Is processed food ever really all-natural?

I have to admit they got me.  I used to be 100% against buying Tyson or Purdue chicken (unless I was poor) because I know what they do to the chickens.  Then, they started putting green labels on the packages and putting the words "all-natural" on the label. I let my guard down.  I started buying them more often, with the added bonus that they are way cheaper than the organic chicken down the aisle.

Lately, it seems every label has some iteration of "natural" printed on the label, even some of the sugary cereals I was sure were invented in a laboratory with the specific goal of hooking young children into a lifetime of processed food addiction.  So I began to wonder...what exactly is "all-natural" in the eyes of food producers and marketers?  Unfortunately, I discovered it isn't anywhere near the same thing as what "all-natural" is in the eyes of food consumers.

Like for me and the chicken, for many people, "all-natural" means "not bad for you."  But, refined sugar and salt, even high fructose corn syrup, are considered "natural" by the FDA.  For meat and poultry, "natural" means they didn't do anything to it besides cut it off the animal, clean it, and package it.  It has nothing to do with the antibiotics and whatever else they add to those poor animals' feed, or whether the animal is eating what it would "naturally" eat.  This is misleading, and there are many people who have been trying to get the FDA to change (or actually make) rules for labeling things as "all-natural."  Currently, they hold the same stance as in 1993 (before the big health food industry boom):

"...FDA has not established a definition for the term natural or its derivatives.  However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term on food labels provided it is used in a manner that is truthful and not misleading and the product does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances."

As consumers and parents, how do we protect ourselves and our children from this marketing dilemma?  One solution is to only eat whole foods.  Wouldn't that be great?  But, there is a reason processed foods exist.  We want them.  Our kids want a bowl of cereal for breakfast, not a bowl of millet.  I was lucky enough to convince my daughter from a very young age that oatmeal was the best thing ever for breakfast, but even then I put brown sugar on it.  Because it tastes good, and sugar is all-natural, right?  Even though she loved oatmeal, we still had a meltdown in the grocery store over sugary cereal when she was 2, and once she was old enough to make a logical case for the occasional treat of Captain Crunch, I started to give in and buy a box every now and then.  People who aren't as crunchy hippie as I am (and I'm not that crunchy), who feed their kids what they got fed, what almost every kid got fed until this health food craze got up and running in the 90s, see the label "all-natural" and somehow think they're doing their kid a favor, when in fact its the same sugary, salty crap food it was back when I was eating it as a kid.

I hope they figure out a more honest way to label these foods, and I am glad consumer research and advocacy groups are out there fighting the ignorance.  PepsiCo had to remove the all-natural label on Naked Juices.  Frito-Lay (also a PepsiCo company) is in litigation over labeling products that contain GMO products as all-natural.  Ben and Jerry's (owned by Unilever) removed the all-natural label from many of its products that contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil, among other synthesized ingredients.  General Mills was sued over the use of the all-natural label on Nature Valley granola bars that contain maltodextrin, which is made in a factory much like high fructose corn syrup.

Until it is all worked out though, I will try to (most of the time) follow two rules: (1) If the ingredients list has things I can't pronounce or don't sound like food, I don't buy it.  You still have to watch out for some of the secret culprits, like autolyzed yeast protein or hydrolyzed protein (both equivalent to MSG), caramel color (processed with ammonium compounds that produce carcinogens), or evaporated cane juice (same as refined sugar).  And (2) If I can make it myself using actual food that comes from plants and animals, I either make it at home or I don't eat it.

Sometimes, though, a soda, or even better, a bag of Oreos is in order.  I don't look at the label or the ingredients.  I just eat them, with milk, until I can't eat anymore...when my child isn't around, of course.  And then I forgive myself and move on.


If you want to know more, some people involved in spreading information about this issue are:

Center for Science in the Public Interest www.cspinet.org
Natural Products Association www.npainfo.org
www.foodnavigator-usa.com

And the FDA's statement on labeling "natural" products:

http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm214868.htm

Cord Blood Banking: The Reality

crochet umbilical cord by crochet artist Lauriane Lasselin

While researching cord blood banking, I quickly realized there is a lot of misleading information out there.  The private cord blood banks capitalize on parents' fears, and lead parents to believe that their peace of mind is worth the thousands of dollars they will pay to bank their child's cord blood.  One company even claims that cord blood has been used to treat 80 diseases.  I looked deeper and I will do my best to explain the real possibilities and limitations of cord blood banking.

I think the most misleading thing that hit me in the face after discussing cord blood banking with my husband, is that cord blood stem cells are basically the same as stem cells in your blood marrow.  They are hematopoietic stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.  I guess I was naive at first, because I assumed the reason for all the hype was because the stem cells were embryonic.  Then it clicked...why would there be embryonic stem cells in the umbilical cord?  There aren't, they are only in the embryo.  So, the stem cells in the umbilical cord only give rise to different types of blood cells.  The good thing about hematopoietic stem cells is that they self-renew, and transplanting a small number can repopulate the receiver's deficient blood cell population, after chemotherapy, for example.  However, they have limited potential uses, and 80 diseases is definitely a stretch.

That leads to the next most misleading thing...they say that storing your child's cord blood can help if your child has leukemia.  Unfortunately, this is just flat out wrong.  The cord blood can help if your child is healthy and a sibling has leukemia.  But leukemia is cancer of the bone marrow stem cells, which are the same as the cord blood stem cells.  If your child has mutated, cancer-prone hematopoietic stem cells, it is likely genetic, so it stands to reason that you would not want to transfuse more mutated, cancer-prone cells from the umbilical cord into your child.  But, if you find out your child has leukemia, a sibling's cord blood may have healthy hematopoietic stem cells that match, and could be useful.  Even among siblings, the chance of a perfect match is low, with estimates ranging from 25-30%.

When compared with bone marrow transplants for leukemia, umbilical cord blood transplants are not consistently more successful.  In general, mortality and occurrence of graft-vs-host disease were similar, and in one study, mortality and recurrence of leukemia were slightly higher with umbilical cord transplants.  The main advantage that I discovered is that umbilical cord blood could have one or two mismatches in human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) and have a similar result as completely matched blood marrow.  But, the biggest predictor of success in treating leukemia had nothing to do with the source of the transplant, it was how early in the disease progression it was treated.

A major drawback to umbilical cord blood transplants for leukemia is that there just isn't enough of it in the umbilical cord after birth.  Adults typically can't use umbilical cord blood, unless they are able to obtain a double dose.  Finding a double dose of matching cord blood is not easy, especially for African Americans.  People from African ancestry have more diversity in HLA types, and even more new combinations of HLA types are present in people with both African and Caucasian ancestry, or various other combinations of ethnicities.  In addition, African Americans make up a smaller portion of the population, and are less likely to donate bone marrow or cord blood.  This leaves them without many options if they need any kind of transplant.

As many as two-thirds of cord blood samples that are donated are not usable because they are of insufficient quantity or quality, and are thrown out.  You could imagine that the same would be true for privately banked cord blood.  So, the way I see it, you could pay thousands of dollars only to find out that your banked cord blood is useless when you need it.

But, what about all those other diseases?  Researchers are looking in to using cord blood to treat things such as cerebral palsy and autism.  From what I can tell, nothing major has been accomplished as of yet, but people will always hold out hope.  The more probable advances in cord blood therapy are technologies for multiplying hematopoietic stem cells so they can be used even if the sample is small, and the culture of mesenchymal stromal stem cells from the umbilical cord tissue.  Mesenchymal stromal cells have the potential to be used for tissue regeneration and immunotherapy, but much work is yet to be done.

So, in the end, the private cord blood banks aren't wrong completely...there is a chance that by the time your child is grown up, advances in technology may very well open doors to very useful therapies using cord blood and tissue.  In the same way, advances in technology will likely open doors to useful therapies using stem cells from other sources as well.  It doesn't appear that the umbilical cord is some sort of holy grail.  My advice?  If you're going to privately bank, do your research to make sure it is a solid company that isn't going anywhere (I think the saying "you get what you pay for" applies here), and be sure they save the blood and the tissue of the umbilical cord.  The more humanitarian and useful decision, however, is to donate your child's umbilical cord to a public bank.  Sure, the chances of your child's cord blood being usable are small, but your child could very well save someone's life.

Sources and Further Reading:

Ballen, KK, et al. 2013. Umbilical cord transplantation: the first 25 years and beyond. Blood 122: 491-498.
Laughlin, MJ, et al. 2004. Outcomes after transplantation of cord blood or bone marrow from unrelated donors in adults with 
leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine 351: 2265-2275.
Rocha, V, et al. 2001. Comparison of outcomes of unrelated bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants in children with acute leukemia. Blood 97: 2962-2971.

From the World Stem Cell Report 2009, published by the Genetics Policy Institute.
http://www.worldstemcellsummit.com/files/2009_report/4-8_2009.pdf
Great article on parents.com with more detail.
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-baby/cord-blood-banking/the-cord-blood-controversy/