Mark’s Daily Apple

Irradiated Food10

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Freaky Food du Jour

Oh, the food supply, the food supply. It’s impossible to miss the media stories on the risks of food-borne illnesses like salmonella and E. coli. Meats, eggs, fruits and vegetables always seem to be the most insidious culprits. (But that Little Debbie snack cake, you’ll be relieved to know, is on the safe list.)

We’ve all heard that it’s important to diligently wash our produce and thoroughly cook all meats. But more and more, we’re hearing that these measures just aren’t enough. In contrast to two washing practices, a recent study organized by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service shows that irradiation kills more than 99% of many microbes, including salmonella and E. coli. Irradiation was compared with three minutes’ submergence in water and three minutes of cleaning with an unidentified chemical treatment. The water bath was ineffective at killing or removing E. coli, while the chemical treatment didn’t have significant effect on E. coli in tested spinach leaves and was not quite 90% effective when it came to lettuce.

Studies show that certain disease-causing microbes are masters at playing hide-and-go seek with such chemical sanitizers. These bacteria can make their way inside the leaves of lettuce, spinach and other vegetables and fruit, where surface treatments cannot reach. In addition, microbes can organize themselves into tightly knit communities called biofilms that coat fruits and vegetables and protect the bacteria from harm.

via Science Daily

Since 1999, the FDA has been reviewing irradiation and approving its use in steps. As things stand right now, many foods, including meats, produce, fresh shell eggs, wheat flour, and juices, can be irradiated but must be labeled as such (with the exception of spices). It’s important to note that schools and restaurants, however, may serve irradiated food without offering notice. A comforting thought as you send junior off to school.

The irradiation process involves using high energy gamma rays. The short wavelengths and high frequencies result in virtually no heat but ionizing radiation, which kills bacteria and insects and extends shelf life. The controversy surrounding irradiation revolves around what else the gamma rays kill. Critics contend that the process damages antioxidants, essential fatty acids, protein and other nutrients. Others add less than savory comments about the change in taste and texture of irradiated food. More contested is the possible creation of carcinogenic substances known as cyclobutanones as well as other damaging carcinogens, including mutagenic compounds found in lab animal experiments.

Finally, critics of irradiated food claim that the real agenda behind the irradiation push can be found in disgusting food (particularly meat) processing that would make Upton Sinclair lose his lunch. Cleaner, slower processing with better oversight would result in cleaner meats and other foods. (Oh, these are details for another post – or another website period.) Knowing what we know, we would agree with the processing assessment and general criticism of irradiation. The problems we create for ourselves in this modern age….

When it comes to irradiation, we’re going to take a pass. (Now excuse us while we dry heave.)

Ricecake Flickr Photo (CC)

Further Reading:

Center for Food Safety - Food Irradiation: A Gross Failure (PDF)

LA Times: More on Irradiation

Posted: Big Agra, Big Moo, Diet, Health, Nutrition

Dear Mark: Saturated Fat12

Worth eating?

Dear Mark,

In one of last week’s Cheap Meat discussions, you said something about ratios and saturated fats and how saturated fats aren’t really the issue in your mind. I might have been missing something in the conversation. Can you fill me in?

The issue of ratios within animal fat was raised by reader Jaana as she shared Cordain’s discussion of the varying polyunsaturated fat content and corresponding omega ratios in muscle meat versus different organ meats. Cordain compares wild game (that we can assume are comparable to the meats our pre-agricultural ancestors ate) with the domestically raised livestock we eat today. As a general rule, the muscle meat of conventional livestock today has less polyunsaturated fat than wild game does. Conventional domestic meat also has more saturated fat than wild game.

I’ve said before that the hype over saturated fat is overblown in many respects. Saturated fats are required for many crucial functions in the body. They make up 1/2 of cell membrane structure. They enhance calcium absorption and immune function. They aid in the body’s synthesis of the essential fatty acids and provide a rich source of fat soluble vitamins. My beef isn’t with the beef fat. It’s with the carbs – the grains that conventionally raised animals are fed as well as the buns, chips and other assorted carbs we modern humans eat with the side of beef.

This is the part conventional “wisdom” doesn’t get: saturated fat in the diet doesn’t directly translate to saturated fats in the blood. It’s all how it’s metabolized. Saturated fat levels in the blood are influenced by the prevalence of carbs in the diet and the subsequent carb-generated lipogenesis process.

And it’s my opinion that CW’s hobby horse takes attention away from the more legitimate concerns surrounding saturated fat intake. An animal’s fat stores carry the highest load of antibiotics, feed pesticides and herbicides, and hormones. Obviously, this didn’t matter 20,000 years ago, but it matters a whole heck of a lot in the modern world. One way to ameliorate the situation is to eat organic meat. (And, to a lesser extent, grass-fed and -finished, but we covered that last week.) Another way is to eat lower fat meats. (Even the best organic, grass-finished meats will still carry dioxins in their fat stores as a result of acid rain in most regions of the country.)

Finally, as reader Charles noted in last week’s discussion (thanks for the lead, Charles), really the polyunsaturated fat content in either grass or grain fed beef isn’t that substantial to begin with. Grass-fed is better, but it’s not worth excessive concern or breaking the bank.

Whether you choose to eat higher fat meats or lower fat cuts, my message is the same. Look for the cleanest meat you can find and afford. Sure, shoot for grass-fed and finished when possible, but clean should trump grass-fed by a long shot. Beyond this, arm yourself with a diet and supplement regimen that offers copious antioxidants and plenty of omega-3 fatty acids to achieve a 1:1 ratio.

Thanks to everyone for all their comments and questions. There’s nothing like a vigorous and spirited discussion! Keep it coming.

Daniel Y. Go, SixyBeast Flickr Photos (CC)

Further Reading:

I’m Not Afraid of Fat

Are There Any Good Carbs?

Why the Atkins Diet Works

Sponsor note:
This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere. With the highest antioxidant per dollar value and a complete anti-aging, stress, and cognition profile, the Master Formula is truly the only multivitamin supplement you will ever need. Toss out the drawers full of dozens of different supplements with questionable potency and efficacy and experience the proven Damage Control difference!

Posted: Big Agra, Big Moo, Dear Mark, Diet, Health, Nutrition, Sisson Said What?

Dear Mark: Cheap Meat?85

Happy Cows

Dear Mark,

I am curious what you recommend for people who either don’t have access to or can’t regularly afford grass-fed, organic, free-range meats? It [cost] is a lot of the reason we are mostly vegetarian - we could have organic meat on a regular basis, or we can have fresh fruits and veggies for us and, more importantly, our young sons, to snack on. I believe the fresh produce is more important, and our budget just won’t allow for both, so we stick to mostly vegetarian - and less expensive - sources of protein. I’d like to hear tips for how to actually apply some of this in these situations, and what you recommend then. Is it better to eat less meat and make sure what you have is organic, or keep eating the same amount of the conventional stuff (which is worse for our bodies and the environment)?

Judy, you raise a number of great points, and I know they’re common concerns. Ideally, we would all eat grass-fed/grass-finished meat all the time, but because of a variety of circumstances (budget, limited availability at home/during travel, etc.) it’s not always possible for people, myself included. For these reasons, the Primal Blueprint also looks at logical, reasonable compromises. If I can’t eat grass-fed meat, I look for the cleanest meat I can find (no hormones, no antibiotics, etc.). But I absolutely suggest that people include meat in their diets, even if they don’t have access to grass-fed.

First, let’s look at the issue of availability. Unfortunately, grass-fed and/or organic meats aren’t carried by many grocery stores. However, I think that trend is beginning to change. While Whole Foods, Wild Oats and community co-ops seem to be the most common sources for these items, more and more “regular” supermarkets are getting in the game. As always, the more people request it, the more likely stores will consider adding these options. That said, there’s a substantial mail order market for grass-fed and/or organic meats, many with competitive pricing.

Another option: small area farms that sell direct to consumers. You’ll usually get the best deal by purchasing 25 lbs. to half a cow, lamb, goat, etc. If you have a deep freezer, it’s ideal. Otherwise, find a few friends, neighbors, or family members who you can split an order with.

Also, just a note about labels… Meat that is labeled grass-fed isn’t necessarily “grass-finished.” Nearly all beef cattle eat grass at some point. Others, those usually labeled grass-fed, eat grass until the final few weeks before slaughter, when they’re switched to a grain diet. During this relatively brief window, the omega ratio reverses to pretty much that of mostly/entirely grain-fed cattle. Look for “grass-finished” or “100% grass-fed.” Though many farms that raise grass-fed cattle also follow other “clean meat” standards, not all do. USDA Organic uses the most stringent rules and certification, including the absence of any pesticides or herbicides on grazing land/feed and moderate animal treatment standards. But keep in mind, also, that USDA Organic doesn’t mean grass-fed. On top of all of this, we’re seeing a new class of “animal-welfare” labels offered by industry certification as well as animal-rights groups. (Whole Foods manages its own standards and labeling.) (I know, Judy, you’ve asked about this element as well.) Standards for these certifications vary considerably. If you buy direct from a farm, you may be able to get the most information about how the animals are raised.

While it’s true that “100% grass-fed, organic” offers the best of all worlds, it’s usually more expensive and more difficult to find. My advice for best compromises: first look for a label that says 100% grass-fed with “no hormones” and “no antibiotics.” This kind of meat encompasses important “clean” elements (in terms of an individual’s consumption) and offers the better grass-fed omega ratio. Next choice: clean, grain-fed meats. Just be sure to add more omega 3s from fish, fish oil supplements and vegetables sources to make up for the 6:3 ratio deficit.

Thanks, as always, for your questions and comments. Keep ‘em coming!

ILoveButter Flickr Photo (CC)

Further Reading:

Dear Mark: Pondering Protein

Imitation Crab: What is That Stuff?

Dr. Michael Eades: Another Reason to Eat Grass Fed Beef

Typical North American Diet is Deficient in Omega-3 Fatty Acids

Sponsor note:
This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere. With the highest antioxidant per dollar value and a complete anti-aging, stress, and cognition profile, the Master Formula is truly the only multivitamin supplement you will ever need. Toss out the drawers full of dozens of different supplements with questionable potency and efficacy and experience the proven Damage Control difference!

Posted: Big Moo, Dear Mark, Diet, Health, How To, Nutrition

GMO Foods: Super Solution or Franken Future?4

GMO: Making Amphibians Happier Every Day

Close your eyes and think about genetically modified crops. Now what do you see? Green fields of lush, pest-resistant, hardy crops? A ghoulish cast hovering above insidious kodachrome orbs they call GM tomatoes? Hordes of protestors in t-shirts and Converse sneakers? Hungry children being fed? A Pandora’s Box?

Applaud or curse, the U.S. allows the planting of GM crops, while many countries do not. It also doesn’t mandate labeling of genetically modified food, as do Europe and many other countries. These circumstances have, experts agree, allowed food made with genetically engineered ingredients to be included in approximately 70% of food in typical grocery stores.

It has also allowed the public to be relatively unaware of the increasingly prominent role of GM food in the typical American diet. A poll by The Washington Post showed that some 60% of respondents believed they had never eaten genetically modified food, which seems remarkably unlikely given their prevalence.

With the recent FDA approval of animal products from cloned animals, however, a lot of people are sitting up and suddenly listening. While 46% of people in the above poll opposed food from genetically modified crops, 60% were uncomfortable with the idea of products from cloned animals. Only 22% said they were comfortable with the option of cloned animal products.

We thought we’d take a closer look at some of the issues and arguments being bantered about.

“The Unknown”

For a lot of people, the specter of GM foods looms so insidiously because of the unknown dimension of this technology and what can happen to it (and its consumers) in the real world. The question of regulation and testing is a hot button issue across the globe. Dr. Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists explains, “Lots and lots of people — virtually the entire population — could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it’s just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it’s safe.”

The FDA, for its part, asserts that GM foodstuffs are the most highly regulated food products in the country with a system of individual consultations with companies that apply to grow and market their GM crops. The process, which takes several months, involves not only the FDA but the EPA and Department of Agriculture.

Allergens
The concern of many here revolves around the process of inserting a gene from another organism, whether it be animal or plant, into another. Though you may think you’re buying a carton of grape tomatoes, what if the engineering process for it used, say, fish, to which you have a dangerous allergy?

According to the FDA, most food allergies can be traced to a handful of foods, including wheat, fish, eggs, shellfish, cow’s milk, tree nuts, and legumes (peanuts and soybeans in particular). If a food product contains a gene from one of the common allergy sources, the company must say so on the label “unless it can show that the protein produced by the added gene does not make the food cause allergies” through animal studies. We imagine this reassurance results in varying levels of comfort, especially if you’re allergic to pineapple.

Super Bugs

One of the selling points of GM crops is their engineered pest and disease resistance. It’s an appealing argument: the end of chemical pesticide and herbicide use. Yet, the specter of evolving tolerance looms. What if bugs or bacteria develop a tolerance for the engineered insecticide or bacterial resistance? What consequences are there in the long run from using antibiotic genes in crops that will be eaten by humans and foraging animals as well as livestock?

Small Farms versus Large Biotech Firms
Because GM seeds are more expensive, some critics say that small farmers won’t be able to afford them and won’t be able to compete with larger, industrial farms. Still others argue that creating a system that makes farmers dependent on biotech firms for seeds each year (GM crops are now engineered to create sterile seeds that cannot be used for the following year’s crops.) puts too much power in the hands of biotech firms.

On the flip side of this coin, others argue that small farmers will save money by not having to purchase expensive pesticides and herbicides. Plants can also be engineered to work within a wider variety of conditions, including the ability to grow in saltier soil or to resist frost by incorporating an antifreeze gene. (Yum!)

Food for the Poor
A common argument for GM crops is the ability to engineer crops that can grow in any environment, in denser conditions and with added engineered nutrients that will “go farther” in feeding a population.

Critics argue that the use of GM crops only makes poorer countries beholden to rich corporations and doesn’t solve the problems of distribution and power, which many see as the central causes of poverty and starvation across the globe.

Biodiversity

A couple weeks ago news about Norway’s “doomsday vault” hit the presses. The vault, which is carved into the side of a mountain on a remote island north of Norway’s mainland, will preserve a representative cross-section of the world’s crop seeds in case of a global catastrophe. Though the vault’s plans were made public more than a year ago, it was back in the news after receiving its first shipment of seeds.

Clearly, preserving the world’s plant diversity is important stuff. But should we really just be locking away the remnants of the biodiversity nature developed over millions of years? Other seed preservation organizations argue that an ample number of hardy, nutrient-rich, naturally pest-resistant crop species exist within so-called “heirloom” and indigenous varieties that evolved with a region’s variations of climate, pests and diseases. For instance, the National Research Council asserts that reinstituting Africa’s “lost crops,” including indigenous fruit trees, could help alleviate hunger and environmental devastation caused by the toll of conventional agricultural development.

Do we understand the impact of national or even global crop “monoculture,” particularly when the crops are laboratory creations with little “test” time in the complexities of the real world?

It’s a lot to digest - or not. Industry specialists on both sides of the debate suggest that consumers who wish to avoid GM products look for the “100% organic” label on the groceries they buy. Foods with this label legally must not contain GM ingredients. As for those customers who support GM food development, they will likely be able to take advantage of an increase in those products during the next several years.

O.K., you got us here. We’ll come clean and admit we’re more than a bit skeptical (surprise, surprise), but we want to hear from you. What’s your take on GMO? Give us your perspectives.

lawndart, SteelePop, Johnny kgc, Steefe Flickr Photos (CC)

Further Reading:

Sounding the Alarm on Children and Food Allergies

Scrutinizing Soy

Marginal Revolution: Endangered Bananas

Eye on DNA: GMO Food Can’t Be All That Bad, Can It?

Eating Fabulous: Genetically Engineered Probiotic Bacteria May Reduce Food Allergies

Technorati Tags: GMO, GM, genetically modified, genetic modification, biodiversity, monoculture, clone, biotech

Posted: Big Agra, Big Moo, Health, Nutrition

Let the Sun Shine In11

Burrrrrr… It’s sunny out here.

It’s the absolute dead of winter, and many of you are subsisting in ruthlessly frigid weather. The local meteorologist cheerfully announces that, since December, you now have 19 more minutes of daylight! Yippee. It’s 4:30, and the sun hasn’t completely sunk below the icy horizon. That’s all the news from Lake Tundra!

As tempting as it is to hibernate in the comfort of our warm living room, the fact remains that, while we’re well within our rights to curse the cold, we need the sunlight.

Yes, in summer, it’s simple. Just get off your duff and walk outside. In January, well, it’s The Christmas Story scene when Ralphie’s mom bundles up his little brother in preparation for the walk to school: “I can’t put my arms down!”

And, oh, we know what you’re thinking. The happy lights, while we love them and agree that they definitely help, aren’t as efficient as the real deal at inducing vitamin D3 production in the body. (Remember, I’m just the messenger.) Anyway, the dog needs his walk, and you could use the fresh air.

We at MDA talk quite a bit about sunlight starvation and the benefits of moderate sun exposure. Continuing research further bolsters proof that soaking up the rays (again, in moderation) is essential for good health. Recommended daily exposure times vary considerably, from 3-15 minutes for lighter skinned people to as much as an hour for darker skinned people. Opt for at least 15 minutes a day, depending on your skin tone and sun intensity.

Need more motivation? Let’s review.

Sunlight and Cancer

Research studies and analysis of global incidence data (GLOBOCAN) consistently find that sun exposure is a protective factor against the following cancers: lung, kidney, breast, endometrial, ovarian, prostate, colon and skin cancer. And the list keeps growing.

Whoa! Wait a minute - protective against skin cancer?? Yes, Watson, research out of Stanford University shows that moderate sun exposure causes dendritic cells (immune cells in the skin) to convert inactive vitamin D3 to the active form. The active vitamin D3 then allows the immune system’s soldier T-cells to transfer to the outer layers of the skin, where they do their otherwise usual duty of overthrowing damaged cells and fighting infections.

So, let’s go back, you say. Cancer-sunlight. How does this all work? Vitamin D, research shows, prevents cancerous cells from dividing as well as advances the death of cancer cells themselves. On top of it all, vitamin D enhances the activity of certain genes, including those that manage cell cycle. Is that a cool hat-trick or what?

Sunlight and Heart Health
Studies have also supported vitamin D’s role in promoting heart health. Vitamin D apparently enhances the heart’s pumping ability as well as the integrity of heart cell structure. It can also help lower blood pressure and inflammation and aids in reducing insulin resistance. And it keeps getting better….

Sunlight and Osteoporosis
The vitamin D sunlight produces in the body is essential to bone density. Yes, we know what Big Moo tells you. That milk moustache isn’t just overplayed; it’s an oversimplification. There are plenty of population groups around the world that consume little to no dairy, and their osteoporosis rates are miniscule compared to ours. In addition to well balanced nutrition and smart supplementation as well as regular weight bearing exercise, the vitamin D we get from sunlight is crucial to maintaining bone density. Need more still?

Sunlight and Mental Health

Research has found that vitamin D is essential for those suffering from SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder). The vitamin has also been a successful therapy for many people suffering from depression. The trick: vitamin D boosts serotonin levels (a feel good chemical) in the brain, which is substantially lower in those suffering from depression-of the seasonal variety or not.

Feel good. Hmm. Not such a bad idea for run-of-the-mill winter crankiness either. We could probably all use that about now.

jurvetson, RonAlmog, OiMax Flickr Photo (CC)

Further Reading:

10 Ways to Stay Active in the Cold Winter Months

Sunscreen May Not Be Your Friend

Laurel on Health Food: Vitamin D Study Shows Cancer Reduction

Sponsor note:
This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere. With the highest antioxidant per dollar value and a complete anti-aging, stress, and cognition profile, the Master Formula is truly the only multivitamin supplement you will ever need. Toss out the drawers full of dozens of different supplements with questionable potency and efficacy and experience the proven Damage Control difference!

Technorati Tags: sun, sunlight, vitamin D, D3, osteoporosis, mental health, SAD, seasonal affective disorder, serotonin, cancer, heart health

Posted: Big Moo, Health, Men's Health, Prevention, Women's Health