Skip to main content

Milk in those Fancy Glass Jars

I'm all for sustainability - I actually ran a Sustainability Living Community in my undergraduate and was involved with a number of sustainability-related groups. The intersect between the food system, nutrition, and the environment has always interested me, and the vast array of opinions on the topic always gets a nice scientific debate going.

That being said, there are some efforts that aren't always the best for you. I was at Whole Foods today and saw milk being sold in glass bottles, advertised that it came from a small farm with a nice picture of a happy cow on the front. After having just gone through Vitamins week in the class I teach, photolysis was on my mind.

Milk is the highest source of riboflavin for those consuming a typical Western diet. However, riboflavin in milk is particularly susceptible to photolysis - light degrades the biochemical structure of riboflavin (1). Those glass bottles that milk is being sold in may be re-usable and considered better for the environment, but they allow for the pretty rapid degradation of riboflavin in milk.

Don't get me wrong - others good sources of riboflavin exist, including soybeans, dark leafy greens, and mushrooms. If one is consuming these foods regularly, riboflavin degradation in glass jars may not be as big of a concern for you. I'd worry about this more with children, who aren't necessarily eating their dark leafy vegetables but generally drink milk.

Not trying to scare anyone or discourage sustainable practices - just keep the sensitivity of nutrients to the environment in mind.

1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/77/6/1352.full

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beware the Meta-Analysis: Fat, Guidelines, and Biases

Headlines were abuzz this week, reporting that a new review of randomized controlled trials at the time of the low-fat guidelines didn't support their institution. Time , Business Insider , and The Verge all covered the topic with sensationalist headlines (e.g. 'We should never have told people to stop eating fat' #weneverdid). I won't spend every part of this blog picking apart the entire meta-analysis; you can read it over at the open access journal, BMJ Open Heart (1) -- (note, for myself, i'm adding an extra level of skepticism for anything that gets published in this journal). I'm also not going to defend low-fat diets either, but rather, use this meta-analysis to point out some critical shortcomings in nutritional sciences research, and note that we should be wary of meta-analyses when it comes to diet trials. First off, let's discuss randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They are considered the gold standard in biomedical research; in the hierarc

Nutrition Recommendations Constantly Change...Don't They?

I was on Facebook the other day, and someone in a group I'm in made a statement about not being sure whether to eat dairy, because "one week its bad, and the next its good". This is something I hear all too often from people: nutrition is complex, confusing, and constantly changing. One week 'X' is bad, the next 'X' is good. From an outsider's perspective, nutrition seems like a battlefield - low fat vs low carb vs Mediterranean vs Paleo vs Veg*n. Google any of these diets and you'll find plenty of websites saying that the government advice is wrong and they've got the perfect diet, the solution to all of your chronic woes, guarantee'ing weight loss, muscle growth, longevity, etc. Basically, if you've got an ailment, 'X' diet is the cure. I can certainly see this as being overwhelming from a non-scientist/dietitian perspective. Nutrition is confusing...right? Screenshot, DGA: 1980, health.gov From an insider's pe

On PURE

The PURE macronutrients studies were published in the Lancet journals today and the headlines / commentaries are reminding us that everything we thought we think we were told we knew about nutrition is wrong/misguided, etc. Below is my non-epidemiologist's run down of what happened in PURE. A couple papers came out related to PURE, but the one causing the most buzz is the relationship of the macronutrients to mortality. With a median follow up of 7.4 years, 5796 people died and 4784 had a major cardiovascular event (stroke, MCI). The paper modeled the impacts of self reported dietary carbohydrate, total fat, protein, monounsaturated (MUFA), saturated (SFA), and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acid intakes on cardiovascular (CVD), non-CVD and total mortality; all macros were represented as a percentage of total self reported energy intakes and reported/analyzed in quintiles (energy intakes between 500-5000kcals/day were considered plausible..). All dietary data was determined by a