- PFAS on our shelves and in our bodies
- Fractured
- Exposed: BPA science
- Agents of Change
- Cutting edge of science
- Climate catastrophe in the South
- Cancer risk in Pittsburgh
- PFAS contamination
- Breathless: Childhood asthma
- Peak Pig: The soul of rural America
- Sacred Water
- Winged Warnings
- Pollution, Poverty, People of Color
Top news in Food
From The Web
Featured
Subscribe
to Above the Fold
The study, published in the Public Health Nutrition Journal, uncovered previously unknown collaborations between Coco-Cola and major health institutions including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Institute for Excellence in Pediatrics, the Obesity Society and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It builds upon a 2020 study that showed the company helped shape the International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health, an international effort to promote physical activity.
The findings, based on documents uncovered by 22 Freedom of Information requests by the U.S. Right to Know organization, suggest that Coca-Cola’s influence could suppress research and viewpoints unfavorable to the company and its suite of unhealthy products, advance messaging that physical inactivity is the key cause of obesity and bolster its image as science-friendly.
“The effect of this industry involvement is to expose professionals to the brands and marketing of certain products, including ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, while also allowing the brands to build their image by affiliating with scientific and research communities,” the authors wrote.
Conflicts of interest
The study found Coca-Cola gave three types of support: funding conference organizers, non-profit organizations or conference speakers. These contributions gave the company perks such as proposing topics, suggesting speakers, marketing opportunities or lunchtime seating with conference VIPs.
The documents even show a Coca-Cola vice president stating that, "As you know AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] is a great partner of ours..." @AmerAcadPedshttps://t.co/8kaUpqqk7Upic.twitter.com/Q6c62Aaz5w
— Gary Ruskin (@garyruskin) December 1, 2022
The study points out that some of the funding came through third-party organizations so researchers may not know they’re sponsored by Coca-Cola.
Researchers and events that fail to declare conflicts of interest and clearly state their funding sources, “obscures corporate influence over what is said and to whom it is stated” in these events and conferences, the authors said.
Direct and indirect funding
The study looked at 239 public and private events. Coca-Cola provided some funding, directly or indirectly, to 158 — including 98 conferences, 21 symposia, 10 lectures, 14 private meetings, one workshop, three webinars, three seminars, three forums and three panels.
Of the 158 events partially funded by the company, Coca-Cola gave money directly to 28 of them. Meanwhile, 70 were funded via third parties that received Coca-Cola money and the company funded speakers for the remaining 60.
Payments for organizers ranged from $2,500 to $100,000 per event.
The emails showed Coca-Cola would occasionally encourage researchers favorable to its interests to also talk to the media, as well as promoting researchers, programs and events that stressed a lack of physical activity, instead of sugary beverages, as a major cause of obesity.
“We are concerned about several connection of funding to media coverage,” the authors of the study wrote. “By pushing speakers towards the media, a company’s influence over science communication may be significant, and therefore should be fully disclosed.”
The study recommends “robust financial and conflict-of-interest disclosures for public health conferences, not only for the conference organizers, but also for speakers.”
See the full study at the Public Health Nutrition journal.
A report released in July and new courses for medical professionals aim to change that. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report recommends offering per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, blood testing to individuals likely to have had elevated exposure and prioritizes certain types of medical screening for affected individuals. In addition, in October 2022, our team launched a free Continuing Medical Education course, initiated by and including perspectives from community activists, along with a Clinician Resources webpage on the PFAS Exchange.
These recommendations and resources are urgent: PFAS—used to impart stain, water, grease and heat-resistance to many common consumer products—are persistent in the environment and our bodies and have likely impacted the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans. PFAS have been linked to far-ranging health effects, including high cholesterol, immune suppression, thyroid disease and cancer.
Our aim to increase the medical community’s knowledge and resources in addressing PFAS is gaining traction. These efforts are part of a growing recognition of the need for more health professional education and guidance on health implications of PFAS exposure, obtaining and interpreting PFAS blood testing and improving patient care.
PFAS testing can save lives
The importance of clinician education regarding PFAS is demonstrated in the lives of those affected by these chemicals. Michigan resident Sandy Wynn-Stelt learned in 2017 that she and her late husband Joel had consumed highly contaminated water for over a decade prior to his fatal liver cancer diagnosis. Her quest for answers led her to get tests — both her blood and her private well had extremely high levels. She shared her test results with her doctor along with information about PFAS health effects. This information likely saved her life: Wynn-Stelt’s physician monitored her health and was able to make an early diagnosis of thyroid cancer based on the results of her PFAS blood test and other information.
Related: Where did the PFAS in your blood come from? These computer models offer clues
Similarly, Ayesha Khan became concerned about PFAS after her firefighter husband Nate Barber was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 2019 and she learned that PFAS exposure is a risk factor for the condition. PFAS contamination was discovered in groundwater near the Nantucket Airport close to their home around that time and she was additionally concerned to learn that firefighters are exposed to PFAS from firefighting foam, as well as their protective gear. In 2020, she and her close friend Jaime Honkawa founded the Nantucket PFAS Action Group, a community organization that educates firefighters and the public about the risks of PFAS — and helps them take protective action.
Our new course was prompted by a request from the Nantucket Cottage Hospital to the Nantucket PFAS Action Group to develop training for their medical professionals about PFAS exposure. The Nantucket PFAS Action Group worked with the PFAS-REACH collaborative team and the Mid-America Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit to develop the course.
Released this October through Children’s Mercy Hospital, the course features both scientific experts as well as people who’ve experienced contamination. It was designed to be useful to all health professionals, and especially those in PFAS-impacted areas or whose patients have been occupationally or otherwise exposed. It can be accessed via the Children’s Mercy Hospital website or on the Clinician Resources page of the PFAS Exchange website.
Testing individuals for PFAS
PFAS blood samples taken in 2018 and 2020 from residents in Wilmington, North Carolina, and three towns in El Paso County, Colorado.Credit: Dylan WallisIn the past, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and other health agencies have emphasized the benefits of testing at the population, rather than individual, level. So the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report’s recommendation to offer PFAS blood testing to individuals who have likely experienced elevated exposures is noteworthy. The report highlighted the importance of patient autonomy with informed, shared decision making between clinicians and patients about PFAS blood testing and medical screening with discussion of its benefits, harms and limitations. It noted how testing can help people feel empowered in managing their own health and can relieve the stress of not knowing one’s exposure.
For patients with moderately elevated PFAS blood levels, the report recommends that clinicians focus on screening for high blood pressure, pregnancy induced hypertension and breast cancer based on age and other risk factors. For patients with higher total PFAS in their blood, the report additionally recommends that clinicians test for thyroid function and assess for signs of ulcerative colitis as well as kidney and testicular cancer.
The recommendations have been well received by those impacted by PFAS contamination. Andrea Amico of Testing for Pease in New Hampshire called the report’s recommendations “huge milestones in the right direction,” and Emily Donovan of the community action group Clean Cape Fear in North Carolina wrote that the new report is “an important first step for our community” and that it “allows us to begin the process of caring for the elevated disease burdens our region is experiencing.” Amico, Donovan and many others from PFAS-impacted communities across the country provided valuable input for the report.
Taking action on PFAS pollution
PFAS science and activism have expanded enormously in less than a decade and engagement of medical professionals has not kept pace. Now, the combination of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report and our Continuing Medical Education course opens up new avenues to address health effects and should spur health professionals to join in work to halt the upstream production and emissions of PFAS.
If you are a resident of a PFAS-impacted community, you can share our Resources for Clinicians page with your medical providers and explore our PFAS Exchange website. If you are a medical professional, please consider enrolling in our course and sharing the information with your network of medical and public health organizations.
Together, we can empower PFAS-affected people and help tackle this insidious pollution.
For more information:
- Download the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report
- Access our free Continuing Medical Education (CME) Training at the Children’s Mercy Hospital Continuing Medical Education page.
- Check out our Resources for Clinicians, which includes video of the training, a link to feedback survey, and medical screening guidance
PFAS-REACH (Research, Education, and Action for Community Health) is a collaboration among Silent Spring Institute, Northeastern University, Michigan State University, Testing for Pease, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, and Slingshot. We acknowledge the work of Elizabeth Friedman, MD and Alan Ducatman, MD who are responsible for the medical content of the CME course.
The paper, published this week in Nature, calls into question the plan’s treatment of biomass — organic material from trees, plants and animals — as carbon neutral, as this incentivizes cutting down trees and planting more crops that can be burned for energy. Burning biomass not only removes trees that can store carbon, but releases greenhouse gasses as well.
The authors warn this will destroy habitats for important wildlife and spur deforestation, and that Europe does not have the land space to produce additional biomass. Europe already relies heavily on land abroad for farm production and these imports account annually for about 400 million tons of carbon dioxide — eclipsing the benefits from the growth of European forests in recent decades.
“Thus, rather than Europe having spare land or wood to supply additional bioenergy or other consumption, climate strategies require the bloc to ‘give back’ land and carbon either to nature or to supply others,” the authors wrote.
There is a more sustainable path forward for Europe, the authors point out, but the current climate plan as written diverts 20% of Europe’s land for crops to those that can be burned for energy.
“The simplest solution is for the EU to stop treating biomass from energy crops and wood harvests as carbon neutral,” the authors wrote.
What is Fit for 55?
The plan in question is called Fit for 55 — a law that mandates the EU reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (relative to 1990 levels). It also aims to make the entire EU climate neutral by 2050. The package includes a number of plans to achieve these goals including bolstered energy efficiency, an emissions trading system, more infrastructure for renewable energy, stricter emissions standards for vehicles and other measures.
The plan is the first of its kind on the planet. The European Parliament and the European Council are still negotiating the final details.
Why is biomass a problem?
Deforestation destroys habitats for wildlife, and means carbon stored in trees can release back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Credit: World Bank
The new Nature analysis says not only must the world decrease fossil fuel consumption but also its “land carbon footprint” — which is “the quantity of carbon lost from native habitats to supply agricultural products and wood.”
“By treating biomass as ‘carbon neutral’, [Fit for 55] create[s] incentives to harvest wood and to divert cropland to energy crops, regardless of the consequences for land-based carbon storage.”
Growing trees and crops strictly for energy use has urgent food security consequences as well. The authors estimate that cutting 85% of Europe’s biodiesel use and half of U.S. and European grain ethanol would “free up enough crops to replace all Ukraine’s vegetable oil and grain exports.”
Additionally, Europe’s reliance on food imports means its forests have grown, but the region’s imports led to about 11 million hectares of deforestation elsewhere, mostly in the tropics.
This deforestation destroys habitats for wildlife, and means carbon stored in trees can release back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Biomass accounting error
The plan considers biomass carbon neutral because the emissions from burning it would be presumably offset by growing new plants. The new paper argues this is faulty logic because land is required to grow those plants. Using land for biomass crops means you cannot grow food on the land, so other land needs to be converted or the food must be imported. Also, trees cut down for biomass means less carbon stored in the forests.
The Fit for 55 estimates biomass use will double from 2015 to 2050 — requiring annual biomass amounts that are double Europe’s current wood harvest.
“Land is not ‘free’” the authors wrote.
How can Europe’s plan improve?
The authors estimate Europe could free up roughly 17 million hectares of land by 2050, by reducing both consumption of biomass fuels and livestock farming. This would free up land to grow more of its own food and reduce imports.
The authors also recommend restoring habitats, drained peatlands and preserving older forests.
“Europe could reasonably choose a mix of these goals for its land future, but they all require a smaller footprint.”
See the full paper in Nature.