When you hear health messages about cancer or any disease do you find yourself filtering it out? If you do, this next sentence might cause you to stop reading, but please continue because there's a point I'm hoping to make. At the time of writing this, statistics say that one out of eight women will get breast cancer in their lifetime (American Cancer Society). Are you still reading? That's good, because the purpose of sharing that statistic was to illustrate that even though we frequently hear these kinds of health messages, we don't always feel connected to them.
Perhaps you might be thinking as I did when hearing those numbers, wow, that sounds like a lot, but I'm not going to be the one. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking often translates into inaction. Statistical health data, although sometimes shocking and troubling, may not be meaningful enough to inspire change for some of us.
If you find that you aren't motivated by statistics, you're not alone. Evidence suggests that health messages which highlight health consequences and the numbers of people who get disease aren't as effective as was once thought. What can be more successful in motivating change in health behaviors are messages that focus on causes and solutions for disease (McKenzie).
Obviously there is no clear solution to breast cancer at this point in time. However, there is a great deal of data available that is linking lifestyle factors with increased risk.
There may be no sure way to prevent breast cancer yet. However, this doesn't mean we're powerless. Our best prevention strategy is to take steps to reduce our risk factors as much as possible. So, let's take a closer look at the modifiable risk factors. In other words, the things we can do to lower the probability of becoming one out of eight women who will get breast cancer.
A few Prevention Strategies
Excercise- Enough said.
Avoid weight gain and obesity - Exercise and healthy nutrition are the keys. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a gain in body mass index (BMI) may substantially increase a women's risk for breast cancer, especially after menopause.The NCI states, " In a recent analysis, women who reported a gain in BMI of five points or more between age 20 and postmenopausal age (ages 55-74) had nearly twice the risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer compared to women who maintained their BMI during the same time period." You can read more about BMI in this post here.
Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables - Preferably organic. Organically grown produce lowers exposure to pesticides which can effect hormone levels, particularly estrogen dominance.
Have your vitamin D levels checked - A low level of Vitamin D is linked to increased risk for breast cancer.
Reduce chronic inflammation - I've blogged about this very important element of cancer prevention here, but simply put, if our immune system is preoccupied and overwhelmed responding to environmental and food stressors, it's possible that it can miss the angiogenesis of a sneaky cancer cell.
Here's some additional information about eating "nutritarian" from Dr. Fuhrman's informative website which explains how to support our wellness with healthy nutrition. The foods we eat can either support or oppose our bodies. Experts now agree that there are even so-called power foods that do an especially good job of restoring our bodies.
So, rather than tuning out messages about disease, consider the strategies that you can incorporate into your lifestyle that will help prevent illness from starting in the first place - because "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Sources
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/f861009final90809pdf.pdf
McKenzie, J. An Introduction to Community Health, 5th ed.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/
NCI - http://benchmarks.cancer.gov/2010/04/gain-in-body-mass-index-increases-postmenopausal-breast-cancer-risk/
Breast Cancer.org http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics
Breast Cancer.org http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/low_vit_d
A pandemic doesn't bring images of good health to mind. Certainly, COVID has brought much devastation and suffering. But what if we looked at this differently? Wellness isn't just about being physically healthy. It's so much more! We must believe that even if we're coping with the effects of an illness, COVID or any disease as contradictory as it sounds, it's still possible to be well.
Western medicine typically defines wellness as an absence of disease. However, when people who have chronic diseases like diabetes or heart disease were asked about their sense of well being, they reflected on how their focus wasn't on the diseases or its limitations. Their sense of well being was connected to how they were living well with the disease (1)
Research has shown that there are specific factors that aid in wellness:
social connectedness
lifestyle behaviors
stress and resilience
emotional health
physical health
meaning and purpose
sense of self
finances
spirituality or religiosity
exploration and creativity
Social connectedness is at the top of the list for a reason. It's the aspect most frequently mentioned and the one that seems to carry more weight on both the positive and negative side of the wellness equation. We all know that relationships can bring both joy and sorrow, but the most important aspect of relationships for wellness was that one felt a sense of connection. After all, we humans are social beings. So, it's important in this time of "social distancing" to find ways to stay connected, whatever that may mean for you.
During this time of living with COVID, the wellness domains mentioned above can be a kind of roadmap with way points for us.
Think about our social network and how we might connect more.
What healthy lifestyle behaviors can we begin or bolster?
Eating better?
Less screen time or taking frequent breaks?
Injecting more physical activity into our day, like walking and stretching, get outside. Just being outdoors was shown to have positive health benefits. (2)
Adopt a laser focus on solutions and not problems. This kind of thinking is empowering and reduces the stress of feeling stuck and powerless.
With many of us jobless as a result of the pandemic, we may feel like we've lost meaning and purpose in our lives. Strive to reframe a problem as a challenge or an opportunity. Research shows that when we do this with our negative life experiences we give them a different meaning and power. (3) We can't always control what happens to us, but we can control how we react.
Let's be kind to ourselves and to others. We are in this together!
Developing our spiritual health might look like: practicing mindfulness, staying in the present moment, extending forgiveness, having empathy and compassion, and perhaps having faith that a Higher Power greater than us is in control.
Being well during a pandemic might sound like an oxymoron, but it's possible even given all the real challenges and traumas. We have to determine and define our personal meaning of wellness and go for it. Be well!
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." ~Martin Luther King, Jr.
References
1) Stanford Medicine - Well Now https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2016summer/well-now.html
2) Scientific Reports - Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and well being https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44097-3
3) Reframing trauma - Journal of Psychiatry https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/preframing-trauma-the-transformative-power-of-meaning-in-life-work-and-communityp.html
Let's face it. From the moment we're born our bodies begin to age. However, for most of us healthy folks the reality of aging doesn't have to mean a major decline in the quality of our lives. Why? Read on my curious aging friends. The clock is ticking...
You may be familiar with the expression "use it or lose it." Well, this couldn't be more true when it comes to aging and the decline of muscle. In case you're thinking that this only applies to really old people, think again. According to Dr. Mark Peterson from the University of Michigan Physical Activity and Exercise Intervention Research Laboratory,
"normally, adults who are sedentary beyond age 50 can expect muscle loss of up to 0.4 pounds a year. That only worsens as people age. But even earlier in adulthood - the thirties, forties and fifties - you can begin to see declines, if you don't engage in any strengthening activities."
"after age 40, people typicallylose8 percent or moreof their muscle mass each decade,a process that accelerates significantly after age 70. Less muscle mass generally means less strength, mobility and among the elderly, independence. It also has been linked with premature mortality." (1)
I'd venture to say that most of us want our "golden" years to be, well, golden. In other words, it would be ideal if quality and quantity of life marched along at the same pace. However, for many people, an increase in quantity of life comes with a relatively rapid decline in quality of life.
Until fairly recently, muscle atrophy was thought to be a natural part of aging and that this decline was inevitable and, more importantly, irreversible. However, research has repeatedly shown the opposite to be true! In one 2007 ground breaking study of resistance exercise and how it reverses aging in human skeletal muscle done by S. Melov, et. al. it was demonstrated that muscle decline is reversible with weight training and the changes occur at the gene level! This is exciting because it proves that performing resistance training really does offer us a fountain of youth so to speak.
What does all this mean for us in a practical sense? Call me Captain Obvious, but I'll state it none the less - first and foremost, we have to perform resistance training! Some of you might be saying, okay, already, I've got the message. Resistance training is important, but what should I be doing in my resistance training program? Good question!
I had the pleasure of attending a workshop given by Mark Roozen, who was the strength coach for the Cleveland Browns. The information he presented focused on the importance of training movements patterns, before focusing on individual muscle strength. You might be wondering what constitutes a movement pattern. Humans have 7 primary movement patterns that we learn and refine over the course of our lives. These are:
Gait - walking, running, sprinting
Squatting
Lunging
Pulling
Pushing
Pressing
Twisting
Now, it may surprise you as it did me to learn that even elite athletes like the pro football players Mark works with may have to return to the basics. Mastery of these movement patterns is critical to the prevention of injury, and to the ability to train to full potential. This applies to all of us - from weekend warriors to elite athletes and everywhere in between.
Training movement patterns is a more efficient way to train the body than isolation training because it mimics the way our bodies perform in our activities of daily living. Ultimately this is what healthy aging is all about - training our bodies to be efficient in performing activities of daily living.
So how do we incorporate these movement patterns into our resistance training workouts? Consider the following:
Movement planes and the axes in which movements take place
Image from http://kintasticscleanandjerkproject.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/4/17146288/7514150_orig.jpg
incorporate the 7 movement patterns
Ex: Squats, Lunges, Cleans, Deadlifts, Bench and Military Presses
If you're over age 50 and/or previously sedentary consider starting a resistance training program that uses your body weight. For example you can start with simple squats like chair squats and lunges (knees permitting), etc. NOTE: exercises may be challenging for those new to resistance training. Start slow and with the basics. This means performing stationary exercises in one plane and then progressing to movements that incorporate more weight and multi-planes. Always consult your physician before beginning any exercise program.
The next post will go into more specifics about particular functional resistance training exercises. For now suffice to say, just start training because the evidence is clear. Resistance training really can be the fountain of youth! Adding functional resistance training exercises is an excellent way to increase the strength, agility and stability needed to perform activities of daily living and to maintain or improve our quality of life as we age.
Still not convinced? Check out this excellent article by Dr. Wayne Wescott found here, which details the many health benefits gained through resistance training.
(1) Source: Reynolds, Gretchen. “Aging Well Through Exercise,” The New York Times.
It's that time of year when I see red, even though October is all about the color pink. That's because it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Here in the states it's referred to as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM), and even the White House is wearing pink! This whole pink thing is really getting old and frankly, since going through my own breast cancer experience, I find I'm actually angered by it all. Now that I've gotten that off of my, er, dare I say, chest - I'll get straight to the issue. How could a positive thing like raising awareness about cancer rouse me to anger?
Well, before I tackle that question, I want to be clear that this isn't going to be a post bashing America, or medical experts, researchers, charities or any others that have made a positive difference in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer or any cancer. My family and I have personally benefited from these things, and I am especially grateful for early detection. My hope is that this post will provide some food for thought.
Experts agree that an increased awareness about a disease may encourage a person to receive medical screening that can lead to early detection (6). Obviously, this is a good thing. But after more than 25 years of raising awareness, is NBCAM actually impacting the early diagnosis of breast cancer? A recent study published in the Journal of Health Economics researched this question and they found the answer is no, not any more (1). So, if NBCAM is no longer effectively raising public awareness about breast cancer or encouraging early detection via screening, than why is it we are seeing more pink than ever? I believe it's because breast cancer has turned into a profit generating industry, and I'm not alone in this thinking.
Profiteering of breast cancer? -
What ever happened to the thinking that:
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin's quote holds true for those of us health seekers doing our best to prevent disease. But how does this resonate with, for example, a pharmaceutical company, whose bottom line is to make a profit? Let's face it, there's just not much money to be made in preventing breast cancer, or any cancer for that matter. Consider the primary breast cancer treatments to date: slash, burn and poison, otherwise known as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. In a previous post I discussed an instance where a pharmaceutical company that produced a chemotherapy drug also made a bovine growth hormone being used in dairy cows. This hormone has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer (5). But, hey, we've got a drug for that.
Whose interests are being served here? This is just one sad example of how some corporations have turned breast cancer into a profitable industry. Breast Cancer Action explains it this way:
"The cancer industry consists of corporations, organizations, and agencies that diminish or mask the extent of the cancer problem, fail to protect our health, or divert attention away from the importance of finding and working to prevent the disease. This includes drug companies that, in addition to profiting from cancer treatment drugs, sometimes produce toxic chemicals that may be contributing to the high rates of cancer in this country and increasing rates throughout the world. It also includes the polluting industries that continue to release substances that are known or suspected to be dangerous to our health, and the public relations firms and public agencies that protect these polluters. The cancer industry includes organizations like the American Cancer Society that downplay the risk of cancer from pesticides and other environmental factors, and that historically have refused to take a stand on environmental regulation. " (3).
More to NBCAM than meets the eye?-
So what does National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) have to do with this? Well, let's see. According to Wiki, NBCAM "is an annual international health campaign organized by major breast cancer charities every October to increase awareness of the disease and to raise funds for research into its cause, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure. The campaign also offers information and support to those affected by breast cancer. As well as providing a platform for breast cancer charities to raise awareness of their work and of the disease, BCAM is also a prime opportunity to remind women to be breast aware for earlier detection." This sounds great doesn't it?
Well, if we look a little deeper, we find that NBCAM was formed by Imperial Chemical Industries, the creator of Tamoxifen, a breast cancer treatment drug. In the 90's, Imperial Chemical Industries spun off Zeneca Group. Then Zeneca merged with Astra and became Astra Zeneca, which formed a non profit arm that is known today as AstraZeneca Healthcare Foundation, one of the largest financial contributors to NBCAM. Astra Zeneca also created and markets Arimidex, another breast cancer treatment drug. CancerCares was also involved in the formation of NBCAM. A look at their donors reveals several pharmaceutical companies as well. So, what message would you want to spread if you were a drug manufacturer financially invested in breast cancer treatment medications? Probably not prevention.
I do want to acknowledge again that cancer treatment drugs are not bad. I'm just saying that it's a fact that pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money on the research and development of new drugs. Forbes published an article earlier this year that puts the dollar amount between a high of $12 billion and a low of $55 million (4). Considering the magnitude of expense to produce a drug, pharmaceutical companies must be under an enormous amount of pressure to deliver a drug that will generate revenue and for that they need a disease to treat. As I said earlier, there's no profit in prevention.
Pink washing -
This brings me to what has come to be known as the "pink washing" of breast cancer. You can read more about this here. The term "pink washer" has been used to describe a company "that purports to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink-ribboned product, but manufactures products that are linked to the disease" (Breast Cancer Action) (2). The point is non-profit organizations accepting donations from companies that stand to gain from their philanthropy seems to represent a conflict of interest to me. It's no wonder that little focus is being placed on breast cancer prevention! It's much more profitable for these powerful industries to keep the emphasis on looking for the so-called "cure", which is really just another word for drug treatment.
Awareness, screening and a cure are NOT prevention -
Let's face it, awareness, screening and early detection is a means to find disease, not prevent it. A cure is defined as the "restoration of health; recovery from disease" (7). Primary prevention of disease is about avoiding or reducing the risk factors for disease. After over 25 years of seeing pink, I think it's safe to say we are aware of breast cancer. I can't help but wonder where we would be now if that focus had been directed toward the prevention of breast cancer.
Well, we can't go back, but we can take action going forward! Let's think before we let our emotions be swayed by all things pink. Let's do some due diligence when donating to a charity. Where does our money go? How much of what is spent on that pink colored item will go toward breast cancer prevention research? What chemicals are in my pink marketed cosmetics or foods that my be adversely affecting my body? What's my elected official's stance on this topic? Let's tell those in government how we feel about these issues. Going forward we can shift the focus from awareness to prevention, because the only way we can be cancer free is by preventing cancer from occurring in the first place!
Really? -
Judging from the ever rising overweight/obesity rates in the United States, I think
it's safe to assume that a majority of Americans subscribe to the work
out less plan. I find it a bit alarming when scientific data is released and the news takes a portion of a study's findings out of context and reports on it. Typically we can end up misguided and confused. That's why it's so important to understand the bigger picture surrounding "sound bites" like this post's title. This reminds me of a radio ad that would, ironically, air while I was training at the gym. The advertisement was pushing a diet pill which promised weight loss without the "unhealthy stress and strain of exercise"! I'll spare you a rant, but I will say that the ad was eventually changed so that it did not include the word unhealthy. Calling exercise unhealthy is blatantly inaccurate. Yet, unfortunately this isn't obvious to everyone. But I digress...
What's going on? -
Saying that we can increase weight loss by working out less is ambiguous because this statement tells only part of the story. So, before you scratch that workout off your to-do list, please read on. According to a study published in the American College of Sports Medicine's (ACSM) Journal of Medical Science and Sports Exercise, it's possible to burn more calories and spend less time working out. However, the key to this result lies in how intensely you workout. Before I go on, it might be helpful to recall the caloric balance equation and its role in weight maintenance, and you can read more about this in a past post found here.
Image from CDC website
Consider a typical day of food consumption and energy expenditure. Simply put, if calories eaten exceed calories burned, we end up with a calorie surplus for that day and over time this leads to weight gain. On the other hand, if we burned more calories than we ate, than over time this leads to weight loss. If calories in are equal to calories out, the scale is in balance and weight is maintained. Another thing to keep in mind is that we are always expending energy, even while we're resting.
Back to the study - The researchers wanted to see what the energy expenditure at rest of males, aged 22 to 33, would be on a day when they performed a vigorous indoor cycling exercise bout vs. on "a controlled resting day" when they performed no exercise at all. I underlined and bold faced the word vigorous because this is very important to note. In this case vigorous exercise is defined as performing a physical activity at a level that causes you to be too out of breath to talk. Working out at this intensity level "resulted in a significant [emphasis added] elevation in post exercise energy expenditure, that persisted for 14 hours" after the exercise bout ended (ACSM).
Wow! This sheds some much needed light on that rather ambiguous statement that implies we can increase weight loss by working out less. Now we understand that it's possible to decrease the amount of time we spend working out, but this must be accompanied by an increase in the intensity of our workout to a vigorous level. This is because the research suggests that we can burn additional calories above and beyond what we burned during the workout, even while we're at rest! This is sometimes referred to as caloric after burn.
Here's the data: During the vigorous cycling bout these guys expended 520 calories (kcal). This isn't surprising because we all know exercise expends calories. We also know that vigorous exercise burns more calories than low and moderate intensity exercise. However, what is really exciting is that after the men finished exercising, and with their post exercise activity level restricted and monitored, they continued to burn an additional 190 calories (kcal) during the 14 hours after their workout, as compared with control days when the men were inactive. "The 190 calories burned after exercise above resting levels represented an additional 37% to the net energy expended during the 45-min cycling bout."
Bottom Line -
The study's test subjects were young men, so the results may not be the same for women, or for an older population. Also, we might not be able to workout at a vigorous level for 45 minutes. Given this and other studies on vigorous intensity exercise which show the added benefit of caloric after burn, it seems beneficial to try to incorporate little bouts of vigorous intensity exercise in our workouts. But if you've never exercised, or haven't worked out in years - BEGIN SLOWLY and always consult your physician before beginning any exercise program. Obviously any exercise is better than none, but I like the idea of putting in a little more effort, giving it a little less time and reaping bigger rewards from my workout. It seems like a win/win to me and that's no sound bite.
In the next post there will be some suggestions for vigorous intensity bout exercise programs and also a discussion relating to another study that shows bouts of vigorous intensity exercise have been shown to be beneficial in reducing inflammation in overweight and obese men. Chronic inflammation is linked to all kinds of health problems.
In the meantime, keep moving!
Sources CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html ACSM - American College of Sports Medicine - http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2011/09000/A_45_Minute_Vigorous_Exercise_Bout_Increases.6.aspx CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/index.html chronic inflammation - http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART02012/anti-inflammatory-diet
Are you ready for a food fight?! Sorry to disappoint if scenes from
Animal House are running through your mind, because it's not that kind
of fight to which I'm referring. The GMO conflict is waging on and at
the risk of sounding overly dramatic, the very essence of our food and
our health is at stake. One ongoing battle front for concerned American
consumers is the call for GM food labeling. Unlike most other
industrialized countries, the US doesn't label GM foods (1).
Just what is a GMO? -
I've posted about GM foods in the past, but in case you missed those posts (found here and here), I'll just briefly explain that GMO or GM are acronyms for Genetically Modified Organism. You may also see GE used, and this stands for Genetically Engineered.
GM foods are the result of taking specific selected gene(s) from one
kind of organism and placing them into a related or unrelated organism
(2). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), GMO's contain
genetic material that "has been altered in a way that does not occur
naturally" (2). In other words, not "present in, or produced by nature"
(8).
"It's not nice to fool mother nature" -
What's
wrong with the good, old, conventional, natural methods of breeding our
crops? Well, it's seems they're just too time consuming
and not very accurate. Never mind that this is how nature works. Biotechnology now allows scientists to modify
plants in a lab in order to
enhance certain desirable traits for crops such as drought tolerance and
pest and
disease resistance. For example, scientists can take a gene
from a bacterium that is resistant to an herbicide like Roundup and
insert it into a soybean plant cell to create a Roundup resistant
soybean (1). This is viewed as a major benefit to farming because now
farmers are able to plant these Roundup resistant GM seeds, known as
"Roundup ready" seeds, and then use Roundup to kill the weeds without
harming the crops. Are you sensing a theme here? The company that patented the Roundup ready seeds also patented the Roundup.
Well, I'm sure it will come as
no surprise to you to learn that there's more to the story, but that's for another post. For now, it might be helpful to know
how The World Health Organization answers the question of why foods are
being genetically modified. After all, they are looking out for the world's health. Here's what they have to say:
"GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both." [emphasis added]
Hmmm... Let's briefly examine two of the reasons stated in the WHO statement for why GM foods are developed and marketed:
product with a lower price
product with a greater benefit (durability or nutritional value or both)
Is less expensive food of greater benefit nutritionally? -
A
product with a lower price that has a greater benefit than a product
with a higher price would be outstanding. I love a bargain, but I'm no economist. However, it's
probably safe to say most of us would agree that getting something
valuable for a lesser cost seems like a good thing. So, in an effort to make
food cheaper and more abundant, cost effective and time efficient
farming practices have evolved over the decades. GM crops are one
result. Some advantages of GM foods are pest and disease resistance,
herbicide as well as cold, heat and drought tolerance, and even greater
nutritional benefit (3). On the other hand, as a very wise biology
professor once said, "for every yin, there's a yang", or put another
way, for every benefit, there's a consequence.
Admittedly, the modernization and
industrialization of farming practices have brought prices down
significantly on some foods. But ultimately at what cost? Consider that
the top GM crops are corn and soy which go into many processed foods (9). In
fact, "thousands of products on supermarket shelves are made with
ingredients from genetically modified crops" (9). For example, high
fructose corn syrup or soy protein is used frequently in the manufacture
of prepackaged convenience foods. Yes, the benefits of these foods are
that they're cheap and convenient, but there are consequences as well.
A
2006 report from the USDA Economic Research Service revealed
some interesting statistical trends on the percent of income American's
spent on food over the last 70 years. In 1930, Americans spent 24.2% of
their
income on food, compared with 9.5% in 2004 (4). Slate has broken it down
further by food eaten at home and compared the percentages by country
Image from: Slate.com
(shown in the bar graph at right). The point being, Americans are
paying a lower price for their food than at any other time in history
and are also spending less than most countries. If, as WHO states, GMO's
are being developed and marketed as products with a nutritional
benefit, is the benefit being reflected in the public health? Are Americans
healthier?
The fact is obesity rates in America are at the highest rates
ever recorded and the diseases that correspond with being
overweight/obese are increasing dramatically (5). You can check out the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) interesting animated
map here,
that shows by state how obesity rates have increased since 1985. The
map illustrates that during the past 20 years, "there has been a
dramatic increase in obesity in the United States and rates remain high.
In 2010, no state had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-six states had a prevalence of 25% or more and 12 of these states had a prevalence of 30% or more" (5).
Is the American penchant for inexpensive, fast, processed
and
prepackaged, GM foods coming with the unexpected cost of diminishing
health
and rising health care costs? According to the US
Surgeon General, "Obesity is the fastest growing cause of disease and
death in
America" (6). "One out of every eight deaths in America is caused by an
illness directly related to overweight and obesity" and this statement
was made back
in 2003 (6). Sadly, things haven't improved since then. Does the cheaper cost of GM foods balance out the health care costs of poor nutrition? According to
the National Institutes on Health, "on average,
people who are considered obese pay 42% more in health care costs than
normal-weight individuals" (7). Is there really a lower
price/increased nutritional benefit to GM foods?
GM food labeling-
Considering the
above information, the critical factor in maximizing our potential for
good health is good nutrition. This is only possible by having access to
healthy foods and having the ability to make informed decisions about
what foods we choose to eat. The fact that GM foods are not labeled in
the US makes this impossible. Bearing in mind a 2008 survey, found here,
which showed 87% of Americans polled felt labeling of GM food was necessary,
it would seem that the US government would enact a GMO labeling policy.
This has been proposed, but unfortunately still not enacted and surely standing to benefit most from GM foods will continue to insist the labeling of GM foods is unnecessary. Considering
the mounting research that shows evidence of harm from GMO's (10), it seems prudent to
let our government officials know that we feel the labeling of our foods
is highly important.
The following statement sums up succinctly the importance of making healthy food choices:
"Every day,
several times a day, you make food choices that influence your body's
health for better or worse. Each day's choices are repeated over years
and decades, the rewards or consequences become major. That being the
case, paying close attention to good eating now can bring you health
benefits later" (5).
Tips to Avoid GMO's:
So,
until GM food labeling becomes a reality, and this is a big question
mark right now, you will have to do a little due diligence to avoid
GMO's. You can limit your consumption of GMO's by making careful food
choices. Here are a few suggestions for ways to avoid GM foods:
Steer clear of the top 4 at risk ingredients found in prepackaged, processed convenience foods - corn, soy, cottonseed and canola.
Try to buy organic foods when possible.
Try to buy only grass fed meat or wild caught fish. Feed fed cattle and farm raised fish are likely to be fed GM food.
Watch out for GM sugar beet sugar which is on the market now.
For more suggestions visit the True Food Shopper's Guide, which includes specific name brand non GMO foods to buy or GM foods to avoid. They even have an app available for your smart phone. Lastly, please consider signing the petition found at the Institute for Responsible Technology. We need to let President Obama know that Americans want meaningful GM food labeling now, because the stance the US government
seems to be taking to human consumption of GMO's is that they are
innocent until proven guilty. This principle may work for the justice
system, but seems reckless when applied to our food supply, especially
considering how absolutely crucial food is to our health and very survival.
Sources (1)
Wikipedia, Genetically modified organisms, Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism August 2011
(2) World Health Organization, Food Safety
retrieved from
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
August 2011 (3) Whitman, D. B., Genetically
Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000, Retrieved from
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php August 2011 (4) US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Retrieved from http://www.ilfb2.org/fff06/51.pdf August 2011 (5)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/animated_map_slides/map26.jpg August
2011 (6) US Surgeon General Statement (7)
US Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of
Health, WIN, Retrieved from
http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm#overweight August 2011 (8) Free Dictionary, natural, Retrieved from www.thefreedictionary.com/natural, August 2011 (9) True Food Now, Retrieved from http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/ on August 2011 (10)
Responsible Technology, The Campaign for healthier eating in America,
Retrieved from http://www.responsibletechnology.org/docs/140.pdf August 2011
If you're considering eating for healing you might be wondering exactly what to eat. Obviously, there is an overwhelming variety of foods from which one can choose. Taking into account the fact that we should consume a certain amount of calories daily, it makes sense to select foods that provide the biggest nutritional benefit per calorie. Functional foods are an excellent choice because they provide health benefits that extend beyond basic nutrition (1).
Functional foods -
Be aware, however, that all functional foods aren't equally beneficial. This category of foods can also include processed foods which have been fortified or enriched with vitamins and minerals that are lost during manufacturing or storing (2). Processed wheat flour is an example of a fortified food because some B vitamins and iron are added back in to it after the refining process. Another instance of fortification is when micronutrients which aren't normally present in a food are added. Calcium enriched orange juice would be an example of this type of mineral enrichment (3). At first glance fortification and enrichment of foods seems like a good thing. However, I think it just makes sense to consume unprocessed foods that retain their naturally occurring, unaltered nutrients whenever possible.
So, let's take a look at one functional food that deserves more publicity - black rice. This unprocessed rice has been a staple for a large part of the world's population, but it's only recently gaining popularity here in the US. I'm not sure why it's taken so long to catch on because I love the delicious nutty taste, firm texture and exotic touch that black rice adds to any dish. Not only does this rice look and taste good, but it's health benefits are outstanding.
Health benefits -
Research has shown that consuming black rice reduces the build up of plaque in the arteries and it also helps to reduce inflammation (4). These health benefits are thought to be the result of the intact outer bran layer that black rice retains. White rice, on the other hand, loses this outer bran layer during processing. In addition, research published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry reported on the effects of black rice bran on skin inflammation in lab mice. This study found that the black rice reduced inflammation by 32%, compared to controls and these benefits weren't seen in tests performed with brown rice extracts (5). These results show the potential anti-inflammatory and anti-allergenic benefits that black rice bran possesses. For those looking to reduce chronic inflammation, I think this food is definitely worth adding to your diet.
Here's a quick, easy and tasty recipe suggestion: Asian Black Rice Stir Fry
Black Rice - cook per package directions (I found the Forbidden Rice brand at Market Street)
julienne carrots
Fresh pea pods
sliced red and yellow peppers
sliced green onion
sliced bok choy
julienne squash
ginger
handful of sesame seeds
cashews
After you've prepped the vegetables, heat grapeseed oil in a wok and add the vegetables in the order listed and cook until tender but crisp. Add organic sesame oil and tamari to taste, stir and top with cashews and enjoy.
Emerging science is giving us a better understanding of how the nutrients in the foods we eat can effect our health, and black rice is just one example of an excellent functional food. So, when faced with the decision of what to eat for our next meal it's important to consider our bodies' unique and specific needs, and then choose foods that will support these needs. The next post will discuss functional foods in more detail. Until then, when planning your menus over the next few weeks, I encourage you to keep in mind this quote from Hippocrates: "Let food be thy medicine..."
Sources (1) University of Michigan - http://www.med.umich.edu/mfit/nutrition/knowhow/pdfs/FuncFoodsExamples.pdf (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_food (3) http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/faqid/fortified-enriched-food-products/ (3) http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Background_on_Functional_Foods (4) http://jn.nutrition.org/content/131/5/1421.short (5) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf102224b
Have you heard the expression change begins with the first step? Well, the last post (found here) discussed several strategies relating to eating for healing. Did you feel empowered enough to try any of them? If you did, than congratulations! You just took the first step toward a lifestyle that promotes wellness. On the other hand, if you read the post and said, "where do I begin," or, "I can't do this," please don't throw in the towel. I'm sure you're not alone, because I felt overwhelmed, somewhat intimidated and a little frustrated when I first contemplated the eating for healing information I received. Respect yourself for where you are right now on your path to wellness. Obviously you're on the right road, or you wouldn't be reading this. So, let's get started.
Eating for healing - Let's get started
As I mentioned before, this lifestyle isn't just for people coping with illness. It's for everyone who wants to support their body as it attempts to deal with the daily assaults of living. All that said, where does one begin? Well, I find it's easiest if I have a meal plan and a shopping list. Here are the main things I consider when planning my menu:
Roberta Larson Duyff "Complete Food and Nutrition Guide"
Get colorful - This is so important. There is no doubt that the phytonutrients, (organic chemical substances), found in plants are fundamental to the health of those that consume them (1). That's why it's imperative that we strive to eat a variety of fruits and veggies every day. By doing this you are providing your body with more of the vital phytonutrients it needs for healing. According to Roberta Larson Duyff, American Dietetic Association, of the thousands of known phytonutrients, only a few hundred have been studied. It has been discovered that each fruit or vegetable has different amounts and types of phytonutrients. An orange, for example, has "more than 170 different phytonutrients" (1). Of the thousands of known phytonutrients, "more than 2,000 are plant pigments"(1). It's now understood that the colors of the plants reveal a little about their health benefits. You may be familiar with the best known phytonutrients: carotenoids, flavonoids, and isoflavones. The table above outlines what they do and the foods that provide them.
Choose functional foods - Researchers are also beginning to understand that phytonutrients work in concert with other nutrients and fiber in our diets, and as a result effect changes in our health (1). The foods that are capable of doing this are called functional foods because "they may provide a health benefit [or function] beyond basic nutrition" (2). The International Food Information Council Foundation has a useful listing of the top functional foods found here.
Buy or grow organic food - Research shows that organic food contains "substantially higher levels of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals than non-organic food" (3). "For example, you would need to eat 4 conventionally grown carrots today to get the same amount of magnesium that you could get from one carrot in 1940" (3). Organic foods are more nutritious. They also aren't exposed to conventional growing practices that utilize pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers. These chemicals contain heavy metals, like lead and mercury, which have been found in conventionally grown produce. Granted, buying organic can be slightly more expensive than commercially grown foods, but the benefits are definitely worth it. However, if budget prohibits, the Environmental Working Group has compiled a list of what they call the "Dirty Dozen." You can find a list of these foods here. The Dirty Dozen are the top 12 most pesticide contaminated fruits and vegetables in America. It seems prudent to focus on purchasing these as organic.
Select whole foods - What's a whole food? These are foods that are "as close to their whole or natural state as possible" (3). Examples of whole foods include fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, whole grains and dried beans. Whole foods are free of additives, preservatives, dyes, flavorings and are unprocessed. In addition, because they are in their 'whole' state, whole foods "retain all of the nutrients to properly digest and metabolize themselves" (3). As a result, we have the potential to get more nutrients when we consume these foods.
Eat nutrient dense vs. energy dense foods - If you're eating whole foods, than this is really a moot point, because whole foods are typically nutrient dense foods. However, the point still bears repeating and I dedicated a prior post to this topic here. The bottom line is that eating nutrient dense foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains aids in weight loss. This is because energy dense foods like fast foods, cakes, and chips not only have less nutrients and fiber, they also typically have more calories. Obviously when it comes to weight loss, less calories is the goal. Another down side of eating foods categorized as being more energy dense is the greater fluctuations in insulin levels. If that's not enough, another negative of energy dense foods is that they also typically lack fiber. Whole, nutrient dense foods containing fiber provide the added benefits of increasing satiation, as well as aiding with elimination.
What to eat? One week of eating for healing -
Sample Menu
Day 1
Breakfast -
hot buckwheat cereal made with homemade almond milk, ground flax, organic mashed apple, dried cranberries, walnuts, fish oil, turmeric and cinnamon;
matcha tea (Dr. Weil discusses the benefits of this tea on his website here).
Lunch -
quinoa fiesta salad - made with chopped red, yellow and green peppers, black beans, jicama, grape tomatoes, spinach and cumin seed, with a lime cilantro dressing. I love the variety of colors in this salad and it is very satisfying. Don't let my pitiful food photography put you off. This tastes even better than it looks.
fruit smoothie - frozen organic cherries, peaches, mixed berries, coconut water, 2 small spoonfuls of vanilla goat yogurt
Dinner
Grilled Seared Tuna Steak on a bed of red cabbage, chopped apple, celery, and green onion with ginger sesame dressing
Day 2
Breakfast
Homemade granola (organic oats, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, prunes, raisins, dried cherries and blueberries and nuts) in goat yogurt with diced pear, ground flax and fish oil.
matcha tea
Lunch
leftover quinoa salad on bed of lettuce, sliced apple
Dinner
Spinach Frittata
mixed green salad
Day 3
Breakfast
leftover spinach frittata
matcha tea
Lunch
Asian sunshine salad - chopped green cabbage, tangelo, navel orange, mango, cashews, green onion, bok choy, chopped carrots, mixed micro greens and black rice with Asian ginger dressing
fruit smoothie
Dinner
Quinoa polenta vegetable lasagna. This is my husband's delicious and ever evolving dish. We use organic quinoa polenta found at our local grocery store, but he has made his own organic corn polenta from scratch. The polenta is the base layer and then you put fresh basil, Mexican oregano, onion, garlic, sliced green or red peppers, heirloom tomatoes, spinach (from my friend's bountiful garden, thanks Ann), diced kalamata olives, and top it with a little goat mozzarella on top. This is a satisfying and tasty dish.
micro greens salad
Day 4
Breakfast
Sweet potato hash with pastured eggs over easy
fruit bowl
Lunch
leftover Asian salad
piece of fruit
Dinner
Chicken soup
homemade gluten free bread (the best recipe I've found so far for a tender white bread is from the back of Bob's Red Mill's Potato Starch bag, but you can view it here). It's a bread machine recipe and it comes out consistently tasty. I substitute powdered goat's milk and brown rice flour.
Day 5
Breakfast
Hot buckwheat cereal
matcha tea
Lunch
Quinoa polenta vegetable lasagna leftovers
mixed greens salad
fruit smoothie
Dinner
Soba noodle stir fry with shitake mushrooms, bean sprouts, green onions, carrots, celery, bok choy, peas and ginger in a tamari sauce topped with cashews
dessert of fresh blueberries over coconut macaroons
Making the change
I hope this menu gives you a bit of an idea of how to begin eating for healing. You can find more ideas, as well as recipes from the Whole Life Nutrition Kitchen site here. Side note: Because I receive food from my local food coop I have found that I make meals based on what is seasonally available. This is a good rule of thumb. Foods that are grown locally will be fresher and are less taxing to the environment because they weren't shipped from distant places. Having said that, I confess to buying foods that aren't locally grown.
Tips -
Plan your menu and have a shopping list
Make more food at one time- It might seem like a lot of cooking, but I usually make enough to get at least two meals out of what I've prepared and then eat those on days I'm pressed for time or don't feel like cooking
If you make a pot of soup or a casserole, freeze some for later
Snacking - I didn't list snacks in my menu suggestions because you may find that you don't want a snack every day. The foods you're eating are more nutrient dense and satisfying. However, if you do find yourself craving a snack, one of my favorite snacks is fruit, but when I want something crunchy I pop up some popcorn or I have an organic brown rice cake, spread with almond butter, topped with sliced dates, and sprinkled with coconut on top. Yum.
Final thoughts
Change can be challenging, especially if you're dealing with long standing habits. I encourage you to take things slowly. Begin by looking at your pantry. Clean out what isn't healing. Try making one new dish a week. By the end of 7 weeks you'll have a bevy of eating for healing recipes and you'll have revamped your eating habits too. It's important to note that eating for healing will require an awareness on your part of not only the foods you find nourishing, but also those that make you feel healthier and more energized. In this case your gut will literally tell you what it prefers. It's important to listen to your body. Follow your intuition and begin with small changes. As I said in the last post, you really have nothing to lose, except for maybe a few unwanted pounds. Go ahead. Take that first step!
Sources (1) Duyff Roberta, Complete Food and Nutrition Guide, American Dietetic Association, 2006 (2) International Food Information Council Foundation - Functional Foods PDF http://www.foodinsight.org/Content/6/FINAL-IFIC-Fndtn-Functional-Foods-Backgrounder-with-Tips-and-changes-03-11-09.pdf (3) Segersten, A. Malterre, T., The Whole Life Nutrition Cookbook 2nd ed., Whole Life Press 2010
Have you heard the expression, "You are what you eat"? This might call to mind images of heads sprouting into fast food cheeseburgers. Seriously though, have you ever wondered what the food you ate might have eaten, or was fed? If we are what we eat, and the food we eat is what it ate, than aren't we what they ate also. Huh? Perhaps an illustration might help better explain the thought I'm trying to communicate.
Food chain -
Image from the Victoria Dept. of Education
You've probably heard of the food chain, or web. Princeton's Wordnetweb defines the food chain as basically "a community of organisms where each member is eaten in turn by another member" (1). This is depicted by the image at left which shows a very simple marine community food chain. So, this brings me to my tale.
The tale of two eggs -
It all began when I was making a recipe which required two eggs. One egg, the last in a carton I bought from the grocery store, came from a "cage free/grain fed" hen. The other was in a dozen I purchased from my local food co-op. This egg came from a foraging pastured hen raised on a north Texas family farm. As I attempted to crack the food co-op egg into the bowl, I noticed that the shell seemed thicker than the grocery store egg (a result of a diet providing the hen with more available calcium for egg shell formation) (10). However, what surprised me most was the difference in appearance between these two eggs. As you can see from the photo, the egg on the top is larger, has a much deeper yolk color and a cloudier egg white compared to the egg on the bottom.
Having been raised in the suburbs of Chicago and a suburbanite ever since, what I know about farming or livestock could fill a thimble. What I did know was that both of these eggs came from chickens, and I expected them to be rather similar. So, this got me to wondering:
why are these two eggs different from each other?
what might these differences mean from a nutritional standpoint?
which egg represents the healthier option?
Prior to buying eggs from the local food co-op, I assumed I was making a wise purchase by choosing eggs from the grocery store that were marked as coming from "cage-free, grain fed" hens, and I felt the increased cost was justified because of this label. But all was not as it seemed in the land of eggs. As they say in the literary world, "the plot thickens". This tale of two eggs has reminded me, yet again, of the importance of being an informed consumer and it also underscores the need for "buyer beware".
Cage free vs. free range vs. pastured -
The carton my store bought eggs came in clearly states the eggs inside are from "cage-free/grain fed" hens. Okay, I'm sheepishly disclosing that the egg carton's labeling brought images to my mind of chickens happily roaming freely out in the sun and fresh air in a pleasant, green pasture, pecking away to their heart's content. The reality is that "cage free" simply means that the chickens don't live in cages. Admittedly, this is an improvement over the living conditions of caged chickens. However, according to the Humane Society of the United States, "hens laying eggs labeled as 'cage-free' [live] uncaged inside barns or warehouses, but they generally do not have access to the outdoors." Unlike caged birds, "they can engage in many of their natural behaviors such as walking, nesting and spreading their wings", although the cutting of their beaks is permitted (2). Ouch. This type of existence is a far cry from my naive and idyllic view of how I thought cage free chickens lived.
Free range -
Free range chickens sound even better than cage free, right? Not necessarily. The University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources states that free range eggs actually come from chickens that are generally allowed to "graze or roam outdoors" (3). This sounds great in theory, but is this what is actually happening? Evidently, not very often (4). My understanding is that there are no certifications in the US that pertain to "free range" eggs, only to free-range chickens sold for their meat. As a result, the words "free range" can be loosely interpreted and even more loosely applied. For example, in many cases "free ranging" chickens may have access to a tiny doorway in the building where they are confined. The door may be opened for only five minutes, and perhaps only 2 chickens exit through it, but this still qualifies a farm to state its chickens are free-ranging. "No other criteria such as environmental quality, number of birds, or space per bird, are included in the term free-range" (4).
Now, some of you might be saying that this kind of cruelty to animals is a logical reason why we should not eat animal products. However, the purpose of this post isn't to discuss the issues pertaining to a vegan vs. non-vegan lifestyle. So, I am not going to delve into the very real problems inherent in the large scale production of eggs that result from our consumption and desire for an inexpensive product. A primary concern for us as food consumers is that we should be able to make informed decisions and choices about what we eat. This tale of two eggs highlights that the product labeling on egg cartons can be misleading and the eggs inside the carton, forgive the pun, might not be what they're cracked up to be. So, back to the tale and the pastured eggs I purchased from the food co-op.
Pastured -
The food co-op egg carton's label said their eggs came from pastured hens. Wondering what the term "pastured" really meant, I took my question straight to the source. According to Mrs. Connie Hale, who runs Windy Meadows Family Farm with her husband Mike and their children, the term "pastured" on their farm means that their "hens spend almost their entire life spans on grassy turf, most often protected [from predators] in large, movable bottomless pens, or electric netting enclosures." In this way, the chickens "have direct access to the forage and insects that make up their natural diet. The chickens are usually 'locked up' at night for added protection from predators, but at the first light of day are released to begin another day in the fresh outdoors."
Big differences between cage free, free range and pastured hens -
If you'd like a better appreciation of the differences between the way factory farm eggs are produced vs. the sustainable, family scale agricultural way of producing eggs check out the video below:
You can find the Cornucopia Institute's Organic Egg Scorecard here.
Chickens are what they eat too -
Eating eggs that come from hens raised on pasture have benefits beyond the more humane and sustainable aspects of this type of farming. Connie Hale from Windy Meadows Family Farm, also mentioned that because chickens are omnivores there are definite positive effects to the health of the hens and their eggs when they spend most of their lives outdoors foraging on the pasture in the fresh air and sunlight. This is because the natural diet of chickens consists of insects, worms, green plants, and seeds, among other things. This type of diet includes more diversity than the feed grain mix that most caged, cage-free, or free range chickens are fed (7). So, this answers my first question: Why are the two eggs in my tale different? They are different because of the hen's diet.
Nutrition benefits from pastured eggs -
As Connie so aptly put it, "Everyone is healthier when he eats his greens, even our animals." Science is finding that animals allowed free access to pasture are generally healthier. Researchers have found that pastured foraging hens receive more beta carotene, magnesium and other vitamins and minerals than do animals who are not able to forage. When animals eat this type of diet this also translates into a healthier diet for those of us who eat the products that come from these animals (5).
One study by Penn State's College of Agricultural Science showed that "compared to eggs of commercial hens, eggs from pastured hens had twice as much vitamin E and long-chain omega-3 fats, more than double the total omega-3 fatty acids and less than half the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids" (5). Western diets tend to be higher in omega-6's than omega-3's, but scientific evidence suggests that "higher dietary omega-3 intakes are associated with reductions in heart disease" (6). You can read more about the health benefits of these fats here. Researchers also found that the Vitamin A concentration was "38 percent higher in the pastured hens' eggs than in the commerical hens' eggs. Their research shows that nutrient levels present in the eggs are responsive to dietary changes in the hens.
Another study found that as compared to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data for commercial "factory-farm" eggs, the eggs from hens raised on pasture contain:
one third less cholesterol
one quarter less saturated fat
two thirds more vitamin A
two times more omega-3 fatty acides
three times more vitamin E
seven times more beta carotene (this explains the bright orange color of the yolk)!
three to six times as much vitamin D (it's good to get a little sun)! An example of what this translates to in our diet is "two scrambled eggs from pastured hens may give you 63 to 126 percent of the recommended daily intake of 200 International Units of vitamin D" (6). You can read more about Vitamin D here.
Well, that answers my other two questions. Eggs from pastured hens are more nutritious than conventionally produced "factory farm" eggs. So, considering the nutritional benefits, along with the more humane and sustainable farming practiced in raising pastured hens, for my dollar, the food co-op egg is the better choice. I would much rather support a small, local, family farm that raises their eggs in a humane, responsible and sustainable way. Best selling author Michael Pollan says it best - We can become responsible consumers. Consumers and farmers have shown with the organic movement "how they can work together as co-creators of an alternative food system. We need to join together now, to recruit a larger and larger army of co-creators, to rewrite the rules of the game and create a different kind of food system" (9).
I wish I could say this this tale ends happily ever after, but I can't. The underlying issues still remain. As Michael Pollan points out, we consumers have the ability to force a change in food labeling and production processes. However, until this occurs the tale continues. Change is difficult and often requires concessions. As is evidenced by the price of the pastured eggs I purchased, one concession for consumers will come in the form of paying higher food prices. For many, this economy has brought a time of uncertainty where just getting any food on the table is difficult enough. Never the less, I encourage you to consider that cheap food is really more expensive in the long run. This is because it's generally lacking in nutrients. As a result, it leads to more disease and higher medical costs (8). There really is no escaping the fact that we are what we eat.
PS - In case you were wondering...which egg in the photo was from the foraging pastured hen? The top egg.
What does a cloudy egg white mean? "Cloudy egg whites usually indicate very fresh eggs" (3).
Sources (1) Princeton Wordnetweb - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=food%20chain (2) Humane Society http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/guide_egg_labels.html (3) University of California Dept. Natural Resources - http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8154.pdf (4) United Poultry Concerns - http://www.upc-online.org/freerange.html (5) Penn State University - http://live.psu.edu/story/47514 (6) Linus Pauling Institute - http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/othernuts/omega3fa/ (7) Mother Earth News - http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/health-benefits-free-range-eggs.aspx (8) Dr. Mark Hyman - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/why-quick-cheap-food-is-a_b_681539.html (9) Ecoliteracy Michael Pollan - http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/we-are-what-we-eat (10) Skyline College - http://www.skylinecollege.edu/case/biol215/docs/eggshell.pdf
As the Britney song goes, "Don't you know that you're toxic?" Given that the belt I purchased on sale recently contained lead, these lyrics could be prophetic. I just might be toxic! Of course, the toxic love Britney sings about isn't to be taken lightly. Thankfully, we usually have the option to walk away from a toxic relationship. I wish the same could be said about the toxins in our environment.
Toxins in our environment-
How did we get here? Warning labels attached to accessories? You would think that the past experiences of public safety concerns due to chemical risks would have brought about a change in practice. For example, toys, jewelry, accessories, clothing, furniture, crafts, foodware and office supplies have been recalled because they were found to contain dangerous levels of heavy metals, usually lead and/or cadmium. Evidently, if we are warned about something containing a toxic substance, that somehow makes it OK to be sold.
I know, "caveat emptor" and all that. Given that you're reading this it's probably safe to say that you're concerned about your health and all that influences it. So, when we choose our purchases we try to consider their impact on us and our environment. I could simply choose to buy a different belt. One that doesn't contain lead. But how would I know which belt doesn't contain a toxic substance given that this warning label isn't required by every state government? How are we to ascertain whether something we are purchasing contains a toxic substance known to cause harm to our health and well being?
Toxins in our bodies: biomonitoring and body burden-
An even bigger question for me is how many of these toxic substances are we exposed to in our environment, and what are the cumulative health risks, if any? In the bigger scheme of health hazards, wearing a belt that may expose me to a low dose of lead might seem relatively benign. However, when you combine that particular exposure with the multitude of other toxins we encounter daily, the health risks increase and we end up with something scientists call the body burden (1).
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), body burden is the total amount of of toxic chemicals that have built up over time in our bodies (1). "Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied" (3). To my horror I learned that the presence of toxic chemicals is found even in fetuses (2)(3). Evidently, pregnant mothers unintentionally pass toxins on to their babies through the placenta. According to the EWG, "358 industrial chemicals, pesticides and pollutants [were found] in the cord blood of American infants" (6). One expert calls this the state of being born "pre-polluted" (4).
The knowledge of body burden is available because scientists are now better able to measure and track the levels of chemicals present in us through blood, urine, breast milk and hair specimens. This process is called biomonitoring. According to Commonweal Breast Cancer Fund, biomonitoring is an important process for monitoring public health because it indicates "trends of exposure, identifies highly exposed communities and helps in setting priorities for legislative and regulatory action" (10). You can find one overview of some of the chemicals currently being biomonitored here, as well as the CDC's 4th Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals here. Interestingly, biomonitoring is also being used to watch wildlife that inhabit chemically contaminated environments like toxic waste dump sites. Scientists find that biomonitoring these animals serves as a "front line indicator of pollutant levels and potential health impacts" (7). You can read more about this here at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Chemical regulation - Innocent until proven guilty-
When it comes to the chemical industry and our government's regulation of it, it appears their thinking is that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. Historically speaking, it hasn't been until recent times that chemicals and their link to ill health effects have come under closer scrutiny. Back in the 1970's, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to regulate a limited number of chemicals, mostly pesticides, under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). In 1992, the TSCA was amended to include a Lead Exposure Reduction Provision.
Toxins and health effects-
The health problems resulting from lead exposure are documented and well-known, with children being the most adversely effected. It took years, but health advocates pushed for tighter regulation of lead. As a result unleaded gas, paint and plumbing components are now the norm (5). However, as is evidenced by the warning label attached to my belt, lead is still finding its way into our lives. The lead example highlights what is broken with the current laws: 1) poor control of the import of goods made in countries that still allow the use of toxic substances and 2) current regulations are outdated.
The TSCA was enacted before the current scientific findings that show even small levels of chemical exposure, which were once considered harmless, actually do cause detrimental health effects. In addition, there are now hundreds of new chemicals that have been created since the TSCA went into effect. These chemicals aren't being regulated. Also, the present regulation of chemicals tends to focus on the effect that just one chemical has on our health and not the effects of total body burden. Given the past negative history of, for example, lead, one would expect that the government would choose to err on the side of caution and at least restrict the use of newer chemicals until more is known about their effects on us. Sadly, this just isn't the case. This wait and see attitude is like playing a game of chemical roulette.
Since this post is focusing on what we can do to limit our body burden, I won't go into a lot of detail about the ill health effects of toxins. Suffice to say, current scientific evidence clearly shows increased risk for birth defects, as in genetic mutations, reproductive issues, and cancers (3). These risks, combined with the fact that babies are being born pre-polluted is compelling enough to take at least a little protective action.
How are we exposed? The biggest chemical culprits-
One of the biggest areas of our exposure comes from the consumer products we use. Government health authorities have identified the following chemicals as being "human carcinogens, serious neurotoxins or well-established hormone disrupters" (4), so it would seem prudent to try to limit our exposure to these (click on each if you want to learn more):
Several other areas of exposure include the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods we eat. If you've just thrown your hands up in surrender, I share your frustration. However, the situation isn't hopeless. We may not be able to avoid toxins, but there are things we can do to reduce our level of exposure. Checking to see what your body burden currently is might seem like a logical place to begin. However, at this point experts are saying that individual biomonitoring is difficult to use for specifically assessing how relevant your individual results are to your actual risk for disease. So, where do we begin?
What we can do to limit our body burden:
Let our government officials know that:
we find the current regulation of chemicals unacceptable. Public outcry was exactly what prompted the chemical DDT to be banned. The EWG states that "Proper environmental regulation does work to reduce people's chemical burdens" (8). The Toxic Substances Control Act must be amended to at least require that the complete health and safety data on chemicals be known and disclosed to the public. No more innocent until proven guilty. Dangerous chemicals should be phased out and safer alternatives assured.
we desire community biomonitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been conducting biomonitoring for the past 30 years and several states are also biomonitoring for a small number of specific toxins only. One example is the program in Pennsylvania that tracks blood lead levels (9). You can read more about this at the CDC site here. However, more wide-spread biomonitoring of the chemicals experts have linked to increased risk for disease needs to be conducted in communities.
Buy organic foods if possible, especially if you have young children. If this isn't an affordable option, try to focus on buying organic products that make the most difference. EWG has a handy list of the most pesticide laden produce here and it's also available as a free Iphone app.
Know what's in your personal care products and household cleaners and what chemicals to avoid. The list above gives you a good head start. Try to use natural products. You can read more about the natural personal care products at Skin Deep here and the household cleaning products here.
Know what kind of plastics are safer and avoid plastic baby bottles, water bottles, toys, teethers and pacifiers and canned foods whose cans are lined with BPA. Avoid microwaving foods in plastic containers.
Throw away aluminum cookware and pans with non-stick coated surface.
Avoid fabrics treated with flame retardants, wrinkle relaxers or stain repellents and limit use of fabric softeners and air fresheners.
Use low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paints whenever possible.
Try not to use chemical pesticides on your lawn, pets or in your home and take your shoes off before you walk in the house.
The evidence linking toxins to deteriorating health is mounting and seems compelling. The good news is that by becoming educated about the situation we can take steps to decrease our chemical body burden. While making these changes in our lifestyle are important to reducing our chemical exposure, it is critical that we also push for improved government and industry standards regulating chemicals.
As for the lead belt that prompted this post, it went back to the store, along with a letter to the company letting them know how I feel about their sale of a lead laced accessory! I like a bargain, but with this purchase I got more than I bargained for!
Sources (1) Environmental Working Group (EWG) http://www.ewg.org/news/proof-burden (2) Biomonitoring http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/ (3) Chemical Body Burden http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc15.wais&start=9720137&SIZE=4204&TYPE=TEXT Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/titleten.html (4) EWG http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/pressrelease (5) EWG http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/lead/docs/introhealtheffectsmedicalprovider.pdf?ga=t (6) EWG http://www.ewg.org/files/2009-Minority-Cord-Blood-Report.pdf (7) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences - http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/srp/products/products2_s3_s1.cfm (8) EWG http://www.ewg.org/news/proof-burden (9) Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/trackbiomon.htm
