80% of Americans test positive for chemical found in Cheerios, Quaker Oats that may cause infertility, delayed puberty: study finds
Lauren Sprow
Journal article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00643-4
Background:
Chlormequat chloride is a pesticide used as a plant growth regulator (PGR). It blocks hormones in the stem of plants to ensure uniformity of plant growth.This prevents stem breakage, improving harvestability and quality of small-stemmed grains.1 It was discovered at Michigan State University in 1960, where it was noted that the most successful method of application was soil application, though spraying it onto the leaves and soaking the seeds before planting were also effective.2 The most common method of applying chlormequat chloride is as a spray with a volume of 2-3 quarts per 100 square feet.3 However, spray application leads to increased risk of health effects due to diffusion of spray solution into the environment and over-spraying leading to the presence of pesticide residuals.4 The EPA determined it caused no “unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment” in 2023, and it is allowed to be used on grains imported to the United States.1 However, it has been recently shown that exposure to chlormequat chloride impacts embryonic growth and development as well as disrupts maternal hormones,5 and there is growing concern regarding its presence in cereals marketed towards children.
Peer Reviewed Article:
The paper “A pilot study of chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023” by Temkin et al. from the Environmental Working Group in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology examines the levels of chlormequat in the urine of individuals from three locations around the country as well as in both oat and wheat products from one region. This is the first investigation of concentration of chlormequat in urine in the United States, and thus is a valuable study. 21 pregnant women from South Carolina in 2017, 13 men and 12 women from Missouri in 2017-2022, and 25 women and 25 men from Florida in 2023. Samples were analyzed with LC MS/MS and reported in µg chlormequat per g creatinine. Each location had a slightly different collection procedure and storage temperature, which slightly concerns me. Additionally, each time range of samples was collected from a different geographical location. The study did not investigate whether different geographical locations have increased exposure to chlormequat, so there is no real way to determine whether the variance in concentration of chlormequat in urine samples is due to geographical or temporal exposure. This is, however, a pilot study, so future research into the subject will likely improve their methodology. Additionally, they test wheat and oat-based food samples purchased from grocery stores in the Washington DC metropolitan area for chlormequat.
Chlormequat was detected in 80% of all urine samples. It was detected in 69% of 2017 samples, 74% of 2018-2022 samples, and 90% of 2023 samples. The data also showed an increase in chlormequat concentration from 2017 to 2023. The median concentration in 2017 was 0.46 µg chlormequat/g creatine, 0.3 from 2018-2022, and 1.4 in 2023. This increase is likely due to continuous exposure over time. Year-by-year analysis of data from 2018-2022 was not provided, but future studies could increase their data set to strengthen this weak point.
Figure 1. Chlormequat concentrations for each individual urine sample are represented by single dots with bars at the mean and error bars representing +/- standard error. Urinary concentrations of chlormequat are expressed as µg chlormequat per g creatinine on a linear scale (A) and log scale (B). Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test was used to test statistical significance (***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).
Additionally, 23 of 25 conventional oat-based products contained detectable levels of chlormequat, but only one of eight organic oat-based products contained detectable levels. Two of nine wheat-based products contained low levels of chlormequat, containing 3.5 and 12.6 µg/kg of chlormequat as opposed to the conventional oat-based products’ median of 114 µg/kg.
In their conclusion, the authors cite the EPA’s 2018 establishment of limits on chlormequat in food and 2020 increase of those limits. Indeed, in 2020 the EPA increased the limits of chlormequat allowed in oat products, which correlates with the higher concentrations of chlormequat in conventional oat-based products as opposed to wheat-based products found in the study. Additionally, they note that chlormequat may form naturally under high temperatures in products containing wheat or egg powders in concentrations similar to that of the observed pre-2023 urine concentrations. They do indicate that further studies need to be conducted examining geographical differences and alternate dietary sources, as well as epidemiological studies. I believe that the point on naturally-forming chlormequat in processed foods should have been highlighted more, as it may explain the majority of the urine results.
News Article:
The New York Post article “80% of Americans test positive for chemical found in Cheerios, Quaker Oats that may cause infertility, delayed puberty: study” by Shannon Thaler is one of many news articles reflecting on the results of Temkin et al. The main source is the EWG press release that accompanied the article. Thaler notes that she reached out to General Mills, chlormequat manufacturer Taminco, and the FDA for comment, but neither responded. The article is very bare-bones, with the majority of the content coming straight from the EWG press release. Both the journal article and the press release were directly linked, which is a good sign, but the only other source cited is a Daily Mail article. Because the New York Post article is essentially a regurgitation of the EWG press release, all of the information included is scientifically correct. Outside of the scientific findings of the study, Thaler also discusses the potential harms of chlormequat and the impact of the EPA’s decision to allow it in imported foods, as well as suggests buying organic foods to reduce chlormequat consumption. However, all of the opinions, effects, and policy discussion were also copied directly from the EWG. I could not find a single piece of information that was not sourced from the EWG press release, which begs the question of why this article was written. Without any outside comments or further discussion into health effects using other studies, this article is very clearly just trying to cash in on the sensational ‘topic of the week’, and offers no perspective or insight that cannot be found elsewhere.
The title of the article was a bit misleading, as the actual study that it was looking at did not examine infertility or delayed puberty, and the article did not cite further studies for those claims. The article was also categorized under ‘business’ despite reporting on a scientific paper. Looking at Thaler’s other articles, she tends to report on business, so she may have been out of her depth attempting to write about a study. On May 10th, the most recent day Thaler published any articles with the New York Post, she put out seven articles, each about an hour after the last. This constant publication requires each article to take very little effort, contextualizing why this article feels so bare-bones.
Because the science is correct but the article is incredibly derivative, I will give the New York Post article a 6/10.
[1] US EPA, O. EPA Proposes to Register New Uses of Pesticide Chlormequat Chloride. www.epa.gov. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-proposes-register-new-uses-pesticide-chlormequat-chloride.
[2] Tolbert NE. (2-Chloroethyl) Trimethylammonium Chloride and Related Compounds as Plant Growth Substances. II. Effect on Growth of Wheat. Plant Physiol. 1960 May;35(3):380-5. doi: 10.1104/pp.35.3.380. PMID: 16655360; PMCID: PMC405975.
[3] Runkle, E. Using Chlormequat Chloride With Success.
[4] Tudi, M.; Li, H.; Li, H.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Yang, L.; Tong, S.; Yu, Q. J.; Ruan, H. D.; Atabila, A.; Phung, D. T.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D. Exposure Routes and Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Application. Toxics 2022, 10 (6), 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10060335.
[5] Wu, Z.; Ma, L.; Su, D.; Bayindala Xiagedeer. The Disrupting Effect of Chlormequat Chloride on Growth Hormone Is Associated with Pregnancy. Toxicology letters 2024, 395, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2024.03.004.
I agree that the news article didn't provide any information that wasn't already available through the press release. I think it would have been nice to discuss how consumption of oats has changed in recent years with the increase in gluten-free diets, or for there to be a discussion on the way farmers' use of pesticides has changed (beyond just the quick mention of rule changes under President Biden's Administration). I am pleased that the information wasn't altered and that there was no massive spin on the information that was presented so I would actually give the article a 7/10.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the lack of information about the sample size in the New York Post article is a problem, or do you think that including that information might make chloromequat seem like less of an issue than it is?
I think it's fine for an article to not mention specific sample size, but I really wasn't a fan of how the New York Post went about reporting on this study. I would prefer if they acknowledged the fact that the peer-reviewed paper was a pilot study, and changed the verbiage of the title. "80% of Americans" testing positive for a potentially-harmful chemical certainly is a catchy title, but is very misleading considering the fact that less than 100 samples were studied. However, I do think you're correct to worry that including specific sample size information may minimize the issue in people's heads, which is why I'm willing to accept them not including it.
DeleteHi Lauren, great job on the blog post! I agree with you that it is strange that different storage methods were used in the research paper and that the news article is very bare bones. I also liked that both articles included information on recent changes in EPA regulations for chlormequat limits. I think it is preferable for the news article to report correct information and lack additional discussion over it being inaccurate with more contextualization, but I agree with your rating. The news article said that the research is ongoing towards the end, but I wish that it had mentioned that the paper from the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology is a pilot study.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I think a 6/10 would be appropriate for this article, as the author clearly didn't read the entire paper and did not even bother to get citations for the claim about delayed puberty and infertility. It was briefly mentioned in the publication, citing a couple papers from Peking University, but those were studies conducted on male rats. Although it can be said that the same effects could be observed in humans, we lack the data to conclude that. It could have been helpful for the new article to include those effects on the rats and infer that it has a potential hazard when consumed by humans. I'm also surprised that this news article was published on the same day as when the publication was published, at 9:24am. Thaler stated that the FDA and Taminco did not respond to the request to comment... Of course, they can't respond; the news article was published so quickly and Thaler did not even bother to wait even a minute longer. All of this suggests that Thaler's news article, as you said, is with little effort.
ReplyDeleteWow! I hadn't noticed that the news article was published at 9:24 AM the day the peer-reviewed paper was published! I've seen some news articles be amended to include responses to requests for comment after publication, but I can't imagine the FDA, General Mill, and Taminco wanted anything to do with the New York Post after reading this article. The lack of citations for the claims about delayed puberty and infertility really surprised me, the EWG report includes citations so even if Thaler had just copied those, it would have given the illusion that she had put an ounce of effort into this article. I'm sure the culture at the NYP is one that pushes their writers to churn out subpar product at a rapid pace - Being able to put out the first article on something gives you the illusion of credibility.
DeleteHi Lauren, good review and interesting topic. There has always been a concern with chemicals in the food we are eating, but in recent years findings like this have seemed to increase greatly. I find it interesting how the researchers used different storage methods, do you think this greatly impacted their findings? Why do you think this may have happened, were they rushed to get this information out and therefore weren't careful in their methods?
ReplyDeleteYou mention two negatives with the news article that I found interesting as well. First that it seemed bare-bones, which I agree with. Interestingly enough, they somehow were able to get this news article out at 9:24 AM on the same day that the research paper was published. This is an extremely quick turn-around and I think it does a good job summarizing the main findings even with how quick it is. I think this news article mainly prioritized a quick summary than more of a reflective perspective. Do you think this type of article is useful or should the author's take more time to write about the research findings. The other negative that was interesting was that this was published under 'business'. I found this weird but also, I think that the author tried to focus more on the legislative restrictions and how this works with the FDA than the science aspect of it. How do you think characterizing this under business may have impacted the effectiveness of the article, or do you think it didn't have much of an impact at all.
Hi Kayleigh! I think the different storage methods were just a consequence of getting the samples from different places - one was a hospital/university and the other two were separate biospeciman/biosolutions companies. They all had different procedures just because it was different people performing them. I can't imagine it impacted the data too much, or the paper wouldn't have been published, but I do think that a future study should attempt to coordinate with their collection sites and ensure consistency of procedure. I think that an article summarizing the findings of a peer-reviewed paper in layman's terms can be useful, but this article was almost identical to the EWG press release, leaving me to question the point of the NYP article. The EWG press release is very clear and appears first in the search results for 'chlormequat', so it's not an issue with accessibility of information. I think characterizing this under business may have had an impact on who read it: The NYP site is organized with tabs for each article category, so if this was tagged 'science', people interested in science would find it. I don't think Thaler tried to focus on the legislative restrictions more than the science, especially because she took the evidence and perspective of the EWG press release on legislation and just re-wrote it in her own words.
DeleteHi Lauren! Great analysis of this article. I agree with you that this article is very bare bones, mostly relying on the Environmental Working Group as its source and essentially just restating everything stated in the EWG press release. I also agree with Richard that given the time frame in which this article was published, Thaler did not wait a feasible amount of time for the FDA or Taminco to respond. Overall, I agree that this article is accurate in its reporting, but does not add much to the EWG analysis; therefore, I agree that this article deserves a 6/10 rating.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would have preferred that Thaler added more details and sources to this report, do you think that there is still merit to releasing this New York Post article in its current form? Do you think that these findings are able to reach a wider audience than if they were only reported on by the EWG?
Hi Matthew! That's a good question, and one that I considered quite a bit. When you google 'chlormequat', the first thing that pops up is the EWG press release, and when you google 'chemicals in cereal', neither appear on the first page, though a different article from the EWG is the second result. I certainly believe there should be space for news outlets to repeat the results of scientific papers in layman's terms, but the EWG press release that the NYP copied was already in plain language. I don't think the NYP article helped these findings reach a wider audience, especially because it wasn't even tagged as 'science'.
DeleteGreat Analysis! I would agree with your rating of 6/10. I’ve noticed a trend in new york post articles where they seem to base their articles off of other articles/sources that discuss the study that is the main topic (at least your article, my article, and the other new york post article blog post on here did this). I know you touched on this a bit in your analysis but I’m curious to hear more about your thoughts. Do you think this is some kind of practice/requirement that the journalist here must follow? Do you think the NYP only picks up articles based on studies if other sources are talking about it as well?
ReplyDeleteHi Sam! Though I don't claim to be a New York Post insider, I assume from the rate of Thayer's articles that they have a culture of pushing their writers to churn out as many articles as possible, which ends up being detrimental to the quality of said articles. I doubt the NYP has a written rule that their writers may only discuss studies that other outlets are covering, but I certainly think that having other sources to base their articles off of helps to expedite the writing process, causing this type of borderline-plagiarist reporting.
DeleteHi Lauren, great job on your blog post! I think this was an interesting article, especially because I had never heard of this chemical. I agree with all the points you made in the analysis. First, I think that the article should have made larger note of the study being a pilot study, and I think it should have made its main goal to draw attention to this chemical that could have unknown consequences down the line. As you said, this seemed like a regurgitation on EWG's press release, and the only beneficial reason I can think of that this article might have is drawing attention to this little known chemical, but even if that was the goal, I think it lacked a lot of depth. I also dislike that it opened with some possible effects of chlormequat, but did not back these claims up or expand. So overall I agree with your 6/10 rating even though it did not incorrectly report any data. I think that it should have done a better job of giving the audience the information they need to make their own decision on how to address what they are ingesting, and remind them that they it is important to do your own research and be mindful of the foods you are eating if that is an option for you.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree that this article could have taken a bit more time to discuss the scope of the study and further the conversation on the EWG's findings. As Richard and Kayleigh have mentioned, the news article was posted the same day that the peer-reviewed article was published, which seems like a quick turnaround. Do you think that if Thaler had given General Mills and the FDA more time to respond to a comment, they would have? And do you think that these comments would have added substance to the conversation that most of us have agreed are missing? I feel like these would have been interesting perspectives to include, but given the time frame of the news article publication, these comments would have been impossible to obtain. Overall, I agree with your 6/10 rating and may have rated this news article even lower given the rushed feel and resulting lack of depth to the analysis outside of what was written in the EWG's peer reviewed article and press release.
ReplyDeleteGreat job analyzing the study's limitations and pointing out the gaps in methodology, like the variability in sample collection. I also appreciate your critique of the media article’s reliance on the EWG press release and the misleading title about infertility and delayed puberty. Do you think the EPA’s decision to raise chlormequat limits might impact public trust in regulatory agencies? Also, how do you think media outlets could better balance scientific accuracy with engaging headlines?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the title of the New York Post article is misleading. To be honest, I was shocked when I saw your title because I was not aware that cheerios are dangerous like that. However, as I continued reading, I discovered that the peer-reviewed paper had not examined the effect on puberty development. As you correctly mentioned: "the actual study that it was looking at did not examine infertility or delayed puberty, and the article did not cite further studies for those claims. " I agree you rating as 6/10.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Lauren! I thought your review of both articles was good and I agree with your 6/10 rating. I think if the New York Post wasn’t going to expand on the research beyond what was included in the press release, then what is the point in putting out the article. I also agree with others that there are certain limitations to the paper that should have been addressed, or at least more research should have occurred on Thaler’s part. First I think the NYP paper should have mentioned that this is a pilot study, I felt it takes a lot of things mentioned in the research article and ran with it without giving it a second thought, but the fact that Chlormequat can occur naturally in processed foods should have been discussed Additionally I think it should have given more details regarding the infertility and delayed puberty, I think without the decisions and without a comment from Taminco or the FDA the article is pretty one-sided and I feel it reads as click-bait-ey
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your analysis, Lauren. I agree, despite how bare-bones the NYP paper seems to be, it is by-and-large factually correct. Although it was rushed out and there was certainly not enough time for the FDA or General Mills to make a comment, all of the pieces are correct (coming mainly from the EWG press release. Something that stood out to me was how the EPA lifted regulations and then a continued increase in Chlormequat chloride. As the levels of chlormequat chloride seem to increase over the research time frame, I wouldn't necessarily think that the EPA is the cause of the rising levels. Still, it brings up the fact that different administrations and EPA leaders can cause ripple effects for consumers. With the recent election and administration seeming to favor deregulation, how do you the role of scientists and reports has changed? Do you believe that there is an obligation to report the information objectively or do you think connecting it directly to who's in charge is an important caveat?
ReplyDeleteGood analysis. My main thought in reading through your analysis and this article are with respect to the goal of the title. Off the bat, it reminds me of the internet 'scandal' of subway having a chemical in their bread that is used in yoga mats. The chemical was azodicarbonamide and is safe for consumption at the levels used in food and just made the bread more elastic. I understand that in this case it is a pesticide and likely is not good for you – but I always wonder about toxicity and the exposure/concentrations, because if you have a good enough instrument you will be able to detect anything wherever you look. For the title here, do you think it is appropriate or is causing fear where it might not be necessary?
ReplyDeleteGreat explanations here, thanks for sharing! I am interested in your analysis of the author of the news article, Thayer. This feels like an article that was written to meet a requirement. I appreciate that you read the EWG article and compared it to your article. I found the same thing with the press release that I worked with. I understand that writers are required to publish regularly, and have deadlines and whatnot to meet - I wish the writers from science aggregators could be put into positions to contextualize science to the public and decimate it to larger outlets. Short of overhauling the news industry, are there ways to get higher quality information out to the public?
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren, this is a nice analysis! I agree with your rating of 6/10, because while the pop media article does present some accurate figures from the research paper, it's missing some key points. As other commenters have pointed out, Thayer doesn't highlight that this research was part of a pilot study--which is incredibly important, considering the claims they are making are not backed by very wholesome data. It seems to me like the media article, per usual, is fear-mongering to get clicks. Even if cheerios do cause infertility and other health defects, we need more trials and peer-review before being able to make this a solid conclusion.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis Lauren! I do agree that the news article comes off as a regurgitation of the EWG report, but I didn't necessarily find that to be entirely a bad thing. I was hesitant to trust a NYP article given their history or less than wholly objective perspective, but I did appreciate the author's transparency here. Given that the general public doesn't always possess the experience or knowledge to understand the significance of scientific findings, do you think it's ever the place of journalists to provide a more digestible version of these findings? Furthermore, I agree with other comments that the lack of contextualization puts a negative spin on the article overall, with the message seeming to discourage people from eating cereal without explaining the limitations of the study. For these reasons, I would agree with your 6/10 rating.
ReplyDelete