343 Reducing Chemical Exposure [2 Nov 2015]

Last week I wrote about the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) report on the threat to human health from exposure to chemicals. One group of chemicals, called endocrine-disrupting chemicals, messes up our hormones causing all kinds of health problems. The best-known of these are BPA & BPS, phthalates, certain pesticides, and the anti-bacterial triclosan. I’ll write more on these next week.

Toxic chemicals are everywhere in our modern world – we can’t completely avoid them. Severely sensitive individuals must go to extreme lengths just to survive, but there are many simple things the rest of us can do to reduce our exposure and improve our health.

• Choose locally grown organically raised whole foods whenever possible
• Reduce processed and packaged foods
• Use ceramic or glass cookware rather than aluminum or non-stick
• Store food and beverages in glass rather than plastic
• Filter tap water for both drinking and bathing
• Use organic shampoo, toothpaste, deodorants and cosmetics
• Replace flame-retardant furniture, carpets, drapes, etc.
• Replace stain-resistant clothing and furniture
• Choose fragrance-free products when available
• Replace vinyl shower curtain with fabric or glass doors
• Use natural household cleaning products, or better yet make your own
• Use natural rather than chemical pesticides in your yard and garden
• Women – use organic cotton pads and tampons or a menstrual cup
• Read labels and choose BPA free plastic and canned goods
• Avoid handling thermal receipts which contain BPA (yikes! I handle dozens every day. If you see me wearing gloves at my desk you’ll know why)
• Check the Environmental Working Group website for the safest consumer products [ewg.org]. There is a wealth of up-to-date information on this site.

Making a few changes at a time will reduce your risk from toxic chemicals. If you are pregnant or have young children in your home, it’s even more critical.

Sources:
Mercola.com 13 Oct 2015 Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
Endocrine Society Statement on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

292 The Blue Dot Tour [3 Nov 2014]

My brother and I went to hear Dr. David Suzuki last month when he was in Saskatoon with his Blue Dot Tour. The tour is named for the appearance of planet Earth from space – a pale blue dot in the vast cosmos. Seeing the Earth from this perspective has made us realize that this planet is our only home and that all living things on it – people, animals and plants – are in a sense our family.

We live in one of the most beautiful countries on Earth with abundant fresh water, natural spaces and wildlife. But we are falling behind in protecting these resources, which make up a large part of our identity as Canadians. Much more than that, the environment is what sustains our very life – the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat. To ensure a healthier and more secure future, we must balance environmental protection and economic development.

Suzuki claims that more than 20,000 Canadians die prematurely every year due to environmental pollution. More than 110 countries recognize their citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment, but not Canada. One of the goals of the Blue Dot Tour is to work towards including this right – to fresh air, clean water and healthy food – in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some of my relatives have no respect for Suzuki and consider him a hypocrite because he travels by jet and owns a large home. But he is not opposed to resource development or wealth, just development at the expense of air, water, and soil quality. To me the hypocrites are the industry leaders who lobby for the right to pollute the air, water and food, but still expect to breathe clean air, drink pure water and eat wholesome food. If environmentalists shouldn’t drive a car, then owners of polluting industries shouldn’t eat, drink or breathe!

Visit bluedot.ca for more information on this tour and join the movement. I did and you can too.

P.S. I’m pleased that Ascenta Health, my distributer of NutraSea fish oil supplements, is a major sponsor of the Blue Dot Tour.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

279 Organic - There is a Difference! [4 August 2014]

Two years ago in October 2012 (#185) I wrote about a review by Stanford University which concluded that “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods”.

Last month a meta-analysis of 343 peer-reviewed publications – described as the largest study of its kind – was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. The authors found “statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods.” More specifically they found that conventional compared to organic crops had:
• substantially lower levels of antioxidant compounds
• pesticide residues 3-4 times more likely with levels 10 – 100 times higher
• nearly double the concentration of Cadmium
• some nutrients (minerals and vitamins) were significantly lower, most about the same, and protein was generally higher

Antioxidants including phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins were 18 to 69% higher in the organic crops. Antioxidants are linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (heart attack and stroke), neurodegenerative diseases (eg Alzheimer’s and MS), and some cancers.

Cadmium is a heavy metal which displaces zinc in the body and is highly toxic at very low levels. According to the authors, a doubling of cadmium intake from food could put some people over safe intake levels.

Charles Benbrook, the sole American co-author wrote:

“This study is telling a powerful story of how organic plant-based foods are nutritionally superior and deliver bona fide health benefits”.

Why the change from the earlier study? Project leader Carlo Leifert explains: “We benefited from a much larger and higher quality set of studies than our colleagues who carried out earlier reviews.” The team found the quality and reliability of comparison studies had greatly improved in recent years, leading to the discovery of significant nutritional and food safety differences not detected in earlier studies.

Sources and Resources
BJN abstract
Washington State University News - with list of resources links
Mercola review
The Salt blog post

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

273 The Luxury of Organics? [23 June 2014]

I recently came across a commentary by Stuart Smyth, a research scientist at U of S, titled “Can world afford luxury of organics?” It was published in October 2013 on the Ag-West Bio blog site (www.agwest.sk.ca/blog) and reprinted in the November 28, 2013, Western Producer.

Smyth quoted a meta-analysis that concluded that organic yields are 34% lower than for conventional [chemical] farming. He then argued that with the world population expected to increase by 2 billion over the next 20 years, “the time has come to question the merits of continuing with an agricultural system that is critically inefficient” and that “organically produced food is a luxury that is only affordable to the upper-and-middle-income classes…”

If we accept Smyth’s implied premise that agricultural land should be used to maximize food production for a growing world, I wondered what other land uses – both within and outside of agriculture – should also be questioned. Here is my list:
• land used to grow tobacco (an easy target)
• grain grown for beer & liquor (perhaps not so popular)
• corn grown for high-fructose corn syrup (a cause of obesity)
• sugar beets for sucrose (much worse than just empty calories)
• wheat milled into white flour (devoid of nutrients)
• potatoes grown for fries (reduced if not negative food value)
• growing of any food that is over-processed before consumption
• land used for urban sprawl and wider highways

If we question whether we can afford organic farming, which at least tries to produce more healthful food products, we must also question these other practices which take land out of food production or reduce the value of food grown on it. I believe there is room for organic food production for those willing to pay the premium. I also believe that not all the social costs for conventional farming are included in the grocery bill.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner. See this article on my website for links to sources and further reading.

201 Winter Tomatoes [28 January 2013]

Tomatoes are the second most popular vegetable in the USA (and probably in Canada too) after lettuce. Tomatoes are also the vegetable we most like to complain about, at least during the winter. While they might look attractive, commercial tomatoes taste nothing like those picked fresh from our summer garden.

There are reasons for winter tomatoes’ lack of taste (and several reasons besides taste to avoid them). Most commercial table tomatoes for the USA winter market are grown in Florida. There they are picked while still hard and green and are later gassed with ethylene in the warehouse to ripen. So they look red and pretty, but the taste is unsatisfactory to say the least.

The problems with commercial winter tomatoes go far beyond taste. To withstand being shipped great distances they are bred for the hardiness of the fruit, not for its nutritional content. USDA tests show that modern tomatoes contain 30% less vitamin C, 30% less thiamin (B1), 19% less niacin (B3) and 62% less calcium than tomatoes tested in the 1960’s. (Actually I was surprised that their nutrient content was even this good.) One mineral that actually increased is sodium – by a whopping 1400%. Another reason, besides breeding, for the lower nutrient content is the low soil fertility in Florida which requires high amounts of chemical fertilizer. The problem with commercial fertilizer is that it contains only the macronutrients required to improve yield while ignoring trace minerals (like selenium) which improve the nutritional value but are invisible to shoppers and do not add to the price the farmer can get for his crop.

The other problem with Florida for growing tomatoes is the humidity which promotes fungal diseases and insect pests, all of which require very high amounts of more than 100 different pesticides, some of which remain on or in the fruit.

Vine-ripened locally grown greenhouse tomatoes should be somewhat better on several counts (besides tasting better) – natural ripening, lower use of pesticides, possibly more nutritious varieties, and possibly better micronutrient fertilization. Well worth the extra price, in my humble opinion.

Source: Tomatoland: How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit, 2011, by investigative food journalist Barry Estabrook.

185 Benefits of Organic – the Stanford Study

Eating organic foods is believed by many to be a healthier choice, but is it? A recent study put this question in doubt. A systematic review of 240 English language studies by researchers at the Stanford University was published September 4, 2012, in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The abstract concluded: “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria”.

The Stanford University press release, titled “Little evidence of health benefits of organic foods, Stanford Study finds”, downplayed the positive findings. Mainstream news items with few exceptions repeated the negative tone. Two health writers that I follow - the Health Sciences Institute and Dr. Joseph Mercola - dug a little deeper into the study and discovered several benefits of organic foods that are not that insignificant:
• 30% less pesticide residue in organic produce
• 33% lower risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in organic meat
• higher levels of phenols and other antioxidants in organic chicken
• higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk

There are many other studies that weren’t included in the Stanford analysis that show greater benefits of organic farming. A University of Stuttgart study, for example, published in July 2012, found that organic fruits and vegetables averaged 180 times lower pesticide content than conventional produce. And a well controlled study at University of California-Davis found that kiwis grown organically had a higher mineral, vitamin C and antioxidant content.

I buy and eat organically grown food whenever possible, but realize that it is what foods we eat (and how much), rather than how they were grown, that has the biggest influence on our health.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

113 Grass-fed Beef [9 May 2011]

I believe grass-fed beef and bison are healthier meat choices than “conventional” grain-finished animals. Yes they may be more expensive because it takes more time and land to finish them, the meat won’t be as tender because fat marbling is reduced or absent, and the meat may have a “grassy” taste. But here are the reasons why I think grass-fed beef is better for both the consumer and the environment:
• Grass (and hay) are the normal diet of ruminants; the heavy corn and grain diet upsets their digestive systems which increases risk of bloating, makes the stomach more acidic, and increases the need for antibiotics (which likely contributes to the development of resistant “superbugs”)
• Grass-fed beef has a lower overall fat content; the fat in grain-fed marbled meat is more difficult to trim off
• Grass-fed beef contains 3 to 5 times more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a beneficial fatty acid shown to prevent cancer and reduce abdominal fat while increasing muscle. The natural form of CLA found in meat is more effective and safer than that sold in supplements.
• The Omega 6:Omega 3 ratio is closer to the ideal of 1:1. A study by North Dakota State University found the Omega 6:3 ratio was 4:1 in grass-fed bison and 21:1 in grain-fed bison.
• Grain-fed beef has a higher vitamin E content
• E. coli bacteria thrive in the acidic stomachs of grain-fed ruminants, increasing the risk of meat contamination
• Fossil fuel consumption is higher in the production of grain for feed, and in the distribution of manure from feedlots, thus contributing more to climate change (although grass-fed animals produce more methane)
• Finally, increasing grass-fed beef requires more land in grass which benefits grassland birds [http://trevorherriot.blogspot.com/2009/03/to-make-prairie-part-ii-grass-fed-beef.html]

For more discussion on this topic see www.mercola.com/beef/references.htm or www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/. The book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan (2006) looks at this issue within a larger context.