source OTHER than that of the MTED? That should be easy enough to prove. Can you?

2) The study failed to indicate what form the mercury was in, and how that relates to absorption/toxicity.

But an important fact the media has left out of this story is that elemental mercury is not a health threat when ingested (or handled) because virtually none (less than 0.1%) is absorbed through the digestive tract (or skin).

Again, is she wrong? Does the digestive tract absorb more than 0.1% of consumed elemental mercury? This is a very easy fact to check. Can you?

3) Drawing appropriate conclusions.

Notice how this study only reported having detected mercury in HFCS, but didn’t measure the mercury level in a single person or child — they left it to our imaginations to assume that detectable levels in our foods meant dangerous levels in our bodies.

Once more - is she wrong? Did the study measure mercury levels in foods, or in people who consumed the foods? Again, easy to check - just read the study.

So, let me know how any of the above are biased or factually incorrect. Thanks.

[pnwmom]

12. For some, it's all about defending the FDA, in particular Bush's FDA, no matter what.

For some, it's all about putting our collective heads in the sand.

[trotsky]

15. That was uncalled for. n/t

[HuckleB]

37. Actually, he linked you to some good data.

It's not conclusive data, but your response fails to consider the data at all.

That leads me to conclude that actual research and data are not your biggest concerns.

[trotsky]

39. Of course it's good data.

But it changes the subject from mercury to other (unrelated) claims about HFCS.

That leads me to conclude that actual research and data are not your biggest concerns.

Then it leads you to an incorrect conclusion. Sorry.

[HuckleB]

40. Actually, no.

I believe the poster's point is to take in the whole picture in terms of a product's safety. Mercury content may be one part of that picture. And mercury content may not warrant avoiding the product all by itself. However, if one also considers other negatives, such as the ones noted above, that decision may change.

That has nothing to do with a supposed "incorrect conclusion."

[trotsky]

42. As I read the OP, the focus is on mercury contamination.

I apologize if I made some kind of error, but I see nothing in it indicating anything about the dangers as a whole. My mindreading powers are not as advanced as yours, I'm afraid.

[HuckleB]

44. Yawn.

As noted below, it's clear that you are not here to discuss anything.

Go for a run. It's a much healthier way to defuse stress.

[trotsky]

46. Again, thanks for your advice!

You appear to be here not to discuss anything, but just berate me. Take care! :hi:

[HuckleB]

49. I was here to discuss.

Unfortunately, berating others was all you were doing.

I guess the tables got turned.

[trotsky]

51. So you make an unsubstantiated claim against me,

engage in the same behavior you accuse me of, and feel justified? Okey doke, whatever floats your boat.

[HuckleB]

58. My claim is quite substantiated.

My behavior does not come close to resembling your behavior.

End of story.

[trotsky]

61. Whatever it takes to feed your superiority complex, I suppose.

End of story indeed.

[HuckleB]

62. It's interesting to see you label others by painting them with the very behaviors you display.

[trotsky]

63. Yes, likewise. n/t

[cosmik debris]

9. You're forgetting the basic rule of toxicology

Here in Wooville, if one Kilogram is poison, one atom is equally poison.

There is no distinction between the doses.

In fact, just looking through the telescope at Mercury will cause brain damage and possibly autism.

That's how toxicology works in Wooville.

[pnwmom]

13. There is no acceptable level of an easily avoidable poison.

Mercury is a toxin, not a nutrient, and its presence in foods is completely unnecessary.

But in Bushville, as long as some manufacturer makes more money, who cares if mercury is in food? Why bother informing consumers? Why bother even telling food manufacturers who use high fructose corn syrup that the concoction contains mercury?

What you don't know can't hurt you. Right?

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

19. Mercury was in the environment before humans existed.

It's not "easily avoidable" - it's IMPOSSIBLE to avoid. That's why our bodies DO have mechanisms to collect and remove it, and why chasing after ridiculously minuscule sources of it is a total waste of energy. Focus on the big stuff. Hell, I actually wouldn't be surprised to find out if this report was somehow funded or supported by coal producers to alarm the easily-distracted and take attention away from them.

What you don't know can't hurt you. Right?

Ignorance does hurt. I see that in this forum a lot.

[pnwmom]

23. That's my point. Some exposure to mercury is impossible to avoid. But exposure

to mercury in the form of HFCS is EASY to avoid. Since there is significant other exposure we can't avoid, (and even -- such as with seafood -- that we'd prefer not to completely avoid) and the effects are cumulative, then the solution is to avoid exposure where we can. Reducing exposure to the mercury in HFCS is very do-able.

[trotsky]

24. No, that wasn't your point.

You said mercury was an "easily avoidable poison." It's not. Did you misspeak in that post? And its effects are only cumulative when we consume more than our bodies can eliminate. You DO acknowledge that the body CAN remove mercury, right?

[pnwmom]

28. You are right that I wasn't clear. I know that mercury cannot be avoided in

all foods, and that in certain foods (some seafood, for example) the exposure is probably worth the risk (although probably not to pregnant women).

But when it CAN be easily avoided, as is the case with HFCS, there is no good reason to withhold information from consumers and food producers, as the Bush FDA has done.

[trotsky]

35. I strongly suggest you actually read the link I posted.

Watch for the supposed right-wing/pro-industry bias you claim, and read through it to the facts. Dispute the facts if you can.

[HuckleB]

36. I think you're going a bit overboard with your response.

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, when agreement was there to be had.

[trotsky]

38. I want clarity and accuracy.

Sorry to offend.

[HuckleB]

41. That's not what I see in your responses.

I see the need to pound on other posters with or without reason.

Take a deep breath.

[trotsky]

43. Thank you for your concern.

However I'm not the one posting scare-mongering articles with little factual basis.

Please encourage others with your advice!

[HuckleB]

45. Actually, your black-and-white, out-of-context responses are no better.

But I guess that's how you continue the battle, eh?

Bye bye.

[trotsky]

47. So at the end of it all, this wasn't about the topic of the OP,

it was about targeting me? You need to find a healthier obsession.

[HuckleB]

48. Nope.

Try again.

Or you could continue to prove my point.

[trotsky]

50. Well, I appreciate the attention and affection.

If you decide to have anything to say about mercury exposure and its presence in HFCS, please let me know! Thanks.

[Why Syzygy]

60. It's like a compelling force.

An irrational obsession .. I've asked for clarification to understand the underlying irresistible URGES ..

It's the one thing that doesn't seem to have any basis in "fact" It's all emotion.

[cosmik debris]

20. LOL! you certainly demonstrated my point well.

You seem to be totally unable to distinguish between the danger of one kilogram compared to the danger of one atom.

Did you know that water is poison too (in large enough quantities)? And it is abundant in HFCS. In my home I have hot and cold running poison in my kitchen sink. Should I get a government warning about that?

[pnwmom]

22. You seem totally unable to understand that exposure to mercury

is CUMULATIVE, and that it is especially of concern to babies and pregnant women.

Since there is some degree of unavoidable exposure in our environment and in our food, all we can do is limit the avoidable exposure as much as possible.

You also seem unable to understand (or maybe you are just playing dumb) that water is ESSENTIAL to human life, though too much water can indeed be toxic -- but mercury in any quantity is not a nutrient nor essential.

[cosmik debris]

26. Mercury is excreted from the body.

While tiny amounts of mercury may remain in the body, the largest fraction is passed in feces or excreted.

So to determine the impact of mercury from HFCS you need to know the fraction that is actually absorbed by the intestines and the amount that is excreted in urine and sweat etc.

Do you have that information?

If not, you are not able to say that there is any accumulation in the body from HFCS.

It is possible, even likely that there is no accumulation at all. Or if there is accumulation, it is insignificant.

Do you have any evidence to show that such minuscule doses can accumulate or contribute to significant accumulations?

[pnwmom]

27. That information isn't needed. All we need to know is that exposure to mercury

is cumulative, and that HFCS is part of the cumulative exposure in the body, and that it is easily avoided -- unlike some other avenues of exposure.



http://www.citeulike.org/user/dkbyron/article/3951684

From the journal of Environmental health:

Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations.

[cosmik debris]

30. It is needed for rational understanding of the problem

The amount of mercury retained by the body is what determines the risk.

If none is retained, the risk is ZERO.

So what fraction is retained? If you don't know that, you don't know the risk.

And you are still dodging the issue of dose.

Eight glasses of water per day will help you maintain good health, but eight gallons of water per day will cause an electrolyte imbalance and lead to congestive heart failure.

The amount consumed is critical. You seem to think that any amount is dangerous even though you have no evidence to support that.

So unless you have some facts other than repeating "It's CUMULATIVE" over and over,I've got to assume that you just don't know what you are talking about.

[pnwmom]

31. If you are seriously arguing that NO mercury is retained in the body,

then where is YOUR data?

Since mercury is a known toxin, the amounts consumed are cumulative, and mercury is avoidable in HFCS, the burden should be on those who claim mercury in HFCS is safe, not on those who are concerned about potential risks.

I've cited a refereed journal article (from among dozens I could have cited) in this thread. What have you cited?

[cosmik debris]

32. Nope that's your straw man, not my argument

My argument is that you can't possibly know that mercury is absorbed in such minute doses without some more information.

You haven't shown that it has been absorbed, much less retained.

You haven't shown that it is a significant contributor to the accumulation of mercury.

You haven't shown that the dose received from HFCS is significant in any way.

It is clear to me that you do not have a rational understanding of the problem and that you are reacting out of fear rather than reason.

Good luck with that.

[Why Syzygy]

59. But, my Stars! Don't allow a Goodwill store to sell a kid a pair of jeans!

:HORRORS: :freak:

Drink up your carbonated mercury beverage!

[trotsky]

18. How forgetful of me!

In fact, just looking through the telescope at Mercury will cause brain damage and possibly autism.

:spray: :rofl:

[pnwmom]

14. People have been warned of the risk of mercury in tuna, and of the need

to limit its consumption.

But the FDA deliberately avoided warnings about mercury in HFCS which, though lower in mercury, is consumed by most Americans in significant quantities each day.

[trotsky]

16. Air is breathed by Americans in significant quantities.

It contains mercury vapors. Why were we not warned?

Look - I already made it clear that minimizing mercury exposure is a good thing. But there are limited resources, why not fight the problem where it's the worst? If a dam has a huge break, and a little finger-sized hole, should we hire the little Dutch boy to plug the hole and feel like we've done something?

Here's a really good link that helps put this into factual perspective. Unless all you want to do is bash those of us who want some realistic perspective on the situation, of course.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/latest-scare-du-jour-mercury-in-hfcs.html

[pnwmom]

25. Warnings about mercury in the air HAVE occurred. You must have missed them.

For example, it has long been known that dirty coal power plants can release significant amounts of mercury in the air.

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

"Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides every year.4 Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution5, largest contributor of hazardous air toxics6, and release about 50% of particle pollution.7 "

Since there are multiple sources of mercury exposure, and some sources are very difficult to avoid, part of the solution has to be to avoid mercury exposure when it is easily avoidable. At the very least, consumers should be given the choice to consume HFCS knowing the possible risk -- as opposed to the FDA withholding the information about HFCS for four years.

Why plug a lot of little holes? Because informing pregnant women of the possible risks in HFCS could make a difference to some babies out there. With what they save on food dollars in unnecessary processed foods, they can put toward eating more of the nutritious fresh foods that their babies need.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/dkbyron/article/3951684

"Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations."

[trotsky]

33. Um, did I dispute that?

You are now shifting to a red herring debate - sorry, not interested. You backed off your original statement, that's good enough for me.

[cosmik debris]

21. I'm just glad I only eat a thousand bowls of oat meal a day

Any more than that could be as bad as having sushi for lunch.

:)

[ananda]

5. HFCS should be avoided if at all possible!

nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. thats what you can expect with Bush cronies running things

thankfully there's a new sherriff in town.

[varkam]

11. Go democrats. eom