How far down the rabbit holes of news and media do you want to go? The depths seem endless, especially as we approach another election.
Thankfully, our dear friend and media savant, Garland West, sheds some much needed insight to light a path of rationality back into our overzealous media consumption habits.
Now, it’s up to us to put Garland’s wisdom into good use so we may become well-informed, rational and responsible citizens.
In the realm of healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. However, alongside their abundant vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients, we’re bombarded with a reminder of a less savory and potentially harmful aspect: the presence of pesticide residues on our produce.
But first, let’s get one thing straight: pesticides have a very necessary place in our global food system. Without products like insecticides, fungicides and other pesticide types, all crops would be prone to rot, leading to famine, disease, global hunger…just to name a few. If we suddenly nixed all pesticides, our current situation with egregious food waste in this country would seem inconsequential.
However, too much of a seemingly good thing always has unintended consequences. In the 1940s, the advent of powerful broad-spectrum pesticides, like DDT, gave farmers an effective, long-lasting tool to protect their animals and crops from insects. Furthermore, these powerful tools also helped combat malaria, typhus, and other insect-born human diseases.
But then its surge in application came at a cost.
By the ‘60s, word got out that excessive use of DDT posed unacceptable acute and long-term health risks to humans, including seizures, birth defects, and cancer, as well as damaging wildlife and the environment. In response to the outcry, the U.S. government took swift action and created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect human health and the environment from toxic chemicals, including now-prohibited pesticides like DDT, aldrin, and hexachlorobenzene (HCB).
Now, in conjunction with the USDA, various crops are monitored annually for pesticide residues with the annual Pesticide Data Program (PDP).
This year’s report is based on data from the 2022/23 season and includes multiple samples from over 20 fresh crops, like green beans, potatoes, and blueberries. Popular crops not tested this particular season, like apples, oranges, and avocadoes, will be included in the next rotation of tested crops.
The USDA then reports its findings in a comprehensive summary released on the PDP website. Once released to the public, consumer information agencies like Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group reinterpret the USDA’s findings to create these derivative reports, like the notorious “Dirty Dozen” list.
When you use the massive PDP database to start weaving information together across various crops over a multitude of years, you often find a conflicting story. Suddenly, these reports stating that you’re ingesting endocrine-disrupting and cancer-causing nerve agents feel sensational, at best, against the opposing PDP data that show a downward trend year-over-year in highly toxic pesticides.
Non-governmental or non-academic, consumer-centric reports can generate fear and deceive us into believing that ingesting any fresh fruit or vegetable is detrimental to our overall health, or that organic produce is free from all pesticides.
Despite the many claims in these consumer reports, available evidence suggests that the low levels of pesticide residues typically found on produce are unlikely to make most people sick or cause cancer.
With that stated, we can’t ignore some of the pesticide residue data these reports found. Specifically, reports from the PDP and Consumer Reports shared the below facts based on information from the PDP database when the USDA’s initiative began in 1994:
“JMPR’s risk assessment found that based on the weight-of-evidence approach, these compounds are unlikely to cause cancer in people via dietary exposure. This means it is possible to establish safe exposure levels – acceptable daily intakes (ADI) – for consumers.”
Though some of these findings sound concerning, we found plenty of information that shows the needle moving in the right direction.
Here are some of the highlights we found in these reports over the last few years, plus some information gathered from conducting our own research in the PDP database and other farming resources:
It’s more like what you can’t do.
It feels counterintuitive, but don’t eat fewer fruits and vegetables because of pesticide concerns. The health benefits of eating lots of produce far outweigh the potential risks from these residues.
There’s no doubt about it: produce is loaded with vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients necessary for a healthy body and well-functioning brain.
If anything, we all should eat more produce.
And yes, while some pesticides can negatively affect health and the environment, the levels found on most produce are extremely low and not linked to adverse health effects.
If we follow the food-prep tips below, the surface residues will be largely eliminated, allowing us to enjoy our fresh foods without fear.
The key is moderation and making informed choices, not eliminating nutrient-rich produce from your diet due to pesticide fears.
After years of serious debate about the reality or extent of actual climate change, governments around the world have responded to rising public support for “green” policies and programs.
For the United States, it’s a 2021 pledge by President Biden in the Paris Climate Accord to cut GHG emissions in half by 2030. Biden’s ambitions continue for the United States by stating that we will reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy by 2050, just 26 years from now.
International leaders also speak of commitments to massive greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions by mid-century, and businesses around the world have jumped on the prevalent environmental bandwagon with ambitious GHG reductions of their own. But things have changed since the glory days of the Paris Accord.
The subject of climate change has had sufficient time to percolate in the public mind. The issue has moved on from an initial era of awareness-building – years of helping define the issue in the public mind and marshaling political support for ambitious targets and extensive policies and programs. We now appear to be entering the next stage of public discussion and debate, focusing on the practical realities of moving the issue from an abstraction to reality.
As more and more of the policies and programs initiated in the undoubted enthusiasm for a better environment begin to gain traction, people are beginning to ask questions – sometimes difficult questions.
The largest area of concern centers on the extent of our dependence on fossil fuels. We’ve successfully created the picture of a self-destructive reliance on an energy source that is deemed to be harmful to the environment and to people. It’s so bad, critics argue, that we have no choice but to embrace draconian actions that effectively cut our use of fossil fuels – and cut it now rather than later.
Reduced use of petroleum products in the transportation industry and generation of electricity is a key objective, as is the development and use of other non-fossil fuel energy sources, including such renewable sources as solar, tidal, biofuels and wind. In short, transforming it fundamentally transforms our entire energy system.
According to 2022 government data, nearly 80% of U.S. energy consumption comes from fossil fuels, with the country consuming almost 20.3 million barrels of petroleum, about a fifth of the global total, every day.
The best-intentioned efforts, however, have proven to have some sobering realities. The largest of those realities is the sheer scale of the challenge. We have built an enormous economy on the basis of fossil fuels. Our gross domestic product is now roughly $25.5 trillion. Retooling such an economic engine away from dependence on fossil fuels will take money – a lot of money – not to mention the time needed to make such a transition without sending the economy into a tailspin.
Proponents of aggressive change believe that the huge costs of transformation will indeed lead to short-term run-up in consumer costs, as the price for new technologies and equipment and support systems come into play.
However, over time, they argue that these price-run-ups will be offset by improved efficiencies and lower costs that come from moving to a low-carbon energy model.
Analysis by leading consulting organizations echo this argument. But those same consultants also acknowledge that the cost of transitioning to net-zero emissions of GHG by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion per year. Cynics pointedly ask for an example of cost reductions actually being passed back to consumers, once the increases have been implemented.
The question of “who pays” has become an increasingly troublesome matter to more than energy consumers. The food and agriculture sector is not immune to the economic questions posed by the wide range of green policies and regulations imposed in the name of protecting people and the planet.
The most immediate issue raised by people across the food chain is the enormous role played by energy costs in producing commodities and food products. Farming and ranching have massive energy needs and agriculture contributes approximately 11% of global green house gas emissions.
Nitrogen fertilizers are derived primarily from natural gas and make up one of the most critical crop inputs and remain a key to productivity. Field equipment such as tractors, combines, and trucks demand fuel, as well as power for moving, storing, drying, and maintaining crops. Basic processing of commodities into the food ingredients used by food manufacturers also demands significant energy. Warehousing and distribution of food to retailers and restaurants is inherently transportation-dependent.
Moving to vehicles not dependent on fossil fuels is a noble objective. But once again, the reality is that such a transformation in a system as large as the U.S. food system will be an expensive proposition. The more rapid the required conversion, the higher the risk of short-term adverse effects on the producer bottom-line.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that our national food system accounts for 12.5 percent of U.S. energy use (2012). Between 1998 and 2002, more than half of the increase in U.S. energy use came from the food system, USDA noted.
If you want the gee-whiz numbers this represents, consider an estimate from USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) that found the U.S. food system consumed about 12 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) in 2012. Each of those 12 quads works out to the energy in about 8 billion gallons of gasoline, or 293 billion kilowatt hours of electricity., or 36 million tons of coal. No matter how detailed or debatable the conversion arithmetic, that’s a lot of wind turbines and solar panels.
Food inflation has averaged roughly 3.2 percent each year for most of the past century. A host of factors during the Covid pandemic converged to drive food inflation to 6.3 percent in 2021 and a whopping 10.4 percent in 2022. (Inflation rates in other parts of the world remain elevated as well. In the European Union, for example, food inflation peaked in mid-2023 at 19 percent before dropping to “only” 5.9 percent by year’s end.)
Cutting through all the numbers leaves one clear message: consumer food costs remain under considerable inflationary pressures for multiple reasons. Energy costs – and the immediate transitional costs imposed by a growing roster of green requirements – will help maintain these pressures.
Post Covid, the inflation rate has dropped back to more traditional rates. But the rising concern with further disruptions to global energy markets – and the unrelenting cost pressures on producers and others across the food chain from green policies and other cost sectors – once again have people looking a bit nervously over their shoulders about future food costs.
The worry over continuing food inflation – and the possible role of green policies in fueling that pressure – have taken root across many of the countries at the heart of the Paris Climate Accord and their ambitious targets for moving to a more carbon-neutral global energy system.
The issue has prompted vocal protests and confrontational demonstrations from European and UK farmers – and generated rising concern among the elected officials who must reconcile those protests with existing and planned green commitments.
EU and UK farmers argue they are being squeezed on a number of economic fronts. Shifting marketing flows in the wake of the Ukraine conflict have increased supplies, with resultant price pressure on commodities. The Middle East is fraught with conflict and the future is uncertain in regard to oil prices. Cuts in diesel subsidies and other energy-related supports have added to costs and hurt producer bottom lines, German farmers contend. Restrictions on nitrogen-based fertilizers and sequestration of some farmlands have hurt productivity and profitability, others argue.
Complying with a growing roster of green requirements involves ever-more bureaucracy and takes more and more time and expense. Protests have spread across France, Germany, Spain, Romania, Poland, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom.
As one farmer summed up the litany of complaints to CNN, “We are no longer making a living from our profession.”
Eurostat findings tends to support the complaint: data shows a nearly 9 percent drop in the prices paid to EU farmers from 2022 to 2023.
Put that in perspective by imagining what you would do with that drop in your own household income – especially in an inflationary period.
The protests have reached sufficient size to prompt elected officials – many facing autumn elections – to rethink the extent and, perhaps more importantly, the timing of the ambitious green agenda. Some changes and restrictions have been rolled back or delayed. At this time, the discussion seems to focus on getting farmers more involved in the planning and development of green policies and programs and looking at time frames that provide greater opportunity for transition and adaptation.
European Commission President U chief Ursula von der Leyen has given up on an ambitious bill to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and softened the European Commission’s next raft of recommendations on cutting agricultural pollution. “We want to make sure that in this process, the farmers remain in the driving seat,” she said at the European Parliament. “Only if we achieve our climate and environmental goals together will farmers be able to continue to make a living.”
Evolutionary reality seems to be gaining traction over economically revolutionary good intentions.
U.S. policy-makers still debating a massive long-term Farm Bill aren’t ignoring what is going on in the EU on the farm front. Many of the concerns and complaints heard across Europe and the UK sound all too similar to what U.S. producers may be thinking and saying.
Consumer attitudes also come into political play. Current estimates place the U.S. inflation rate at 3.5 percent, down significantly from the 7 percent and 6.5 percent seen in 2021 and 2022 but up slightly from last year’s 3.4 percent. Energy and food inflation, however, remain well above this level and represent two of the most powerful drivers of the cost increases facing consumers in the United States and elsewhere around the globe. Inflation hits hard. The other day in the grocery store, we overheard a child asking for a watermelon and his mother said no, at $7 it is too expensive. Sensitivity to those points of view grows especially strong as November looms.
How other countries handle the economic and political realities of ‘going green’ may offer some important advice on how to make that transition acceptable to everyone – none the least the American farmers and ranchers worried about their financial security, or the average food consumer tired of unrelenting increases in the costs of feeding their families.
Current consumer attitudes toward milk and dairy products are increasingly influenced by health concerns, environmental considerations, and the rise of plant-based alternatives. Many consumers have moved toward low-fat dairy options or non-dairy substitutes, perceiving them as healthier choices due to longstanding recommendations to limit saturated fat intake.
Findings from the latest dairy study highlight the potential cardiometabolic benefits of full-fat dairy. By presenting evidence that full-fat dairy may not only be harmless but potentially beneficial, these insights could encourage consumers to reconsider their choices in the dairy aisle.
This shift could lead to a renewed interest in whole-milk products and fermented dairy, balancing the dietary landscape with a broader acceptance of various dairy fat contents based on individual health benefits rather than a one-size-fits-all dietary guideline.
The comprehensive review, “Whole-Milk Dairy Foods and Cardiometabolic Health: Dairy Fat and Beyond,” authored by Avinash Pokala and colleagues , challenges longstanding beliefs about the relationship between full-fat dairy consumption and cardiometabolic health.
Historically, full-fat dairy products, which are high in saturated fats, have been thought to contribute to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. This study scrutinizes this hypothesis by reviewing recent evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials.
The review critically examines extensive research to assess the impact of full-fat dairy products on health. It categorizes the evidence based on the type of dairy product (fermented vs. non-fermented) and explores the role of specific components like milk polar lipids. The study also considers how the dairy food matrix—comprising fats, proteins, and bioactive molecules—interacts to influence health outcomes.
Cardiometabolic Activities of Dairy Fat
Contrary to previous guidelines that recommend limiting full-fat dairy, the study finds that dairy fat intake has a neutral to beneficial effect on cardiometabolic health. It references several large-scale studies and meta-analyses which suggest that full-fat dairy consumption does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and may, in fact, offer protective benefits against metabolic syndrome (MetS) and diabetes.
Positive Effects of Fermented Dairy Products
Fermented products like yogurt and cheese consistently show beneficial effects in improving lipid profiles and potentially lowering CVD risk. For example, a meta-analysis cited in the review demonstrates that yogurt consumption is associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, attributing these effects to the fermentation process which may enhance the bioavailability of bioactive peptides and other nutrients.
Role of Milk Polar Lipids
Milk polar lipids, concentrated in the milk fat globule membrane, are shown to improve blood lipid profiles and contribute to cardiovascular health. The study discusses evidence from controlled trials where milk polar lipids were found to regulate lipid absorption, reduce inflammation, and improve gut health, thereby offering a mechanistic explanation for the cardioprotective effects of full-fat dairy.
Reevaluation of Dietary Recommendations
The review strongly advocates for updated dietary guidelines that reflect the complexity of dairy foods and their varied impacts on health. It suggests that the current recommendations may oversimplify the effects of fats found in dairy products and do not account for the protective components like polar lipids and probiotics found in fermented dairy.
Several previous studies align with these findings, supporting the beneficial effects of full-fat dairy on cardiometabolic health. For instance, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study found that higher dairy fat intake was associated with lower risk of diabetes and high blood pressure.
Additionally, a systematic review and meta-analysis published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that dairy consumption, irrespective of fat content, was linked to reduced risks of metabolic syndrome, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. These studies collectively challenge the traditional views on dairy fat and support a more differentiated understanding of its impact on health.
The review encourages consumers not to avoid full-fat dairy categorically. Instead, it suggests evaluating the overall nutritional content and considering personal health needs. For instance, individuals without a high risk of cardiovascular issues might benefit from including full-fat dairy in their diet.
Additionally, consumers should note the specific benefits of fermented dairy products. These products not only aid in digestion due to their probiotic content but also provide enhanced cardiometabolic benefits. This study underscores the importance of personalized dietary choices that consider the nutritional benefits of dairy products in the context of an overall diet and individual health profiles.
Outside of the obvious health take aways for consumers based on the new information in this study, consumers are increasingly making their dietary choices based on both nutrition and environmental considerations.
The dairy industry has the potential to contribute positively to environmental sustainability through various innovative practices and technologies. Here are some ways the industry can help the environment:
Sustainable Farming Practices
By adopting more sustainable farming practices, such as managed grazing, the dairy industry can enhance soil health, increase carbon sequestration, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Managed grazing involves rotating dairy cattle through pasture lands, which can help maintain soil fertility and reduce erosion.
Renewable Energy
Dairy farms can utilize manure as a resource by converting it into biogas through anaerobic digestion. This process not only reduces methane emissions—a potent greenhouse gas—but also produces renewable energy that can power the farm and potentially supply electricity to local communities.
Efficient Use of Resources
Implementing precision agriculture techniques can help dairy farmers use water, feed, and energy more efficiently. Precision feeding programs optimize the amount of feed for cattle, reducing waste and minimizing the environmental impact of feed production.
Waste Recycling
By improving waste recycling processes, dairy farms can turn by-products like manure and wastewater into valuable resources such as organic fertilizers and irrigation water, thereby reducing dependency on chemical fertilizers and promoting water conservation.
Packaging Innovations
The dairy industry can also make a significant environmental impact by innovating in packaging solutions. Developing biodegradable or recyclable packaging can reduce waste and the carbon footprint associated with traditional plastic packaging.
Collaboration & Certification
Engaging in partnerships with environmental organizations can help dairy farms implement best practices and become certified in sustainable agricultural methods. Certifications can serve as a signal to consumers who are concerned about the environmental impact of their purchases.
Educating Consumers
The industry has a role in educating consumers about the importance of sustainable dairy production and the environmental benefits of supporting local and sustainably produced dairy products.
By focusing on these areas, the dairy industry can transform from being part of the environmental problem to an active part of the solution, contributing to a more sustainable agricultural sector and helping mitigate the impact of climate change.
Coffee gives us a great morning boost – and it is not just the caffeine! A recent study published in Nature Metabolism brings to light the significant role of trigonelline, a naturally occurring compound in coffee, in enhancing muscle health and function, particularly against the backdrop of aging.
Trigonelline is an alkaloid that serves as a precursor to NAD+. This molecule is crucial for energy production in cells, particularly within mitochondria — the powerhouses of cells.
As we age, our mitochondria’s efficiency in energy production wanes, partly due to declining NAD+ levels. This decline is linked to several age-related conditions, including sarcopenia, which is characterized by the loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength.
Think of trigonelline in the body like a key that unlocks the energy production factory in muscle cells. Just as a key starts a car and revs the engine, trigonelline helps turn on the mitochondria, boosting energy output and enhancing muscle function, especially as we age. This ensures the body’s engines run smoothly and efficiently.
These effects were observed across various species, including humans, where higher blood levels of trigonelline were positively correlated with better muscle strength and function.
Conversely, lower levels were associated with sarcopenia, or muscle loss.
The implications of these findings are vast.
For one, it suggests that daily consumption of coffee, a rich source of trigonelline, could offer a simple, natural way to support muscle health and mitigate some aspects of aging.
The study, however, does not specify the exact amount of coffee required to achieve these benefits, as trigonelline content can vary widely among different coffee types and preparations.
Generally, a moderate intake of black coffee (approximately 3-4 cups per day) is considered beneficial for most people, but individual responses can vary.
But what about coffee’s negative effects? Does the trigonelline make up enough for them?
First, let’s dispel some of these outdated coffee myths:
And there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy your cup of joe, in addition to minimizing muscle loss.
It’s also worth noting that while coffee’s potential health benefits are promising, it’s important to consume it in moderation and be mindful of individual tolerance levels. Additionally, the healthiest way to enjoy coffee is black, or with minimal added sugar, to avoid counteracting its benefits with unnecessary calories.
This study, a collaboration among international researchers, underscores the potential of dietary interventions to improve health outcomes, especially in aging populations. It opens doors to further research on trigonelline’s role in human health and its potential in dietary supplements or as part of a broader strategy to combat age-related muscle decline.
How do these myths and truths come to exist in people’s minds? It is all about the source.
In the landscape of nutrition and health information, the importance of consulting reputable sources cannot be overstated.
These sources, like Dirt to Dinner, are grounded in scientific research and peer-reviewed studies, and offer reliable and evidence-based insights, ensuring the advice you follow is beneficial for your health. They help sift through myriad information available, distinguishing between evidence-based facts and unfounded claims to help eliminate unfounded myths such as these.
This careful approach to gathering information is essential for making informed decisions about your diet and health, contributing to a well-rounded understanding of nutrition’s role in overall well-being and helping to navigate through common myths and misconceptions.
