skip to Main Content

Archived HHRA News Posts
  • Paul Hartnett, HHRA’s Executive Director

      Paul Hartnett has served as HHRA’s CFO since our founding . Paul has now joined the board as Treasurer and Executive Director.

  • Heartland Study Enrolls 1,000th Mother-Infant Pair

    July 19, 2024 – In June of this year, the Heartland Study achieved a major milestone, enrolling its 1,000th mother-infant pair. Enrollment is now at 50% of goal. The objective of the Study is to help fill major gaps in our understanding of the impacts of herbicides on maternal and infant health. Currently in Phase 1, the Study is focused on evaluating associations between herbicide concentrations in body fluids and tissue samples from pregnant women and infants, and pregnancy/childbirth outcomes. Phase 2 is designed to evaluate potential associations between herbicide biomarkers and early childhood neurological development. Much appreciation for the mothers enrolled, and the entire Heartland Study Team including scientists, support staff and clinicians for this tremendous achievement, and for our funders to making this work possible. Read more about the study including peer-reviewed studies published in Chemosphere and Agrichemicals at our publications  page. The investment required to conduct this study exceeds $1 million each year. You can support this important work by making a donation here.

  • HHRA’s 2023 Annual Report

    Last year was a year of progress for the HHRA and the Heartland Study. Read about it here!  

  • Supporting HHRA and the Heartland Study Through Donor-Advised Funds

    An increasingly popular way to manage charitable giving is by donating cash, securities, or other assets into a donor-advised fund (DAF), from which you will receive an immediate tax deduction. From this, donors can recommend grants to IRS-qualified nonprofit organizations.  DAFs are one of the easiest and most tax-advantageous ways to “grow” resources earmarked for future charitable giving.  The HHRA is an IRS-qualified organization, and we encourage you to use your DAF, if you have one, to support our mission. You can find three simple steps to supporting our research via your DAF here.  Simple and convenient, your DAF can have genuine effects on the health of mothers, babies, and future generations.  Thank you!

  • HHRA-funded Dicamba study published in “agrochemicals”

    Dicamba and 2,4-D in the Urine of Pregnant Women in the Midwest: Comparison of Two Cohorts (2010–2012 vs. 2020–2022) Abstract Currently, there are no known human biomonitoring studies that concurrently examine biomarkers of dicamba and 2,4-D. We sought to compare biomarkers of exposure to herbicides in pregnant women residing in the US Midwest before and after the adoption of dicamba-tolerant soybean technology using urine specimens obtained in 2010–2012 from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be (N = 61) and in 2020–2022 from the Heartland Study (N = 91). Specific gravity-standardized concentration levels for each analyte were compared between the cohorts, assuming data are lognormal and specifying values below the LOD as left-censored. The proportion of pregnant individuals with dicamba detected above the LOD significantly increased from 28% (95% CI: 16%, 40%) in 2010–2012 to 70% (95% CI: 60%, 79%) in 2020–2022, and dicamba concentrations also significantly increased from 0.066 μg/L (95% CI: 0.042, 0.104) to 0.271 μg/L (95% CI: 0.205, 0.358). All pregnant individuals from both cohorts had 2,4-D detected. Though 2,4-D concentration levels increased, the difference was not significant (p-value = 0.226). Reliance on herbicides has drastically increased in the last ten years in the United States, and the results obtained in this study highlight the need to track exposure and impacts on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Keywords: pesticide; exposure; 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; human biomonitoring You can read the paper here.

What Makes One Food “Healthy” and Another Less So or Not “Healthy”?

Feb 14th, 2023
Feb 14th, 2023

U.S. Food and Drug Administration logoAs part of the September 28, 2022 White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, the Food and Drug Administration published in the Federal Register a Proposed Rule that had been fermenting for six years.  The rule sets forth a new definition of “healthy” food and lays out a front-of-package labeling system designed to assist consumers pick healthier food products.

The term “healthy” as defined by the FDA in its Proposed Rule means the capacity of a food to promote human health by meeting a person’s daily needs for essential nutrients, health-promoting vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants, and healthy fatty acids.

FDA invited comments from the public, scientists, and the food industry on the nuts and bolts of their newly proposed definition of “healthy” food. HHRA’s comments begin with a paragraph explaining why this Proposed Rule could be the most important one issued by the FDA in the last half century when measured by potential positive impacts on our collective health.

“Data compiled by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington show that in 2010 dietary choices accounted for the largest share of deaths, and nearly 50% more deaths than smoking (the #2 cause of death).  Food and diet quality are important factors driving 6 of the top 10 causes mortality across the US population.”

Food both sustains us and cuts short far too many lives. It impairs the quality of life for about one-third of the US population, impacting people who struggle with overweight and one or more chronic disease with roots in food choices.

The HHRA Public Policy Advisory Committee took the lead in recruiting an international team of scientists with expertise in multiple disciplines. Their collective critique of the provisions in the FDA’s proposed rule is contained in their 45-page set of comments submitted today to the FDA (see some news coverage here). The team writes:

“We conclude that the new definition of healthy food and the food labeling system proposed by the FDA will likely do little good in moving consumers toward healthier dietary patterns. Indeed, the FDA apparently agrees with our assessment, given FDA’s sobering estimate that its proposed new definition of healthy food and labeling system will alter no more than 0.4% of consumer food purchase decisions.”

Given this very modest projected impact, the HHRA team decided to describe the primary provisions of a definition and labelling system with potential to guide consumers hoping to make smarter, more health-promoting food choices. It will also help people sort through the many, sometimes dubious “healthy” food claims on packaging encountered along almost every aisle in supermarkets.

HHRA’s Counter Proposal – The NuCal System

Mark Lipson, HHRA's policy director, holding part of an organic tomato harvest from 2018
The Molino Creek Collective in Davenport, California has grown nutrient-dense, tasty organic tomatoes for many years. HHRA’s policy director Mark Lipson is holding a part of the 2018 harvest.

The HHRA comments spell out the core provisions of  what we call the NuCal system. NuCal is designed to overcome the inherent weaknesses of the system proposed by the FDA. It incorporates a commonsense metric that captures in a single value the degree to which a serving of a given food meets a person’s essential nutrient needs.

An Appendix in HHRA’s comments provide the detailed data used to calculate NuCal values for  196 common foods. These values are then used to array the foods along a “Nutritional Quality Continuum” divided into green (very healthy), yellow (moderately healthy), and red (not so healthy) zones.

Healthy foods are those that provide 4-times or more of the essential nutrients a person needs in a day compared to the share of the total calories that person can consume in a day while maintaining a healthy bodyweight.

Not so healthy foods take up twice or more of the caloric space in a person’s daily diet relative to the percent of total essential nutrients we all need to stay healthy.

The top five green-zone foods that excel in the NuCal system and each food’s score using the system’s novel metric are:

  1. Spinach (NuCal score 17)
  2. Turnip greens (17)
  3. Kale (15.3)
  4. Asparagus (15.2)
  5. Broccoli (8.8)

Red-zone foods take up more caloric space relative to the nutrition they deliver. The five foods with the lowest NuCal scores are:

  1. Sprite, Coke, Pepsi, 7-Up and most sugar-sweetened soda (0.03),
  2. Honey (0.04)
  3. Fruit flavored Gatorade (0.09)
  4. Butter (0.17)
  5. Yellow cake with icing (0.31)

The NuCal system makes it easy for consumers to make choices that will promote rather than undermine good health. Here is one of the insights gained from the NuCal system that is featured in the HHRA comments:

Consuming a serving of orange juice with a NuCal score of 1.45 instead of a coke or 7-Up would enhance the NuCal metric score for a single beverage serving by 48-fold!”

Food choices matter. Check out where some of your favorite foods and meals land along the Nutritional Quality Continuum and find answers to these two questions:

Of the 196 foods included in HHRA’s analysis, which food delivers the most nutrients per serving compared to all other 195 foods?

What portion of a person’s daily caloric intake is “taken up” by a Big Mac with cheese?

Back To Top