nutritionwonderland

Category: Food

  • 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.

  • Is Child Obesity the Parent’s Fault?

    Is Child Obesity the Parent’s Fault?

    Childhood obesity is becoming a hot topic in health circles, even to the point of being called an epidemic. Experts estimate that 20% of children between the ages of 6 and 17 are overweight, predisposing them to terrible diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Why have the world’s children ballooned over the past hundred years?

    Ice Cream Adds Up! (thanks to flickr user lepiaf.geo)

    Part of the problem is the popularity of fast food restaurants and cheap, fattening foods readily available at the grocery store. Policy makers have tried to tackle the problem at a variety of angles, promoting better package labeling and restriction or outlawing of the worst offending foods. Reformers have even targeted the meals provided by schools (efforts which have vastly improved the quality and nutrition of school meals), but the problem extends much deeper. Any nutritionist will tell you that healthy eating starts at home, and that is exactly where the problem now lies for the world’s children.

    It turns out that the vast majority of parents are failing their kids, at least when packing them lunch. When Dr. Charlotte Evans and colleagues form the University of Leeds surveyed children’s packed lunches in the UK, they found that only 1 in 100 met the standards for nutritional value set by government agencies. In the UK, 50% of students pack their own lunches, and the findings of this study might explain part of why 1 in 6 of them are obese.

    The research was done at the request of the UK’s Food Standards Agency, whose School Meals Review Panel (SMRP) has dictated what’s good and what’s not for schoolchildren since 2005. The government, at the urging of the panel, has restricted schools from serving foods high in salt, fat and sugar or made with poor-quality meat, and established mandatory food items such as protein-rich options, low-fat starch choices, dairy products, fruit and vegetables in the daily diet of students fed by the schools. But the board does not control the meals of the kids who bring their own, so the FSA wanted to know how the meals of these students measured up to the SMRP’s standards.

    Researchers randomly selected primary schools throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and selected one class of 8 to 9 year olds from each school. All and all, almost 1,300 lunches were examined by a trained administrator, who went through the lunch and had the child go through a lunch box questionnaire. The administrator also weighed the lunch before and after to determine how much the kid ate.

    What They Found

    Most lunches contained sandwiches, sweet treats, snacks and sweetened drinks, and the kids ate 76% of what they were given. Few contained vegetables, milk or fruit juice. Of the 1294 lunches examined, only 14 (1.1%) met all of the standards for school meals and 66 (5.1%) met five or more. Fewer than half met the standards for energy, saturated fat, non-milk extrinsic sugars, non-starch polysaccharides, sodium, vitamin A, folate, iron or zinc. Interestingly, the researchers found that girls consumed more vegetables than boys.

    The results were sobering.

    As the authors write, “since 2004, there may have been some improvements in the nutritional profile of packed lunches due to changes in the composition of some manufactured foods; however, there have been no improvements in children’s packed lunches in terms of the types of food provided.”

    While it might save some cash to pack lunches instead of paying for cafeteria food, you’re not doing your family any favors if you don’t pack a healthy meal. Studies have shown that kids that grow up with bad nutritional habits have a hard time breaking them later in life, so how you feed your kids has a dramatic impact throughout their years.

     

    Kids Going to School…with lunches! from flickr user photomequickbooth

    To learn more about how to pack the right kinds of meals, check out the School Food Trust’s website or ask your doctor what your child needs nutritionally. Here’s some examples of the good and the bad as described by a parent pamphlet explaining the UK’s 2007 update of the school lunch standards (view pamphlet here):

    Good Choices to Eat:

    • Filled sandwiches, rolls, baguettes, bagels, pittas and wraps
    • Toasted sandwiches and paninis
    • Breakfast cereals with lower fat milk
    • Jacket potatoes, pasta and rice salads
    • Salads and vegetable sticks with dips
    • Yogurts/fromage frais
    • Fruit – all types including tinned (in juice) and dried
    • Combination of nuts, seeds and dried fruit (with no added salt, sugar or fat)

    Good Choices to Drink:

    • Plain water (fresh tap water, still or sparkling bottled water)
    • Skimmed or semi-skimmed milk
    • Pure fruit or vegetable juices
    • Soya drinks enriched with calcium
    • Yogurt or milk with artificial sweeteners or less than 5% added sugar

    Bad Choices to Eat:

    • Sweets/chewing gum (including sugar free)
    • Chocolate bars
    • Bars/biscuits containing or covered in chocolate
    • Processed fruit bars
    • Cereal bars
    • Chips and related products, like tortilla chips, potato sticks, puffs, crackers, corn chips, pretzels, breadsticks
    • Rice crackers, bombay mix, salted popcorn
    • Cakes, pastries, sweets

    Bad Choices to Drink:

    • Flavored waters
    • Squash/cordials
    • Sweetened fizzy drinks like sodas and lemonade
    • Sports drinks
    • Diet drinks

    Reference: Evans CE, Greenwood DC, Thomas JD, & Cade JE (2010). A cross-sectional survey of children’s packed lunches in the UK: food- and nutrient-based results. Journal of epidemiology and community health PMID: 20089755

  • California First State To Ban Trans Fats

    California First State To Ban Trans Fats

    Effective January 1st, 2010, California became the first state to ban restaurants from using trans fats in restaurants. While similar bans have been enacted in New York City and a few other cities in the US, this is the first time that trans fats are being banned from an entire state.

     

    Schwarzenegger Acts…

    The legislation was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2008, giving the state’s 88,000 restaurants a little time to nix trans fats from their cooking. Under the new law, restaurants, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities” will, in the preparation of any foods, have to discontinue use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats. It will cost cooks anywhere from $25 to $1,000 for a violation. Bakeries aren’t immune, either, and have to purge the trans fats from deep fried yeast dough and cake batter by 2011.

     

    Nutrition scientists have been warning of the dangers of trans fats for years now. 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 big cost for those 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.”

    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.

    Many hail the new legislation banning them in the most populous state in the union as a step in the right direction for the American public. The incoming president of the American Heart Association, Dr. Clyde Yancy, is one of its biggest fans. “I think the potential here is real for a far greater understanding of the harms of trans fats, and to encourage more states to do the same,” he said when asked about the law’s enactment. Governor Schwarzenegger, too, has commended the state for its efforts.

    “California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats,” the governor said in a statement. “Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California.”

    Many of the state’s restaurants had already dumped trans fats from their menu, cracking under the pressure of consumer demand. National chains like Wendy’s, Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and KFC have already started removing trans fats. But other restaurants are finding it harder to switch, as non-trans fat oils are harder to come by and far more expensive. Smaller restaurants have stated that the ban will force them to raise their prices significantly.

    While this new ban will make eating out healthier for Californians, it’s only a small step towards the state’s overall health. Trans fats can still be found all over in Cali’s grocery stores and supermarkets, as the ban doesn’t apply to packaged foods. Hopefully, the anti-trans fat movement will continue to gain momentum, and these unhealthy fats will become less and less prevalent in all of our foods. Kudos to California!

  • 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

  • Book Review: FoodSmart: Understanding Nutrition in the 21st Century

    Book Review: FoodSmart: Understanding Nutrition in the 21st Century

    FoodSmart Quickfacts

    FoodSmart: Understanding Nutrition in the 21st Century is a brand new book from award-winning author Diana Hunter that is designed to help navigate the complex world of nutrition. It explains basics like terminology and types of food with ease and, yet, is still able to present the various sides of much more complex topics like of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) and what it means to be “organic” to a nutrition newbie. All and all, it’s not a bad book, especially if you’re just starting out in the world of nutrition and want a strong understanding of what is being talked about by everyone else. You will definitely learn a lot if you read this book, as it is jam packed with information that every nutritionally conscious consumer should know.

    Walk Before You Run

    For me though, this book had its ups and downs. On the positive side, it is chocked full of information, with as much knowledge on each page as an encyclopedia. But that’s also one of the book’s downfalls – it often reads like one, too, but lacks the handy tabs and user-friendly organizational format that encyclopedias have. It seems poorly organized at times (like explaining what “organic” is long after chapter upon chapter has already used the term), and over-structured at others (like pages and pages of pros and cons of different foods, which is just impossible to sit down and read through).

    The book does have many good qualities. For example, Hunter does an excellent job of going over the entire process of food production, from farm to store, explaining the different agencies involved, what they do, and why they do it. Her explanation of nutrition labeling, too, is excellent, and will make even those with no prior knowledge understand what phrases like “lite” actually mean. I wish some of these chapters were near the front instead of hidden at the end. Some of the best parts of this book were pushed to the back when they should have been up front. If you want my advice, read Chapters 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 3 and 8 in that order first, then the rest of the chapters as you wish.

    The FoodSmart Cover

    Perhaps my biggest pet peeve was the attempt to give “good choices” while really not helping the casual nutritional consumer at all. The entire 30 page chapter on “conquering the confusion” which is supposed to provide guidelines for what to pick out in the grocery store could easily be replaced with the sentence “Always eat 100% organic or the closest you can get to it.”

    Let’s be honest – even the most basic nutritionally-minded consumer assumes that already, and either does eat all organic or can’t afford to. It’s not until much later that she even mentions which foods might be more important than others to eat organically (like those with more pesticide use) or what it really means to be “100% organic” versus “organic” versus “made from organic ingredients.” And that’s not even considering that organic may not always be the best option (I’ll promise to explain myself on that in another post).

    For me, the book shouldn’t have tried to act like a guide and just presented the facts. It would have been much better if Chapter 2 were completely removed. Leave out the “which to choose” (especially when there is no real advice given) and just present the detailed pros and cons of foods like in Chapter 4, though preferably much later in the book after explaining more of the basics (like what the different food types are, what “organic” is, and explaining nutritional labels). The addition of too much “what to pick” kind of thinking, especially early on, clouded the book’s goal of providing “clarity about the many aspects of food and bring to the table an understanding of nutritional research.”

    On the Upside…

    That’s not to say that it’s a bad book. One of the best parts of the book, in my opinion, was its clear and thorough explanation of why it’s not so easy to just say “this is good and this is bad” when it comes to nutrition. Diana Hunter explains exactly why there is so much variation in scientific studies on nutrition, why science doesn’t always give a clear answer even to a simple question, but yet why nutritional research is still very important. Sometimes it is just so hard to explain why two good scientists can get two different answers to nutritional questions, and she details the dilemma perfectly.

    The simple truth is that our bodies are complex and a lot of variables are in play, far too many for any experiment to control. As easy as it might sound to say “is X good for you,” the scientific answer is complicated and includes questions like ‘how often,’ ‘how much,’ ‘if produced by who,’ ‘if you eat Y with it,’ and so on, with each different permutation potentially giving a different answer. And, as I explained, she did do an excellent job of detailing the basics of nutrition and nutritional labeling.

    If your goal is to dive head first into the world of nutrition, this book has what you want. You will learn all the terminology you need to really start understanding some of the more complex nutritional articles out there as well as what all those symbols on packages in the store are really telling you. But if you just want to know what to buy when you go to the grocery store, you’re going to feel overwhelmed and still feel like you’re not sure what to get. It’s not a user-friendly nutritional guide for the masses, and it isn’t going to give you easy choices (except for ‘eat organic‘), nor should it be thought of as one. The book’s best quality is that it gives you the information to start making decisions for yourself, not just follow a step-by-step guide of what to eat.

  • Making the Connection Between Sustainable Seafood and Nutrition

    Making the Connection Between Sustainable Seafood and Nutrition

    You have a lot of choices as a consumer. Those choices alter the marketplace. You influence what kind of movies Hollywood produces when you stand in line to buy tickets, debating between an action thriller and a romantic comedy. You alter what ends up in department stores when you decide to buy a blue dress instead of a yellow t-shirt. You pressure companies to be more green when you pick paper over plastic.

    Money can move sustainability

    And the choices you make when it comes to your dinner, particularly which fish you pick for the 16 pounds of seafood the average American eats every year, drive the fisheries hauling in over 11 billion pounds of fish annually. And that’s just for the US alone.

    Choices make a difference, not only from an economic perspective, but from a nutritional and ecological one. So, the short answer to logic of sustainable seafood is that your choice drives markets. The long answer is that it’s good for you and it’s good for the environment – a clear win-win. After all, you wouldn’t be on a nutrition site if you weren’t looking to eat and be healthier, right? So why not eat in a way that’s healthier for yourself and the rest of the ecosystem?

    Making the Smart Choice: Seafood and Nutrition

    You know that you’ve made a nutritional choice when you decide to buy that bag of apples instead of a bag of Doritos. But did you know that you made a nutritional choice when you picked salmon instead of tuna? A lot of nutrition talk just refers to “fish”, as if all fish are the same nutritionally.

    But, you say, that’s true. After all, fish is fish… right?

    Tuna, swimming – thanks to Flickr user Canales

    Well, it’s partially true. All fish, from anchovies to yellowtail, have a few key nutritional ingredients that are fantastic for you. The American Heart Association, for example, recommends that we eat fish at least two times per week for a healthy heart.

    For one, fish are a great source of protein that contain far less fats than other meats like beef and pork. They are a complete protein, which means that they contain all of the essential amino acids that we need to eat in our diet. Why is protein so great?

    As I’ve said before, protein and the amino acids it contains are key to making our bodies function properly. Protein calories also make us feel fuller, longer compared to calories from fat or carbohydrates, thus allowing us to eat less.

    Fish are also great sources of Omega-3 Fatty Acids, a group of unsaturated fatty acids that have been linked to all kinds of health benefits, from reduced cancer risk to increased intelligence. While we tend to demonize fats, the truth is that some are good for us, and Omega-3s are among the good guys. In fact, they’re so good for the brain that the Rush Institute for Healthy Aging claims that people who eat at least one meal of fish per week will be significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than those who never eat fish – a statement that, at least in part, is backed by science.

    When a Fish Isn’t Just a Fish

    But not all fish are the same – not even close. Just like lamb, beef, and venison all have differing amounts of protein, fat and calories, so, too, do different species of fish. Sockeye salmon will get you 3.8 grams of protein per ounce, while a nice tuna steak provides 9 grams per ounce. A skinless, 3 oz portion of Halibut will run you 110 calories, with 20 of them coming from fat, but the same portion of Mackerel will give you a whopping 210 calories with 120 of them from fat. That’s a difference of 100 calories from fat alone in a single piece of fish!

    A Cutthroat Trout – beautiful fish, courtesy of flickr user fool-on-the-hill

    Before you freak out about the high fat content, note that while Omega-3 fatty acids are found in every kind of fish, they are especially high in fatty fish. That Halibut only contains 0.7 grams of Omega-3s, while the fatty Mackerel has 2.6 grams. As with anything else, it’s all about balance, and getting the right amount of fat and protein into your diet, not aiming for the lowest-fat option.

    Not even all types of similar or even the same fish are created equal: take tuna for example. Buy canned light tuna, and you’re looking at about 33 calories and 7.2 grams of protein per ounce. Canned white albacore, however, contains roughly 37 calories and only 6.8 grams of protein per ounce, plus an extra 0.8 grams of fat. Opt for a cooked tuna steak and you end up with 40 calories, 9 grams of protein, and 0.5 grams of fat per ounce. Even your choice of tuna sashimi makes a difference: Bluefin will net you just over ten more calories and one gram of fat per ounce than Ahi. Though these might seem small, scientists have found that even a change of 100 calories a day can impact your weight dramatically. Subbing in Bluefin for Ahi at a ten-ounce tuna meal is enough to make a difference.

    Fish Toxicology

    There are issues far worse than protein and calorie counts to think of when choosing fish. That’s because, unfortunately, fish are the final resting places for many of the chemicals that we pollute our waters with everyday. Water treatment has lowered the levels of some of these, but the problem is that fish biaccumulate these toxins. Bioaccumulation occurs when a substance is absorbed or stored at a faster rate than it is lost, causing it to ‘accumulate’ in the body. Thus, smaller environmental levels can become higher ones in the body.

    The analogy I used before when explaining bioaccumulations is with drinking alcohol: normally, you can drink one beer in an hour and be fine. Drink twenty in an hour, and you probably will experience acute alcohol poisoning, but assuming you recover, you’ll again be fairly fine (minus some liver damage). But instead, imagine if every time you had a drink, your body simply couldn’t get rid of the alcohol, and it lingered in your tissues. You could have only one drink a week, but still within a few weeks, you’d be drunk all the time.

    Bioaccumulation up close

    That’s how bioaccumulation works. The fish’s body removes the toxins at such a slow rate (or not at all) that they build up to much higher concentrations than are found in the water around them. And it gets worst as you go up the food chain – those fish at the bottom get a certain level of toxin, but then they’re eaten by bigger fish. When that big fish eats 10 little fish, suddenly it has 10x the concentration of toxins that the little ones did, and so on and so forth to the top of the chain (here’s a hint – that’s where we fit into the food web).

    Toxins that are particularly dangerous in fish include many of the chemicals in plastics (see our previous details on the nutritional consequences of PBDEs, Phthalates and BPA) as well as many others caused by industrial and agricultural pollution, like DDT. One of the major toxins that fish bioaccumulate is mercury, which is released from the process we use to turn coal into energy. Mercury levels in fish can be so high that the FDA and EPA monitor the levels in common varieties of fish to set healthy safety standards.

    Already, there are a number of fish that have such high mercury levels that they are considered unsafe to be consumed by pregnant women. These include:

    • sharks
    • king mackerel
    • swordfish
    • tilefish.

    Tuna Sushi, be careful now

    But even those that are commonly found on our dinner plates can be high in mercury. Sushi tuna, for example, is one of the worst offenders; it can have up to 0.64 parts per million of mercury, which is only a hair under the 0.73 found in king mackerel. Mercury levels are high enough in fish to trouble even healthy, non-pregnant adults. Just ask Jeremy Piven – he was diagnosed with a blood mercury level six times above the upper limit of safety while working on a Broadway show after regularly consuming sushi with tuna in it.

    When thinking about the nutritional side of choosing fish, you have to weigh the good with the bad. While swordfish is high in Omega-3s, for example, its mercury level is enough to strike it off the ‘healthiest options’ list (although the EPA give the green light to anyone who isn’t pregnant, planning to become pregnant or nursing to eat up to 7 ounces of high-mercury fish per week, if you want to trust them). You want something that contains what’s good for you and as little of what’s bad for you as possible. It should be the same with sustainability. You can pick fish that are good for you and good for the environment – you just have to know which ones to choose.

    Making the Even Smarter Choice: Seafood and Sustainability

    Since you already have a lot to consider nutritionally when choosing seafood, why should you add sustainability into the mix? Well, the easy answer is you have to, if you want your children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same healthy choices you can now. The global catch of wild fish leveled off over 20 years ago and 70% percent of the world’s fisheries are being harvested at capacity or are in decline. It’s estimated that we’ve removed over 90% of the large predatory fish like sharks from the world’s oceans already, and some of the biggest fisheries are on the verge of complete collapse. But perhaps the simplest reason as to why you should factor sustainability into your seafood choices is that it’s easy to and, to boot, still good for you.

    Part of why nutrition and sustainability fit so well together is that those fish that tend to be high in toxins just happen to be those that we’ve overfished. You see, bioaccumulation is a time-consuming process. The older and larger a fish is, the more toxins it’s likely to have bioaccumulated. In general, this means that the biggest fish in the sea that are highest up on the food chain are the most likely to have the highest mercury levels.

    Maybe we should just leave the tiger sharks in the ocean?

    But the biggest predatory fish are also the slowest growing and least able to rebound from intense fishing pressure. They’re the ones that take years to develop into maturity and have fewer offspring than their smaller cousins. It’s like comparing rabbits to moose – if you have a population of rabbits and you take away half of them, you might not even notice that any were taken once they’re done breeding like, well, rabbits. But take away half of a population of moose and it may take years for them to replace their lost numbers.

    While most of what we hear about the fishing industry is doom and gloom when it comes to being eco-consious, there are fisheries being run in a sustainable way. The more we purchase from those fisheries, and not from the other ones, the more we will pressure the remaining industries to improve their practices and solve the most pressing issues, including overfishing, illegal and unregulated fishing, habitat damage, bycatch and poor management.

    So how do you know what fish to buy?

    Just ask the Monterrey Bay Aqauarium. Born out of a modest exhibition called “Fishing for Solutions,” the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program is one of the largest and most extensive sustainable seafood programs out there. They provide pocket guides for all over the United States that give a simple classification to the types of seafood you’re likely to see in your area. They break fish options into three categories: Green for Best Choices, Yellow for Good Alternatives, and Red for those to Avoid. At the grocery store in California and can’t decide between Rainbow Trout and Monkfish? Check the colors. Green means go on the trout!

    Turning the Tide, the Monterey Bay Aqaurium’s new publication about overfish – click to read

    These simple categories factor in all kinds of information, from stock status and vulnerability to fishing pressure to the nature and extent of the bycatch created by the fishing method. And they aren’t limited to rating just wild-caught species. Aquacultures and farmed fish are rated on their use of marine resources, risk of escapes, disease & pollution, and overall management. All this info is packed neatly into fresh pocket guides twice a year, giving you the most up to date information on which fish are environmentally friendly and which are not. With some fish, the method is really what counts (like Cod). If you’re not sure what method your fish is fished with, check the packaging or ask the guy behind the fish counter. If it isn’t listed, and they can’t tell you, then pick an option you’re sure is a good choice instead. Many stores, though, will have it right on the package if its wild-caught, farmed, or local.

    The one thing that doesn’t factor into the guides is the relative nutrition of the species from our perspective. While some do have health warnings, generally speaking, the guides are designed to talk about what choice is good for ocean health, not human health. This is, of course, until recently, when Seafood Watch announced its “Super Green” list. This group are the creme de la creme of seafood choices – they’re the most sustainable fish that also happen to be high in long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids and low in environmental contaminants like mercury. This effort draws from experts in human health, notably scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), to combine the best of both worlds: sustainability and good nutrition.

    Note: Both charts can be re-categorized by clicking on the column headings

    Seafood Watch List, Super Green List (as of October 2009)
    Fish Growing Method Source
    Albacore Tuna Troll or Pole-caught US or British Columbia
    Mussels Farmed Anywhere
    Oysters Farmed Anywhere
    Pacific Sardines Wild-caught Pacific Waters
    Pink Shrimp Wild-caught Oregon
    Rainbow Trout Farmed US, likely
    Salmon (any variety) Wild-Caught Alaskan
    Spot Prawns Wild-caught British Columbia

    Full list can be found on our website:

    Other groups have put out similar lists that highlight both nutrition and sustainability. One of the other great ones is produced by the Washington State Department of Health. Their “Healthy Fish Guide” lists the fish that are lowest in contamination, with special notes to those that are high in Omega-3s and warnings in orange that show a particular fish or method is unsustainable. In general, these user-friendly guides allow us to make smarter choices that improve our lives while decreasing the impact we have on our environment.

    As always when buying fish, be sure that it’s properly stored and/or fresh (for tips on how, check out the FDA’s page on seafood). If you’re buying frozen fish, here’s a tip I learned from my grandmother – try defrosting it in milk. The fish turns out much more tasty, flaky and moist (at least from my experience)! And if you’re looking for some great recipes for the Super Green options, check out the Seafood Watch’s recipe site. They’re adding new ones every month to promote people to eat their choices for the most sustainable healthy seafood. In turn, your smarter choices at the grocery store will hopefully convince the money-minded fisheries managers that sustainability is important, and they will stop over harvesting our oceans so that there’s plenty of fish for generations to come to enjoy.

    Read Turning the Tide – put out by the Monterey Bay Aquarium.  It will teach you about the current state of the oceans as they relate to seafood production and how we can move towards more sustainable solutions:

    Special thanks to Alison Barratt, Communications Associate Manager at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, for giving me the full info on sustainable seafood!

  • 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
  • Food System 2.0: Can New Approaches Make Local Food Happen?

    Food System 2.0: Can New Approaches Make Local Food Happen?

    What is the price of food? $3.99 for a gallon of milk? $0.99 for an energy bar? Complex market and policy forces make those prices. Its a process that starts far from the point of sale.

    Centralizing our food into fast food chains and supermarkets causes the farms that feed the system to scale up into mega-sized operations. The idyllic, diverse farms of American lore were long ago converted into monocrop fields of staple grains, hog farms with hundreds of thousands of head and distribution centers bigger than football fields.

    A moment at the supermarket… thanks to flickr user Fazen

    In economic terms, food has simply migrated to areas with the a comparative advantage in production. California, for example, now grows over 50% of all the vegetables in the entire country – simply because they have a 12 month growing season. But how do you make food scale back to something more reasonable, a new system in which communities connect with the food being grown there? Is it even possible, nay desirable?

    We saw a couple examples of new approaches to these questions in the San Francisco area during our Tour of America recently. One deals with technology while the other with community. Both are necessary components in what should become Food System 2.0.

    From Ideals to Reality

    On a sunny afternoon in San Francisco, we sat down with Melanie Cheng, founder of Farmsreach.com. FarmsReach does what it says: it puts farms directly within reach of their marketplace. But don’t think of the service as a digital farmers market, as we made the mistake of doing. The genius of the system comes in their measured approach to tackling the economics of local food.

    Cheng started out as a technical writer, working with Silicon Valley giant Cisco. This technical background came in handy as she began to turn her attention to food. The environmental impact of agriculture was her first focus, which culminated in the non-profit OMorganics.

    She quickly realized the main obstacle in the sustainable agriculture world was a lack of information and marketplace – causing a shift from environmental issues into more broadly seeing food access as a uniting factor. This revelation began to shift Om Organics from information to technology, out of the non-profit sphere into what we know today as FarmsReach.com.

    Their first prototype was to connect restaurant chefs with farmers through farm co-ops and aggregators – a focus that proved too time consuming to be profitable. The core need to connect farms with commercial buyers still remained however, so with their first public release FarmsReach.com, the focus was helping farms sell directly to buyers. Cheng used an interesting approach to get these small farms to scale up to restaurant sizes: combine them.

    What Farms Reach Looks Like

    It was with larger restaurant accounts that could do multiple orders at once that Farmsreach.com was born. The service aggregates sellers – in this case farmers – so restauranteurs and institutional food buyers have an easier way to interface directly with sustainable and local growers.

    Cheng’s team has tested the current platform in seven different regions, trying to slowly build out new features the community requests, like ratings for participants and inventory management for restaurants. The platform is young having only formally launched earlier this year, but it was our impression that the combination of a great idea, a strong team and patient investors will eventually make FarmsReach a big commercial component of a burgeoning new food system.

    The Smaller Side of Food

    But what if you aren’t a large restaurant? How do you get access to better food? Sara Weihmann, co-founder and director of All Edibles sees edible landscaping as filling that important gap in the current food system. After completing a Green MBA in 2006, Weihmann looked at various environmental and social justice issues like green building and biodiesel production before the food world came calling.

    Weihmann and her co-workers at All Edibles add edible plants to existing homes in the form of pleasant looking landscaping mostly in the ‘East Bay’ area of the San Francisco region, Berkeley and Oakland. They help homeowners connect with their food by teaching seasonal eating, planting in cycles to ensure constant food production and generally educating their customers on how to grow food.

    An example of an All Edibles Installation in the Bay Area

    The real take home message with their services is turning consumers into producers, mostly through educating clients on the processes that make local food a superior choice to conventional supermarkets. Improved local environments, food quality and convenience become selling points over the predictability of supermarkets after the clients see their food coming out of their own yards, Weihmann explained. Her goal is to eventually transform her work into a curriculum for schools and nursing homes, educating those that usually have the least connection with food – and the most time on their hands to participate.

    The Economic Side of Food

    These diverse food system interventions are merely novel at this time, experiments into a new method of food distribution that aims beyond the bottom line. No new system will succeed without a profitable economic base.

    Food Income Chart – click for detail

    Our specialized system has driven the costs of food down to levels that are the envy of the world – which is hard to argue – or compete – against. Americans spend only about 10-12% of their income on food, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see this NYTimes infographic to better understand). That’s one of the lowest percentages in the world. The foods that make up that chunk of the economy are heavily influenced by subsidies from the Farm Bill, a sprawling piece of legislation that incentivizes certain crops. For example, corn farmers have received a staggering $56 billion in subsidies over the last 10 years.

    Farms Reach and All Edibles are attempts to change that paradigm. They are trying to circumvent the traditional food system by introducing market forces and genuine community elements to what has long been a faceless production. Remedying the larger policy apparatus around food will have to follow these trailblazing attempts to augment the system but there is another tangential issue at hand here which could change the debate – health care.

    From Reaction to Prevention

    As the US contemplates how to remake the health care system, the Congressional Budgeting Office reminds us that America already spends 16% of its GDP on healthcare, by far the highest percentage in the world.  Using nutrition and novel market attempts like Farms Reach and All Edible to get the right foods into the right hands could be an important part of getting Americans to put more money into the food side of the equation – and less into fixing preventable diseases later on. Preventative medicine interventions have long been ignored, said Patricia Lebensohn, Associate Professor of Clinical Family and Community Medicine at The University of Arizona’s Integrative Medicine in Residency Program.

    Mediterranean Watermelon Salad, by the Foodista Blog

    Our current food and health states in America are efficient monetarily but woefully inefficient in other less measurable ways. Lebensohn spoke to the ways in which the Tucson-based interactive program gets front line medical practitioners to consider the person on more holistic level – and a big component of that is nutrition intervention. University of Arizona preaches a Mediterranean diet – heavy in whole grains, vegetables and fish – as a good approach for most practitioners. Frequently, the same residents receive training in how to use diet as a tool to make the body heal itself, added Lebensohn.

    Connecting food to health is a major aim of the University’s program – but it goes hand in hand with other environmental, social and moral aspects of the food system that need updating. Approaching this problem from both the educational/government side like Lebensohn and the Weil Center while using new ventures from the likes of Cheng and Weihmann are just the kind of multi-faceted, entrepreneurial approaches to these large questions that are uniquely American.

    Remember, it was only about 10,000 short years ago that we even discovered farming in the first place. It shouldn’t take that long to integrate these methods into a food system that nourishes us into the next century – and the one after that.

  • Does Sugar Make You Violent?

    Does Sugar Make You Violent?

    If you read the nutrition science headlines, you might have seen these: “Giving in to pester power can make your child a thug” or “Daily sweets ‘linked to violence’“. They refer to a new paper that just came out which claims that eating sugary snacks every day as a child has an impact on your behavior as an adult. The idea seems impossible. I mean, sure, we all have thought about slugging that really slow guy in the line in front of us at the ice cream parlor when we’re craving a nice, double scoop of Death by Chocolate. But giving my child a piece of chocolate after dinner every night can’t make him into a violent person… Or can it?

    The researchers explain that it’s possible that giving children sweets and chocolate regularly may alter their adult behaviors directly, because of simply eating sugar, or indirectly, because it prevents kids from learning self control. The idea is that if they’re given what they want when they want, they lean towards impulsive behavior, which previous research has strongly associated with delinquency.

    Do these drive kids mad?

    But no one had ever looked at whether there are long term effects of childhood diet on adult behavior. So, researchers from Cardiff University decided to analyze at the relationship between adulthood violence and childhood diet using survey data of almost 17,500 people to see if eating sweets as a kid makes people more violent. They say it does, but critics of the research are not so sure. Julian Hunt, the director of communications for the British Food and Drink Federation, was quoted as saying:

    “This is either utter nonsense or a very bad April Fool’s Day joke… Anti-social behavior…is not linked to whether or not you ate sweeties as a kid.”

    Can a childhood sweet-tooth make you violent as an adult? Read how the study was conducted and its conclusions, and you be the judge:

    The Study

    Dr Simon Moore and his colleagues were able to use a previously-collected data set of 17,415 people which were surveyed at ages 5, 10 and 34. The participating people and their parents were questioned about health, education, and other life factors like whether they owned a car. When the study participants were 10, they were asked how often they ate sweets, and their answers were grouped into “every day” or “less often/never”. Later, at age 34, the participants self-reported convictions for violent offenses. The research team then statistically compared the likelihood that sweet-eating at a younger age affected a participant’s likelihood of being violent later on.

    The Results

    According to the study, you really should keep your kids away from sweets: those that ate them every day at age 10 were significantly more likely to have been convicted for violence at age 34, even when other factors like parenting behavior, the area where the child lived, not having educational qualifications after the age of 16 and whether they had access to a car. Sweets were eaten daily as a ten year old by 69% of the violent offenders but only 42% of the non-violent participants. Researchers indicate that this is a strong connection which can’t be ignored.

    But…What?

    While the study shows that sweets might have an impact on behavior, it does have many drawbacks.

    Firstly, the scientists had a very crude measure of sweets intake. It’s clear from the breakdown of “every day” and “not” that they aren’t nutritionists, they’re psychiatrists. A better study would have looked at the volume, weight and kind of sweets eaten over a number of childhood years to fully appreciate the children’s dietary habits. After all, one chocolate bar is very different from a bag of sour patch kids nutritionally. And they didn’t even include soda and sugary drinks… c’mon!

    Secondly, the number of violent offenders in the group was so small, statistically speaking, that it was harder to determine differences between population groups. Moreover, there were large numbers of sweet-eaters in both non-violent and violent subsets, so the causal link between the two is a little shaky.

    You would expect that if the sweets themselves or the constant pandering to a child’s demands had a marked impact on behavior, much less than 42% of the non-violent people would have had daily sweets.

    Thirdly, as it was taken from a general survey study, the questions themselves were not designed to examine the relationship between diet and behavior in detail. It didn’t include questions about aspects of life that may have been important, including big ones like family income. While this doesn’t mean that the results of the data are invalid, it does mean that they may be incomplete, and those missing pieces might contain pertinent information.

    Lastly, in general, there are a number of reasons why children who eat more sweets might have violent records later in life, most of which are not caused by sugar or giving in to kids demands. Leaving out certain measures of socioeconomic status is a huge mistake on the researchers part, because in general, many aspects of diet, especially including sugar intake, have been shown to be linked to social class and money situations – factors which also have an influence on crime. As well, the study didn’t overall account for whether violence-prone children happen to prefer sweets more than other kids, thus reversing the presumed causal relationship between eating sweets and being violent.

    Personally, I think that while this study is interesting, it’s weaknesses make it far from conclusive. I’d like to see a much more carefully designed experiment look at the relationship between childhood diet and adult aggression. But, at the same rate, it might not hurt to say no to your kids every once in a while when they ask for treats. After all, learning self control and discipline has never been linked to becoming a violent offender.

    Reference:

    Moore, S., Carter, L., & van Goozen, S. (2009). Confectionery consumption in childhood and adult violence The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195 (4), 366-367 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.061820

  • Food Safety as a Marketing Tool: USDA Monterey Hearings on NLGMA (Day 3)

    Food Safety as a Marketing Tool: USDA Monterey Hearings on NLGMA (Day 3)

    Nutrition Wonderland is now up in Monterey, CA as part of our Tour of America and today we are attending the first of the USDA’s hearings on nationally adopting the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (LGMA). This new proposal, dubbed the NLGMA, would extend the existing agreement that covers California and Arizona across the entire nation – even extending into Canadian and Mexican imports.

    Harvesting in Salinas Valley

    While it may seem a bit much to cover such a specific agreement, it is important to note that in this case, the USDA is literally borrowing a regulatory framework from industry – which is unusual. In fact industry, in this case Western Growers, is asking the USDA to adopt this policy at a national level. And remember, the LGMA only exists because of the massive consumer boycott that followed the 2006 e.coli outbreak in spinach. Consequently, it has been highly contentious with numerous public interest groups speaking out against the measure. We wanted to take a closer look at what is really being talked about here and how it would impact the small farmers it is largely targeting.

    Full Steam Ahead

    The first person we saw at the USDA hearing was Laura Mills, representative from Metz Fresh, a major handler/shipper for 10 large leafy greens growers. Most of her testimony was based around the idea of industry specific Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs). She talked about the lengths LGMA signatories would go in order to meet – and often exceed – their own guidelines. Remember, LGMA was set up by the growers themselves, large ones at least, so the 2006 e.coli incident would never happen again.

    Most of this behavior was fueled by ever pickier buyers says Mills. Don’t think of buyers as consumers, rather buyers refers to actors in the wholesale market – say Whole Foods or Safeway buying from a farm. These same buyers now look to growers who can exceed the LGMA standards by meeting supermetrics, as they were coined throughout the debate. Exceeding those LGMA standards sometimes comes with some severe environmental consequences, a topic we will cover in detail tomorrow but, industry reminds us, the result of this extra work is a safer food supply.

    The consumers dictate the market and the buyers relay those signals upstream to the growers, says Mills. Safer food is the message being sent up the supply chain and LGMA is meeting those expectations. The question then becomes – just how safe do we want our food?

    Hold Your Horses

    One of the best counterpoints of the day was a gentleman named David Runsten, director of the non-profit Community Alliance for Family Farmers (CAFF). This group of both large and small growers said they stand against the NLGMA. Runsten contends some very large leafy greens growers are also members in CAFF but we did not independently verify that. His general idea was completely the opposite of Mills, arguing against different standards for different crops. Small growers may have 1/2 acre plots of up to 100 different types of produce – especially for farmers targeting minority communities, Runsten added.

     

    Case in point, we met the Yang Farm at the Silverlake Farmer’s Market in Los Angeles earlier this week. They had a host of crops catering to an asian tongue, like bitter mellon, chinese eggplant and asian pears. If there were an NLGMA for a variety of different crops, farms like Yang’s could be put into financial jeopardy – or more likely, they would simply stop growing the more regulatory onerous ones. When you see the diversity of crops local growers showcase at farmer’s markets, it gives Runsten’s argument significant weight in our minds.

    Runsten’s continued in some other compelling ways. He mentioned the idea of leafy greens itself is a marketing term, a point lost on many in audience it seemed. This gets more contentious when you consider where to place truly leafy greens like cabbage, collard and mustard greens. As of now, they are outside the LGMA but still leafy and green – just not inside the industry fresh cut green packs we see in the stores, so they remain outside of the regulatory framework.

    Case Study – California Strawberry Commission

    Regulation is not the only path large growers can take to enhance food safety. Annika Forrester, the Food Safety and Grower Communications Specialist for the California Strawberry Commission, spoke with Nutrition Wonderland last week about how she helped develop a major new program to educate migrant farm workers about proper safety and sanitation in the fields.

    The Commission became more interested in protecting its industry after a hepatitis outbreak in Guatemalan strawberries decimated the market for strawberries in America during the late 1990s, much the same way greens growers reacted. Couple the loss with the fact strawberries are field packed – that is the field workers literally package the berries you would find in your supermarket – this crop was ready for some food safety attention.

    Forrester helped create an educational food safety flip chart which acts as a graphical guide, engineered to overcome language barriers common among migrant farm workers. Forrester mentioned specifically that migrant worker managers, often Mexican, have problems communicating with their employees, now coming from deeper in Mexico – regions like Chiapas and Oaxaca that are traditionally Mayan, where Spanish itself is a second language.

    The California Strawberry Commission holds training sessions around California, educating the managerial work force directly, so they can train their farms hand in better sanitation practices. The program has been implemented in early 2009 and so far, over 500 managers have been trained – using the flip chart to educate another 35,000 field workers by Forrester’s estimates.

    Is It Really Large Versus Small?

    Large organizations, as a whole, do not see food safety as an unnecessary burden. Both the leafy greens growers and strawberry growers are taking steps, albeit very different ones. One point is universal though: everyone is eager to have a more streamlined regulatory framework. We heard from Drew McDonald of Taylor Farms, the largest processor of leafy greens at the USDA hearing, that lacking a coherent food safety agreement was a key reason the LGMA was created in the first place.

    In the absence of such an overarching food safety agreement, self regulation becomes a marketing tool. Think of the way Volvo established itself as a car brand: safety IS a marketable aspect of all types of products. With leafy greens, large growers can say they have a procedure where smaller ones cannot and use that to raise prices. The market for local foods is now so strong, smaller farms can differentiate themselves in the market in other ways outside of safety without this agreement – like sustainability or biodiversity for example. Smart industry here would see LGMA as a marketing weapon they can use to establish a competing cache to the local scene.

    Instead, what we saw here is that opinions on moving towards a national LGMA, an NLGMA, broke down into familiar categories. Large packers and handlers were strongly supportive of expanding the existing agreement – largely because they have nothing to lose. According to testimony at the USDA’s Monterey hearing, 90% of all leafy greens are currently covered under the agreement already – so applying that protocol nationally costs nothing to large growers/handlers because they are already doing it. Smaller, local farms that have not implemented the extra safety protocol would face substantial costs, estimated at between $25-50/acre (figure given during hearings).

    Some Final Thoughts

    But the real question here is why apply bother with all of this? Local, small leafy greens operations have not had any reason to implement anything like this because there has never been a large scale outbreak from those operations. Despite being asked by the USDA, no grower or packer could cite an outbreak having come from a farmer’s market. All of the contamination in leafy greens has come large scale producers – think back to the bagged spinach. It was not an isolated incident either.

    This all makes some sense if you think about it. Small growers do not have large distribution networks, so even if there was a localized outbreak it would stay localized. In that sense, the CAFF opinion makes the most sense – extend the LGMA solely to fresh cut products and leave the rest out. That view ignores the contentious small/large farm dichotomy and instead focuses extra safety measures on where the problem has been – with distributor fresh cut product.

    We will have to see how the situation develops, as there are 7-8 more of these events around the country. Simultaneously, the major food safety legislation before the Congress has now moved over to the senate, changing names from HR 2479 to S 510. As all of this advances, we will continue to look deeply into the issues for you.

    —————-

    This is coverage for Nutrition Wonderland’s Tour of America, Day 3.