Soy Lecithin has been lingering around our food supply for over a century. It is an ingredient in literally hundreds of proceesed foods, and also sold as an over the counter health food supplement. Scientists claim it benefits our cardiovascular health, metabolism, memory, cognitive function, liver function, and even physical and athletic perfomance. However, most people don't realize what soy lecithin actually is, and why the dangers of ingesting this additive far exceed its benefits.
Lecithin is an emulsifying substance that is found in the cells of all living organisms. The French scientist Maurice Gobley discovered lecithin in 1805 and named it "lekithos" after the Greek word for "egg yolk." Until it was recovered from the waste products of soybean processing in the 1930s, eggs were the primary source of commercial lecithin. Today lecithin is the generic name given to a whole class of fat-and-water soluble compounds called phospholipids. Levels of phospholipids in soybean oils range from 1.48 to 3.08 percent, which is considerably higher than the 0.5 percent typically found in vegetable oils, but far less than the 30 percent found in egg yolks.
Out of the Dumps
Soybean lecithin comes from sludge left after crude soy oil goes through a "degumming" process. It is a waste product containing solvents and pesticides and has a consistency ranging from a gummy fluid to a plastic solid. Before being bleached to a more appealing light yellow, the color of lecithin ranges from a dirty tan to reddish brown. The hexane extraction process commonly used in soybean oil manufacture today yields less lecithin than the older ethanol-benzol process, but produces a more marketable lecithin with better color, reduced odor and less bitter flavor.
Historian William Shurtleff reports that the expansion of the soybean crushing and soy oil refining industries in Europe after 1908 led to a problem disposing the increasing amounts of fermenting, foul-smelling sludge. German companies then decided to vacuum dry the sludge, patent the process and sell it as "soybean lecithin." Scientists hired to find some use for the substance cooked up more than a thousand new uses by 1939.
Today lecithin is ubiquitous in the processed food supply. It is most commonly used as an emulsifier to keep water and fats from separating in foods such as margarine, peanut butter, chocolate candies, ice cream, coffee creamers and infant formulas. Lecithin also helps prevent product spoilage, extending shelf life in the marketplace. In industry kitchens, it is used to improve mixing, speed crystallization, prevent "weeping," and stop spattering, lumping and sticking. Used in cosmetics, lecithin softens the skin and helps other ingredients penetrate the skin barrier. A more water-loving version known as "deoiled lecithin" reduces the time required to shut down and clean the extruders used in the manufacture of textured vegetable protein and other soy products.
In theory, lecithin manufacture eliminates all soy proteins, making it hypoallergenic. In reality, minute amounts of soy protein always remain in lecithin as well as in soy oil. Three components of soy protein have been identified in soy lecithin, including the Kunitz trypsin inhibitor, which has a track record of triggering severe allergic reactions even in the most minuscule quantities. The presence of lecithin in so many food and cosmetic products poses a special danger for people with soy allergies.
The Making of a Wonder Food
Lecithin has been touted for years as a wonder food capable of combating atherosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, liver cirrhosis, gall stones, psoriasis, eczema, scleroderma, anxiety, tremors and brain aging. Because it is well known that the human body uses phospholipids to build strong, flexible cell membranes and to facilitate nerve transmission, health claims have been made for soy lecithin since the 1920s. Dr. A. A. Horvath, a leading purveyor of soybean health claims at the time, thought it could be used in "nerve tonics" or to help alcoholics reduce the effects of intoxication and withdrawal. In 1934, an article entitled "A Comfortable and Spontaneous Cure for the Opium Habit by Means of Lecithin" was written by Chinese researchers and published in an English language medical journal.
Lecithin, though, did not capture the popular imagination until the 1960s and 1970s when the bestselling health authors Adelle Davis, Linda Clark and Mary Ann Crenshaw hyped lecithin in their many books, including Let’s Get Well, Secrets of Health and Beauty and The Natural Way to Super Beauty: Featuring the Amazing Lecithin, Apple Cider Vinegar, B-6 and Kelp Diet.
Lecithin did not become a star of the health food circuit by accident. Research took off during the early 1930s, right when lecithin production became commercially viable. In 1939, the American Lecithin Company began sponsoring research studies, and published the most promising in a 23-page booklet entitled Soybean Lecithin in 1944. The company, not coincidentally introduced a health food cookie with a lecithin filling known as the "Lexo Wafer" and a lecithin/wheat germ supplement called Granulestin. In the mid 1970s, Natterman, a lecithin marketing company based in Germany, hired scientists at various health clinics to experiment with lecithin and to write scientific articles about it. These "check book" scientists coined the term "essential phospholipids" an inaccurate term since a healthy body can produce its own phospholipids from phosphorous and lipids.
In September 2001, lecithin got a boost when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized products containing enough of it to bear labels such as "A good source of choline." Producers of soy lecithin hope to find ways to help the new health claim lift demand for lecithin and increase prices in what has been a soft market. Eggs, milk and soy products are the leading dietary sources of choline, according to recent research conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University.
Genetically Modified
One of the biggest problems associated with soy lecithin comes from the origin of the soy itself. The majority of soy sources in the world are now genetically modified (GM). Researchers have clearly identified GM foods as a threat to the environment, pollution of soils and a long-term threat to human health with links to of the world with unnatural genetic material that may have unknown long-term consequences with links to decreased fertility, immunological alterations in the gut and the exacerbation and creation of allergies.
Genetically engineered soy contains high concentrations of plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the GM soy
represent thousands of plant biochemicals many of which have been shown to have toxic effects on animals.
Unfermented Soy Sources
The manufacture of soy lecithin is also typically confined to unfermented sources because it is quicker and cheaper to make. Unfermented soy products are rich in enzyme inhibitors. Enzymes such as amylase lipase and protease are secreted into the digestive tract to help break down food and free nutrients for assimilation into the body. The high content of enzyme inhibitors in unfermented soybeans interferes with this process and makes carbohydrates and proteins from soybeans impossible to completely digest.
Unfermented soy has been linked to digestive distress, immune system breakdown, PMS, endometriosis, reproductive problems for men and women, allergies, ADD and ADHD, higher risk of heart disease and cancer, malnutrition, and loss of libido.
It is now widely recognized that the only soy fit for human consumption is fermented soy.
Phosphatidyl Choline (PC)
Because many lecithin products sold in health food stores contain less than 30 percent choline, many clinicians prefer to use the more potent Phosphatidylcholine (PC) or its even more powerful derivative drug Glyceryl-phosphorylcholine (GPC). Both are being used to prevent and reverse dementia, improve cognitive function, increase human growth hormone (hGH) release, and to treat brain disorders such as damage from stroke. PC and GPC may help build nerve cell membranes, facilitate electrical transmission in the brain, hold membrane proteins in place, and produce the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. However, studies on soy lecithin, PC, and brain aging have been inconsistent and contradictory ever since the 1920s. Generally, lecithin is regarded as safe except for people who are highly allergic to soy. However, the late Robert Atkins, MD, advised patients not to take large doses of supplemental lecithin without extra vitamin C to protect them from the nitrosamines formed from choline metabolism. Trimethylamine and dimethylamine, which are metabolized by bacteria in the intestines from choline, are important precurors to N-nitrosodimethylamine, a potent carcinogen in a wide variety of animal species.
Phosphatidyl Serine (PS)
Phosphatidyl serine (PS) -- another popular phospholipid that improves brain function and mental acuity – nearly always comes from soy oil. Most of the scientific studies proving its efficacy, however, come from bovine sources, which also contain DHA as part of the structure. Plant oils never contain readymade DHA. Indeed, the entire fatty acid structure is different; bovine derived PS is rich in stearic and oleic acids, while soy PS is rich in linoleic and palmitic acids. Complicating matters further, the PS naturally formed in the human body consists of 37.5 percent stearic acid and 24.2 percent arachidonic acid. Yet soy-derived PS seems to help many people.
Russell Blaylock, MD, author of Excitotoxins, the Taste that Kills, explains that the probable reason PS works is because its chemical structure is similar to that of L-glutamate, the trouble-making neurotransmitter, amino acid and excitotoxin that exists in high concentration in MSG (monosodium glutamate), HVP (hydrolyzed vegetable protein) and "natural flavorings" and foods containing these soy derivatives. (See Chapter 11.) Because PS competes with glutamate, it may protect us from glutamate toxicity. Ironically, the expensive soy-derived supplement PS is being used to undo damage that may be caused in part by the cheap soy in processed foods
Lysophosphatidyl-ethanolamine (LPE)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved lysophosphatidyl-ethanolamine (LPE), another phosphatidyl substance commercially extracted from soybeans, for use as a fruit ripener and shelf-life extender. LPE – once called cephalin -- is now being used to treat grapes, cranberries, strawberries, blueberries, apples, tomatoes, and cut flowers.
When applied to fruits that are nearly ripe – going into puberty, so to speak -- LPE promotes ripening. When applied to picked fruit or cut flowers that are already ripe or blooming, however, it will "reduce senescence by inhibiting some of the enzymes involved in membrane breakdown." This can dramatically extend shelf life. Whether the substance could also keep human bodies fresh for funeral home viewings has not yet been investigated.
Showing posts with label soy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soy. Show all posts
Friday, 3 April 2015
Sunday, 30 November 2014
Singing the Blues: Soy Does Zip for Prostate Cancer Patients
by Kaayla Daniel
Does soy prevent prostate cancer or cut the risk of recurrence? With one out of six U.S. men developing prostate cancer over their lifetimes, lots of people would like to think so, and the soy industry rarely misses an opportunity to market its products every September during National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. This year though they should not be out wearing light blue wristbands and caps and shilling soy milk, soy powders and soy nuts in pretty blue containers, but inside singing the blues.
Why so? Bad news for the soy industry came in July 10 when a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study showed soy won’t prevent the recurrence of prostate cancer.1 The study, from the University of Illinois, Chicago, proved “disappointing” even to its own researchers who had fully expected soy to help prevent prostate cancer recurrence. Lead researcher Maarten Bosland , DVSc, PhD,said he was disappointed, but pleased at the clarity of the results. “The results were statistically very solid and the lack of treatment effect convincing. “A lot of men think that soy might be beneficial, but this study shows that it’s not.” 2
The researchers looked at 177 men with an aggressive form of prostate cancer who had submitted to prostatectomies and were at high risk for recurrence. Supplement intervention was begun within four months after surgery and continued for up to two years, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements made at two month intervals during the first year and every three months thereafter. Eighty seven men drank the soy beverage containing 20 grams of soy protein isolate and 90 men received the placebo of calcium caseinate. The study was stopped early because the “treatment” was obviously ineffective.
As expected, soy proponents have been whining that the study was badly designed, poorly executed, and too small to be definitive.(3) In fact, this was a randomized, double-blind trail conducted from July 1997 to May 2010 at seven US centers. A larger study would have been highly unlikely to show the desired result or would have found it at a level so small as to be insignificant. The soy drink and placebo groups were carefully randomized and did not differ significantly in the distribution of risk factors, including the risk of recurrence. Adherence was better than 90 percent, and there were no differences in adverse effects between the two groups.
Given that the “placebo” was calcium caseinate, soy did very poorly indeed. Casein is a fractionated, poor-quality protein seriously deficient in cysteine (a conditionally essential amino acid needed for immune support and detoxification) and rich in MSG and other dangerous residues created during high temperature processing. Though widely perceived as a neutral placebo protein, casein is routinely used in studies designed to make soy look good, particularly studies on soy, cholesterol and heart disease.(4)
Although the news headlines said the treatment had no effect, 22 of the soy patients and 23 of the placebo patients had prostate cancer recurrence. Interestingly, recurrence for the soy patients came faster (average of 31.5 weeks), compared to the placebo group (average of 44 weeks). While this difference was “statistically insignificant,” it certainly is interesting. It raises the question of whether the real reason this study was stopped prematurely was not because soy proved so ineffective but because risks were beginning to emerge.
The JAMA article references a few studies that suggest soy can be helpful in prostate cancer, but overall the research on soy and prostate cancer is inconsistent and contradictory.5 Some studies suggest soy increases prostate cancer risk, others suggest it decreases and still others show no effect at all. A few of the human studies suggest that if soy reduces the risk of prostate cancer it does so only for those who produce equol.6,7 Equol is a metabolite of the soy isoflavone daidzein that only some people are able to produce in the intestines. Given that the soy industry likes to promote its products as beneficial for everyone, equol has been an issue the soy industry prefers not to talk about.
Soy proponents also rarely tell men that if soy protein protects them from prostate cancer it is because it has a feminizing effect. The high levels of soy that might be useful in prostate cancer prevention or treatment will significantly decrease testosterone and other androgens and increase estrogen. Doctors who believe prostate cancer depends on exposure to male reproductive hormones recommend soy because its estrogens perturb natural hormone concentrations and ratios. While this theory might lead to valid pharmaceutical applications in cancer treatment, it seems inadvisable as a preventive treatment for the entire male population. Testosterone, after all, has multiple beneficial uses in the body, including growth, repair, thyroid function, red blood cell formation and immune support as well as its well-known manly roles in sex drive and reproduction.
Men who have been urged to consume soy to prevent or reverse prostate cancer might also want to consider the warnings of Daniel Doerge, PhD, and Hebron C. Chang, PhD, of the FDA’s National Laboratory for Toxicological Research, who discovered that “genistein interferes with estrogen receptors in rat prostate glands” and warned that this finding might have “implications for reproductive toxicity and carcinogenesis.”8
Brain damage is another possibility. Soy isoflavones have decreased both brain and prostate weights of rats and also altered the structure of the sexually dimorphic brain region. The sexual dimorphic nucleus is located in the diencephalons at the base of the hypothalamus and is sensitive to estrogen and testosterone in gender-specific ways, that is, differently for males and females.9,10
Finally, researchers who tested a low-fat, high-soy diet on prostate cancer patients found an insignificant decline in PSA levels, a modest effect on time to progression of TTP (another prostate cancer marker), and an undesirable increase in IGF-1 serum levels. 11 IGF-1 stands for Insulin-like Growth Factor. Circulating IGF-1 concentrations increase the risk of prostate, bladder, colorectal and breast cancer and have been implicated in heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and osteoporosois. So far the research indicates soy increases IGF-1 levels only in men.12
The takeaway? Dr. Bosland and his team were pro soy. Although disappointed in the results, they nonetheless speculated that men who start eating soy earlier in life would be more likely to enjoy prostate protection. They also concluded soy was at least known to be “safe” and should be eaten because it might well offer other benefits. Yes, it might, though I would say the populations most likely to benefit would be monks trying to maintain their vows of chastity, politicians with the zipper problem and unfaithful husbands. For the rest of our men, the body of research suggests the wisdom of abiding by the precautionary principle of better safe than sorry.
http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/singing-the-blues-soy-does-zip-for-prostate-cancer-patients/
Does soy prevent prostate cancer or cut the risk of recurrence? With one out of six U.S. men developing prostate cancer over their lifetimes, lots of people would like to think so, and the soy industry rarely misses an opportunity to market its products every September during National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. This year though they should not be out wearing light blue wristbands and caps and shilling soy milk, soy powders and soy nuts in pretty blue containers, but inside singing the blues.
Why so? Bad news for the soy industry came in July 10 when a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study showed soy won’t prevent the recurrence of prostate cancer.1 The study, from the University of Illinois, Chicago, proved “disappointing” even to its own researchers who had fully expected soy to help prevent prostate cancer recurrence. Lead researcher Maarten Bosland , DVSc, PhD,said he was disappointed, but pleased at the clarity of the results. “The results were statistically very solid and the lack of treatment effect convincing. “A lot of men think that soy might be beneficial, but this study shows that it’s not.” 2
The researchers looked at 177 men with an aggressive form of prostate cancer who had submitted to prostatectomies and were at high risk for recurrence. Supplement intervention was begun within four months after surgery and continued for up to two years, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements made at two month intervals during the first year and every three months thereafter. Eighty seven men drank the soy beverage containing 20 grams of soy protein isolate and 90 men received the placebo of calcium caseinate. The study was stopped early because the “treatment” was obviously ineffective.
As expected, soy proponents have been whining that the study was badly designed, poorly executed, and too small to be definitive.(3) In fact, this was a randomized, double-blind trail conducted from July 1997 to May 2010 at seven US centers. A larger study would have been highly unlikely to show the desired result or would have found it at a level so small as to be insignificant. The soy drink and placebo groups were carefully randomized and did not differ significantly in the distribution of risk factors, including the risk of recurrence. Adherence was better than 90 percent, and there were no differences in adverse effects between the two groups.
Given that the “placebo” was calcium caseinate, soy did very poorly indeed. Casein is a fractionated, poor-quality protein seriously deficient in cysteine (a conditionally essential amino acid needed for immune support and detoxification) and rich in MSG and other dangerous residues created during high temperature processing. Though widely perceived as a neutral placebo protein, casein is routinely used in studies designed to make soy look good, particularly studies on soy, cholesterol and heart disease.(4)
Although the news headlines said the treatment had no effect, 22 of the soy patients and 23 of the placebo patients had prostate cancer recurrence. Interestingly, recurrence for the soy patients came faster (average of 31.5 weeks), compared to the placebo group (average of 44 weeks). While this difference was “statistically insignificant,” it certainly is interesting. It raises the question of whether the real reason this study was stopped prematurely was not because soy proved so ineffective but because risks were beginning to emerge.
The JAMA article references a few studies that suggest soy can be helpful in prostate cancer, but overall the research on soy and prostate cancer is inconsistent and contradictory.5 Some studies suggest soy increases prostate cancer risk, others suggest it decreases and still others show no effect at all. A few of the human studies suggest that if soy reduces the risk of prostate cancer it does so only for those who produce equol.6,7 Equol is a metabolite of the soy isoflavone daidzein that only some people are able to produce in the intestines. Given that the soy industry likes to promote its products as beneficial for everyone, equol has been an issue the soy industry prefers not to talk about.
Soy proponents also rarely tell men that if soy protein protects them from prostate cancer it is because it has a feminizing effect. The high levels of soy that might be useful in prostate cancer prevention or treatment will significantly decrease testosterone and other androgens and increase estrogen. Doctors who believe prostate cancer depends on exposure to male reproductive hormones recommend soy because its estrogens perturb natural hormone concentrations and ratios. While this theory might lead to valid pharmaceutical applications in cancer treatment, it seems inadvisable as a preventive treatment for the entire male population. Testosterone, after all, has multiple beneficial uses in the body, including growth, repair, thyroid function, red blood cell formation and immune support as well as its well-known manly roles in sex drive and reproduction.
Men who have been urged to consume soy to prevent or reverse prostate cancer might also want to consider the warnings of Daniel Doerge, PhD, and Hebron C. Chang, PhD, of the FDA’s National Laboratory for Toxicological Research, who discovered that “genistein interferes with estrogen receptors in rat prostate glands” and warned that this finding might have “implications for reproductive toxicity and carcinogenesis.”8
Brain damage is another possibility. Soy isoflavones have decreased both brain and prostate weights of rats and also altered the structure of the sexually dimorphic brain region. The sexual dimorphic nucleus is located in the diencephalons at the base of the hypothalamus and is sensitive to estrogen and testosterone in gender-specific ways, that is, differently for males and females.9,10
Finally, researchers who tested a low-fat, high-soy diet on prostate cancer patients found an insignificant decline in PSA levels, a modest effect on time to progression of TTP (another prostate cancer marker), and an undesirable increase in IGF-1 serum levels. 11 IGF-1 stands for Insulin-like Growth Factor. Circulating IGF-1 concentrations increase the risk of prostate, bladder, colorectal and breast cancer and have been implicated in heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and osteoporosois. So far the research indicates soy increases IGF-1 levels only in men.12
The takeaway? Dr. Bosland and his team were pro soy. Although disappointed in the results, they nonetheless speculated that men who start eating soy earlier in life would be more likely to enjoy prostate protection. They also concluded soy was at least known to be “safe” and should be eaten because it might well offer other benefits. Yes, it might, though I would say the populations most likely to benefit would be monks trying to maintain their vows of chastity, politicians with the zipper problem and unfaithful husbands. For the rest of our men, the body of research suggests the wisdom of abiding by the precautionary principle of better safe than sorry.
ENDNOTES
- Bosland MC, Kato I, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, et al. Effect of soy protein isolate supplementation on biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2013 Jul 10;310(2):170-8.
- Seaman, Andrew M. Soy doesn’t prevent prostate cancer return: study. Reuters, July 9, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-soy-prostate-cancer-idUSBRE96815K20130709
- Bankhead, Charles. The two sides of soy and prostate cancer. Med Page, July 15, 2013. http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/40476
- Daniel, Kaayla. Striking at the soy heart health claim. March, 30, 2009 westonaprice.org . http://bit.ly/1dyWDs0 At the end of this article, there is a link to WAPF’s complete petition to the FDA, asking for retraction of the 1999 soy prevents heart-disease health claim. It includes a discussion of the use of casein as a control in studies on soy and heart disease. http://www.westonaprice.org/images/pdfs/2008feb18-fdasoyheart-letter.pdf
- Daniel, KT. The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food (New Trends, 2005) pp. 386-389
- Akaza H, Miyanaga N et al. Is daidzein non-metabolizer a high risk for prostate cancer? A case-controlled study of serum soybean isoflavone concentration. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2002 Aug;32(8):296-300.
- Akaza H, Mihanaga N et al. Comparisons of percent equol producers between prostate cancer patients and controls: case-controlled studies of isoflavones in Japanese, Korean and American residents. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb;34(2):86-9
- Doerge D, Chang HC. Inactivation of thyroid peroxidase by soy isoflavones in vitro and in vivo. Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2002 Sep 25;777(1-2):269-79. 269.
- Lephart ED, Adlercreutz H, Lund TD Dietary soy phytoestrogens effects on brain structure and aromataze in Long-Evans rats. Neuroreport. 2001 Nov 16;12(16):3451-5.
- Lephart ED, West TW et al. Neurobehavioral effects of dietary soy phytoestrogens. Neurotoxicol Teratol.2002 Jan-Feb;24(1):5-16.
- Spentzos D, Mantazoros C et al. Minimal effect of a low-fat/high soy diet for asymptomatic, hormonally naive prostate cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Aug 15;9(9):3282-7.
- Probts-Hensch NM, Wang H et al. Determinants of circulating insulin-like growth factors I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 concentrations in a cohort of Singapore men and women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Aug;12(8):739-46.
http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/singing-the-blues-soy-does-zip-for-prostate-cancer-patients/
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat
Food scientists are shedding light on items loaded with toxins and chemicals–and simple swaps for a cleaner diet and supersized health. Experts from different areas of specialty explain why they won’t eat these eight foods.
Clean eating means choosing fruits, vegetables, and meats that are raised, grown, and sold with minimal processing. Often they’re organic, and rarely (if ever) should they contain additives. But in some cases, the methods of today’s food producers are neither clean nor sustainable. The result is damage to our health, the environment, or both. So we decided to take a fresh look at food through the eyes of the people who spend their lives uncovering what’s safe–or not–to eat. ” Their answers don’t necessarily make up a “banned foods” list. But reaching for the suggested alternatives might bring you better health–and peace of mind.
1. The Endocrinologist Won’t Eat: Canned Tomatoes
Fredrick Vom Saal, is an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A.
The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”
The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe’s and Pomi. Exposure to BPA Causes Permanent Damage In OffSpring
2. The Farmer Won’t Eat: Corn-Fed Beef
Joel Salatin is co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming.The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin.
The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It’s usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don’t see it, ask your butcher.
3. The Toxicologist Won’t Eat: Microwave Popcorn
Olga Naidenko, is a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group.
The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize–and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.
The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize–and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.
The solution: Pop organic kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix. Make it organic and use coconut oil. If You’re Still Eating Microwave Popcorn, You’re Not Fully Grasping The Health Consequences
4. The Farm Director Won’t Eat: Nonorganic Potatoes
Jeffrey Moyer is the chair of the National Organic Standards Board.
The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes–the nation’s most popular vegetable–they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”
The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh. Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.
The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes–the nation’s most popular vegetable–they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”
The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh. Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.
5. The Fisheries Expert Won’t Eat: Farmed Salmon
Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, published a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish.
The problem: Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.
The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it’s farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon. Farmed Fish vs. Wild Fish: How Healthy
Is The Fish At Your Favorite Grocery?
Is The Fish At Your Favorite Grocery?
6. The Cancer Researcher Won’t Drink: Milk Produced With Artificial Hormones
Rick North is project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society.
The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. “There’s not 100 percent proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”
The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. “There’s not 100 percent proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”
The solution: Buy raw milk or check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products. Why Do Humans Still Drink Milk?
7. The Biotech Specialist Who Won’t Eat Conventional Soy: GMO Unfermented Soy
Michael Harris is biotech specialist who has directed several projects within the biotech sector including those for genetically engineered food. He has been a consultant, manager and director for companies such as Xenon Pharmaceuticals and Genon Corporation.
The problem: Genetically engineered food is a cause of great concern due to the manipulation of DNA and genetic code including transfers from one species to another. Fermented Soy Is The Only Soy Food Fit for Human Consumption and since almost 90% of soy in the world is genetically modified, if you are not ensuring sources are organic, long-term health problems are inevitable, especially since soy has been found to affect hormonal balance and even cause cancer.
The problem: Genetically engineered food is a cause of great concern due to the manipulation of DNA and genetic code including transfers from one species to another. Fermented Soy Is The Only Soy Food Fit for Human Consumption and since almost 90% of soy in the world is genetically modified, if you are not ensuring sources are organic, long-term health problems are inevitable, especially since soy has been found to affect hormonal balance and even cause cancer.
The solution: Check labels to ensure soy is Non-GMO or organic and never consume unfermented sources. If possible contact the company to find out exactly where the Non-GMO soy was obtained.
8. The Organic-Foods Expert Won’t Eat: Conventional Apples
Mark Kastel, a former executive for agribusiness, is codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods.
The problem: If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease.
The solution: Buy organic apples or apples from a farmer that you trust!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)