nutritionwonderland

Category: Controversy

  • GMOs: Frankenfood or Evolutionary Advance?

    GMOs: Frankenfood or Evolutionary Advance?

    While many GMOs are used for other purposes, the most talked about ones are those that end up on our plates. These are the Frankenfoods, the plants and animals being modified for human consumption. Why are crops and animals being modified? What GMOs are currently on the market? What new GMOs are being created? Good questions…

    GM Plants

    The small group of GMOs that are well-known and hotly debated are those used in agriculture. While many seem to argue whether or not they should exist, the fact is genetically modified crops are already all over the place. In 2006, for example, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were farmed in 22 countries by 10 million farmers. Of these, 53% were grown in the United States, where the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) keeps a close watch on the total area of GMO seeds planted. Genetically modified plants totaled as high as 86 percent of corn, 90 percent of the soybean, and 93 percent of upland cotton planted (by area).

    Corn and soy make up a large part of the GMO portfolio, image credit: r-z, flickr

    It’s not just developed nations that are growing GMOs: according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), 90% of the GMO-growing farmers in 2005 were resource-poor farmers in developing countries. So what, exactly, are these farmers planting? The majority are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and alfalfa that carry genes that either make them tolerant to the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate or produce the insecticide Bt toxin, a compound originally from bacteria that is a widely used pesticide by organic farmers.

     

    Current GMO crops

    Why should we want GM foods around in the first place? For one, they have the potential to make the production of certain crops cheaper and even more environmentally friendly. But really, what we have done so far is child’s play compared to what we may be able to do in the near future with GM crops.

    GMO Carrot Art, credit: klar!! on flickr

    On the horizon are a variety of crops that could revolutionize agriculture, and not just in cost-saving ways like insecticides and herbicides. Sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world. Rice is being created which is high in iron and vitamins to supplement the diet of the malnourished masses in many areas. Similarly, scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people.

    Even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepititis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. Just for the record, not all GM crops are made to be eaten; some trees, for example, are being modified to produce plastics, of all things. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

    GM Animals

    Most genetically modified animals are used for scientific research, as I explained in the first segment of this series. But GM animals don’t just live in labs. The first GM animals for commercial sale were glow in the dark zebra fish, now quite popular in freshwater aquariums (you might call them GloFish). GM animals aren’t just for show, though – some are making their way onto our dinner plates. Like for their floral counterparts, the use genetically modified animals as food is hotly debated.

    Top is GMO salmon, bottom is regular salmon. The fish are the same age, credit: natuurinformatie.nl

    Right now, the most likely GM animals on the verge of wide-scale sale are fish. Fish are becoming more and more popular as a source for protein. By 2015, it’s expected that the world demand for fish and fish products will expand by 50 million tonnes to over 180 million tonnes per year. That is a lot of fish. As worldwide fish stocks continue to collapse, it’s expected that much of this will come from aquaculture, and GM fish are ready to swim into the market through these farms. Aquabounty Inc., for example, has developed genetically modified salmon called AquAdvantage™, which are capable of reaching maturity twice as fast as their unmodified counterparts. Similarly, transgenic sockeye salmon have been given an extra growth boost, as have transgenic carp and tilapia. These animals have yet to hit supermarket shelves because of concerns not only for their safety to humans but also their ecological safety to their wild counterparts should some escape.

    Already, non-transgenic farm fish pose threats to some species of fish, and studies have found that the offspring between enhanced and wild fish are compromised compared to natural offspring. Those in favor of GM fish, however, say that these farms can be restricted to land-locked areas to reduce risk, that the GM fish can be sterilized, and that the benefits of these faster-growing fish overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. Fish aren’t the only animals being modified for food. Farmed mammals, too, are being genetically modified. Cows are being created which increase the calcium content of their milk by producing more casein proteins.

    Pigs are popular targets: some are being cloned to produce omega-3 fatty acids which are normally found in fish, and separately others are being modified to express a phytase which breaks down phosphorus to reduce the environmental impact of their feed. Pigs are even being engineered to contain high vitamin C levels. Transgenic chickens now express an enzyme so they can eat lactose-containing feed, widening their possible food options. While these animals aren’t for sale yet, either, they have the potential to make meats more affordable, more environmentally friendly, and more nutritious. Unlike plants, GM animals are not widely available or currently on supermarket shelves. However, that is expected to change in the near future, once further tests have been done to determine their safety.

    GM Foods and Us

    The major concern that most of us have is whether GM crops are safe. It is, literally, a billion dollar question. The vast majority of the anti-GMO platform is that they’re not. The main basis of this opinion is that because GMOs contain genes that produce proteins otherwise never found in a given food, they are likely to be dangerous. For example, foreign protein products may cause allergic reactions in people.

    Soybeans – a common GMO

    A case often cited as proof that GMOs are inherently dangerous is Pioneer Hi-Bred’s GM soybeans that were being developed in the ’90s. Pioneer Hi-Bred introduced genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans to increase the level of sulphur-rich amino acids. While the product was intended for animal feed, not human consumption, it became clear during testing that the nut protein that was being transferred was an allergen to humans. Because of this, the company discontinued development. People also believe that, since many plants are being engineered to produce pesticides, the overall consumption of these health hazards will be increased if GMOs are eaten regularly.

    As it stands, the science is mixed, but most supports that these foods do not cause adverse health affects. Feeding trials have found little to no toxic effects and studies have documented that GM foods have the same nutritional qualities as unmodified versions. Perhaps the most supportive evidence of GM crops’ safety, though, is simply that we’ve been eating them for 15 years in the US and have yet to see population-wide adverse effects. Despite the evidence towards their safety, public support for GM crops remains low, and many say that we can’t really know whether they’re safe with the tests that are done now.

    To that end, there is a lot of variety in the regulations and studies of the effects of eating GMOs (I’ll explain that in my next post). Many, including myself, believe that more rigorous and standardized testing is necessary, as it would build consumer confidence in the safety evaluations and lead to much wider spread acceptance of GM foods.

    The GM Debate

    While I understand the worry about Frakenfoods, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture. DNA is a part of our diet. We eat millions of copies of thousands of genes every day, most of which science has yet to determine the products of. We breathe in even more microorganisms and other microscopic creatures that have all kinds of unknown proteins in them, and we rarely stop to worry if they will have an adverse impact on our health. Moreover, we do eat many of the genes being transferred around between GM species. The fact is, most proteins get chewed up beyond recognition in our stomachs (this is why most health supplements don’t actually work).

    We must take the debate about the development of GMOs very seriously, and critically analyze the risks that come with them. But at the same time, we must also avoid being hysterical about the issue, and tackle the assurance of their safety with science and reason instead of rhetoric. To that end, we must ensure that they are safe via thorough testing and regulation. What are we doing about that?

    Next post I’ll explain the complex system that is GMO regulation, particularly in the US, so you can have a better idea about what analysis GM products go through before they end up on supermarket shelves.

  • Genetically Modified Organisms: The Back Story

    Genetically Modified Organisms: The Back Story

    The Publishing Journal

    Recently, a reinterpretation of an original Monsanto GMO study was published in the International Journal of Biological Studies which appeared to demonstrate that some aspect of Monsanto’s GMO corn – potentially just additional pesticides – was causing kidney problems in their reexamination of the data.  This study was widely proclaimed to be the first published study from by an independent group of Monsanto’s GMO corn (which it was not). None the less, the findings have generated a good bit of conversation on the issue of GMOs and their safety record.

    It was way back in the 1970s – almost 40 years earlier – that scientists discovered the machinery and mechanisms that made the direct genetic modification of all kinds of organisms possible.  The idea of genetic manipulation is centuries old, as humans have been planting, breeding, and changing creatures for thousands of years.  However, the onset of genetic engineering suddenly widened the possibilities far beyond what our ancestors could have imagined – plant genes in animals, animal genes in bacteria!

    Gregor Mendel was doing genetic manipulation back in the 1800s on pea plants, although it was a more imprecise ;)

    But what do most people really know about GMOs?  Probably not that much.  I’m not trying to be insulting – the fact is that both sides of the GMO argument don’t give the back story. They throw out random statistics and statements to try and sway the masses without citing the science. GMOs are synonymous with crops like Bt corn, as if the only creatures ever genetically modified are plants. But, for example, did you know that there are GMOs being sold in pet stores? Do you know how GMOs are made, or what other uses they have?

    This subject is complex – so complex I have prepared a three part series that helps explain what is going on underneath the heated debates.  This first piece will explain the technology and its widespread use in science. The second installment will then focus on how genetic modification applies to the food supply, and finally, the final post in this trilogy will review the regulatory structure in place to ensure GMO safety. Without further ado, let’s begin exploring what GMOs are, and how they are being used today.

    First off: What Are GMOs?

    A “genetically modified organism” is any creature whose genetic material has been altered by people using genetic engineering techniques. This usually involves the introduction of a particular gene to a creature which didn’t have it before. Genes are the pieces of DNA that act as blueprints for the thousands of proteins that form the building blocks of life. Proteins provide structure, allow for communication between body parts, and act as enzymes that carry out a cell’s function in the body.

    DNA, the target of genetic manipulation

    In general, “genetic engineering techniques” refers to recombinant DNA technology. How does it work? Well, recombinant DNA technology uses the cell’s natural process called recombination to introduce new genetic material into a cell.

    Normally, when an animal makes its sexual cells, called germ cells (like sperm and eggs), the maternal and paternal DNA in the cell undergo recombination, where bits and pieces from mom’s chromosomes replace ones on dad’s, and vice versa. This genetic shuffling allows the organism to create hundreds of germ cells that are completely, 100% unique. I won’t get into the evolutionary explanation right now for why this is good, but trust me, the more variety in a creature’s offspring, the better, which is why our cells do this.

    What GMO scientists do is take advantage of the system already set up in cells to swap around chunks of DNA. There are a number of methods for how to get the DNA in the cell, including hijacking virus machinery, using small, circular bacterial DNA rings called plasmids, creating pores in cell membranes using electric current, or even directly injecting it (there are really, really tiny needles).

    In general, scientists expose cells to the desired DNA and whatever vector is being used to get it into the cells, and some cells incorporate the DNA in a useful manner such that the desired protein is produced without altering other functions in the cell. That’s harder to achieve than it sounds. The scientists then use various methods to choose those select cells, and breed them into a population of GMOs.

    GMOs as a Process

    When making a genetically modified microorganism (GMM), the process is easy – once they’ve got their microbe carrying the desired gene, they’ve got their population. Plants, too, tend to be fairly easy to grow after recombination, though the DNA addition itself can be difficult because their cells have what are called cell walls that make it harder to get DNA into the cell. For animals, the genetic modification is usually done on some kind of stem cell or germ cell, which then has to be implanted into a pregnant mom to be born. The GMO is then bred with other non-GMOs (“wild-type”) to produce offspring that act as carriers, having one copy o fthe desired gene, which are then further interbred to produce a creature with two copies.

     

    I won’t give you my genes, promise!

    The advances in genetic technology over the past few decades have been enormous. What was once a blind process that just hoped to get a gene into a given spot can now be targeted precisely, if we have the genome of the creature mapped. We can create genes that can be turned on at specific times or in specific tissues, that glow to tell us where they are, or even can be removed at will later on.

    Make no mistake – there is nothing imprecise about this science. The transfer of genes is highly specific. No matter how long someone works on or eats Bt corn, they will never, ever have the gene incorporate into their tissues – it just doesn’t work that way. These techniques are widely used by all kinds of scientists all over the world, and no one has suddenly “caught” whatever gene(s) they’re working with. While there may be uncertainties about genetic technologies, how to do it in a way that ensures the change only occurs in the desired organism isn’t one of them.

    GMOs as a Danger

    What is possibly dangerous about this technology is that there isn’t anything keeping these altered, or “transgenetic” organisms from breeding with their non-modified counterparts, thus spreading the transferred gene (transgene) into wild populations. Scientists intentionally breed GMO/non-GMO organisms do this all the time in medical research, for example to create mice with one copy of an altered gene, to determine how being heterozygous (having two different varieties of a gene) affects the organism – but these are unlikely to spread in any way as they are strictly controlled and kept in labs.

    GMO GloFish you can find at your pet store, thanks to flickr user JustBeinSmickletz

    When GMO organisms, by default, are grown where they can interact with other organisms (like in the case of crops), there is a chance that these transgenes will be spread from GMO to wild species. What the dangers of this are, exactly, aren’t entirely known, but in general, changing the genetics of wild populations of animals has the potential to have many ecological impacts.

    Some of these have been identified – for example, the offspring of GM fish and wild-type fish are less viable, so a release of GM fish into streams could doom the local population of a species. But most are amorphous and still untested – like whether having pesticide genes in plants has any lasting effects on the soil they’re grown in or the flora and fauna that surround them.

    Sometimes, affecting other animals is actually desired: scientists are working on releasing a kind of modified mosquito which is resistant to the parasite which causes malaria, and are hoping that these resistance genes spread throughout the mosquito population where malaria is most deadly. But in general, the effects that transgenes have on others species that interact or that eat the modified organism are still being evaluated by scientists.

    What are GMOs used for?

    While people debate about GM corn, the truth is that genetically modified foods are but one of many areas where GMOs are used, and one of the smallest. Most GMOs never go near our tables, and yet they are vital to our every day lives in ways most of us don’t even realize. The big use of GMOs is Scientific Research.

    By far the most varied and consistent use of genetic engineering is for biological and medical research. They are not just a neat tool to study biology, they are an essential one. Scientists use genetic engineering to eliminate certain genes altogether within an organism, modify genes by turning them off or on, alter their location, or add copies of specific genes from other organisms. These uses are important tools in all kinds of biological research, including developmental biology, sensory biology, and medical science. The use of GMOs in research cannot be overstated.

    Science relies on GMOs extensively, thanks to Horia Varian

    Perhaps the field that most uses GMOs, however, is biomedical science. GMOs are central to the study of disease and the development of new vaccines, antibodies, and pharmaceuticals. For example, the life-saving insulin that diabetics must have is produced by a transgenic strain of E. coli, as it has been for over 20 years. The ability to use GMMs like E. coli to produce pharmaceuticals has revolutionized the industry, making some cheaper and safer, not to mention more environmentally friendly. Instead of harvesting large numbers of an animal or plant to extract a medicine, we can engineer a bacteria to make it for us.

    More current research is looking into using GMOs to produce vaccines, including one for HIV. Other amazing projects include modifying peanut proteins to protect those with peanut allergies from reacting to them and engineering bacteria to prevent cavities in teeth instead of promoting them.

    We’re not just talking about genetically engineered microbes. Transgenic animals are being used much like bacteria to produce pharmaceuticals. While bacteria are great, they are unable to produce certain proteins that require processing by more complicated mammalian systems. While fairly new, research into pharmaceutical production in transgenic animals is already showing promise. In 2009, the US FDA approved ATryn, an anticoagulant, which is produced in the milk of goats.

    Cute mice, vital for understanding health and disease in humans – thanks to e3000 for the pic

    Transgenic animals are vital to many fields of medical research, not just pharmaceutical production. Most diseases are partly caused by our genetic makeup and over 10,000 diseases are caused by a mutation in a single gene. GMOs allow us to create animal models that can be used to study and understand these diseases, leading to the development of treatments, and every drug that eventually ends up in human clinical trials passes first through these animal models.

    Gene knockouts (often in mice) allow researchers to delete specific genes, revealing their hidden functions in the body. Introducing other, novel genes (often from humans) allows scientists to study proteins in a living system without crossing the ethical lines of human research. Much of the research on proteins is done through GM methods, and these studies help us understand how our bodies work at the smallest levels. Studying proteins can lead to understanding diseases and even possible treatments. These methods are so used by biologists that knockout and overexpression models are basically required to get physiological research published in high-impact journals like Science or Cell.

    These studies don’t just help understand pathways in cells. Studies into the proteins involved in Anthrax’s pathogenic behavior have not only led to a vaccine but are leading to specific inhibitors that can be taken after exposure to prevent death. Soon enough, the threat of Anthrax as a bioterroist agent will be nullified. Indeed, counter-bioterrorist research relies on GMOs.  Transgenic animals are also vital in the emerging research into antibodies, which are quickly rising as a highly safe and effective way to treat a variety of diseases and pathogens. Because antibodies are specific to single compounds, they are an effective and safe way of removing problematic things from our bodies. Until now, antibodies have been hard to use because we naturally produce such small amounts of them. GMOs, however, allow us to produce much larger quantities. Because of GMOs (mostly mice), over 30 fully human antibodies that are produced by other animals have begun clinical trials.

    GMOs in Gene Therapy

    Perhaps the most up-and-coming role for genetic engineering in biomedical research is its use in gene therapy. Gene therapy uses GM viruses to deliver genes directly into our cells, allowing us to produce products that treat or cure disease. It’s already being used to create diseases caused by lacking genes like severe combined immunodeficiency, but medical scientists predict that gene therapy will explode in the coming century.

    Gene therapy may be used to cure a wide range of incurable, genetic diseases, and while it’s hotly debated, it may even be used to cure disease in germ cells and embryos in the future. Because gene therapy affects a person’s genetics directly, it has the potential to revolutionize the way we treat disease, stopping damage at the source instead of trying to patch it up afterward.

    I could go on and on about how GMOs have revolutionized biology because the uses of GMOs in research are endless. Catchy phrases like “Just Say No to GMOs” are leading consumers to believe that all GMOs are bad and to support legislation that bans them altogether. Suffice it to say that any complete ban on GMOs would devastate the medical and biological sciences. There are no alternative methods or ways to work around genetic engineering – it is vital to the modern study of biology and disease, period.  But what does this all have to do with food? We’ll learn more about that in my next piece about GMOs.

  • The Truth About Organic Farming

    The Truth About Organic Farming

    When I reviewed FoodSmart, I made a quip about how organic food might not be as good for you as you might think. I promised I’d explain myself, so I am doing so.

    Just what does organic really mean?

    In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped around 30% to about $52 billion (2008 dollars) worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for Certified Organic. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the planet from the evils of conventional agriculture – a complete win-win. And who wouldn’t buy organic, when it just sounds so good?

    Here’s the thing: here are a lot of myths out there about organic foods, and a lot of propaganda supporting methods that are rarely understood. It’s like your mother used to say: just because everyone is jumping off a bridge doesn’t mean you should do it, too. Now, before I get yelled at too much, let me state that I’m not trying to say that organic farming is bad – far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are much better for the soil and environment than conventional monocultures. Instead, I only want to point out that not everything is as it seems. So here are some of the myths of organic produce, and the realities behind them.

    Myth: Organic Foods Are Free From Pesticides And Harmful Chemicals

    The number one reason that I hear as to why to eat organic foods is that they have no pesticides or harmful compounds. I hate to burst your bubble, but that’s simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?

    NCFAP shows ‘natural’ pesticide use is dramatically higher than conventional produce

    So was I, when I first learned this from my boyfriend. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio (a farm which isn’t organic simply because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year, though they use absolutely no pesticides). The local organic farms, he explained, spray their crops all the time with a variety of chemicals. I didn’t believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn’t keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 [1]. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

    The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They’re organic by certification, but you’d never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

    “They’re organic by the letter, not organic in spirit… if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were getting ripped off.”

    What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be as bad if not worse than synthetic ones 2.

    Rotenone, still for sale despite its health effects – its ‘natural’ though

    Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“. However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking the mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and killed many species, including humans. Rotenone’s use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year because it is approved for fisheries management use as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species. The point I’m driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you wouldn’t want sprayed on your food.

    Just this year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union’s safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it has yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foods produced in 2007 that were tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels – and these are of pesticides that are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits 8. The scary truth is that you’re exposed to bad chemicals every day when you drink water out of a plastic bottle (see our series Plastic Troubles if you want to learn more).

    That said, those who do eat organic can take to heart that many smaller farms use few to no pesticides, and overall, organic foods do usually contain lower levels of pesticides than conventional foods. If, as time wears on, we find that the pesticides used by modern agriculture are more dangerous than we think, then it may be a good thing that so many of us are eating Certified Organic.

    But, there is another problem: even those organic farms which really do use less or no pesticides aren’t necessarily producing food that is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli. One study found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones 9. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers. Many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of anti-microbial agents, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.

    In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. My boyfriend’s family farm, for example, is “conventional,” but they use absolutely no pesticides, synthetic or otherwise. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever. It’s best if you know your source, and a great way to do that is to buy locally. Talk to the person behind the crop stand, and actually ask them what their methods are if you want to be sure of what you’re eating.

    Myth: Organic Foods Are More Nutritious

    Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for 50 years now.

    Food Standards Agency (UK) said 50 years of science disprove organics are healthier than conventionals

    Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 10. These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, β-carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity – none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).

    “This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the ‘organic’ market,” said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings11.

    Simply put by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, “there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that organic food in general is more or less safe or nutritious than conventionally produced foods” 12.

    Furthermore, while up to 43% of organic consumers buy organic foods because they believe they “taste better” than conventionally produced crops, studies have found that people can’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests 13.

    So organics are not better for us and we can’t tell the difference between them and non-organic foods. There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn’t one of its pluses.

    Myth: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

    As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least not necessarily.

    Vectobac – a BT containing pesticide used in organic agriculture

    True, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been universally found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do.

    But then hypocrisy steps in. Organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals; making rice flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds, for example.

    But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that it’s far less productive. Organic farming yields only around 80% the amount of conventional methods (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!). Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. But what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of untouched habitats. And organic farming has another spacial price – by relying on natural fertilizers, it requires more land for the animals that produce those fertilizers. Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs combined. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 10% or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?

    The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats all together. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. And in the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial. But presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

    The Battle Rages On

    Mix it up to stay happy people!

    The point of this piece isn’t to vilify organic farming; it’s merely to point out that it’s not as black and white as it looks. Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future. Until organic farming can produce crops on par in terms of volume with conventional methods, it cannot be considered a viable option for the majority of the world. Nutritionally speaking, organic food is more like a brand name or luxury item. It’s great if you can afford the higher price and want to have it, but it’s not a panacea. You would improve your nutritional intake far more by eating a larger volume of fruits and vegetables than by eating organic ones instead of conventionally produced ones.

    What bothers me most, however, is that both sides on the organic debate spend millions in press and advertising to attack each other instead of looking for a resolution. Organic supporters tend to vilify new technologies, while conventional supporters insist that chemicals and massive production monocultures are the only way to go. This simply strikes me as absurd. Synthetic doesn’t necessarily mean bad for the environment. Just look at technological advances in creating biodegradable products; sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are both useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible, as crazy as that idea may sound.

    But I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally. It continues to bother me that both sides refuse to discuss the idea of a middle ground.

    As it stands now, to be honest, if you want to eat the healthiest food for you that has the least environmental impact, buy local produce. Smaller farms, like the one owned by my boyfriend’s family, often use less pesticides and take better care of their land and crops. Also, one of the biggest environmental impacts of both conventional and organic farming is the transport of foodstuffs to the consumer. Even the most ecologically responsible farms have to ship their products to grocery stores. By buying foods produced locally instead, where we can talk to the growers and learn exactly what is in the food we’re buying, we can dramatically reduce the impact of agriculture on our environment and still get meals jam-packed with nutrition. See? There is a win-win solution after all!

    References

    . National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, National Pesticide Use Database. Available from http://www.ncfap.org (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
    . Gold, L., Slone, T., Stern, B., Manley, N., & Ames, B. (1992). Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities Science, 258 (5080), 261-265 DOI: 10.1126/science.1411524
    . Rotenone: Resource Guide for Organic and Disease Management. Cornell University. Available at www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/11rotenone.php (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
    . Caboni, P., Sherer, T., Zhang, N., Taylor, G., Na, H., Greenamyre, J., & Casida, J. (2004). Rotenone, Deguelin, Their Metabolites, and the Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease Chemical Research in Toxicology, 17 (11), 1540-1548 DOI: 10.1021/tx049867r
    . EFSA 2009. Pesticides used in organic farming: some pass and some fail safety authorization. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
    . Reasoned opinion of EFSA prepared by the Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) on the 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues. EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 305, 1-106
    . Consumer Reports 1998. Organic produce. Consumer Reports 63(1), 12-18.
    . FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (2000). Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999. Available at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
    . Mukherjee A, Speh D, Dyck E, & Diez-Gonzalez F (2004). Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. Journal of food protection, 67 (5), 894-900 PMID: 15151224
    . Dangour, A., Dodhia, S., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., Lock, K. & Uauy, R. 2009. Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature. Food Standards Agency (UK).
    . EFSA 2009. Study finds no additional nutritional benefit in “organic” food. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
    . NZFSA 2009. Safety of organic food. Food Focus February 2009. New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA). Available from: www.nzfsa.govt.nz (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
    . Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach Nutrition & Food Science, 32 (4), 153-157 DOI: 10.1108/00346650210436262

  • Understanding Our Bodies: The Role of Antioxidants

    Understanding Our Bodies: The Role of Antioxidants

    It seems like every day there’s a new super-food that is chock full of antioxidants and ready to cure everything from the flu to cancer. Antioxidants are touted as a nutritional panacea, but I would bet that few people really understand what antioxidants are, how they function in the body, and how including them in their diet makes an impact.

    These are the antioxidants you want – from flickr user crabchick

    Are antioxidants good for you? The short answer is yes, but buyer beware. Just because something is good for you doesn’t mean you should start taking a giant mega-dose of it. Antioxidants are great when the come from natural sources as a part of a healthy diet. But like everything else, a closer look at their physiological action explains why you can get too much of a good thing.

    It’s All About The ROS

    What are antioxidants? To answer that question, you have to understand reactive oxygen species, or ROS. And to do that, you have to understand how your cells produce energy. So here we go: a very quick overview of cellular energy metabolism.

    In human cells, like other eukaryotes (everybody but the bacteria), energy is made in a specialized cellular structures called mitochondria. Mitochondria are these strange, double-membraned organelles that are highly specialized – they contain their own DNA, make their own proteins, and are tightly regulated by the cell. Essentially, mitochondria are energy powerhouses, or the cell’s equivalent of a power plant. Below is a 3D view of the structure (thanks to T. G. Frey of San Diego State University):

    watch : http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/TFrey/?MitoMovies/CrisMitoER.mov

    Using a complex process, mitochondria take our fats, carbohydrates, and excess proteins and turn them into a four-carbon molecule called Acetyl CoA. This molecule goes through a series of reactions in what is called the Kreb’s Cycle which results in the creation of high-energy electrons taken from the bonds.

    These electrons are then passed down a chain of enzymes which use the energy they possess to create a proton (H+) gradient between the center of the mitochondria and the between-membrane space, eventually reducing oxygen into water (O2 –> H2O).

    It’s this proton gradient that is used to drive an enzyme called ATP synthase, which creates ATP, the functional energy molecule used by our cells.

    But the system isn’t perfect. Every once in awhile, instead of making harmless water, the chain makes unstable oxygen molecules, which are referred to as free radicals. These molecules are dangerous to the cell because they are highly reactive – in other words, they attack chemical bonds – hence their other name, reactive oxygen species (ROS). They can cause damage to DNA, enzymes, proteins and many of the other vital components of a healthy cell.

    Luckily, our bodies have innate mechanisms to deal with ROS, like the enzyme catalase which converts hydrogen peroxide (a kind of ROS) into water and oxygen. But as we age, our mitochondria get less and less efficient, producing more and more ROS. If too many ROS are produced and they overwhelm our innate damage repair mechanisms, our cells suffer, and either become non-functional or even cancerous.

    That’s where antioxidants come in. Antioxidants are compounds which react with free radicals and neutralize them, thus protecting our bodies from oxidative damage by ROS. They vary widely and are found in all kinds of foods we eat every day. Perhaps the most famous antioxidant foods are the colored berries like blueberries and raspberries, which are chock full of a antioxidants like Vitamin C and Vitamin E.

    So ROS are bad?

    Well… like everything else, it’s not quite that simple. Yes, reactive oxygen species can be very damaging. Some scientists finger them as the direct cause of aging, and because of the damage they can cause, they are thought to play a pivotal role in many diseases from Alzheimer’s to cancer. ROS production is increased in people who are overweight or obese, and is considered one of the reasons why weight gain is so damaging to the body.

    But many ignore the fact that ROS are a normal and regular part of cell metabolism. Even when we’re healthy, we boost the production of ROS when we exercise and when we eat. As it turns out, we need them. They are important in a number of cellular pathways, including those related to programmed cell death (apoptosis), as they are a direct measure of how much energy is being created by a cell at a given time. Increases in ROS may actually be beneficial at the right times.

    For example, one study found that if you up the ROS in mice being fed a high fat diet, you actually prevent them from becoming insulin resistant. Insulin resistance is the first step towards diabetes – it occurs when our bodies stop responding effectively to the insulin we release to store glucose uptake.

    Over time, eating too much (especially too much sugar) leads to a constantly high insulin levels, and our bodies simply become less sensitive to insulin. ROS, as the researchers explain, are key in insulin signaling, and without them, our cells can’t respond efficiently to insulin.

    “In the case of early type 2 diabetes and the development of insulin resistance, our studies suggest that antioxidants would be bad for you,” explains Tony Tiganis of Monash University in Australia.

    Furthermore, increases in ROS are pivotal in the heart’s ability to prevent damage during a heart attack. If you boost ROS signals before a heart attack, it allows the cells to precondition and prevents later damage from oxygen deprivation. This pathway, including ROS, are being evaluated as targets for therapeutics and pharmaceuticals to reduce or prevent heart damage.

    As with anything, ROS are healthy for you when they’re kept balanced by the body’s defensive enzymes and antioxidants. Natural, low-ish levels of ROS signaling, like that produced when you eat a good diet and exercise, is good for you. But get too much of a good thing – like when your body’s natural oxidation defenses break down – and it becomes a bad thing. Eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, packed with antioxidants, has been shown to improve the body’s ability to deal with ROS properly, improving all kinds of physiological parameters and aiding in the prevention or treatment of a wide variety of diseases.

    Should I take extra antioxidants?

    Increases in overall fruit and vegetable intake have shown to be great for our bodies, but this is likely due to the interplay between many different compounds. The jury is still out on whether supplementing your diet with specific antioxidants improves your health.


    Clinical trials have had remarkable trouble finding actual benefits from supplementing diets with individual or even combined antioxidants.     A vegetable or fruit is better for you because doesn’t just contain one or two antioxidants; it also contains a balance of vitamins, minerals and enzymes that are impossible to reproduce in pill form.

    And more importantly, you can over do it. The line between healthy and unhealthy blurs when it comes to dietary supplementation with excessive amounts of antioxidants. For example, you smokers out there might want to watch your beta-carotene intake. Beta-carotene is an antioxidant, found in many vegetables including kale and spinach, and researchers had hoped that supplementing the diets of smokers with it and another antioxidant, retinol, would help prevent lung cancer.

    But the reverse occurred – beta-carotene was found to actually increase the risk of lung cancer and death when taken as a supplement by those who were at high risk for the disease. Why it had this strong, negative effect is not fully understood, but it serves as a warning that over-supplementing isn’t a good idea.

    Similarly, a meta-analysis of clinical trials involving Vitamin E found that high doses – >400 IU a day – increased risk of mortality. It’s likely that in both these cases, the excessive levels of antioxidants actually prevented the ROS from doing their job as signaling molecules, screwing up cellular signaling pathways including those that lead to cell death. Cells that don’t die when they should are at high risk for becoming cancerous.

    You probably aren’t going to do yourself any damage by eating all the antioxidants you want – and, more likely, you’ll improve your diet. But don’t try and overdo it with pills. Cramming ten extra Vitamin C tablets isn’t going to do you any good. Antioxidants are better when they come straight from the source, as they exist in a form your body is prepared to use.

    Studies have shown supplements simply don’t cut it, and super pills don’t replace eating a healthy, balanced diet with at least five servings of fruits and veggies a day. And in some cases, antioxidant supplements increase the risk of cancers, like beta-carotene did for smokers, and can be particularly damaging for those already on certain drugs.

    If you really insist on taking supplement pills, be sure to talk to your doctor first and make sure what you’re taking is actually good for you and isn’t going to conflict with other medications. So-called nutritional supplements often tout amazing health benefits without any actual science to back them up.

    Previous posts in the Understanding Our Bodies series:

    References:

    1. Stadtman, E. (1992). Protein oxidation and aging Science, 257 (5074), 1220-1224 DOI: 10.1126/science.1355616
    2. Liu, J. (2002). Memory loss in old rats is associated with brain mitochondrial decay and RNA/DNA oxidation: Partial reversal by feeding acetyl-L-carnitine and/or R-alpha -lipoic acid Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 (4), 2356-2361 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.261709299
    3. Zhang JW, Rubio V, Zheng S, & Shi ZZ (2009). Knockdown of OLA1, a regulator of oxidative stress response, inhibits motility and invasion of breast cancer cells. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B, 10 (11), 796-804 PMID: 19882753
    4. Rhee SG (2006). Cell signaling. H2O2, a necessary evil for cell signaling. Science (New York, N.Y.), 312 (5782), 1882-3 PMID: 16809515
    5. Loh, K., Deng, H., Fukushima, A., Cai, X., Boivin, B., Galic, S., Bruce, C., Shields, B., Skiba, B., & Ooms, L. (2009). Reactive Oxygen Species Enhance Insulin Sensitivity Cell Metabolism, 10 (4), 260-272 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2009.08.009
    6. Vanden Hoek T, Becker LB, Shao ZH, Li CQ, & Schumacker PT (2000). Preconditioning in cardiomyocytes protects by attenuating oxidant stress at reperfusion. Circulation research, 86 (5), 541-8 PMID: 10720416
    7. Valko M, Leibfritz D, Moncol J, Cronin MT, Mazur M, & Telser J (2007). Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology, 39 (1), 44-84 PMID: 16978905
    8. Wallig MA, Heinz-Taheny KM, Epps DL, & Gossman T (2005). Synergy among phytochemicals within crucifers: does it translate into chemoprotection? The Journal of nutrition, 135 (12 Suppl) PMID: 16317157
    9. Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, Balmes J, Cullen MR, Meyskens FL Jr, Omenn GS, Valanis B, & Williams JH Jr (2004). The Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial: incidence of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality during 6-year follow-up after stopping beta-carotene and retinol supplements. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96 (23), 1743-50 PMID: 15572756
    10. Miller ER 3rd, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LJ, & Guallar E (2005). Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Annals of internal medicine, 142 (1), 37-46 PMID: 15537682
    11. Rodrigues MJ, Bouyon A, & Alexandre J (2009). [Role of antioxidant complements and supplements in oncology in addition to an equilibrate regimen: a systematic review] Bulletin du cancer, 96 (6), 677-84 PMID: 19493854
  • Hawaiian Health and the Coconut

    Hawaiian Health and the Coconut

    Upon moving to Hawaii, it’s hard not to be instantly swept up in the culture and nature of the world around you. It’s as if even the air is different here – and, in some ways, it probably is. The islands are rich with pleasant flowers, and the consistent trade winds blowing in mix the fragrant smell of plumerias, gingers, and the sea with a whole variety of other wonderful scents. The mood is relaxed and cheerful, and the people just seem healthier and happier.

    Coconut! Thanks flickr use bionicteaching

    Well, maybe they are healthier. Hawaii has some of the lowest rates of heart disease, childhood obesity, cancer, and even deaths by Alzheimer’s in the US. While part of this might be due to good health care coverage and availability (Hawaii has the second lowest rate of uninsured individuals in the US), it might also have a lot to do with the food.

    The Coconut, as Food

    If there’s one thing that Hawaiians know how to do well, it is eat. Traditionally, Hawaiians welcome others to their home by saying “Kahea ai. Ai a ma’ona,” which roughly translates to “Come in and eat all you want.”  Often, coconuts will be waiting for you.

    Called Niu, the coconut was raised from an ordinary food item to a sacred tree. It is shown in mythical art and verbal lore as a magical tree, an image of Ku, the ancestor of the Hawaiian people and the link to their original home. Of course, it had its culinary uses, too. Most common in Hawaiian cuisine is coconut pudding, called haupia, which is a staple at every luau.

    While the trunks and leaves were used for tools and shelters, it was the nut alone that provides the coconut’s nutritious benefits. In botanical terms, the coconut is truly a nut.  On the outside is the husk, called the mesocarp, which must be removed to gain access to the inner fruit. The precious interior is further protected by the endocarp, or the hard surface known as the shell. Lining the inside of this protective shell is the white, fleshy endosperm or “meat” of the coconut.

    Coconuts, though, unlike most other nuts, have a hollow interior filled with a liquid often referred to as coconut water.  This water is not the coconut milk often used in cooking – that is created by grating the meat and mixing it with water. Thus coconut milk, used mainly in Asian cuisine, is nutritionally comparable to coconut meat not coconut water.

    Coconuts grow on big trees, thanks to flickr user Swami Stream

    Green, immature coconuts can contain up to one liter of coconut water, which is much sweeter and cleaner tasting than coconut milk. In either case, the liquid is high in electrolytes, and is thus very good for preventing dehydration or diarrhea. It has long since been a popular drink where coconuts are found, and is sold fresh, canned, or bottled. The water contains very few calories but because it contains potassium and other electrolytes it’s even marketed as a sports drink. Coconut water can even be used as an intravenous fluid if desperate, when medical saline is unavailable.

    The main part of the coconut used nutritionally is the meat. Mature coconut meat is about 50% water, 35% fats and oil, 10% carbohydrates and 3.5% protein. Compared to other nuts, the meat is actually fairly low in fat, although it is mostly comprised of short-chain saturated fats instead of the unsaturated fats found in nuts like almonds and peanuts. Ninety percent of the fat in coconuts is saturated, exceeding lard and butter for saturated fat content. However, there is some debate as to whether the saturated fats found in the coconut are unhealthy.

    The Coconut, as Medicine

    The major component of the fats in coconut meat is Lauric Acid, a rare medium-chain fatty acid that, as far as our diets go, is primarily found in human breast milk. Despite the general nutritious distaste for saturated fats, studies have shown that coconut oil (which is made from pressing the fatty acids out of the meat) might actually help reduce abdominal fat and obesity. And despite LDL cholesterol concerns, studies have found that increased lauric acid dietary intake is linked to reduced heart problems. Studies have even found that virgin coconut oil has antioxidant properties.

    Research has been mounting which suggests health benefits of lauric acid and other coconut fatty acid derivatives. Lauric acid has also been investigated for its antibiotic properties. In study after study after study, lauric acid has been shown to kill a variety of bacteria and fungi. For this reason, as well as its general moisturizing properties, coconut oil may be a good treatment for many skin conditions, from acne to dermatitis. But even beyond antimicrobial properties, gaining research seems to support lauric acid as a possible treatment for chronic diseases. Lauric acid and similar fatty acids have been found to inhibit cancer cell growth.

    Lauric acid may slow HIV down

    But the most staggering, and of course controversial, effect of lauric acid seems to be its ability to slow or stop the progression of viruses. Lauric acid and its similar saturated fatty acids have been shown to interfere with virus maturation in different viruses, and has even been shown to slow the spread of HIV viruses by preventing viral budding. Unfortunately, very few clinical studies have yet to be done utilizing coconut, and so how effective or useful dietary supplementation of coconut meat or oil is on such diseases is unknown.

    Even considering the possible downsides of saturated fats, there is still room for them in our diets, so even ignoring the possible benefits of lauric acid, coconut meat isn’t unhealthy. Coconut meat contains far less sugar than other fruit choices, and is fairly high in protein witha bout 9% fiber by volumn, making it actually quite good for you. And on top of that, coconut meat is uniquely high in vitamins and minerals, including many Vitamin Bs (like Thiamine and Niacin, which promote good mood), Vitamin C, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium and Zinc.

    Aloha, and Enjoy

    Of course, the sun, scenery and wonderful weather might also have something to do with the mood of Hawaii. While it might not just be the coconut which makes Hawaiians so healthy and happy, it certainly is a nutritious way to spruce up your meals with a little tropical flavor. Curries and other Asian recipes often use coconut milk as a base. But if you’re going for raw coconut meat, the most important thing to consider is freshness.

    As a liquid-filled nut that often has to be transported from the tropics, it can go bad quickly. The best way to make sure it’s fresh is to examine it closely, ensuring there is no mold or cracks. You want one with a little weight for its size, and be sure to shake it to hear the water sloshing within. Cracking it on your own, of course, it a bit of an art form – I’ve heard that a screwdriver to the “eyes” (three, small spots which become holes where the seed germinates out of) or power drills do the trick well if you want to save the water. Otherwise, a machete or a hammer can go a long way! Other than that, Aloha, and enjoy!

  • Does McDonalds Own Chipotle? – Mailbag

    Does McDonalds Own Chipotle? – Mailbag

    Hi – I was watching Nightline a couple weeks back and they had a special on Chipotle using free-range animals. Then I remembered that Chipotle is owned by McDonalds [America’s #1 buyer of factory farm beef -ed]. Is this true?

    – James, Minneapolis, MN

    This is an excellent question we have also heard many times. After some research, the short answer is, no, Chipotle is not owned by McDonalds as of 2009 but it once was. The story is quite complicated actually.

    How deep does the love go?

    Chipotle was founded in 1993 by Steve Ells in Denver, Colorado, funded by an $85,000 loan from his dad, according to an excellent article by the Rocky Mountain News, Denver’s now defunct paper. The restaurant was based upon Ells time in San Francisco where he studied the burrito stands in the city’s Mission district. His instincts were vindicated as the restaurant was an immediate success. Ells managed to open a chain of five stores around Denver by 1998.

    After this initial success, McDonalds did enter the picture, purely as an investment partner in 1998, technically making Chipotle a subsidiary of McDonalds. That same article from the Rocky Mountain News mentions, very briefly, that Ells family connections to McDonalds helped pave the road for Chipotle’s massive expansion. We did not independently verify this fact, but it was published in a major American newspaper, giving it substantial weight in our minds.

    From Investor to Owner

    With McDonalds onboard, Chipotle started to build out beyond their Denver market – into Kansas City, Ohio and Minneapolis. That success that would lead McDonalds to become the majority owner of the firm in 2001, making Chipotle fully-owned subsidiary of McDonalds. This is when Chipotle ascended into a household name across the United States. From 2001 to 2006, Chipotle went from under 100 stores to 466 – expanding into more than 30 states [1].

    It was then in January 2006 that McDonalds said goodbye to Chipotle, spinning off the company in an IPO on the NYSE, saying they wanted to concentrate on their core business.

    Technically though, that was not the end. McDonalds continued to hold a large amount of class B shares of Chipotle for another 6 months, and these class B shares contained over 80% of the voting rights to the company [2]. McDonalds then authorized the final divestment deal in October of 2006 whereby their own shareholders could exchange McDonalds stock for the remaining class B voting shares of Chipotle. According to SEC documents, this was done for tax purposes [2].

    So, since October 2006, Chipotle has not been owned by McDonalds but much of the company’s DNA and supply chain management is likely taken directly from McDonalds. Chipotle now trades as an independent company on the NYSE under the call sign, CMG [3].

    Chipotle Vs. McDonalds

    Here is the Nightline story and video James was referencing:

    Chipotle and Pastured Pigs

    (Click picture to view video, its well done)

    The video highlights Chipotle’s commitment to buying from pasture-raised hog rearing operations. Many of these operations are small in nature, so there is an implicit commitment to sustainable farming practices. We cannot be sure of exactly how local or regional Chipotle’s supply chain (those are trade secrets), but in the fast food arena, they are the leader in this space. Chipotle was the first restaurant to remove rBGH for all their milk products, buys from family farms and makes a real, financial commitment to sustainable meat.

    The real conundrum James is implying with this question of Chipotle’s ownership is how could McDonalds, known for poor food quality and nutrition, simultaneously invest in a company with such divergent values.

    McDonalds is a business and will do whatever it takes to make money. Chipotle hit a nerve with the public and McDonalds likely did extremely well with their investment.

    For their part, McDonalds does keep a “Values in Practice” section on the corporate responsibility portion of their website. It mentions some laudable things – namely that:

    In 2007, 91% of our fish was sourced from fisheries without any unsatisfactory sustainability ratings.

    But, as is the case with most ingredient labels you see in the store, what isn’t said is usually more important than what is. McDonalds is well known as the leading buyer of meat from factory farming operations. And while McDonalds does certify that their operations are humane, whatever guidelines they are using as not publicly available so they cannot be verified.

    Their operations are so large that even if they made a small commitment to sustainable farming practices, massive changes would occur throughout the supply chain – effecting what’s in the grocery store for everyone. Hopefully, that day is near.

    In the mean time, you can enjoy either Chipotle or McDonalds foods knowing they are two, separate corporate entities.

    Full Disclosure – This author owns no stake in either one of these companies.

    Chipotle Nutrition Information

    A late edition here, this is the nutrition information for the Chipotle menu.

  • One Fat, Two Fat, Is Any Fat a Good Fat?

    One Fat, Two Fat, Is Any Fat a Good Fat?

    One of the most confusing things when it comes to proper nutrition is the role of fats. We’re constantly told that fats are evil things which will expand our bellies to the size of hot air balloons. This constant anti-fat attitude is behind many of the popular diet trends, which focus on cutting fats and carbs and replacing them with proteins. But not all fats are the same, and not all of them are bad for you. In fact, many fats are very good for you. Recent research has found that the low-fat diet trend is simply wrong for us– we’re not supposed to have no fat in our diets. you just have to know which is which.

    The Good

    The Good – CIS Unsaturated

    Because they’re called by their names more than their general category, you might not even know that the good fats are even fats at all.  The fats that are good, in general, are ones that are cis-unsaturated.  In chemistry, fats are carbon strings with hydrogens attached to them. “Unsaturated” means that the carbons are not bound to as many hydrogens as they can. So fats can be monounsaturated (only one hydrogen less than the possible maximum), polyunsaturated (2 or more less) or saturated. And of the unsaturated fats, there are two main forms: cis and trans. This has to do with how the carbons bond to each other where there is a hydrogen missing. In nature, they bond in what is called a ‘cis’ manner, which creates a bend in the molecule. When we artificially change monounsaturated fats into other fats, they instead form a ‘trans’ bond, which is almost straight.

    Our bodies are naturally very good at breaking down and utilizing the cis-unsaturated fats.  They fit better into the enzymes in our bodies which cut apart the carbons and chop up the molecules for use. That said, have you heard of cis-unsaturated fats? Probably not. They don’t appear on nutrition labels as a category, and are rarely referred to as such by the media.

    Olive Oil is loaded in monounsaturated fats

    What you might have heard of, though, are Omega Fatty Acids, Oleic Acid, Palmitoleic Acid and Linoleic Acid. These are all cis-unsaturated fats. The benefits of these kinds of fats are well explored by scientists. They contribute to lower cholesterol levels and reduced risk of heart disease. They’re connected with positive effects from intelligence to weight loss. In fact, eating them is better than cutting your fats period. Studies have shown that increased intake of these unsaturated fats, like in a Mediterranean diet which includes large amounts of olive oil (chock full of unsaturated fats), leads to all kinds of health benefits [1,2,3]. In general, they’re really, really good for you.

    The foods that are highest in unsaturated fats include:

    • avocados
    • nuts (like walnuts and pecans)
    • vegetable oils (like canola oil, olive oil and grapeseed oil)

    They’re found in animal products, too, but animals tend to have saturated fats as well as unsaturated ones. In general, the FDA recommends that no more than 30% of your overall calorie consumption comes from unsaturated fats, or 67 grams given a 2000 calorie diet.

    The Bad (but not sooo bad)

    Saturated fats are often touted as the bad guys. But they’re not quite as bad as they’re portrayed. These are seen as the main culprit behind high blood cholesterol and are known to raise bad LDL cholesterol levels. Unlike unsaturated fats, though, they don’t lower good HDL cholesterol levels.

    Extra Virigin Coconut Oil – a good saturated fat

    Don’t write them off as terrible for you just yet. Unlike trans fats, saturated fats occur naturally in high concentrations, particularly in animals. Some studies have found that a little saturated fats actually increases the benefits of some unsaturated fats when eaten together [4].  Still others have found that diets high in certain saturated fats from vegetables not animals, like unrefined, cold pressed coconut oil , might even be good for you [5,6].  Diets that are low-carb but high in protein and fat, for example, don’t automatically increase the risks of heart disease. Other studies have had mixed or even positive results from diets with saturated fats. One in 2007, for example, found that lower risk of heart disease was associated with increased fat intake so long as it wasn’t trans fat, including benefits from eating more saturated fat.

    The key, it seems, is moderation, not complete extermination of saturated fats from our diets. The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services say that up to 10% of your daily calorie intake can come from these fats, which are found in meat, cheese, dairy products and tropical oils like palm and coconut oil.

    The Ugly

    A Trans Fat – notice how straight it is

    The worst fats for you, by a landslide, are the trans fats. While other dietary fats have redeeming qualities, trans fats seem to have none. They’re almost entirely man-made, created by adding hydrogens to other fats. This process, called hydrogenation, turns oils into the semi-solid margarine and other products that are associated with trans fats. These trans fats are useful because they have a longer shelf life, are hard enough to stay solid at room temperature, and yet can even be malleable cold. Unfortunately, there’s a cost for their benefits.

    Trans fats, in general, are bad for you. They raise your risk of diabetes and heart failure, particularly by raising “bad cholesterol” levels in the body. But they don’t stop there. They not only raise LDL (bad cholesterol) levels, they lower HDL cholesterol levels – the good ones. In 2006, a scientific review of fats from the New England Journal of Medicine stated clearly that “from a nutritional standpoint, the consumption of trans fatty acids results in considerable potential harm but no apparent benefit.”

    For many years, margerine like Country Crock was loaded with trans fat. They have reduced the amount greatly but it is still in there.

    The damning evidence against trans fats comes from a study of 120,000 female nurses from 1976 to 1990. The Nurses’ Health Study found that the risk of coronary heart disease nearly doubled for every 2% increase in trans fat calories consumed instead of carbohydrates. Considering the same increase in risk takes a 15% increase in saturated fats and that eating the other unsaturated fats actually lowers heart disease risks, there seems to be no reason to eat trans fat at all. And if that weren’t bad enough, trans fats have also been linked to liver problems and even infertility.

    Trans fats are the ones found in fried foods, commercial baked goods, shortening and margarine. Based on the source list, it’s not surprising it’s not healthy. The American Heart Association says that no more than 1% of your total daily calories should come from trans fats to maintain a healthy heart, and, in general, any increase in trans fats increases your risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

    How To Get The Good Without Too Much Bad Or Ugly

    Now that you know what to look for, you can make more informed choices about your meals when you hit the grocery store. Read the nutrition labels carefully. For example, “no trans fat” can still contain up to 6% trans fat according to US guidelines, and ‘high’ or ‘low’ fat aren’t as important as the kind of fat. Just because something contains 10 g of fat doesn’t mean it’s awful for you – check and see if the fat is saturated or unsaturated.

    The best way to keep your diet healthy is to do little things to replace your trans or saturated fats with cis-unsaturated ones. For example:

    • cook with olive oil or sunflower oil instead of butter or margarine
    • eat fish, which is high in Omega Fatty Acids but low in other kinds of fats
    • grilling instead of frying your meat
    • removing the skin from your chicken breast can reduce saturated fat levels by 30%-50%

    Doing these type of things will decrease your risks of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and a bunch of other diseases.

    Before I get my head chopped off in the comments for saying fats are healthy, don’t get me wrong – most Americans already eat way more fat than we should, of any kind. So it’s not necessarily a bad thing to cut down your fat intake if you’re looking to make your diet a bit more nutritious. But if you already eat somewhat healthy, are at a normal weight and are just looking to improve yourself, cutting the fat out of your diet entirely isn’t the way to go. Ideally, even if you’re trying to lose weight and eat healthier from a less-than-healthy starting point, you shouldn’t see all fats as the enemy. My point is that fats really are good for you, in the right amounts.