In the News: Bill Gates gives GMOs a vote of confidence

Bill Gates

Leading scientists around the world have been saying it for some time: genetically modified technology is safe. But many consumers still have their doubts, and GMO critics are a powerful and very vocal group.

Recently, Bill Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) weighed in on the discussion on an “Ask Me Anything” thread on Reddit.

GMO foods are perfectly healthy and the technique has the possibility to reduce starvation and malnutrition when it is reviewed in the right way. I don’t stay from non-GMO foods but it is disappointing that people view them as better.”

Gates wasn’t simply throwing flame on the fire. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation takes on some of the toughest challenges facing developing countries: poverty and malnutrition. They allocate funds to innovative companies and organizations that can help provide solutions to these problems. This includes supporting new techniques and crops, such as Green Super Rice, to help farmers in developing countries successfully grow more food and earn more money.

Predictably, his comments prompted a fairly wide-spread reaction in the media. Scientists and global organizations— such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences— applauded Gates for calling attention to the important role GMOs play in helping provide affordable, safe food to feed a world that is projected to grow to almost 10 billion people by 2050. Without the productivity-enhancing advancements made possible by genetics, they point out, the task of providing food for another 2-3 billion mouths could prove extremely difficult, if not insurmountable.

Unsurprisingly, GMO critics weren’t won over, despite Bill Gates’ respected reputation for forward thinking and societal insight. In fact, some critics even chose to use his comments as a platform for continuing to argue against GMOs— despite the growing roster of studies, organizations, and individuals who echo Gates’ comments.

There are many opponents to GMOs, including the highly visible Non-GMO Project and GMO Awareness Organization. Anti-GMO propaganda has gone so far as to include Jennifer X, a Russian Bot, who has been responsible for spreading anti-GMO disinformation through social media. Since many consumers have GMO-related anxieties to begin with, these messengers have been extremely effective in perpetuating fear towards genetic engineering technology.

Non-GMO = Big Business

According to the Genetic Literacy Project, a site dedicated to promoting science literacy, there are more than 35,000 food products certified as “GMO-free,” representing sales of about $16 billion annually. We now have what can be termed as a “non-GMO food supply.” GMO-free food has now become big business— not just a passionate if sometimes ill-informed cause.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission are among the blue-chip entities that have publicly concluded that GMO foods are safe to eat. Most notably, a large 2013 study on GMOs found no “significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.”

Gates’ comments may not single-handedly change the opinion of the hardcore anti-GMO constituency— but, they add a respected global name to the pro-GMO community and stir up more public attention to the importance of genetics and genomics in the modern food system of today and tomorrow.

The more people know about the science behind GMOs, rather than just the emotions surrounding GMOs, the more effective our policies and decision-making will be with regards to our global food supply.

D2D on the Farm: America’s Salad Bowl

The Dirt-to-Dinner Team in Salinas Valley

The D2D team recently took a tour of Monterey County in Salinas Valley, California. Perfectly nestled between the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountain ranges,  the valley spans 90 miles long and 15 miles wide. The soil is some of the most fertile in the world, created after thousands of years of nutrient dense mountain erosion and the ebb and flows of the Salinas River.

The north end of the Salinas Valley opens to the Pacific Ocean. This marine influence cools the valley and makes possible the wide range of crops found here. With a total value of over $1.9 billion, Monterey County is the fourth highest agricultural producing county in California. (UCDavis)

Two very deep underground aquifers and cool air from the Pacific Ocean contribute to the ideal growing conditions, which enables farmers to plant crops twice per year. Because of its prolific crop production, the area has been nicknamed the “Salad Bowl of the World.” Its top crops are Leaf Lettuces, Strawberries, Head Lettuce, Broccoli, Nursery stock, Wine Grapes, Cauliflower, Celery, and Spinach.

One of the most important takeaways we had from this trip was the care and stewardship of the land, with little differentiation between organic and conventional farming practices. The large and smaller scale farmers in this area— regardless of whether they are conventional or organic growers— are growing sustainably, efficiently, and safely. They take care of the land by employing successful crop rotation, appropriate pesticide use, and using an advanced recycled watering system to irrigate their crops. In fact, 72% of crops utilize water-conserving drip irrigation tape as their main delivery method for irrigation.

Our tour was guided by Evan Oakes, owner of Ag Venture Tours and a former agricultural scientist for the University of California Cooperative Extension office in Salinas. He first showed us one of the few edible species of thistle: the artichoke.

Salinas Valley is the primary U.S. home for artichokes because of the cool breeze coming off the ocean, rich fertile soil, and roughly 200 days of cloud cover, which closely mimics the weather in parts of Italy, the artichoke’s indigenous home.

Artichoke ready for picking from Pezzini Farms

We visited Pezzini Farms, a 4th generation artichoke farm and saw acres and acres of “Green Globe” artichoke plants. Each of these hearty plants can reproduce for as long as 15 years, as long as it is properly pruned!  When artichokes are in season early in the spring, Pezzini Farms sells about 200 pounds per week, and is best known for the delicious menu of cooked artichokes, including French fried chokes, from the “Choke Coach.” We can vouch that deep-fried artichoke hearts are delicious!

Pezzini Farms sorting their artichokes by size. The artichokes roll down a conveyer belt which drops the different sizes in their respective bins.  image: Pezzini Farms

Artichokes are harvested at several different sizes. The jumbos work great to hold a variety of stuffing; the extra smalls are best eaten whole! (image: Pezzini Farms)

The farm utilizes integrated pest management practices, such as turning under the spent plant to nourish the soil and reduce pesticide use. The farmed acreage also utilizes drip irrigation to reduce water consumption and fertilizer usage.

For all you chefs out there, we also learned the best way to identify a ripe artichoke at the grocery store or farmers market… it QUACKS!

After the tour of Pezzini Farms, we loaded up into Evan’s Ag Venture Tours van and began to absorb the vast amount of growing acreage in this area. Fields and fields of dark loamy soil stretching to the horizon.

Currently, the Salinas Valley is early in the growing season. Because of this, our team saw crops in different growing stages. Broccoli was being harvested, while cauliflower was just showing its bud. Some strawberries were being harvested, but other fields had a few weeks to go. Most of the lettuces were being planted or were still in the baby leaf stage. Raspberries were just about to break bud, and specialty crops, such as broccoli rabe, were getting ready to be harvested.







 


Most of the fruits and vegetables produced in the valley is grown for large U.S. growers, such as D’Arrigo BrothersDoleDriscoll and Taylor Farms.  In many cases, small independent growers contract out to these larger firms. The larger parent company (like Driscoll) will operate the research facility which provides information and farming strategy to their contracted growers. However, we also saw large grower operations that were not contracted. Andy Boy, operated by the D’Arrigo family, is a fourth generation family farm that handles all of their packaging and shipping on site as well. In fact, when visiting the grocery store in Connecticut the day following our trip we found fresh Andy Boy broccoli rabe — and it was delicious!

Andy Boy broccoli rabe at the grocery store back home

Many thanks to Evan Oakes from Ag Venture Tours for surviving 1,000 questions a minute from the D2D team!
For more on Monterey County visit the Monterey County Farming Bureau website.

For more on the growers and producers in the area, you might be interested in the following sites:

Andy Boy Produce

Taylor Farms

Driscoll’s

Dole

Coffee: Friend or Foe?

hot coffee mug with coffee beans

Does your morning routine include coffee?

At D2D, ours definitely does! Besides its delicious flavor, consumers rely on their daily coffee fix for its caffeine. When you have 3+ cups of coffee a day you probably think you’re becoming a caffeine-aholic. But that’s not necessarily true— and you are not alone! The average American drinks 3.1 cups of coffee a day. We were curious about how your body processes coffee and whether or not there are any associated health implications from our morning cup of joe.

Quite surprisingly, the United States ranks 26th in global annual coffee consumption. Finland leads the pack at #1, with their average consumer drinking 6+ cups a day! Since the world shares a love of coffee, it has been studied globally over the years. While there is still a lot we don’t know about how your body handles coffee, the majority of research that does exist actually demonstrates the health benefits associated with drinking it. However, there are few negative claims as well…

Acrylamide in Coffee

In February 2018, it was reported that California lawmakers are lobbying for new labeling of coffee with respect to Proposition 65. Prop 65 includes a list of all synthetic and natural chemicals that are claimed to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive issues. This new bill is calling for coffee companies and even coffee shops to include a cancer warning on their coffee packaging due to the presence of acrylamide in coffee. Acrylamide is a natural chemical that is created during the coffee roasting process. While it is true that acrylamide is currently on the Prop 65 list of potentially cancerous chemicals, there is more to the story.

Coffee? Cancer? What?

The research on acrylamide is extremely limited and only tested in rat subjects. A 2014 review of the existing scientific research on acrylamide, entitled Dietary Acrylamide and Human Cancer: A Systematic Review of Literature,  determined “a majority of the studies reported no statistically significant association between dietary acrylamide intake and various cancers.”  Furthermore, as we learned in our discussion of toxicants, our bodies are equipped to process and expel any compounds such as acrylamide that aren’t beneficial to our health.

Your genetics play a role in how the liver metabolizes caffeine

Your genetics, specifically a gene called CYP1A2, determines how quickly your liver metabolizes the caffeine in coffee. So, when you are enjoying a cup of coffee, your CYP1A2 gene will instruct your liver to either metabolize and get rid of the caffeine present in your bloodstream as quickly as possible— or not! If your CYP1A2 is slow, the caffeine present in the coffee will remain in your bloodstream for much longer.

Your genetics play a role in how caffeine is metabolized in your body. 

The speed at which your body metabolizes caffeine affects how your coffee consumption will influence your health. If you metabolize caffeine quickly, you may have a decreased risk of heart disease with moderate consumption of coffee. Alternatively, if you metabolize caffeine slowly, this may actually cause an increased risk of heart disease— hence all the confusion! But, don’t feel you need to test the metabolizing potential of your CYP1A2 gene. Researchers are only beginning to understand how our genes and coffee habits interact.

Coffee contains beneficial compounds

Although the nutrition label is rather lacking for a cup of coffee— 8oz contains 1 calorie and 95 mg of caffeine— there is more to a coffee bean than meets the eye! There are over 1,000 natural compounds in a coffee bean.

There are over 1,000 natural compounds in a coffee bean. Image: Pixabay

Additionally, according to the National Coffee Association, the roasting process creates another 300 beneficial natural compounds which can be beneficial to your health and assist in cell metabolism. They include vitamins B3, B5, and B12 as well as amino acids and citricacetic, and malic acids. The European Food Research and Technology Journal has also reported that the volatile organic compounds (VOC) created during the roasting process have shown a maximum concentration at a medium roast level.

The various healthy compounds present in coffee include diterpenes and antioxidants. Research has indicated that diterpene can demonstrate the qualities of a therapeutic agent for cardiovascular disease. Diterpenes contain anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial and antispasmodic properties. Antioxidants have been known for their anti-inflammatory properties and have demonstrated the ability to fight free radicals. (For the full rundown on antioxidants click here.)

How does coffee affect your brain?

While there is still a lot to learn about your brain and its relationship to caffeine, there is some preliminary research that shows your brain can work more efficiently with a caffeine jolt. To put it simply, your brain naturally produces a compound called adenosinewhich helps regulate blood flow to different organs. Caffeine can disrupt the relationship between adenosine and your brain, effectively blocking adenosine from your brain receptors. The effect of this is that your brain is not being “told” to relax. This is why you may feel wired after your cup of coffee.

One study also believes caffeine consumption may help with your memory consolidation.

Where does the science come out on coffee?

In 2015, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines decided to include coffee in its recommendations. The organization concluded that moderate consumption of coffee, 3-5 cups a day or up to 400 milligrams of caffeine, could be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle. The benefits of the abundant, naturally occurring compounds in coffee include a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and muscle spasms.

In November 2017, the British Medical Journal published a comprehensive meta-analysis on coffee, which concluded that coffee appears safe within an intake of 3-4 cups a day, but that more research is needed.

“Coffee consumption seems generally safe within usual levels of intake, with summary estimates indicating largest risk reduction for various health outcomes at three to four cups a day, and more likely to benefit health than harm. Robust randomized controlled trials are needed to understand whether the observed associations are causal. Importantly, outside of pregnancy, existing evidence suggests that coffee could be tested as an intervention without a significant risk of causing harm. Women at increased risk of fracture should possibly be excluded.” – British Medical Journal

D2D on the Farm: GMOs

Green Cay farm talking with Dirt-to-Dinner

D2D recently visited Green Cay Farm, also known as Farming Systems Research, in Boynton Beach, FL. Green Cay is a Community Supported Agriculture, or CSA, that has operated between 10 and 15 acres of farmland for 17 years. CSA means they are a direct-to-consumer farm that delivers fresh veggies weekly or bi-monthly to their subscriber list. The farm grows over 30 different vegetable crops, including tomatoes, beans, broccoli, peppers, kale, squashes, watermelon, and lettuces, as well as different varieties within those crops.

Farm manager Nancy Roe gave us an expansive tour of the farm fields and we discussed the successes of the farm as well as the various challenges they face from season to season. One of the most interesting conversations we had was about a heavily debated topic in Ag. You guessed it…GMOs.

Nancy’s farm does not grow genetically modified crops, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a fan of the technology!  Because of consumer misconception, Nancy cannot integrate GM seeds into her farm without the fear of losing customers. But, every year Nancy estimates they lose roughly 30% of the crops they plant. And last year they were required to spend more money on pesticides in order to keep up with the disease and pests that threatened their crops.


These leafy greens are still a viable crop but have been the snack of different insects. If you look closely you can see how they have damaged the leaves.

“We cannot grow genetically modified crops because our consumers won’t buy them, but it would help with crop loss. What consumers often don’t realize is that traditional crops farmers plant today have also been modified! The seeds they plant are not the seeds that were originally found in the wild. Using plant breeding technology, scientists have created better crops. Genetically Modified technology does the same thing— just a lot faster. ” Nancy Roe, Ph.D.

The hot, humid climate in South Florida offers its fair share of challenges. Ultimately, GMO technology would allow Nancy to experience less loss on the farm and require fewer pesticide treatments. Corn, for example, is a profitable crop for the farm, but because of pest threat, Nancy must treat the crop 2-3x a week in order to fight off insects and disease. This does not mean she is haphazardly spraying her crop in excess pesticide! She noted, “Farmers don’t put pesticides on their crops because they’re bad people! My grandchildren run through my fields and pick the salad we eat for dinner. Conventional farming is safe. And pesticides are so expensive— we wouldn’t spray our crops if we didn’t have to.”

If she were able to grow and sell genetically modified corn to consumers, she estimates she would not need to treat the crop with any pesticides or herbicides until the very end of the growing season, when the corn silk fly becomes an issue for the crop. In Florida, this pesky little bug will lay its eggs on the corn, which will then bury as maggots under the protection of the corn husk. This is a pest that is specific to the humid temperatures of Florida, so corn growers in a cooler climate might never need to spray any pesticides on their crop! In Florida, if she was able to grow genetically engineered sweet corn seeds she would be able to spray 1/3 less than she does now. Nancy also noted that many organic farmers in the climate are forced to spray more frequently in order to keep up with the pest and bacterial diseases of the south Florida climate. (Yes, organic farmers use sprays too.)

Additionally, this season, the farm’s broccoli and cauliflower crops were knocked out due to bacterial disease and damage inflicted by the Diamondback moth, which eats the leaves and flower buds of crucifer plants. On average their crops are threatened by 8-10 different types of disease and 12 different types of insects.

Diamondback moth leaf damage.

Three years ago, Nancy saw the benefit of growing GE crops first hand. After losing her entire squash and zucchini crop to an unforeseen virus, Nancy was visiting a neighboring farm to discuss the issues and successes the farm was experiencing. When walking those fields, she noticed gorgeous squash and zucchini plants. Because the seeds were genetically engineered to not get the bacterial virus, the neighboring farmer had a great growing season and successfully sold his crop. Since genetically modified crops have been proven safe by 275 organizations, including the FDA, USDA, WHO, EFSA, and NIH, and they help our farmers, shouldn’t we support it, as well?

Farmers are constantly trying to heed the needs of their consumers, but at the same time, they need the flexibility to create a more sustainable farm that not only benefits its customers but also the land and its workers. 

This beautiful purple Brussel sprout crop is actually a loss for Green Cay farm. Due to the hot, humid climate, the sprouts themselves never grew.

What is NAFTA?

what is Nafta with American, Mexican and Canadian flags

NAFTA at the grocery store

At D2D, we wanted to explore the role international trade plays in bringing food to your dinner table.

While you are selecting avocados or blueberries at the grocery store, the last thing you are thinking about is Mexico. Or when you eat a ham sandwich, does Canada come to mind? Probably not. But these are just a few of the products that depend on trade between North American countries to satisfy our food demands.

You can buy most fresh food all year round largely because other countries can either grow them cheaper than the U.S. or have growing seasons that are opposite of ours. Trade provides the best possible price for the products we want by moving food from where it is grown and produced to where it is eaten. It is an efficient, universal means of bringing balance to supply and demand, and taking the wild swings out of our daily food prices.

Those opposed to NAFTA, on the other hand, argue that the influx of produce from Mexico or Canada negatively affect their prices. For instance, the avocado farmer in California is able to sell the farms produce at a premium if avocados are not being imported from Mexico. However, NAFTA and trade with other countries have encouraged farmers to be more diverse and versatile in their farming practices. Today, some avocado farmers in California are adapting by diversifying into coffee plants.

NAFTA impacts the cost of groceries

How much your food costs or whether you can get your favorite produce out of season is very important. Agriculture is an intertwined network of farming, crops, transportation, water usage, labor, and processing. Since crops require different growing environments, food is not often grown in the same location as where it is consumed. We all know that blueberries don’t grow in North Dakota in December, and wheat is not grown in Florida…ever! Different climates with different growing conditions in Mexico, the United States, and Canada can give us the best prices for available produce and the most sustainable agricultural supply chain.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is one of the most important tools used by the United States, Mexico and Canada in maintaining exactly this sort of open trade. It was put into action in 1994 as a bipartisan effort originated by President Reagan and signed into law by President Clinton.  NAFTA created a trilateral trade block designed to help ease product movement across borders in North America. In simple terms, NAFTA was based in the belief that trade would help generate mutually beneficial economic growth by better enabling each country to use its natural advantages in various economic activities to find larger, more rewarding markets.  And in the process, consumers would reap substantial benefits, too.

Billions of dollars worth of agricultural products are traded between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

One can distill NAFTA into three basic categories as it relates to Canada, the United States, and Mexico:

1. It eliminates taxes (tariffs) on all imports and exports coming across the borders. To confirm this, exporters must get a certificate of origin that states the product was made or grown in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico.

2. All three countries have a ‘most favored nation’ status. This means that every business and product gets the same treatment from the governments regardless of which country it originated.

3. Government policies and environmental and labor laws are respected. That also includes all patents, trademarks, and copyrights and ensures that they are respected among the countries. There are also specific rules in place to prevent any trade disputes.

Since 2010, the U.S. export of agricultural goods has averaged $140 billion. We export the most to China with Canada and Mexico coming in a close second. Without the strong North American trade partnerships, our agricultural exports could decline up to $40 billion in revenue.

Since 2010, the U.S. export of agricultural goods has averaged $140 billion. We export the most to China with Canada and Mexico coming in a close second. Without the strong North American trade partnerships, our agricultural exports could decline up to $40 billion in revenue.

NAFTA helps keep groceries affordable

Let’s put NAFTA into perspective— here is how it affects your kitchen. You love breakfast and enjoy frying up some bacon and eggs every morning. But how did that pork end up at your local grocery store? Your bacon probably started its life as a piglet in Manitoba, Canada; was then trucked to southern Minnesota where it was fed corn from Iowa, processed into bacon in Iowa, and finally sent to a U.S. grocery store or back to Canada. Baby pigs, otherwise known as feeder pigs, are primarily born in Canada (most often in Manitoba) and then shipped to the United States when they are about 40 pounds.

In 2016, 4.8 million feeder pigs were trucked to those states that have cheap access to corn. After they grow to their production size of 280 pounds in the U.S., they are ready to be processed into sausage, bacon, ham, tenderloin or chops. These finished pork products are then trucked back to Canada, across the U.S., and down to Mexico. Because of NAFTA, the pigs and the processed meat can flow back and forth across the border without taxes. As a result, the U.S. has 27% of the global pork export market, which benefits our farmers, and your morning bacon is made much more affordable!

“The integrated nature of our trade relationship enables the three North American countries to remain competitive internationally. It allows us to create jobs and exports and enhances our potential to increase our respective contributions to the American Canadian, and Mexican economies.” (Canadian Pork Council)

Without NAFTA, there will be higher tariffs

What if there were no NAFTA? If NAFTA is removed, each country would revert to the import tariffs put in place by the World Trade Organization. The average cost to export to Mexico would be 7.1%, to the U.S. 3.5% and to Canada 4.2%. However, this varies product by product. For instance, Mexico would charge a 75% tariff on chicken coming from the U.S. This would reduce chicken exports and force chicken suppliers to send their chicken to other countries or produce less.

Free trade helps all economies grow

While some industries want to put a protectionist status on their products, having a competitive flow between borders creates more jobs. Economic growth allows more purchases and more products to be created. “Every $1.00 in ag exports generates an additional $1.27 in economic activity for the exporting country.” This is an increase of 127%! Free trade also provides a comparative advantage for the country that is producing a certain product. For instance, corn grows very well in the mid-west and is exported to Mexico for their animal feed. Or, if we’re looking again at growing blueberries in a North Dakota, an indoor environment just doesn’t make sense compared to importing blueberries grown in Mexico.

U.S. demand for produce has helped farmers in Mexico generate more income and create secure jobs because they are able to easily export fresh fruits and vegetables like avocados, tomatoes, watermelon, and blueberries. As a result, these farmers can also invest in more sustainable farming, education, and food safety. They are able to use phosphate fertilizer instead of night soil. They can drive tractors instead of using oxen. They will then buy cars, clothes, and send their children to school. This is mutually beneficial for the United States because of the higher the Mexican GDP per capita – the better the likelihood that they import more products from the U.S.

In speaking with 4th generation North Dakota farmer, Terry Wanzek, he emphasized the importance of NAFTA to American farmers as well as farmers in Canada and Mexico. Terry grows corn, wheat, and pinto beans. While discussing the beans, he said that about 70% a month goes to Mexico. He points out that if we didn’t have the agreement with Mexico then the demand for pinto beans would be far less, and the prices would not be enough to cover the production costs.

“If the United States quits NAFTA, then the United States quits on its farmers. It’s that simple: Withdrawal would devastate us. We wouldn’t just lose our jobs. Some of us could lose our homes and our farms.” Terry Wanzek

What are the issues with NAFTA?

NAFTA isn’t universally praised. The issue that President Trump has with NAFTA is that some of the trade with different products is not necessarily fair.  As with any trade agreement, NAFTA demands adjustment for some sectors in all three nations.  Some economic sectors that had enjoyed a safe national marketplace now have to deal with other competition and tougher economics.  But overall, trade experts argue, each economy benefits as citizens gain the benefits that come from open, freer trade.

There are still examples of where NAFTA can be modernized. For instance, while the food safety regulations are the same in both countries, meat crossing the border is subject to different standards. From the U.S. to Canada, meat can enter relatively easily. When meat comes from Canada to the U.S., there are inspection houses with set fees that slow down the transport – without an added benefit to food safety.

Trade between Mexico, U.S., and Canada means that consumers in North Dakota can enjoy blueberries whenever they like, even in December.  It means Mexican families can afford and enjoy more meals of beef, thanks to the feed grains imported from American farms.  It means farmers in both Mexico and the United States can count on fertilizers from Canada to achieve optimal crop yields and optimal profits every year.

Toxins and Toxicants – how much is too much?

beakers in a science lab

Fear of chemicals and ‘toxins’ in your food and our surrounding environment has fueled many misinformed opinions and left consumers confused. (The Dirt-to-Dinner team has discussed this misplaced fear in previous posts about GMOspesticide use, and rBST.) But, there is no need to panic. In reality, whether or not something is toxic depends on numerous factors, such as the substance’s form, the amount you are exposed to, how you are exposed, and your genetic make-up.

It is not as simple as “this is good, that is bad”

Answer the following…

  • Do you buy products that are labeled as “natural” or “no added chemicals”?
  • Do you think products labeled as “natural” are better for you than those not labeled “natural”?
  • If products had “made with chemicals” splashed across their labels in red letters would you avoid them?
Although the study of toxicology is a fairly modern scientific discipline, since ancient times humans have been aware of harmful chemicals. For more information about the history of toxicology, check out the Toxicology Education Foundation.

If you answered yes to all three, marketing tactics might be getting the best of you. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple! Making choices that affect our health would certainly be easier if everything was as easy as “that is bad for you, and this is good for you.” Yes, some things, like habitually smoking cigarettes, are obviously not good for your health, but most things do not fit neatly into that “good” or “bad” category. Scientists were so intrigued by this fact that they created a discipline, toxicology, to study what effect chemicals have on our health.

There are two terms that people— even many non-toxicologist scientists and medical doctors— commonly get confused. Those two terms are toxicant and toxin. The term most frequently used incorrectly is toxin.

Toxins are naturally-occurring poisons produced by living organisms such as bacteriafungiplantsinsects, and algae. Toxin is frequently misused when people are really referring to “toxicants” or toxic substances resulting from human activities.

Toxicants are manufactured and extracted chemicals such as pesticides, cleaning agents, industrial emissions or by-products, mining by-products, etc. that are in our environment.

Our bodies are equipped to protect us

Our bodies are ready to protect us from toxic levels of chemical compounds. In order to best protect our health, our bodies respond either by  

1).  Metabolizing chemical compounds using specialized proteins called enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions to produce less harmful chemicals, called metabolites. Occasionally the metabolite is more harmful than the original chemical, but most often it is harmless or less harmful than the original compound.

2).  Attaching molecules to the harmful compound leading to either excretion or directing it to an enzyme for further processing.

Where we get in trouble, however, is when our bodies’ systems are overwhelmed. In these instances, there is too much for our systems to process and substances can become toxic. This all depends on the dose.

Too much of anything can be a bad thing

Dose is the amount of a chemical (i.e., in the form of food, beverage, nutritional supplement, medicine, etc.) administered at one time; the total dose is the amount times the frequency times the duration. If the dose is too high, your body’s ability to eliminate may be overpowered causing adverse effects. So, the dose makes the poison.

And too much of even a good thing can be damaging. Take, for example, water: on occasion, the news blasts a headline such as “Georgia teen dies from drinking too much water, Gatorade” or “Woman dies after water drinking contest”. Consuming large volumes of water faster than your body can eliminate the excess causes an imbalance of your body’s electrolytes, which damages your organ systems and can result in death.

Another example is polyphenols. Polyphenols are chemicals with antioxidant properties found in plant-based foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts that have been shown to protect DNA from damage at low doses but also damage DNA at high doses. We’ve discussed the properties of polyphenols in previous articles that discussed turmericred wine, and matcha, as polyphenols are naturally occurring in these foods. These days, there are many companies marketing polyphenol-containing products to boost your antioxidant levels, but rarely do those marketing campaigns ever mention what happens if you consume too much of their products. If you are taking over the counter supplements containing polyphenols and eating a diet rich in naturally occurring antioxidants you might actually be damaging your DNA. And this is where our genetics and other personal characteristics come into the picture…

What’s good for you may not be good for me…

Our genetic makeup (or genotype) has a major impact on how we respond to a chemical. For example, we all have varying levels of enzymes in our bodies and some of us do not produce certain enzymes at all. This is why some people will have an adverse reaction or get sick when they are exposed to particular chemicals while others do not, or one person may experience adverse health effects at a very small dose while others will not feel any effects until they are exposed to a much higher dose.

Alcohol metabolism is an example of a genetic variation that is very well studied. In some sectors of the human population, particular enzyme variants involved in alcohol metabolism are genetically modified so that aldehyde, a toxic alcohol metabolite, builds up in the person’s system making them feel sick after consuming only small amounts of alcohol.

In addition to our genetics, we also differ in our responses to chemicals because of our gender, age, life stage, race, and health. Children and adolescents are often more susceptible to chemicals because their systems are still developing and are more vulnerable to damage. And older people or people who are immune-compromised are more susceptible because their systems are weakened.

Advancements in genetic sequencing methodologies may soon help to determine an individual’s sensitivity to chemicals. Emerging technologies coupled with the sheer amount and availability of data is making it easier for scientists to study population and individual genomes to determine chemical susceptibility. (See our post about CRISPR for more information on emerging technologies related to our genomes.) With the decreasing cost of genetic sequencing methodologies and increasing computing capacity, it is quite conceivable that in the near future, there will be rapid tests to determine the chemicals, if any, to which you are more sensitive.

Since there are thousands of chemicals in our environment (remember, everything is made of chemicals), outside of a select, well-defined group of “bad apples”, very little is actually known about subpopulation or individual genetic susceptibility to specific chemicals.

Of course, chemicals often vary in how dangerous they are to humans, which is why you will see a warning on some products (e.g., a jug of household bleach) and not on others (e.g., a jug of spring water). Some chemicals are toxic to humans at such a small dose that it is best to avoid any exposure. An example of a particularly deadly chemical is methyl mercury, an organic mercury compound that can cause death in very small doses. In 1996, a scientist accidentally spilled a couple drops of organic mercury on her gloved hand during an experiment. Three months later she was feeling confused and off-balance and went to the hospital. Less than a year later, she was dead.

 

Pay attention to warning labels.

Routes of Exposure

If you ever had a big multicolored bruise on your arm or leg, you may have been asked, “How did you get that?”. But in toxicology, when toxicologists ask how someone gets a disease or is exposed to a toxic substance, they are really asking – “By which route is a person exposed?”

There are three “routes of exposure” or ways you may be exposed to a toxic substance:

  • Ingestion
  • Inhalation
  • Dermal (through our skin)

Route of exposure is an important factor in determining toxicity because, just like dose, it has bearing on what happens to the person who is exposed (the response). Mercury is a great example of different forms causing different health outcomes. Mercury is present in the environment in several forms – metallic or elemental mercury is the chemical found in thermometers. It’s not toxic if you touch or eat it, but beware if you inhale it as the vapors are toxic to your nervous system.

On the other hand, when mercury combines with carbon to form organic mercury it is extremely toxic in very small quantities, and exposure through your skin or ingestion can kill you as it happened to the scientist who accidentally dropped some on her gloved hand.

You may have heard warnings about mercury contamination in fish. Mercury in fish is in the form of inorganic mercury – that is, mercury combined with other elements such as oxygen and sulfur to form salts. Inorganic mercury occurs naturally in our environment or can be emitted through industrial processes and when consumed, has a tendency to concentrate in and cause damage to kidney tissues.

So as you can see by this mercury example, in addition to a chemical’s form, the way you are exposed to a chemical also influences how or if it will affect your health.

How long have you been exposed?

Also of interest to toxicologists is whether the exposure is acute or chronic. Acute exposures are of short duration and chronic exposures are repeated or occur over an extended period of time. If we think of alcohol consumption, acute exposure to a large dose may make us sick or leave us feeling ill the next morning, but chronic exposure to one 5 oz. glass of wine with dinner every night may actually be good for your health.

Are Insects the Future of Food?

Grasshopper, Fried insects

News about insects is buzzing and consumers in North America are starting to listen. As discussed in Insects: A New Protein Source, insects are a complete protein (meaning they contain all nine essential amino acids) and they are a strong source of vitamins and minerals. So, now it’s time to walk the talk. The D2D team decided to give some of the most popular products on the market a try.

Follow us as we put these products to the test and try cricket protein powder, chocolate covered insects and cricket protein bars…

Test 1: Cricket protein powder

We are not the biggest fans of traditional protein powders. We prefer getting protein from the source itself (i.e. chicken or beef) but this is not your typical protein powder. The only ingredient is dry roasted crickets have been ground up! So, this would count as a natural animal protein and is a great option for a smoothie when you’re on the run.

Our recipe:1 cup unsweetened almond milk
1 tablespoon chia seeds
2 tablespoons cricket powder
1 tablespoon almond butter
½ banana
½ cup frozen blueberries

The consistency of the protein powder was very fine, similar to that of traditional whey or vegan protein powders. But smell at your own risk!

 

While there were some mixed reviews amongst our team, the protein powder was relatively mild and easily incorporated into our smoothie. By adding the other yummy ingredients, the taste of the powder was masked nicely. Definitely worth a try.

Test 2: Chapul Protein Bars

Chapul – a Utah-based producer of cricket protein bars and flours – received $50,000 in funding from Mark Cuban after their appearance on Shark Tank.

And the review:

The protein bars were more to our liking. With less hassle and added flavor, they went down easier than the cricket smoothie. The Chapul flavors were good and the texture resembled that of an Rx Bar. These protein bars also contained 2x the B12 than salmon and 3x the iron found in spinach!

Test 3: Flavored Cricket Snacks

For our snacking taste test, we ordered toasted coffee and sriracha crickets and a chocolate cricket bar. While the visible crickets tasted better than we thought, there was an issue with the “ick” factor as we could see very clearly that they were bugs! The products were more difficult to stomach. We recommend them to the fearless!

 

And the review:

The chocolate masked all cricket flavor and the crunch reminded us of a Nestle Crunch Bar. Yum!

Who eats bugs, anyway?

You might be surprised to learn that we’re not the first to hop on this recent insect-crazed bandwagon. Although insects have been eaten around the globe for millennia, they have recently been becoming more acceptable in the West. Restaurants from Los Angeles to Brooklyn are turning their protein features into bugalicious treats with surprising success.

“There are more than 1,900 edible insect species on Earth, hundreds of which are already part of the diet in many countries. In fact, some two billion people eat a wide variety of insects regularly, both cooked and raw; only in Western countries does the practice retain an “ick” factor among the masses.” (National Geographic)
Infographic: littleherds.org

And that’s not all— they’re becoming even more mainstream than just specialty restaurants. Going to a game? How about swapping that hot dog for some cricket tacos? The Philips Arena, home of the Atlanta Hawks, recently added these alternative protein tacos to their stadium food options!

And on the business side of insects…

AgFunder News recently reported that Protix raised $50 million in the largest insect farming investment to date. Furthermore, alternative proteins have also been a big area of investment interest given the amount of land and resources livestock farming requires.

Insect farming is a sustainable protein source— they are fed unsold fruit and grain, and require less water and land than traditional livestock—  but it isn’t without its fair share of difficulties. In order for this farming potential to succeed, it needs proper support. Insect farming requires a lot of capital in order to build factories with proper food safety standards. And while consumer demand remains relatively low in the United States, we still have a lot of growing to do.

But how easy is it to incorporate this affordable and nutrient-dense protein into your daily routine? Will insects be the chosen protein source for the generations to come? The UN has estimated that our population will exceed 9 billion people by 2050. And we need to be asking ourselves— how can we feed everyone?

Stonyfield’s Marketing Misstep

stonyfield yogurt cups on a grocery shelf

In the competitive food marketplace, fear-based marketing continues to be a go-to strategy for some food companies trying to differentiate their products from one another. Grocery stores today stock so many varieties of the same product that consumers must make a decision based on different factors like the lowest price available, if it’s made in the USA, or any other criteria that’s particularly important to them.

How did Stonyfield find themselves in such hot water?

Dairy products are a commodity and it is difficult to distinguish one carton of milk from another – or one type of yogurt from another. Given their higher price point and the myriad of choices available to consumers, it’s no surprise that Stonyfield is trying to differentiate their products. So, the company turned to fear-based marketing tactics to help boost their sales. The following video from Stonyfield Farm illustrates just how far food producers will go to sway consumers.

In order to tap into the fear of conscious shoppers—mainly parents trying to make healthy food decisions for their families, Stonyfield brashly uses children to spread misinformation on GMOs.

Stonyfield has successfully pulled on our heartstrings by using a parent’s desire to protect their child by feeding them “safer” yogurt. And this is not the first time they have used children to deliver incorrect messages on food technology. Their “Kids Define” campaign also includes adorable children discussing rBST and pesticide use. The inference, then, is that other yogurt products are dangerous to your children because those “other” dairy farmers have used pesticides, hormones, and GMOs.

Of course, we know that they are misrepresenting the facts. Organic crops use pesticides, they are just not synthetic pesticides. Their criticism of GMOs was related to the use of glyphosate, which has been deemed safe and non-toxic by the ESFA, WHO, FDA, USDA, and NAS. And just last week, D2D discussed how fear-based marketing and the spread of misinformation regarding rBST has almost completely eliminated the use of this technology in farming.

It is known that marketing strategies that appeal to emotion are the most likely to alter consumer behavior than straight scientific facts. There have been studies that demonstrate when consumers are under an MRI and deciding between different products, they will make the decision based on their emotion rather than the facts about the brand. Therefore, a consumer who has an emotional connection to a brand will be increasingly loyal. (Source: Psychology Today)

Mis-leading marketing tactics to improve market share

The yogurt market is very competitive and the volume of yogurt purchased in the United States is on the decline. From 2016 to 2017, the volume of yogurt sales decreased by 1.7 billion pints (from 3.37 billion pints in 2016 to 1.67 billion pints in 2017). This decrease, coupled with the similarities between many yogurt products on the market, motivates companies to be more creative in their marketing strategy.


(Source: Statista)

Moreover, Stonyfield does not have a significant U.S. market share. They are among the least popular brands, having just marginally outsold Muller yogurt.

In response to the video, many mindful consumers began voicing their concerns and frustrations with the message that was being conveyed: “does believing in the science and technology behind GMOs make you a bad parent?”

In order to control their message, these carefully constructed, thought-provoking responses were subsequently deleted by the Stonyfield social media team.

You can visit AgDaily for more content from the “Banned by Stonyfield” social media group, but here is a snippet of their open letter to Stonyfield:

“This kind of marketing hurts us all. Fear-based food messages are negatively impacting the buying and eating habits of consumers, especially among the poorest demographics. It demonizes safe and beneficial technology — technology that allows farmers to grow more food on less land, using fewer resources and reduce the environmental impact of the agricultural sector. Marketing messages like yours work to take choices away from farmers and make consumers feel like they don’t have safe choices at the grocery stores.”

Not only did Stonyfield use children to misrepresent genetically modified technology by including harmful and inaccurate rhetoric like “monstrous” and “gene from a fish used in a tomato,” but they also refused to give the science a voice by deleting informative comments on their Facebook page. As the video received more and more visits from those on both sides of the issue, Stonyfield was provoked into responding with this message on their Facebook page, which has since been deleted.

“We do not believe that eating GMOs have been proven harmful to your health.”

Stonyfield’s response to the backlash they received from their anti-GMO video using children.

Dirt to Dinner collaborator Amanda Zaluckyj, The Farmer’s Daughter, tactfully addresses the many incorrect claims that were made about GMO technology by Stonyfield in this response. “Even though Stonyfield doesn’t believe eating GMOs is harmful, they are more than willing to keep manipulating children to scare people. They are willing to lie to their customers to move their product. They know full well being non-GMO does not make their product better in any way, yet they are more than happy to act like it does if it sells.”

Michelle Miller, The Farm Babe, also contributed to AgDaily, wrote this regarding the negative effect fear-based marketing has on science and developing helpful technology for farmers: “Ask any scientist or commercial farmer, everything we eat has had their genes modified by humans, and there are no commercially available GMO tomatoes, among many other crops. Scaring people about science is sad because our entire world revolves around scientific advancements to make it a better place. Sharing genes with something doesn’t make it weird or scary. In fact, humans share about 50 percent to 60 percent of the same DNA as a banana. Sound weird? That’s why STEM and science education are so important.”

And, to that end, as the D2D team has discussed in many posts, genetically modified foods are safe AND the most heavily tested and regulated in history.

Unfortunately, fear-based marketing exists because it works.

Of course, this is not the first time fear-based marketing tactics have been used to sway consumer perception, particularly with respect to GMOs. In a 2016 campaign by Hunt’s tomatoes, the company claimed, “No matter how far afield you look, you won’t find a single genetically modified tomato among our vines.” Well…of course you won’t, because genetically modified tomatoes, although previously available, are no longer being commercially produced! Hunt’s chose to try and differentiate their products despite the fact that the claim isn’t even applicable.

D2D has frequently discussed the spread of misinformation through various marketing tactics. In our articles on the natural labelclean eating, GMOs, hormones in milk, and pesticide use we clarify the overuse and often abuse of these labels in order to make a product look more desirable. Most recently, Are there Hormones in Milk? examined the negative effects consumer marketing had on the rBST technology. We do not want to see what happened with the misunderstanding of rBST repeated with GMO technology. It so important for consumers to stay informed and question the marketing tactics employed by food companies. D2D asks that you ignore the marketing labels and pay attention to the nutritional label— 3oz of Stonyfield YoKids contains 13 grams of sugar!


For more on this, we recommend visiting: 

AgDaily 
The Farmers Daughter 
Farm Babe

Are There Hormones in Milk?

holstein dairy cattle in field with blue sky

This day and age, you would be hard-pressed to find a multimillion-dollar industry free of controversy. Dairy farmers know this reality all too well. The consumer perception of hormones in milk products is an example of marketing claims gone awry. Because of consumer misunderstanding, the dairy industry changed without any regard for science. Despite many validated scientific studies and numerous regulatory approvals, the use of rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) has been reduced from dairy farming because of the fear generated by misinformed consumers and tactful marketing claims.

There is no such thing as hormone-free milk!

All milking cows are females that have recently given birth and have hormones. Just like humans! In fact, if female cows didn’t produce hormones, they would not be able to have babies and produce milk. Once a cow has given birth, she produces milk for approximately 10 months.

What is rBST or rBGH?

BST, or bovine somatotropin, is a naturally occurring protein hormone produced by a female cow’s pituitary gland. Somatotropin regulates the cow’s metabolism and determines how efficiently a cow converts her feed into milk. Bovine somatotropin (BST) is also referred to as Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). rBST is the synthetic version of BST— it is an exact replica of the naturally-occurring BST hormone, recreated in a lab. After decades of scientific research, scientists recognized that cows supplemented with additional somatotropin produce on average 10-15% more milk every day. There is no discernible difference between milk from treated or untreated cows. When comparing treated versus untreated milk, it is impossible to detect the use of rBST.

In the 1970s, the biotechnology company, Genentech, discovered the BST gene and proceeded to synthesize the hormone to create rBST. Pharmaceutical companies were then able to commercialize the technology in order to sell the product to farmers. Monsanto, for example, licensed Genentech’s patent and was the first company to receive approval from the FDA. Monsanto then sold their product to dairy farmers and cows across the United States were given rBST to increase milk production.

Milk is a commodity and for this reason, it is very hard to distinguish the milk from one dairy cow to another. Farm profitability depends on both the available milk supply and consumer demand.

In 1997, Oakhurst Dairy in Maine was struggling to differentiate their company from larger competitors. The owner of Oakhurst decided to give financial incentives to their dairy farmers and in return asked them to sign a pledge rejecting the use of additional hormones. Thus began the marketing and enticing consumers to drink ‘rBST free’ milk.

Even Oakhurst Dairy, which prides itself on being “America’s first Farmers Pledge” against rBST must also include “FDA states no significant difference in milk treated with artificial growth hormone” on their label. (Source: WGME)

How do we know rBST is safe?

BST (and the synthetic rBST) is a hormone that is specific to bovines. The human body does not produce it or have a need for it. So, if you are an avid milk drinker, you can rest assured that your body does not recognize BST as usable in the human body. Because it is a protein, the human body will effectively break it down (like any other protein) and eliminate it. Therefore both BST and rBST have no impact as a growth hormone in humans.

In 1993, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of rBST in cattle. The World Health Organization Committee (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) followed suit and deemed rBST safe for consumer use. Today, over 90,000 scientific reviews and studies document the safety of rBST on both humans and cows.

According to The American Cancer Society, consumers should not fear the insulin-like hormones, “at this time, it is not clear that drinking milk, produced with or without rBGH treatment, increases blood IGF-1 levels into a range that might be of concern regarding cancer risk or other health effects.”

Mary Kraft is a dairy farmer from Fort Morgan, Colorado. She explains hormone use in milk production and why she feels confident that the milk we all drink is safe and healthy.
Source: www.findourcommonground.com

rBST is proven not to affect human health or the nutritional quality of milk, but there are some studies that argue rBST causes mastitis (udder infections), reduction in fertility, and lameness in cows. These alleged side effects, along with the results from a 2003 meta-analysis confirming these findings, resulted in several countries banning the use of rBST. However, 11 years later, a 2014 meta-analysis, sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association, showed no ill-health effects to cows given rBST. Given these conflicting opinions, the Dirt-to-Dinner team was curious about what the farmer had to say— after all no one cares more about having healthy dairy cows than a dairy farmer. When speaking with various dairy farmers, they all agree that that the health of the cow depends on the farmer. Dairy cows are like Olympic athletes. If farmers feed their cows well, clean them properly, and monitor their activity they will stay healthy. For example, if they are given rBST and their udders are not monitored and cleaned there is an increased risk of mastitis, but if they are well-cared for the farmer can eliminate that risk!

The Sustainability Factor

The use of rBST can help the environment. Dr. Normand St-Pierre, a retired dairy specialist from Ohio State University, examined a recent study that calculated the number of various pollutants that were inevitably not produced with the use of rBST.

In the study, milk created by the one million dairy cows supplemented with rBST inevitably reduced the number of cows needed to create the same amount of milk. This reduced manure excretion by 3.3 billion pounds per year. It also reduced emissions of CO2 1.3 billion pounds per year—the equivalent of over 350,000 family cars.

The point? Technology often improves efficiency on the farm. In the case of rBST, the environment benefited through fewer carbon emissions and the consumer benefited through more affordable milk and milk products. Technology can lead to efficiency – more milk with less water, waste, and land use. From a farmer’s (and consumer’s) perspective this is a positive in terms of business and environmental impact.

Labels are often used as marketing gimmicks

The ‘BST Free,’ ‘rBST Free’, or ‘rBGH’ labels are often used as marketing gimmicks. This continued marketing ploy drives consumer perception. American farmers work with very thin margins. Our farmers are expected to produce viable dairy products on a specific amount of land, water, and resources. The average farmer produces approximately 38,000 glasses of milk a year, with the average consumer consuming roughly 325 glasses of milk a year. Why not allow farmers to produce this using fewer cows rather than putting stress on our environment?

Labels can be confusing. Here not only are customers assured that this milk is free of hormones, but also states that the use of rBST in dairy farming is safe.

rBGH is practically a non-issue today—most producers no longer use rBGH. In 2007, a government study projected that roughly 17% of US cows were treated with rBST and that number has continued to decline. But understanding this social controversy is very important. Why do we ignore the data? As we have seen with GMOs, consumer perception can negatively affect successful food technology.

What is an Artificial Sweetener?

examples of alternative sweeteners

You have many choices to satisfy your sweet tooth. Last week we wrote about the hazards of consuming too much sugar. This week we are taking the confusion out of the alternative sweetener market. In fact, 84% of Americans are actively trying to limit sugar and 43% are turning to sugar substitutes. There are two kinds of alternative sweeteners: artificial and natural.

First, let’s distinguish between the natural sweetener – Stevia – and the artificial sweeteners such as Splenda, Equal, and Sweet’N Low. Stevia is made directly from the stevia leaf while the others are created in a lab, hence the difference between a natural sweetener and an artificial sweetener. The creation of natural sweeteners, from the Stevia plant, has caused an 8-10% decline in the purchase of artificial sweeteners. But, natural sweeteners are generally more expensive than artificial sweeteners due to their higher ingredient costs. As of 2015, Splenda is still the sweetener of choice in the United States and outsells Truvia, Sweet’N Low, and Equal.

Don’t artificial sweeteners cause cancer? What gives?

The artificial sweeteners, Splenda, Equal and Sweet’N Low, have a very storied past with the public and many people believe some sweeteners to be worse than others. For reference, 39% of consumers think it’s best to avoid food and drinks containing artificial sweeteners, and 38% say that some sweeteners should be avoided more than others. This has been a contributing factor to the recent decline in sales of artificial sweeteners and its associated products, like diet sodas.

Since saccharin has been around the longest, it’s of no surprise that it has had its share of distrust in the market. Saccharin came under a great amount of scrutiny in the 1970s because of a well-known lab test among rats that resulted in an increased incidence of bladder cancer, but the results were later dismissed as it was found that saccharin has an entirely different effect on human bladders. Saccharin remained on a carcinogenic watch list for quite some time until the FDA determined the compound had no proven carcinogenic properties and finally removed it from the list in 2000. However, public opinion of saccharin remains very wary despite a lack of evidence.

Aspartame continues to have its share of the spotlight with similar cancer concerns, mostly of the brain, but in 2006 the National Cancer Institute conducted a 5-year study of data from almost 500,000 individuals and found that higher levels of aspartame were not associated with elevated risk for brain cancer.

However, all artificial and natural sweeteners on the market in the U.S. and Europe are Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA and tested thoroughly by the European Food Safety Authority and the WHO. Any fears of cancer have been dismissed. All artificial and natural sweeteners on the market in the U.S. have undergone rigorous testing by the FDA. When a new food additive is developed, it goes through dozens of toxicity, animal, and human studies before being approved. Because of the meticulous analysis conducted by such governmental organizations as the FDA, WHO and the European Union, we as consumers can feel confident that these sweeteners have undergone substantial scrutiny before consumption of these products is permitted.

“Although there has been a lot of negative press about artificial sweeteners, there is no evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer in humans.”

-Christine Zoumas, MS, RD, Program Director at University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center

The Agony and the Irony of Splenda, Equal and Sweet’N Low…

Some of these artificial, no-calorie sweeteners we use to lose or manage our weight are making us bigger, depending on the amount and duration that we use them!

There is a tremendous amount of controversy on whether and how these artificial sweeteners contribute to obesity. It is debated within the scientific community whether regular, long term consumption of artificial sweeteners leads to long-term health benefits or weight loss. In fact, quite the opposite can be true: a 2017 meta-analysis reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that the consumption of sugar substitutes was associated with increases in weight and waist circumference, and a higher incidence of obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.

“Based on all of the research done so far, there is no clear evidence for a benefit, but there is evidence of potential harm from the long term consumption of artificial sweeteners”

-Dr. Meghan Azad, PhD, University of Manitoba

So if sweeteners have zero calories, how in the world is this happening? There may be three reasons for the expanding waistlines and associated illnesses…

Artificial sugar begets more sugar

Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity and weight-loss specialist at Harvard-affiliated Boston Children’s Hospital, hypothesizes that those who use artificial sweeteners may end up replacing the lost calories with less nutritious and calorie-dense options, like cake or pizza, thinking that they can “spend” their otherwise consumed 300 calories if they drank two regular sodas.

Another consideration is that hyper-sweetened substances may alter the way we taste our food. Since sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, our brains become more accustomed to this level of sweetness and eventually we find more natural but lesser sweet things, like fruits, less desirable. And vegetables? Forget it!

Lastly, these artificial sweeteners allow the consumer to disassociate sweet with caloric, which can be dangerous as eating sugar and sugar-like substances signal our brain to consume more sugar (you can blame that on our primate ancestors, as sugar was a scarce commodity way back when!). Since we’re so used to a sugary cup of coffee that has no calories thanks to Splenda, we want more sugar…and quickly! Thankfully there’s that donut over in the corner to fill our needs, but day after day, the sugar intake exceeds what we’d otherwise “save” by using sweeteners. Or, we add more calories to our diet by topping it off with sweeteners, which only makes us crave more…

image: CNN.com

There are other controversies surrounding artificial sweeteners

Again, while the research has not been peer-reviewed or widely accepted by the scientific community, there are several separate research trials of Splenda, Equal, and Sweet’N Low that have shown causal relationships between artificial sweeteners and negative gut microbiome health, stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

One study conducted by a team of Israeli scientists in 2014 found that artificial sweeteners, such as sucralose, aspartame and saccharin, significantly altered the intestinal bacteria of mice that, in turn, negatively affected their metabolisms, leading to obesity, diabetes, and other related diseases. (If you are unfamiliar with the gut microbiome, also known as our “second brain”, be sure to read our post on gut microbiota.)

Regarding the link of artificial sweeteners to Alzheimer’s disease and stroke, the American Heart Association reported that daily consumption of diet sodas may substantially increase the risk of these diseases. However, it is important to keep in mind that this finding may be a correlation and not causation— meaning that those who drink diet sodas regularly may be in poorer health than those who don’t drink them due to overall poor diet and lack of exercise.

Do Diet Drinks Count?

image source

Some of us may not think we regularly use artificial sweeteners, but don’t discount all those diet drinks and zero-calorie flavored waters! According to a 2016 study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, nearly half of adults and a quarter of children in the U.S. consume artificial sweeteners—and the majority do so on a daily basis, with diet drinks making up the bulk of the intake. Both the American Heart Association and the American Diabetic Association jointly agree that people should use artificial sweeteners cautiously.

The ingredient list on many of these diet drinks show sucralose or aspartame, both of which may be blended with acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), a supplemental sweetener commonly used in the beverage industry. Though aspartame used to be the primary sweetener of choice for the most popular beverages, blends of sucralose, aspartame, and sucralose-only options are entering the marketplace as consumer’s demand what they perceive as a more “natural” artificial sweetener.

And other options are also being added to the grocery store shelves, such as stevia-sweetened sodas and drinks. Because of its taste and its natural origin, stevia sweetened sodas, drinks, and food items are gaining in popularity. From just 2014 to 2017, the market value of stevia has grown 71% to $578 million from $338 million.

Here’s a list of the most popular diet drinks in the market today and their associated sweeteners:

Which is your sweetener of choice?

So we know that Splenda, Equal, Sweet’N Low, and Stevia have no calories, but how is that possible? And how does it affect our bodies? Learn what makes them sweet, how they look under a microscope and how much of the sweetener you can have per day per FDA guidelines (hint: it’s A LOT – but don’t think it’s an open invitation!):

Splenda (sucralose)

The chemical structure of sucralose

Chemical compound: Splenda is an artificial sweetener that is made of sucralose, a synthetically derived compound from sucrose – or table sugar. Chemically speaking, some hydrogen-oxygen groups have been removed from the molecule and chlorine has been added in their place, making sucralose much sweeter than sucrose. For those wary of chlorine being added, in addition to keeping our pools clean, chlorine is an essential nutrient found in many vegetables, including potatoes, broccoli, and tomatoes. Sucralose is extremely sweet – it’s about 600 times sweeter than table sugar and three times sweeter than Equal.

Sucralose in your body: Because your body has no use for it, approximately 85% of sucralose does not get digested or absorbed, thus leaving your body unchanged. Most of what remains gets absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract and then leaves the system as urine, but about 5% of the remaining sucralose will metabolize in the body.

Limitation on consumption: As per FDA guidelines, acceptable daily intake of sucralose is 5 milligrams per kilograms of body weight per day. So if you weigh 150 lbs., it is safe for you to consume upwards of 340mg of sucralose per day, which equates to 28 Splenda packets or 9 cans of diet soda. That should leave PLENTY of room for even the sweetest of sweet-tooth’s! 

A more “natural” artificial sweetener? There’s been some backlash against Splenda’s tagline, “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar”, which leads consumers to believe it’s a natural sweetener when in fact it’s synthetically made by a complex chemical process, just like its artificial counterparts.

Equal (aspartame)

The chemical structure of aspartame

Chemical compound: Equal, or aspartame, is another artificial sweetener, but its components do not mimic any sugar-based molecules. Instead, aspartame is made from aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two amino acids that when combined in a specific structure, yield a very sweet substance that’s 200 times sweeter than table sugar.

Aspartame in your body: Unlike sucralose and saccharine, aspartame is fully absorbed in the body given its composition of amino acids, which your intestinal tract breaks down into digestive enzymes the same way it would after consuming common protein sources, such as meats, fish, eggs and dairy. Aspartame does not enter your blood stream. 

Limitation on consumption: The acceptable daily intake of aspartame as determined by the FDA is 50 milligrams per kilograms of body weight per day. So if you weigh 150 lbs., it is safe for you to consume upwards of 3,400mg of aspartame per day. This equates to 18 cans of diet soda or almost 100 blue packets…per day!! Keep in mind that your body creates trace amounts of methanol when breaking down aspartame. Though small amounts are not considered toxic and are actually naturally-occurring, larger amounts can lead to headaches, weakness, dizziness and nausea.

Aspartame and health conditions: A very important note about aspartame is that it is not to be consumed by those who suffer from phenylketonuria (PKU), a condition in which a person cannot metabolize phenylalanine (one of the components of aspartame) into tyrosine. Instead, they produce phenylpyruvate, which left untreated can cause very serious problems with brain development. Thankfully, in the U.S. and most countries, detection of this condition occurs in the newborn screening panel. Additionally, those treated for schizophrenia should avoid aspartame due to a potential reaction with some medications.

Fun fact: Previously branded as NutraSweet, aspartame swept the nation in the 1980s, replacing over a billion pounds of sugar in the US during this time, and led to the creation of many diet sodas still hugely popular today.

Sweet’N Low (saccharin)

The chemical structure of saccharin

Chemical compound: Sweet’n Low is an artificial sweetener made of saccharin, or benzoic sulfimide, which is a synthesized compound of methyl anthranilate, sodium nitrite, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, chlorine, and ammonia. This yields a very sugary substance that’s 300-400 times sweeter than sucrose. 

Saccharin in your body: Similar to sucralose, saccharin is also not largely stored in the body.

Limitation on consumption: As per FDA guidelines, the acceptable daily intake of saccharin as determined by the FDA is 15 milligrams per kilograms of body weight per day. So if you weigh 150 lbs., it is safe for you to consume upwards of 1,000mg of saccharin per day, which equates to 28 pink packets or 16 cans of Tab (if you’re able to locate the cult fave!)

Fun fact: Saccharin was discovered by accident in 1879 by a chemist at Johns Hopkins University working on coal tar derivatives. He noticed a sweet tasting substance on his hands, and then deduced the compound was benzoic sulfimide, which he quickly patented in several countries. It wasn’t commonly used until World War I, when sugar was being rationed due to scarcity. Since then, saccharin has remained a popular sugar alternative.

Stevia

Steviol, the basic building block of stevia’s sweet glycosides

Chemical compound:  Stevia is an all-natural sweetener that comes from a shrub called stevia rebaudiana and is primarily grown in South America and Asia. Today, 80% of all stevia comes from China, where they practice strict farming guidelines. The sweetness is from a family of molecules called stevia glycoside, which is stored within the plant’s leaves. There are 10 unique compounds and each one has a different concentration.  The most common one is Rebaudioside A – otherwise known as Reb A.

The sweetness is released from the plant by steeping it in water, then separating out the water from the leaves and stems, and then purifying the plant’s material with either more water or a food-grade ethanol. It is referred to as a natural process because the stevia glycosides are literally pulled out of the plant and are exactly the same as they were when they were inside the plant. It is so sweet that it is actually 200-300 times sweeter than sugar.

Stevia in your body: Stevia has been studied and confirmed that it does not change your glycemic index or glycemic load. Research shows that it is metabolized by the liver, then passes through the body and does not accumulate anywhere. This is true for all forms of glycosides. Stevia is generally recognized as safe and has been approved by the FDA, WHO, ESFA, and Health Canada as a sweetener.

Limitation on consumption: As per FDA guidelines, the acceptable daily intake of stevia is 4 milligrams per kilograms of body weight per day. So if you weigh 150 lbs., it is safe for you to consume up to 40 packets of stevia per day – every day.

Brands and popularity: There are two primary brands sold of stevia, Truvia and PureCircle, which had 2015 sales of $145 million and $119 million, respectively. Sales of stevia sweeteners used in food and beverage manufacturing has more than doubled since 2013 given consumer demand for a more natural product.

A more “natural” artificial sweetener? There has been some conversation about stevia being considered a natural sweetener. Because there is no real definition of ‘natural’ (read our post investigating the ‘natural’ label here), the word is not meaningful. However, it is not synthetically made like other alternative sweeteners; therefore it is referred to as a ‘natural-origin’ sweetener.

Why Is Sugar Bad For You?

colorful candy

Following an indulgent holiday season, the Dirt-to-Dinner team decided to eliminate added sugars from our diet. And more than that, we wanted to understand the risks associated with eating excess sugar. What is sugar doing to us and should we kick the habit all together?

The average American eats between 90 to 110 grams of added sugar a day. This equates to about five cups of sugar a week. This is roughly 50 grams over the recommended daily allowance by the American Heart Association, which advises us to eat no more than 25 grams or 6 teaspoons per day for women and 36 grams or 9 teaspoons per day for men.

What is worse: “high in fat” OR “high in sugar”?

Foods that are “high in fat” have been blamed for many health issues in the United States. When President Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1955 Americans began to investigate the relationship between prevalent diseases and sugar. His doctors divided into two camps over what was to blame: sugar or fat.

Unfortunately for the American public, foods high in fat became the culprit for his health problems and sugar was deemed safe for consumption. The food industry took note and started creating “healthier” foods that were “low fat.” And in order to compensate for the bland taste and ‘mouth feel’ that occurred without  the presence of fats, sugar was added as a substitute.

Today, 31% of Americans are obese. One American dies every 40 seconds of cardiovascular disease, 9.4% have type 2 diabetes, and 34% of Americans are pre-diabetic. Is this a coincidence or is sugar to blame?

Now, sugar has been deemed the new poison. The New York Times, The Guardian, and The New Yorker have all written about the toxicity of sugar. And documentaries, such as That Sugar Film and Fed Up, highlight sugars adverse effect on our health.

However, until it is possible to perform research that incorporates human trials, it is very difficult to state these claims definitively. Of course, it is much easier to feed sugar to rats and see the results than performing the same experiments on humans. In fact, while the National Institutes of Health has several studies that point to the adverse effects of sugar on our health, it also has published studies that indicate the results of fructose consumption are inconclusive.

Added sugar vs. naturally occurring sugar

Many of our readers have asked about the sugars found in fruit and dairy products. Fruit is packed with fiber, vitamins, and minerals! Yes, it does contain naturally occurring sugars, but the fiber present will slow down the glucose and insulin peaks. (For more on glucose vs. fructose read our previous post on sugar.)Chewing fruit adds to your satiety and prevents you from overeating. Fruit juice, on the other hand, is packed with sugar and does not have the same fiber content. Even if it doesn’t contain added sugars, we recommend skipping the fruit juice and eating your fruits!

The sugar found in dairy is called lactose. Lactose does not contain fructose. However, dairy products can have added sugars, which do contain fructose— and that sugar counts as added sugar. Be sure to grab the unsweetened yogurt options, drink milk, and eat 2 servings of fruit a day.

The research says…

Too much sugar hurts your brain. Yes, glucose feeds our brain, but the excess consumption negatively affects on our brain signals. Our brain cells need 2x more energy than our other cells, which is roughly 10% of our diet. Too much fructose reduces a chemical called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). This helps with repairing and protecting brain cells, forming connections and make new memories. A low level of BDNF causes all sorts of issues such as low concentration, limited memory, and even depression.

Fructose is not metabolized by our bodies so it gets stored in our liver as fat. When the liver can’t hold anymore, it will send the fat to the organs in your body and around your belly. A diet high in sugars is strongly associated with metabolic syndrome – which means that everything your body regulates starts to fall apart.  It is the precursor to heart disease, diabetes, and inflammation. The first sign of metabolic syndrome can be something as simple as visceral fat.

Finally, a new study from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center showed a link between breast cancer and sugar. Mice on a sucrose diet, containing fructose, were approximately 60% more likely to develop mammary tumors.

Why do we have sugar cravings?

Eating a high sugar diet makes you want to eat even more! Because it doesn’t take as much energy to process sugars as it does protein and fat, so your body processes sugar much faster. So fast, in fact, that your body can’t tell that you are full.  High peaks and lows in both glucose and insulin create a craving for more food 2-3 hours after you ate a high glucose load. The snacking continues – the calories build – and weight gain follows.

Ever had a sugar high? Sugar rushes energy through your body as the insulin enters through your bloodstream. This is often followed by a fast decline because there was so much glucose in your bloodstream that insulin can’t keep up and your cells don’t get the energy they need. This tells your brain to eat more sugar in order to get more energy. It is a never-ending cycle that most people are on throughout the day: up and down and up and down.

The negative effect of sugar is not an overnight phenomenon – it is a slow progression. It could start by eating too many sweets with not enough exercise. Or your LDL (bad cholesterol) could be too high. Keeping a poor diet for a longer period could then cause you to develop a pre-diabetic condition of insulin resistance. This, combined with a high level of triglycerides, will start to take its toll on your health. Continuing this bad diet over a period of several months or years would then begin to deteriorate your health. (Read our post on inflammation for more insight on the link between unhealthy digestion and cancer.)

Quit the sugar

The average caloric consumption per capita in the United States is 3,750 calories per day. That is approximately 1,750 more calories than we need. Additionally, on average, Americans sit 10 hours a day and this doesn’t even include sleep! In order to get healthy, something has to change. The good news is that all the negative effects of sugar can be reversed once you ‘quit the habit’ and start making better choices!

Excess sugar has health consequences, but let’s be honest – there are more factors to blame, as well. No one sits down and eats a plate of plain cane sugar.

If you are not exercising, start. Exercise burns the triglycerides before they turn into visceral fat. Exercise also reduces stress, which makes you happier and helps reduce your cravings. Not to mention, stress and obesity are linked.

If you walk out of the grocery store with a cart filled with overly processed food and no vegetables, start writing and sticking to a shopping list, and stay away from the center aisles. Going to the grocery store is even more fraught with unexpected purchases. 60% of grocery store purchases are unplanned – and most of those are in the center of the grocery store, where all the processed foods are kept. Added sugar is literally everywhere. If you removed all the items from the shelves in the grocery store that have added sugar, you would eliminate 80% of the food in the center aisles.

If you crave sugar-sweetened drinks, then start to wean yourself off them. Sugar-sweetened drinks are a major culprit because they pack so much sugar into one small product. Meta-analysis has shown that drinking two 16 oz sugar-sweetened beverages a day can cause diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. They are a companion to a meal, they don’t fill you up, and you can exceed the recommended allowance sugar. We associate sugar drinks with sodas such as Coke, Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper, yet they are found even in ‘healthy’ drinks such as fruit juice, ice teas, expensive cleanses and sports drinks. Energy drinks are particularly fraught with sugar.

 

Click here for recipes to satisfy your sweet tooth without added sugar — from the D2D team!

What is Inflammation?

inflamed knee

Inflammation is often the starting point of many diseases. Is it the result of an unhealthy diet? What is the effect of inflammation on your body?

Inflammation is your body’s protective response to injury, disease or irritation of the tissues

Inflammation is your body’s mechanism to protect itself and heal damaged cells or tissue. This damage can be caused by either a wound, toxic substances or pathogens which may be in the form of sickness, excessive alcohol, chemicals, stress, unhealthy diet or lack of sleep. When your cells are in distress, they call out for help, and your immune system is full of front line soldiers who are programmed to attack and dispose of them. Inflammation is classified as either acute or chronic.

Acute vs. Chronic Inflammation

Acute inflammation occurs in the short-term. It is responsible for getting rid of an infection, helping clean a wound, and repairing your tissue. Examples include cutting yourself while shaving or spraining your ankle. The inflammation that occurs is a healthy reaction to repair the injured tissue. An army of white blood cells are the first responders that ingest and dispose of the damaged cells, pathogens, or irritants that may have entered your body.

On average, as long as you don’t re-injure yourself, an acute inflammatory response should only last a few days or weeks. Your body knows to trigger acute inflammation in order to get rid of things that are harming you.

If you don’t take care of that wound, or if your body is inundated with a constant invasion of pathogens or toxins, your cells continually call for help from your immune system, and your body is on high alert at all times. This prolonged “state of emergency” can cause lasting damage and is called chronic inflammation.

Chronic inflammation can last from several months to several years. The onset of chronic inflammation can be delayed, and signs of chronic inflammation are difficult to detect. It can also be incredibly difficult to identify the part of your body that becomes inflamed when the problem is chronic.


If our body is using energy to unnecessarily fight a perceived “invasion”, then it has less energy for normal functions. More importantly, with less energy available, our bodies cannot produce anti-inflammatory compounds such as glutathione, one of our bodies’ major antioxidant. In addition, adenosine triphosphate (ATP)— the energy molecule used by our cells is being used to fight a threat that isn’t real. At the end of the day, we have less energy and lower levels of antioxidants creating vulnerability for potentially diseased states.

How do you know if you are chronically inflamed?

You may not always be able to visually see the effects of inflammation, but there are signs that indicate its presence. These include fatigue, weight gain, skin outbreaks, gastrointestinal issues, and even depression or anxiety.

The best way to fight inflammation is with a healthy diet, regular exercise, and sleep

You can avoid certain foods that trigger inflammation. These include sugars and overly-processed foods. Additionally, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption should be eliminated.

A healthy diet helps fight inflammation

Foods to eat include plenty of colorful vegetables and greens, and foods containing healthy fatty acids, such as those found in nuts and avocados. Additionally, drink plenty of clean water so your cells stay hydrated and can perform at their optimal level!

Regular exercise is also an important part of fighting inflammation. A recent study performed by Mark Hamer, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University College London, examined the long-term effects of exercise with regard to inflammation. The study lasted for 10 years and included 4,000 middle-aged men and women.

Ultimately, Dr. Hamer found that subjects who completed approximately 2.5 hours of “moderate” exercise per week – or at least 30 minutes a day – reduced their inflammation markers by a minimum of 12%. Additionally, some study participants began exercising midway through the study period and were able to lower their inflammation levels as well— meaning it is never too late for the benefit of working out!

Get enough sleep and reduce stress. Poor sleep and stress trigger inflammation. According to a study performed by Emory University and presented at the 2010 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, getting less than six hours of sleep per night is associated with higher levels of inflammation. This is also linked with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

Reducing stress and getting enough sleep helps fight inflammation

In addition to lack of sleep, excessive levels of long-term stress can negatively affect your gut and compromise the production of enzymes that aid in the digestive process. For your best performance, it is optimal to get eight hours of sleep each night, with at least five of those hours being continuous or uninterrupted.

It’s the Merriest Time of Year (for calories!)

egg nog christmas

The holidays are fun and festive. At D2D we have been wondering how alcohol is processed in our bodies, but we still wanted to figure out which drinks could add to the merriment without adding to our waistlines! So we are presenting you the bad (and good) of alcoholic options.

Alcohol calories are empty calories with no nutritional value

While calories provide energy to fuel our bodies, not all calories are alike. For example, a calorie from an almond is not the same as a calorie from a chocolate chip because the fiber, fat, carbohydrate, protein, and sugar content vary significantly between the two. The almond calorie is more nutritious than the chocolate chip calorie – thus better for your health. However, calories from alcohol offer no health benefits.

The major sources of energy in food are fat, protein, and carbohydrates. When they are burned (metabolized), they provide different amounts of energy
.

We don’t use alcohol calories for energy. Alcohol is a toxin and your liver has to work hard to metabolize and discard it as quickly as it can. When you take that drink of alcohol, it is ultimately converted into acetate – and burned first. Your liver can only metabolize one drink per hour. What it cannot metabolize goes into your bloodstream – causing intoxication.

The alcohol metabolism is taking precedence before your food calories metabolize, thus inhibiting your digestive process. The metabolism of fat, carbs, and protein is reduced by at least 31%. When you sit down to eat dinner after cocktail hour, your meal doesn’t get digested until after all the alcohol is out of your system. While your body is busy eliminating this toxin, it stores your dinner as fat for future energy.


Learn how the body processes alcohol in this video.

Additionally, if you are imbibing in festive holiday cocktails which contain lots of added sugar, your body is storing the fructose component of sugar as fat, and you can expect some unwanted belly fat.

Alcohol also suppresses the part of your brain that tells you when to stop eating. Because the calories are empty calories, your brain is tricked into thinking you are hungry, thus you crave more food.

If you are a frequent drinker, those extra, unused calories compound over time and tend to accumulate around your waistline, contributing towards abdominal obesity. How many drinks is too many? More than two or three drinks a day, on average. So, if you drink nothing during the week, but consume 21 drinks over the course of the weekend, you can expect your waistline to expand.

How do we enjoy the holidays while still having cocktails?

A “standard” drink of alcohol contains roughly 14 grams of pure alcohol, and is defined as: • 12 oz. of regular beer, (usually about 5% alcohol) • 5 oz. of wine, (12% alcohol) • 1.5 oz. of 80-proof distilled spirits. (40% alcohol)

While they contain alcohol calories, straight liquors, such as whiskey, bourbon, scotch and rum, and gin, vodka and tequilas, without flavorings or mixers, have no carbohydrates and no sugar. Sounds ok, right? While this is an option, remember that the alcohol calories are metabolized first, and your liver is working hard to eliminate the alcohol.

Adding the mixers is a double whammy for your bodily systems

While straight liquor will contain no carbs or sugar, adding a mixer is a different story. In general, mixed drinks with an unflavored liquor and a sweetened soda or tonic water, for instance a vodka tonic, will contain 150 calories and 13.5 grams of sugar. Now, when you are drinking that drink, your body is not only working overtime to dispense the alcohol calories, it is now contending with the calories from sugar which are being stored as fat.


You will really pack on the calories, carbohydrates and sugar with specialty drinks such as Long Island Iced Teas and Margaritas, which are upwards of 700 calories each. Beware the enticing “drink of the day!”

The answer to imbibing in alcohol and keeping an eye on your waistline? Drink them on the rocks or with a splash of soda water or fresh fruit.

While straight liquor is low in carbohydrates, the mixers will increase this load.

source: Diet Doctor

Wine Time…

Before you order your next glass of crisp chardonnay, rosy Cabernet, sweet Reisling or bubbly Champagne, there are a few things about wine to consider to help you enjoy the evening’s festivities and make the next morning merrier, too!

A serving of wine is approximately 5 ounces. That comes to about 120 calories. However, most people pour themselves an 8 to 10-ounce glass of wine, which will boost your calories to over 200 calories per glass.

One thing to keep in mind is that the higher the ABV, the more calories the wine has. Wines produced in the U.S. and in warmer regions, like Chile and Australia, generally have higher ABV (alcohol by volume) of 13-17%, whereas wines produced in Europe typically have a moderate 9-12% ABV. This is largely due to Europe’s more temperate climate and stricter regulations regarding alcohol content.

All sparkling wines, including Champagne and Prosecco, will have some sugar in them, as it’s a necessary ingredient for the fermentation process. In general, France, Spain and the U.S. have tighter laws around added sugar in sparkling wines, so these will be your safest caloric bet. Favor terms on the label like “naturale” or “zero” over “doux”, which means sweet.


Source: Wine Folly

Be mindful of how much wine you pour into your glass, and try to find wines with an ABV of less than 13% to keep the calories at bay. For a variety of wines with less alcohol, you might end up finding yourself in the European aisle of your favorite wine store, but that’s ok – perhaps you’ll find your new favorite varietal!

Beers at the Bar

Beer has a dense carbohydrate content. Generally, a 12oz beer has about 150 calories and 13g carbohydrates. To put this in perspective, drinking one bottle of beer is about equal to the carb count of one slice of bread. You might want to keep that in mind if you like drinking a six pack while watching football— you just consumed almost a half a loaf of bread.

Beer has been thrown in the high glycemic index category because of its high amount of sugar used during processing. But the sugar is maltose, does not include fructose, and is used up in the fermentation process. And unless you drink five beers in 15 minutes you won’t consume enough carbohydrates to spike your glycemic index. But the carbohydrates will stack on the pounds, so go for a light beer and you will feel better in the morning!


source: Diet Doctor

Drinking beer does give you the chance of having elevated uric acid compared to other alcohols. Hyon K. Choi, MD at Massachusetts General Hospital found that men who drank two or more beers a day were 2.5 times more likely to develop gout than those who didn’t.

There are actually some health benefits to beer! While it does depend on the beer and how it is brewed, a bottle of beer has trace amount of minerals that helps with heart and bone health, provides antioxidants, and may reduce the risk of diabetes. This is assuming a maximum of two beers a day for a man, and one beer a day for a woman.

Why do we get hangovers?


A hangover almost always means you are completely dehydrated! You have depleted the vitamins in your body, typically Vitamin A, B, and C. Not to mention, you have also accumulated acetaldehyde, which is a toxic by-product of your body metabolizing alcohol. It is responsible for headaches, nausea, increased heart rate and flushed faces. Yikes! Drink a glass of water at least between each cocktail, and one before you go to bed.
 (Wine Spectator)

Now that we have briefed you on the highs and lows of alcohol consumption, here are a few tested recipes to enjoy your holiday cocktails in moderation!

Sustainable Ag Series: Farmers

combine and tractor at harvest time - aerial photo

In our four-part series on agricultural sustainability, we illustrate how NGOsgovernment regulatorscorporations, and in this article, farmers, each achieve their sustainability goals as well as how they work together in larger initiatives.

“Growers are performing ‘sustainable practices’ but do not see them as such; they see them as just good farming practices and being good stewards of their land.” – Hank Giclas, Western Growers

The agriculture industry is often criticized for using too much water, using too many chemicals, and adding more carbon to the atmosphere. However, farmers have their boots on the ground and occupy the front lines of sustainability initiatives within agriculture. No farms, no food!

While some farmers employ better approaches to farming sustainably, no farmer deliberately damages human or environmental health or wants to waste their inputs, such as water, pesticide, and labor. As stewards of the land, it is in a farmer’s best interest to preserve all of their resources for future generations of farming.


Farmers are on the front lines of sustainable agriculture.

Sustainability encompasses many different initiatives for agriculture.

How do farmers address sustainable agriculture?

The road to sustainable farming is long and complex, simply because no single farming practice by itself establishes sustainability. Farmers are a community that must work together to protect their resources. To get insight into how farmers practice sustainability, we interviewed Nikki Rodoni, founder & CEO of Measure to Improve, LLC, a recognized leader in the fresh produce industry for building and implementing sustainability programs.

Farmers are taking care of the soil…

Rodoni emphasized the importance of healthy soil and states that farmers are already doing a fantastic job at improving soil health. As we discussed in Soil: It is much more than Dirt, healthy soil means healthy crops. Healthy crops lead to more resilient crops that, in turn, help farmers in many other facets of sustainability, such as decreased water usage since the soil holds and absorbs more water, thus preventing running off; less fertilizer usage since healthy soils hold more essential nutrients and reduce nutrient runoff; and less pesticide usage because crops are more resilient and better equipped to fight off pests with their innate defenses.

Healthy soil = healthy crops. The soil is a paramount sustainable initiative for farmers.

All those benefits can be enhanced when farmers adopt and use additional technologies and practices such as soil moisture sensors, precise irrigation methods, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to further increase efficiencies. And to top it all off, the farmer ends up with a higher yield and better quality of the crop.

Healthy soil is a win for farmers and consumers around the world because it increases the soil’s resilience, which in turn increases crop resilience and, ultimately, the resiliency of farming communities.

Farmers are conserving water…

Craig MacKenzie, a New Zealand farmer highlighted on Global Farmer Network, discussed his ability to manage irrigation on his farm from his cell phone. His carrot, radish, chicory, wheat, and ryegrass fields have sensors buried in the soil that send him real-time information about the soil moisture levels. This allows MacKenzie to adjust irrigation accordingly. He’s currently looking into fertilizer sensors to help detect the levels of nitrate, potassium, and phosphorus in the soil.


Ceres Imaging provides an app for farmers to help understand water stress, plant nutrient uniformity, pest emergence, and other issues in their fields. source: Precision Ag

Duncan Family Farms, which operates farms in Arizona and California, also uses sensor technologies as well as plastic mulches and floating row covers to help create and maintain moisture in their fields. Other methods they use to conserve water include growing crops during cooler months of the year to avoid high evaporative heat conditions; using transplants instead of seeds as seeds take more water to germinate, and growing some crops under cover in controlled environments.


Row covers can help maintain soil temperatures, reduce water inputs, and reduce weed infestation.

In addition to the use of sensor technologies to conserve water, farmers are also switching from furrow and overhead irrigation systems to drip irrigation, thus substantially cutting their water use.

Sustainable farming helps to sequester CO2

All these practices have many benefits including playing a role in reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through carbon storage in soil and vegetation called carbon sequestration.Scientists at the  University of California, Davis estimate that U.S. rangelands could potentially sequester up to 330 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in their soils, and croplands are estimated to lock up more than twice that amount—up to 770 million metric tons. That is the CO2 emissions equivalent of powering 114 million homes with electricity for a year.

Sustainable agriculture practices enhance carbon sequestration in soils.

In addition to on-farm sustainable practices, farmers must also work with a wider network which includes local government, corporations, and NGOs.

How corporations, governments and NGOs are working with our farmers

By working together, sustainable agricultural practices can be referenced, measured and validated. There have been efforts throughout the agriculture industry to assist farmers in implementing sustainable practices. While many agricultural companies such as DriscollTaylor Farms, Tanimura and Antle’s Plant TapeJohn DeereMonsantoCargill, and Bunge (to name a few) have their own corporate sustainabilityinitiatives to help guide farmers, there are many joint initiatives as well.

Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform was created in 2002 by Nestlé, Unilever, and Danone to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices throughout the food value chain to support the development and implementation of sustainable agriculture practices.

Farm Sustainability Assessment (FSA). Farmers can use the FSA to assess and improve their on-farm sustainability practices while communicating them to customers in a consistent way. Additionally, the assessment criteria meet the sustainable sourcing needs of many companies and can be used by governments, NGOs, universities, and consultants as a reference for defining the scope of sustainable agricultural practices.

Two organizations with more specialized and narrowly focused missions are Land O Lakes’ SUSTAIN and the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops.

SUSTAIN works with their partner retailers, like Walmart, to develop customized solutions that allow farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions without reducing their profits. For example, SUSTAIN created a product to help farmers use nitrogen more efficiently and, when used properly, allows them to use less nitrogen fertilizer.

Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops (SISC) is comprised of growers, buyers, and public interest groups collaborating to develop and share metrics and stewardship indicators in the specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, and nuts) industry. Alison Edwards, director and facilitator at SISC, spoke to us about the importance of the entire supply chain’s involvement with sustainability. When the whole supply chain is involved, the data being collected on the farm can be interpreted correctly and the sustainable farming story can be told in a more effective way.

Alison talked about the importance of having metrics— “you cannot manage what you cannot measure.” SISC’s metrics allow growers to internally benchmark which sustainable practices work the best for their farm, crop, climate, and soil conditions and report these tangible efforts to buyers and consumers.

In 2012 Campbell Soup Company began collecting sustainability performance metrics from their tomato grower using SISC’s metrics. Over a five-year period, they were able to track water and fertilizer use on their supplier farms. The adoption of drip irrigation across a group of 50 tomato farms resulted in a 22% reduction in average water volume.  By collecting this data, Campbell’s can now concretely demonstrate and share with their stakeholders how their tomato growers are actively adopting best practices and driving real resource conservation.

The government is also involved with sustainable agricultural efforts. For example, the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service has advocated and established several conservation and soil health programs into the 2014 Farm Bill, as well as supporting working land conservation programs like Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). These programs support farmers and ranchers adopting conservation practices, like crop rotation, cover cropping, low tillage system management, etc., and in turn receive financial and technical assistance for their contribution to sustainability.   

Communicating Sustainability to the Consumer

The farmer-consumer relationship certainly has its challenges. When farmers are trying to implement new and more sustainable practices, it can be nearly impossible to communicate the results to consumers. We know that consumers want to know where their food comes from— but there is little-to-no communication between farmer and consumer. Because of this, marketing experts are telling farmers that they need to tell their stories, to reconnect with and inform consumers about how their farm operates and how their crops are grown and harvested. Walk down the aisle of the grocery store and you will see farmer’s highlighted on milk and orange juice cartons and boxes of cereal. But aside from these ad campaigns, creating a direct link between farmer and consumer is no easy task. Complicating the dialogue is that these days, when farmers make the news, especially regarding environmental issues, they are depicted as environmental villains. Unfortunately, these stories are misrepresentative and ignore the genuine stories of farmers and ranchers who are adapting to and embracing sustainable practices promoting soil health, minimizing water use and pollution, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions while contributing to and improving the quality of the food supply.

Sustainable Ag Series: Governments

looking up at a government building with blue sky above

In a four-part series on sustainability, we are illustrating how farmers, NGOs, corporations, and in this article, government regulators, work together in order to facilitate and execute sustainable objectives in agriculture. We want to better understand how these partnerships affect consumers and our food supply chain.

How do government officials address agricultural sustainability?

The role of sustainability and governments is difficult to define. There is no ‘unified government’. Each town, city, state, and country has its own unique agenda, accountability to their constituents, and the concept of collaboration with other organizations.

Adding further complexity to this equation are lobbyist organizations that attempt to influence regulators from the municipal level all the way up to the country’s legislative system. As a result of these variants, governments can either help or hinder those they have vowed to protect. For example, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and the Hudson River are cleaner today due to government-imposed pollution controls. The Colorado River, on the other hand, is regulated under numerous contracts, laws, and regulatory guidelines within seven different states, leading to many environmental and river flow issues.


Including the three branches of the U.S. Government, there are many variants within the legislative process. (image source: www.readworks.org)

At the end of the day, government officials have authority. They can allocate the financial resources that support farmers and their sustainability efforts. Additionally, there are many government grants that support scientific research that promotes eco-friendly and sustainable business practices. Elected officials can play a very important role within agricultural sustainability: they create, negotiate and pass the laws and regulations that protect our environment.

For example, the EPA’s renewable energy and clean energy programs are designed to help energy consumers, state policymakers, and energy providers by creating technical assistance and networks between the public and private sector across energy, water, and waste. Agstar promotes the use of biogas recovery systems to reduce methane emissions from livestock waste. The Smartway Transport Partnership is a public-private collaboration between EPA and the freight transportation industry to improve fuel efficiency.

The government can also allocate funds to sustainable projects that are already underway. In November 2015, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced $314 million in funding for waste and water infrastructure improvements in rural communities in the United States. Coordinating this initiative is The EPA’s Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center.

Watch this video on how the Farmer’s Irrigation District in Oregon used these loans to improve and protect the water supply for the area’s farmers.

The authority that governing bodies possess are meant to be helpful— but, there are instances where governments overstep and implement a regulation that may negatively affect agriculture.

In Zimbabwe, for example, GMOs are illegal to grow, sell, and import. The government has argued that this policy protects the environment and makes its sellable crops more favorable for export to Europe. However, the country is still struggling to feed its growing population and poverty levels are rising. If the Zimbabwean government were to legalize GMOs, the drought facing farmers and hunger plaguing the country would finally have a feasible solution.

One solution to help Africa’s farmers produce crops and food is to let them gain access to the crop technologies that millions of others take for granted. (image: GMO Answers)

“We are not picky when it comes to receiving GMO or non-GMO food. The situation is unbearable.”
— Spiwe Mucharanji, Tariro Orphanage Trust

Closer to home, the obesity epidemic in the United States has prompted cities such as Berkeley, Philadelphia, and New York to impose a sugar tax on sugary drinks. While there are conflicting studies indicating whether this has actually curbed consumer behavior, the tax demonstrates the government’s ability to try and persuade certain behavior from consumers. Is it the government’s responsibility to influence personal decisions?

Read Dirt-to-Dinner’s post on the Sugar Tax.

How government regulators work with corporations

“Government and business, acting together, can accomplish a great deal by utilizing each other’s strengths and compensating for each other’s weaknesses.” (Global Sustainability, Mark Lefko)

The public-private partnership is the one that can work well. Many large corporations will work with local governments to better execute and grow their sustainability efforts. As we discussed in our Sustainable Ag Series on Corporations, governments possess a reach and authority that corporations often do not. Therefore, international corporations will work closely with governments to 1) abide by local laws and 2) to enable their sustainability initiatives to have optimum impact.

Unilever, an international consumer goods company whose brands include Dove, Lipton, and Hellman’s, “works with governments around the world to train small farmers in modern agriculture and business methods.” (Global Sustainability). The governments can act as an intermediary between farmer and corporation and provide incentives for these partnerships— i.e. tax credits for corporations and loans for farmers.

Without the help of the local government, Unilever could never accomplish as much as they do.

“We don’t have the capabilities to reach that many farmers, aggregate them, and train them in management, agricultural techniques, board management, social standards, etc. So you work with these different organizations, and as you do this, you secure your value chain, you provide the livelihoods that undoubtedly will come back to you, because obviously, we cannot prosper if these communities don’t prosper.”
-Paul Polman, CEO Unilever

In Xinjiang, China, Unilever is providing smallholder tomato farmers training. As a result, farmers in the program have seen, per hectare, yields increase by 7.5 tonnes, water use reduced by 1500m3, and pesticide spraying reduced by 150g. (image: Unilever)

How government regulators work with farmers

Government funding will provide farmers with financial grants and loans in order to promote and help expand sustainable farming efforts. In the United States, there are many innovative programs and resources provided by the USDA. If you are a first-time farm buyer, for example, the US government will help you obtain access to affordable farmland by providing a special joint-financing loan option.

The USDA offers many programs for small scale farmers. (image: USDA – Guide to Sustainable Farming Programs)

Internationally, governments will facilitate partnerships between corporations and farmers to help encourage local development. In 2015, international food-production company, DSM and the World Food Program, in partnership with Africa Improved Foods Ltd. (AIF) and the Rwandan government, facilitated the construction of a $60m factory in Rwanda. In addition to the commercially sold food made at the factory, AIF also works with the Government of Rwanda to create nutrient-dense foods for impoverished communities, which are distributed by the World Food Program. (DSM)

In addition to providing factory jobs, this initiative also helped farmers improve the local-food processing industry and motivated farmers to utilize sustainable farming practices. The factory currently works with over 9,000 large and small grain cereal farmers.

Another example of regulators working with farmers is the Renewable Fuel Standard of 2005, which was put in place for the benefit of American farmers. Each tank of gas must contain roughly 10% corn or soy, which has been converted into fuel— this is called ethanol.

On November 30th, 2017, the Trump administration continued this mandate requiring US refineries to incorporate 19.29 billion gallons of biofuels into our gasoline supply. This is about 40% of the US corn crop and 30% of the US soybean crop. This keeps corn and soy prices higher than they normally would be, which benefits farmers— but there are significant environmental side effects. Corn and soy are grown on land that ultimately requires more irrigation for these demanding crops. 

Ethanol production requirements may be good for farmers and their production of corn and soy crops but put an ecological strain on the environment. (image: US Department of Labor)

Producing one gallon of ethanol takes half a gallon more water than producing a gallon of gasoline. The issue is that most ethanol facilities are within a 100-mile range of the crops, which means that precious water sources are being tapped, including the Ogallala Aquifer.

Better to use that water to grow crops for food and not fuel.

The ecological strain it places on US farming does not outweigh the monetary benefit of higher corn and soy prices. It will be interesting to see how the US government and farmers will work together in this space moving forward.

How government regulators work with NGOs

“Under ideal circumstances, all three types of entities—businesses, governments, and NGOs—can come together to maximize the power of all three to address the problems of poverty, health, gender inequality, and disease.”

As we saw with the Government of Rwanda’s partnership between DSM, AIF and the United Nations: World Food Program, farmer, government, NGO, and corporation have successfully worked together in order promote change and sustainability.

Heifer International is another NGO that works closely with both farmers and governments to provide microfinancing to alleviate hunger. They teach environmental sustainability to their farmers and promote climate-smart agriculture and livestock production solutions. They do so by lending money to families to help them to buy agricultural products, such as a cow, chickens, or bees. This then helps the family to sell goods like milk, eggs, or honey. Heifer teaches these families how to manage their purchase and grow their livestock, thus helping families become self-sufficient rather than depending on government handouts. In order to expand its global reach, Heifer has partnered with other large-scale corporations and local government officials.


Food Network chef and avid Heifer International supporter Alton Brown explains how Heifer makes a difference through gifts that keep on giving.

How government regulators address consumer concerns

The government is legally responsible for the safety of the people, or consumers, that they were elected to represent. So, while various governing bodies might address sustainability initiatives differently, they all want to make their environment a better place for their current residents and their future inhabitants.

There are many different laws in place that can affect consumers. The United States, for example, has over 30 different laws that regulate the interaction of humans and the environment, This list includes the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, which help to regulate and protect air and water quality.

The Clean Water and Air and Acts are celebrated across college campuses and non-profit organizations to motivate consumers to be a part of a healthy living environment. (Image sources: My Clean Water Act and The Clean Air Campaign)

Additionally, on a local level, governments will often monitor town water levels to help maintain the needs of local farmers. If the area is experiencing drought, those living in the town will be asked to stop sprinkler use, take shorter showers, and even turn off the faucet while brushing teeth. While refusing to abide by these requests won’t land you in jail, being a mindful consumer will help to protect the environment.

“Businesses, governments, and NGOs can and often do work together for their mutual benefit and for the benefit of global society as a whole”
Global Sustainability, Mark Lefko

Sustainable Ag Series: Corporations

looking up at skyscrapers

In a four-part series on sustainability, we are illustrating how farmers, NGOs, governments, and in this article, corporations, work together in order to facilitate sustainable objectives in agriculture.

Corporations often are maligned when it comes to their sustainability efforts. In general, consumers perceive small companies or “local” operations to be better and environmentally friendlier than large companies and their wider distribution networks. When in reality, it is often the sustainability efforts of large corporations that influence smaller operations. Sustainability has no borders— everyone is involved.

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
-International Institute for Sustainable Development

How do corporations address agricultural sustainability?

Responsible corporations can help improve our food supply chain. Today, it is not enough for corporations to focus solely on making a profit and increasing shareholder value; they are expected to leave the world a better place for consumers and stakeholders alike. In many cases, large agriculture corporations are the leaders in sustainability and create a bar for other smaller-scale companies to follow.

While each responsible corporation generally accepts the same overarching definition of sustainability, they implement it uniquely, according to the factors that are the most important to their corporate practices and the products they are creating. Individual corporations will create a plan for sustainability that is good for the environment, good for business, and good for social welfare. However, it is important to note that not all corporations treat sustainability in the same way. Some use it as a marketing ploy— they don’t ‘walk the talk’. An increasingly important aspect of today’s sustainability initiatives is a verification process to ensure that they are meeting their goals.

How do these large-scale corporations figure out which sustainability efforts to promote while maintaining a profit and achieving their vision? 

Corporations will perform research and poll their stakeholders (customers, suppliers, shareholders, governments) to see what is most important to these key players. Generally, companies will target water usage, food and packing waste, greenhouse gas and energy consumption, farmers, and/or employee welfare. Corporations in the agriculture industry recognize how important the environment is for both current consumers and future generations. They want to be known for responsible, good business practices and will be vigilant about their sustainability initiatives. And, let’s not sugar coat it— they have their brand and reputation to protect, which is a driving force for doing good.

PepsiCo Sustainable Agriculture’s Water Project uses technology and agricultural skills to reduce global water use. source: Pepsico- Agriculture Sustainability

PepsiCo’s Sustainable Farming Initiative (SFI), for example, is a program that encourages all of their farmers to continually improve their sustainable agricultural practices. The key ingredients they source are potatoes, corn, oats, and oranges. They “aim to implement specific programs and measurement processes to improve overall agriculture supply chain performance.” Their lofty goal includes topics within the social, economic, and environmental framework of agricultural sustainability.


Source: The Coca-Cola Company 2016 Sustainability Report

The Coca-Cola Company, another titan of industry in the beverage sector, has expansive environmental goals that include water and energy preservation. Looking specifically at their water initiative, Coca-Cola has pledged that for every drop of water they use, they will give one back to the environment. Essentially, they are water neutral.  Coke and their bottling partners set this as their goal for 2020, but they were able to achieve it by 2016! Not only did they use less water, but they replenished it through community water partnerships in 71 different countries.

How corporations work with Farmers

Within the agriculture sector, many sustainable corporate initiatives are often met with backlash. The prime example of this, of course, is genetically modified organisms (GMO). Without getting too much into the debate behind GMOs, regardless of where you stand on this issue, there is no denying that genetically engineered (GE) crops save environmental resources. And many farmers that provide food to big corporations will grow environmentally-friendly GE crops in order to help support sustainability initiatives in Ag.

For example, Monsanto is constantly under fire for “poisoning agriculture” with its GE crops, when in reality the reverse is true. While Monsanto has 17 sustainability efforts, their biggest contributing factor to consumers and our environment alike is to to double the yield size of canola, corn, cotton, and soybeans by 2030. What gets lost in the GMO conversation with environmentalists is that higher yields actually protect the environment. How? This means less land under plow and less water usage, energy, herbicides, and pesticides used to grow non-GMO crops.

Source: Monsanto 2016 Sustainability Highlights

McDonald’s is another company looking to “make a positive difference in the lives of farmers and our planet by advancing more sustainable beef production.” This means that when you sit down to eat a Quarter Pounder, you can be assured that the particular cow was raised by farmers employing the most sustainable environmental practices. McDonalds Canada started a ‘birth-to-burger’ program where for the first time you can track hamburger meat back to the cow it came from. You can be assured that the cow was raised humanely and in a sustainable environment, discover what the cow ate during its lifetime, and know that it was processed with food safety standards. This program is a collaboration with specific ranchers, the World Wildlife Fund, JBS, and Cargill. They currently track 9,000 head of cattle, which supply roughly 2.4 million beef patties.


Source:  McDonald’s Sustainability Reports

Small-Scale Sustainability…

Sustainability efforts can be harder to accomplish for smaller-scale farmers who are trying to eke out a living in the developing world— especially when these farms are nestled next to rainforests. Keeping ancient forestintactct is better and more productive for the Earth than slash and burn farming. Additionally, destroying these forests, which provide tremendous plant and animal life biodiversity, as well as CO2 sinks, is damaging to the Earth’s ecosystem.

According to the Rainforest Allianceattempted agriculture accounts for more than 70% of tropical deforestation. As a result, some of the world’s largest agriculture and food companies have signed an agreement to monitor their outsourced supply chains. Some of these companies and organizations are Carrefour, Walmart, Bunge, Cargill, Conservation International, Rainforest Alliance, and the Nature Conservancy. Unilever, Wilmar, and Hershey also have their own commitments against purchasing goods produced on deforested land. Using satellite imagery, they can track exactly where the crops came from and ensure that the crops were grown safely and sustainably.

How corporations work with NGOs

As we discussed in the first installment of this series, NGOs and corporations create meaningful partnerships to achieve corporate sustainability goals while benefitting farmers and the environment. The Nature Conservancy, for example, is an NGO that has partnered with many different corporations to help achieve various goals within agricultural sustainability.

The Nature Conservancy has recognized that the private sector has an important role to play in advancing our conservation mission. Businesses around the globe can, and do, have significant impacts on our climate and on the lands and waters that people and nature rely upon for survival. That’s why we are applying our science, reach, expertise in conservation planning, and on-the-ground experience to help businesses make better decisions, understand the value of nature, and ultimately protect it.”

In 2016, the Nature Conservancy and PepsiCo announced a 5-year partnership entitled “Recycle for Nature,” which aims to protect our drinking water through recycling. Their primary goal is to save 1.2 billion gallons of water over five years. This partnership is also working to protect the important rivers and lands that are integral to our water resources in North America.

source: Nature.org

How corporations work with governments

“Much can be achieved by combining the authority and resources of government with the efficiency of a for-profit business.”
Mark Lefko, Global Sustainability

Governments often have more influence and power than private corporations and as a result, companies will work with local or national governments and legislative representation to implement sustainability initiatives. For example, in Terneuzen, a city in the Netherlands, the Dow Chemical Company worked with government officials to successfully re-purpose three times the amount of water, which in turn saves energy equivalent to the CO2 emissions of 13,000 cars every year. (Global Sustainability)

Scott Pruitt, EPA Chief, has been soundly criticized for supporting the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, encouraging discussion about the cause of climate change, and repealing Obama’s Clean Power plan. His approach to environmental sustainability takes a different tact – obtaining immediate benefits. He is working with Walt Disney World to convert 120,000 tons of food waste into electricity. This will help the EPA goal toward reducing the 21% of food waste that fills landfills by 50%.

How corporations address consumer concerns

It all starts with good values. In all successful cases, ethics and transparency are at the forefront of any sustainability initiative. Looking specifically at agricultural sustainability, consumers want to feel more connected to the environment and have a good understanding of where food is coming from. To that end, consumers are more likely to support a corporation if they are successfully supporting the environment and transparent about their corporate practices. Furthermore, employees will go the extra mile if they feel their company has the same values they do.

“Our people feel there is a soul in the company, a purpose. It has an effect not only internally, but also externally– especially for the younger generations. They don’t want to work for a company for the benefits or the pension packages, they want to work for a company where they can say the values match with their own values”.                                                                                            —Feike Sijbesma, CEO, DSM.
Social Media & Corporate Sustainability  Sustainability is important to consumers, who use social media to determine whether the product they are buying meets their personal values. As a result, sustainable brands tend to grow faster than others. For example, Unilever has 16 sustainable brands that grew 50% faster than other comparable brands and represented 60% of overall growth in 2016.

Corporations working together

“If we can find ways to collaborate with those who share our values on the topic of sustainability, we will find that many of our principles are transferable regardless of the industry in which we work.”
Mark Lefko, Global Sustainability.

Finally, many similar-minded companies in the same industry form partnerships to set the standard for their industry. In many cases, they use vision, innovation, and accountability to raise the bar…

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development is a CEO led organization of innovative companies that spurs the business community toward sustainability in the following area: Energy, Food and Land Use, Cities and Mobility, and Redefining Value.

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef defines themselves as promoting an environmentally sound and economically viable product that prioritizes the plant, people, animals and progress. They are a consortium including McDonalds, Cargill, JBS, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association as well as the Rainforest Alliance and the World Wildlife Fund.

The Global Salmon Initiative sets the standard for sustainably farmed salmon. It is represented by a group of salmon farmers from 8 different countries.

The Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtableis a collaboration of companies such as Diageo, Danone, Heineken, Coke, and AB InBev in the beer, bottle water, juice, tea, coffee, soft drink, and alcohol business. They are far reaching with over $260 billion in combined revenue, over 2100 facilities across 170 countries and have over 5,600 brands. Their purpose is to advance environmental sustainability within the beverage sector.

Sustainable Ag Series: NGOs

many hands on top of each other-symbol of unity

In a four-part series on sustainability, we are illustrating how farmersgovernments, corporations and in this article, NGOs, work together in order to facilitate sustainable objectives in agriculture.

The term ‘sustainability’ is thrown around a lot…in the media, on corporate websites, in the government—even on D2D! The term is now used so frequently that it often has more than one interpretation.

At Dirt-to-Dinner, sustainability means protecting our global environmental and human resources for future generations while still providing for today’s population. Agricultural sustainability initiatives can address clean water, ocean health, deforestation, soil health, global hunger, food waste, human rights, child labor, and general ethical practices. As you can see, sustainability can wear many different hats.

Sustainability can pertain to anything from clean water to deforestation to global hunger to just plain ethics.

How do NGOs address agricultural sustainability?

NGOs are non-profit, usually voluntary citizen groups that advocate for certain policies and monitor various government initiatives. They often rally around an important cause with the hopes of achieving a specific outcome in government regulations.

Sustainable NGOs are defined as organizations that make “essential contributions to the environment, society, and the sustainability of the world at large.”

You can find an NGO cheering section for just about every cause. While some have lost credibility due to overly angry and theatrical behaviors,  (like chaining themselves to pieces of equipment in order to prevent a corporation from instituting a strategy or business plan) most NGOs have a sound, solid mission to make the world a better place. You may recognize some of these names: World Wildlife Fund, Conservation Initiative, CERES, OxFam, and Heifer International.

NGOs work on their own initiatives and facilitate connections between corporations, farmers, and government regulation. They even help motivate consumers around a specific cause. Here’s how…

How NGOs work with government regulators.

NGOs often advocate the concerns of citizens to the appropriate government regulators. These concerns and differences of opinion can have a lot to do with government spending and the appropriation of funds. For example, there is frequently a debate over the funds given to the Ag industry. In July 2017, Politico reported a proposed $10 billion spending cut to agricultural programs in the United States. In direct opposition to this, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is lobbying for the 2018 Farm Bill, which advocates for the continued support and funding of American farming. This is an area where different NGOs would advocate for a specific allocation of funds on behalf of stakeholders.

How NGOs work with corporations.

If aligned on culture and mission, corporations and NGOs can work well together. Previously, they were more foes than friends, but today they can create meaningful partnerships. A corporation looks to an NGO for critical research and to help motivate consumer awareness. NGOs also offer support to corporations looking to better monitor their own definition of sustainability. Companies have the jobs, resources, and execution skills that NGOs might not have, particularly in the developing world. They also have relationships with various government regulators.

Today, there is a big emphasis on the importance of corporate sustainability in relationship to how the manufacturing or production of a product affects the environment. How much emissions are used, how much water is wasted, what materials are recycled? These are all questions being asked by consumers, suppliers, and even employees. NGOs have assumed an important role here by helping strategize and create a plan for big business to achieve transparency and realistic environmental sustainability goals.

CERES, for example, is an NGO with over 80 corporate partnerships focusing on issues such as water scarcity, reducing CO2 emissions and human rights. Additionally, Carbon Trust has helped companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola create climate change strategies. In their partnership with Coca-Cola, The Nature Conservancy helped Coke replenish the water equivalent to what will be used in finished beverages by the year 2020. This means that each drop of water that is used in making their drinks will be matched by a drop of water saved in the environment.

“Ensuring that all the people on the planet have the resources and environment necessary for them to survive and thrive, both now and in the future.”

-Global Sustainability by Mark Lefko

How NGOs work with Farmers.

On the ground level, NGOs can connect farmers with corporations to offer financial stipends for their conservation and sustainability efforts. These might include water conservation, cover cropping, or no-till farming. Many small scale farmers are motivated to participate in sustainability efforts in return for financial support.

Conservation International, for example, can provide loans to corporations in order to help create programs that benefit small-scale farmers. For example, CI acted as an influential advisor to Starbucks when exploring the sustainability of coffee trade and how to make the harvesting of coffee beans more environmentally friendly. CI provided Starbucks with a $2.5 million-dollar loan to form Verde Ventures. Verde Ventures in turn provides financial support to small and medium-sized business that contribute to healthy ecosystems. This venture has helped protect and restore more than 515,353 hectares of land and has helped employ 59,000 local people in 14 different countries.

Verde Ventures provides debt and equit y financing to businesses that benefit healthy ecosystems and human well-being, including agroforestry, ecotourism, sustainable harvest of wild products and marine initiatives.

Another example of an NGO assisting small-scale farmers is Heifer International, which has helped over 21 million families around the world obtain farm animals so they can provide for their families and end their poverty and hunger. These are just some of the different ways in which NGOs offer their support to farmers while promoting the principles of sustainability.

How NGOs help consumers.

NGOs help to increase social awareness and motivate consumers around specific causes. Whether they want to rally citizens around impending government regulation or appeal to the moral responsibility of consumers to participate in conservation efforts, NGOs offer resources to support sustainability efforts on the consumer level. For example, Consumers International was founded in order to work on any issues that are facing consumers globally. Additionally, the US Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) is creating a dialogue between consumers and farmers to help consumers understand where their food is coming from.

The TB12 Diet: One Size Does Not Fit All

Tom Brady about to pass the football print

Some of us at D2D are part of the New England ‘Patriot Nation.’ So, when the G.O.A.T (*Greatest of All Time) released his manual outlining how to achieve a lifetime of sustained peak performance, it was quickly pre-ordered. I mean, who doesn’t want to achieve greatness like Tom Brady? He has made some of the greatest comebacks in football history and has earned (to date) 5 Super Bowl rings. Now 40, he argues that he is playing better than he was at 30. Regardless of your opinion of the Patriots, you have to respect the fact that Tom Brady has far exceeded the average tenure in the NFL and shows no signs of slowing down!

What is Tom Brady’s roadmap to his incredible success on the field?

According to his book, the principals of the TB12 Method support established knowledge that long term health (and proper weight management) at any age is directly linked to eliminating or reducing bodily stressors like toxic congestion, inflammation, and imbalances. And while you eliminate these triggers, you ADD in good stuff, like nutrient-dense foods, exercise, stress reduction activities, and clean air and water.

The TB12 Diet isn’t for everyone

While his method to maintaining overall health seems like a balanced approach, we did a couple of double-takes over Brady’s shunning of conventionally grown and genetically modified food. Eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and lean protein is most important to your health, whether you shop at your local grocery store or the local farm stand. Whether you choose to buy conventional or organic foods, regulations ensure the safety of the food that hits your plate.

“If Brady wants to know the facts about today’s agriculture, he should come to visit my farm and learn the facts.” Maryland farmer who grows corn, soybeans, canning tomatoes, grapes, and fresh-market green beans writes to Tom Brady to discuss his misinformed ‘issues’ with conventional farming.

Brady’s very regimented diet is one that is designed specifically for his lifestyle and enables him to perform at the top of his game every day. He maintains that throwing the ball is easier than eating, so he tackles the quality, quantity, and timing of his meals with the same precision and focus as his passes to Gronk.

On the list of what he doesn’t eat are the usual suspects: sugar, caffeine, and alcohol. But he takes it a step further by adding nightshade vegetables to the list.

What are nightshades?

Nightshade vegetables are members of a large group of flowering plants in the Solanaceae family. Included in this large family are a few of the world’s most cultivated and consumed crops: potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, and peppers.

Tom’s chefs are likely not including these in recipes because (he may not like them!); yet there are some observational studies that claim patients who eliminate nightshade vegetables from their diets experience a feeling of improvement from varying forms of arthritis, allergies or autoimmune deficiencies.

Healthy people, on the other hand, should have no problem digesting nightshade vegetables. To date, there is no verified science behind these anecdotal observations, and the benefits of these nutrient-packed group of vegetables far outweigh any risk.

Despite the ominous name, ‘nightshade’ might have been coined from the fact that some of the plants in this family grow at night, and some prefer shade. Commonly, they all produce an alkaloid (solanine or tomatine) – which is poisonous to… insects… not humans. Blaming them for inflammation is overkill – except for those people who are allergic or sensitive to solanine. Their antioxidants actually can reduce inflammation!

The inflammation conspiracy against nightshades

The inflammation theories point to the alkaloid compounds in the leaves, roots, and stems of nightshade plants. Alkaloids are natural toxins produced by the plants as a defense against animals, insects, and fungi that might feast on them. Alkaloids actually have medicinal properties, but to the taste are bitter, which makes the plant less palatable to insect predators.

The alkaloids found in nightshades are quite low and not a health concern. Furthermore, millions of these vegetables are eaten every day around the world without incident. We wouldn’t recommend that you start munching on the leaves, stems, and roots of these plants, but the ripened fruit is safe, healthy, and completely digestible. In fact, as fruits and vegetable mature and ripen, the concentration of beneficial antioxidants actually increases!

To put this in perspective, “A large potato weighs about 300g (10.6 ounces) and has a solanine (a type of alkaloid) content of less than 0.2mg/gm That works out to around 0.03mg per kilogram for an adult, a hundredth of the toxic dose;  A murderous wife would have to feed something like 67 large potatoes to her husband in a single meal to poison him. Unless he’s a phenomenally big eater, arsenic would be a better bet.”
(Source: Science Based Medicine.org)

Every body is a unique body

Given that everybody is unique, there is no one solution to address inflammation. Existing food intolerances, autoimmune deficiencies, and allergies will affect inflammation but what affects you may not affect others. But in general, the eating nutrient-dense foods like dark leafy greens, legumes, bright colored fruits, and vegetables, and skipping the white bread, overly-processed “junk” food, and sugar will help your body fight inflammation.

Eggplant is full of fiber, potassium, magnesium Vitamin C and Vitamin B6. The anthocyanins in eggplant may protect heart and brain health.

Most of us can excuse the specific elimination of nightshades as we are not professional athletes or getting slammed by 250-pound linebackers in our daily lives! Overall, eliminating whole food groups from your diet isn’t necessary unless you suffer from specific food intolerances or allergens.

Nightshades are Nutrient Dense

Whether chopped, cooked or processed, tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes, and peppers are nutrient-dense foods that can combat inflammation, decrease cancer and heart-disease risk, support good digestion, and can aid in bone, eye and brain health.

Bell peppers are low in calories and high in vitamin C, (one cup provides 157% of RDA of vitamin C) and supply good amounts of the B vitamins (B2, B3, folate, and pantothenic acid), vitamin E, potassium, phosphorous, vitamin K, manganese, and magnesium. Bell peppers are also rich in phytonutrients.

Tomatoes contain all four major carotenoids: alpha- and beta-carotene, lutein, and lycopene. They are also high in vitamin C. And if you don’t like them raw, chop and cook them in a sauce — which enhances the bioavailability of their nutrients.

EAT YOUR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES!

Alpha and beta carotene, cryptoxanthin, lutein, zeaxanthin, and lycopene are carotenoids responsible for the pigmented orange, yellow red color in fruits and vegetables. These have long been known as powerful antioxidants.

“At the end of the day, despite the vicious rumors, nightshades are brimming over with nutrients and vitamins, which are excellent for your health and for most people, should be welcomed warmly into their plant-based lifestyle.”

– UC Davis, Integrated Medicine

Nix The Toxins!

smog over a city

We know that the term ‘toxic’ is frequently used to describe a substance that is considered to be bad for your health. You have probably been told that a poor diet and lack of exercise can contribute to the build-up of ‘toxins’ in your body. But is it true? And where do these toxins come? Do you know what happens when a toxic substance enters your body? I mean…what is a “toxin” anyway?

Toxins are very complex

By definition, a toxin is a poisonous substance that is biologically produced (i.e., by a plant or animal). This term is often erroneously used to describe all substances that have the potential to be toxic to humans. Manufactured or synthesized chemical compounds (e.g., pesticides, chemicals used in plastics, solvents, and metals) that may be poisonous or toxic to humans are considered toxicants.

When discussing cleansing and detoxification, generally, any substance that does not nourish our cells or aid in the function of our cells to be toxic, i.e. not necessary and therefore a burden to some degree.

– Dr. Ben Kim

Don’t live in fear of toxic substances

Your body is equipped with detoxification systems that eliminate the toxic compounds you ingest. As an informed consumer, you are probably concerned with the toxic substances that may be found in your food or the surrounding environment. These toxicants can be anything from mercury in fish and some preservatives in food to cadmium in cigarette smoke and lead in paint. Because of this, it is unrealistic to think you will never ingest something that is ‘toxic’. However, while it is virtually impossible to be completely free of toxic compounds, you should not live in fear of them. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle that includes exercise, a balanced diet, and moderation when it comes to consumption of alcohol, refined sugars, and heavily processed foods is the best way to support your body’s natural detoxification processes. 

To better understand how substances may be toxic to us, we first need to learn about these chemicals and how they enter our bodies.

Most toxicants enter your body via ingestion, inhalation, or absorption.  Examples of toxicants are pesticides, flame retardants, heavy metals, and chemicals used in common cleaning agents. This also includes chemicals such as acrylamide found in cooked or processed foods and acetone in cosmetics like nail polish removerOne of the primary means for supporting your body’s natural processes to eliminate potentially harmful substances is a healthy digestive system. If you maintain a poor diet over a long period of time, your liver and gut health are compromised and your body cannot properly eliminate them.

Endogenous Toxins are toxins that are produced inside of your body. Some of these toxins are waste products from normal metabolic activities— carbon dioxide, urea, and lactic acid are examples of endogenous toxins that your body actively creates. Unless your health is severely compromised, you are well equipped to eliminate these endogenous toxins from your system” (Dr. Ben Kim).

As far as toxic substances are concerned, the primary issue is their ability to damage your healthy cells. Whether you inhale or ingest pollution, your body’s best defense is to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

How does your body process toxic compounds?

Your liver is the primary detoxifying agent. It is well equipped to eliminate toxicants that are ingested, absorbed, inhaled, or created by your body.

Your body protects itself…

We previously discussed your body’s ability to ‘cleanse’ itself in our article, The Truth Behind Cleansing.  If you are eating well, exercising, sleeping, and avoiding significant toxic substances to the best of your ability, you can trust your body to protect itself. 

The problem occurs when you are exposed to more toxicants than your body is able to eliminate. If you are taking in too much too quickly, your body’s elimination processes may break down. The more toxicants taken in (e.g., the dose you receive), the more likely your elimination systems will become overloaded— resulting in harmful health effects.

Our kidneys and liver are well equipped to handle the detoxification process for potentially harmful toxic substances. That is what they are there for!

Your kidneys primary function is to filter your blood. The organ contains millions of microscopic units called nephrons, which filter your blood to eliminate waste and regulate your body’s fluid and electrolyte balance. The liver, on the other hand, is the primary detoxifying agent. It is responsible for keeping pathogens from entering the bloodstream. It is well-equipped to eliminate toxicants that are ingested, absorbed, or inhaled, or created by your body. So, if you are careful about what cleaning products or pollution you might be exposed to on a daily basis and you maintain a healthy, balanced lifestyle, your body has the tools to eliminate the substances that may be harmful.

Hydrate, Hydrate, Hydrate!

Eat nutritious whole foods, exercise, and hydrate. This will help facilitate healthy blood circulation and the elimination of unneeded substances from the body. If your body is being fed and hydrated properly, your liver and kidneys have the tools to detoxify on their own. In fact, recent studies have shown that the traditional recommendation of ‘8 servings of water per day’ is actually unsubstantiated! Nutritionists are now saying that you should aim to consume roughly half an ounce to one ounce of water per pound.

If you weigh 150lbs you should be drinking between 75-150 ounces of water per day. This recommendation can also vary depending on your weight, size, and exercise regime.

All in all, we need to be realistic. You are never going to be able to completely eliminate exposure to all potentially harmful substances in your daily life. The best way to protect yourself is to be good to your body. Be aware of the cleaning solvents and other chemicals used in your home, skip the cigarettes, and avoid second-hand smoke and heavily polluted areas when possible.

Your body is well-equipped to handle the day-to-day threats of the environment. The danger only comes from overexposure. Hydration and a well-balanced diet help your organs efficiently and effectively eliminate toxicants.

What is Clean Eating?

a piece of kale and small pieces of fruit on a white background

Are you eating “clean”?

There are so many different ways to interpret this new food trend. What originally started as a healthy push to eliminate heavily processed foods (like sugary cereal, white bread, and candy) has now become a program that considers “processed food” as any foods that have been altered from their most natural form.

But, does this vague definition include best farming practices? Safe labor? Harvesting methods? Pesticide application? Treatment of farm animals? We’re not so sure…

Consumers want to feel more connected with their food— and this is a movement D2D certainly supports. However, the idea of “eating clean,” which has been heavily perpetuated by social media, is often very misleading. Media outlets, like Clean Eating Magazine and Fitness Magazine, outline various ways to practice clean eating but this definition varies depending on the consumer.

Sometime in the early 2000s, two distinct but interrelated versions of clean eating became popular in the US – one based on the creed of “real” food, and the other on the idea of “detox”. Once the concept of cleanliness had entered the realm of eating, it was only a matter of time before the basic idea spread contagiously across Instagram, where fans of #eatclean could share their artfully photographed green juices and rainbow salad bowls. The Guardian

The basic definition of “clean eating” means eating no “processed” food. But what does that mean?

After some research, it seems that the most basic definition of eating clean is a diet full of fresh, often organic, whole foods. This means no processing— and, for the record, “processing” can include steaming your veggies or putting fresh ingredients into the blender for a smoothie! In some cases, this eating method can actually be detrimental to the nutritional value of produce. Peas, for example, lose nutrients very quickly when harvested and are often flash frozen to protect the nutritional content. But frozen produce is considered processed, so by keeping clean you are actually getting fewer nutrients! Like peas, tomatoes also contain more nutrients when they are heat-processed, as they release more lysine.

“Processing is not always bad. Often processing removes toxins or bacteria, or allows for us to eat certain types of foods in the off-season due to freezing or canning. Processing can also include altering the consistency or taste of food to make it more appealing.”
Jessica Fanzo, assistant professor of nutrition at Columbia University

And how does the “clean” label apply to labor, animal farming, and best agricultural practices? Currently, there is no accepted standard by which companies are measured and able to deem their food “clean.” This whole clean trend is not as cut and dry as you might think…

Meet The Clean Label Project. This non-profit organization is currently working to add transparency to consumers’ food purchases and reduce the contamination that can occur in consumer products. They want to clarify the misleading labels and bring more awareness to the environmental contaminant issues that can affect your food. And while this initiative could prove to be very beneficial in the future, at the moment they can only advise on pet food. 

“Clean eating” means eating only organically grown foods — but does that translate to healthier?

It comes as no surprise that the organic industry is a fan of the clean eating movement. Similar to the use of the “natural” label, they have motivated the narrative on this term. Keep in mind, there are no set rules or regulations when you eat “natural” or “clean.” You might remember, we recently investigated the natural label in order to clarify that “natural” doesn’t translate to healthier.

Does organic mean “cleaner?”  The organic industry is deeply rooted in the clean eating trend, but as we discussed in the article Conventional or Organic? organic doesn’t always mean fewer or no pesticides have been used to grow the food.

What about the definition of “clean meat?”

What gets a bit trickier, however, is how to incorporate meat. How are you determining the cleanliness of your beef and poultry? Some diets recommend organic, grass-fed meat and poultry. But let’s think about this rationally— does feeding your cow grass really make its meat clean?  

Clean meat means meat that was produced using safe and regulated practices. It means animals that were harvested following the standards set by the USDA or respective governing organization of that country. It means meat that was inspected before entering the grocery store. And it means meat that won’t make you sick! The idea of “clean meat” being held to a different standard than our current global regulations would create a total disruption of our understanding of the food chain. This could lead to increased foodborne illnesses and would negatively affect the safety regulations that are already in place. Why are we trying to blur the food safety lines? It is harmful to our health!

Globally, consumers spend about $1 trillion per year on meat and this can have a pretty significant impact on the environment and our natural resources. Memphis Meats is an innovative food company that wants to find a safer, more ecologically-sound way to harvest meat while preserving farming resources. Meat created in a lab isn’t grass-fed, it isn’t considered organic, but it was harvested using clean and safe practices. In fact, it was cultivated in a petri dish! Memphis Meats actually hopes to cater to non-meat eaters by providing these individuals with a safe way to enjoy meat that does not harm animals.

Memphis Meats’ cell-based chicken and duck

Does “clean eating” incorporate labor regulations?

This idea of eating clean seems to only incorporate the food once it has reached our plate— but there is a fundamental issue with this. If the grass-fed, organic beef on your plate was farmed under harsh or unsafe labor conditions, is it still considered clean?

Good labor practices are a huge component of sustainability efforts. While some “clean-eating” consumers consider clean food to mean food created using safe and regulated labor practices, the majority of people eating clean focus solely on the processing of food.

UTZ chocolate, for example, created a model around sustainability that includes child labor laws, therefore child labor is prohibited on all contributing UTZ farms. Their products are farmed and harvested within regulatory guidelines, their factories are inspected, and their products are made safely — but their chocolate isn’t considered “clean.” Chocolate is made from by processing cacao beans. And as we learned in Crazy for Cocoa, there are nutrients in cacao beans that are available in a serving of dark chocolate. So, while we aren’t telling you to eat tons of candy, if you are buying a more nutrient-dense dark chocolate, shouldn’t we reward the companies employing these safe practices with our business?

The notion of clean eating can be very confusing, and raw ingredients often must be processed slightly to create a viable and safe product. Processed foods are not always the enemy, in fact, they often keep you from getting sick. The D2D team certainly supports a diet rich in fresh produce and lean meats, but the idea that your diet can be deemed “clean” is very misleading.

The Ketogenic Diet: Fueling the Body with Fat

keto diet ingredients

If you are an avid D2D reader, you know by now that our team is not a fan of crash diets, extreme weight loss programs, or the elimination of whole food groups. But, when a reader approached us with his success on the ketogenic program, we took pause. Like D2D, a ketogenic diet values the importance of healthy fat! (You may recall: Fat is our Friend). And since the ketogenic diet is less about crash dieting and more about achieving the state of ketosis, we were intrigued…

The ketogenic diet was first introduced in the 1920s to help treat epilepsy in children after several studies indicated that the ketone chemical could help to reduce seizures. However, it wasn’t until much later that it was developed into a weight loss program for adults. In 2012, Dr. Gianfranco Cappello, an associate professor of surgery at the Sapienza University in Rome, Italy, researched the effect ketosis could have on weight loss. He found that ketosis could help overweight patients with both fast and significant weight loss (with very few side effects) when they were given a healthy, full-fat diet. His research, which included 19,000 participants, was particularly effective in very overweight or obese patients and demonstrated successful one-year weight management in ‘long term’ participants.

So, we wondered if a ketogenic diet is healthy for those just trying to maintain a well-balanced lifestyle? And is there any research that supports following this program over a long period of time?

“Being in a state of ketosis forces a physiological shift from a sugar-based metabolism to a fatty acid and ketone-based metabolism. Nutritional ketosis suppresses insulin and forces a ‘fat adaptive state.’” (Keto Clarity)

Ketosis: using fat for energy

This diet program focuses on what fuel source the body uses for energy. The true purpose of the ketogenic diet is to enter a state called ketosis. Ketosis occurs when your body has successfully switched from using glucose for energy to using fat for energy. It takes at least three days to enter into ketosis. When you have entered ketosis and your body is burning your fat for fuel, ketone bodies, “ketones,” are created and used for energy. A ketone is a chemical that is inevitably turned into energy by the mitochondria in your cells.

There are three different types of ketone bodies, acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyric acid, and acetone. They vary in structure and can perform different roles within your body. Acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate, for example, take the energy from your liver and transport it to different organs in your body. Acetone is the least used ketone and will be eliminated quickly if it is not used. If you are practicing a ketogenic diet, you can test your urine to see if ketone bodies are being released. This is called “ketonuria.”
(Image source: Perfect Keto

Entering a state of ketosis has been studied for its ability to possibly improve both mental and physical performance. In addition to the reduction of seizures, the ketogenic diet has also been associated with restful sleep, stabilized blood sugar levels, decreased inflammation, and increased HDL (“good”) cholesterol— however, many of these claims remain unproven.

Your body is programmed to use glucose for energy

ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is a high-energy molecule that is considered the “energy currency of life.” This energy molecule is created by glucose, fats, and proteins. Through evolution, your body is programmed to fuel itself on glucose. The benefits of glucose are twofold: it doesn’t require digestion and it yields 45-50% more energy than a ketone body.

Fat, on the other hand, takes energy to digest and does not produce as much energy for your body to use. So why switch? The purpose of this is, of course, to burn up fat stores.

In ketosis, fat is being burned for energy— but your brain cannot fuel itself on fat directly. So, the liver processes the fat and creates ketone bodies which are able to fuel your brain when glucose is not available. The rest of your body, like your muscles, can utilize the full fat for fuel.
(Source: Diet Doctor)

When the glucose from your diet is metabolized in the cell, it releases ATP that provides energy to the body. If you are consuming more glucose than is needed for energy, the excess glucose is stored in the liver as glycogen. When energy is needed glycogen is used first as a glucose source. However, for longer energy supply needs (especially in the brain) if the glycogen stored in your liver is depleted your body starts to convert fat to energy, which that can result in weight loss. This is the premise of the ketogenic diet.

Low-Carbohydrate, Moderate Protein, High Fat

At its core, the ketogenic diet pushes your body to switch from burning glucose as its primary energy source to burning fat. This is done by strictly limiting the amount of carbohydrates, sugar, and even protein you are allowed to eat during the day.

If you are thinking that this sounds similar to the Atkins Diet or High Fat Low Carb (HFLC) diet— you are correct! The keto approach is similar to these more mainstream programs; however, the ketogenic diet goes even further by limiting protein intake as well.

As a rule of thumb, a proper ketogenic diet should contain roughly 70% healthy fats, 20% protein, and 10% carbs. There is no strict limitation on the number of calories you can consume per day on this program. However, based on this percentage breakdown, most ketosis followers will actually consume less than on a traditional diet because of the satiety they experience when consuming higher volumes of fat. Unlike carbohydrates, fat takes longer for your body to digest and will keep you feeling full.

The ketogenic diet: 70% healthy fats, 20% protein, and 10% carbs

According to the ketogenic method, reducing protein intake (in addition to restricting carbohydrates and sugar) further forces your body into a state of starvation and enables it to utilize fat as fuel. The human body considers its fat stores to be a “last resort” in terms of fuel— glucose is its preferred fuel, with protein falling in second place. Because of this, if you are consuming normal levels of protein, it will use the protein as fuel as opposed to your fat stores. A Keto-approved meal indicates that roughly 3-6 ounces of meat per meal is acceptable.

On the Ketogenic Diet, your protein serving size should be the size on your old iPhone!

Carbohydrates, on the other hand, should barely touch your plate! On average, ketogenic dieters consume between 20-50 grams of carbohydrates per day. The maximum amount of carbohydrates allowed per day on this program is 100 grams, however, most followers have reported that they reach optimum ketosis when they maintain their carbs in the 20-50g range.

Blood Sugar = 100

Innately, your body is programmed to have a blood sugar level of 100. When you hear of a drastically dropping or spiking blood sugar level, that means it is varying from the baseline of 100. To put this into perspective, a normal blood sugar level of 100 is equal to 2 teaspoons (or 8 grams) of sugar in your blood! In order to stabilize your blood sugar levels, your body secretes insulin.

Insulin is a hormone that acts as a key for your cell. It attaches to the cell wall and allows glucose to enter in order to provide energy. Insulin works to lower your blood sugar levels by converting sugar to fat.

Regulating your insulin levels is one of the key components to the ketogenic diet as you are effectively eliminating sugar, including naturally occurring sugar from fruit. By preventing major spikes in your blood sugar levels, ketosis helps to stabilize your appetite and your body cravings. Low insulin levels can also help with weight management.

Be warned, however, when you enter into a ketogenic program, you might experience the “ketogenic flu.” Due to the absence of carbohydrates and sugar in your diet, your body goes into a state of shock. In the beginning, the lack of glucose will make you feel sick, sluggish, and dizzy. Not to mention you are also losing a lot of water very quickly because every gram of glycogen (aka the storage of excess glucose) contains 2.7 grams of water! In order to fight these symptoms, you must be diligent about drinking water and replenishing electrolytes!

Ketogenics is redefining the food pyramid and telling you to embrace the fat!

The Research

While there are promising studies on ketosis and your body’s use of ketones, the body of research that exists today is inconclusive. Unfortunately, there is a lack of depth in the research that makes many positive claims for the benefits of ketosis. As we discussed in When is Science Truly Sciencein order for a scientific study to be credible it must meet a host of qualifications. For example: Has it been peer-reviewed?Has it been replicated? Was it performed by scientists who are unbiased?

And while some of the important criteria may have been met, there has not been enough replicated research to make any claims definitively. Additionally, this program and its research are in its infancy as it was only first introduced as a weight loss program in 2012.

One particularly noteworthy growing body of research is the link between cancer and a state of ketosis.

There are a few dynamic areas, however, that require further exploration. One particularly noteworthy growing body of research is the link between cancer and a state of ketosis. Science has proven that cancer cells hate fat and love sugar.

When a cancer cell needs to feed itself it turns directly to glucose. So, by effectively eliminating the sources of glucose in your diet, the cancer cell would starve. Is that to say that keeping a ketogenic diet will make you cancer-immune— no! But, there is a need for more research in this space.

Additionally, there have been a few stand-alone studies that discuss the ability for ketones to demonstrate disease-fighting abilities, specifically neurologically. For these reasons, the ketogenic diet has also been positively linked to reducing some of the symptoms of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. And while maintaining a state of ketosis is by no means a cure for neurological diseases, it is an exciting avenue to be explored.

It is also important to note that organizations like the Mayo Clinic, the American Heart Association, and the American Medical Association believe that a state of ketosis is considered “abnormal” because you are essentially forcing your body into starvation mode in order to utilize stored fat. This side of the argument believes that your body was designed to use glucose as fuel and starving yourself to the point where you are forced to use “last ditch” energy reserves is unnatural and may put excess stress on your body.

The ketogenic diet can be very harmful to people with diabetes. Unlike people without diabetes—who have insulin to help prevent the build-up of ketone bodies in your blood— diabetics are at risk for ketone build up which can result in ketoacidosis.

Happy Ketos!

After reading a significant amount of literature on the subject, one thing is clear: a ketogenic diet is not for the faint of heart. 20-50 grams of carbs a day is next to impossible. For reference: there are 20 grams of carbs in an apple! Remember, carbs are not just in foods like rice, pizza, and pasta, they are in vegetables and fruits as well!  A D2D member even tried going “low carb high fat” for her wedding, keeping it to 90 grams of carbs a day and voiced how incredibly challenging it was.

 

So, we had to speak with keto followers that transitioned into this eating program and were happy about it. The recounts were astonishing. Almost unanimously, we were told “once you change your mindset about carbohydrates you will feel great.” However, we also learned that the ketogenic diet also calls for moderate exercise. If you increase your heart rate too much, your body will require more food and it will be harder to maintain a state of ketosis.

We then turned to personal trainer and ketogenic follower Chris Clarke of Tiger Fit. He indicated that he follows “keto cycling” where he incorporates carbohydrates on the days he is doing high-intensity training. Therefore, if you are intrigued by the nature of this program and you are highly active, there are ways to build ketogenics into your life.

However, ketogenics still controversial with supporters and opponents in part because its long term implications haven’t been studied. So, if you do decide to go on such a strict regime, it is best to consult with your doctor first to make sure it is the right choice for you given your weight, your genetics, and your lifestyle.

Let’s Byte into Ag

computer programming language on a computer screen

In today’s global agricultural system, we are collecting, sorting, analyzing, and acting on data. Data mining is now integral in the universal effort to improve the quantity, quality, and sustainability of our food supply—now and into the future.

Feeding the world while protecting the environment is a science— a data-driven science. Data allows us to find practical solutions that deliver better results across every segment of the food chain.  While the role of data and intelligent data management may seem to be invisible to most of us, it is essential to assuring that today’s consumers—and future generations—don’t just eat, but thrive.

Intelligent, innovative data management is already a critical core competency in feeding animals and people with wholesome, safe, and affordable food. 

Statistics on the amount of data being created every day is mind-boggling

Many data science experts support the notion that we risk “drowning in data,” when what we really want to do is “swim in knowledge.”  Data scientist Abdelbarre Chafik highlights that every day, more than 2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created. (That is 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 bytes!)

AppDeveloper magazine recently stated,

More data was created in the last two years than the previous 5,000 years of humanity. In 2017, we will create even more data in one year alone, creating more challenges around consuming that data to make strategic and tactical decisions. Yet, recent research has found that less than 0.5 percent of that data is actually being analyzed for operational decision making.

Bits and Bytes and the Agricultural Sector

What has changed, however, is the sheer volume and variety of data that is now available to the agricultural sector through the emergence of new information technology. In order to use data effectively, we need to be collecting with purpose.

The value of an idea lies in the using of it.
—Thomas Edison

Collecting data is to drive better decision-making at every step along the food chain.  What’s more— this emerging focus on data management is rapidly becoming a core competency for all members of the food system.  Data holds the potential to make every segment of the food chain work better.

Because this is a new and rapidly growing market, many companies are trying to find their niche. It will be very interesting to see how this market place develops and which agriculture and data companies are able to work together in order to find the best solutions.

There are many companies competing in the agricultural data space. Source: AGC Partners

Data isn’t new to agriculture

Farm data has been collected for centuries— first as hieroglyphics etched in stone, followed by hand-written entries in dusty ledgers. Data is stored everywhere: in grain elevators, on commodity exchanges, in the basement of barns, on the rolling handwritten inventories of food stores, and countless other places along the food chain.

Farmers used basic facts and figures about input costs, pest controls, machinery expenses, yields, market bids, etc. to help themselves better produce their crop in future seasons. Commodity merchants tracked market trends, historic demand, crop estimates, stocks and other factors important to buying and selling farm products at a profit. Food manufacturers took careful note of stocks, purchase needs, ingredient prices, market demand and more. Food consumers also had a role to play in data management, even if only to stay within their household budget.

Today, the difference is that all of this information from the farmers, merchants, distributors, food processors, and the grocery store can be loaded into algorithms to provide consolidated information from farmer to consumer.

But, at every step along the way— all the players have different objectives. The farmers want to grow their crops with the best yield and the least inputs (pesticides, herbicides, and water). The commodity traders want to buy low and sell high. The food processor wants to buy food from the farmer and efficiently process it into a different product (for example soybeans into soybean oil.) And the consumer wants affordable, healthy, and safe food that is accessible daily.

Let’s imagine a few things can be done by harvesting this volume of data

As a consumer:

  • Scan the label on your produce or fruit to learn about the farmer who grew your food.
  • Scan the label on your meat packaging and know exactly what the cow was fed throughout its life.
  • Supermarkets can manage their end of life products and notify consumers and food banks who could use them.
  • Restaurants can use Food Genius to gather the popularity of over 22 million menu items to see what sells to which type of consumer – and then tailor their own menu.

As a farmer:

  • Know the exact locations on the fields that have heavy water, normal, or drought conditions and manage pesticide applications.
  • Know the approximate yield, around the globe, of their crop so they can decide whether to sell their crop at harvest or store it on site until prices are more favorable.
  • Know the exact moment to plant their crops through weather and soil analytics.
  • Program the driver-less tractor to manage the fields.
  • Purchase the right seed each year for today’s climate and soil.
  • Use big data to provide crop insurance for farmers regarding crop yields and weather patterns.

As the food producer:

  • Be able to instantly track all the ingredients and their prices that come from around the world.
  • Have instant access to sales at the grocery store so inventory can be managed accordingly.
  • Know about every animal that is purchased for your farm and have access to what it was fed pre-purchase.
  • Streamline transportation logistics in order to get optimal pricing to send product via rail, ship, or truck.
  • Increase understanding of all food inputs to effectively manage margins.

How can we use data to improve food sustainability?

As we discussed in Farming from the Thermosphere, technology is becoming increasingly important in farming practices. Data becomes knowledge, knowledge becomes insight, and insight should inevitably become action.

But of all the data that is captured, it is important to discern what kinds of data are important to agriculture. While the internet and subsequently the Internet of Things (IoT) has allowed for better data collection, there is room for improvement. Here are some areas within the food supply chain that will benefit from improved data collection and management:

One of the most important questions to be resolved in a brave new data-driven world is— what we do with the data once we have it?

Many companies are trying to answer this question. In fact, 2016 Global Opportunity Report cited “smart farming” as the top-ranked opportunity.

The idea that agriculture is now a tech industry is firmly established. The farming community knows they have to embrace this. —Roger Royse (Silicon Valley attorney)

Farmers Edge specializes in precision agronomy and helps enable farmers to better monitor their fields and collect effective data. IBM’s artificial intelligence product, Watson (IoT), is attempting to transform precision agriculture by utilizing predictive weather analytics to help farmers. The platform also offers real-time plant and field monitoring. Bayer Digital Farming uses Amazon Web Service to help feed a growing population. In 2014, John Deere introduced SeedStar a mobile application that gives farmers a row-by-row assessment of their field and its performance. Moreover, John Deere recently (Sept 2017) acquired See and Spray Robotics, which sees, diagnoses, and executes on something as small as seedlings. Monsanto bought The Climate Corporation, which uses big data to predict weather and climate change. Cargill invested in Descartes Labs, which uses satellite imagery to help with crop forecasting. U.S. Foods bought Food Genius— and the list goes on…

Source: IBM

As technology enables the creation of larger amounts of data, determining which data is relevant, complete, and honest grows more difficult. Unfortunately, it is easy to twist data to support a pre-conceived idea, and data alone is often fuel for argument and debate.

In an age in which consensus about important issues (such as climate change, water use, and topsoil depletion) has become bogged down in rhetoric, claims, and counterclaims, objective data management enables informed decision-making. More and more effort is being devoted to sorting through competing data analysis methods and conclusions. But finding critical data— and true insights within reams of legitimate data — remains very much a work in progress.

Agave: Too Good to be True

creative image of agave plant

We can’t sugarcoat it— consuming excess sugar is simply not good for you! The average American eats between 80-110 grams of added sugar a day. To put that into perspective, the recommended daily amount is 24 grams of sugar for women and 38 grams of sugar for men per day.

Mintel has reported that 84% of adults have decided to limit their sugar intake. At D2D, we applaud this effort and recognize that it is no small feat! In response to the movement away from traditional sugar, many sugar tricks have made their way onto the health food market. But (for the most part) sugar is sugar is sugar— and almost all variations have the same effect on your body….

Enter: Agave

Pictured above: Agave americana. (Source: Plant Rescue)

Grown in Mexico and the U.S. Southwest, the agave plant resembles a cactus but is actually a member of the asparagus family. There are many different cultivars, and the syrup is produced from only a few of these. When in flower, the agave plant can reach a height of 25ft!

Marketing claims and excellent branding have made it easy to believe that agave used as a sugar source is “better for you.” In fact, according to Mintel Market Research, consumers rank Agave the fourth healthiest in the long list of sweeteners.

The use of this “naturally occurring sweetener” has grown exponentially in recent years. More specifically, from June 2012-2013 33% of all food and drink product launches contained agave.

Agave nectar producers claim that this syrup is healthier because it provides fewer calories per serving and has a low glycemic index, which means it won’t raise your blood sugar levels as much as other sugar and sweeteners.

However, there are some issues with these claims. The agave syrup that is sold commercially is highly processed in order for it to have a longer shelf life. While it is true that the fructans in naturally occurring agave nectar are a healthy source of sugar, when these fructans are processed (at high heat) they are turned into fructose and the healthy qualities of this nectar are eliminated.


Video: Authority Nutrition

Love Tequila? Look for 100% agave on the label!
Tequila is made by extracting and fermenting the juice from the core of the agave plant, which is high in sugar. Unlike agave syrup, which is processed, tequila is a live food and the natural sugars present in the plant are used as fuel during the fermentation process. That is not to say all tequila is sugar free! U.S. regulations allow tequila companies to add sugar to their final product, whereas Mexican tequila distributors are prevented from making tequila with anything other than the blue weber agave plant. When purchasing tequila, look for 100% agave on the label!

Let’s have a quick recap on fructose & glucose

In our previous post on sugar, we discussed the importance of fructose and glucose. Table sugar is composed of a combination of both glucose and fructose.

Glucose will give your body an energy boost. Unlike fructose, glucose is very important. It fuels your brain and muscles and helps convert food into nutrients. Fructose, on the other hand, truly serves no purpose in your body. It cannot be used as energy and can only be processed by your liver. Once it reaches your liver, it is converted into fat and sent to your body’s fat cells to be burned, or eliminated.

Fructose build up in your liver is toxic and can have the same affect on your liver as excess alcohol build up!

Most sugars have a fairly equal ratio of glucose to fructose. Table sugar, for example, is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, a 1:1 ratio. This can vary roughly 5% depending on the sugar source— however, it is safe to say that almost all sugar products will be processed by your body relatively the same.

Agave is a 2:1 ratio of fructose to glucose.

Even high fructose corn syrup contains less fructose than agave! Like most sugars, HFCS has a 1:1 ratio of fructose to glucose. HFCS is roughly 55% fructose.  Agave syrup can contain between 70-97% fructose. It is because of this increased fructose amount that agave is technically lower on the glycemic index than other traditional sugars. But that means at least 70% of the agave you are consuming is going straight to your liver!

“In theory, it’s high in fructose and low on the glycemic index, making it a better option than refined sugar. But there’s not a lot of research to back that up, and one of the studies was done in lab animals, not people. The American Diabetes Association lists agave as a sweetener to limit, along with regular table sugar, brown sugar, honey, maple syrup, and all other sugars.” (Web MD

Additionally, unlike what many agave health claims report, agave typically has more calories per serving than other sweetening products. For example, 1 tablespoon of white sugar has 48 calories, whereas a tablespoon of agave contains roughly 60 calories. Agave producers claim that because the syrup is so sweet, consumers will inevitably use less than traditional sweeteners and save calories that way.

Kefir, Kombucha, and Sauerkraut…Oh My!

three bottles of kefir with red straws

“Hey D2D, I am a Kefir drinker but just read your article on Kombucha and was wondering if I should switch to this probiotic source? Which one is better for me? “

More than just giving a simple recommendation based on these two products, this question opened a new door for us. How can we help our readers make smart food purchases?

Incorporating diverse, nutrient-dense foods is the best way to keep your digestive system healthy. But, foods containing probiotics might not find their way into your diet naturally.

“When you look at populations that eat real food that’s high in fiber, and more plant-based foods, you’re going to see they have a more robust microbiota, with more genetic diversity, healthier species and fewer pathogenic bacteria living in the gut.” —Meghan Jardine (Registered Dietitian)

Probiotics are not just limited to Kefir or Kombucha— although the companies that make these products do a great job at marketing themselves as the best option to maintain a healthy gut. In reality, there is a laundry list of products and foods that contain probiotics, some of which are sauerkraut, yogurt, miso soup, and vinegar. But how often are you reaching for the sauerkraut when there isn’t a hot dog attached? If the answer is “not very,” then clearly that isn’t the right probiotic for you!

We know that you want to incorporate a probiotic into your diet and we know where you can get them—but, is there a food/product that is the “best” for you? The answer is simple…No! D2D (and the microbiota industry) cannot recommend which probiotic source your body will respond best to. But, we can give you a few tips and tricks when selecting probiotic supplements for your diet.

So many choices!  The labels we see every day can be overly complicated. 

While probiotic foods can be quite different, there should be a probiotic-rich food or supplement that is right for you…you might just have to experiment a bit. And there may not be one solution!

We have talked a lot about the importance of good bacteria. If you happen to have read an earlier post on the microbiota in your gut, you know that your gut is actually your second brain! New research shows that your gut health may have the ability to influence your mood, energy levels, immune system, sleep, weight, and even your mental clarity. It is even being said that your gut bacteria are responsible for 70% of your immune health.

The biggest challenge with promoting gut health is emphasizing how unique every single individuals’ microbiome is! Thus, its hard to give supplement recommendations because what might work for you might not help another.

So, back to Kefir vs. Kombucha— there are a few advantages and disadvantages that you should be aware of.

Kefir is typically made from a fermented milk base and for that reason, it is a strong source of calcium. It also contains vitamin B12, magnesium, folate, enzymes, and (of course) probiotics! Kefir products, like Lifeway, can contain over 15 billion viable bacteria cells per cup! You can also buy water based Kefir products, like Kevita, however, these beverages contain roughly 4 billion colony forming units.

One thing you definitely want to be aware of when buying Kefir and other similar probiotic foods is sugar! Excess sugar consumption is believed to cause inflammation and inflammation has been associated with a whole host of health issues. Unfortunately, the average American consumes 3x more sugar than is recommended on any given day. (The FDA recommendation for sugar is 24 grams a day for women and 36 grams per day for men).

Sugar is often used to feed the live bacteria cultures that are present in probiotic supplements. And while most of this is utilized by the bacteria and not ingested by the consumer, some products can sneak extra sugar into their foods to make them tastier. Kefir, for example, typically contains about 12 grams of sugar per serving. If you are a woman, that is half your daily amount. Similarly, yogurt is another probiotic source that has a higher sugar content.

If your stomach feels great, and you are mindful of your remaining sugar intake, then Kefir might be the right probiotic for you. But, if the roughly 12 grams of sugar that is coming from Kefir is not accounted for in your diet— then you might want to look elsewhere. Kevita and Kombucha, on the other hand, usually contain roughly 3-5 grams of sugar per serving.

Recommended Articles: 

New York Times: A Gut Makeover for the New Year

Cell Host & Microbe Study: Prior Dietart Practices and Connections to a Human Gut Microbial Metacommunity Alter Responses to Diet Interventions

WebMD: Leaky Gut Syndrome

WebMD: What Are Probiotics?

Harvard Health Publications: The Benefits of Probiotics Bacteria 

Water, Water…Everywhere?

Irrigation equipment on farm field

Our water supply is stressed!

Water is essential to all living things. Humans, animals, and crops rely on a steady water supply in order to survive. But, with a growing population and a finite water supply on earth, we are finding ourselves in a bit of trouble! While about 80% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, it is the fresh water supply that we are most concerned about. Freshwater assumes only 2.5% of all water on Earth – and 90% of this fresh water is located in Antarctica. To put that into perspective, if you were to take all the world’s water and fit it into a one-gallon jug – fresh water would only account for roughly one tablespoon.

Based on current projections, our population is expected to grow .89% per year through 2050. At this rate, that is approximately 66 million more mouths to feed each year! Thus, our farmers are expected to not only produce more food but to use less water throughout the growing process. So, as shifting rainfall patterns, frequent droughts, and population growth put added stress on our water supply, farmers are looking to technology for new ways to reduce, manage, and reuse fresh water.

Water on Earth is a closed system.

There is the same amount of water on our Earth today as there was two billion years ago, but it may be in a different form. Water on earth is recycled daily through evaporation, condensation (clouds), precipitation (rain, snow, or hail), filtration down through the earth, and surface run-off. Consider this: When you drink a glass of water you could be drinking the same H20 molecule that your Grandmother met when she got caught in the rain 50 years ago! That same H20 molecule may have also met the dinosaurs 200 million years ago or, more recently, George Washington in 1789!

Farming requires a lot of water

Growing crops and raising animals requires a lot of water. Worldwide farming activities account for approximately 70% of freshwater withdrawals. Farming in the mid-west, for example, requires millions of gallons of water to keep crops and livestock healthy and happy. These farms utilize rainwater as well as underground aquifers. After this water gets used on the farm, it can take a lifetime to make its way back into an aquifer. In addition to recharging groundwater, water can also run off into streams and/or rivers and end up in the ocean. It may also be evaporated! Water is rarely used in the same way more than once.

The areal and vertical location of the major aquifers is fundamental to the determination of groundwater availability for the Nation. An aquifer is a geologic formation, a group of formations, or a part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. Source: USGS Aquifer Map

Farmers want to conserve water

Technology experts have been working for decades to create innovative technology to help farms save water. Most farmers are very motivated to use water efficiently, and many rely on water-saving techniques in their conservation efforts. (Additionally, as we discussed in our previous post, they must also address soil health to ensure optimal water and nutrient retention.)

There are various ways that technology can be used to conserve water – let’s explore some of the available approaches…

  1. The biotech approach begins with engineering seeds and crops that can grow with less water and have drought resistant properties.
  2. The computer-related approach includes aerial imaging, sensor networks, data analytics, and social networking. These systems are helping farmers optimize their water inputs, create smarter irrigation systems, and communicate with each other on water-saving techniques.
  3. Advancements in filtration and membrane technologies have made it more cost-effective for farmers to conserve water.
  4. Absorbent soil additives can increase the amount of water the soil can retain and release throughout the growing season.

Seeds of solution

If you are an environmentalist, then drought-resistant genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the answer to your water concerns. Seed producers are using biotechnology to create seeds that can grow a water-efficient, drought-resistant crop. Breakthroughs in seed technology can help farmers around the world growing in different climates optimize water use.

Digital tools

One of the primary water-related issues farmers face is: where to put the water— as some parts of their field often need it more than others.

Drones help farmers perfect irrigation techniques.  Image source

Thanks to computer-related technologies (aerial imaging, sensor networks, data analytics, and social networking), farmers can now determine where the drier part of their field is located. The goal of agricultural aerial imaging, sensor networks, and digital tools (such as data analytics) is to perfect irrigation techniques.

When the sensors detect low soil moisture in a specific area or crop, the control network will turn on the computer-automated irrigation system and turn it off when an optimal amount of water is delivered to that zone.

A single field can differ in slope, land elevation, exposure to the sun, and/or contain various soil types (i.e., mineral and clay content, sandiness, etc.), all of which affect the amount of water needed to grow crops. The development of these computer-related technologies is to allow farmers to more precisely deliver water to meet crop needs on a real-time basis.

In a previous article, D2D described how the use of aerial imaging captured by drones, satellites, and aircraft has been “taking off” in the farming industry.

Large farms today can synthesis data from the fields, the animals, the machines and the barns to run more efficiently.

Normally, growers manually evaluate their soil moisture, crop health, and potential yields on foot or by tractor, but aircraft or drones can quickly fly over their field or satellites can produce a bird’s eye view of the field generating more accurate data often at an accelerated pace. The data produced by the satellite or aircraft imagery can be directly downloaded to a farmer’s smartphone or tablet allowing the farmer to adjust their field management accordingly.

There are many drone companies offering imaging services. Searching the internet for aerial crop imaging companies brings up dozens of entries. However, many of these companies provide only images without any analytics or “actionable intelligence” to make sense of what is shown. DroneDeploy and Agribotix are two startups that offer both imaging services and analytic software platforms where farmers can analyze images taken from their personal drones. Another imaging-as-a-Service company, CeresImaging, captures high-resolution images at specific wavelengths by flying close to the ground. Using various image processing techniques, they generate highly accurate data on every plant in the field then use biological and mathematical modeling to correlate this data to the plant’s physical properties.

Sensing the Earth

Similar to aerial imaging, wireless sensor networks create a smarter irrigation system that allows farmers to customize irrigation to a field’s unique needs. The sensors are placed around a field and continually report various soil measurements, including moisture levels, directly to a computer, tablet, or cell phone. The farmer can then take that information and act on it. More advanced sensor systems have control networks installed in a field’s irrigation system.

CropX, a company with offices in Tel Aviv and San Francisco uses publicly available data to generate algorithms for a particular piece of land. After formulating the algorithm, they use data from sensors strategically located within a field to generate detailed information about how much water is needed as well as where and when it is needed. Raptormaps is another company that combines sensor technology with analytics to provide farmers with information to optimize crop inputs and to make decisions based on field and crop conditions.

Additionally, pressure and acoustic sensors wirelessly connected to a cloud-based monitoring system can be attached to a field’s irrigation pipes and groundwater sources. Using sound waves, the sensors can detect and pinpoint leaks in irrigation pipes below the ground, as well as accurately measure a farmer’s groundwater storage. Ag data analytics use the massive amount of information from imaging and/or sensor networks to assess and predict field conditions.

Farmers utilize social media to communicate with one another

Computer use and access to the internet have not only given farmers tools to more precisely irrigate their crops but have also provided a forum to communicate with other farmers about farming issues such as water-conversation. Social networking and mass text messaging have been successfully used in other industries for communication but is now also starting to be used more widely in agriculture.

Studies show that farmers rely on their social network as a primary information source. Farmer-specific social networking platforms are attempting to leverage this natural tendency by encouraging farmers to share their questions and knowledge with others in the industry on issues including water use, irrigation tools, and weather information.

Water re-use and membrane filtration

This approach shifts from water management and conservation techniques to water reuse. Water purification and desalination (a process that removes salt and minerals from water) has been around for decades and is used in mostly arid countries around the world. Israel is a major proponent of water reuse — reusing about 80% of its municipal wastewater for irrigation. Israel not only reuses grey water from sinks and showers but also uses black water – better known as sewage. Following the Israelis lead in water reuse is Spain at 17%, followed by Australia at 10% and the U.S. at less than 1%.

In addition to water reuse, desalination provides another major water source for Israel. Breakthroughs in membrane technology have lowered the cost of desalination technology significantly.

The World Bank reported advances in membrane filtration have lowered the cost from $1 per cubic meter to 50 cents per cubic meter in less than five years, making seawater desalination considerably more affordable water source option.

Graphene membranes can be used for water filtration, gas separation and desalination projects.

There are a few startup companies working on membrane technology. Most startups or academics that develop promising technologies typically sell it to large companies such as LG ChemAquaTechKoch Membrane Systems, Inc.Evoqua Water TechnologiesMarlo, Incorporated, and The Dow Chemical Company are already heavily invested in the water utility markets.

The most popular membrane technology is reverse osmosis – a process that uses a semipermeable membrane to remove ions, molecules, and larger particles (salts) from drinking water. Historically, the reverse osmosis process used a lot of energy, but newer membrane technologies (e.g., nanomaterials and graphene-oxide membranes) and solar powered electrodialysis are able to filter seawater using significantly less energy (although some of these technologies have obstacles to overcome before becoming commercially available).

Soil sponges

One of the most unconventional, exciting and innovative approaches is to add a biodegradable sponge in the soil. These super absorbent polymers that farmers can put in their soil ahead of planting are slowly gaining popularity.

The size of a grain of sand, a polymer particle can soak up to 250 times its weight in water. Absorbing the excess water left behind from crop irrigation, the polymer then slowly releases the water back into the soil as it dries out. Developed at Stanford University, one such polymer is said to help farmers reduce water use by 20 percent and cut water bills by 15 percent. Environmentally, the polymer lasts about a year before it starts to break down without leaving any by-products behind.

Soil: It is much more than Dirt

soil and crops

Many of us don’t give it a second look, but without soil (note: we won’t call it dirt) life on Earth simply would not exist! 95% of our food is directly or indirectly dependent on soil. You wouldn’t be eating very well without it! The soil is an essential ingredient to healthy food and nutrition and is responsible for the ripe fruit you eat at breakfast, the crisp lettuce used in your salad for lunch, and the chicken you prepare for dinner. Thank you, soil!

Soil also supports the foundation for our homes, it helps grow the fibers that make up our clothes, provides the fossil fuels that keep our engines running, acts as a purifier for our water and air and helps control both erosion and flooding. Soil provides habitat for essential organisms and has a big impact on climate stability. (Read more about this in our post, Out of the Air and Into the Soil).


Soils deliver ecosystem services that enable life on earth (FAO)

Soil health is a paramount concern around the world

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): 33% of the world’s soil is moderate to highly degraded due to erosion, drought, loss of soil organic carbon, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems, habitat destruction, and pollution.

The World Wildlife Fund estimates that half of the topsoil on Earth has been lost over the past 150 years.

This is a huge problem! Soil is a finite resource, which means its loss and degradation is not recoverable within the average human lifespan. This is critically important because it threatens our ability to provide food for a growing population and jeopardizes the quality of our environment.

Global status of human degradation of soils. FAO

The Dust Bowl in the 1930s.  Severe drought and wind whipped up the topsoil in the Great Plains, which had been heavily tilled for the previous decade. Image source

The good news is that there is a worldwide effort amongst government agenciesNGOs, and food and agricultural companies to provide education, research, and funding to farmers, ranchers, and landowners to help improve, manage, and sustain healthy soils.

For too long, we have cared too much about what the soil can do for us, and each year it grows a little more tired, depleted, susceptible to pests, disease and water shortages, and we are all responsible. “It is up to us, farmers, ranchers, soil scientists, legislator, and consumers, to invest in our soil once again.
Soil Health Institute

What is healthy soil?

Do you grow your own veggies? If yes, you know that they grow better and have fewer pests and diseases if they are grown in a soil that is rich in organic matter. Adding composted kitchen scraps, well-rotted manure or bags of purchased compost to the soil supports the beneficial biota living in the soil.


Examing soil: The presence of earthworms is a good sign of soil health!

These billions of beneficial organisms–bacteria, algae, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, earthworms, and beetles — feed, digest and decompose the organic matter and in turn improve soil tilth, texture, aeration, drainage, and nutritional content.

The soil food web is composed of billions of organisms that decompose organic materials, cycle nutrients, and improve soil structure. (USDA NRCS)

A single gram of healthy soil contains millions of organisms, most of which we cannot see with the naked eye or have even discovered. (Photo: FAO) Test your knowledge of soil!  Click on the image.

“Making” healthy soil…

By increasing the organic matter in your soil, you can improve its long-term health and performance. Similar to how you can drink and eat pre and probiotics improve your gut health, farmers incorporate organic matter such as crop residues, animal manure, compost, cover crops, and perennial grasses, and legumes to feed the microbial community in the soil. These practices are the basic principles that underpin conservation agriculture.

Researchers agree that soil health improves through diversified crop rotations, minimal soil disturbance (no-till and reduced tillage), and the use of cover crops. These practices are the basic principles that underpin conservation agriculture. As a result, farmers are sequestering more carbon, increasing water infiltration, improving wildlife and pollinator habitat—all while harvesting better profits and often better yields.

Crazy for Kombucha

kombucha on a grocery shelf

Referred to as the “elixir of life”, Kombucha is one of the most desired beverages on the health-food market right now. “Brewers” of this tea tonic boast a laundry list of benefits from the carbonated drink. Some of the most noteworthy claims include aid in digestion, detoxification, cancer prevention, and enhanced liver functioning. Furthermore, a few of our D2D readers are convinced that it keeps them healthy during the cold and flu season, too. But are any of these claims credible?

Kombucha has been brewed since 200 B.C. According to a review on the microbiology of kombucha, the fourth imperial Dynasty of China (Tsin Dynasty) first used kombucha for its detoxifying properties. It then expanded to Japan where, in 440 A.D., it was recorded that kombucha was used to treat digestive problems.

What exactly is kombucha, and how is it made?

Before it is fermented to its probiotic goodness, kombucha begins with a base of green and/or black tea. Sugar is then added to the brewed tea, as well as white vinegar or previously-made kombucha, for an acidic base. Brewing kombucha also requires a SCOBY, short for “symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast”.

According to Cultures for Health, “not all kombucha SCOBYs contain the exact same strains of bacteria and yeast, but they generally all act in a similar way to create kombucha tea. One thing all kombucha SCOBYs have in common is that they are a self-perpetuating culture. This means the SCOBY multiplies itself through the process of creating kombucha.

After adding all the ingredients together, the mixture is typically fermented for 10-14 days. During the fermenting period, the SCOBY multiplies itself, creating more available good bacteria.

SCOBY, which is probably the most important part of the kombucha brewing process, resembles a mushroom cap and has a jelly-like consistency. Luckily, as a consumer, we do not have to drink or see this unappetizing blob!

During this fermentation process, an additional SCOBY can be created from the original. The colonies of bacteria, enzymes, and tea yeast are technically “alive”— the sugar that was added to the tea mixture is actually fuel for these colonies. The second SCOBY can be used for future kombucha batches.  This allows for the probiotic content of the kombucha to grow.

We know what you’re probably thinking—I’m drinking a carbonated tea fungus? It’s not as appetizing as the marketing makes it seem, huh? But, luckily this SCOBY blob may hold a lot of healthy bacteria for your gut.

Kombucha is brewed with only 4 ingredients

4 simple ingredients of Kombucha. Flavoring is extra. Image: Health-Ade

If you are a Kombucha fan or want to give it a try, don’t be afraid of the sugar used to make it. The sugar is needed to make the yeast grow and is almost completely eliminated by the time the drink is ready. The primary source of sugar present in kombucha (which is typically only 2-3 grams for an eight-ounce serving) is actually from the cold-pressed fruit juice that is used for flavor. Just keep an eye on the sugar content to make sure you’re not buying an excessively sugary flavor!

Kombucha is very high in B vitamins. The yeast from the SCOBY is high in vitamins and minerals, which contributes to the health benefits of the drink. One serving of kombucha can account for 20% of your B1, B2, B6, B3, and B12 vitamins.

Probiotics & Your Gut

The most noteworthy health components of kombucha tea are its broad spectrum of yeast species and acidic bacteria. The longer you ferment the kombucha, the higher in acetic acid it will have. (And you may recall this healthy acid is the same we discussed in our article on apple cider vinegar.)

As we learned in one or our earlier posts, “Your Second Brain: Gut Microbiota,” the research conducted for probiotics is very promising, however, it is impossible to say for certain that taking probiotics will undoubtedly help an individuals’ gut health. We do know that bacteria can influence your health and mental well-being, but the scientific community is still a ways away from recommending a specific combination. Even if they could, because of everyone’s unique microbiota combination, what can help one person may not help another. (Remember, 2/3rds of your gut bacteria is unique specifically to you.)

Additionally, if you consume probiotics daily, you want to be sure you feed these probiotics with prebiotics. For probiotics to help your gut at their full potential, they need to eat! Probiotic bacteria actually live in your gut and must be fed to help your digestion!

Prebiotics are found in many different veggies and plant-based foods. Foods with a high prebiotic content include garlic, onions, leeks, asparagus, bananas, and yams. So, if you are drinking kombucha for your daily probiotics, be sure to eat these plant-based foods regularly to ensure that your probiotics are being fed properly!

While kombucha is a good source of probiotics, there are many other ways to get a sufficient serving of probiotics. (And kombucha is expensive!) Yogurt, kefir, apple cider vinegar, and fermented foods like pickles and sauerkraut, are all strong sources of probiotics. Additionally, according to WebMD, there isn’t enough scientific research to determine what the appropriate serving, or dosage of kombucha at this time. But, keep in mind your average kombucha purchase will provide 2 servings per container, so you might want to keep it to 1 serving per day.

How about Homemade Kombucha?

We do not recommend brewing your own kombucha. Although it has been deemed “safe for human consumption” by the USDA, if you are not properly monitoring your kombucha fermentation, bad bacteria can grow, as well. Some studies have shown toxic levels of lead are present in improperly-made kombucha. For these reasons, we recommend doing your research and buying a brand you trust.

What does the research say about Kombucha?

According to a 2014 review, A Review on Kombucha—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus, “there has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials.” (Jayabalan et. al. 2014). However, there has been promising research performed in experimental models, like lab mice.

The acid content of kombucha tea has demonstrated antimicrobial properties against certain pathogens. This means that drinking kombucha could help protect you against the growth of bad bacteria, like Salmonella, E. coli, and other dangerous strands. The antibiotic activity of kombucha is caused by the acetic acid, which is a product of the fermentation of the beverage. (Jayabalan et. al. 2014).

Kombucha has also been studied for its antioxidant capacity. A 2008 study reported that kombucha demonstrated “excellent antioxidant abilities.” Because of the fermentation of bacteria and yeast, kombucha demonstrated free radical scavenging abilities. These antioxidant properties are attributed to the polyphenols in tea.

As we have previously discussed in “The Lowdown on Antioxidants,” antioxidants (like polyphenols) help stabilize free radicals. And while the ability for antioxidants to stabilize free radicals has yet to be proven in complex systems, like the human body, research on kombucha in experimental models has demonstrated positive antioxidant activities.

It was also proven that an increased fermentation time of the tea allows for higher antioxidant capacity. However, when taking these findings into consideration, if a brewer increases the fermentation time by too much, it can cause harmful levels of bacteria to grow in the beverage.

Should kombucha be pasteurized like other ‘raw’ products?

We spoke with a nutritionist who suggested that if you are drinking pasteurized kombucha, you are missing the benefit of good bacteria. Unlike dairy, kombucha is brewed in small batches and monitored carefully, if you are purchasing from the right companies. If you kill off the majority of good bacteria, there really isn’t a point to drink kombucha. However, with raw kombucha, you do run the risk of getting some bad bacteria, but you can hedge yourself if you buy it from a manufacturer that you trust and has a good safety reputation. We like brewers like Health-Ade, which brews all their kombucha in small, manageable batches.

Digging Deeper: Pasteurization

milk being poured into a glass

If you grew up on a dairy farm you probably drank fresh, raw milk every day. But, these days, most consumers don’t live on or near a diary farm, so enjoying fresh from-the-udder milk isn’t an option. Raw milk is only safe when it is consumed immediately after milking a cow as bacteria that can make you sick proliferates very quickly.

Since milk needs to be packaged and delivered to a grocery store or corner market, it may be several days before it hits your glass. Pasteurization keeps milk safe and allows it to have a longer shelf life when it reaches your refrigerator.

To put it simply, pasteurization is the process of heating a substance in order to kill foodborne pathogens, such as listeria, somatic cells, and salmonella. Dairy producers pasteurize milk in order to make it safe for extended storage and human consumption. If you drink raw milk straight from a cow, without treating it, you put yourself at great risk for pathogenic bacteria.

But, there are those who argue that pasteurization makes milk harder to digest. Let’s look at the science behind pasteurization.

Ultra-pasteurization, or flash pasteurization, heats up the milk to 280 degrees for 4-5 seconds. Because the temperature of the milk exceeds 150 degrees, it is possible for the proteins to “denature,” or change from their original structure. Essentially, the heat can cause the protein compounds to breakdown. It is also argued that this process kills off some of the good bacteria that is present in the raw milk.

High-temperature pasteurization is the most commonly used pasteurization technique. This process heats up milk to 161 degrees for 15 seconds.

Like flash pasteurization, some of the micro-life present in raw milk will be killed off through HT pasteurization. But, this is a necessary evil in order to protect yourself. And despite the heat treatment, milk remains a nutrient dense food! Additionally, the proteins in high temperature treated milk may experience some denaturation—but more on that in a bit!

Low-temperature pasteurization heats raw milk to 145 degrees for 30 minutes before chilling it rapidly. Like HT and ultra pasteurization, this process can also kill off some of the probiotics present in raw milk. But, it is argued that low temp pasteurization helps to maintain the proteins that are present. And while it is true that this process does not “denature” the proteins, it can cause protein aggregation, which can actually make the proteins harder to digest. This means that rather than causing the protein compounds to break down, they actually accumulate and clump together. Aggregated protein is actually harder to digest than denatured proteins and may cause challenges for immune compromised or extremely allergic individuals.

Raw products have not been heat-treated and are at much greater risk of carrying harmful bacteria. They also have a shorter shelf life.

In summary, while heat treating raw milk will cause some of the good bacteria that is also present to be killed off, it is necessary to protect against drinking harmful bacteria. Additionally, there are some companies that re-introduce “active cultures” into their dairy products to supplement the probiotics that were affected during heat processing.

Let’s take a closer look at the “denaturation of protein”

Anti-pasteurization folks believe that the denatured proteins in pasteurized milk will inevitably cause gut inflammation because your body cannot properly break down these protein compounds.

Labels will tell you how milk has been treated.

Scientifically, the heat treatment disrupts the hydrogen bonds in a protein molecule and causes the bonds to be “disrupted.” (For reference, when you cook an egg the proteins also denature— but would you eat a raw egg?)

So, while it is true that heating raw milk can cause denaturation of protein, this has only proven to potentially affect immunocompromised patients.

Additionally, how your body digests denatured protein depends entirely on the amount of heat exposure the proteins have had. Typical high-temperature pasteurization (161 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds) generates very little denatured protein.

Fairlife milk takes heat-treated milk one step further

One company that has taken proactive steps to protect your digestive system from the altered lactose content is Fairlifeowned by Coca-Cola. Fairlife milk is flash pasteurized (which prolongs shelf life) and then ultra-filtered to concentrate the protein content, sterilize the milk, and remove the lactose content from the final product. Lactose is a sugar that can disrupt your digestive system, especially if it has been heat-treated. Their cold filtration system removes any impurities in their milk and aids in the digestion of this product.

Source: Fairlife

What about cheese?

Like milk, cheese is another important food when it comes to pasteurization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandates that any cheese produced from raw milk must be held or aged for 60 days and kept consistently at 35-degrees Fahrenheit before it can be sold commercially. This helps ensure that foodborne pathogens are no longer present in the food, as they cannot survive in an environment after 60 days. Additionally, treating the cheese with salt and curing the rind can also protect from potentially dangerous bacteria. Like milk, pasteurized cheese can be treated at either a high temperature (174 degrees for roughly 20 seconds) or low temperature (149 degrees for 30-40 seconds).

(image source: Penn State Creamery)

When you think of pasteurization, you undoubtedly think of milk! Dairy products get all the heat (no pun intended) for being pasteurized. You might be surprised to learn, however, that there are many other foods that are heat treated as well. Almonds, sauerkraut, and some kinds of vinegar are pasteurized in order to sanitize the food and kill harmful bacteria. The pasteurization process keeps consumers safe!

Milk: From Cow to Carton

The D2D team got their introduction to dairy farming on a visit to Evergreen Farms, run by the 2nd generation Harpster brothers in Spruce Creek, Pennsylvania.

dirt-to-dinner team

Evergreen Farms comprises 8,000 acres of land and is one of the largest and most productive dairy farms in Pennsylvania.

They manage 7,000 animals, and milk close to 3,000 cows three times per day.

A team of 85 employees, animal nutritionists, and veterinarians care for the animals and the land they farm on.

The Beginning: A Calf is Born

The average Holstein calf is born weighing from 70-100lbs. With their familiar black and white markings, Holsteins are the most common dairy cow because they are the best producers of milk. They consume high levels of food and tend to be larger in size from other breeds.

A Jersey calf may be 40-50 pounds. Jersey cows, are tawny in color, are smaller and lighter eaters but they produce the milk which is high in butterfat and protein.

After birth, the males are either sent to a feedlot or used for breeding, while the females will stay on the dairy farm.

Newborn calves are moved to individual hutches, which are placed next to each other so the calves can begin bonding. They are bottle-fed a combination of the mother’s colostrum (for one to two days), whole milk, and a milk replacer (like Enfamil). They grow so quickly that it is imperative that they are cared for with a nutritious diet of fatty acids, proteins, vitamins, and minerals. During their stay in the hutches, the calves are de-horned as well. Yes, female cows also grow horns.

Did you know that calves…

Require passive transfer of immunity from their mother’s first milk or colostrum?

Drink two gallons of whole milk each day?

Double their birth weight in the first two months of life, from 90 to 180 pounds?

The calves will outgrow the bottle feeding after 6-8 weeks and will transition to a grain-based diet. At this point, the youngsters will be moved to larger pens or pasture, where they can roam and socialize together. Throughout this ‘growing’ phase, and up to three years old, these animals are referred to as heifers.

Cows are very social animals. They make friends in the calf pens and stay with those friends for life, even going back and forth to the milking parlor together.

Breeding the Cows

At 15 months, the heifers start ovulating and are ready to be bred. This is almost always done through artificial insemination. The average gestation period is roughly 281 days. At any given time on a farm such as Evergreen, there can be 300 or so cows preparing to calve. This phase of preparation is called “springing” for heifers and “dry period” for mature cows. During this time the cow’s nutrition, veterinary, and socializing needs are met but she is not yet a part of the milking herd. Once the calf is delivered, she produces milk and becomes an important part of daily milk production on the farm.

The average milking cow produces 65-75lbs of milk per day, which is about 130 glasses of milk. High performing dairy farms, like Evergreen farms, produce anywhere between 90 -100lbs of milk a day.

cows at a feeding trough

Evergreen Farms produces approximately 10 million gallons of milk per year, which means four to five times a day, a 7,000-gallon tanker truck rolls up to the milking parlor to collect the raw milk. On a smaller farm, the trucks may fill up every other day.

Roughly 100 days after delivering a calf, the cow will be impregnated again while she is still part of the milking herd. Her lactation cycle (days she produces milk) is about 310 days. She is taken out of production eight weeks prior to delivering a calf. Again, this ‘time off’ from lactating is called the “dry period.” During this dry period, she takes a break from milking and is often let out into the pasture with the heifers. Her diet is specially formulated to meet the needs of the developing calf and prepares her for her next lactation.  This birthing/milking cycle continues for approximately 8 years.

Technology and the Dairy Barn

It is important to constantly monitor a cow’s health and production. The tags in their ears are unique identifiers that can be scanned to tell a farmer all of the details of her heritage, when she was last milked, and how much milk she is producing. The system also tracks her health record and at what stage she is in her lactation.

Cows have a good life. They eat about 12 times per day, are milked 2-3 times, require 16 hours of light, and rest between 11-13 hours.

Happy Cows Make More Milk

Dairy farmers take good care of their cows because happy cows make more milk.

A comfortable, quiet environment, playing music in the barns, incorporating cooling fans and sprinklers and scratching brushes, and treating them with respect are important factors for happy cows.

Cows…

  • have a 360 degree vision – like an owl.
  • produce 125 pounds of saliva…a day. Saliva aids in the digestion process.
  • can walk upstairs, but don’t bend their knees to walk downstairs.
  • are colorblind. They charge at a waving blanket– not the color red, as you might think!

Feeding the Herd

Cows require a lot of food to produce milk. Their stomachs have four separate compartments, each with a specialized duty in the digestive process. They eat their food quickly, burp it up as cud, and chew it again. Digestion of feed ingredients occurs in the second compartment called the rumen. It takes about two days to process the food into milk.

holstein dairy cattle in field with blue sky

Producing 100lbs of milk a day takes as much energy as running a marathon. Cows are fed a complete nutritional mix of corn silage, haylage, corn, soy, canola, high-protein, high fiber grains, vitamins, and minerals — where each bite is perfectly balanced. High milk-producing cows such as those at Evergreen Farms consume over a 100lbs of food a day.

Feed varies depending on the cow’s age— whether they are first- lactation cows or mature cows. Each dairy farm is different and requires their unique formula, adjusted as often as needed.  The dairy nutritionist uses sophisticated computer models to create diets.  Feed analysis takes place each week.  Cows have food available 24 hours a day.

Cows need sugars in their diet. Evergreen Farms collects unsold candy from Hershey and mixes it in with the feed giving cows an added treat in their feed. (This also reduces food waste at Hershey.)

In order to feed the cows, many acres of land are needed to grow grain crops (corn and soybeans) and forage (grass and alfalfa). These crops are specific to optimize digestibility and energy and protein intake. At Evergreen Farms, 96% of the feed for the animals is home-grown or locally produced by neighbors. This is a typical sustainable model for most dairy farms.

Evergreen Farms goes through 170 tons of silage a day to feed all their animals.

What happens to the cow waste?

Manure is a resource. Farmers recycle the manure back to the crops using best management practices which include application timing and soil/crop nutrient analyses.

Barns are hosed down daily and the manure is separated into solids and liquid. Special processing equipment repackages the wastewater for irrigation use on the farm.

Manure creates a nutrient-rich, moisture-retaining soil that is essential for crop growth.

The Milking Parlor

A cow actually looks forward to the milking because her udder becomes full — and she will happily walk into the milking stall. Since they are creatures of habit and appreciate a routine, milking is scheduled at the same time each day for each group of cows. A cow is milked about every eight hours.

Today’s milking machines can milk a cow in about 7 minutes. First, the cow’s teats are cleaned with an iodine and water solution, then dried. Then rubber-lined cups are attached to the teats, and milk will flow into the milk tank. The pumping action of the cups imitates a sucking calf so it does not hurt the cow.

Milk exits a cow’s udder at a little over 100 degrees and is cooled immediately to 35 degrees by flowing through a series of stainless steel plates called a plate cooler. It is then stored in large stainless steel tanks to await the tanker truck pick up.

Milk is cooled immediately after leaving the cow to eliminate the possibility of bacterial contamination.

The milking parlors are cleaned after every milking session. With a large herd of cows, the process of moving cows to and from the milking parlor is a constant activity.

The Milk Market, Organic Milk and Antibiotic Use In Dairy Cows

Milk Pricing

Unlike most businesses that will price their products based on what it costs to make that product, and include some sort of profit, dairy producers are paid per 100lbs of milk, called a hundredweight (cwt), and are subject to prices set monthly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pricing per cwt will vary according to the supply and demand for the milk and milk products in that region and will take into consideration the export market as well as any supplies of milk products waiting to be sold.

What is Raw Milk?

Raw milk is milk fresh from the cow. It is neither pasteurized nor homogenized. Both the FDA and CDC assert that raw milk can run the risk of being unsafe to drink because certain bacteria forming enzymes remain in the milk and can grow easily and quickly.

rBST & Marketing Misconception

The “rBST free” label often found on milk cartons has created a bad reputation for a growth hormone that is in reality no longer used in dairy farming.

Oakhurst Dairy Milk labelno rbST milk label

BST is a growth hormone that is created naturally by the cows’ pituitary gland and rBST at one time was used in dairy farming to help increase the cows’ milk production. Several organizations have created fear regarding the safe use of this hormone and because of the consumer backlash, it has not been used in U.S. dairy farming since roughly 2000.

Antibiotics and Antibiotic Testing

No matter if a cow is raised on an organic or conventional farm, the use of antibiotics is accepted to treat a sick animal. In both cases, an animal treated with antibiotics is taken out of the milking parlor until all traces of the antibiotic are gone from her milk. Milking a cow not withheld for the full FDA mandated period after receiving antibiotics is a serious business. Every tanker of milk organic and non-organic milk is tested three times: by the farm, the dairy processing plant, and the USDA. If the milk tests positive for antibiotic residue the entire batch is thrown out immediately, the farmer receives no payment and is fined and put on notice by the USDA.

Organic Milk

stonyfield yogurt cups on a grocery shelf

According to the strict guidelines in place by the USDA, organic milk must come from a cow that has not been treated with antibiotics or any type of growth hormone and has been fed at least 30 percent of its diet on pasture.

Say CHEESE!

Cheese production in this country is big business and accounts for about 40 percent of the milk fat and 15 percent of skim solids from farm milk..

Mozzarella takes the greatest share of the cheese market. Cheddar is a close second. It takes 10 pounds of milk to make 1 pound of cheese. That’s good business for dairy farmers!

Processing the Milk

In order to see how raw milk is processed, the D2D team visited the Cornell Creamery, where they use milk from their local cows to create delicious ice cream, yogurt, and milk.

Raw milk is collected from the dairy storage tanks into a large, refrigerated tanker. It is re-tested for safety and then taken to a dairy processing plant. At the processing plant, the milk is retested again and then processed either into beverage milk or other dairy products. After it leaves a processing plant, it may go to a distribution center and will be delivered to the grocery store within 1-3 days.

From the udder to your cup, the U.S dairy industry follows strict government regulations to ensure that milk and milk products are safe for consumption.

Milk Safety research continues: Cornell University and IBM recently announced a joint research project that will use genetic sequencing and big-data analyses to help keep the global milk supply safe.

“As nature’s most perfect food, milk is an excellent model for studying the genetics of food,” said Martin Wiedmann, the Gellert Family Professor in Food Safety and Cornell Institute for Food Systems faculty fellow.

To make various dairy products, raw milk is spun to separate out the fat. The fat is then added back in depending on the product that is being created: skim, 2%, or whole fat milk.

Why is milk pasteurized? To make your milk safer to drink. Pasteurization kills bacteria and makes enzymes inactive so you can drink it and not get sick. It does not hurt the nutritional value. Chilled raw milk is heated by passing it between heated stainless steel plates until it reaches a temperature of at minimum 161F for a time of at least 15 seconds. It is then quickly cooled to best practice temperature of under 40F. Some milk is ultra-high temperature processed (UHT) and is heated to 280 degrees for two seconds. UHT will make a milk product more shelf-stable because it is completely sterilized. This process will also make your milk more expensive.

Why is milk homogenized?  Homogenized milk is smooth with an even texture, and is more consumer-friendly — you don’t have to fuss with mixing the cream in yourself.  Milk that isn’t homogenized has a layer of cream at the top.

What is the “shelf life” of milk? The shelf life of milk is based on the quality of the milk produced on the farm and the level of excellence in sanitation practices at the processing plant. Ideal storage temperatures for milk and dairy products are 34-38°F. Under these conditions, the shelf life of milk can range from 15 to 18 days. “Sell by” dates are based on the shelf life. Most pasteurized milk will remain fresh for 2-5 days after its sell-by date. When in question, the “smell test” is a good idea. Fresh milk smells, well fresh. While drinking sour milk is not necessarily harmful, it is best to not drink it. Ultra-Pasteurized milk (and products) can have a longer shelf life of 60-90 days, depending on the packaging, but only until it is opened. After opening, Ultra-Pasteurized milk should be kept well refrigerated (34-38°F) and consumed within 7-10 days for the best quality and taste.

Beyond the Carton

We don’t just drink milk, we use it for butter, cheese, yogurt, cream cheese, and ice cream! And there are nifty other uses for milk as well, from soothing itchy skin to fixing fine china. Glass for glass, milk is one of nature’s most nutritious foods. So grab a glass and enjoy a milk fix today.

Follow milk’s journey from farm to table in this video by Midwest Dairy:

Dirt-to-Dinner is grateful to the Harpster family for letting us into their dairy barns and educating us on all things dairy. We also thank Chris Canale and Kevin Campbell, Cargill Animal Nutrition, the Cornell Dairy Processing team and the faculty at Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Unless otherwise sourced, the images in this post were taken by D2D or contributed.

Other resources we used: Washington Dairy FarmersNew England Dairy and Food Council American Dairy AssociationUSDA

Ancient Spice Gets New Reputation

turmeric in a pottery container

Despite being used in cooking for decades, recent product launches have featured turmeric for its ability to fight inflammation. And because many long-term diseases are associated with inflammation, turmeric has been linked to cancer-prevention, Alzheimer’s, lupus, Crohn’s, and other inflammatory diseases.

Turmeric’s popularity spans continents

Since 2011, turmeric has become a very popular ingredient in the health food market. Mintel Market Research named this “super spice” a superfood to watch in 2016. From 2011 to 2016, of all global turmeric and curcumin supplements launched between May 2011 and April 2016, 30% of them were in North America. But, Europe and Asia are also experiencing a turmeric supplement boom and have launched equally as many products as North America. So, we are seeing turmeric’s popularity expand across three continents!

According to Stephanie Mattucci, a food scientist with Mintel, “Research on turmeric’s active compound, curcuminoids, has primarily focused on the compound’s anti-inflammatory benefits. Chronic inflammation has been associated with a wide range of major diseases, including arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and even cancer. Some of the potential benefits of turmeric include protection against these diseases, due to the compound’s anti-inflammatory properties.” (Mintel)

The health benefits of turmeric

The health benefits of turmeric are from a molecule in the plant called curcumin. Curcumin (and its bioactive compound curcuminoids) is believed to help reduce swelling in your body and thus has been dubbed an “anti-inflammatory molecule.” In clinical research, curcumin has demonstrated antioxidant qualities. According to the UCLA Alzheimer Translation centercurcumin has a “polyphenolic molecular structure.”

The turmeric root (image credit)

These polyphenol properties are what is believed to help fight inflammation in your body. (We have also discussed the role of polyphenols in our article “The Red Wine Diet.”) A polyphenol is a specific type of antioxidant that can be found in foods like red wine, dark chocolate, and turmeric. However, as we reviewed in “The Lowdown on Antioxidants,” while there is promising research into the ability for antioxidants to neutralize free radicals, it has not been conclusively proven through human trials.

What does the research say about the health benefits of turmeric?

With regards to its anti-inflammatory properties, most of the claims made for turmeric supplements have not been conclusively proven and thus it is not possible to make a verified claim regarding these supplements. However, there is a lot of promising research that has been performed and that is being used to design new trials, especially since turmeric is not toxic.

InflammationA noteworthy 2005 study determined that the curcumin compound demonstrated multiple beneficial properties, most notably its ability to act as an ‘anti-inflammatory agent’ and ‘oxygen radical scavenger.’

In science, it is generally understood that reactive oxygen radicals can cause inflammation. Because of its potential to hunt and collect these oxygen radicals, curcumin is believed to fight inflammation and act as an anti-inflammatory agent. The study asserted that curcumin “may exert its anti-inflammatory activity by inhibition of a number of different molecules that play a role in inflammation.” So, because curcumin is able to keep prevent damage-causing oxygen radicals it protects your body from having an inflammatory response.

Some of the many products that contain curcumin

This hypothesis was further discussed in a 2007 review that addressed the anti-inflammatory properties of the curcumin compound. Additionally, more current research has focused on the relationship between curcumin and specific inflammatory molecules. For example, a 2017 study determined curcumin was an effective inhibitor of Interleukin-6, which is considered a “pro-inflammatory molecule.” Like Interleukin-6, many of these pro-inflammatory molecules have inhibited by curcumin in lab studies.

Alzheimer’s: A 2008 research analysis investigated curcumin’s ability to help treat Alzheimer’s, a neurodegenerative disease (AD). In addition to the anti-inflammatory properties of curcumin— which could help keep the symptoms of AD at bay—lab research has also indicated that curcumin may have the ability to protect your nerve-endings. The papers entitled, “The Effect of Curcumin (turmeric) on Alzheimer’s Disease: An Overview” determined that curcumin “will lead to a promising treatment to Alzheimer’s disease.”

When Alzheimer’s advances, one of the biggest developments of the disease is the ‘chronic’ inflammation of nerve cells in your body. If curcumin can effectively prevent an inflammatory response, it may help to prevent or treat AD in the future. A 2001 study also investigated the relationship between curcumin and Alzheimer’s prevention. The study, which was performed on rats determined that curcumin “may find clinical application for AD prevention.”

Curcumin has powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties; according to scientists, these properties are believed to help ease Alzheimer’s symptoms caused by oxidation and inflammation. (Mishra, 2008)

Cholesterol: According to WebMD, there has been some promising research into turmeric’s ability to help regulate cholesterol. Research including human participants indicated that taking a turmeric supplement (containing curcumin) 2x a day over a three-month period reduced total cholesterol and specifically LDL cholesterol— the bad kind!

Overall, there is a significant amount of current and verified research that indicates curcumin is a strong antioxidant that may help inhibit an inflammatory response inside your body.

How much turmeric should you be taking?

Several human trials have been conducted to determine the potential toxicity of turmeric supplements and powders and it has been deemed safe for consumption even at high doses.

There have been several trials that tested more reasonable daily doses (1,000-2,000mg), however, in one particularly compelling study 25 human participants were given 8,000 milligrams of curcumin a day. To put that into perspective, in order to achieve this dosage you would have to eat about 40 teaspoons of turmeric a day. The study found no toxicity from curcumin in the participants. The trial was conducted over a three-month period and curcumin was deemed safe for consumption. Regardless of whether taking turmeric is going to help your inflammation (remember every body is different), if taken in reasonable amounts it is not going to make you sick.

In 1 teaspoon of turmeric, there are roughly 200 milligrams of curcumin. In a recent interview with the website Well and Good, Dr. Robin Berzin noted, “curcuminoids only comprise a small part of turmeric. If you want anti-inflammatory effects you need to get 500 to 1,000 milligrams of curcuminoids per day.” By that standard, to reap the benefits of turmeric you would need to incorporate at least 3 teaspoons, or 1 tablespoon, into your regimen.

The D2D team tried the golden milk latte with coconut milk, turmeric, vanilla, cinnamon, and a little honey.

However, it is also important to note it is possible for some people to experience difficulty reaping the anti-inflammatory benefits of turmeric if it is being consumed on its own. For this reason, it is actually recommended that you take turmeric along with black pepper as it helps your body utilize the curcumin more effectively. This is because black pepper contains a compound called piperine that prevents your liver from breaking down the turmeric and thus enables a significant portion of the spice to remain in your body. This may help your body better utilize the curcumin compound. It has been written that black pepper helps absorption of the turmeric, but technically speaking that is not the case. Black pepper will help boost turmeric levels, however, eating healthy oils (like coconut oil) and foods containing a good fat will help your body with turmeric absorption.

Turmeric shows promising health benefits, however, it has not been conclusively proven with double-blind studies that taking turmeric supplements will fight inflammation. Additionally, many of the popular turmeric products include high levels of sugar and might not be that good for you! If you do choose to add turmeric to your routine, it is recommended that you take the supplement along with oils or fat-containing foods to promote absorption and drink 4-6oz of water.

Greek Yogurt: Wasting a-Whey

yogurt with berries

After snoozing the alarm several times, the last thing we like to think about in the morning is cooking breakfast. Because of its creamy taste and texture, dense protein and low sugar content, Greek yogurt is a perfect grab-and-go option. Greek yogurt has almost 2x as much protein as regular yogurt— hence its popularity. Market Research shows that over 50% of consumers that purchase yogurt are buying greek yogurt. And like the statistic, the Dirt-to-Dinner team found we were purchasing more Greek yogurt than traditional yogurt products.

How is Greek yogurt different from traditional yogurt?

It is the straining process that sets Greek yogurt apart from traditional yogurt products. The nutrients from the milk are consolidated into the protein-dense product.

 

Unfortunate waste in the process of making Greek yogurt

The process of making Greek yogurt, however, creates more waste. For every gallon of milk that is used to make Greek yogurt, two-thirds of that gallon is discarded after straining.  The remaining watery substance is too acidic (with a pH of 4.6) and too salty to use productively anywhere else in the food supply chain. This strained residue is called acid whey and is a mixture of lactose, galactose, calcium phosphate, and lactic acid.

While we love Greek yogurt, the Dirt-to-Dinner team was concerned about the sustainability of this food’s production. The under-utilized byproduct that is created by making Greek yogurt is something that doesn’t sit well with us. In fact, on a recent visit to the Agricultural School at Cornell University, we learned about the negative impact this acid whey can have on the environment.

Where is the acid whey going?

Water has a pH of 7. Putting acid whey with a pH of 4.6 into the environment is not beneficial for either the soil or the water. The soil would turn into a perfect environment for weeds and conifers— not crops. The run-off into the waterways can kill fish. Overall it would negatively affect the environment.

Most acid whey is sent to the municipal waste system where huge holding tanks process liquids in an anaerobic environment. Acid whey is able to break down the waste because the protein and sugars help the fermentation process. However, there is little economic value in this AND there is significant water waste to consider.

In addition to the acid whey by-product that is created, there is also the issue of water wasted.

While we support the need to find an application for acid whey, what really caused the Dirt-to-Dinner team to pause and consider whether Greek yogurt was worth the extra protein boost was when we considered the water that is wasted.

According to Tristan Zuber, Dairy Processing Specialist at Cornell, “For every four pounds of Greek yogurt manufactured, about three pounds of acid whey is produced. When you think of the various factors that contribute to creating a gallon of Greek yogurt, you can extrapolate that two-thirds of that are not fully utilized for human or industrial use…

…A dairy cow drinks about 40 gallons of water a day to make about 8 gallons of milk. So for the yogurt that is made from one gallon of milk, the dairy cow must drink five gallons of water. And because not all of this milk is being consumed, inevitably the water the cow drinks to make a gallon of milk is not being fully utilized. So each time you eat a 5.3 oz of Greek yogurt you are wasting 26 ounces of water— about three glasses.”

This is not including all the water, fertilizer, and other inputs used to grow the crops to make the animal feed for the cow.

Time for innovation…

When food is processed into a sellable product, there is usually some type of by-product that can be used in some other type of capacity. For instance, soybean oil residue can be repurposed with asphalt. Or, a by-product of corn processing is used to make ethanol. Unfortunately, in the case of Greek yogurt, an effective application for the acid whey byproduct has not been discovered.

In 2016, 800,000 metric tons of Greek yogurt was produced in the U.S. and the acid whey by-product from that production could fill up approximately 640 Olympic-sized swimming pools! There is an opportunity here…

The cheese industry had a similar problem with the sweet whey that was produced while making cheese. However, sweet whey is less acidic and has a bit more protein so it can be sold as protein supplements. Acid whey is more of an issue, but patents have been filed to try and extract the proteins and lactose into a usable food or animal feed. Right now, when extracted it turns into a lumpy, hard material.  Arla Foods has found a solution to mix acid whey with Nutrilac solution to make drinks, cheese, dressings, and other dairy products. One of their drinks was named ‘Best Beverage Ingredient” at the 2013 Beverage Innovation Awards.

Sustainability is a big issue for Greek yogurt. Try adding extra protein to your regular yogurt instead. 

  • Add Almonds (18) for 6 grams of protein
  • Add Chia Seeds (2 tablespoons) for 4 grams of protein
  • Add Hemp Seeds (3 tablespoons) for 12 grams of protein
  • Add Cashews (14) for 4 grams of protein

Waste Not, Want Not

discarded food in a landfill

TELL US YOUR IDEAS! WIN SOME D2D GEAR!

HOW DO YOU FIGHT FOOD WASTE?

Tweet @dirt_to_dinner with your best food waste ideas. Use the hashtag #D2DFightsFoodWaste

Or visit our Facebook Page and write on our wall!

Imagine this…you have a vegetable garden about the size of a football field where you grow fruits and veggies for your family. Now, once you’ve harvested the entire football field, take everything produced from the goal post to the 35-yard line and throw it all away!

Yep, put that beautiful bounty straight in the trash. According to the USDA, food waste in the U.S. is estimated at between 30-40%.

Food loss and waste has certainly become a hot topic around the world. We’ve made significant progress in raising public awareness while also implementing improvements across the food chain to decrease overall food loss. But, the problem still remains: how can we reduce the amount of food going to waste while the world grows larger and hungrier every day?  

We see the subject of food waste more and more: on television, in newspapers and magazines, and in the places we shop for and consume food.  It’s of growing importance to everyone along the supply chain: food producers, handlers, transporters, processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and restaurants, food banks and food pantries, and, especially, a growing number of concerned consumers.

Where is the greatest opportunity for improvement?  Where can we have the most immediate positive impact in addressing food loss and waste?

Most observers point to simple human behavior.

In our previous post, “Such A Waste,” D2D discussed the annual loss and waste along the entire food supply chain. Much of the public attention to food loss and waste sensibly focuses on the way food is packaged, sold, or otherwise used.

But statistics show that the greatest portion of food loss and waste in the United States and other developed economies can be traced to what we as consumers do every day.

The decisions you make about the food you purchase and prepare for your family, how you store it in your kitchen, and how you deal with the leftovers from food preparation and meals can make a significant impact on the amount of overall food waste.

And let’s go back to the imaginary vegetable garden for a second. Don’t forget about the resources inevitably wasted with food waste. Think of the pesticides, fertilizer, and water to keep those crops alive in the field— that’s money and natural resources flushed down the drain!

source: Business Insider

So how much water is wasted when you throw away produce that may have gotten lost in the back of the refrigerator? When you throw away an orange, you are throwing away a portion of the 13.8 gallons of water it took to grow that orange.

Yes, it is true that the majority of that water is eventually returned to the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration, however, it is important to acknowledge the number of resources that go into something as simple as one orange— and how quickly those resources can be wasted! And if we think about this waste on a global scale, the amount of wasted resources gets even bigger.

Here is where YOU can come into the picture. Back to the football field— take all the food from the goal post to the 12-yard line – that is about how much food is wasted at home. In fact, just about every household wastes almost $1,000 in food each year!

Strategies to help reduce food waste

Health Benefits of Apple Cider Vinegar

apples with apple cider vinegar

Whether you throw a tablespoon in your evening tea, put a splash in your water bottle, or mix it with your salad dressing, there are many ways to get your daily apple cider vinegar fix. And, admittedly, the Dirt-to-Dinner team has tried them all! Yes, we are a bit obsessed with apple cider vinegar.

Like many consumers these days, we were curious about the craze— but, we didn’t know much about the science behind it all. And once we got to digging, we had a hard time finding tangible evidence to support consumer beliefs. Is this miracle ingredient actually doing all it claims or is this just another fad?

Bragg’s vinegar contains “the mother,” which claims to help support digestion. image source

Unfortunately, as with many popular ingredients, there is always more research that needs to be done, and many of the reported claims of apple cider vinegar (ACV) cannot be proven conclusively. But, new research does look promising.

What is apple cider vinegar?

Apple cider vinegar is made from apples, obviously, but is either filtered, resulting in a clear product with no residues, or unfiltered, which has a cloudy color. The reason for the cloudiness is that most of the apple and its various enzymes and minerals remain in the vinegar.

The “mother” in raw, unfiltered and unpasteurized apple cider vinegar appears as a web-like substance which are molecules of protein connected in strand-like chains.

The mother is the dark, cloudy substance in the ACV formed from naturally occurring pectin and apple residues – it appears as molecules of protein connected in strand-like chains. The presence of the mother shows that the best part of the apple has not been destroyed. Vinegar containing the mother contain enzymes and minerals that other vinegar may not contain due to over-processing, filtration and overheating. (Braggs

Unfiltered ACV is high in several organic acids – two of which may have specific health benefits: acetic acid and malic acid. Acetic acid may help control digestion, manage mineral absorption, blood pressure and fat deposits. Malic acid, found in many fruits, is known to boost energy levels by converting fats, proteins, and carbohydrates into energy. Although the studies are inconclusive, doses of ¼ to ½ tsp are thought to help chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.

Fruits, in general, have malic acid, but it’s especially abundant in apples. Watermelon is another great source of malic acid. Apricots, bananas, blackberries, cherries, grapes, kiwi, lychees, mango, nectarines, oranges, peaches, pears, and strawberries are other sources. 

So, what does the research say about the benefits of ACV?

It may keep your sugar levels stable

Apple Cider vinegar may help maintain and stabilize blood glucose levels. You may recall from our Sugar is Sugar is Sugar article that spikes in your blood sugar levels can negatively affect your energy and your digestion. If you are able to maintain stable blood sugar levels, your body can function at a more optimal level.

Carol Johnson, Ph.D., (highlighted on the Braggs website) has studied the effects of apple cider vinegar for over 10 years and believes this ingredient provides an “anti-glycemic effect.” This means it helps maintain a steady blood sugar level. It does this by essentially blocking your body from digesting starch.  Dr. Johnson recommends one to two tablespoons in a cup of water right before you eat your meal – or with your first bite.

image source

“It doesn’t block the starch 100%, but it definitely prevents at least some of that starch from being digested and raising your blood sugar.” -Dr. Carol Johnson PhD

However, the Mayo Clinic indicates that there is very little scientific support for these claims. They recommend a healthy diet and physical activity as the most effective means to lose weight.

ACV can make you feel full

Another one of the more promising studies about vinegar is related to satiety and weight loss. Satiety is the ability for your body to feel full and signal that it does not need to ingest more food. This helps to control your appetite and thus minimizes weight gain. There is new research that demonstrates vinegar’s ability to increase satiety and glycemic control.

In a study performed in Japan, 175 overweight people participated in a three-month study that measured the effectiveness of vinegar on weight loss. The participants were separated into two groups— one was given vinegar before each meal and the other was given water. The study found that the participants who consumed the vinegar lost roughly 2 pounds over the study. Vinegar, in this case, is believed to help the participants feel satiated before those who just drank water. Therefore, the participants in the vinegar control group ate less over the period of the study, which resulted in weight loss. However, once the study was over, those who lost weight immediately gained it back again.

image source

While this study is not specific to apple cider vinegar, the ability of apple cider vinegar to help manage the digestion of starch and regulate stomach acid production is believed to help weight control.

ACV may help reduce stomach acidity

And that brings us to another very important claim made by ACV— its effect on your body’s stomach acid production. This is quite an interesting one, and it was the one that initially introduced our team to ACV in the first place! After a visit to a gastroenterologist ended with a recommendation to include a teaspoon of ACV in the morning to reduce stomach acidity, we couldn’t help but wonder…why? And although there is no literature that speaks to this premise, there is a very interesting hypothesis regarding apple cider vinegar…

When you are suffering from heartburn, acid reflux, or indigestion,  you may take an antacid (i.e., Tums). The calcium carbonate tablet reacts with the acid that’s in your stomach and raises the pH of your stomach, thus neutralizing it. In theory, this is meant to calm the overly acidic environment and provide pain relief— however, often times your stomach actually responds to this substance by creating more stomach acid in order to bring the pH of your stomach back down to where it is supposed to be (your stomach is naturally fairly acidic).

It is hypothesized that when you add an acidic substance to an already overly acidic environment it could tell your body to stop producing the acid, thus neutralizing the environment.

So, let’s look at this reaction objectively: if you add a base (alkaline) pH to your stomach, your body then tells your stomach to produce more acid.

If we’re to look at the flipside of this bodily reaction, you might conclude: if you add more acid to your stomach maybe your body will tell your stomach to stop making acid.

While the negative effects of antacids have been documented, this hypothesis has not been validated by science. But, if you suffer from these symptoms and apple cider vinegar has been working for you, as it has for us, there is no harm to incorporating this product into your daily routine.

Can it cure cancer? 

Unfortunately, there is very limited research regarding apple cider vinegar and its ability to fight cancer cells. While there was a study that demonstrated the ability for a vinegar-based product to suppress tumor growth in mice, there is no research that indicates drinking ACV will help protect humans from cancer.

Regardless of whether or not the health benefits you experience are fiction or fact, you would not hurt yourself by incorporating vinegar into your diet. Just don’t expect it to offset the effects of pizza and french fries! However, ACV should be diluted in water (recommendations are about 1-2 tablespoons per 8 oz). Straight up ACV can harm your esophagus and the surrounding soft tissues and ruin the enamel on your teeth. It may also negatively interact with any drugs or supplements you take, so check with your doctor first.  Finally, used in excess for years, ACV could possibly cause low potassium and thus low bone density.

Got Milk?

milk canister, milk bottle and glass of milk

There are differences in opinion over the nutritional value of dairy products. Yes, milk is a staple for growing kids, but as adults we often start to assume the need for dairy starts to diminish. While it is true that we do not need as much milk as we did as a child, milk products can still remain an important part of daily nutrition.

Milk is a nutrient dense food

As a “nutrient-rich” food, milk contains many essential macro-nutrients, vitamins and minerals — an especially high amount when considering the rather low calorie content! According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food pyramid, the average human should consume approximately three servings of dairy per day.

Vitamin D enables your body to absorb calcium and helps maintain your overall body health, while Vitamin A keeps your skin, teeth, and cells healthy. Vitamin E also acts as an antioxidant that helps your body fight free radicals and protect against cell damage. Because of this, Vitamin E it may help reduce the risk of cancer!

Magnesium, Selenium, and Zinc are not to be forgotten either. They support your immune system, hormone activity, and help your cells rebuild.

And in addition to these essential vitamins and minerals, milk is also high in amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks for all protein. And that’s pretty important given that the average human body is roughly 20% protein.

Amino acids are vital in supporting your muscle and tissue. They also help your immune system and enable the body to heal itself. The amino acids found in milk are supplements that support muscle development and help regulate your central nervous system (CNS). The CNS is responsible for regulating information exchanged between the spinal cord and the brain.

One cup of milk also provides roughly 240 milligrams of calcium per serving. To put this calcium content into perspective, we looked for other foods, like fish and leafy greens, that a nutritionist might recommend helping achieve a daily calcium level. Unfortunately, in comparison to milk, these barely scratch the surface!

The average fish is paltry in comparison with only 20 mg. Greens are a little better.  1 cup of kale contains 101 milligrams of calcium, 1 cup of broccoli contains about 43 milligrams of calcium, and a salmon fillet contains 36 milligrams of calcium. These secondary options all pale in comparison to the amount of calcium in milk. Not to mention, the naturally occurring vitamin D in milk helps your body absorb this calcium more efficiently.

So, if you are not getting your calcium, vitamins, and minerals from dairy you have to be very conscious of what you are substituting milk with in order to fulfill your daily requirements.

Are you getting enough milk?

The USDA recommends three servings of dairy a day, but it can be hard to get a grasp on how that influences your diet. If you break it down, getting three servings of milk a day isn’t as challenging as you may think.

One serving of milk = eight fluid ounces = one cup.

If you order a tall latte from Starbucks, the beverage is 12 ounces. Depending on the milk you include in that latte order, this can account for one of your three servings of dairy! Having a sandwich or salad for lunch? Incorporate some natural cheddar cheese for your third recommended serving.

See—that wasn’t so hard!

And remember, it is important to mix and match your dairy selections as each has its own nutrition, sugar and fat content.

Types of milk and cheese will also have varying nutrition. As a rule of thumb, milk products will have a higher nutritional value, but always check the nutrition labels as they indicate the percent daily values of these nutrients.

So, we know milk is a nutrient dense food…but, let’s take another look at the fatty acids…

Milk began to get a bad reputation when the fat content of foods was put under the microscope. Even today, with our better understanding of the human body and how it processes food, when you are told food is “high in fat” you might immediately think its bad for you! Thus, reaching for the whole milk in the grocery store refrigerator case probably goes against all of your instincts. Well, you are not alone.

Most people believe that fatty acids will increase your cholesterol, increase your risk of heart disease, and increase your blood pressure. And while it is true that a diet high in bad fat can trigger these symptoms— there is such thing as good fat. (For more on that, check out our post Fat: Our New Friend!)

Like the ever-popular omega-3 fatty acid, there are other types of fats that are now being studied for their potential health benefits, some of which are: cancer prevention, antiviral activities, antibacterial functions, delay of tumor growth, and notable anti-plaque agents. To illustrate the point, we’ve all seen the rise in sales for the ever-popular and healthy avocado!

Food “fat content” is determined by fatty acids and can be broken out into two categories: Saturated and Unsaturated. Saturated are generally solid at room temperature – and are thought of as ‘undesired fats’. Because of this, animal protein and dairy products are often thought of as unhealthy because they are higher in saturated fats than unsaturated fats.

Unsaturated fats, on the other hand, are liquid at room temperature and are found in almonds, avocado canola oil, olive oil, salmon, and tuna. Unsaturated fats break down easier and are not thought to raise one’s cholesterol.  BUT – let’s not count out milk yet. It contains over 400 different fatty acids and they are very diverse in their composition.

The role of saturated fat in milk

As we discussed in Fat: Our New Friend, there is still debate regarding the role of saturated fat in milk. The argument surrounding dairy consumption and the fatty acids found in whole or 2% milk is fueled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recommendation.

Because of the rise in obesity due to sugars and overconsumption, when the USDA recommends that you consume three servings of dairy per day, they are recommending these servings be fat-free or low-fat. However, the current understanding of fatty acids found in milk is being challenged by new scientific research.

In the past, saturated fat was thought to be linked to heart disease and strokes, but it turns out that this may have been a big, fat lie.

A 2010 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition pooled together data from 21 studies and included almost 350,000 people tracked for an average of 14 years. This study concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke. (Siri-Tarino et al. 2010)

The health benefits of unsaturated fatty acids found in milk are already documented. However, the role of saturated fat is still a complex one

New research indicates that our understanding of saturated fat is not as black and white as we once thought. Remember, not all fats are created equal and your body has a requirement for both unsaturated and saturated fats.

An Explanation of Lactose

The term “lactose intolerance” often gets mislabeled. What that means is that your body cannot properly break down a specific sugar that is found in milk-based products called lactose. That’s right— lactose is actually a sugar found in milk. When you cannot properly digest lactose, that means your small intestine does not produce enough lactase, an enzyme needed to break down the lactose. Essentially, after childhood, when your body is in less need of milk, production of the gene that makes lactase begins to slow down. This gene is what tells your body to continue making the lactase enzyme. When your body begins to produce less of this enzyme, dairy products become increasingly more difficult to digest. Without lactase in your small intestine lactose passes through to the large intestine. The bacteria in the large intestine then ferments the lactose into gas and causes discomfort. However, if you are lactose intolerant, you can buy milk that is lactose-free. You can also check out goat’s milk – just make sure it is pasteurized!

If you choose to follow the USDA’s guidelines regarding milk, be sure to include beneficial, good fatty acids in your diet —by eating cheese, full-fat yogurt, avocado, fatty fish, nuts, and olive oil.

However, if you suffer from high blood pressure or chronic illnesses that are negatively affected by foods with a higher fat content, you should talk to your doctor about your fat intake first!

Is Protein Powder Healthy?

mound of chocolate protein powder

There is very little debate over the importance of protein. Protein is a macronutrient, meaning your body needs it to survive. Not only does it help build and replenish muscle mass, but it also supports your digestive enzymes and hemoglobin levels, enhances muscle fibers, keeps your bones strong, and helps support your immune system.

How much protein do we need?

In our recent post investigating how much protein powder our bodies need every day, we learned that the human body does not need a ton of protein to stay healthy. In most cases, if you are eating a balanced diet, which includes natural protein sources like lean meats, eggs and some dairy products, supplements are not necessary.

But, the protein supplement industry continues to grow, and there are many different products and players that are marketing in this space. The array of products can be quite confusing— especially considering the fact that there is no clear cut standard of regulation for supplements.

The three main sources of protein in supplements

Whey protein is a milk-based protein that contains all nine essential amino acids for the human body. For this reason, whey is a complete protein. There are two types of whey protein that are sold commercially: whey isolate and whey concentrate. Whey isolate is the purest form and contains the highest amount of the protein itself. In this case, it can contain upwards of 90% protein in the product. Whey concentrate, on the other hand, contains roughly 30% – 90% protein and contains more fat than the isolate.

Plant-based protein is a vegan, dairy-free option that derives from various plant and nut protein sources and is dairy. One of the most popular forms of plant-based protein is a combination of pea and rice protein powder. Suppliers will mix these products and add amino acids to the product in order for it to be considered a complete protein.

Soy protein is made by processing de-hulled and defatted soybeans. Soy protein concentrate contains 60-70% protein as beans usually require grains, nuts, and other sources of protein to be a complete protein.

While the D2D team doesn’t recommend taking a protein supplement every single day, we see the benefit to throwing a dash of powder into your morning shake if you are eating meals on-the-go. And you might already have a favorite when shopping for a protein supplement but do you know what ingredients go into this product?

Protein powder product regulations vary between countries

The reality is, you might not be thrilled to find out what is lurking in your powder. The problem with a lot of the brands on the market today is the ingredients come from all over the world. And while that is not always a bad thing, it does mean that they could be subjected to different regulation.

For example, some products can say “Made in the USA” because that is where the protein powder is mixed and created for production, but specific ingredients are often sourced from other countries that may or may not have the same production standards for supplement products. If you tend to purchase organic products, you might be surprised to learn that a label can say “organic,” but it doesn’t mean it was grown in the United States on our organic soil. It may have been grown in China or another foreign country and still have the organic label.

Unfortunately, if the ingredients are coming from China (and a lot of times they are) they can contain heavy metals from the soil or water supply they were grown in. One Chinese government study found 90% of the groundwater in China was polluted. Additionally, a USDA report on organic products from China stated, “China does not recognize foreign organic standards, and currently no organic product equivalency agreement exists between China and the United States.”

There may also be little consistency to sourcing as much of this depends on pricing and availability. Given this potential inconsistency, we wanted to see how hard it was to get our hands on this important manufacturer information. So…we took a little field trip!

D2D Supplement Testing:

The D2D team took a trip to a national protein supplement provider and purchased the top-selling vegan, soy, and whey protein powder. We reviewed the ingredients for each and contacted the product manufacturer to fill in any missing pieces of information. (And let us first tell you, all three companies were very accommodating, but if you did not have the education or knowledge as to what questions to ask, the answers were not easily provided.)

The manufacturer of vegan protein responded the following: “Over 65% of the ingredients [product name] are grown and processed in North America, Europe Union, and Japan. We choose to source some ingredients from their native climate including organic gelatinized maca root (Peru), sacha inchi protein (Peru), and chlorella (Japan).”

The manufacturer of soy protein informed us that the soybeans used are grown in “eastern Asia,” however a specific location could not be confirmed— although it is believed to be China.

And lastly, the whey protein manufacturer confirmed, “the milk used in Whey is from the United States and the MBP (milk basic protein) is from Japan.”

After receiving these responses, we consulted with Victoria Zupa, ND, a licensed Naturopathic Physician who confirmed that the information provided was particularly vague and we were right to be concerned!

So, in addition to finding the country of origin of these product ingredients, we were motivated to go one step further. We sent the three sources to a third-party lab and had a basic heavy metal panel performed on the three samples. The results are included below.




Disclaimer:
 This metal analysis was performed by an independent lab and only reflects a small piece of a very complex product and are not representative of protein supplements as a whole.  In order to conclusively state the number of metals in protein powders, larger, more complex, and peer-reviewed studies would need to take place. 

For both the vegan and soy proteins, various metals were detected in the lab analysis, with the barium content being particularly high. Barium is a silvery-white metal found in nature. It can act as a muscle stimulant and in high doses, barium can cause anxiety, tremors, and even muscle weakness. Barium contamination often comes from the original water source used in production. According to the World Health Organization, “Most foods contain less than 0.002 mg of barium per gram (Gormican, 1970). Some cereal products and nuts may contain high levels: e.g., bran flakes, 0.0039 mg/g; pecans, 0.0067 mg/g; and Brazil nuts, up to 4 mg/g (Mertz, 1986)” (WHO: Barium in Drinking Water).  Additionally, the EPA “allows 2 parts of barium per million parts of drinking water (2ppm).”

NATIONAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

Arsenic: EPA set 10 ppb as the allowable level for arsenic in drinking water

Cadmium: FDA set maximum limit of cadmium in bottled water as 0.005ppm

Lead: EPA set allowable level for lead in drinking water as 0.015ppm

Mercury: EPA set allowable level for mercury in drinking water as .002ppm

By the WHO standards, .0039 mg/g is a relatively high level of barium. So, in the soy protein lab results included above, 2.27 parts per million (roughly 0.00227 mg/g) which is higher than desired. And according to the EPA standards for drinking water, the barium content of these powders is above the acceptable limit. The vegan protein also tested even higher, with 16.3 ppm (or 0.0163 mg/g).

It is true your body knows how to process and eliminate toxic substances in small amounts. Trace amounts of leadbariummercuryarsenic, and other metals do end up in our food. As acknowledged by the WHO, most foods contain trace levels of barium! While 2.27ppm of barium seems relatively small, if you are taking protein supplements every day, these substances can build up in your system. (For more on these metals and the trace or toxic levels that can be found in your food, please visit the World Health Organization.)

Best to get your protein from a delicious egg omelet or a juicy piece of chicken!

So, there is more to these products (and their branding) than what meets the eye. If you still want to continue to incorporate protein supplements into your diet, consider is the country of origin before ringing out at the cash register. We have learned that Europe has tighter regulations than other parts of the world.

ImmunoPro and Vital Nutrients are two whey proteins that a nutritionist recommended to us. However, as with anything, it is important to consume these sources in moderation. This will depend on your activity level, body weight, and overall nutrition. As a rule of thumb, you should only use supplements 2-3x a week.

Can Intermittent Fasting Prevent Age Related Diseases?

old age hands

A study published in February 2017, entitled “Fasting-mimicking diet and markers/risk factors for aging, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease” discussed a fasting program believed to help enhance healthy aging. The premise behind the Fasting-Mimicking Diet is that it shocks your system into rejuvenating your bodies’ stem cells to prevent age-related diseases, like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.  Aging is inevitable, but the goal of a fasting-mimicking program is to help you age in a healthier manner.

How does this diet compare to other fasting diets we have reviewed?

The use of fasting is hardly a new concept in terms of dieting. We have even discussed different forms of fasting on Dirt-to-Dinner in the past, arguing against the idea that juice cleansing is healthy. In reality, juice cleansing is not all it’s cracked up to be. Remember: you want to try and eat your fruits and veggies as juicing often removes all the fiber! We also reviewed the famed 5:2 diet—a program that made the ‘fasting approach’ to dieting more mainstream. (Another diet hack we are not fond of.)

One scientist you might recall if you’ve seen the popular Michael Mosley BBC documentary, Eat, Fast, & Live Longer, is Dr. Valter Longo. Dr. Longo is a renowned cell biologist and the Director of the University of Southern California Longevity Institute.

When approaching this research, Longo asked himself, “Is it possible for people to guard against aging as well as aging diseases?” His research hopes to help prevent the disease altogether— rather than treat a disease that already exists.

Dr. Valter Longo hopes to better understand the root cause of many life-threatening diseases and asserts that age is the biggest contributing factor to diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. He has discovered 2 out of 3 cellular pathways of aging and a natural intervention process with a tremendous impact on biological aging: Fasting.

“The medical field has turned into a Band-Aid field…we wait until somebody has developed cancer and then we use chemotherapy or other therapies that do some good and kill cancer cells, but also kill the normal cells.”

-Dr. Valter Longo

In order to combat traditional “treat-after-diagnosis” medicine, Dr. Longo has explored the positive use of fasting.

Dr. Longo believes that when used appropriately, a fast-mimicking diet — which is not a diet plan, but rather of a way to shock your system — can help your body rejuvenate itself, regenerate healthy cells, and eliminate harmful cells.

Unlike most fasting gimmicks, a fast-mimicking diet is a program that is only practiced over a short period of time and used to help your body heal itself. Longo, like many nutritionists, does not believe in fad dieting as they often can encourage poor eating habits. Fasting diets, like the 5:2 method and the Every Other Day Diet, encourage a starve-and-feast approach to food.

While he has performed the bulk of his research in mice, more recently Dr. Longo performed several human trials to test the success of a fast-mimicking diet on healthy people with risk factors for diseases, as well as cancer patients and multiple sclerosis patients.

The research behind the fast-mimicking diet

Dr. Longo’s human trials indicated that fasting may trigger your body to remove damaged cells and use them for fuel during periods of starvation. Dr. Longo’s study, “Fasting-mimicking diet and markers/risk factors for aging, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease” was peer-reviewed by other scientists in the field upon its completion and the findings were established as credible. It was published according to best practices and standards set by the scientific community.

When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged. What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come back.
– Dr. Valter Longo

The two-arm study included 100 healthy human participants from the United States and ran for 3 months. Participants were randomized and asked to follow an FMD program or an unrestricted diet. Those who were assigned FMD followed the program for 5 consecutive days a month, over a 3-month period. Data were collected after the first 3-month period, following which, control subjects were then crossed over from the control diet group into the experimental FMD group. Upon completion of the study, there were 71 subjects who participated in three months of FMD. Scientists collected blood glucose levels, IGF-1 levels, and cardiovascular markers, like inflammatory markers and cholesterol levels. Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is a very important hormone for cell growth, tissue strengthening, and healing skin. It hypothesized that low IGF-1 levels can increase inflammation in the human body, but the science is in its infancy.

After the trial concluded, the results were compared to the original results from the study performed in mice. Dr. Longo’s report indicated that the human trial results were in agreement with the mouse model findings. As hypothesized, the human body presented signs of stem cell regeneration and rejuvenation when it followed a fasting-mimicking diet, followed by a feeding period. It is important to note that scientists believe that it is not just the fasting that is believed to promote cell regeneration, but rather the feeding period that follows.

Participants demonstrated similar results to the studies performed in mouse models.

The study concluded: “An analysis of subjects from both FMD arms showed that body mass index, blood pressure, fasting glucose, IGF-1, triglycerides, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and C-reactive protein were more beneficially affected in participants at risk for disease than in subjects who were not at risk. Thus, cycles of a 5-day FMD are safe, feasible, and effective in reducing markers/risk factors for aging and age-related diseases.”

In a pilot clinical trial, three FMD cycles decreased risk factors/biomarkers for aging, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer without major adverse effects, providing support for the use of FMDs to promote health-span. Source

The study determined that for “normal” participants (i.e. participants that showed no genetic markers or pre-disposition for disease) the blood glucose levels dropped a small amount, but for pre-diabetic subjects, blood glucose levels dropped quite significantly. In fact, participants with pre-diabetic blood glucose levels returned to an almost normal blood-glucose level— which is very significant. Similarly, IGF-1 levels in both normal participants and “at risk for cancer” participants dropped, however these hormone levels it dropped much more significantly in “at risk for cancer” participants than normal participants.

Lastly, C-reactive Protein (CRP), which is a marker for cardiovascular disease was also measured. Just as with blood glucose levels and IGF-1 levels, both the normal participants and the “at risk for CVD” participants both demonstrated lower markers, however, the “at risk group” dropped more significantly than the normal participants.

Dr. Valter Longo at a Ted Talk Presentation
Fasting: awakening the rejuvenation from within.

Should we incorporate the Fast-Mimicking Diet into our routine?

Until the findings of this research are replicated in larger human trials, it cannot be conclusively stated that fasting-mimicking diets are the key to cell rejuvenation. 

However, the findings of this study demonstrate that the FMD approach is safe for practice with the approval of a licensed nurse practitioner or physician. “Pre-disposed” participants experienced a significant drop in key markers for CVD, diabetes, and cancer. Additionally, healthy participants demonstrated a minimal drop, which is also a positive outcome. For example, researchers would not want a participant who has low blood pressure or low glucose levels to drop further into an unsafe range, as this could cause health problems. Despite this success, the results can only be considered conclusive when they have been replicated across many different human trials. Longo and his colleagues will have to perform larger multi-center studies to conclusively demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the periodic FMDs. 

How often should the average person go on a fast?

According to Dr. Longo, it depends.“Somebody that is very healthy, exercises, and has a perfect weight may need it twice a year. Somebody that has high blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, abdominal adiposity (so they’re overweight or obese, etc.), or they have a high risk of cancer in the family, they probably need to do it once a month.

“The reality is that 70% of Americans are overweight or obese and probably over 80% of them have at least one elevated risk factor for disease. Thus, a well-balanced diet, even if it can be followed, is not sufficient and it is important to move to new and effective combinations of healthy diets and periodic interventions, such as the fasting-mimicking diet.”
– Dr. Longo

Dr. Longo believes that the fasting mimicking diet “switches the clock back a little bit by promoting regeneration and rejuvenation effects,” thus delaying the progression of age-related diseases. Large human clinical trials are currently being planned to try and determine whether the Fast Mimicking Diet is something that should be incorporated into everyone’s future. We will have to wait and see! In the meantime, Dr. Longo’s research can also be found on his facebook page.

CTRL+ALT+P…here comes your dinner!

3d-printed-food-foodini

At D2D, we are intrigued by the important role technology plays when bringing fresh food to your dinner table. We have discussed hydroponic farming in “Meet the ‘Ponics”— local, fresh greens are being grown in urban environments. We explored meat that is now being created in a lab without a live animal (in “A New Burger”). And now, we are shining a light on the future of 3D food.

Imagine this: You are enjoying your morning cup of coffee and lightly stirring it with a straw— not a plastic straw, but a 3D straw made from one your favorite sugar sweeteners! This edible straw dissolves perfectly into your warm mug as you enjoy your caffeine fix.

And the possibilities don’t end there… maybe you attend a wedding where a detailed 3D replica of the happy couple is featured on each slice of cake.

3d printing allows for creativity in the catering business.  Source

Or perhaps you want to try insect protein but are a bit reluctant. Well, with 3D printing technology, you can pour the insect powder into the printer with some chocolate and create a yummy chocolate grasshopper snack.

It is probably hard to imagine that a printer could be a staple in your kitchen, much like a blender or a microwave. But as the technology advancements continue, this is quickly becoming a reality. Yes, food can be fresh, homemade…and printed!

What is 3D printing?

3D printers have the capability of printing almost any material into three dimensions. Virtual design is created with 3D modeling software, which then instructs the printer to make anything from airplane engine parts, racing car parts, guitars, and even 3D bikinis! 3D printing is cheaper, uses less individual parts, and the design changes are much more efficient. And now, 3D printing has entered the realm of food.

3D food printing – targeting specific nutritional needs – is not so far in the future.  Source

Customization of a product is a benefit of 3D food

Ingredients can be printed to a specific shape, which makes the process of creating a food product cost effective and allows for more culinary creativity.

Traditionally, food shapes are made on the assembly line with a specific mold. Therefore, changing the shape means changing the entire assembly line. Printing out a variety of food shapes through a software program makes creating the final product easier and (eventually) faster. At the moment, the main limitation of 3D printing is speed. It takes anywhere from 2-4 minutes to print out a shape. And while this might not seem like a lot of time, if you are trying to mass produce a product it is both time consuming and inefficient to wait 4 minutes for 1 item.

Food can be printed into novel shapes and various textures

Peter Callahan, a Food Conceptualist, is limited only by his imagination when it comes to creating intriguing (and delicious) dishes for his clients. He is the creative mind behind a significant amount of innovation in the catering world, including the miniature hamburger slider and other “mini” comfort food favorites!

“It is all about design and texture…everyone is looking for something different to make food fun and exciting to eat,” says Peter Callahan.

“3d printing in food is opening up a whole new world of creativity where it will become the medium to bring new food concepts and  ideas to life that previously were not able to be done or certainly not able to be done so quickly.”
–Peter Callahan

Callahan is building a technology center in NYC to bring creative ideas to market as well as redefine the boundaries of what can be done with food— and 3d printers are a large part of this.

His relationship with 3D printing began with a simple idea: completely edible chicken wings. Peter started to think about how to make a truly bite-sized chicken wing…and that brought him to 3D printing. “What if we incorporated 3d printed ‘chicken bones’ made of hot sauce or blue cheese?” This would add novelty as well as instant flavor to the chicken wings. Can you imagine? Being able to pop a whole chicken wing in your mouth with the blue cheese built right in! It is this kind of creativity that will drive the future of 3D printed food.

Large scale food producers are also creating unique shapes to distinguish themselves from the competition. For instance, Barilla pasta has collaborated with TNO, the Dutch Research Center, to print 3D pasta. By replacing the “ink cartridge” with dough, unique shapes can be printed out in under two minutes. And that isn’t the only advantage of printing rosette or star-shaped pasta.

Barilla is investing in the future of 3d printed customized food. On the left is the 3d printer; above is the newly shaped pasta. Source

Traditionally, the ingredients used in pasta are not hard to copy— but if a producer can patent the process by which a food item is made, they can control the market for 20 years and build a very strong brand without fear of competition. Patenting a specific pasta printing process could be very beneficial for large companies. Currently, gluten free, whole grain, and vegetable printed pasta are currently in the works.

Have you ever thought about the potato chip as being part of the future? Pepsi did, and with the help of a 3D printer, Pepsi now has a patent on using specific blades to design deep ridges in their Ruffles potato chips. This 3D printed chip will give a new look and a new eating experience.

Pepsi Co has patents on not only the design of the Deep Ridge potato chip, but also the cutter and the ‘mouth’ experience. Source

Hershey, in partnership with 3D Systems, makes 3D chocolate in almost any shape. In France, the start-up Les 3Dandies lets customers order their own design and their 3D chocolate order is printed with fair-trade and organic chocolate.

Video: Hershey can print chocolate in almost any shape.

Imagine you could you print out broccoli pasta in the shape of dinosaurs so your children will happily eat their vegetables… It will hopefully soon be a reality. Natural Machines, located in Barcelona has developed a printer called Foodini— bringing 3D printed food to our kitchen counter. They recognize that we want fresh, homemade food brought to the table quickly and conveniently. Because it is connected to the internet, recipes can be accessed from laptops, mobile phones and even fitness trackers. Co-founder, Lynette Kucsma, is excited that all you have to do is put your own ingredients into plastic containers and the printer takes care of the rest. They are even working on a version where the food will come out cooked, hot, or cold.

The Foodini simplifies the process of creating homemade food by taking the time-consuming part of food preparation out of the equation. Video and image source: Natural Machines

However, there are still challenges in having a printer in your kitchen. As any cook knows, the final product depends on precise mixtures, measurements, temperature, and ingredients. And even then, things don’t always turn out perfectly. Would 3D printing take the variability out of the process, or could it make it worse? Right now, sugar and chocolate seem to be the safest edible 3D items. Printing hamburgers, on the other hand, are a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, the biggest obstacle facing the creation of 3D printed food in large quantities is the time it takes to print a product out.

3d Printers and Customized Personal Nutrition

Hod Lipson sees 3d printing as the ‘output device’ for data-driven nutrition and personal health, akin to precision medicine, with huge potential for a profound impact.”

Jeffrey Lipton, a professor with M.I.T, and formerly of Cornell Creative Machines Lab, and Hod Lipson, an engineering professor at Columbia University, are pioneers in 3D printed food. Lipson is currently working on food that cooks while it prints. Early on, Lipton and Lipson went from 3D printing any material to foods such as Nutella and Easy Cheese. They then took it to the next level and asked themselves, “What would happen if you bring software and robotics into something as basic as cooking? The opportunities are there for the ability to control nutrition and creating new and novel food items you can’t create any other way.”

These innovative food scientists have experimented with customizing personal nutrition into a cookie or breakfast item. Creating their own software program, they put in their body metrics (height, weight, etc.), what they ate for the day, and what exercise they did. A cookie printed out with just the right amount of calories for each of them based on their body needs.

“3D food printing offers revolutionary new options for convenience and customization, from controlling nutrition to managing dietary needs to saving energy and transport costs to creating new and novel food items.” -Jeffrey Lipton

Looking forward, the customization of specific nutritional needs could be done through 3D printed food. This sounds farfetched but think of the personalized data we collect with FitbitWhoop, and 23 and Me. Let’s say you also have access to your blood panel profile from your Doctor. Combine that with your biometrics such as body composition, caloric intake, and daily workout routine – input into a program, which then feeds the 3D printer with your exact caloric and nutritional needs. Voila – out prints a perfectly formed tasty cookie with just the right vitamin profile for you.

3d Printers Can Meet the Nutritional Needs of the Elderly or those with Dysphagia

Let’s face it, hospital or institutional food is not known for its culinary delights. In nursing homes, malnutrition is often a problem because the residents have a hard time eating. Blending together nutrients and good taste into a meal that looks like the ‘real thing’ enables residents to stay healthy. Smoothfoods has created a way to blend together fresh foods with specific texturizers to create visually appealing foods that taste great and are easy to swallow. The 3D printer holds liquefied vegetables, meat, and carbohydrates. They all have a gelation agent so the food, such as a steak or carrots, sticks together on the plate.

Biozoon’s 3d printed chicken and vegetables in a nutritious and palatable form for those who have trouble chewing and swallowing.

3D printing for the Military

3D printing has powerful implications for the military as well. One of the challenges of feeding our troops is making sure that each soldier gets the correct nutrition and right rations for the job they are doing. For instance, the caloric and nutritional requirements are very different if you are sitting behind a computer operating a drone or running through the desert fully suited up with backpacks and rifles. Custom printed nutritional food can go a long way to keep every soldier healthy and strong.

3D food in Space

NASA is also looking at 3D printing in space. Astronauts get tired of the same old ‘space friendly’ meals— here they have an opportunity to be creative and eat novel and different foods.  When you are in space for a year, there is only so much that can be packed in the pantry. With a 3D printer, they can print out fresh and nutritious meals.

A 3D Printer in Every Home?

This technology is still in its early stages. Today’s appeal is really with unique design and textures. Whether 3D printed food becomes a household conversation depends on a variety of factors such as accessibility, cost, convenience, customization, taste, and looks. Of course, at D2D, we cannot predict the future, but we can say this… if there is a machine where we could put in fresh ingredients, a vitamin compound, and print out a yummy dinner – we are in!

When is “Science” Truly Science?

science activists with signs

The Power of a Headline

Remember when we were told drinking red wine was as good for us as an hour in the gym? This headline surfaced after researchers at the University of Alberta published a study demonstrated the benefits of a heart-healthy antioxidant found in red wine. However, “cover stories” like this one largely misrepresents the data found from the research.

These days, our desire for a healthy lifestyle has made us gullible for any research that touts miracle health benefits. And it seems that companies, scientists, marketers, and non-profit organizations use scientific findings to sway public opinion so they can sell products or convince people to their point of view.

Furthermore, the media has fed this interest by featuring medical and scientific experts supporting their products and services on social media, TV, and radio, and print publications— making it easier for consumers to believe the information. We as educated consumers must go beyond the ad and do research of our own.

Here’s a quick way to distinguish science from pseudoscience:

  • If science is being reported, who is reporting it? Are they selling something? Do they have an objective?
  • If you are reading a scientific journal, is it peer reviewed? Has the scientist cited opposing views? Is the scientist unbiased?

As readers and listeners from non-scientific or research backgrounds, how do we evaluate a study presented to us to determine its quality and accuracy?

Source: http://robertariail.com/

 

The problem, it seems, is that media outlets and publications are not always transparent about:

  • How they decide what to report, and
  • The methods they use to determine the scientific discoveries are fact-based and supportable.

There is a call for the media to be more accurate in their reporting of science.

Some non-profit groups are trying to improve the quality of science being reported. Organizations like the Science Media Centre help scientists engage more effectively with the media. The Centre will connect scientists with journalists so that there can be a conversation— particularly when it comes to controversial science-related issues.

Additionally, following some high profile retractions, the Center for Open Science, several major scientific journals and individual science journalists are calling for news outlets to do a better job of reporting science to the public by creating reporting guidelines for the industry.

Let’s be better-informed consumers…

When you hear about or read a second-hand review of a particular scientific study or a so-called science-based claim, be sure to read the original study or related studies.

Relying on reports written by someone other than the study author(s) increases the possibility of getting a flawed, biased interpretation of the study’s findings. Reading the primary source will get you closer to understanding the research findings.

If you’re not a scientist and have never cracked the cover of a scientific journal, this may seem daunting and that’s understandable! But if you wish to read original publications, we’d like to equip you with some tools to help you better understand what you are reading. If you decide reading scientific studies is not for you, this article provides some critical issues to look for when findings are being interpreted by others:

Another reliable method of fact-checking is to see if other scientists in the same field have critiqued the report. Scientists have opinions and, sometimes, their opinions cloud their reasoning,  just like everybody else. However, if multiple scientists point out the same flaws in a study, then there’s a good chance the criticism has merit.

For example, in our previously published post, Dear New York Times, D2D reported on the response of various scientists to a New York Times article on genetically modified crops. The scientists’ critiques were detailed regarding the choice of data and the analytical methods used.

The Power of the Scientist: Good studies require “Good Scientific Practice”

“Researchers have a professional obligation to perform research and present the results of that research as objectively and as accurately as possible.”

 National Academies of Science and Engineering; Institute of Medicine

According to the National Academies of Science, the leading U.S. science body, good scientific practices include:

  • Precision when defining terms, processes, context, results, and limitations;
  • Openness to criticism and refutation; and
  • Addressing bias and avoid overstatement.

Let’s explore each of these good scientific practices a bit further:

Scientific Precision = Addressing Uncertainty

All scientific data and processes have limitations and therefore include a measure of uncertainty to account for the unknown. For example, if you run 200 meters twice daily for two weeks you will post different times. This is why numerical data in a scientific or technical paper should never be only one value but should include a range of plausible values.

When designing or conducting a scientific study, one of the key tasks is to identify and control for errors or variations as much as possible and to estimate the magnitude of the remaining errors. Going back to our running example, to eliminate as much variability in your data as possible, you would run on the same indoor track at the same time each day, one hour after you eat a bowl of oatmeal and a banana. Your results might not otherwise be the same.

Size of the study matters

Another factor that affects the researcher’s ability to detect an effect, such as differences between treatment and controls, is the size of a study. This is referred to as the statistical “power” of a study and determines the confidence with which conclusions can be drawn. When it comes to the sample size, bigger is usually better. You can think of this in terms of the average: the average of a large number of samples is more informative than the average of a smaller sample set.

Scientists must be open to criticism and refutation…

Science is all about discovery and exploration – the pursuit of knowledge at the expense of opinions. When researchers discuss their work, they should compare their findings to what is already known and address how it fits as one piece into the larger puzzle. If their results conflict with others’ work, they should discuss what they believe is the reason for this. If their results were unanticipated or introduced unanswered questions, these should be discussed along with suggestions for further research that may provide the missing information.

“Researchers must remain open to new ideas and continually test their own and other’s ideas against new information and observations.”

 National Academies of Science and Engineering; Institute of Medicine

What does “peer-reviewed” mean?

You may have seen the term “peer-reviewed” used to describe scientific and technical studies. What does this mean and why is it important? When a paper is “peer-reviewed” it means it was submitted to other experts in the particular field of research to judge the quality of the work.

“Methods of communication that do not incorporate peer review or a comparable vetting process could reduce the reliability of scientific information.”

 National Academies of Science and Engineering; Institute of Medicine

The practice of peer-review offers a valuable way of evaluating and improving the quality of scientific studies. Peer-reviewed journals are publications that follow a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly research to the inspection of other experts in the same field before publishing a study. Journals that do not go through the peer-review process are missing an important quality control mechanism.  And by publishing a paper in a non-peer-reviewed journal, scientists run a greater risk of having to correct or retract flawed work after it was published versus making corrections prior to publication during the peer-review process.

Scientists must address/deal with bias…

Just as no measurement is free from error, human interpretation is not free from bias. However, when conducting research, scientists must design experiments to provide unbiased, useful data that, when analyzed, either do or do not support the hypothesis.

source

Of course, this is easier said than done since bias constructs are innate and difficult to recognize in ourselves. But the scientific process takes this into account and scientists must give significant effort in addressing it.

In designing a study, scientists incorporate methods (e.g., randomized assignment to groups, investigator “blinding” so they do not know which subjects are being treated, etc.) to eliminate or control bias as much as possible. Whatever bias is not eliminated or controlled by study design, must be considered and discussed when researchers interpret their results

Other sources of bias such as conflicts of interest are more overt. Some peer-reviewed journals mandate researchers declare potential conflicts of interest. Even if a conflict of interest statement does not appear in the article, a reader can do their own research to determine if the author and/or a funding source benefits in any way from reporting the results as they were reported.

How do you evaluate a study?

Now that we’ve reviewed the basic architecture of a scientific article and the National Academies’ good scientific practice, let’s consider how to critically evaluate the actual research findings and conclusions.

In addition to the National Academies’ publication, three prominent scientists published concepts for interpreting scientific claims in the acclaimed peer-reviewed journal, Nature. The authors created the list with politicians in mind to provide them with some basic understanding so they could ask their advisors informed questions. However, the authors also stated that if everyone in society understood these concepts it “would be a marked step forward,” and we here at D2D couldn’t agree more!

Are you ready to try your hand at spotting some erroneous or misleading data? Two professors at the University of Washington developed a course called “Calling Bullshit in the Age of Big Data”, and as part of the coursework provide case studies illustrating statistical distortions, misleading data, and other violations of scientific principles and practices. These case studies provide great examples of how data is used intentionally and unintentionally in a way that misleads the reader if you are not aware or knowledgeable about what to look for. Take a moment and test your “BS” acumen by reading some case studies here.

What’s With Alkaline Water?

caps of many water bottles in a case

You’ve made your grocery selections, the cart is full, and you’re walking the final stretch to the cash register. Small impulse purchases begin taunting you! Single serving beverage products line the long refrigerator, which probably looks something like this…

Should it really be this hard to decide on a water purchase? On a recent trip to the grocery store, I was astounded by the variety of claims being made by seemingly identical water products.

Marketing claims like artesian, distilled, electrolyte-enhanced, and vitamin-enhanced lead you to believe that some water is healthier than others? The newcomer, alkaline water, promises to balance out the acidity in your body, help neutralize free radicals, and protect against osteoporosis. But is there any science that backs up these claims?

Water is essential— but does the type of water you drink matter?

The human body can only survive 3 days without water, but new scientific studies have shown that the traditional recommendation of “8 servings of 8 ounces of water per day” is actually unsubstantiated.

Some nutritionists advise that you should aim to consume roughly half an ounce to one ounce of water per pound of body weight— but this can vary depending on the individual and lifestyle choices.

Acidity versus Alkaline

Whether a substance is considered alkaline or acidic is determined by the pH, or potential Hydrogen, level. The pH scale ranges from 0-14, with 1.0 being the highest level of acidity and 14.0 being the highest level of alkalinity.

Water typically has a pH of around 7 (neutral). Anything below 7 has more hydrogen ions than hydroxide ions and therefore is categorized as acidic. Anything above 7 has a higher concentration of hydroxide ions and is considered alkaline.

Acidic environments in the human body are frequently labeled pressure-cookers for cancer. It is believed that acidity can encourage the growth and spreading of cancerous cells. Alternatively, it is believed that alkaline environments are able to neutralize free radicals.

How does water become alkaline?

Alkaline water is water that contains alkalizing compounds. These compounds include calcium, potassium, magnesium, and bicarbonate that help neutralize acidic environments.

To combat the alleged threats for acidic environments, companies like Essentia market their drinking water with an alkaline pH of 9.5, maintaining this can help to balance out the acidity in your body and help keep you healthy. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly how it works…

We do not know if alkaline water neutralizes free radicals

The premise behind alkaline water health claims is that it acts as a free radical scavenger and absorbs free radicals that damage DNA. The scavenger is the enemy of free radicals.

Free radical scavengers function by using two different methods: enzymatic reactions, which work by breaking down and removing free radical compounds, and non-enzymatic reactions, which work by interfering with the free radical chain reaction. Unfortunately, there is no scientific research that indicates components of alkaline water are capable of neutralizing free radicals.

Alkaline Water versus Your Body’s pH Levels

The pH of your blood is 7.4, the pH of your stomach is 2.0-3.5, and the pH of your body’s urine varies.

Many alkaline water and diet devotees maintain an alkaline body by measuring the pH of their urine. But this can change rather frequently and depends on the supplements you take, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink.

If you are dehydrated your urine will have a more acidic pH, typically between 6.0-7.0. But as you drink water and other liquids through the day, your urine tends to become more alkaline, usually between 7.0-8.0 pH. So while drinking alkaline water might make a marginal difference on the pH of your urine, there are a lot of different influencers at play.

Unlike your urine, however, stomach and blood must maintain their pH levels in order for you to stay alive! Your stomach may fluctuate slightly depending on the foods you eat but will always remain more acidic than alkaline and your blood must remain at 7.4 pH.

Urine is not believed to be a good indicator of your body’s pH because your urine actually eliminates waste to maintain your body’s homeostasis.

Your body is already equipped with detoxification mechanisms

As we discussed in “Nix the Toxins,” your liver and kidneys function to detoxify your body if you are maintaining a balanced diet and have a fairly active lifestyle. If you are debating over a “healthier” water choice, we are willing to bet you are a healthy person already.

So, while it is reasonable to be concerned about what is in your water— don’t stress the pH level. Your body is fully equipped to deal with any acidity potentially created by your diet.

“Because blood circulates throughout the body constantly, it can compensate for any changes in pH in any of our organs. Carbon dioxide (CO2), a product of the cellular activity, is the most prevalent acid in our body. The blood carries CO2 away and eliminates it in the lungs. The lungs are actually the body’s major acid eliminator while our kidneys provide secondary pH protection eliminating acid in the urine albeit more slowly than the lungs.”
(Source: Science-based Pharmacy)

The Osteoporosis Argument

In addition to the misunderstood “cancer-fighting qualities” of alkaline water, there is also the belief that drinking alkaline water helps prevent osteoporosis.

When your body needs to neutralize acidity, your bones release calcium in order to create a neutral environment. In this case, it is argued that over a long period of time, if your bones are continuously excreting calcium, they will inevitably be weakened resulting in osteoporosis.

While this very basic premise does have some truth to it, scientific research indicates that although your bones typically release calcium in order to protect itself, your bones will replenish the calcium if you are supporting them through a healthy diet. Your diet should include high vegetable content, healthy sources of protein, and calcium in order to protect bone health.

Filtered water is more important than alkaline water

Filtered water helps remove any contaminants that may be present in tap water and ultimately wearing on your body. Remember, you don’t always know where your water is coming from. Water filters will filter any elements that may be present in tap water. These can include iron, zinc, lead, chloride, and more.

Such a Waste!

wasted food in a landfill

Though the FAO estimates that 33% of our food goes to waste, other organizations like the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) puts the total at closer to 40%. That incorporates food lost or wasted in the field, in handling and processing, in retailing, in the home, and in all steps along that long chain. Whichever stat you choose, the information is still hard to ignore – we must curb our own food waste if we want to be more sustainable and mindful of a growing population.

“Even if just one-fourth of the food currently lost or wasted each year [globally] could be saved, it would be enough to feed 870 million hungry people in the world.” 

– UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Food loss and waste is a worldwide problem. According to the FAO, the amount lost is roughly $680 billion annually in industrialized countries and $310 billion annually in the developing world.

While exact figures and statistics on food loss and waste can be debated, we can agree on the enormity of the problem.  With an annual estimated price tag of food waste and food loss approaching $1 trillion and a world in which the UN estimates one in seven people goes hungry, the issue has emerged as a high-priority action item. It has now become the intense focus of a coalition of global initiatives, led by diverse government and international agencies, dedicated charitable and religious organizations, the commercial food sector, and concerned individuals across the public and private sectors.

The prevailing government agencies involved include the FAO, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the European Commission, the Japanese Environment Ministry, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Commercial companies include Walmart, Kellogg’s, Campbell’s, General Mills, PepsiCo, ConAgra, and Cargill. The challenge is immense, but so are the stakes…

Where do food waste and loss occur?

On the farm and in the field.
Food production poses a variety of challenges and the FAO estimates that about one-quarter of global food waste and food loss (24%) occurs here. At this stage of the food chain, the problem is largest among fruits and vegetables. Commodities may spill from equipment onto the ground or simply rot in the field. These losses are greatly affected by weather problems and labor or equipment shortages. Some products may simply not be harvested, due to cosmetic or quality issues, or even simple market considerations. Seafood is also a source of waste. You may recall in “What’s the Catch,” the D2D team reviewed the issue of bycatch waste in aquaculture.

Post-harvest handling and storage.
Similarly, practical matters involving equipment, labor, and technology often contribute to the problem.  Lack of effective refrigeration and shortages of available storage are examples.  If not managed with food safety in mind, pests and diseases can also attack food supplies.  FAO estimates total food waste and food loss at this stage of the chain at about the same level as production— approximately 24%.

Processing, packaging, distribution.
Technical problems often contribute to food waste and food losses at this stage of the chain. As with post-harvest storage, lack of refrigeration, mechanical and other environmental malfunctions, and a host of other complications may contribute to the problem.

Food manufacturers acknowledge that a good deal of the waste associated with their work comes from a byproduct that is technically edible yet hugely unpopular – fat and skins (primarily pork and chicken) in animal processing, for example, or peels, crusts, and husks in fruits and vegetables.  However, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, as much as three-fourths of the more than 44 billion pounds of such waste created annually are reintroduced into the food stream— not for human consumption, but as animal feeds and feed ingredients.

Retail and consumer.
FAO estimates that the largest portion of food waste and loss occurs at this stage— roughly 35%. At the retail level, this waste can be contributed to the overstocking of product or rejection by customers on the basis of appearance.  Perishable items, such as bakery goods, fruits, and vegetables, fish, meat and dairy, are notable examples of the problem retailers – and often restaurants – face on a continuous basis.  At the consumer level, buyers also often fail to plan consumption needs, properly store or protect food products, or simply forget that the food is in their refrigerator.  Confusion over packaging terminology (“use by” or “best by” or “sell by”, for example) also is cited as an issue.

Which countries have the biggest problem with food waste and loss?

The problem is acknowledged as a global issue, rather than the sole problem of any country, region or group.

Analysis of FAO data suggests that about 56 percent of total food waste and food loss occurs in the developed world – meaning North America, Oceania, Europe and the industrialized Asian nations (China, Japan, South Korea).  The other 44 percent occurs in what is commonly called the ‘developing’ world.  On a per capita basis, food waste and food loss seem to be more pronounced in the developed.

In the developed (or industrialized) world, an estimated 40 percent of food waste and food loss occurs at the retail and consumer segments of the food chain.  Here, the problems seem to center more on behaviors – the decisions made and actions taken by individuals acting within the food chain, and especially at the consumer level. For instance, have you heard of the expression, “never go to the grocery store on an empty stomach?” Well, when it comes to food waste, there’s the truth here when you don’t consume what once looked so good on the shelf.

In the developing world, 40% of the food waste and food loss occurs at the early stages of the food chain – in the field and in post-harvest handling, especially.  Here, the problem is tied most closely to practical matters– the availability of equipment and related resources, often linked to necessary investment and adequate financing, as well as shortages in the best technology and lack of established technical or managerial expertise. For example, if a tractor breaks down at the end of the growing season, the parts might not be available in time to harvest the crop! Additionally, there might not be enough labor available to pick the crop at peak ripeness.

What other problems do food waste and food loss create?

Many environmental groups point to the enormous resource implications hidden within food waste and food loss.  The amount of energy, water, fertilizers, and other crop inputs lost through wasted or lost food is a serious concern— not to mention the financial costs that must be absorbed.  NRDC often cites a Scientific American report that estimates that as much as 10% of the total U.S. energy budget is related to farming.

Beyond the obvious links to food security and hunger, food loss and waste also raise significant issues about the potential waste of valuable natural resources. Lost and wasted food also wastes water, energy, money, and time – and creates a myriad of associated problems in how unused food is handled or otherwise dealt with.

Practical-minded local officials join environmentalists in another often overlooked issue: how they dispose of wasted or unwanted food.  The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently noted that food waste is the largest single component going into municipal landfills – by some government estimates, more than 20 percent.  Environmental groups point to what they contend is a significant contribution to total methane emissions resulting from food waste in landfills.

FAO estimates the carbon footprint of food produced and not eaten at 3.3 billion tons of greenhouse gases, making food wastage the third top GHG emitter after the U.S. and China.  The same study concluded that food loss and food waste may account for as much as 30 percent of the world’s land in agricultural production. The significance of the link between food waste and the environment is becoming increasingly clear.  The Ogallala aquifer, for just one example, provides critical irrigation for as much as $20 billion in U.S. food and fiber production annually.  With aquifer levels showing a steady decline across major U.S. crop production areas, efforts to avoid food waste and food loss have taken on an increasingly prominent and important place in efforts to sustain our natural resource base.  Food waste and food loss are inextricably linked to water waste. Wasted food is also wasted water.

What is happening to deal with the problem of food waste and food loss?

Response to the challenge of food waste and food loss has been gaining momentum through the efforts of a diverse set of members of the public and private sectors.

Much of the drive to address the issue comes from grassroots efforts.  Churches, charitable groups, food banks, and concerned individuals have been at the forefront of various efforts to reduce waste and loss, often through better coordination and communication among those who have food and those who need it.  Collection of food that would otherwise go to waste from wholesalers, supermarkets, and restaurants is a high priority for these groups.

The roster of organizations devoted to dealing with some aspect of food waste and food loss now numbers well over 50 worldwide.

USDA and EPA recently joined forces to create the U.S. Food Waste Challenge – a united effort to reduce, recover, and recycle food loss and waste.  Among its various activities, the initiative provides a platform for collecting and sharing information, especially on best practices in waste and loss reduction.  In its initial year of existence, the Challenge surpassed expectations in attracting almost 4,000 participants from across the entire food chain and appears well on its way to meeting an ambitious target of reducing food waste and food loss by half by 2030.

What are some of the proposed solutions to food waste and loss?

Efforts to reduce food waste and food loss address a wide range of issues.  Some relate to the nature of the food system and its activities. Others focus on behavioral changes based on greater recognition of and attention to the causes of food waste and food loss.

The Food Waste Challenge, for example, points to three major areas for attention.

Reduction of food waste and food loss, through such things as improved food product development, enhanced storage mechanisms, cooking and preservation techniques, smarter shopping and ordering, and better labeling.

Recovery of food waste and food loss, by connecting organizations committed to alleviating hunger (such as food banks and pantries) with food products that otherwise would go unconsumed.

Take a look at the below table for additional proposed actions to curb food waste:

Trading Beef

close up of beef cattle grazing

President Trump has said he is in favor of Free Trade. A good thing, specifically for agriculture. However, when the Dirt-to-Dinner team caught wind of his plan to eliminate U.S. involvement in the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), which facilitates trade between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries, and his intent to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, we were immediately curious as to how this would affect some of the world’s most shared commodities: Specifically trade in beef which is important to our global economy.

President Trump has determined that the U.S. will not participate in “unfair trade” – and will only negotiate what has been deemed “fair trade” – with bi-lateral agreements as deemed more effective than multilateral agreements.

WTO, NAFTA, TPP, and Free Trade

The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a critical role in enforcing the rules of global trade. It is through the WTO that governments work together to better facilitate international trade and resolve trade disputes. Most Favored Nation status means that member countries all have a ‘WTO Standard’ agreement with each other and all countries are treated equally. However, some countries choose to negotiate separate bi-lateral and multilateral agreements. NAFTA and TPP are examples. In addition, not all products from all industries are treated equally. For instance, there can be a tariff on car parts but none on oil. Free Trade, in its purest form, means that there are no tariffs or taxes on products going across borders.

Free Trade is Important

To illustrate the importance of free trade, think of how well America’s States work together. Let’s take a favorite dessert of ours: ice cream. For this example, Ben and Jerry’s, made in Vermont before they were acquired by Unilever, Haagen Dazs, from New York, and Talenti, from Minnesota. Suppose Vermont put a $1.00 tax on any ice cream coming into Vermont to protect Ben & Jerry’s? Then New York would respond by putting a tax on Ben & Jerry’s ice cream coming into New York to protect Haagen Dazs.

Free Trade across state borders keeps some of our favorite treats, like ice cream, free of onerous border taxes.

Minnesota would get into the action and put a tax on Ben & Jerry’s as well as Haagen Dazs. The ‘free trade’ across the state borders would be eliminated and ice cream lovers would pay more for their favorite treat. Now imagine that multiplied for every single consumer product made in every single state. Our grocery bill would be extraordinary!

And while the D2D team will not speculate on what the future holds, we wanted to examine the beef industry as a way to illustrate how trade agreements can affect important U.S. agricultural products. After all, global trade is an integral part of the agricultural industry.

Can trade legislation affect what ends up on your dinner plate?

Source: https://www.fas.usda.gov/

Every country on earth imports and/or exports commodities such as grains, oilseeds, meat, or fruits/vegetables. Global trade is extremely important for the agricultural industry because of the fluctuations in supply and demand within countries and across borders.

There is not one country in the world that is completely self-sufficient with their food consumption

Weather variations, soil conditions, crop size, crop storage, and currency valuations are just a few factors that determine whether a country imports or exports any of its food or agriculture.

We highlight these statistics because it helps demonstrate the expansiveness of this industry and its importance to the American economy. The total retail value of the U.S. beef industry sales totaled $198 billion in 2015. Just for fun, we compare this to the U.S. retail value of total car sales which was $239 billion!

As the largest producer of beef in the world, the U.S. produces roughly 11.5 million metric tons of beef, 19% of global production. Yet, at the same time, the U.S. is also the largest beef importer in the world. The U.S. imported 18% of global beef with China coming in second at 11%.  On average, Americans consume 79 pounds of beef a year, per person. And while that number is impressive, we are not the largest consumer, Uruguay and Argentina eat over 120 pounds per capita!

Why can’t each country grow its own beef?

Each country does not necessarily have the land to grow corn and soybeans for animal feed or enough acreage to provide for animal grazing, concentrated feedlots, or space for various processing facilities. Nor may they be able to provide the transportation infrastructure to bring the beef to market. It is also important to be an efficient, environmentally sustainable and low-cost producer. The U.S, Brazil, the EU, and China are the largest producers. Yet while China is a big beef producer, they have to import their soybeans for feed.

For leaner ground beef, the U.S. must import frozen or chilled muscle cuts from other countries. We mix these lean trimmings into the beef to give the American consumer lean choices with hamburger. Many times, when eating a hamburger, a percentage of that burger is from across the border. The least expensive meat is ground beef and trade allows many people in the United States to afford this delicious American tradition of protein. Therefore, in order to put all of these popular items on one menu – we must import!

Because of NAFTA, the U.S. does not pay a tax from parts coming in from Canada and Mexico.  For the other meat producing countries’ such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Argentina, the United States is part of WTO where we incorporated a two-tiered system tariff (TRQs). The first tier, we pay 4.4 cents/kg and after that quota is met, there is a 26.4% tax.

Consumer preferences for beef parts impact trade

At D2D, we have stressed the health benefits of protein. Beef fits the bill. However, steaks and hamburgers are not the only tasty good-for-you meats. Tongue, intestines, the heart, liver, and other internal organs are considered delicacies for many nationalities. While they are not big sale items in the United States, other countries pay more for these ‘variety meats’ than they would for the basic muscle cuts.  Put simply, the export market for the ‘offal’ and other such small delicacies help offset the cost of the cuts of muscle such as the chuck, ribs, briskets, chuck, tenderloin, and round steak.

Beef trade around the world is complicated!

Trade Agreements

Each year the U.S. beef industry exports about 10% of its overall production. In 2016, this equaled about $6.1 billion. Roughly, 80% of US exports are to Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Hong Kong, and Canada. Since Japan is the leading importer of U.S. and Australian beef, we decided to look at the beef relationship between the United States, Australia, and Japan.

Now let’s focus on the beef tongue for a moment. Beef tongue is a delicacy in Japan. You can have it mashed, fried, roasted, smoked, salted, or barbecued. Want it with eggs? No problem. Because it sells for about $6.00 a pound, it is an important cow part!  In addition, the Japanese like the marbled meat from the U.S. for their ‘fast food’ beef bowl over rice. However, they prefer Australian grass-fed beef for their ground beef. The U.S. and Australia compete for Japan’s beef market, each providing roughly 40% and 50%, respectively. Japan is a particularly strong export market for the United States – which is why we need to have a competitive trade agreement.

Why does Australia export more beef than the United States? Australia is part of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA) effective January 2015. As a result of this trade agreement, on muscle cuts, the Japanese pay 11% less on taxes for Australian beef than what they pay in U.S. muscle cuts. But on the beef tongue, the difference is 3%, in favor of the U.S. The U.S., on the other hand, just has a basic WTO agreement with Japan that does not differentiate itself from other countries.

According to a USDA analysis, the U.S. exports to Japan would lose significant market share to Australia unless similar trade agreements are formed. The analysis estimated that imports of Australian beef would rise by about $100 million and conversely, the imports of U.S. beef would fall by $100 million. Since the U.S. has decided not to participate in TPP, a ‘fair-trade’ bi-lateral agreement with Japan, or a ‘tri-lateral’ trade agreement with Japan and Australia, it could increase U.S. exports to Japan significantly and put us on par with Australia and other countries.

Trade is not all about taxes and tariffs

The important and interesting thing about trade is that it is not just about tariffs. Like any commodity, there are supply and demand fluctuations that change depending on the weather, crop prices, labor availability, the herd size, and supply/demand. Because of their drought, Australia had a smaller cattle herd – subsequently, it now costs more to process the cow. The United States, on the other hand, had a larger herd and could be more competitive on pricing. At times there can be as much as over a $600 a head difference! And as we look ahead, based on meat industry supply and demand history, the herd size is anticipated to shrink in the U.S. and grow in Australia – having the reverse effect.

The China Influence

Another important trade partner for beef will be China. Because of the growing middle class – who are eating more beef each year –, it is the world’s fastest-growing beef import market with a value of $2.39 billion in 2015. In 2016, the per capita beef consumption was 12.2 pounds. It is expected to continue to grow substantially as the middle class grows and the appetite for beef increases. Rising feed costs and limited land makes it easier and cost effective for China to import rather than grow all its own beef. Just think of the impact on the export industry if 1.3 billion people ate just one more pound a year! In 2003, because of BSE (Mad Cow disease), China restricted imports from the United States and has received their beef from Brazil, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand. In 2002, the United States supplied roughly 70% of China’s beef. A trade agreement between China and the United States will be interesting to watch as there will certainly have to be variations between industries – however, the US has not successfully concluded an agreement with China, yet. Market access is dependent up such items as to whether cattle have antibiotics, steroids, and whether they can be fully traced from birth.

NAFTA

Let’s not forget Canada and Mexico who are important trade partners for the U.S. as well. One would think that Canadians would be self-sufficient in their beef supply. Because their summer is so short, they are outside barbequing so they use up their meat supply and have to import their beef! Mexico and the U.S. export beef to each other. Because of the negotiated ‘no tariffs’ with NAFTA, trade is seamless and easy between these three countries.

Think about trade when eating your beef

In summary, beef travels around the world. How much you pay and the type of meat you eat at your dinner table depends on government access as well as government trade agreements.

Each country has its own supply and demand stresses with some years better than others. Many countries depend on exports. In 2015, for instance, Australia exported 74% of their beef, worth $9.3 billion – 32% to the U.S. and 22% Japan.

Adding government interference just adds more stress on employment, pricing, and trade flows around the world.

Seasons Change…Your Produce Should Too!

fresh asparagus

“What fruits and vegetables should I buy as winter becomes spring?”

This is a great question. As the season changes, our produce options change as well. This also happens to be optimal for your body. Many dietitians recommend that we diversify the nutrients we consume by eating different fruits and vegetables each season. It is recommended that roughly 50% of your plate be comprised of fruits and vegetables— roughly 20% fruits and 30% vegetables.

It is recommended that 50% of your plate be comprised of fruits and vegetables— roughly 20% fruits and 30% vegetables.

So, what constitutes as “seasonal fruits and vegetables”?

May is Strawberry month! Image source: Pixabay

When it comes to fruits and vegetables, we certainly have a lot of options—but in order to maximize the flavor, quality, and freshness of fruits and veggies, you should try to buy what is in season.

Visit: Sustainable Table for a great seasonal produce guide.

With spring just around the corner, it is good to know what produce to start looking out for— think: green veggies. 

By late April, artichokes, asparagus, various mushrooms, spinach, arugula, lettuces, swiss chard, radish, fiddleheads, and ramps will be displayed more prominently on the market shelves, and can take a place on your dinner plate!

Even in California, which grows almost everything, fruits and vegetables have seasons. You may be able to buy avocados all year long; but apricots are only available in May, June, and July!

Take notice at what is prominently displayed at your local market and you will quickly understand what is in season. Blueberries are plentiful in the summer months, but at any other time of year, they are often imported from Mexico or South America. And if you are buying fruit that is out of season and being imported you may be spending more for that item. So strategic fruit and vegetable purchases are the smart move!

Have you ever wondered where our produce is coming from if it is not grown locally? Chances are it is being shipped from California or imported from South American countries. Don’t worry, we got you covered there too! Give “Where Do Our Fruits and Vegetables Come From?” a read.

Going Local

Let’s take your seasonal shopping a step further and “go local” for the just picked flavor and nutrition.

If you are looking to buy crops that are grown locally, you are relying on the farming conditions of your state. Your local farmer’s market is a great indicator of crops grown in season. What is in season at a farmer’s market depends on your local climate, or that farmer’s ability to extend his season with greenhouses or grow tunnels. Remember, produce can vary significantly by state, even between neighboring small states. Climate affects the soil, water, and growth rate. Additionally, when produce is harvested can affect its nutritional value.

Many state agriculture departments produce harvest calendars.

As we mentioned in “Going, Going, Local”, fresh produce can lose the majority of its nutritional value in just three days! Buying ripe produce in season is important in order to maximize the nutritional benefits. If you want to discover what fruits and veggies are in season in your home state and when, we recommend Sustainable Table, or state-by-state listings provided by Field to Plate and Pick Your Own

There are two different ways to approach your produce purchases:

  • You can determine produce seasonality by its availability in the United States.
  • You can determine what is in season locally.

If you live in Florida, for example, buying apples is best in the fall as they are a fall seasonal crop in the northeast and northwest; but they will not be local to your area as Florida does not produce apples! Conversely, those in the northeast will enjoy the Florida or Texas grapefruit crop in the winter months but will never be able to grow a grapefruit tree!

Nutrition Through the Seasons

The U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes the importance of varying nutrition, and the USDA seasonal produce guide shows what fruits and veggies are in season in the United States depending on the time of year. So, before identifying what produce is being grown in your state, you can also determine fresh produce based on seasonality on a larger scale. Additionally, the Center for Urban Education and Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA) provides excellent seasonality charts based on farming in Northern California. California leads the country when it comes to fruit and vegetable production. Therefore, a large quantity of “seasonal produce” that is featured in your local grocery store will have come from the farms in California.

Ripeness Through the Senses

So, now that we have determined what is available based on the season, how can you tell which produce is the ripest?

While we don’t expect you to harvest all your fruit yourself, here are some helpful tips to use when visiting your local farmers market or produce aisle. It all comes down to the 5 senses. First, you want to identify if the fruit as any visible flaws, i.e. bruising, mold, discoloration, etc. Then, you may want to handle the fruit or vegetable to test the firmness.

If the fruit is too soft to the touch, it is most likely on it’s way to expiration and will have a poor shelf life. However, take note that most fruits and vegetables are picked before optimal ripeness so you will (more likely than not) have to let it ripen at home. Smell is also an important—if not the most important—thing to test. Aside from any obvious physical issues, if your fruit smells like it should taste, it is ripe. The sweeter and stronger the smell, the riper it is. For vegetables, the smell is not going to be as important. Typically, you are looking for firm veggies that are pump and rich in color. For more information on what to look for in specific produce items, visit the Farmer’s Almanac. And, for the most part, you have to trust your farmer. Farmers know when the fruit is ripe and ready to be picked.

Do we need a Sugar Tax?

sugar cubes on top of coins

“Consumption of free sugars, including products like sugary drinks, is a major factor in the global increase of people suffering from obesity and diabetes.”
-Dr. Douglas Bettcher Director, Department for the Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases World Health Organization

Last year, responding to the rise of obesity around the world, the World Health Organization accelerated a growing movement to address the role of sugar – and more directly, sugary drinks – in our modern diet.

Their recommended action: fiscal policies that raise the price of sugary drinks to levels that discourage consumption.  In simple terms,  – a tax to promote healthier eating habits.

  • Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980.
  • In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese.
  • 39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2014, and 13% were obese.
  • Most of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight.
  • 41 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2014. WHO, 2016

The WHO argued that a 20 percent tax on sugary drinks such as soda, sports drinks, and sweetened iced tea would result in “proportional reductions” in the consumption of sugary products. The report’s official recommendation has helped accelerate actions by a range of local, state, and national governments to tax sugary drinks.

The sugar tax also has fueled a corresponding debate about the effectiveness of using tax policy to shape consumer behaviors – and the unintended consequences that often come with such taxes.

Obesity is a major health concern

The health concern driving the attention on sugary-drink taxes is not in question. Data and analysis collected by academics and health organizations paint a bleak picture of rising obesity, heart disease, diabetes, tooth decay, and other health problems, and an apparent link with consumption patterns for various “free sugars.” But, it is not the consumption of sugar, it is the over-consumption which is the issue.  You may recall, we recently discussed how the average American consumes 2-3x more sugar than is recommended per day!

What is “free sugar?” Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose or fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to a variety of foods and drinks, as well as sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit juice concentrate. (World Health Organization, June 2016 Fact Sheet)

McKinsey Global Institute asserts that obesity rates have reached “crisis proportions,” with associated healthcare costs in the United States of $190 billion annually, including $14 billion devoted to caring for children. And the public response to this rising health concern has taken new forms in the past 15 years. Health organizations, governments, and consumer groups launched aggressive public education efforts on both sugar consumption, high caloric intake, and lack of exercise.

Obesity is often linked to many other health issues, including diabetes (costs are estimated at $312 billion per year), cardiovascular disease (healthcare costs are estimated to reach $818 billion by 2030) , and even cancer (oncology treatments in the United States were estimated at $100 billion last year).

State, local, and national governments shaping consumer behaviors

Worldwide, state, local, and national governments also initiated efforts to shape consumer behaviors through various actions. Clearly, the use of tax policy to fight for better dietary habits was gaining momentum…

Mexico, for example, implemented an excise tax on all non-alcoholic beverages with added sugar.  Hungary imposed a tax on packaged products with high levels of sugar, salt, or caffeine.  Most recently, France announced a total ban on the sale of unlimited soft drinks at a fixed price.  The Philippines, South Africa, and the United Kingdom also announced intentions to discuss and potentially implement taxes on sugary drinks.

Earlier this year, the debate over the role of sugar in modern diet entered a new front when a nonprofit group in California filed a federal lawsuit against Coca-Cola and the American Beverage Association alleging an “unlawful attempt to mislead the public regarding the link between sugar consumption.” The suit included a lengthy roster of health problems that have affected Coca-Cola consumers.  Additionally, a comparison is being drawn between the legal strategy used to attack the tobacco industry and that being used against Coca-Cola. But is this taking the sugar debate too far…?

In the United States, Berkeley, Calif., pioneered the sugary-drink tax approach in 2014.  Three Bay Area cities – San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany – followed suit with their own tax of “one cent per ounce” on sugary drinks.  Boulder, Colo., initiated a tax of two cents per ounce, and Philadelphia, Pa., joined in with its sugary-drink tax of 1.5 cents per ounce. Cook County, Ill., also has a sugary-drink tax in the process.

Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg with a visual of sugar and soda sizes.  Image Source: Vosisneias

Similarly, Major Bloomberg received a heavy amount of criticism when he attempted to ban the sale of large soft drinks in New York. Ultimately, this ban was overturned by New York state’s highest court, however, its aim was to raise awareness and fight against the rising levels of obesity (particularly in low-income areas).

The tax revenue is significant

The amounts raised by such taxes are significant.  The tax is estimated to raise about $15 million in San Francisco, from $6 million to $10 million in Oakland, and $3.8 million in Boulder. (This is just under the $4.83 million 2015 tax revenue from medical marijuana.) Revenues from the Philadelphia tax could run a high as $91 million, according to some media reports. Draft legislation on the sugary-drink tax in the UK projected has projected an additional cost of 18-24 pence (24-31 U.S. cents) per liter, with an estimated 520 million pounds (675 million U.S. dollars) of revenue in its first year.

As these taxes have been discussed and implemented, the debate regarding their effectiveness has also picked up steam. Supporters of the tax defend them as important tools in the effort to build better public health and critics question just how effective the tax really is. Additionally, these critics are skeptical of the unintended consequences of using tax policy in this way, as it may be causing harm to other important public interests.

Sales had been slowing before the taxes

Sales of sugar-sweetened beverages showed declines well before the implementation of these taxes.  As public attention to this burgeoning public health issue increased in the early 2000s, consumption patterns began to change.  According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average adult in 1999-2000 drank 196 calories’ worth of sweetened beverages per day. By 2009-2010, that number had fallen to 151. Between 2011 and 2014, it fell a few calories further, to 145.  U.S. soda sales dropped 1.2 percent in 2015 alone, according to industry statistics.

However, children are still drinking too many sugary drinks

Of concern to many health officials, consumption of sugary drinks among children seems to have plateaued, partly in response to the rising public attention to improved diets and healthy dietary habits.

According to the CDC, children drank 223 calories of soda and other drinks in 1999 and 155 calories in 2009. The number has stuck at 143 since then, which represents 7.3 percent of a child’s calorie intake, on average. “The latest declines were not considered statistically significant,” CDC concluded.

Nonetheless, the U.S. childhood obesity rate, CDC also observed, stands at 17 percent – or roughly 12.7 million children.  On a global basis, WHO estimates that as many as 42 million children under the age of five were obese in 2015. Amazingly enough, almost half lived in Asia and one quarter in Africa.

“If you extrapolate our findings, that means 111 million adults and 147 million kids still drink at least some sugar-sweetened beverage daily,” said Asher Rosinger, a CDC epidemiologist.

Health officials at CDC suggest consumption of no more than one sugary drink per week for children.  Yet agency data suggests that two-thirds of children still make at least one sugary drink part of their daily diet.  An estimated 30 percent of children have two or more sugary drinks daily.

Experts remain divided on the reasons behind the caloric numbers, although some speculate the stall may be attributable to increased consumption of other beverages, such as tea and other liquids, to which consumers may add their own sugar or sweetener.

Is the tax efficient, fair and effective?

The sugar tax has also fueled a corresponding debate about the effectiveness of using tax policy to shape consumer behaviors – and the unintended consequences that often come with such taxes.

In the face of this mixed picture of changed consumer behaviors, critics of the tax – and the larger issue of using tax policy to shape consumer behavior – have raised a number of issues for further debate.

Taxes such as those placed on sugary drinks simply aren’t high enough to affect consumption to the degree their supporters desire, Snowdon argues.

“For a tax to be justified, it should be efficient, fair, and effective,” according to Christopher Snowdon of the Cato Institute. “Taxes on food and drink meet none of these criteria.”

“Herein lies the problem with obesity-related taxes,” he says.  “If they are set low enough to be politically acceptable, they are merely stealth taxes which make no difference to health.  But if they are set any higher, they become politically toxic.”

Other academics have also weighed in on the debate…

“My guess is that we may be seeing different trends by age and socioeconomic status,” says Walter Willet, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard University.  “People with higher levels of education and income have made dramatic changes to their diets overall in recent years.  Many people with lower levels of education and income have seen no improvement.”

What happens at the retail store level?

Reaction to the tax in Philadelphia highlights other noteworthy criticisms.  Neighborhood retailers – especially the nearly 1,500 corner stores operating in the city — point to sales of snacks and beverages as major contributors to their economic survival.

When shoppers see a tax of $1.92 imposed on a container of tea priced at $1.77, their purchase patterns will undoubtedly change. In fact, store owners in Philadelphia reported a drop of 25-30 percent in revenues following implementation of the tax and the resultant “sticker shock” among customers.

One trenchant observer of the Philadelphia tax noted that the sugary-drink tax is 24 times the per-ounce tax levied on beer.

Is the tax a ruse to shore up tax-revenue streams?

In the seeming political cynicism of our age, critics also question how much of the initiative behind the sugary drink tax is driven by genuine health concerns versus a desire to shore up tax-revenue streams.  Why stop at sugary drinks, they ask?

If the governments do, in fact, believe so strongly in public health, why not impose comparable taxes on other products linked to public health issues— not just beer but also such foods as hamburgers and French fries and other fried foods? Critics fear this tax eventually extend to other products using sugar as an ingredient and to other foods containing “free sugars.”

Source: Food Navigator

Is there a magic bullet to resolve the role of sugar in public health?

Proponents of the sugary-drink tax point to tobacco and alcohol as examples of the ability for taxes to shape consumer behaviors.  Opponents argue education is the more favorable cornerstone of any policy response to obesity.

Others suggest a middle ground may prove more effective in the long run.  Like most complicated public policy questions, the debate over the role of sugar in public health may best be addressed not with a single “magic bullet,” but rather through a combination of incentives, disincentives, and comprehensive health education, as well as attention to other related issues.

For example, healthcare professionals need to be better trained in addressing obesity and lifestyle issues with patients. In the face of such a complicated public policy issue, they argue, a simplistic approach based on a new tax just won’t be enough to solve a complex problem.

Court challenges to the tax already are underway in Pennsylvania, and other legal actions can be anticipated elsewhere.  But no one expects final answers in the on-going debate anytime soon.

Let’s go to the MED!

salmon and fresh vegetables

Rarely do we find a well-balanced “diet” or weight loss approach that fulfills its claims for health and manageability…

Enter: The Mediterranean Diet

Originating in Southern Italy and Greece, this diet takes a different approach to eating— and focuses on the importance of whole, well-balanced foods including lots of fresh fish, fruits, and vegetables. In fact, it is not really a “diet” at all— it’s more of a healthy approach to food!

Perhaps this is because “eating like a Mediterranean” conjures up a stress-free lifestyle, with images of the sea, sailing under sunny skies, and large families enjoying a relaxing afternoon around fresh food. While this diet certainly doesn’t include the benefits of living a Mediterranean lifestyle, it does focus on the importance of eating healthy fats and lots of fruits and veggies. The evidence discussed below is based on a “Mediterranean” diet rather than the Mediterranean lifestyle.

So, what do Mediterranean people typically eat?

Well, the diet is high in healthy fats— and as we have previously reviewed on D2D, fat is our new friend! These healthy fats often come from olive oil, nuts, and fish, which happen to be indigenous, fresh and plentiful in the Mediterranean.

This means the diet is high in healthy fatty acids like omega-3 and omega-6, which are the only two fatty acids that your body cannot create naturally. In addition to fat, the diet also emphasizes the importance of eating fruits, vegetables, legumes (like beans and chickpeas), and whole grains. Lean protein, like eggs and poultry, are also included in moderation and red meat can be consumed on occasion. Clearly, this approach gives you a lot of choices— but, it asks you to cut back on the sugar. While we all love the occasional sugar fix, as we reviewed in “Sugar is Sugar is Sugar,” most of us are over-indulging.

The average American typically eats 2-3x more than the recommended daily amount of sugar. The World Health Organization recommends that we reduce the intake of added sugar to at least 10% of our daily energy intake. They further indicate that a reduction to below 5% would provide additional health benefits.  This equates to about 100 calories or five to six teaspoons a day.

Taking this one step further, the Mediterranean diet recommends that you only eat refined sugar (i.e. baked treats, sweetened beverages, and candy) a few times a week.

How is the Mediterranean diet different?

Unlike most diet regimens, the Mediterranean diet does not fixate on the inclusion or exclusion of any specific foods, like Atkins with protein or Paleo with grains and legumes. Other than discouraging the overconsumption of red meat, sugar, and refined foods, there are no gimmicks. No, you are not asked to mix lemon, cayenne, maple syrup, and water and give up solid foods for days on end! This sounds like a step in the right direction, right?

Pyramid Source: Oldways: Inspiring Good Health Through Cultural Food Traditions

People are catching on to the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet.

Recently, U.S. News and World Report named the Mediterranean diet the second best diet to follow, after the DASH diet. Because of its food variety and slow approach to weight loss, this diet promotes healthy eating habits over your lifetime.

In January the New York Post dubbed the Mediterranean diet “still the best way to lose weight.” The article reported that over 3,000 studies have been performed on this regimen and Nutritionist and author of the book Zest for Life, Conner Middelmann-Whitney commented, “to my knowledge [no studies] have found that the diet has any adverse effects” to be concluded from these studies.

Additionally, according to the Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition, “Together with regular physical activity and not smoking, our analyses suggest that over 80% of coronary heart disease, 70% of stroke, and 90% of type 2 diabetes can be avoided by healthy food choices that are consistent with the traditional Mediterranean diet.”

The Mediterranean diet is linked to a reduction in heart disease.

The reason this diet method first became popular and gained notoriety in the U.S. is actually because of the spread of heart disease. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Roughly 610,000 people die of heart disease every year. That is 1 in 4 people! Unfortunately, as American’s continue to struggle with obesity these numbers get bigger.

In the early 20th century, as heart disease was first being understood by doctors and scientists, researchers began to look at different populations and how they were affected by this disease. It soon became clear that those living in places like Southern Italy and the island of Crete in Greece experienced far fewer instances of heart disease than in the U.S.

That got the food scientists and researchers thinking—could their diets have something to do with this?

To date, there have been roughly 3000 studies affirming the positive effects of the Mediterranean diet. Within these studies, there are several conclusive long term human trials studies on the health benefits of the diet.

One study worth noting was conducted in 2013 and called “PREDIMED” or Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with the Mediterranean Diet.

This randomized study monitored 7447 participants who were considered “high risk” for cardiovascular disease (CVD) over a five-year period. The study included three groups:

  1. Mediterranean diet, provision of extra-virgin olive oil
  2. Mediterranean diet, provision of mixed nuts
  3. Reduced dietary fat diet (control group)

The famed essential unsaturated fatty acids are linoleic omega-6 and linoleic omega-3. They are the only two fats your body cannot synthesize from other fatty acids. Thus, they need to be replenished through your food. As far as your brain is concerned, these fats protect the nerve fibers and enable your brain to send messages faster. Fat also helps your body absorb vitamins (particularly fat-soluble vitamins K, D, E & A)

The study concluded, “As compared with the control group, the two groups that received advice on a Mediterranean diet reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease by approximately 30%. Specifically, in the context of a Mediterranean-style diet, increased consumption of mixed nuts or substitution of regular olive oil with extra-virgin olive oil has beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease.” (The New England Journal of Medicine)

On January 4th, 2017 the American Academy of Neurology released a press release that stated, “a new study shows that older people who followed a Mediterranean diet retained more brain volume over a three-year period than those who did not follow the diet as closely.” The participants of this study that followed the Mediterranean diet “lost less brain volume” than those who maintained a standard diet. It included 967 participants from Scotland and tracked their brain over a three-year period.

“As we age, the brain shrinks and we lose brain cells which can affect learning and memory. This study adds to the body of evidence that suggests the Mediterranean diet has a positive impact on brain health.” -study author Michelle Luciano, Ph.D., of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland

Additionally, a  second “PREDIMED” study began in 2013, ran for three years, and included 3000 participants. This study targeted cardiovascular disease prevention and the results from this study will be available in 2020.

Can I eat like “a Mediterranean”?

Yes! You can. It takes a more thoughtful approach to food purchase and preparation, but ingredients are readily available at any grocery store and cookbooks are full of information.

Have some fun in the kitchen, and start to recognize healthy ingredients when you dine out! What we like about the Mediterranean approach is that you are not forced into any particular diet plan. And one of its biggest benefits? A variety of food choices!

It is important to keep in mind, however, that everyone’s body is different and processes food a little bit differently. In fact, individual ingredients are not usually unhealthy or healthy on their own, but rather the over-consumption or under consumption of that one particular item. Thus, portion control and diet variety are important on this regimen. Over-consuming almonds and olive oil, for example, can be unhealthy!

In an interview with The NY Post, Lisa Dierks, Wellness Nutritionist at the Mayo Clinic, highlights a very important part of the Mediterranean diet— the dedication to the number of servings. The average American falls short on the daily recommended intake of both fruits and veggies, and the Mediterranean diet asks that you increase that intake from five servings a day to roughly six or seven servings. You need to be aware of the number of fruits and vegetables you are getting every single day.

Farming from the Thermosphere

man controlling drone flying above field

At D2D, we often discuss the importance of feeding a growing global population while keeping our environmental resources secure for future generations. The fact is, world population is growing at a fast pace— so, we need to find ways to better manage and preserve our existing resources. For example, we have investigated indoor agriculture and crop biotechnology as innovative ways that our farmland and natural resources have benefited from technological advancements.

What do drones and satellites do?

For generations, farmers have relied heavily on old fashioned senses, such as touch, smell, and taste to ascertain how their crops and soil are managing through the growing season. Today, they have the advantage of relying on advanced equipment and heavy-duty machinery to efficiently and productively sow seeds, apply fertilizers and pesticides, feed animals and harvest crops. Now, technology is taking crop management to the skies. Drones and satellites are new, exciting tools to help farmers reduce chemical inputs, manage water usage, ensure animal welfare, and increase crop yield.

Helping Farmers manage their crops

During a typical growing season, farmers face many different types of challenges, such as weeds, pests, and weather inconsistencies. Drones and satellites allow them to monitor and handle these impending crop threats as quickly as possible.

For instance, the average drone can cover over 160 acres of cropland in one hour and satellites can take detailed pictures every 24 hours to identify weed species, plant heights, population densities, and specific types of crop damage caused by pests.

Close examination of a crop

This data helps farmers quickly recognize problem areas, such as water and pest issues. Invariably, drones and satellites have a positive environmental impact as farmers are able to manage their chemical inputs, increase their yield, and minimize machine passes through the field, hence minimizing pollution.

For those not familiar with drone technology, a drone is considered an unmanned aerial device vehicle (UAV). They are commonly used by amateur and professional photographers as a flying camera to take cool pictures, document events, or make movies. They have also become very useful to survey weather systems or act as a surveillance device for the U.S. military.

The technology that makes drones so effective is imagery that measures wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, which enable a farmer to see specific areas where crop inputs need to be applied. (image source)

Companies such as AgEagle and DroneDeploy offer services that take aerial infrared images to detect the health of crops. The images are processed and consolidated, and a specific “prescription” map is provided to the farmer.

However, some farmers find it more efficient (and cost saving) to operate the drones themselves. Drone image mapping can be used by corn farmers in Iowa, potato farmers in Idaho, fruit growers in Georgia, or cattle ranchers on the remote plains of Montana. In fact, some vineyards in California use specially-designed drones to look like hawks to scare pesky birds away from their grapes.

Robert Blair, a wheat farmer in Idaho, recently invested in drone technologies and praised the effectiveness of drones. “Instead of spraying 100 percent of the field I’m spraying exactly where it is needed instead of across the whole field. That’s huge to be able to identify those areas to treat before the treatment takes place.” (AOPA Pilot Magazine)

Some drones can even take the place of a crop duster airplane and spray the crops. However, this is mostly used for fruits and produce. Source

Helping farmers manage their animals

Animal farmers are using drones to monitor their cattle in the field and in the feedlot. Drones help provide answers to questions like: are any of my cattle sick? Have any wandered off? Are there predators harassing my animals? This new technology is starting to play an important role in how crops and animals are grown and managed. 

Drones keeping an eye on cattle

A cowboy can see, via a drone, whether any animals are sick by a hanging head, shaking body, or excess heat coming off the cattle. On large-scale dairy farms, drones can quickly ascertain who is limping, who has strayed away from the herd, and who might be suffering from mastitis (an udder infection).

For instance, cattle are social animals. Cows that spend time in the feedlot like to be with their fellow cow-brethren from the ranch. If they feel sick they don’t want to leave the herd to go to the infirmary. So, when the cowboys ride the pens checking on the animals, a cow can actually “fake it” and pretend to be healthy because he doesn’t want to be separated.

Drone view of a mixer box feeding cows.

While drones have many great benefits, not every farmer has a drone waiting to fly out of the barn.

While flying over 160 acres an hour is a lot of ground to cover, they eventually run out of battery power! The farmer also needs to operate the drone, and even if it is pre-programmed it needs to recharge. Additionally, in order to be precise, they have to fly exact coordinates. Thus, drones have not been implemented into all farming practices quite yet. AgFunder reported a 68% drop in investments in agricultural drone technology for 2016.

Up to the Thermosphere! Satellites

Source

Of course, we all know how satellites provide GPS to get us to our destination. Satellites are rocketed into the thermosphere by companies such as Geoimage, who set up satellite constellations with 150 or so stations circling the earth. Recently, Planetary Resources raised $21 million with their Bayer CropScience partnership.  They will have a ‘constellation of 10 Arkyd 100 microsatellites in low Earth orbit’.  The images are refreshed daily and are incredibly clear and precise, pinpointing locations to a 5-meter radius. The data is compiled and downloaded to an intermediary, such as Descartes or IntelinAir, who make sense of this data along with weather forecasting and agronomy analysis to provide agriculture mapping for crop and soil analysis.

Satellite images provide a color map of soil and crop health.  This is not as easy as it sounds as there are many variables which occur from day to day, such as the atmosphere, cloud cover, shadows, angle of the sensor, the angle of the sunlight, etc. Additionally, pixel size, the number of satellites, and the quality of near-infrared wavelengths are all considerations to reliable data.

Yet, the data has to be consistent and trusted. To be a successful farmer, one has to know and understand any changes in the color or health of the soil, water, plants, and weeds. Are there more or fewer pests? Is the crop darker or lighter? Are there more weeds or less? Is the soil appropriately hydrated compared to yesterday?

Satellite imagery helps farmers maximize their harvest and minimize damage to their fields. Source

Using an iPhone or computer, satellite technology allows the farmer to literally track the fields by comparing the color and visuals on a day-by-day basis. Farmers can see any change immediately, program their combine or tractor, and go right to that specific location with the needed chemicals, fertilizer, or water.

Precision agriculture has a whole new meaning!

Let’s bring this technology to life:

  • On the very desolate high plains of Nebraska, you can see if your cattle are fed, watered, and healthy.
  • In California, you can see the exact areas of your field that need water by looking at the color of the soil.
  • In Colorado, you can see what part of your wheat field needs extra spray for the weeds.
  • A soybean farmer can tell by the color whether part of the crop is being eaten by pests

Using satellite technology, a farmer can get a good idea of their farm’s yield as well as the overall yield of the crop in the area. They can also tell which part of their fields had the best/worst yields. This knowledge helps to manage a farm’s income and expenses.

image credit: Asia K. Kalcevic

The weekly satellite imagery of growing crops enhances the field scouting and increases the accuracy of the field by identifying the best and troubled areas of the crop. With consistent monitoring, the farmer can define trends in the field and make better-informed decisions in specific areas of the field or the farm. I relate it to a weekly x-ray of our crop and soil health.
A 65,000-acre wheat farmer, Colorado

What is RoundUp?

farm equipment spraying the crop

While the Dirt to Dinner team has been somewhat outspoken on the undeniable global benefits of genetic engineering technology, we are admittedly concerned about our environment and the effect pesticide use has on a surrounding ecosystem. But, we asked ourselves—what is the science behind this herbicide? What is verified research telling us? And…what is glyphosate?

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely-used broad-spectrum herbicide and the primary active ingredient in the popular “Roundup Ready” brand of herbicide products. There are over 750 products containing glyphosate for sale in the U.S. It is registered in more than 130 countries and approved for weed control in more than 100 crops. Glyphosate is used in agriculture, golf course management, forestry, lawns and gardens, and even aquatic environments.


According to Dr. Kay Day, “chemically, glyphosate is a fairly simple molecule. It’s similar in structure to amino acids— the building blocks of all proteins— in that it contains a carboxylic acid group (the COOH on the far right) and an amine group (the NH in the middle). In fact, glyphosate is most similar to the smallest of all amino acids, glycineWhere it deviates, however, is the phosphonic group (PO(OH2)) on the left. This makes it an aminophosphonic analogue of glycine.” (The Chronicle Flask, 2016)

In fact, no other herbicide compares in terms of numbers of approved uses!

The primary agricultural crops for glyphosate application include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum. According to USDA survey data, in 2016 HT (herbicide-tolerant) soybeans represent 94% of soybean acreage, HT cotton represents 89% of cotton acreage, and HT corn represents 89% of corn acreage.

How does glyphosate work?

In simple terms, glyphosate prevents a plant from growing. How? It inhibits the activity of an enzyme, called EPSP, which is essential to plant growth. This particular enzyme is not found in humans or animals. Manufacturers formulate the glyphosate acid with a salt which makes the product easy to handle and mix well with other products. The formula also includes a surfactant which assists the delivery of glyphosate into the plant by attaching itself to the leaf’s waxy surface, where it is broken down and enters the plant tissue. Once inside the plant, glyphosate inhibits the activity of the EPSP enzyme, which in turn prevents the plant from manufacturing certain amino acids essential for plant growth and life.

Glyphosate absorbs quickly and tightly binds to the soil. Microbes in the soil rapidly decompose the product so little—if any— product leaches from the applied area.

What are the benefits of glyphosate?

Crop Duster. Image Roger Smith, flickr

Herbicide-tolerant crops, otherwise known as “Roundup Ready” or GMOs, were created so a farmer could spray glyphosate on the fields and not harm their crop. These crops contain a version of the enzyme that is not inhibited by glyphosate. Primarily, glyphosate is applied a couple of weeks after the crop emerges from the ground, which is a critical time when the weeds and crops are competing for water, mineral nutrients, and light, and before the crops get large enough to create a canopy to shield out the weeds themselves.

By killing all the weeds and not the crop, a farmer can make fewer herbicide passes through his crop. In addition, the farmer doesn’t have to “till” their field to rip out the weeds. This benefits the fertile topsoil and prevents it from run-off or displacement.  In wet areas, glyphosate is sometimes used as a tool for drying down crops before harvest.

How much glyphosate does the average farmer use?

Soybean and wheat farmer Brian Scott, who writes from A Farmer’s Life, farms 2,300 acres of land in northwest Indiana. In this video, he shows how much glyphosate is applied to his soybeans, which ends up being less than 2 cans of 12oz. soda for every acre of land.

Contrary to what is often reported by much of the media, farmers do not douse, drown, drench or saturate crops in chemicals. Farmers actually do what they can to minimize total herbicide use. After all, chemicals are expensive, it takes resources and time to apply them, and there are crop rotation and herbicide resistant issues to contend with.

Is glyphosate toxic?

Glyphosate is an herbicide, so it is a toxic substance. As we have mentioned in Nix the Toxins, toxicity is related to the dose or the amount you consume, inhale or rub on your skin. To examine toxicity, scientists look at something called the LD50 value. This metric is a standard measurement of acute toxicity for chemicals.

The dose makes the poison.

For example, caffeine, vitamins, and other substances are beneficial in small doses but can be harmful in large amounts. The lower the LD50 value, the more toxic the substance.

The LD50 of glyphosate is 5600mg/kg

Caffeine has a much lower LD50 of 192 mg/kg 

Sodium chloride (table salt) has an LD50 of about 3000 mg/kg.

Rotenone, approved for use on organic farms,  has an LD50 162-1500 mg/kg

Copper sulfate, approved for use in organic farming, has an LD50 of  30mg/kg

source

What about the long-term effects of glyphosate?

LD50 values are not the only metric the EPA uses to evaluate toxicity. Sub-chronic and chronic effects of a chemical substance are evaluated as well.

The EPA sets maximum safe levels of pesticide residues for crops, called tolerances. The EPA also calculates the theoretical maximum, which is considered the worst case scenario exposure to pesticides from all foods and compares it to the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue, which over a 70-year human life span is believed to have no negative effect. The highest dose or exposure level that produces no noticeable adverse effect on test animals is then divided by safety factors – typically a value of 100.

As the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states,

“Just because we can detect levels of an environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not necessarily mean that the chemical will cause effects or disease.”

The EPA sets tolerance levels in parts per million (ppm; equivalent to mg/kg) and has defined the tolerance levels for glyphosate residue on numerous food commodities.

Of course, sometimes trace amounts find their way into our food system – which is the crux of alarm spreading throughout the media. But let’s look at this rationally. Recently reports have been made of residues in the parts-per-billion on many of our favorite foods. Cheerios, for example, was tested to have 1,125.3 parts per billion (translate to 1.1253 parts per million) residues of glyphosate. Parts per billion? As we have hopefully illustrated below, you would have to eat a lot of Cheerios to experience any adverse effects!

What does one-part-per-million look like?

  • 1 inch in 16 miles
  • one penny in $10,000
  • 1 gram needle in a ton of hay
  • 32 seconds out of a year

What does one-part-per-billion look like?

  • 1 inch in 16,000 miles
    (64% of the circumference of the earth)
  • one penny in $10,000,000.
  • one drop of water in 250 chemical drums
  • 3 seconds out of a century

Unfortunately, companies are getting a bad reputation from anti-GMO groups that are spreading misinformation about the use of glyphosate.

The world science community has weighed in on the safety of glyphosate:

The US EPA, Health Canada, European Food Safety Authority, the German BfR, the World Health Organization all deem glyphosate to be safe for use.

Quaker Oats discusses glyphosate residue in their FAQ:

“Any minimal levels of glyphosate that may remain in finished products where oats are an ingredient are significantly below regulatory limits and well within compliance of the safety standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as safe for human consumption.”

In another example, Media outlets have reported that glyphosate is now in one of our favorite sweeteners, honey! An FDA researcher tested 19 samples of honey, and in nine of those samples, found residue levels as low as 17ng/g in Brazilian honey and as high as 121 ng/g in honey from Louisiana. Now, translating that into actual consumption rates, a 125 lb person would have to consume 2,061 lbs of honey every day over the course of their lifetime to experience a poisonous reaction to glyphosate. REALLY? Is this actually cause for alarm?

Or does it help sell a story when certain household staples are vilified for their “potentially dangerous herbicide content.” Unfortunately, in today’s media whoever yells the loudest often is the most trusted.

In October 2016, Andrew Kniss, weed expert, author of Weed Control Freaks, and his colleagues published a study concluding  “even as herbicide use has increased, the chronic toxicity hazard associated with herbicide use decreased in 3 out of 6 crops, while acute toxicity hazard decreased in 5 out of 6 crops. Due to it’s relatively low chronic toxicity, glyphosate contributed only 0.1%, 0.3%, and 3.5% of the chronic toxicity hazard in these same crops, respectively.”

Lastly, we leave you with the most recent statement from the EPA:

“In September 2016, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued what is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of the pertinent studies on glyphosate ever undertaken, authored by 13 prominent independent scientists, concluding: There is not strong support for the ‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’ cancer classification descriptor based on the weight-of-evidence, which includes the fact that even small, non-statistically significant changes observed in animal carcinogenicity and epidemiological studies were contradicted by studies of equal or higher quality. The strongest support is for ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at the doses relevant to human health risk assessment for glyphosate.”

What are Antioxidants?

bowl of blueberries

What is an antioxidant?

Antioxidants are believed to protect the body from damage caused by harmful molecules called free radicals. They are found in foods, specifically fruits, and vegetables, but have also been made into dietary supplements.

It’s not surprising that we often feel good when we eat antioxidants as they are found in many healthy fruits and vegetables. We also get the added health bonus of feeling like we are warding off Alzheimer’s, some cancers, arthritis, and even some eye diseases by eating antioxidants. But, is this too good to be true? How do antioxidants work inside your body?

Antioxidants > Free Radicals

We cannot discuss antioxidants without talking about free radicals. Our bodies are composed of trillions of cells working hard to keep us strong and healthy. One of the biggest hypothesized threats to our healthy cells is free radicals.

There are a few ways in which your body can ingest free radicals. Environmental contaminants like pollution, cigarette smoke, and chemicals create free radicals can be absorbed by your skin or inhaled through your lungs. Additionally, your body can also create free radicals. This happens naturally when your body turns food into energy. If your diet is deficient in fresh fruits and vegetables and you are not sleeping enough, your body can create free radicals which also attack healthy cells. Whether they are inhaled, absorbed, or created internally, the chain reaction of free radicals compromising healthy cells is called oxidative stress.

Free radicals are unstable atoms or molecules containing an unpaired electron that rapidly stabilize by bonding with an electron in another atom or molecule. As a consequence, free radicals are extremely reactive and if they bond with a molecule in a healthy cell, the healthy cell will be damaged.

Some in vitro scientific research indicates that if radicals are created faster than they are neutralized by antioxidants, healthy cells may be compromised. However, this research has only been proven in simple laboratory systems (these systems are usually isolated cells in a synthetic medium). Because of this, antioxidants have been touted as the “antidote” to eliminate these free radicals and keep the healthy cells intact.

Unfortunately, the ability for antioxidants to prevent oxidative stress and stabilize free radicals has not been proven in complex systems, like the human body. And while this research is often extrapolated to be true in humans— this is incorrect.

Therefore, we cannot definitively make a claim that consuming antioxidants neutralizes free radicals or prevents oxidative stress in your body.

Some recent health claims have drawn a correlation between the findings in the lab, but the human body is extremely complex, and scientific evidence for an antioxidant effect is lacking. Products that claim to have the ability for antioxidants help prevent disease, fight cancer-causing free radicals, and maintain overall body health do not have scientific research that supports these claims in humans.

For example, we recently discussed the antioxidant findings in chocolate from the MARS Center for Health Science chocolate in our article, “Crazy for Cocoa.” While the understanding of antioxidants (specifically flavanols) in the cocoa bean is understood; how the human body uses these antioxidants is highly speculative. (The FDA required Mars to withdraw CocoaVia because they were making an unapproved health claim in a food ineligible for such a claim [too much saturated fat]). So, while we encourage you to eat foods that have a dense nutrient profile, do not fall victim to the marketing claims that try to lure you with false promises based on unsubstantiated research.

This is not to say that you should scrap the healthy food! There are thousands of different types of antioxidants and their abilities are extremely complex. While we do not know exactly how they react inside the human body, antioxidant-rich foods like blueberries, dark chocolate, kale, and green tea, are all known to have a strong vitamin and mineral profile that also support a healthy body.

Ultimately, foods containing antioxidants can help support a healthy, well-balanced diet, but antioxidants by themselves have not been proven to be the universal antidote for curing disease.

So, while the research is inconclusive, it is still beneficial to understand how to provide your body with a balanced diet that also includes antioxidant-rich foods.

How do we know which foods are high in antioxidants?

The USDA has developed a test called the Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) test which measures the antioxidant capacity of certain foods. This measurement can help you determine which fruits and veggies with high antioxidant content to incorporate into your diet.

With the use of the ORAC test, the USDA tested many of the fruits, nuts, vegetables, and spices to determine their antioxidant capacity.

The ORAC test is reliable when testing the antioxidant content in fruit or vegetables in vitro (in the lab), however, this test is unreliable when testing antioxidants abilities in vivo (in your body).

“Led by Ronald Prior, an ARS chemist who works at the Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center in Little Rock, researchers investigated how the consumption of different fruits affected volunteers’ antioxidant status.

They did this by measuring the plasma (blood) antioxidant capacity (AOC) of volunteers who’d just ingested blueberries, cherries, dried plums, dried-plum juice, grapes, kiwis or strawberries.

The series of ARS studies confirmed what many antioxidant experts have long suspected: that the free-radical-busting compounds found in foods are quite complex, with some apparently being easier to absorb and utilize than others.

For instance, the researchers found that despite their high antioxidant content, plums did not raise plasma AOC levels in volunteers. According to Prior, one of the major phytochemicals in plums is chlorogenic acid, a compound not readily absorbed by humans.

As for the wild blueberry, a larger-than-average serving of this much-heralded antioxidant source was needed to boost plasma AOC levels. A noticeable climb in AOC wasn’t detected until volunteers consumed at least a half-cup serving of the berries.”

Data on antioxidants provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Again, human research in this field is limited. There have been a few animal-based studies that demonstrated a correlation between increased consumption of antioxidants and a decreased level of free radicals.

Additionally, the understanding that free radicals inside your body are causing disease has yet to be definitively proven. While free radicals have been proven to cause oxidative stress in the lab, which can affect healthy cells, how an individuals body responds to free radicals and oxidative stress is different. There is also some promising research regarding the role of antioxidants and the effects of aging.

According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Early findings suggest that eating plenty of high-ORAC fruits and vegetables—such as spinach and blueberries—may help slow the processes associated with aging in both body and brain. Two human studies show that eating high-ORAC fruits and vegetables or simply doubling intake of fruits and vegetables—both naturally high in antioxidants—raises the antioxidant power of the blood between 13 and 25 percent.” 

However, it should also be stated that many of these studies specified that human participants take an antioxidant supplement as opposed to whole foods that have a natural high antioxidant component. It has been hypothesized that the antioxidants in foods may be more effective than antioxidant supplements. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine the relationship between antioxidants and free radicals. More extensive, long term human trials must be performed.

Do You Matcha?

matcha powder and tea

Green tea has been acclaimed as a healthy source of antioxidants for centuries. But, recently, the health benefits of green tea have been overshadowed by matcha. And while matcha has always been a staple in Asian culture, the weight-loss movement in the United States has made this product mainstream.

Some of the marketing claims and possible health benefits of matcha include: 

Aids in weight loss by boosting metabolism.
Naturally detoxifies.
Calms the mind and promotes concentration.
Antioxidants may have anti-cancerous properties.
Lowers cholesterol and blood sugar.

However, while matcha, and green tea, have a compliment of health benefits, there is a limited amount of research that proves these expansive claims.

Human clinical evidence is still limited. Future research needs to define the actual magnitude of health benefits and establish the safe range of tea consumption.”
(2010 Literature Review of Green Tea)

Unlike traditional green tea, which is typically steeped in hot water and enjoyed, matcha is made from tencha green tea leaves and is ground into a powder, making matcha the more potent of the two. Thus rather than drinking just the steeped water, you are consuming the leaves themselves.

A 2010 literature review of green tea research indicated that “the health-promoting effects of green tea are mainly attributed to its polyphenol content [particularly flavanols and flavonols] which represent 30% of fresh leaf dry weight.” For matcha products, this antioxidant content is intensified because the leaves are consumed directly.

These matcha tea leaves are ready to be picked. Image Source

An ORAC test, or oxygen radical absorbance capacity, measures the antioxidant content of foods. According to the USDA, “early findings suggest that eating plenty of high-ORAC fruits and vegetables–such as spinach and blueberries–may help slow the processes associated with aging in both body and brain.”

Matcha is often served as a tea or latte but preparing it is much more arduous than simply brewing a cup of tea. Cultivating matcha is bit different as well. To cultivate the tea leaves, farmers cover the tencha plant and keep it in the shade for about four weeks before harvest. This forces the plant to compensate for the lack of sunlight and in turn the plant produces a greater amount of an antioxidant called chlorophyll. This provides matcha tea with a dense of amino acid profile.

Plant-based catechins are antioxidants that are often found in tea as well as a diverse mix of foods like chocolate, berries, and fava beans. This shading process for growing matcha does reduce the amount of catechins found specifically in matcha— making traditional green tea a stronger source for this particular antioxidant.The decreased level of catechin’s in green tea is also said to decrease the traditionally bitter flavor of brewed green tea leaves.

Chlorophyll is the pigment that gives green plants their color. It is also an antioxidant that supports detoxification, specifically aiding in the cleansing of your liver. It is also believed to help support digestion and possess antiviral properties that can protect against bacteria entering your body. A 2012 study performed at Oregon State University found that chlorophyll may also help protect your body against cancer.

One of the most prevailing amino acids that is present in matcha is L-theanine. New research on this amino acid indicates that it can help to control stress. In fact, Buddhist monks are known to have consumed matcha tea before meditating to help concentration. This amino acid helps regulate the digestion of caffeine present in matcha. Rather than a quick burst of energy, L-theanine slows the rate of absorption. According to Mintel market research, “the elevated levels of theanine in matcha help control the caffeine ‘hit’ and provide a more sustained energy boost for a longer period of time.” (Mintel). Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, a 2009 study indicated that L-theanine may “help in the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Nutrient profile of matcha powder from Matcha Source

The process of harvesting and creating matcha makes the final product much stronger than traditional tea blends. The elevated caffeine levels and powerful vitamin, mineral, and antioxidant component has made this “ingredient” into a very popular product.

The food and drink industry has responded to the many recognized health benefits of matcha tea. According to Mintel market research, “the number of global food and drink launches containing matcha has more than doubled between 2012 and 2014.” And it continues to climb— making matcha more and more mainstream. In the U.S., matcha lattes are available at almost every coffee and tea chain, including Starbucks and Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf. In Asia, you can even find matcha in Kit-Kat and Crunch bars! But be wary, while these candy bars and latte’s may be tasty, they are often packed with sugar and do not provide the same health benefits as a pure matcha powder.

And while tea is certainly good for you, there are two things to be aware of with regards to matcha products:

  1. Caffeine
  2. False marketing claims

Source: Spoonacular

A single serving (8oz) of matcha tea as roughly 70mg of caffeine, whereas the average green tea has roughly 25mg per 8oz serving. Black tea has more caffeine than green tea with roughly 45mg per serving. However, an 8oz Starbucks (“tall”) contains roughly 165 mg of caffeine.

3 cups of green tea = 2 cups of black tea =
1 matcha latte = 1/2 cup of coffee

But if you are adding the additional caffeine into your routine, could you be negatively affecting your health?

As with all foods, the negative effects of overconsumption does exist— even with green tea. In a 2005 study on hamsters, researchers found that a high consumption of green tea negatively affected the animal’s liver.

According to the 2005 literature review, “green tea should not be taken by patients suffering from heart conditions or major cardiovascular problems.” Additionally, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommends no more than 300-400 milligrams of caffeine per day.  Keep in mind, caffeine is a drug and its intake should be carefully monitored. Meaning, if you are already a coffee drinker, you might want to use discretion when adding matcha to your diet.

Essentially, you have to be a mindful consumer. Every diet is individualistic, and while matcha is a good source of antioxidants, amino acids, vitamins and minerals, if you are sensitive to caffeine or you suffer from a heart condition, consume matcha with caution.

As matcha becomes more mainstream, food processing companies will use its understood health value to sell products that might not be as healthy as you may think. For example, the average matcha latte has anywhere from 18-26 grams of sugar. As matcha’s health benefits become yet another marketing claim, it is important to make sure you are putting the cleanest form of this product into your body.

To that end, some recent studies found that metals, such as aluminum and lead, as well as pesticides can be found in tea. The literature review of green tea also noted the “presence of aluminum” as one of the harmful effects of tea overconsumption. Moreover, if there are contaminants in the soil, they can be present on the tea leaves as well. This is particularly concerning with matcha as you are consuming the leaf itself. With green tea, for example, steeping the leaves helps filter the metal from the leaf. If there is pesticide residue on the leaf, your body is directly ingesting it. So, when buying your matcha, make sure you are confident in the farming practices of the supplier.

Fat: Our New Friend!

eggs, milk and butter

Healthy “fatty foods” are finally beginning to shake their bad reputation. Our new friends—avocados, nuts, and olive oil, have become increasingly popular due to their healthy fat content. As consumers, we are starting to see fats incorporated at almost every meal— avocado on toast, coconut oil used in cooking, a compliment of nut-butters offered as nutritious snacks.

In the past, saturated fat was thought to be linked to heart disease and strokes, but it turns out that this may have been a big, fat lie.

A 2010 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition pooled together data from 21 studies and included almost 350,000 people tracked for an average of 14 years. This study concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke.
(Siri-Tarino et al. 2010)

Educating Americans on proper fat consumption.

Foods with a higher fat content are finally making a comeback after they were wrongfully blamed for playing a large part in the rise of obesity in the United States. But, as we remain a nation with a growing obesity problem, it is very difficult for organizations like the U.S. Department of Health to begin recommending foods with higher fat content.

However, we are now finding ways that involve healthy eating to educate Americans on proper fat consumption. In February 2016, Mintel Global Market Research presented a 2016 Global Food + Drink Trend on how fat is shedding its stigma. The report noted, “confusion regarding ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ fats has led the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to recommend that the 2015 U.S. Dietary Guidelines focus on optimizing types of dietary fat rather than reducing fat intake. The committee hopes this will ‘encourage a healthier relationship with dietary fats.’” (Mintel, 2016).

 Source: Bio-Kinetics

In January 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released: New Dietary Guidelines to Encourage Healthy Eating Patterns to Prevent Chronic Diseases which includes recommendations to eat oils from plants (canola, corn, olive, peanut, safflower, soybean, and sunflower) as well as nuts, seeds, seafood, olives, and avocados in order to prevent chronic disease.

The Big Picture

Fat is a macronutrient and our body actually requires fat to function properly. While healthy foods with a high-fat content may be dense in caloric value, they pack a very powerful punch. Healthy foods with good fat content can provide energy and help maintain overall body health.

So while it may go against your instincts to eat butter or olive oil, here is why you should:

A healthy fat diet supports your brain, maintains cell membranes, and helps to cushion your organs for protection.

 As far as your brain is concerned, certain fats (like omega-3 and omega-6) protect the nerve fibers and enable your brain to send messages faster. Fat also helps your body absorb vitamins, particularly the fat-soluble vitamins K, D, E, and A. Because of these benefits, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends we get roughly 20% – 35% of our daily calories from fat. So, if you consume 2,000 calories a day that should include between 400-700 calories from fat.

However, this is not to say you shouldn’t be careful with your fat intake. Less than 200 of these calories should be saturated fat, to ensure the majority of your calories from is unsaturated. Additionally, your body stores excess fat in its cells until it is needed for energy. So if you consume more fat than you use for energy, your fat cells expand and you will probably notice your waistline start to increase…

Fat is made up of fatty acids and the number of fatty acids that are present in food indicates how the food is classified—with either a high or low-fat content. In addition to the number of fatty acids present, you must also look at the most heavily prevailing type of fatty acid. The most heavily prevailing type of fatty acid indicates whether the food is high in either saturated or unsaturated fat.

A healthy amount of fat provides more energy per gram than both protein and carbohydrates.

One gram of fat = nine calories for energy, whereas one gram of carbohydrate or protein = only four grams for energy.

Saturated vs. Unsaturated Fat

Saturated and unsaturated fats are distinguished by the chemical composition of their fatty acid chain.

Saturated fat is very stable while unsaturated fat (the healthy fat) is less dense at room temperature. Stored at room temperature, unsaturated fats are liquid (like olive oil) whereas saturated fats are typically solid (like butter). While unsaturated fat is healthier for your body than saturated fat, you need both to maintain a healthy diet— you just need more unsaturated fat than saturated fat!

Unsaturated Fat = A Good Friend

When unsaturated fats are broken down, they help raise your body’s good cholesterol levels. This is where it gets a little complex but stay with us…Cholesterol is actually a type of fat. There is both bad and good cholesterol: LDL and HDL.

LDL (low-density lipoprotein) is bad and HDL (high-density lipoprotein) is good. Cholesterol helps your body function properly, but too much of it will put you at risk for a heart attack or stroke.

By minimizing the LDL cholesterol that is present in your blood, unsaturated fats actually help protect your body against the harm that can be caused by excess saturated fats and high cholesterol.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 73.5 million adults in the United States have high LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, which will negatively affect their long term health.

When you eat unsaturated fat, your HDL levels increase. This increase enables your cells to grab onto the bad LDL compounds and carry them to the liver. This process is called reverse cholesterol transport. When the LDL compounds are in the liver, they are properly broken down and eliminated from your body. By minimizing the LDL cholesterol present in your blood, unsaturated fats actually help protect your body against the harm that can be caused by excess saturated fats and high cholesterol.

Saturated Fat = Friendly Acquaintance

Saturated fats do not contain any double bonds in their chemical composition, making them denser than unsaturated fat. Saturated fat can raise your body’s overall cholesterol levels (including LDL cholesterol). The most well-known foods that contain saturated fat are meat and dairy products. Beef and cheese, for example, contain more saturated fatty acids than an unsaturated fatty acid.

While it is important to be aware of the amount of saturated fat you consume, there are healthy foods that contain saturated fatty acids. The American Heart Association recommends that roughly 120 calories (5-6%) of our total daily calories come from saturated fat. New research indicates that a diet that incorporates saturated fats may not cause an increased risk for Cardiovascular Disease or Coronary Heart Disease. While this isn’t definitive, it is certainly something to watch!

If you follow the daily recommended intake for both saturated and unsaturated fat and you live an active lifestyle, you will find these fats are more your friend than your enemy.

Linoleic omega-6 and linoleic omega-3 are the only two fats that your body cannot synthesize from other fatty acids. Thus, they need to be replenished through your food or supplements. These essential fats are found in sesame seeds and nuts for omega-6 and flax seeds and fatty fish for omega-3. 

Within the unsaturated fat “family”, there are different types of fatty acids. There are 2 main groups of unsaturated fats: polyunsaturated and monounsaturated. Polyunsaturated fatty acids have a handful of double bonds, whereas monounsaturated fatty acids only have one. Your body is able to make fatty acids with one or no double bonds. However, the human body is unable to create two types of polyunsaturated fat, which are essential fatty acids in human nutrition.

Trans Fat = Foe

Unlike unsaturated fat and saturated fat, which can be healthily incorporated into your daily regimen, you should be very mindful of trans fats. In fact, you want to avoid partially hydrogenated oils (PHO) as much as possible! PHO is most prevalent in heavily processed foods. Unlike saturated and unsaturated fat, hydrogenated fats are very unnatural substances.

PHOs were actually created by food processing companies after saturated fat was thought to be detrimental to overall body health. To replace saturated fat, food scientists created trans fat from unsaturated fat. Because unsaturated fat has a shorter shelf life, they needed to make the substance more solid in order to have the same functionality as saturated fats at a lower cost. In order to make the unsaturated fat solid, it is hydrogenated. Your body is not familiar with partially hydrogenated oils and thus is not able to properly digest them.

So, what does all this mean for your body?

While fatty acids are present in almost all food to some extent, the amount of each fatty acid indicates its health value. For example, the most heavily prevailing fatty acid in an avocado is oleic acid, which is unsaturated fat. However, while unsaturated fat is the most prominent fatty acid present, saturated fatty acids are present as well—but this doesn’t mean the food is bad! The weight of saturated fat is roughly 15% while the weight of unsaturated fat is roughly 79%.

In addition to avocados, foods like salmon, seeds, nuts, olive oil, coconut oil, flax, vegetables, and legumes will provide healthy, unsaturated fat that will help maintain your body’s good cholesterol, suppress LDL cholesterol, and keep your cells healthy!

There are many ways to get a variety of good fats. For example, you can consume 2 tablespoons of butter (102 calories per tablespoon), 1/2 a cup of sliced almonds (250 calories), 1 tablespoon of peanut butter (90 calories), and 1 tablespoon of olive oil (118 calories) for 560 calories of fat. This remains within the 400-700 calorie recommended consumption.

A well-balanced diet that includes the recommended amount of healthy fats, paired with exercise and the appropriate amount of sleep, will help keep you healthy.

Is a Plant-Based Diet Better for You?

green vegetables on display at a market

Mintel 2017 Global Food and Drink Trends dubbed 2017 “Power to the Plants” stating that “consumers will be looking for natural, simple, and flexible diets. This will drive further expansion of vegetarian, vegan, and other plant-focused formulations. In 2017, the priority for plants will drive an acceleration in new products and marketing that casts plants in starring roles.”

Based on the latest readings on vegetarianism and veganism from Gallup, 5% of Americans say they are vegetarians and 3% say they are vegans, numbers that have remained consistent since 2012. Overall it appears “Americans are eager to include alternatives to animal products in their diets but are not willing to give up animal products completely. ”

People may be motivated to adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns about animal production or the environmental impact of agriculture, religious beliefs or health concerns.

As the demand for plant-based protein increases, food processing companies are responding—hoping to create brand loyalty as more consumers hop on the meatless bandwagon. According to Mintel Market Research, “there has been a 25% increase in vegetarian claims and a 257% increase in vegan claims in global food and drink product launches between 2010 to 2011 versus 2015 to 2016.”

Many consumers are flexitarians

The push for plant-based products goes beyond the stricter practices of vegans and vegetarians. The majority of this demand is actually being driven by the growing number of consumers that have been labeled “flexitarian.” As we discussed in “A New Burger,” 59% of consumers in the U.S. are considered “flexitarian” because they eat a protein alternative at least once a week.  Mintel’s 2016 Report on U.S. Diet Trends indicated this was likely due to the fact that dieters believe “that following a vegetarian/vegan diet is the most natural and healthy way to lose weight.” As a result, dieters are increasingly likely to buy more plant-based products over the next year.

Almost a third of Millennials indicate they consume any meat alternative product every day, with 70% consuming them at least a few times a week, notably more than any other generation.  Coupled with the size and spending power of Millennials, this indicates a strong potential market for meat alternatives in the future.”

Billy Roberts, Senior Food and Drink Analyst, Mintel

Eric Pierce, the host of Natural Products Expo West, also highlighted the rise in demand for plant-based products. Pierce said, the appeal and potential for vegan products are expanding beyond the small group of people who avoid animal products for ethical reasons to include the much larger base of consumers seeking healthier, cleaner foods.”

While the smallest number of these consumers are strict vegans (meaning no meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, or any other animal-derived product) there are varying levels of vegetarianism. Lacto-ovo vegetarians, for example, do not eat meat poultry or fish but will eat eggs and dairy. Lacto vegetarians abstain from eggs as well but will consume dairy. And ovo-vegetarians will eat eggs but will not eat dairy. Lastly, partial vegetarians or pesco-vegetarians will not eat meats but will incorporate fish into their diet.

Food processing companies are more creating products, such as vegan protein powder, soy, nut or rice milk, and vegan protein bars hoping to peak the interest of these health-minded, “flexitarian” consumers.

According to Harvard Medical School, some of the most noteworthy, but strictly short-term, studies for a plant-based diet are the following:

  • “A study published in the March 9, 2015, issue of JAMA Internal Medicine suggests that a meat-free diet can reduce the risk of developing colon cancer.
  • A study published February 22, 2013, in Cancer Epidemiology found that eating a vegetarian diet reduced the overall risk of all cancers compared with eating a non-vegetarian diet.
  • A study published June 3, 2013, in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that vegetarian diets were associated with a 12% lower risk of death from all causes—not just cancer. The benefits were especially strong for men.”

It is critical to note that many of the short-term studies performed were not randomized, including the ones listed above, meaning there was no control group to compare results and therefore they cannot truly determine if a vegetarian diet is healthier than a well-balanced diet that incorporates meat. There is also a need for long term studies that may help to verify (or discredit) the results presented in the short term.

It should also be noted that some researchers attribute the results of the short term vegetarian studies to the conscious decisions of the individuals who have chosen to be vegetarian or vegan as an overall healthier lifestyle. If someone is choosing to be a vegan or vegetarian, it can often be correlated that they exercise regularly, do not drink alcohol excessively, and do not smoke tobacco. Those who are making healthy choices in their diet are most likely making healthy choices regularly in their life.

“Eliminating meat” may not be the best solution to a healthy diet

While it is certainly healthy to incorporate more plant-based foods into your diet, maintaining a diet without meat, poultry, or fish often means adding vitamins, minerals, fats, and protein sources to your diet.

Unless you follow recommended guidelines on nutrition, fat consumption, and weight control, becoming a vegetarian won’t necessarily be good for you.” (Harvard Medical School)

By eliminating meat from your diet, you may face nutrient deficiencies (unless an effort is made to replace them). For example, meat, poultry, and fish are high in B vitamins (niacin, thiamin, riboflavin, and B6), iron, zinc, vitamin E, magnesium, omega-3’s, and of course… protein! Soy, whey and plant-based proteins can be good alternatives, but they are not meant to replace all protein sources in your diet.

According to the USDA’s Choose My Plate, the average adult should consume roughly 5-6 ounces of protein (chicken, beef, nuts, eggs) per day and about 8 ounces of seafood is recommended per week. This is because protein is essential in keeping healthy bones and muscles. Protein is considered a “building block” for your body’s enzymes, hormones, and vitamins. 

According to the USDA, protein is important for the following reasons:

  • “It supports bones, muscles, cartilage, skin, and blood. Proteins are also one of three nutrients that provide calories (the others being fat and carbohydrates).
  • B vitamins found in this food group serve a variety of functions in the body. They help the body release energy, play a vital role in the function of the nervous system, aid in the formation of red blood cells, and help build tissues.
  • Iron is used to carry oxygen in the blood.
  • Magnesium is used in building bones and in releasing energy from muscles.
  • Zinc is necessary for biochemical reactions and helps the immune system function properly.”
(Source: Choose My Plate)

Meat and Diary are great sources of protein

 

One cooked chicken breast is roughly 3 ounces— which can suffice as half of your daily serving of protein. Healthy fish that are high in protein include salmon, tuna, halibut, or snapper. Dairy is also a good source of protein. Yogurt with almonds, chia, or hemp seeds is a good way to satisfy a serving of protein in the morning One egg has roughly six grams of clean protein. 

Lean beef, which can be included less frequently into your diet than poultry, fish, or eggs, provides roughly 30 grams of protein per serving. According to WebMD, women should consume roughly 46 grams of protein per day while men should consume close to 60 grams per day.

While there are a significant amount of recent studies touting the advantages of a meat-free diet, there are no definitive long term results that say you should eliminate all meat from your diet.

To prove this, some preliminary research has been performed using Adventist participants. Seventh-day Adventists avoid meat and abstain from alcohol and tobacco. A 2014 study indicated Adventist vegetarians demonstrated lower risk for cardio-metabolic issues and some cancers. However, the findings were not conclusive enough to make definitive dietary recommendations based on the results.

Some promising studies have been performed regarding the “Mediterranean diet,” which encourages plant-based eating and includes significant consumption of healthy oils (particularly through fish, nuts, and copious olive oil). A Mediterranean approach to eating also includes some poultry intake and very limited red meat consumption. The randomized studies that have been performed indicate that following the Mediterranean diet is a healthy approach to eating. A lower risk of cardiovascular disease, lower levels of LDL cholesterol, and a reduced rate of some cancers were reported. 

CRISPR: An Innovative Technology in Ag

genetic code crispr

CRISPR, short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a technology that can affect anything – or anyone – that has a gene. It has the potential to make monumental changes in human medicine, animal health, and agriculture. Although human trials are not fully underway, editing a human genome to cure cancer and/or eliminate blood diseases, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s is just one example of the medicinal and human health genetic possibilities scientists are currently exploring with this gene editing technology.

Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9. McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT

The gene editing future is so optimistic that scientists are even attempting to convert an Asian elephant into a wooly mammoth to combat climate change. Additionally, scientists at MIT are combating the Zika virus by either changing a gene within the mosquito so it cannot host the Zika virus or making susceptible mosquitos sterile so they cannot breed and further spread the virus.

Curious about eliminating the food allergy gene in eggs or peanuts? What about virus free pigs? The laundry list of opportunities for CRISPR is tremendous and expansive. As a first look at CRISPR, D2D will focus on some of the CRISPR possibilities that will affect agricultural plants and animals.

How does CRISPR work?

Let’s take a moment and go briefly back to high school science. DNA is a double-stranded molecule that contains a genetic code. Essentially, there is a set of “instructions” stored in DNA that dictates how a human, animal, or plant is constructed from multiple amino acids (the building blocks of proteins).

The messenger RNA (mRNA) is the exact single strand replica of the DNA, except its role is to carry out the instructions of the DNA, and tell the proteins what to construct. These proteins build muscle, give us the color of our eyes, and help assemble all the genetic traits any organism with DNA carries. Think of the DNA as the architect creating the blueprints for a new house and mRNA as the contractor who takes the blueprints and directs the plumber, electrician, and woodworker to build the house to the exact specifications.

Traditionally, any changes made to an organism’s DNA has to come through years of selecting specific characteristics and then cross-breeding those traits into specific varieties. CRISPR accelerates the process by precisely creating the new DNA sequence, cutting out the existing DNA that needs to be replaced and using the Cas9 protein to guide the mRNA to the specific spot to make a genetic change.

Each cell has DNA. Sections of DNA can be naturally altered if it is malfunctioning or if it needs to be changed. The CRISPR process can take these specific DNA sections, cut them out, and/or replace them with another code. The Cas9 protein specifically cuts out a section of the existing DNA and then existing cellular enzymes insert the new DNA sequence.

Rewriting the Code
Scientists can use the gene-editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9 to correct disease-causing mutations. Here’s how it works: (Source: Innovative Genomics Initiative. Credit: John Gould/The Wall Street Journal)

A chunk of RNA is programmed to look for a specific problem segment of DNA. It is paired with a natural protein called Cas9 taken from bacteria, where it functions as a genetic scalpel.

Once inserted into a cell, the RNA/Cas9 combination looks for a DNA sequence that matches its RNA.

When it finds a match, the Cas9 cuts both strands of the DNA.

Repair enzymes can fill and seal the gap in the DNA with new genetic information to change the underlying genetic code.

Let’s go back to the architect/contractor example. If there is a flaw in the framework, rather than tearing the whole house down and starting over, the general contractor (mRNA) identifies the flaw compared to the blueprint and directs the woodworker (Cas9) to cut it out, and replaces it with a perfect frame. The two videos below provide more detail.


Video by Jennifer Doudna, biochemist at UC Berkeley who created the CRISPR-Cas9 editing sequence.

Science is the future of agriculture

Today’s agricultural goals are to grow enough food to feed a growing population on our current land while enhancing sustainable environmental goals. Crops grown to resist pests and weeds with fewer chemicals, less water, and higher yield are considered the ‘holy grail’ of farming. Animals grown with strong immune systems, more muscle, more milk, and being conscious of the environment and animal welfare is critical for today’s farmer. Selecting the best traits using conventional breeding often takes decades (sometimes generations) to get the desired result. However, with a population increasing to 9 billion by 2050, we don’t exactly have time on our side. Now with gene editing techniques, producing and selecting these traits can be much more precise and achieved in a shorter period of time. Here is a sample of some agricultural companies that are either partnering with gene editing companies or independent working in the gene editing field.

Recombinetics is focusing on using gene editing to combat world hunger by focusing on animal genetics, human health, and human life. Some of their projects include Foot and Mouth disease resistance, milk composition, and production in dairy cows, or better feed conversion to yield more meat. One simple example goes toward animal welfare in cows. For instance, just about all cows are born with horns and (in modern agricultural systems) horns are an undesirable trait for safety and animal welfare perspectives. Removing them is important for herd animals, but it is a difficult, wieldy, and uncomfortable process for both farmers and cows alike. Through CRISPR, they have created the first hornless cows. Rather than breeding a Holstein horned cow with a hornless Angus cow, they just edit the gene in the traditional Holstein cow to create hornless Holsteins.

 

Source: Genetic Literacy Project

DuPont has invested in Caribou Biosciences, a spin-off from Jennifer Doudna and the University of California, Berkeley. They are currently working on modified starch corn production, drought resistance in corn, and hybrid wheat to increase crop yield.

Source: Caribou Biosciences

The University of Missouri and Genus, an animal genetics company, are among the first to use CRISPR-Cas9 to breed pigs to be resistant to the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). In 2013 alone this virus killed more than 10% of the entire U.S. herd.

Source: Scientific American

Archer Daniels Midland has partnered with Synthetic Genomics to produce a consistent supply of Omega 3- DHA from CRISPR edited algae.

Source: Synthetic Genomics

The Regulatory Process

Because gene editing techniques are more closely associated with natural genetic processes, the USDA is currently considering whether to regulate it or not. To date, they have given several gene editing plants a pass on the food safety assessment.

As we have mentioned, GMOs are the most highly tested agricultural product on earth. The fact that CRISPR products are not going through the same regulatory process is certainly interesting. For example, scientists at Penn State successfully deleted the browning gene in a mushroom genome. The removal of this enzyme reduces the browning process in mushrooms, thus increasing their shelf life. Removing the discoloration from fruits and vegetables reduces the millions of tons of food that is wasted every year. Because the CRISPR-Cas9 edited mushroom did not have any foreign DNA inserted, the USDA has determined that it does not require further testing or regulation.

The decisions around the regulatory process are critical to the success of CRISPR. Will CRISPR follow in the footsteps of GMOs? Or will the USDA and FDA consider it the same as traditional breeding and eliminate regulatory approval? Whatever the answer, it is critical that the rest of the world is on the same page because the food supply from the United States is an integral part of the global food system. CRISPR will certainly have implications on trading, importing and exporting food around the world.

NYT: Reporting Based on Science?

fingers typing on a computer keyboard

Contributing writers Susan LeamanDiane Wetherington, and Samantha Duda have extensive experience and knowledge in the food industry. Susan works with companies and associations to develop solutions that address produce-related food safety issues; Diane is CEO of iDecisionSciences, LLC, a provider of specialty crop consulting services, and iFoodDS, Inc., a software solutions provider for the food industry. Sam joined iDecisionSciences, LLC as a research and analytics associate.

We were curious what experts in this field thought about the research presented by Hakim to support his claims, and found that a number of respected scientists swiftly responded.

Many who wrote letters to the editor or posted their opinions online called the author’s main assertion that GM crops were designed primarily to increase crop yields and reduce pesticide use as “a false premise”.

Dr. Steve Novella in his blog NeuroLogica writes, GM technology “is not inherently tied in any way” to any one application. Rather, he describes the promise of GM technology as providing “a tool for agricultural scientists to make more rapid and more specific changes to crop cultivars” using methods deemed “safe with no demonstrable inherent risks beyond any other method of crop development”.

In an open letter to the NY Times Public Editor (public@nytimes.com), a group of scientists assert GM crops were “designed to manage and mitigate some of the causes of crop loss, especially pre-harvest losses due to insect pests or weeds.”

To many scientist critics, Danny Hakim missed the point of GM crops from the start.

Crop Yields

Let’s take a closer look at the claim “GM crops promise, but do not deliver high crop yields.” To support this claim, Mr. Hakim uses rapeseed (canola) yield data from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations to compare GM rapeseed yields in Canada to non-GM rapeseed yields in Western Europe. The data that is presented by Mr. Hakim does show that non-GM rapeseed yields in Western Europe are higher than Canadian GM rapeseed yields even as yields are increasing at a similar rate for both production areas.

Comparing yields in developed countries is inappropriate with since GM crops were not intended to further increase already high yields in developed countries like the United States and Canada.

GM crops are widely used in developed countries today primarily for two traits:

  • Insect resistance (IR; resistance to certain types of pests)
  • Herbicide tolerance (HT; imparts tolerance to an herbicide like glyphosate).

Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist with PG Economics UK, notes it is not surprising that average yields are higher in Western Europe than in Canada due to the seasonality of this crop. Canadian rapeseed is mainly a spring crop whereas in Europe, it is a winter crop, and winter crops generally yield better than spring crops.

Dr. Matin Qaim, a professor of agricultural economics at the Universities of Bonn and Kiel, further points out that Canadian farmers use GM rapeseed to reduce herbicide cost, labor, and fuel use due to the herbicide tolerance trait, and not to increase yields.

Although prior to the implementation of GM technology, many North American farmers were already using effective pest and weed control methods. Dr. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington, D.C. explains that seeds provide superior pest control to non-GM seeds. GM seeds are designed to select and attack a specific pest rather than a broad-based effect typically delivered by common pesticides.

If you assume (as Danny Hakim proposes) that one of the main reasons developed countries like the U.S. and Canada use GM crops is to increase yields, it is still inappropriate to evaluate yields solely based on genetic modification. According to Graham Brookes, a seed’s genetic capability and “its ability to withstand yield-reducing effects of pests, diseases and weeds” are only two of many factors that affect yield. When considering the complex nature of the outdoor growing environment, there are numerous factors affecting yield including weather, soil quality, farming practices, inputs (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds), farmers’ knowledge and skills, and the effectiveness of existing technology to control pests, diseases, and weeds among others.

Dr. Qaim published an analysis of 147 independent studies showing GM technology has indeed increased crop yields worldwide by 22% with developing countries experiencing higher increases in yields than developed countries.

GM crops and reduced pesticide use

Danny Hakim reviews herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide use data from the Union of Industries of Plant Protection in France, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to support his claim that GM technology broke its promise to reduce pesticide use. He states “the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides”.

The data in the chart he used as evidence to support this claim had different units of measurement (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the U.S.). Additionally, the amount of pesticides is not standardized per unit area. As Dr. Andrew Kniss, an associate professor in weed biology and ecology at the University of Wyoming points out, this is acutely important since the U.S. has over 9 times the amount of arable land that France has. After converting the chart to the same units and standardizing by farmland, it is clear that France (though reducing their pesticide use) still uses far more pesticides than the U.S. — in particular fungicides and insecticides. As Dr. Kniss explains in his analysis of Mr. Hakim’s article,

“A relatively tiny proportion of these differences are likely due to GMOs; pesticide use depends on climate, pest species, crop species, economics, availability, tillage practices, crop rotations, and countless other factors. And almost all of these factors differ between France and the U.S. So this comparison between France and the U.S., especially at such a coarse scale, is mostly meaningless, especially with respect to the GMO question.”

Dr. Andrew Kniss, Associate Professor in Weed Biology and Ecology, University of Wyoming

Dr. Kniss also posted charts showing herbicide use for other European countries as evidence pesticide use has actually increased, with France being one of a few exceptions.

In the U.S., switching to an herbicide-tolerant crop allows more toxic herbicides to be replaced by a less toxic one such as glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®…

Dr. Kniss reports, “Glyphosate has lower chronic toxicity than 90% of all herbicides used in the U.S. in the last 25 years.” So as U.S. farmers increased their glyphosate use, this usage has replaced more toxic herbicides that posed known risks to the environment and human health. Assessing herbicide usage alone misses the overriding fact that harmful effects on the environment and human health from more toxic herbicide use have dramatically decreased due to the implementation of GM crops. A 2016 peer-reviewed study took into account a pesticide’s environmental impact in its analysis and found that U.S. farmers growing GM maize and soybean crops used as much soybean herbicide as non-GM crop adopters, 9.8% fewer maize herbicides, and 10.4% fewer maize insecticides (Perry, 2016).

Hakim used a faulty comparison and an inaccurate chart to support his claim that pesticide use, as measured by weight, has not been reduced— but is using weight to evaluate pesticide use even useful? The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) doesn’t think so.

In their report, on The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the U.S. released early this year, the NAS recommended “researchers should be discouraged from publishing data that simply compares total kilograms of herbicide used per hectare per year because such data can mislead readers. Simple determination of whether total kilograms of herbicide used per hectare per year have gone up or down is not useful for assessing changes in human or environmental risks.”

Otherwise, using the measurement of weight for pesticide does not tell us anything about its toxicity. While Hakim cites pesticides such as sarin in his discussion of pesticide toxicity, he does little to explain the toxicity differences between pesticides commercially available and used in agriculture today and pesticides developed decades ago and nefariously used as weapons in wars.

To say that all pesticides are toxic is true but misses the point that they all differ significantly in the magnitude of toxicity and the organisms they affect.

In her response to the NY Times article, Dr. Nina Fedoroff who is Emeritus Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University explains how herbicides used today are developed to be toxic to plants by interfering with biochemical pathways and processes humans do not have.

For readers who are researching GM crops whether driven by interest or concern, it is imperative to investigate reports that appear to contradict other published peer-reviewed scientific studies. The formal and informal peer-review process that comes with publishing in the scientific literature provides an added level of confidence you are getting information that is not manipulated to support a particular narrative.

Rarely does technology create a magic bullet, and genetic engineering is no exception. However, the article goes beyond discussing any downsides to GM technology by misusing data in an attempt to dismiss the value of GM technology altogether. This article ignores the fact that farmers are business people who rely on their land and crops to stay in business. They test different varieties of seeds and analyze benefits and trade-offs to see what works best for them. So if the cost of GM crops outweighs the benefits, farmers will be the first to react by not planting GM seeds.

CocoNUTs!

coconut split open
This post first appeared in November 2016 and the market statistics were updated in February 2019

Coconut products are available in a variety of forms. From raw products like coconut water, fresh coconut meat, and coconut oil to processed products like coconut palm sugar, coconut flour, and coconut flavoring, consumers are going nuts for this proclaimed “superfood.”

The seemingly endless health claims include high in vitamins, high in minerals, high in fiber, healthy saturated fat content, aids digestion, antiviral and antifungal properties, antioxidants, and electrolytes.

Coconut products are officially mainstream and (because of the perceived health benefits) they appear to be here to stay. According to some industry estimates, the Coconut Water Market is expected to exceed more than US$ 2.7 Billion by 2024 at a CAGR of 15% between 2017 and 2024.

But before we hop on the coconut bandwagon, the D2D team wanted to make sure that these health claims are substantiated by scientific research. While we found many small, short term studies that indicated coconuts are a healthy addition to your diet, there is still a significant need for long term research and human trials to conclude that coconuts can provide these health benefits over time.

Saturated Fat and Digestion

One of the claims surrounding coconut products, particularly the products that are made from coconut meat (like coconut oil) is the “healthy fat” claim. As we reviewed in our article “Fat: Our New Friend,” new research indicates that consumption of healthy fats can help increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (the good cholesterol), which helps your body regulate overall cholesterol levels and possibly lower your LDL cholesterol levels. According to researchers at Harvard Medical School, coconut oil gives your body a good HDL cholesterol boost, which can actually help improve overall blood cholesterol levels.

The most prominent fatty acid in coconut meat is lauric acid, a medium-chain triglyceride (MCT). Lauric acid is considered a healthy saturated fat because of its composition. MCT fatty acids are easily absorbed by the human body. This means the fatty acid is easily broken down, used for energy, and can help aid digestion.

A very small study published in 2003 by the Journal of Nutrition followed 11 women over a 20-22 day period and studied the effects of high-fat versus low-fat coconut oil consumption. The research found that the women who consumed high-fat coconut oil demonstrated the biggest reduction in inflammation markers as well as markers for heart disease risk.

Definitive research on the health content of coconut oil only exists in the short term, so there is no certainty over how the high-fat content of coconut oil affects heart disease or long term heart health.

Anti-fungal and Anti-bacterial

Beyond the cholesterol and potential weight loss benefits of healthy fatty acids, the fat content of coconuts is also believed to have anti-bacterial properties. In a 2004 study published by the Journal of Medicinal Food, the antimicrobial properties of coconuts were proven to be a treatment of fungal infections. The lauric acid content of coconuts is believed to “kill harmful bacteria, viruses, and fungi.” However, there is a lack of research to substantiate this claim. While the fatty acid in coconut may have some antibacterial properties, there is no long term research that validates coconut oil as an antibacterial agent.

Antioxidant, Electrolytes, Vitamins and Minerals

Coconuts are particularly high in B vitamins, like B6, B2 (riboflavin), and B1 (thiamine). B vitamins are a good source of energy and can give your body a quick pick me up. Coconut meat is also high in vitamin C, which helps boost your immune system, is an antioxidant, and helps aid digestion.

In addition to a rich vitamin complex, coconuts have a dense mineral content. These minerals include potassium, magnesium, sodium, phosphorous, manganese, iron, and calcium. Of these minerals, potassium, calcium, sodium, phosphorous, and magnesium are electrolytes.

 

These minerals may also be good for your blood pressure as high potassium content can balance some of the negative effects of sodium. A 2005 study published by the West Indian Medical Journal found that 71% of participants that were given coconut water experienced a decrease in blood pressure.

Lastly, coconuts are believed to have a strong antioxidant component. But, as we learned in our recent article on chocolate, antioxidant content is very complex. Unfortunately, there is very little research that proves the effects of antioxidants in the human body. However, in a 2007 study performed over a 45-day period on rats, researchers at the University of Kerala found that animals fed virgin coconut oil had higher antioxidant vitamin levels at the end of the study than the animals fed sunflower oil or copra oil (which is oil from more mature coconuts). Additionally, a 2013 study conducted in Brazil determined green dwarf coconuts exhibited antioxidant properties.

If you are incorporating coconut into your diet there are a few things to keep in mind:

  • Coconut meat is high in fat, dietary fiber, and minerals such as manganese, zinc, iron, and phosphorous.
  • Coconut water contains the same minerals as well as amino acids, electrolytes, and B-complex vitamins.
  • Stick to the raw, unrefined options. Unprocessed coconuts (both juice and meat) will provide the most nutritional value.
  • Be mindful of serving size! One serving of coconut water (8 ounces) contains roughly 14 grams of sugar. As we have discussed in “Sugar is Sugar”, that is roughly half of the added sugar recommended per day.
  • As with all fats, overconsumption can cause cholesterol to rise—even if you are overconsuming healthy fats!

Source: Harmless Harvest

A “New” Burger

meat in a petri dish

Consumers are asking for new sources of protein.

Veggie burgers have been around since the early 1980s, but they are beginning to take on a new life. This may be somewhat surprising given strict vegans and vegetarians only account for roughly 3% of global consumers.

However, according to Mintel Market Research, 59% of consumers in the United States eat a “protein alternative” at least once a week. If you fall into this category, you are considered to be a “flexitarian.”

Through extensive polling, Mintel has found that there are four possible motivators for consuming meatless protein:

  1. Environmental effects of raising cows, hogs, and chickens.
  2. Food safety concerns regarding E. coli O157: H7 and Salmonella.
  3. Meat-related allergies—although these are rare, meat avoidance can be related to food allergies and intolerance.
  4. Health and wellness concerns associated with super-fruits, super-greens, super-grains, and raw food.

Meatless meat

In response to consumer health and environmental concerns, there are two kinds of meat innovations:

  • meatless meat that looks and tastes like ‘real’ meat, sourced from vegetable proteins, and
  • “farming” meat from animal cells, without slaughtering a full animal.

Large food processing companies are hopping on the meatless bandwagon.  Tyson Foods has invested a 5% stake in Beyond Meat. Google Ventures invested in Impossible Burgers, whose signature is  a plant-based iron molecule that makes this burger look “bloody.” Some other companies include Gardein, known for their bestselling meatless meatballs and fishless fish fillet.

If you are substituting a vegetable-based protein with a meat or chicken option, are you still getting the name nutritional content…?

Meatless vs Meat: is it better for you?

Humans are carnivorous. Our digestive system is made to properly digest meat. Meat protein has an essential combination of protein, vitamins, and minerals to help keep our bodies healthy and strong. The nutrients from meat help our blood cells form, enhance our immune system, help our muscle tissue growth, and support our nervous systems. Keep in mind that while a meatless option is a good alternative, it might not meet the same amino acid, vitamin, and mineral, and antioxidant profile that you can find in an eight-ounce piece of red meat.

By eating real meat, you can know that you are receiving many important nutrients.

While there are a few products on the market that may be able to provide an equal serving of protein, how does the rest of the nutritional profile measure up?

For example, you can get 100% of your daily intake of vitamin B12 from one serving of red meat, whereas the Beyond Meat “Beyond Burger” will only account for 20% of your daily intake of B12. The reverse is true with iron at 25% and 12%, respectively.

 

Source: Beyond Meat

Looking again at the Beyond Meat “Beyond Burger,” there is 380 mg of sodium. That’s about 20% of the recommended daily value! To put this into perspective, a McDonald’s plain hamburger contains 125mg of sodium and a freshly ground beef burger (80% lean) contains 64 milligrams of sodium.

How does the taste of meatless options compare to the real thing?

While all of these meatless meat options have branded their products very well, we were still a bit skeptical. Is it possible that a meatless hamburger can compare to a lean ground-beef burger? We decided the only way to determine this was to try them ourselves. The D2D team took a field trip to Whole Foods and bought an assortment of meatless products. We report, that overall, prepackaged meatless meat fell short of the real thing. Depending upon the cooking process, the meatless burgers did not elicit the same positive response that a cheeseburger typically does from our hungry families at dinner.

Mintel’s research found that while consumers are willing to give it a try, about 45% of “meatless” consumers think that the meat-substitute is overly processed and/or too high in sodium. Roughly 72% of all global consumers are interested in what the meatless meat is made of— whether it is corn, soy, wheat, or vegetables and what other ingredients have been added to it.

The Future of Meat: Cultured Meat

The food technology that can recreate the similar taste and health claims of traditional meat is “cultured meat.” This growing technology was examined in the International Conference on Cultured Meat in October 2016 in Maastricht University (Netherlands). The conference focused entirely on creating meat grown in a lab. Topics included: tissue engineering and 3D printing, cell production, mass production of avian muscle cells, and technologies needed to bring cultured meat to market.

Two companies are working to get cultured meat to our dinner plates:

New Harvest, a 501 (c) (3) research institute ‘accelerating breakthroughs in cellular agriculture’ invested $50,000 in Dr. Mark Post who created the first cultured burger at the University of Maastricht.  The focus of New Harvest funding is on growing muscle cells in an animal free environment.  This is backed by Google co-founder Sergey Brin

The US-based company leading work on cultured meat is Memphis Meats. Memphis Meats believes, “instead of farming animals to obtain their meat, why not farm the meat directly fromhigh-qualityy animal cells?

 “We envision that our production process will provide everyone with meat that is consistent,
fresh and delicious.“ 
Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO, Memphis Meats

Memphis Meats is developing the process of taking true meat cells from a cow, hog, or chicken and feeding them the nutrients they need to grow into the meat. It is not an easy process and has taken months to bring the cost down from tens of thousands to just a few thousand…per meatball! The majority of this cost is from the manpower needed to “babysit” and harvest the cells that grow and discard the cells that stagnate.

The benefits, once the cost comes down, is that the meat does not have any of the E. coli O157: H7. issues that can affect beef or the Salmonella that can come with chicken. Additionally, the cultured meat does not need to be fed, housed, or watered, which ultimately provides less stress on the environment. Memphis Meats expects their products to be cost competitive (and eventually more affordable than) conventionally-produced meat.

There is room for all kinds of protein options

Memphis Meats – cultured meatball

Protein can take many forms: as animal meat, vegetable protein, and even insects. The global population today is 7 billion people, expected to grow to almost 9 billion by 2035. The projected increase in protein is approximately 250 million metric tons in just the next 15 years. Everyone needs some form of protein to maintain a healthy diet. Furthermore, as incomes rise, especially in developing countries, the demand for protein will increase.

Crazy for Cocoa

chopped chocolate

We’re hungry to know…is chocolate healthy?

Of course, the answer is not as straightforward as we would have hoped! Dark chocolate is said to contain antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals. It has also been touted to increase blood flow, improve heart health, and decrease cholesterol. But, has this been scientifically proven?

The chocolate products we know and love all begin with raw cacao beans. Grown mostly in the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Indonesia, the cocoa pod is a fruit that contains roughly 50 large cocoa, or cacao, seeds per pod. These seeds hold all the nutrients.


Cocoa pods grow straight out of the trunk or branches of the cocoa tree.
Image: www.lessonpaths.com


Whole and half fresh ripe cacao fruit and seeds

The nutritional content of a raw cacao bean

Originally dubbed “food of the Gods”, the cacao (or cocoa) bean is the unprocessed form of chocolate that contains over 300 healthy compounds such as such as Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B9 and Vitamin E, minerals like iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, and calcium, and antioxidants, such as flavanols and catechins. Cocoa beans are also rich in fiber and healthy fatty acids, like oleic acid and palmitic acid.

As we mentioned in our recent article “Fat: Our New Friend,” there are many benefits to consuming healthy fatty acids. These fats help your body absorb vitamins, protect your brain, and provide support to your cell membranes. We have also reviewed the importance of vitamins. The vitamins in cacao can help maintain healthy cells, organs, and tissues, which can keep your body from wearing down.

Antioxidants are a little more complex

The science behind the effects of antioxidants is controversial. Many of the research undertakings are performed “in vitro,” which means the test occurs in the lab as opposed to in the human body.

While results indicate that consuming cocoa can improve blood vessel function and heart health, this might not be true for everyone. Additionally, how your body uses the antioxidants is unclear. This is why there are no chocolate products on the market that make health claims.

According to the MARS Center for Health Science, cocoa provides the most potent form of flavanols, a subgroup of the antioxidant flavonoids. Flavanols are found in plants like tea, blueberries, acai, and red wine. Research indicates that the consumption of flavanols has been positively correlated with improved blood vessel function.

Substantial data suggests that flavonoid-rich foods could help prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. Cocoa is the richest source of flavonoids, but current processing reduces the content substantially.” (International Journal of Medical Sciences)

A 2006 study focused on the link between dark chocolate and its ability to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease in men. The study included 470 elderly men and measured their blood pressure at the start of the study, five years later, and incorporated a fifteen year follow up. The men consumed cocoa-containing foods, which over the course of the study, reduced blood pressure and subsequently, the risk of cardiovascular death.

Catechins, another type of flavonoids, are also believed to help stabilize the free radicals that can affect cell health. Free radicals may enter your body through pollution and cigarette smoke, as well as the normal digestion process. Once they are inside your body, free radicals can cause cell damage and ultimately can kill healthy cells. Catechins help fight against and neutralize free radicals.

However, the difficulty with truly understanding the role of antioxidants is that science has not been able to measure the antioxidant effects in the human body.

The more roasted, fermented, and processed the cocoa beans are, the fewer nutrients the chocolate product will provide. The cocoa beans used in dark chocolate are often less manipulated and will typically have more nutritional benefits than milk chocolate. 100 grams of dark chocolate provides about 50 milligrams of catechins, while a similar amount of milk chocolate contains about 8 milligrams.

From our research, when it comes to serving size, the best recommendation to reap the nutritional benefits of chocolate without overconsuming fat or sugar is roughly 10 grams of dark chocolate. To put that into perspective, that is little under 1 serving (about 8 chips) of dark chocolate from a bag of semi-sweet chocolate chips with 48% cacao OR about 10-11 chips of 60% cacao dark chocolate chips.

That being said, if you are looking for the healthiest cocoa products to obtain the benefits of this powerful superfood, you are better off buying a product that has not been roasted at high heat or overly processed. Compared to the average chocolate bar, raw cacao products will provide more vitamins and minerals, contain a higher antioxidant content, and possibly increase blood flow and heart health.

The Challenges of Indoor Farming

lettuce in a vertical farming container

Dirt-to-Dinner welcomes contributing writers Susan LeamanDiane Wetherington and Samantha (Sam) Duda, who have extensive experience and knowledge in the food industry. Susan works with companies and associations to develop solutions that address produce-related food safety issues, and Diane is CEO of iDecisionSciences, LLC, a provider of specialty crop consulting services, and iFoodDecisionSciences, Inc., a software solutions provider for the food industry. After completing a degree in sustainability and business administration, Sam joined iDecisionSciences, LLC, this year as a research and analytics associate.

In a previous article, “Meet the ‘Ponics,” we discussed how innovative farming techniques include growing on rooftops and inside greenhouses, shipping containers, and warehouses. But to understand the big picture, we also need to examine the various challenges associated with this type of farming.


Vertical Farming. image credit: Aerofarms

The Startup Cost

The first challenge for any company wanting to start an indoor farm is the startup costs. For companies looking to take part in indoor farming, there are hefty expenditures and operating costs including real estate, marketing, loan payments, lighting, and growing equipment and electricity.

For companies that are growing indoors on a large scale, startup costs are in the millions. Some of the biggest players already established in indoor growing received millions of dollars from investors before beginning their endeavors.

Before breaking ground on their first indoor facility, Gotham Greens, which operates four urban rooftop greenhouse farms in New York City and Chicago, raised over $30 million from numerous private investors. To convert a former steel mill in Newark, New Jersey, to a 70,000 square foot vertical indoor farm, AeroFarms raised over $70 million ‒ mostly from private investors. As indoor farming practices and technologies become more established in the future, the industry hopes for lower startup costs and more interested investors.

The Complexity of Lighting

One of the reasons the indoor farming industry has expanded in the last several years is due to the falling price of light emitting diode (LED) lights. LED lighting provides the same amount of lighting as fluorescent light but requires half the amount of energy. In July 2015, the lighting company, Phillips, opened a research facility, GrowWise Center in the Netherlands, to study the interaction between crops and the light spectrum. Plants react uniquely to different spectrums of light and color at different points in their growing cycle.


GE Mirai Lettuce Farm. Source: http://inhabitat.com/

Despite LED being energy efficient compared to other lighting sources, LED lights still may not be the most efficient way to mimic natural sunlight. Erico Mattos, an urban agriculture advocate, reports that plants can waste up to 80% of the energy provided to them due to each crop having a different threshold for optimizing photosynthesis. For example, a sweet potato plant needs only 64% of the light energy produced by a LED light for optimal photosynthesis. If light output is not adjustable, sweet potatoes grown in an indoor growing environment waste 36% of the provided light energy – light paid for and not used. In conventional outdoor or greenhouse farming with the benefit of free sunlight, this waste of light energy by the plants does not impact a farmer’s costs.

For indoor growers, unused light represents a real economic and environmental challenge. To address this challenge, Mattos has created a technology called PhytoSynthetix that allows plants to communicate how much light they need by triggering the lights to dim. The technology uses sensors to detect chlorophyll fluorescence measurements that ‘communicate’ to the LED lights to adjust accordingly.  This sensor-triggered technology reduces energy consumption but has yet to be applied on a large scale. As technological advances become cheaper, the research and data collected from programs like GrowWise and PhytoSynthetix can help indoor farmers lower their energy cost and grow crops more efficiently.

Limited Crop Range


Examples of greens suitable for indoor farming

Unlike conventional farming, indoor growing has a limited crop range. Robert Colangelo, CEO of Green Sense Farms said, “You could pretty much grow anything in an indoor vertical farm. But there are only a few things you can grow commercially and economically viable today.” Green Sense Farms grows leafy greens in their vertical warehouse farm in Portage, Indiana using horizontal growing racks. Colangelo believes that farming in the future will be different for different commodities. Indoor vertical farming may be the future for leafy greens, but tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers are best grown in greenhouses, and commodity crops like soybeans, corn, and wheat are best grown on field farms. Thus, indoor farming plays a specific role in the future of farming, but will not account for all growing operations.

Furthermore, each indoor farm, greenhouse, or warehouse, is engineered for a specific crop including the lighting, climate, nutrition, irrigation, software, and sensors for that particular growing environment. The cost of a massive reengineering or remodel of a building and its infrastructure to accommodate a new crop is currently not economically sound for a grower who wants to expand or change an existing operation into different crops (i.e., switch from leafy greens to strawberries).

Food Safety

Many have the false perception that due to the controlled environment of indoor farming, the need for food safety is eliminated. David Rosenberg, CEO of AeroFarms, worries that people unfamiliar with indoor growing may under-appreciate the risks associated with growing crops indoors. Nate Storey, the CEO of Bright AgroTech says, “If you’re growing indoors and growing plants, biology is messy and invites disease; you will have pathogens, you will have disease organisms, you will have insects and pest; these things are inevitable.” Fungal disease and mildew are common in indoor growing environments, especially in horizontal plane vertical warehouse farming.

The key to reducing plant disease and pests is AIRFLOW

In an indoor growing environment, humidity is naturally produced from plants transpiring and irrigation water evaporating in combination with heat produced by the LED lights. Humidity creates a favorable environment for human and plant pathogen growth. Airflow systems pump CO2 in for plant respiration and remove excess humidity. Effective airflow is difficult in horizontal plane vertical farming due to the limited space between the crop’s canopy and lighting fixtures. This lack of space for adequate airflow results in a higher risk of foodborne pathogens as well as higher energy cost to aggressively pump more CO2 and air through the growing chambers. Add to this the fact that most indoor environments are kept exceptionally clean – almost sterile – creating an environment with few competitive microorganisms if pathogens are introduced. Pathogens in this type of environment with little competition for available nutrients are able to grow more rapidly and unchecked.


Diagram of Horizontal Plane Vertical Farming vs. Vertical Plane Vertical Farming
(source: Bright Agrotech)

Airflow in Horizontal Plane Vertical Farming vs. Vertical Plane Vertical Farming
(source: Bright Agrotech)

Horizontal indoor growing limits visual access for workers, making it difficult for them to check crops for infections or contamination. For workers to visually inspect what is happening between and inside each rack, they must use expensive scissor lifts and reach into the growing bed to look for diseases or pests. This process is time-consuming and reaching over plants also presents a food safety hazard. Nate Storey uses vertical planes instead of horizontal planes for his indoor farm, allowing for better airflow, lower heat production, and easier access for workers. This shift from horizontal to vertical planes with better airflow also improves food safety while lowering energy consumption and labor costs.

Labor

Some indoor farmers believe that their greatest challenge is finding labor who have the necessary skills and educational background to monitor the crops at all hours. Indoor farming companies look for candidates with a deep understanding of plant biology and data manipulation. Even though indoor growing is not a new concept, recent operations are on a much larger scale than previous operations, and it is sometimes difficult to find enough people with relevant knowledge and experience. David Rosenberg of AeroFarms says, “While hiring is a challenge, ensuring the right people are running indoor ag businesses is also of utmost importance as the industry scales.” The labor force of an indoor farm operation must oversee the massive amount of crops without cutting corners on food safety.

What’s the Catch?

red and blue fishing trawlers at port

Our oceans, rivers, and lakes are the last “farmable” frontiers. While we may not consider ourselves “hunters and gathers” anymore, we are still hunting the waters for 55% of the fish we consume and farming the remaining 45%.

Whether it is sushi or sautéed snapper, roughly 6.2 billion people— 84% of the global population— incorporate fish into their weekly diet.  In just 14 years, it is anticipated that there will be an additional one billion people on this planet— who will certainly continue to eat fish as well! But can the oceans provide enough sustainable fish for everyone?

The massive amount of fish (167 million metric tonnes) that are caught (55%) and farmed (45%) each year provides each person in the world with approximately 44 pounds of available fish per year.  To put this into perspective, the average American consumes about 16 pounds of fish and shellfish per year, compared to those in Iceland, who consume 90 pounds per year and those in Japan, who consume 53 pounds per person per year.

Fishing in fresh and salt waters has remained consistent at roughly 92 million metric tonnes of catch per year since 2009. Out of the 81 million metric tonnes of just wild ocean fish (versus wild freshwater fish), China is responsible for catching the largest quantity weighting in at 18% of the world total, followed by Indonesia (7%) and the United States (6%).

If we keep up this pace, how can we feed an additional 1 billion people by 2030?  If the fish consumption pattern holds, the world would need 32.2 million metric tonnes of more fish— without depleting our oceans.

Our oceans, rivers, and lakes are overfished….

For 40,000 years—beginning with our hunting and gathering ancestors— fishing has been both a sport and a primary food source for the human race. In fact, over-fishing the oceans first began in the era of Moby Dick when the schooners searched the global oceans for whale oil. And while it is nearly impossible to count the exact amount of fish in our oceans, it is clear that they have been overfished.


Adapted from an infographic produced by the Pew Charitable Trusts and The Sea Around Us.

Factors which contribute to overfishing in our oceans are aggressive fishing, lack of regulations, by-catch, and illegal fishing. Illegal fishing accounts for 15% of total captured fish. This pirating can take many forms such as fishing in protected areas, not reporting the full catch, or claiming a different country of origin. Boats registered to Africa, for example, are exempt from any regulatory approval.

Our waters at a glance

The FAO reports that 30 percent of our oceans are overexploited.

The World Wildlife Fund agrees that “more than 85 percent of the world’s fisheries have been pushed to or beyond their biological limits and are in need of strict management plans to restore them”.

SNAPP (Science for Nature and People Partnerships) says that over the last 40 years, marine life has been slashed in half and 90% of the swordfish and tuna have disappeared since the 1950s.


Source: The State of World Fisheries, http://www.fao.org/

Overfishing in the world’s rivers and lakes has quadrupled since 1950 to 8.7 million metric tonnes, particularly in China where there are 12 million fishermen.

The technology behind large commercial fishing boats

According to the FAO, there are approximately 4.6 million fishing boats cruising the oceans to catch for dinner or sell commercially. Asia controls 75% of these boats while Africa controls 15%. But these boats are incredibly diverse. It is amazing to think that of the world’s fishing boats, only 64% operate with an engine! Obviously, the ones that have engines are far more efficient. The larger factory ships, for example, have huge freezers and new fishing technology that helps to locate and catch previously undetected fish. As a result, they are capable of hauling a tremendous amount of fish and bycatch. The bycatch ultimately gets wasted.

Nowadays, fishing vessels must be equipped with electronic devices, or “blue boxes”, which form part of the satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS). The blue box regularly sends data about the location of the vessel to the fisheries monitoring center (FMC). Vessels are also equipped with GPS transmitters which track the ship’s speed and position.

By-catch and the ocean habitat

Whether a vessel is trolling nets along the seabed floor to catch bottom feeders (like shellfish) or casting huge nets in the water, there is an unintended by-catch. Fish such as cod, haddock, shrimps, lobsters, and scallops get tangled in the nets dragged along the ocean floor.  The nets that are thrown in the water to catch the larger fish often result in other species, such as baby whales, dolphin, and sharks to get caught and killed in the process.

For every pound of fish purposefully caught, there are 5-10 pounds of wild fish killed during the process. Furthermore, the by-catch is not eaten— it is either ground up for fish feed or simply thrown overboard. Finally, these bottom draggers break up coral and disturb the ocean’s habitat. This can be visible, for instance, when there is an overabundance of seaweed on your favorite beach.

So how can we rebuild our fish stocks?

The international community which includes the U.N., FAO, OECD, World Bank, and the EU are all working on separate programs to help rebuild wild fish stocks. Satellites are being utilized to track the fishing vessels and monitor the ships to the port of origin. But it is difficult to control.  For more information, the WWF gives more detail on protecting our oceans in the film ‘From Bait to Plate’ as well as their traceability principles.

Sustainably Farmed Fish

China was farming fish as early as 3500 BCE and the ancient Egyptians and Romans grew fish for an easy varied diet.  Today, aquaculture is the fastest growing protein industry, with a growth rate of roughly 5% annually. In 2015, global aquaculture was valued at $156.27 billion and is expected to reach $209.42 billion in 2021. A 34% increase in just six years! To put this in perspective – in 2014 the U.S. meat and poultry industry sales totaled $186 billion. 

China produces over one-half (62%) of global aquaculture production. Indonesia, India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh are the top five producers after China. The United States aquaculture industry is still small, contributing only about 5%.

But both saltwater and freshwater fish farms have a bad reputation. It is a fragmented industry with some excellent players and some not-so-excellent participants. The issue is the lack of accountability and global regulatory standards. According to SNAPP, 65% of aquaculture is responsible for polluting the oceans, feeding inappropriate food to the fish, adding unnecessary chemicals, and inappropriate worker welfare.

We must start using the sea as farmers instead of hunters. That is what civilization is all about – farming replacing hunting

-Jacques Cousteau

But not all fish farms are the same.  We have discussed some of these issues and differences in our previous posts: A Shrimp’s Tail and Farmed or Wild Salmon.  In the United States, regulations are being examined to allow for more fish farming along the California and Eastern coasts. Consumer demand is forcing more transparency in the industry, and in response, there are a growing number of small and large indoor fish farms in states like North Dakota, South Carolina, Mississippi, and New Hampshire. These fish farms are employing safe and regulated business practices. Blue Ridge Aquaculture, for example, is the largest producer of tilapia and is located in Virginia.

Around the world, there are indoor and outdoor farms that are also focused on transparency and quality.  Cooke Aquaculture, which has farms located in Canada, the U.S., Scotland, Spain, and Chile, is fully integrated with salmon, sea bass, and sea bream. Cermaq is one of the largest salmon farmers in Norway, Chile, and Canada.  Nireus Aquaculture, partnering with the WWF, is the largest Mediterranean Aquaculture company in the world.  Madagascar shrimp producer Unima is the first shrimp producer in Africa to receive the ASC certification.  Finally, the Chinese government is recognizing that they must ensure their farms do not pollute the environment.  In response to this, they are working with the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) to grow sustainable and certified fish. But until we see valid third-party certifications from imported fish – you don’t know exactly what is on your dinner plate.

Fish can be vegetarians!

Feeding fish with other fish is not sustainable. The total amount of fish caught and farmed is 167 million metric tons. Of this amount, 146 million metric tons are needed to feed humans and roughly 21 millionmetric tons are used to feed farmed fish or in human supplements. But, this practice is actually pretty unnecessary.

There are two nonexclusive, more sustainable, solutions to this problem. A fish food company, EWOS, is currently partaking in both.

Fish Farm of the Future Goes Vegetarian

1. When fish are processed, depending on the type of fish, about 40-70% is wasted. This is particularly bad if they are being fileted on the fishing boat, as the discarded portion of fish is often tossed overboard. These trimmings can be fully utilized for fish feed.

2. It is possible to turn fish into vegetarians. All fish require is a diet that is still high in omega-3s and DHA in order to ensure sufficient nutritional value. For instance, replacing fish oil with alternatives such as algal oil, canola, flax, soy, pistachios, or even insects would help keep our oceans full of fish. Additionally, including vitamins, phospholipids, essential fatty acids, trace minerals, and even probiotics will help produce healthy fish for us to eat.  Partners in Europe have introduced an innovative cloud tool called AquaSmart which will help fish farmers manage their profitability, feed, and production to ensure a strong profit and sustainable practices protect the environment. 

How do you find sustainable fish?

Sustainably farmed fish is the future of aquaculture. We want full transparency into where the fish on our plate comes from. This means we want to know that the fish was fed a healthy diet, that it was raised in an environmentally responsible farm, and that the employees in the fish industry were not exploited in the process. Here are some organizations that are trying to reshape the industry:

Google  supports two organizations that bring fresh, transparent seafood to the restaurant within 24 hours through Dock to Dish and Thimble Island Oyster Farm.

Grocery stores, like Target and Whole foods, are only buying fish that is sustainable and traceable.

 


Marine Stewardship Council

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Naturland

Whole Foods Responsibly Farmed

Innovations in Indoor Farming

large commercial greenhouse growing leafy greens

Indoor agriculture is no longer just for the greenhouse…”farmland” is now on a rooftop, contained in a repurposed shipping container, and made vertical in a multi-level warehouse. Because of new technologies and consumer demand, this fast-growing industry will play an important role in our food supply chain.

Local and Fresh

As consumers, we are looking for transparency in the food supply chain. Where is our food coming from? Is it safe? How was it grown? New farming technologies help answer that for fresh greens, herbs, and some veggies, which can be grown almost anywhere.  For instance, 90% of the salad greens we eat are produced in California and Arizona. However, companies like Gotham Greens and BrightFarms let urban dwellers buy locally-grown greens as soon as 24 hours after harvest. That certainly has a lot of appeal! It is more nutritious, tastes better, and can be cheaper as it cuts out much of the transportation costs.

 
graphic adapted from www.indoorag.com

Making an Environmental Impact

Amid projections that the world’s population will grow from today’s 7.5 billion to 9.6 billion by 2050, the environmental pressures on our water, soil, and land are increasing. Alternative forms of agriculture offer another way to alleviate some of these stresses, especially in urban areas where adequate farmland is limited. Creating “farmland” from unused space is in the future. High-tech growers use hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics methods to grow leafy greens and vegetables. Large metropolitan cities, like Chicago and New York, and cold regions with limited growing seasons, like Northern Minnesota and Wyoming, have the ability to grow local crops all year round via indoor “farmland”.

A recent report from Cornell University and several other organizations found that revenue could be up to 4000x higher in indoor farming systems because of the ability for multiple year-round harvests, higher yield per acre and higher retail pricing (a premium for local or organic). For example, lettuce grown by a conventional farmer will have 4-5 harvests each year, whereas an indoor farmer can have as many as 18 harvests per year. According to the USDA, the average yield for an outdoor farmer was about 30,000 pounds per acre and indoor farmers reported an average of 340,000 pounds per acre.

Head lettuce growing vertically hydroponically in a Freight Farm. Source: Freight Farm

In addition to this increase in productivity, indoor farming practices also significantly reduce the environmental impact compared to that of a traditional farm. Indoor farms reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimize waste, and recycle water to produce the best, most sustainable crop. On average, they use 85% less water, 80% less fertilizer, 70% less land than conventional farming. In addition, these companies utilize sophisticated technologies to improve facility construction, LED lighting, water circulation, plant nutrient delivery, and environmental controls.

Meet the ’Ponics: Hydro, Aero, and Aqua

Because of these advancements, hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic farming systems are quickly moving from the realm of “experimental technology” to verified commercial applications. Researchers and growers alike have turned indoor systems into working models of sustainable food production. According to the report “Vertical Farming Market”, the market is estimated to reach $3.88 billion by 2020, at a compounded annual growth rate of 30.7% between 2015 and 2020. The factors driving the vertical farming market include the need for high-quality food without pesticides, less dependency on weather, produce availability for an increasingly urban population, and the need for year-round production.

Hydroponics

Hydroponic farming is a method of growing plants in water, without soil. Plants are fed minerals and nutrients directly in the water where the roots grow.  This is particularly good for greens and vegetables.

Simple hydroponics: Nutrients are added to a tank of water to create a nutrient reservoir which is kept separate from the plants. The water is then pumped up a network of tubes, and released to the plants.
image source: hydroponicsgrower


Hydroponically grown lettuce. Image source: citycrop

 

Aeroponics

Aeroponics is a subset of hydroponics, but instead of the minerals and nutrients circulating within the root chamber, it is misted to the roots at regular intervals. NASA began studying the feasibility of plants grown aeroponically in 1990 as a way to have crew members grow their own food while circling Earth.


source: Aerofarms

Aquaponics

Aquaponics works on the basic idea of a closed production system. Farmed fish produce waste that is the perfect fertilizer for plants. Plants utilize the waste and filter the water to give the fish a clean habitat. The Aztecs grew a wide variety of crops such as maize, squash, and other plants in tandem with rearing fish for food. And as early as the 6th century, Chinese farmers reared ducks, finfish, and catfish in a symbiotic cycle: the finfish were fed with duck droppings, the catfish were fed with the finfish waste, and any “leftover food” was used to supply the nutrients to the rice in the paddy fields.


image source: www.aquaponicsresource.com/

Where Do These ’Ponics Live?


Freight Farms is bringing farming to the city. image source: FreightFarms

…shipping containers

Freight Farms, based in Boston, uses the “Leafy Green Machine” (LGM), to harvest year-round in any region of the U.S. The LGM is a pre-assembled hydroponic farm inside an up-cycled freight container. The hydroponic system automatically delivers precise water and nutrients for maximum crop development and uses LED lights optimized for each stage of the growing cycle. Vertical growing towers maximize space and create a high-density growing environment.

Alaska’s Vertical Harvest Hydroponics also uses repurposed shipping containers to grow fresh greens in the most inhospitable environments. What makes shipping containers unique is that they are transportable, can fit in small spaces, and can withstand extreme temperatures without affecting the crop. The modular tower system from ZipFarms is adaptable to a hydroponic or aquaponic system and can be utilized by commercial growers and backyard growers alike.

…rooftops and greenhouses

Gotham Greens has built and operated over 170,000 square feet of technologically-advanced, urban rooftop greenhouses across four facilities in New York City and Chicago. They have partnered with Whole Foods and have built their greenhouses in strategic urban areas to distribute fresh produce within 24 hours of picking to retail operations. And their annual produce production? 200,000 pounds! Equivalent to 100 acres of conventional field farming.


Gotham Greens greenhouses in Greenpoint, Brooklyn

Bright Farms and Mighty Vine are further examples of high tech agriculture companies innovating and developing ways to grow indoors. BrightFarms finances, designs, and operates greenhouse farms at or near supermarkets, cutting time, distance, and cost from the produce supply chain. They operate three on-the-ground greenhouses in the greater Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Chicago metro areas. MightyVine, based in Chicago, grows tomatoes all year round in sophisticated greenhouses using vertical growing methods, which produce 900,000 lbs of tomatoes per month in peak season!

…in a warehouse

New Jersey-based vertical farming company, AeroFarms approaches food production with aeroponics to mist the roots of greens with nutrients, water, and oxygen. The company asserts that its closed loop aeroponic system uses 95% less water than field farming, 40% less than hydroponics, and zero pesticides. Their growing technology is very modular and can be adapted to different repurposed industrial spaces. And they harvest up to 2 million pounds per year with this system.

 

While no one expects that urban agriculture will never replace traditional farming, it relieves some of the pressure off rural land and satisfies some of the demands for local and sustainable agriculture.

Additionally, Green Sense Farms, from Indiana, harvests 26 times a year and since it has teamed up with grocery stores, restaurants, caterers and produce companies.

How Safe is Our Food?

fresh fruit at farmers market

Contributing writers Susan Leaman and Diane Wetherington have extensive experience and knowledge in the food industry. Susan works with companies and associations to develop solutions that address produce-related food safety issues; and Diane is CEO of iDecisionSciences, LLC, a provider of specialty crop consulting services, and iFoodDS, Inc., a software solutions provider for the food industry.

One of the most important underlying considerations to the food industry supply chain is food safety. As consumers, we are familiar with the more popular food recalls such as Listeria monocytogenes, pathogenic E. coli, and Salmonella—but here is a look at the bigger picture. Industry experts Susan Leaman and Diane Wetherington provide an overview of what food safety encompasses in the food supply chain.

How does food become contaminated?

Food is considered contaminated – or “adulterated” in official jargon – when something potentially harmful is found in or added to it. Food contaminants are categorized in three ways: chemical, physical, or biological.

Chemical contaminants, such as heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, arsenic, lead), may occur naturally in the soil or as a component of an agricultural chemical and are taken up by the plant as it grows. Chemical contaminants may also be deposited in the soil and/or plants from the surrounding environment (i.e., from a nearby landfill or the smokestack of a nearby factory).


@Scott Hilburn

Foreign material, such as metal fragments, stones, rodents, bugs, hair, etc. in a finished food product is considered a physical contaminant and can contaminate the food crop during harvest and transportation or when it is in the processing or manufacturing facility.

Biological contamination is what we most often hear or read about in the news. The most common biological contaminants are microorganisms – food safety professionals call them human pathogens and the rest of us commonly call them “germs”. Most of these germs are undetectable by smell or any visible signs caused by spoilage that may make the food inedible. You wouldn’t choose to eat a mushy apple over a crisp one, for example. But this does not necessarily mean the food is unsafe. However, some microorganisms such as parasites, viruses, and bacteria when consumed in a large enough amount, can make you sick. A sickness caused by eating food contaminated with parasites, viruses, and pathogenic bacteria is called foodborne illness. These germs can be introduced into food at any point from production through food preparation and delivery. For example, wildlife may enter a field and defecate on the crops, manure can be improperly composted, trucks may have contaminated cargo areas, and workers preparing food may have unclean hands.

Any food that does not receive a treatment to kill harmful germs is more susceptible to contamination. Unpeeled, raw, or undercooked foods are most susceptible to germs due to inappropriate handling of raw food and cross-contamination onto cutting boards, knives, and kitchen counters. Cooking or pasteurizing food for a specific amount of time at a threshold temperature kills human pathogens. Proper kitchen safety is also important.

Which foods have been associated with foodborne illness outbreaks?

In 2013, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an assessment of the foodborne illness outbreaks that occurred in the U.S. between 1998 and 2008 (Painter, 2013). The agency evaluated the outbreak-related data by the type of hazard (bacterial, chemical, parasitic, and viral) and food deemed responsible based on the outbreak investigation, and found that 34.2% were attributed to contaminated vegetables, 13.8% to dairy products, 12.2% to meat, and 11.7% to fruits and nuts. The majority of foodborne illness outbreaks were caused by viruses (57%) and bacteria (38%) while parasites and chemicals caused 2% and 3%, respectively.

Foods Associated with Foodborne Illness:

  • Raw foods of animal origin, that is, raw meat and poultry, raw eggs, unpasteurized milk, and raw shellfish are the most likely to be contaminated.
  • Fruits and vegetables can also be contaminated with animal waste when manure is used to fertilize produce in the field, or unclean water is used for washing the produce.
  • Raw sprouts are particularly concerning because the conditions under which they are sprouted are ideal for growing microbes.
  • Unpasteurized fruit juices or cider can also be contaminated if there are pathogens on the fruit that is used to make it.
  • Any food item that is touched by a person who is ill with vomiting or diarrhea, or who has recently had such an illness, can become contaminated. When these food items are not subsequently cooked (e.g., salads, cut fruit) they can pass the illness to other people.

For the curious, the CDC’s foodborne illness outbreak online database (FOOD tool) is available here, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also publishes a record of foods recalled due to contamination.

So are foodborne illness outbreaks really increasing in frequency?

Not necessarily. We are more aware of food recalls because of reporting systems, testing programs, and the ability to detect pathogens.

Communicating foodborne illnesses through reporting systems that link health care providers and public health agencies have greatly improved since the mid-1990s.  Surveillance of the food supply by government agencies and product testing by food manufacturers has also increased, leading to more product recalls. Finally, technological advancements have made it possible to detect pathogens in lower amounts.

What is the food industry doing to prevent food contamination?

There are various stakeholders that play a role in ensuring the safety of our food supply. Although you may occasionally read the news of people who knowingly put contaminated food into commerce, by far, the vast majority of those involved in producing our food are very concerned about the safety of consumers – after all, their family and friends eat the food, too.

Farms

At the farm level, numerous food safety guidelines or good agricultural practices (GAPs) have been established by industry with the help of trade associations, government agencies, and other food safety experts. GAPs address the use of water, soil amendments, tools, and equipment; the hygiene of field personnel; what to do if a field floods or if animal feces are found in the field during harvest; and many other circumstances that compromise the safety of the crop. Some of these guidelines are the basis for voluntary food safety programs; some are enforced under mandatory programs (e.g., California Cantaloupe Safety Standards) while still others are mandatory after a company voluntarily joins the program (e.g., Arizona and California Leafy Green Handler Marketing Agreements).

Food Service, Retailers, and Food Packing/Processing
Companies

Companies that pack, process, or manufacture foods implement various practices, processes, and procedures have been required by law to implement good manufacturing practices (GMPs). Although the rules have been updated over the years, current GMPs cover facility design, conditions of the grounds around facilities, cleaning and sanitation of facilities and equipment, pest control, worker hygiene, workflow, and other potential sources of contamination.

Non-profit Organizations and Third-Party Auditors

There are also various international non-profit organizations that maintain food safety schemes established by working groups and committees of industry, government, and academic food safety professionals. The Global Food Safety Initiative is one of these international organizations that certifies food safety schemes against a set of industry-derived standards. Farms and food manufacturing companies subscribe to these schemes, often at the behest of their customers, and third-party auditing companies evaluate and score the manufacturer’s performance against the scheme’s standards.

Since 2009, food manufacturing and processing facilities are required to be registered with the FDA and report when any microbial test results are positive. When microbial testing indicates that food is contaminated/adulterated with human pathogensa recall is issued. In addition to food companies self-reporting contamination, the FDA routinely inspects food manufacturing/processing facilities, and if they find conditions that compromise the safety of the food (i.e., unsanitary conditions), the agency issues warning letters that are made public. Facilities then have an allotted amount of time to address the issues, and if they fail to do so, they can ultimately be shut down. This is exactly what happened in 2012 to a food manufacturing company that made organic nut-butters for Trader Joe’s. Based on numerous GMP violations, the company’s own product testing records, and the FDA’s microbial test results, the agency shut down operations after the facility failed to properly address the violations.

The Food Safety Modernization Act

In 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) became law. The FSMA upgraded existing laws governing food manufacturers and processors, and more significantly, for the first time, included oversight of food production on farms. Prior to the FSMA, farms were not inspected by the FDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, aside from a foodborne illness outbreak, government regulators were not authorized to inspect a farm. This means FDA regulators were unable to investigate the facilities, fields, coolers, food storage areas, etc., and to question the operators about their practices.

As part of FSMA, the FDA wanted to better understand how food is grown for every commodity. It was important for them not to make the rules so onerous that farmers would go out of business. Thus, the FDA visited farms, held public meetings to hear farmers’ and consumers’ concerns, and revised the rules they proposed based on the feedback from industry and the public. By 2018, the FDA will begin conducting both announced and unannounced inspections of farms. They will begin inspecting large farms (produce sales > $500,000) with inspections of smaller farms phased-in over the next five years. Farms making less than $25,000 are excluded from FDA inspection, and other small farms will have less stringent requirements if their food sales are less than $500,000, and 50% of their crop is sold directly to consumers or retail food establishments/restaurants.

In 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) became law. The FSMA upgraded existing laws governing food manufacturers and processors, and more significantly, for the first time, included oversight of food production on farms.

Under FSMA, food manufacturers and processors will also be required to establish and implement a food safety plan and a supply-chain program that addresses how to reduce and minimize the potential for food to become contaminated from biological, chemical, or physical hazards and what to do when contamination occurs (i.e., corrective action procedures and product recall plans). As part of the food safety plans, food manufacturers and processors will need to verify that the implemented practices and procedures to control hazards and prevent contamination are indeed working. Verification procedures may involve testing raw or finished product and/or food production areas and equipment for microorganisms. And just like the new rules and standards for farms, announced and unannounced inspections of large food manufacturers and processors will begin next year with compliance deadlines phased in over the next several years for smaller companies.

Joining the FDA in overseeing the safety of the nation’s food supply on the federal level is the USDA and the CDC. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health agency responsible for the safety of meat, poultry and egg products. USDA inspectors are on-site at meat production facilities to ensure that best practices are being implemented to reduce the potential for contamination. The CDC is the federal public health agency in charge of identifying and tracking foodborne illness outbreaks in the U.S. and assists other countries in doing so as well. Other government agencies that are involved in food safety are state and local health department and state agricultural departments.

So what do you do if you think you had a case of foodborne illness?

The CDC collaborates with the FDA and USDA in foodborne illness outbreak investigations, helping to identify what caused the outbreak and alerting the public when a source is identified.

 


As illustrated in the timelines, it all starts when sick individuals go to the hospital or their doctor or contact their local health departments to report illnesses that they believe occurred from consuming contaminated food. These reports, often accompanied by microbiological testing, are then relayed to state health departments and the CDC. The CDC collaborates with the FDA and USDA in foodborne illness outbreak investigations, helping to identify what caused the outbreak and alerting the public when a source is identified. Methods for connecting foodborne illness cases to one another and the food source have vastly improved over the past decade resulting in increased identification of foodborne illness outbreaks. This phenomenon, not higher risk of illness, is the primary reason you are hearing and reading more about foodborne illness outbreaks.

A Sustainable Shrimp’s Tail

uncooked shell on shrimp

Thanks to his best friend Bubba, Forrest Gump made his fortune on shrimp. He certainly isn’t the only shrimp fan. Shrimp are a delicious and versatile fish and even more popular than the omega-3 filled salmon and tuna. The average American consumes 92 shrimp per year. Whether you choose shrimp cocktail, grilled shrimp skewers, or even shrimp scampi, shrimp dishes can offer a nutritious, low-calorie protein source that also provides a significant amount of selenium, vitamin B1, and copper.

Where is our shrimp coming from?

Shrimp is farmed, fished, and shipped all over the world. The United States imports close to 90% of all shrimp. A little more than half (roughly 55%) are farmed and the remaining are wild-caught by shrimp trawlers.

Despite its popularity, sustainably grown shrimp that are clean, good for you, and good for the environment are hard to find. Aquaculture is a relatively new and unregulated industry compared to the other of proteins of poultry, beef, and pork. The business of shrimp is challenged because it is fraught with sustainability issues such as environmental, employee welfare, and food safety.

However, the shrimp industry is evolving to establish best farming and fishing practices. The future focus from governments, corporations, shrimp farmers, shrimp feed manufacturers, and consumers is to consider and follow best sustainable practices. Currently, not all farms and not all governments have the same approach to shrimp farming practices – some are better than others.

We have outlined the issues below to help clarify why it is important to choose shrimp that is grown or harvested using best farming practices. This is an instance where the consumer can demand sustainable shrimp by asking where and how the shrimp are caught or farmed. Consumers can also look at the packaging labels to determine if the shrimp is caught or farmed sustainably.

Wild Shrimp

When you see shrimp in the wild many species are quite colorful, with their tentacles waving in the water as they sit on their spindly legs tucked in-between the coral waiting for a tasty morsel to swim by. While wild shrimp swim mostly in warm ocean coastal waters, about 25% can be found in fresh rivers and some are even found in the Arctic Ocean. All shrimp are bottom feeders, living as deep as 16,000 feet. This means they sift through the sand and eat everything from algae, plankton, small fish, and other dead organisms. They are an important part of the aquatic ecosystem.  Shrimp are food for large fish like dolphins, whales, and even other crustaceans, like crabs.

Brown shrimp – the official state crustacean of Alabama and Texas. image

80% of the shrimp harvested in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic region.  The most common varieties are brown, pink and white shrimp. There are more than 1,900 species of shrimp, but less than 20 are important for commercial purposes.

The environmental concerns with wild shrimp revolve around the fishing method. Fishing trawlers use large weighted nets that drag along the ocean floor and collect all the available shrimp. Unfortunately, other species such as red snappers, sea turtles and other juvenile fish are the by-catch without a feasible escape route. Furthermore, dragging weights along the ocean floor is damaging to the coral beds which destroys the habitat for smaller fish.

Most common types of shrimp found in the US. image

Fortunately, in the United States, all shrimp trawlers are required to have holes in their nets, which let the other sea life out of the net before it is brought to the surface. In parts of the Gulf, the trawlers consider the coral beds and only catch shrimp on a sandy sea floor, thus not disturbing other sea animals or their habitat. Unfortunately, shrimp trawling in other parts of the world are not as regulated.

Farmed Shrimp

In 2015, the estimated production of farmed shrimp was about two million tons. The majority of shrimp farms are located in China (41%), Indonesia (13%), Vietnam and India (8%).  USDA data shows that the United States imports most of our shrimp from India (23%), Indonesia (17%), Thailand (16%), Ecuador (14%), and Vietnam (10%).

Some farmed shrimp stationed along the coastal waters can cause environmental damage. The “farm” in this case is really just a pond of up to about 250 acres which is cut into the mangrove forests. These forests are a predominant ecological system that supports the diverse coastal sea life and act as a buffer for the land against storms.

Shrimp farming practices can result in dirty water due to fish waste, overfeeding, antibiotics, chemical disinfectants, and overcrowding. Once the harvest occurs, all that dirty water goes right into the ocean and is harmful to marine life such as manatees, lobsters, and every other living thing that swims or lives nearby.


Fish farm impacting mangroves in Belize. image: http://ocean.si.edu/mangroves

In order to maximize shrimp output, farmers overstock their ponds and can overfeed their shrimp-stock. There can be as many as 150 shrimp in the space of an average size TV rather than the recommended 60-80 shrimp in a cubic yard. Another consequence of the dirty water is that the fresh groundwater can be polluted unless the ponds are lined with heavy duty plastics. The salt water in the ponds can leach into the fresh groundwater, hurting the communities who live in the area.

Overcrowding makes the shrimp very vulnerable to deadly shrimp diseases such as the white spot syndrome virus and early mortality syndrome. In 2012 and 2013, early mortality syndrome affected shrimp production in China, Thailand, and Malaysia. Antibiotics are heavily used to help keep the shrimp healthy. The FDA recognizes this dependence on antibiotics and has turned away 30% more shrimp from India due to illegal antibiotic residues.

What happens once the shrimp are harvested?

Once these farmed shrimp are harvested, they are transferred to a processing plant where they are either cleaned, beheaded, breaded, canned, shelled, and/or packaged. Each processing plant has their specialty, and of course, some processing facilities are cleaner and better than others. If gloves are not worn or proper precautions are not taken, shrimp can carry diseases such as staph infections and food poisoning.

Finally, some facilities in Asia, Thailand specifically, have been targeted with adult and child slave labor to peel the shrimp. They are known for forcing employees to stand for 16 hours without much of a break and with little opportunity to escape. Not only is this illegal and incredibly dangerous for the employee, but it also compromises the food safety of the shrimp that is being packaged.

The shrimp industry is changing for the better

The majority of shrimp farming is loosely regulated and this just may dissuade you from ever cooking coconut sautéed shrimp forever. But that does not mean that ALL shrimp are poorly managed. In 2006, the World Wildlife Fund, the FAO, the Network of Aquaculture Centre’s in Asia-Pacific, the World Bank, and the United Nations Environmental Program all recognized that shrimp farming needed stronger guidelines. These organizations established a set of eight principles that are recommended and encouraged for shrimp farmers around the world.  These standards take environmental sustainability, food safety, feed management, and social responsibility into consideration.

Ecuador, Belize, United States, and South American countries have also recognized that consumers and buyers alike are searching for more transparency in their food supply. They are regulating food safety, employee welfare, and environmental standards on their farms as well as incorporating modern technology in their farming practices. The World Wildlife Fund also works closely with shrimp farmers in Thailand to eliminate mangrove destruction, pollution, and illegal fishing and labor practices.

Innovation is also taking hold in the United States. Shrimp farmers in states like Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa have taken the food safety and environmental standards to heart. They own huge closed recirculating aquaculture systems contained indoor tanks which can manage the environmental issues, control the water temperature and quality, and have no interaction with the wild species. This undertaking is not for the faint of heart. The start-up costs are large and the heating bills are high. There is even a risk of losing an entire tank if the farmer doesn’t get the water salinity correct. But the payoffs are big as shrimp can be easier and cheaper to feed than cattle, pigs, or chickens. Finally, the demand for sustainable shrimp is high.

Providing healthy shrimp food is an integral component for a healthy harvest. Some shrimp farmers skimp on the quality of the product. Those that use best practices feed their shrimp fishmeal, cereal grains, and soybean meal. At this stage, astute farmers will introduce probiotics.  While they are not a silver bullet, probiotics in combination with multiple strategies can keep shrimp healthy as well.

How do you know what shrimp to buy?

Third-party certifications below can help you quickly discern which shrimp follow sustainable standards.  You can also check out the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch for information on specific species.


Marine Stewardship Council

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Naturland

Whole Foods Responsibly Farmed

Marine Stewardship Council: Indicates that wild shrimp are caught using sustainable fishing practices. That can include outfitting nets with devices that allow other animals to escape.

Aquaculture Stewardship Council: Indicates shrimp are raised without antibiotics and according to guidelines that protect the environment. This label also ensures that shrimp farms do not use forced labor. However, the guidelines permit the use of certain chemicals, including some pesticides, and don’t limit the number of shrimp in the pond.

Naturland:  These are Monterey Bay Aquarium standards for Organic Shrimp. Indicates that shrimp are farmed following guidelines that prohibit over-stocking of shrimp ponds and the use of chemicals, including antibiotics, pesticides, and disinfectants. Shrimp are fed food made of sustainably caught fish meal, and farms do not use forced labor.

Whole Foods Market Responsibly Farmed: Certifies that shrimp are raised in conditions that protect the environment, without antibiotics, and with limited use of chemicals. But there’s no limit on the density of shrimp in ponds. This label is found only at Whole Foods Market stores.

Does Activated Charcoal Detoxify?

glass with charcoal drink, mint and pineapple

Let’s be honest with ourselves, if a product states “cleansing properties” or “eliminates toxins”, our interests are perked. There are numerous “quick fixes” targeting hopeful dieters, and we all have fallen victim to these marketing ploys at one time or another. Whether they are packaged as juices, supplements, or food, “quick fixes” are never going to fix a problem created by an unhealthy lifestyle.

Activated charcoal is believed detoxify our bodies from impurities and toxins we come into contact with on a daily basis. But, do we even truly understand what a toxin is? These days, terms like “toxins” are thrown around so frequently that they often lose their meaning. We know that toxins are harmful and can enter your body through many different channels. But what else should we know?

Toxins are everywhere and can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed. Certain behaviors like overeating, indulging in processed foods, lack of exercise, poor diet, and excess alcohol prevent your body from working efficiently to remove toxins.

Of course, we are realists and it can be hard to avoid temptation! Because of this, Americans often rely on crash diets to solve bad long term habits. This is where we often go wrong! Juice cleanses, for example, have taken on a life of their own. The cold-pressed juice industry is currently estimated at $100 million! But, as we have reviewed on D2D, your body already has the tools to naturally detoxify.

Activated charcoal is one of the newest quick fixes that claims to target the toxins in your body. Why activated charcoal, you ask? We were wondering the same thing.

Activated charcoal is created for medicinal purposes through a controlled heating process. Performed in a lab, heat, and gas are applied to charcoal to make it increasingly porous. These pores are what allow the charcoal to capture hazardous substances when administered by a medical professional to remove poison, chemicals, or drug overdoses from your body. Typically, when activated charcoal is administered in the hospital, the objective is to get the patient in question to vomit so the charcoal absorbs the chemical with its millions of tiny pores.

However, the idea of using charcoal as a healthy drink to target toxins is not very feasible. Yes, activated charcoal is able to trap substances, but there is no way for the charcoal molecules to differentiate between beneficial substances inside your body and harmful ones! Therefore, when you consume activated charcoal you risk eliminating essential minerals and vitamins from your body.

While activated charcoal is believed to help your skin health, digestive system, and alleviate gas and bloating, the science behind the activated charcoal does not exist.

In an interview with Time MagazineDr. Kent Olson, medical director of the San Francisco Poison Control System and clinical professor of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco discussed the medicinal uses of activated charcoal. “‘The problem with charcoal is that it’s non-specific. It’ll bind to anything…that could include toxins as well as nutrients. Remember that might include vitamins and amino acids and other things you actually need in your diet.’” (Dr. Kent Olson for Time Magazine, 2016)


image source:www.intothegloss.com

Recently, companies like GoopJuice Generation, and Shape Magazine have touted the benefits of activated charcoal. In fact, Juice Generation has even created a new line of activated charcoal juice products that are said to target the toxins in your body. These juices are now the company’s best selling products. According to the label, they are able to take a traditional green juice to the next level. And while the products certainly will not hurt you, they do highlight a common disconnect between seller and consumer.

Unfortunately, these labels do not mention the large lack of research behind this detoxifying phenomenon. In the past 30 years, 159 human studies have been performed pertaining to activated charcoal, almost all of which were for medicinal application. In a 2015 meta-analysis of these studies, Dr. Thomas Pirelli Ph.D., of Harvard University, examines the results of research pertaining to the use of activated charcoal. There were only two reported human studies pertaining to the claim that activated charcoal helps intestinal gas. One study stated that the activated charcoal did improve gas and bloating while the other did not. 

Most simply put, extensive research just doesn’t exist. Not to mention, our understanding of activated charcoal’s composition suggests the substance can eliminate equal parts of nutrients to toxins. So, while there may be a teeny tiny chance that activated charcoal might help a severe hangover or temporarily reduce internal gas, it is not something you need to incorporate into your everyday routine.

Going…Going…Local!

tractor, american flag, sunflowers

Most of us will never pull a carrot from the ground, milk a cow, slaughter a pig or gather eggs from our own hens. Those days of rugged self-sufficiency are gone and aren’t likely to return. Yet people are increasingly aware that their hyper accelerated, super improved lives are missing something. They are rethinking not only what they eat, but where it comes from. This crusade has a name: The Local Food Movement.

Douglas Gayeton, Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America.

It is high summer in the U.S. and if you are not enjoying freshly picked fruits and vegetables then it is time that you visit your nearest farmers market for some locally grown food!  We feel better when we buy peaches from a local farmer’s market versus a cold air-conditioned grocery store.

What is “local” food?

Well, it often isn’t as local as you are probably thinking!  “Local” should imply a close geographic relationship between you and where your food was grown—but, there are no third-party certifications, set production standards or required growing practices under federal programs that support local or regional foods. “Local food” does not provide any indication of food qualities such as freshness or nutritional value, and the term cannot be used as a reliable indicator that that food was grown organically or sustainably.

Ultimately, what defines local depends on the level of access to food, the geography, and the lens of the consumer.

There are a few states, such Vermont and Connecticut, that have established rules to define local as within the borders of the state, but with no consistency in definition throughout the United States, the door is open for unscrupulous sellers! A perfect example might be a Massachusetts grocer selling “local” tomatoes for the 4th of July. Hmmm…the tomato harvest in New England generally starts at the end of July. That tomato was probably grown in New Jersey or Maryland and trucked to supermarkets in the north. Is that local? You see where the confusion lies. As the local food market continues to expand, there’s growing concern that the term “local” could become another confusing label such as “natural“, organic,” “grass-fed” and “antibiotic free.”

Generally, according to Mintel Research, consumers trust that local food is grown within a 100-mile radius or in-State. The most widely recognized definition comes from the 2008 Farm Bill, which states the total distance for a “locally or regionally produced agricultural food product” as less than 400 miles from its origin or within the State in which it is produced. To put this into perspective, this distance could be an entire day’s drive OR it could be like driving from Cleveland, Ohio to Washington D.C.!

Farms with local food sales represent 7.8 percent of U.S. farms, and while local food sales account for a small percentage (1.5%) of the total value of U.S. agricultural production, it is a growing and differentiated market for producers.

According to industry estimates, the market for local and regional foods was valued at $12 billion in 2014 and is projected to hit $20 billion by 2019.

Local foods are one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture.

  • As of 2014, there were 8,268 farmers’ markets in the United States, up 180 percent since 2007. 
  • The number of regional food hubs has increased almost threefold since 2007, to a total of 302 in 2014. 
  • Farm to school programs has shown a 430-percent increase since 2007.

What comprises a Local or Regional Food System?

source: USDA

  1. The Direct to Consumer Market – Farmers sell their products directly to consumers, rather than through third parties, such as grocery stores. These type of operations include Farmer’s markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and other outlets such as pick your own or roadside farms stands.
  2. The Direct to Retail, Foodservice, and Institution Market –  Farmers will deliver farm products directly to institutions such as grocers, restaurants, schools or hospitals or they may rely on a “food hub,” which is a centralized location to drop off-farm products for distribution amongst multiple establishments.

Does “local” cost more?

Consumers may perceive that it costs more to buy from a farmers market, but research shows that in general, the cost of buying locally grown and/or locally grown certified organic products is competitive with regular supermarket prices. Prices do vary according to commodity, region, and the outlet; and factors such as drought or cold snaps are price influencers as well, but don’t be afraid to spend your money at the local farmers market!!


Source: Vermont Agency of Agriculture

Is “Local” More Nutritious?

There is not a simple answer! It depends on the crop variety, how it is grown, harvested, packaged, and stored. No matter if it is grown 700 or 7 miles away, by the time the fruit or vegetable reaches your plate, many decisions along the production chain have influenced the nutritional quality. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health examined and summarized the influences of this important nutritional question…

Variety: Commercial growers are limited in crop varieties because of yield, shipping durability, and shelf life requirements. Although this is why vegetables and produce are available on our supermarket shelves at any time of the year, these crops are not necessarily bred for flavor and nutrition. Farmers growing for a local market, however, can grow many different varieties of a crop, offering numerous options for consumers, and harvesting crops at peak ripeness optimize the flavor, juiciness, and nutritional value.

Growing Methods: No matter the size of the farm, how a farmer tends to the soil and manages pests is critical. Organic matter, cover crops, letting fields go fallow to let the soil regenerate, and the practice of integrated pest management are some of the methods used by farmers to maintain healthy soil and crops.

Post Harvest Handling: Fresh vegetables are extremely perishable and how they are picked and handled after harvest will affect plant integrity, quality, and nutritional value. It makes little difference what the quality is at harvest if it is reduced by poor handling, packaging, processing or storage conditions. Minimally processed foods such as pre-cut veggies are incredibly convenient, but the cutting, slicing, chopping, and peeling causes injuries to the plant tissues, increasing susceptibility to spoilage and microbial intruders, which can compromise food safety. Studies have shown that nutritional quality is affected as little as three days after harvest. The best nutritional value is attained by picking and eating within a day or two.

Knowing the seasonality of fruits and vegetables in your region goes a long way at the Farmers Market or your local grocers and restaurants!

Try these interactive guides to buying seasonal produce from Sustainable Table and the National Resources Defense Council

Storage: Fruits and vegetables continue respiration and enzymatic activity post-harvest. Temperature, atmosphere, relative humidity, and sanitation are all important to maintain shelf life. How you store your fruits and vegetables at home is important, too. The scientists at UC Davis have put together an excellent guide for home storage of fruits and vegetables.

Is Local Food Greener?

“Food Miles” refers not to how far you travel to get your food, but instead how far the food travels to get to you. Multiple studies (Avetisyan et al., 2013; Weber and Matthews, 2008) have found that there are many more variables involved in determining greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than just how far the food is transported from harvest to plate. Research shows that 83% of the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by how that food was produced. Large farms growing crops suited to their region may use less energy per product and grow more food on less land realizing economies of scale in production and transportation methods. Strategies such as no-till, more efficient irrigation, integrated pest management, judicious fertilizer use, better handling of manure, and leaving fields fallow help offset the greenhouse gas of farms large and small.

The larger discussion now, driven by consumers demanding full transparency, is about sustainability, which concerns the environment, public health, labor workers, and animal welfare. How was the product grown? Were the animals treated humanely? How were the farm workers treated?

A farmer who understands that his customers want full transparency is more likely to adopt sustainable measures of agriculture to sell his product. The relationship and trust between your farmer and your food become far more important than how many miles it took to travel to you.

FIND A FARMERS MARKET NEAR YOU:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/local-food-directories/farmersmarkets

Local food is not a trend.  It’s not a fad hooked to a priority that will fade away.  It’s a vital part of our nation’s diverse food system, born out of consumer demand and driven by the universal connection we have to our community and the farmers and businesses owners who produce the food we eat. Source: USDA

Insects: A New Protein Source

Fried Grasshoppers

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), “insects supplement the diets of approximately 2 billion people.” Moreover, roughly 80% of the world’s population incorporates insects into their diet in some capacity. In the media, using insects as a source of protein has also been dubbed as the future of food. This is partly because the world’s population is estimated to reach nine billion the year 2050! And while we may not be ready to see insect delicacies featured on our local restaurant menu, we need to ask ourselves— how are farmers and food processing companies supposed to feed all these people healthy food?

Companies like ExoChapul, and Entomo Farms are helping the U.S., Canada, and Europe successfully incorporate insects into their diet without the ‘ick factor.’ Through insect-based protein powders and bars, these companies are helping redefine what it means to eat bugs. Even General Mills is hopping on the bandwagon and investigating new ways to “use crickets as a sustainable source of protein.”

“If a family of 4 ate just 1 meal a week using insect protein for a year they would save the Earth 650,000 liters of water.”
(Entomo Farms )
That equates to 2,749,500 8oz glasses of water per year!

Preserving our farmland and water resources is extremely important if we hope to feed future generations. Insect protein is one of the most sustainable ways to provide nutrient-dense food to a growing population— without using excess water, land, feed, or energy. Today, one in nine people do not have enough food to lead a nutritionally healthy life. Raising and harvesting insects for food is a step in the right direction in the fight against world hunger.  Surprisingly, however, sustainability is actually just a bonus of insect farming. The real benefit of insect farming is the healthy, lean protein they provide.

How are insects farmed?

Farmed insects are not caught in the wild, captured, cooked, and served. Like many farm-raised animals, insects are bred and harvested. Insects can be wild-harvested (which is often seen throughout many parts of Southeast Asia) but, wild-harvesting can actually compromise your health. The wild-harvest process is not regulated, thus it can lead to health uncertainties, specifically because wild-harvested insects are not typically intended for human consumption. If you choose to consume insects, experts recommend sticking with products that have been farmed. In order to better understand the insect farming process, we spoke with Entomo Farms co-founder Dr. Jarrod Goldin who explained the Entomo approach.

Their primary concern is creating safe and clean insects. For their cricket products, Entomo Farms uses retrofitted chicken farms in order to properly cultivate their insects. Aptly nicknamed condo’s, the retrofit farms are divided into six habitats that maximize surface area for the crickets. The insects’ food is kept at the top of the condo and within it is a trough of running water. While some companies choose to use water bowls, Entomo believes stagnant water is inevitably not as clean as running water. The crickets are fed organic grain and are harvested at six weeks. In order to harvest the cricket for human consumption, the insects are immediately flash frozen with the use of dry ice. Because crickets are cold-blooded animals this process is also extremely humane. After they are frozen, the crickets are transported to the processing facility where they are washed thoroughly before being roasted.


Cricket Colony – barns and housing – Entomo Farms

Entomo Farms sent their crickets to be tested by a Government Certified Lab in order to determine the number of bacteria that were present in their cricket product. An Aerobic Plate Count (APC), is used as an indicator of bacterial populations on a sample. According to the FDA, a suitable range for frozen, chilled, precooked, or prepared food is 25-250 colonies per plate. The reported aerobic plate count for Entomo Farms Cricket Powder was roughly 10 colonies per plate. So, next time you are looking for a minimally-processed protein source, you might want to keep Entomo’s insect products in mind!

Health and nutrition profile of insects

Forbes Magazine dubbed insects “the next new miracle superfood” because of their dense protein content. Some insect species weigh in at roughly 80% protein, with a majority of species weighing in above the 50% protein by weight marker. Additionally, some insect species, like crickets, contain all nine essential amino acids. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), crickets are also very high in micronutrients, such as magnesium, iron, and zinc. Insect species are also known to be high in calcium, vitamins B12 and A, and are reported to have a nearly perfect ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

Source: Precision Nutrition

When you eat insects, you’re not just eating muscle, you’re also eating bones and organs, which deliver calcium, iron, vitamin B12, and zinc. It’s like if somebody ground up a whole cow and ate it!” (Daniella Martin, author of Edible)

The nutritional profile above demonstrates how 100g of cricket protein measures up to a traditional meal of steak and broccoli. It is important to note, however, that a typical serving size of cricket powder is roughly 2 tablespoons (17 grams). Therefore, it would take approximately 5 servings of cricket powder to equal a 100 gram (3.5 oz) serving of steak.

For more information on the nutritional value of insects with regards to human consumption, we recommend the following chapter from the FAO Forestry Paper, “Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security” 

According to Dr. Goldin, an additional benefit of insect nutrition is the gut microbiota. As you may recall, D2D recently reviewed the importance of gut health and its effect on your brain in our article, “Your Second Brain: Gut Microbiota.” Probiotics help facilitate the growth of native gut microbes, but in order for probiotics to be successful at their job, they need fuel— this is where prebiotics come into the picture. Prebiotics feed probiotics and insects are considered rich prebiotics because of the fiber in their exoskeleton.

It is also important to note that insects can share common food allergens with crustacean, as both species are classified as an arthropod. Unfortunately, there is very little research pertaining to insect-related food allergens as the industry is just starting to expand. Because of this, the European Food Safety Agency warns anyone allergic to shellfish or mites to avoid eating insects.

Food Safety and Regulation

In the United States, insect farming is still in its infancy stages. In fact, 2016 marked the first year a conference was held completely dedicated to edible insects. The North American Edible Insects Coalition met in Detroit in May 2016 to discuss the future of harvesting insects for food.

One major effort that is being hedged by the coalition is increased federal regulation as “best practices” within the edible insect space are still being established by the FDA. Lobbyists for edible insects have launched a campaign to urge the FDA to “add mealworms, crickets protein powder, and other insect products to the agency’s database of Generally Recognized as Safe ingredients (GRAS)” (Bloomberg News).

In order for the insect-for-food industry to become more socially accepted, there needs to be an appropriate level of regulation for these products. Although insect products made by companies like Exo, Chapul, and Entomo Farms are considered food in the eyes of the FDA, they are not clearly regulated. One way to start successfully integrating insects into a traditional Western diet would be for the FDA to deem edible insects as GRAS.

As it stands now, the FDA allows the sale of bugs if they are raised for human consumption. Insect parts or additives can be found at specialty shops but technically aren’t classified as food-safe ingredients because of their exclusion from the GRAS list. (Bloomberg News)

And while we certainly do not suggest or expect you to replace all of your chicken or beef meals with insect protein— we recommend giving edible insects a chance!

You can add the ultra-fine cricket powder to just about anything. Sprinkle it on top of your oatmeal, add it to a peanut butter sandwich, even mix it in with the stir-fry you are cooking. The powder can help make healthy or marginally healthy food even healthier without much effort.

Cricket flour cookies. image: pixabay

We see a day where people have sugar, salt, pepper, and cricket powder on their countertop…and you add it throughout your cooking, as you would those condiments. It would be a great step for their health and wellness and for sustainability.
– Entomo Farms

Grass or Grain, Beef is Beef

cows in field staring at camera

Some nutritionists argue that grass-fed beef contains more omega-3 fatty acids, less saturated fat, and fewer calories than grain-fed beef. Environmentalists argue that grass-fed cattle are better for the environment and do not have any microbial diseases. But how much of this is based on research and how much is based on speculation? While we want to think of cattle as happily roaming the range, we need to look at the facts.

What is a grass-fed cow?


Grass-fed cattle on a Wyoming ranch

Almost all cattle live the first weeks of their life drinking their mother’s milk when kept in the pasture. After about eight to nine weeks, the calves are developed enough to forage for grass with the herd. Once the calf weighs approximately 700 pounds, 99% are sold to feedlots to fatten up to about 1,450 pounds. Here they gain about three pounds a day before they are generally harvested around 18 months. The other 1% are fed grass their entire life. Grass-fed cattle tend to live eight months longer to 26 months longer because they gain only about one and a half to two pounds per day on their grass diet. They also have the opportunity to walk around more so have less fat, more muscle and burn off their food. 

All cattle are grass-fed to some degree. The difference lies in whether they are grass finished.

Only about 1% of beef sales today are “grass finished”. However, the grass-fed market is growing by roughly 20% a year.

Is there a nutritional advantage to eating grass-fed beef?

The primary nutritional difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef lies in the saturated and unsaturated fat content. You may remember from our previous post, Fat: Our New Friend, we should get approximately 27% of our daily calories from fat. Fat protects our brain, maintains our cell membranes, and helps us absorb vitamins.

Our bodies are able to synthesize (or create) fatty acids from the fatty acids we consume. There are two healthy fatty acids that are an exception to this rule:  omega-3 (alpha-linolenic) and omega–6 (linoleic acid).  Grass-fed beef has 3-5x more omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef.

Why?  Because grass has high levels of alpha-linolenic acid and corn has very little

Omega-3 fatty acids may help lower your risk of heart disease, depression, dementia, and arthritis.  But, let’s put everything into perspective. Does this mean you should use beef as your source of omega-3s? 

Well, you would certainly have to eat a lot of beef!  Comparatively, salmon has 35x more omega-3’s than grass-fed beef.  Other fatty fish, such as anchovies, herring, mackerel. trout, and tuna are also a great way to provide your body with a high dose of omega-3.  Even a tablespoon of canola oil, say in your salad dressing, would meet your omega-3 daily requirement of 1.1 grams for women and reach 87% of the 1.6 grams for men.

As far as the other nutritional comparisons go, Texas A&M and Texas Tech universities completed independent studies comparing omega-3, oleic acid, and total saturated fat from grass-fed and conventionally grain-fed cattle.  Their analysis concluded that “there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that ground beef from grass-fed cattle is a healthier alternative to ground beef from conventionally raised, grain-fed cattle.” In addition, the basic nutritional components of amino acids, B vitamins, zinc, iron, and phosphorus are all the same in both meat options.

 


Source: Texas A&M University, Department of Animal Science

If you, like us at Dirt-to-Dinner, love a good steak or hamburger, you can get some of your important saturated fats, polyunsaturated fat, and monounsaturated fat from any kind of beef.

If you prefer grass-fed beef, the most potent cattle (in our opinion), are those that eat grass in the high country because the growing season is so short the grass grows with higher amounts of linoleic acid.  As a result, there is plenty of omega-3s in the cattle’s beef.  Their cardiovascular system gets the benefit of exercise in high altitude – thus they are leaner than most.

While nutritionally there is not much difference, grass-fed versus grain-fed beef can vary in flavor. Depending on your taste preference, you may find you do not enjoy grass-fed beef as much as grain-fed.  Some people like the soft marble feel of a grain-fed cow, while others prefer the leaner taste of grass-fed.  One Wyoming rancher told us that grass-fed cattle tastes “wild” and digests as quickly as broccoli!  She felt that you didn’t feel as satiated after eating her grass-fed cows. 

Fun Facts:

NFL footballs are made of cowhide.  About 3,000 cowhides are required to make footballs for one season.

Beef Tongue is a Japanese delicacy.  About 50% of US cattle tongues are shipped to Japan every year.  Try one – thinly sliced and grilled!

Disneyland sells over 4 million hamburgers each year and McDonald’s sells approximately 75 hamburgers a second – 225 million burghers worldwide every year.

Where are grass-fed cows raised? 

The one billion cattle grown globally give us approximately 59 million tons of meat.  That is enough to give the world’s 7.4 billion people 18 pounds of beef a year. The major beef producing countries are the United States 18%, from Brazil 12%, from China 8%, and from Argentina 4%.  (FAOSTAT).


Typical Feedlot

The United States is awash in corn, so it is easy to feed and grow our cattle in feedlots.  States like Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, and western Nebraska have thousands of grassy acres to support their cattle in the summer but of course not in the winter. In the fall, all those cows either head to the feedlots or have to be given feed rations to keep increasing their weight growing through the wintertime. 

Thus, grass-fed beef is harder to grow in the U.S.  Australia and Uruguay, on the other hand, have acres of land which can support grass-fed cattle throughout the year making their grass-fed farming more cost effective.

Do grass-fed cattle have a happier life?

According to Dr. Temple Grandin, the animal welfare expert of cattle,

“It doesn’t matter whether a cow is in a feedlot or on the ‘range’. What is important is whether the animal has shelter, proper drainage for the rain, consistent food, and is not put in stressful situations.”

Sure, it is nice to think of a cow having access to a beautiful grassy field, but keep in mind, not all pastures are grassy! Some are dry, some have no water, and some are terribly arid. Some farmers claim that their cows are fed only grass – but they are contained in a feedlot and fed grass pellets! All feedlot owners are not the same either. Some feedlot owners pay attention to every single cow and some do not. What the cattle are fed or their ability to roam are not the determining factors for good animal welfare. What really matters is the quality of care and attention given by the farmer, and each farmer is different.

Are grass fed cattle better for the environment?

One can say that cattle are the perfect “crop” for those grassy areas that don’t have great soil for grains and oilseeds.  Their hooves aerate and their manure fertilizes the soil which enables the grass to grow better than it would otherwise.  For example, parts of western Nebraska have 50,000-acre ranches which are perfect for the grass-fed cattle.

However, when most people think of the environment, with respect to cattle, they think of methane emissions.  And, in fact, cattle are often blamed for global warming!  Yes, the media and Hollywood have convinced people that cows produce more pollution than cars or trucks – check out Cowspiracy. This is based on the UN Food and Agriculture Organizations 2006 report, Livestock’s Long Shadow.

While there is a difference in cow methane production in the developed world versus the developing world, Dr. Frank Mitloehner, Associate Professor and air quality extension specialist at the University of California, Davis, disputes the FAO report and explains that the difference is in the animal’s nutrition.  In the developed world, we have very good veterinary care, excellent cow nutrition, and strong genetics. This combination plus a well-managed ranch reduces the parasites that compete for nutrients in the cows’ digestive system. The better the digestion – which you have when the cattle eat a good diet full of nutrients – the less the greenhouse gas production.  In fact, because grass-fed cows live eight months longer – combined with their grassy diet – their emissions are higher.

According to the EPA, in the United States, agriculture as a whole contributes 9% to greenhouse gas emissions compared to electricity which weighs in at 30%. Animal agriculture, which has increased its meat production by almost 50% since 1990, has remained constant at about 3% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that emissions from U.S. animal agriculture have remained relatively constant while protein production has increased dramatically reflects improved feed efficiencies, better manure management strategies, and efficient use of cropland.

Air quality is just one piece of the environmental discussion concerning cattle. It is important to consider water quality, land usage, composting, birds, and wildlife diversity.  Sustainable farming is a multi-faceted approach to all aspects of the environment, not just one.  It is not whether cattle are grass-fed or grain0fed that gives us sustainability – it is the overall environmental responsibility of each individual farmer or country. The North American Meat Institute provides informative fact sheets on meat production.

What about E. coli and mad cow disease?

Some of the grass-fed marketing efforts try to tell the consumer that there is no risk of mad cow disease or E. coli O157: H7. Let’s separate these issues for a moment.  E. coli lives in the cow’s digestive system and is excreted in its manure. Cows have manure on their hide before they go to the processing plant – thus there is the risk of E. coli on the hide.  This is why it is considered best practices for beef processing plants to wash and sterilize the hide with best practices before the cows are processed. They basically go through a car wash for cows.  There are approximately 6,200 processing plants in the United States that include about 8,000 federal inspectors on-site making sure our meat is safe.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or more commonly known as “mad cow disease”, on the other hand, is an illness that results in brain degeneration. The significant cause is when cows are fed feed containing other mammalian protein – a practice that is now against the law. (The real mad cow disease started with sheep byproduct being fed to live sheep.)  When the spinal cord or brains of these cattle are eaten, there is a chance the disease can be spread to humans. 

Today, all cattle are carefully processed without any brain or spinal tissue. In addition, they are all harvested well before 36 months, the incubation period for the disease.

What are the certifications for grass-fed beef?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that labeling beef as grass-fed means that these cattle can only eat grass after they are weaned from their mother.  The Animal Welfare Approved Standards (AWA),  the American Grassfed Association, and Food Alliance are certifications you can find on your beef that ensures that they are grass-fed their entire life.

Produce Variety Helps Diet Variety!

broccoli, carrots, radish, tomatoes and peppers -fresh vegetables

Our choices and varieties of fruits and vegetables have expanded.

Early in the 20th century, what people ate in the U.S. primarily depended on their heritage and traditions, where they lived, what they could grow, and how much money they had. Fruits such as oranges and bananas were a special treat compared to the role of “lunchbox staple” that they play in our diets today.

The average American diet is no longer restricted by local or seasonal produce. Because of our expanded choices, the fresh produce Americans eat today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. There has been a considerable change in the commodities we enjoy year-round. Prior to the turn of the century, many produce items were primarily available only in season – i.e., blueberries, kiwi, papaya, persimmons, pineapples, raspberries, and miscellaneous tropical fruits. Other commodities such as mizuna and kohlrabi, although common outside the U.S., were virtually unheard of until recent years!

We still enjoy the same fruits and vegetables as we did in 1970!

While we have integrated new produce into our diet regimen, it is safe to say, old habits die hard. In 1970, three vegetables – lettuce, tomatoes, and potatoes – were the most consumed fresh vegetables in the US.

Per capita fresh vegetable consumption, 1970 and 2013

Food Availability Data

The latest USDA statistics for 2013 show that these same three commodities are still the leading fresh vegetables consumed in the U.S. However, we have expanded the diversity of these three popular veggies. Between 1970 and 2013, there were changes in the number of potatoes and the different types of lettuce available, as well as an increased variety of other vegetables incorporated into the average American diet.

For example, after a peak in the late 80s/early 90s, by 2013 head lettuce consumption declined by 51% while romaine and leaf lettuce consumption increased by 69%. U.S. consumers also ate more broccoli, cucumbers, onions, and peppers during this same time frame. Still, even with our preference for new lettuce types and increased consumption of other vegetables, our preference for lettuce, tomatoes, and potatoes stayed relatively consistent.

We have retained a strong preference for certain fruits.

In 2013, American’s fruits of choice were bananas, melons, apples, and oranges. Our fruit preferences were the same in 1970. In the 43-year time span, consumption of avocados, bananas, cantaloupes, grapes, pineapples, and strawberries increased while consumption of apples, cranberries, peaches, and plums declined. In recent years, robust demand for avocados, blueberries, cherries, lemons, limes, mangoes, papayas, and pineapples has been driving growth in fresh fruit commodities. USDA analysts attribute this growth in fruit used to the preparation of traditional dishes by a more ethnically diverse population as well as heightened interest in a healthy diet.

There are various interactive graphs illustrating the changing American diet from 1970 to 2012/2013.  See the FlowingData.com’s website and articles in  Scientific American and Time magazine’s articles.

Not only have there been changes in the diversity of what Americans eat, but there has also been an even greater change in when we eat fresh produce. Prior to the turn of the century, the majority of the U.S. population was eating strawberries for one, two, or if you were lucky, maybe three months of the year. Now eating fresh strawberries year-round is commonplace, as is noted by a 320% increase in per capita consumption from 1970 to 2010. And it is just not strawberries – the same is true for blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, pineapples, cantaloupe, and a litany of other fruits and vegetables.

So why the increasing diversity in our produce?

To help meet the growing demand for fruits and vegetables, plant breeding has resulted in new varieties of popular produce items with increased yields, extended growing seasons, improved product quality fruit, and enhanced shelf-life. Tomatoes and strawberries are two prime examples of fruits where year-round availability is a direct result of breeding new varieties.

Suppliers have also improved shelf-life and product quality during transportation by modifying harvesting methods. A good example of these improvements can be seen with the banana which bruises easily when it is ripe. Bananas used to be harvested after ripening until growers discovered they could harvest unripe, green bananas and ship them all over the world without damaging the still firm unripe fruit.

Where Do Our Fruits and Vegetables Come From?

fresh fruits and vegetables


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Knowing where your food comes from is a big topic these days – especially for produce. Fruit and vegetable production occurs throughout the U.S., but mostly in concentrated areas of the country.

A Clear Winner in U.S. Produce Production

According to the USDA’s 2012 agricultural census data, California produces the nation’s largest assortment and volume of fruits and vegetables on nearly 4.4 million acres out of a total landmass of 100 million acres. They lead production in broccoli, artichokes, kiwis, plums, celery, garlic, cauliflower, spinach, carrots, lettuce, raspberries, and strawberries.

One-third of California’s farmland is used to grow vegetables. Other major vegetable producing-states are (in order) Idaho, Washington, Wisconsin, Florida, and Minnesota with between 370,000 and 230,000 acres.

In fruit production, California once again leads U.S. production with over 3.1 million acres in orchards and nearly 53,000 acres in berries.

Only 3 other states have more than 200,000 acres in orchards – Florida with 579,068, Washington with 315,456, and Texas with 204,305. Other leaders in berry production are Maine, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, and Wisconsin – all with between 22,000 to 40,000 acres.

In most states, fruit and vegetables are in season for a short period of time – usually measured in weeks of the year. In states such as Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California with mild climates and large fertile, arable land mass, some produce may be grown for longer time periods than in the more temperate U.S. zones. But even in these states, seasonality still limits production for most commodities requiring import of products from the southern hemisphere.

So…how are we eating fresh berries during a snowy winter?

As demand for products such as fresh berries grows, suppliers have found ways to transport products from in-season growing areas in the southern hemisphere to consumers residing in the northern hemisphere during the offseason. The fresh blueberries you enjoy on your yogurt in winter are imported from South America.

In the early 1970s, the U.S. was a net exporter of fruits and vegetables, but today our nation is a net importer. In looking at USDA data, the volume of U.S. fruit and vegetable imports increased 35 and 50%, respectively, from 1999 to 2014 (Figure 1). With cultivation moving from the northern hemisphere to prime summer growing season in the southern hemisphere, U.S. consumers experience the restrictions of seasonality less than ever before – thanks to those imports from Mexico and South and Central America.

Imports from Mexico and South and Central America enable U.S. consumers to enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables during the winter months

Figure 1. The volume of U.S. fruit and vegetable imports increased 35 and 50%, respectively, from 1999 to 2014

This next chart (figure 2) illustrates imported produce shipments from 1998 to 2012.

  • During the 15 year span (1998-2012), spring produce shipments more than tripled and fall shipments increased 4.5-fold.
  • Over 90% of imported fruits and vegetables come from Mexico, Central America, and South America.
  • In 1998, 100% of iceberg lettuce was grown domestically, but by 2012, domestic production shrank 5%.

To further explore the origin of produce imported to the U.S., check out the 5,000-mile salad, an interactive Scientific American publication depicting the USDA’s data on where our fruits and vegetables come from.


Figure 2. Fruits and vegetables shipped to U.S. distribution centers in April and September 1998, 2005, 2012. Source: Scientific American

How has the market for fresh/processed/frozen fruits and vegetables changed?

Produce can be categorized in many different ways, but two broad categories are fresh market and processed. Most farmers grow particular produce varieties specifically for either processed or fresh market. Sometimes, fresh market products may be diverted to processing when they do not meet buyer specifications or fresh market USDA grade standards or when an unplanned situation occurs such as a hail storm that causes physical crop damage rendering the crop unfit for the fresh market. But by and large, growers plant their crops knowing where the harvested crop is going – to either fresh market or processing buyers.

According to the USDA, about half of all US-produced vegetables are processed. Processed vegetables can be further broken down into subcategories of canned and frozen. Figure 3 illustrates how since the mid-1980s production of fresh market vegetables has soared surpassing canning in 1981.

Although fresh market production has plateaued in the past decade, vegetables produced for canning and freezing have overall remained stagnant since 1970. With no sign of losing its number one spot, California led the fresh market and processed vegetable production in 2015 followed by Arizona, Georgia, New York, and Washington for fresh market and Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota, and Michigan for processed vegetables.

Figure 3. How U.S. vegetables are used, 1970-2014 (USDA, ERS)

Most growers plant their crops knowing where the harvested crop is going – to either fresh market or processing buyers.

Fruit availability has also reflected the changes in consumer preference and diets since 1970. Figure 4 shows U.S. Fruit availability, 1970-2012 (in pounds per capita, 3-year averages).

Figure 4. U.S. Fruit availability, 1970-2012 (in pounds per capita, 3-year averages). Source: USDA ERS

From 2010-2012 fresh fruit accounted for 52% of Americans’ per capita consumption, up from 42% in 1970-1972; while processed fruit (canned, juice, frozen, and dried) fell steadily from a peak of 171.3 lbs. per person in 1977 to 113.7 lbs. per person in 2012.

Within the processed category, canned and juice consumption has declined the most from 1970 to 2012. Growth in the frozen fruit category was attributed primarily to the popularity of frozen berries.

Let The Hens Out! Cage Free Eggs

Free range brown chickens

Over the past several years, consumers have voiced their concerns about the way poultry is raised. The traditional method of placing many birds in a cage where it cannot fluff its wings or roam freely seems cruel. So, consumers are demanding farmers let the chickens out of their cages. And subsequently, there has been a cascade of announcements from almost every fast food and restaurant chain, food manufacturer, and meat and egg producer making commitments to improve farm animal confinement standards.

States, too are enacting new regulations on how animals are raised. In 2015, a California statute went into effect that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. For egg laying chickens, this means at least 116 square inches of floor space, compared to the industry standard of 67 square inches in a battery cage. Voters in Massachusetts will consider a similar ballot measure in November 2016, whereby 2022 all eggs sold in the state will be “cage-free” and chickens will be given 216 square inches of space. This can be complicated because different states and different companies have their own definitions of cage-free. Some, like McDonald’s, require the birds to be able to roam around and some, like California, allow cages, albeit big enough for the chicken to fluff her wings.

Either way, these state’s decisions have a ripple effect for producers beyond their borders. Farmers and big agricultural enterprises have responded by converting hen housing systems to cage-free. In fact, the European Union banned the use of conventional battery cage eggs in 2012. The move towards cage-free egg production is effectively underway. But this is no easy feat since most of the eggs today are NOT cage free as it is much easier to control egg production as well as the chicken mortality rate if they are in cages. So now farmers are thinking of innovative strategies on how to sustain chickens and egg production on their farm – while allowing the birds to roam around, happily.

As it turns out, going cage-free requires much more planning, money, and logistical engineering than the seemingly simple notion of setting some hens free would suggest. Ironically, this massive supply chain overhaul stems from consumer demand to return to the egg-producing practices of our pre-industrial past, but without undoing all the positive benefits of scale, affordability, and safety that were achieved through industrialization. It actually took farmers a really long time to figure out how to put the bird in the cage—and it’s going to take a while to figure out how to get it back out.

(Wired Magazine, 2016)

The Conventional System of Egg Production

Conventional Cage System. Photo: Big Dutchman

Ironically, when egg farmers adopted these cages in the 1950s, they considered it progress! The ability to control and monitor the lives of the chickens made the houses and eggs cleaner than before. However, a 2010 nationwide recall of shell eggs following an outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis exposed some poorly managed egg farms as having very unsanitary and unfavorable conditions for the chickens and eggs. The Salmonella outbreak did nothing to improve the image of big commercial egg farms, who had already been criticized for squeezing hens into tiny, restrictive cages. In the months following the recall, producers of organic, cage-free, and free-range eggs struggled to keep up with a sudden surge in consumer demand.

So What is A Cage Free Egg?

Cage Free – Aviary System. Photo: Big Dutchman

Presently, 10 percent (fewer than 30 million eggs) of America’s eggs are from cage-free systems such as organic, pasture-raised, or indoor cage-free systems. But, if you think that “cage-free” implies happy chickens pecking at insects and fluffing their feathers outdoors in the countryside, think again! The USDA loosely defines “cage-free,” and interpretations will vary according to the producer.

Eggs labeled “cage-free” or “from free-roaming hens” are laid by hens that are allowed to roam in a room or open area, which is typically a barn or poultry house.


Cage Free – Enriched Colony System. Photo: Big Dutchman

These hens are generally living in indoor-floor facilities and may have access to a multi-tiered indoor environment called an “aviary.” Hens laying cage-free eggs theoretically are able to walk, spread their wings and lay their eggs in nests. However, mortality rates are generally higher (about 5%) because the hens tend to peck at each other, causing injury. Cage-free systems offer a chicken more freedom of movement to act and behave like a chicken.

In addition to “cage-free” claims, egg producers often participate in additional certification programs with varying claims of improved animal welfare. Here is a chart summarizing some of these marketing claims:


Credit: Takepart.com

How is Egg Safety Ensured?

Eggs are a relatively safe product and are getting safer. Many farmers vaccinate their chickens against salmonella, and the FDA Egg Safety Rule, (2010) provides specific steps, including requiring producers to maintain a written Salmonella Enteritidis prevention plan and document their compliance aimed at reducing human Salmonella infections caused by eggs. Scientists estimate that, on average across the U.S., only 1 of every 20,000 eggs might contain the bacteria. So, although you should always practice safe food handling, the likelihood that an egg might contain Se is extremely small – 0.005% (five one-thousandths of one percent). At this rate, if you’re an average consumer, you might encounter a contaminated egg once every 84 years. (Incredible Egg)

Many government agencies cooperate to ensure the safety of shell eggs from farm to table. Involved government agencies include USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and State departments of agriculture.

Egg and Poultry Facts

  • There are no nutritional or food safety differences between eggs produced in cage-free or conventional houses. The labels refer to the housing environment where the hens live and produce eggs. When managed properly, all production environments (conventional, enriched cage, cage-free and organic/free range) provide safe, nutritious, quality eggs.
  • Hormones are banned for use in poultry in the U.S. (but that doesn’t stop chicken producers from marketing their birds as hormone-free!)
  • Broilers, those chickens raised for meat, are always raised “cage-free” in poultry houses. Broilers can be free-range or pastured raised as well.

Is cage-free better for the hens?

Yes, if you think a hen should be able to act like a hen. But there are some trade-offs.

However, the first study to analyze different housing arrangements on a commercial scale basis, from a sustainable perspective was published in 2015 from an industry consortium called the Coalition for a Sustainable Egg Supply. The objective of the Coalition’s research was to evaluate various laying hen housing systems measuring five sustainability factors: food safety, the environment, hen health/well being, worker health/safety, and food affordability. The broad coalition was made up of leading animal welfare scientists, academic institutions, non-government organizations, egg suppliers, and restaurant/food service and food retail companies.

The study examined three different layer housing systems – conventional cages (used as a baseline), cage-free aviary, and enriched colonies (a hybrid of cage and cage-free)

Although the research assessed elements of hen housing and egg production using a single hen breed/strain, in a particular region of the U.S., it found there are positive and negative impacts and trade-offs associated with each of the three hen housing systems relative to each of the five sustainability areas.

Essentially, the results reveal that even though it costs 30%-40 % more to raise birds in the Aviary and Enriched Colony systems, those birds were able to engage in their hen-like behavior of flying, perching, and dust-bathing. These two systems did have more dust and emissions because of the improved freedom of the birds and the challenge of cleaning up the litter. While hen mortality rate was greatest in the Aviary, the hens were able to have more of a “hen-like” life.

Where does this leave us (and the chickens?)

To the elation of animal welfare advocates and consumers who have been lobbying hard for the chickens, the industry is changing. Cage-Free systems ultimately represent progress and a more thoughtful connection between humans and the animals that provide us with food. Major companies have committed to going cage-free, subsequently driving producers to alter their practices. In Europe, the Enriched Colony housing system is emerging as a preferred cage free method as it combines many of the advantages of both the cage and cage-free systems. Fully enriched systems provide hens with many enhancements such as perching, scratching, and foraging areas, as well as secluded nesting areas so she can lay her eggs in private. Egg farmers need to find ways in which to manage more birds in the most efficient manner while using fewer land resources. Economies of scale and improvements in technology and breeding will make a conversion to cage-free systems a reasonable and necessary capital investment for egg producers.

The Atkins Diet – Does it Work?

Atkins diet products

The diet and weight loss industry is estimated at more than $50 billion dollars a yearand that’s just the U.S.! That means countless Americans have resorted to spending money on diet programs, pills, books, and food to lose weight – and yet 35.7% of Americans remain obese. Unfortunately, the majority of these plans burn out as quickly as they come into the limelight. 

The Atkins program, however, has not followed the traditional fad diet trajectory. This diet program was created by Dr. Robert Atkins in 1971 and gained notoriety in 2003 and 2004. Dr. Atkins based his program off of research performed by the Journal of American Medical Association in the ’70s, which explored the important role fat plays in our diet.

Unlike some of the other diets we have reviewed (think: Gluten FreePaleo, or the 5:2 diet), the Atkins Program is a structured diet program.Popular dieting trends often expect you to flip a switch and change your eating habits overnight, without a gradual introduction to the program— which we think is a fairly unreasonable approach to healthy eating.

The Atkins Program utilizes four phases to get your weight goals on track. The diet aims to shock your system by almost completely eliminating all carbohydrates. Not surprisingly, your weight loss is effectively jumpstarted. Eliminating an entire food group that typically accounts for 45-65% of your diet will undoubtedly help you shed some excess weight. In fact, the first stage of the Atkins diet calls for only 10% carb consumption! However, it is a common misconception that the Atkins diet is a high protein diet. While there is a strong emphasis on the importance of protein, the Atkins diet is categorized as a high fat, low carb diet.

The four phases of the Atkins Diet:

Phase 1: Induction. This phase is the strictest of the four phases and lasts for two weeks. It requires you to cut your carbohydrate intake to 20 grams of net carbs per day— equal to about five red peppers. The net carbs are calculated by subtracting fiber from the total carbohydrates. For example, there are six grams of carbohydrates in a medium red pepper and two grams of fiber, so the net carb of the average red pepper is four. It is also recommended that 10-15 of these 20 net carbs come from what Atkins calls “foundation vegetables”. These include broccoli, asparagus, peppers, celery, and cucumber. This phase stresses the importance of vegetable and protein intake, and even eliminates fruit, nuts, and grains.

Phase 2: Balancing. During this phase you are able to introduce nuts and berries back into your diet. You are told to continue to eat a variety of the foundation vegetables, getting at least 12-15 grams of net carbohydrates from this source. However, you are unable to eat foods with added sugars—that means no cookies, no cakes, no candy. Unlike the induction phase, there is no time limit to the balancing phase. The Atkins Program advises you to remain in the balancing phase until you are ten pounds from your designated goal weight.

Phase 3: Pre-maintenance: Once you are ten pounds from your goal weight, your pre-maintenance begins. In this phase, you are allowed to add ten grams of carbohydrates per week; however, stay alert, if you start gaining weight you must cut back the carbohydrates once again.

Phase 4: Maintenance: After you have reached your goal weight, the maintenance phase begins. This signifies the start of the “rest of your life”. After the Atkins program, you have shocked your system by eliminating the majority of carbohydrates from your diet and are to continue eating a diet with a decrease in carbohydrate intake.

So, why has this diet program prospered for so long?

Well, although it might not be the healthiest approach to weight loss, it does work. In fact, it is often ranked among the best diets in the U.S. The premise of the program is a quick way to shock your body and increase fat burn. However, it is important to note that our understanding of food has changed significantly since this diet was first introduced. We now understand a lot more about the digestibility of different foods and the need for portion control. Unfortunately, this was not considered when the diet was first created.

To the positive, the Atkins program aims to stabilize your body’s blood sugar levels, which is one of the key components to weight loss and healthy weight management. Dr. Atkins actually designed his program to combat the “traditional” American diet, which he believes consists of high-carbohydrates and low-fat intake. Unlike the more traditional (and very popular) diet approaches in the U.S., the Atkins program embraces the intake of fat—and this is certainly something we like to see. As you may recall, we recently explained why “Fat is Our Friend”.

The growing appreciation for fat intake over the typical “low fat diet” has also been investigated in many science research initiatives. Overall, the majority of research is finding that low-carb diets are more effective than low-fat diets. On average, low carb diets are known to increase HDL Cholesterol (the good cholesterol that puts you at a lower risk for cardiovascular disease and helps keep your metabolism strong) AND decrease your triglycerides. When your triglyceride levels are too high, they can increase your risk of a stroke, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome.

Remember: Every Body is Different!

While it is good diet advice to increase your protein and healthy fats while decreasing your carbohydrate intake, the Atkins diet expects everyone to fit its mold. It is important to remember: every body is different. You should not adjust your lifestyle to fit a diet program, you should create a diet program that fits your lifestyle.

To better understand how to tailor the Atkins Diet to your own lifestyle, we spoke to Dr. Keith Berkowitz, author of The Stubborn Fat Fix and advisor to Dr. Atkins. Dr. Berkowitz explained that while a low-carb, high-fat diet can help obtain weight loss goals, there is no “hard and fast rule” that applies to everyone for weight loss. In fact, although he utilizes certain aspects of the Atkins diet, Dr. Berkowitz does not recommend the induction phase of the program. Instead he recommends roughly 50-75 grams of carbs per day, although this can change depending on the patient and his/her weight loss goals. He believes you should eat foods that are nutrient dense to help control blood sugar levels. Dr. Berkowitz explained that balanced blood sugar levels and digestibility is the key to weight loss and healthy weight management.

One issue we have with the Atkins diet is the lack of healthy serving size recommendations. The Atkins program only regulates the amount of net carbohydrates you can intake, thus allowing its devoted followers to eat hot dogs, red meat, and cheese without any portion control. With these rules, you could literally eat hot dogs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

While we agree that healthy fat is good in moderation, endlessly eating processed meats every day will not support long-term heart health. This is something Dr. Berkowitz also addressed. He does not think the science behind “net carbohydrates” is exact and believes it is difficult to monitor your consumption that way. Additionally, not all protein options are easy to digest. Bacon and some dairy products, for example, are hard for your body to break down.

Additionally, in the first phase of the Atkins Diet you are told to eliminate fruit and nuts. However, there certainly are healthy ways to include both these food groups into a diet and still lose weight! Mixed berries, for example, are high in fiber, vitamins, and antioxidants. This high fiber content keeps berries from significantly spiking your body’s blood sugar levels (unlike tropical fruits). Nuts are also a well-rounded food not worth eliminating. They are packed with Omega-3, fiber, and vitamins, as well. Like berries, nuts can help to improve heart health and can help lower your cholesterol.

And let’s not forget about the power of whole grains and their importance to overall body health. We mentioned this in our “Debunking the Gluten Myth“ post. Eliminating carbohydrates like over-processed white bread is obviously going to help your weight loss, but there are healthy, whole grain carbohydrates that can nourish your body. Barley, quinoa, and sprouted breads will provide you with fiber, iron, and enriched nutrients (like Vitamin B).

Losing weight is one thing, but staying healthy is another. The short-term effects of the Atkins diet will allow you to lose weight, but there is no science that determines whether this approach to eating will keep you healthy in the long run. According to the National Center of Biotechnology, “skeptics are concerned in part because of the absence of long term studies needed to answer questions raised about the safety of the Atkins diet including whether it will promote osteoporosis, colon cancer, heart disease, kidney damage, and gout, as critics charge.” Overall, the Atkins program may be an acceptable way to lose weight quickly, however it has not proven its ability to maintain overall body health in the long term.

Your Second Brain: Gut Microbiota

intestine drawing on woman's abdomen

Probiotic supplements are becoming increasingly popular. Walk down the dairy aisle and you will be flooded with probiotic enhanced yogurts, drinks, and even cheeses. Doctors are saying that we need the “right” gut bacteria to balance our digestive system. We are even being told that our gut is our second brain! Is this true?  And if it is, are probiotics the intelligence behind the brain?

Source: http://www.stickycomics.com/

Every day we have trillions of intestinal bacteria working hard to convert food into nutrients, make vitamins, digest our food, reduce gut inflammation, and keep our immune system strong.

What is the difference between Prebiotics and Probiotics?  Prebiotics and probiotics set the stage for good bacteria.

Prebiotics enter your stomach, survive the acidic environment of a pH from 1.5 to 3.5 (a neutral pH is 7.0), and move into the small and large intestine to feed the good microbiota in your gut. This means the prebiotics actually feed the probiotics. Probiotics would not be able to do their job properly without prebiotics. But, you don’t need to look for a supplement to get some good prebiotics. They are very easy to incorporate into your diet! Foods like asparagus, leeks, artichokes, onions, chicory, endives, and yams will give your body good prebiotics to help aid the probiotics in your small and large intestine.

Probiotics, (pro and biota, “for life”) are live bacteria that live in your small and large intestine and help maintain overall body health. Besides digesting your food and assisting with vitamin creation, new research indicates that probiotics keep your immune system strong, prevent infections, and help control inflammation. The good bacteria creates a slightly hostile environment where bad bacteria (such as salmonella, E. coli, fungus’ and yeast) find it difficult to survive. Incorporating probiotics in your diet is easy with yogurt, kefir, soft cheeses, or fermented foods such as sauerkraut, sour pickles, miso soup, or cabbage.

 

 

Now, what is this so called “second brain” ?

The gut is often referred to as the second brain because it has its own nervous system in the gut called the enteric nervous system. It is a network of millions of neurons that signal to each other as if they are in the brain in our head and they use the same chemical factors and proteins to signal to each other. So similar findings to microbes in the gut that could affect the nervous system in the gut. One interesting statistic is that microbes are required for a large proportion of serotonin synthesis and they affect neurotransmitters and neuropeptides signaling factors for neurons.
-Elaine Hasiao, California Institute of Technology

Of course, the human brain makes all of our logical and intellectual decisions. However, it is the “brain in our gut” that contributes to our health and emotions. The gut has its own nervous system, which is a network of millions of neurons. They signal to each other and use the same chemical factors and proteins as the ones in our head. The brain and gut then talk to each other using the Vagus nerve, which connects the two and is part of the enteric nervous system (ENS).

To better understand the role of gut bacteria, new studies have taken two groups of genetically identical mice: one group with the normal amount of microbiota and one without any at all. These experiments showed a marked difference in social behavior and brain function based on the absence or presence of gut microbiota. These initial studies inspired scientists for further research to understand which microbes perform specific functions. Additionally, researchers are discovering that the bacteria may be a coded intelligence. This means specific types of bacteria can tell your cells, and even your genes, what to do. This is controlled through the epigenome system, which is made of DNA proteins in the cell which can alter the gene functionality. A fascinating example under investigation is showing that certain bacteria can turn on or off certain genes such as those involved in Alzheimer’s. The exciting research on gut microbiota – the name given to the microbes living in our intestines – is just beginning to grow.

The more we understand about the tens of trillions of microorganisms in our gut (which represent over three million genes) the more we can learn about what is the optimal combination to keep our immune system strong and our emotions happy. But this is not as easy as just throwing a bunch of bacteria into a petri dish and analyzing through a big data computer program or a ‘human simulator’.

Every human being is estimated to share about 1/3rd of all the gut microbiota. The remaining 2/3rds (approximately) is believed to be unique to each individual. Each person hosts a unique set of microbiota and every human reacts differently to various microbes. Examine someone’s microbiota in their large intestine and you can even tell where they grew up! If you were born and raised in Iowa, you have a much different gut microbiota than someone living in India. If you were born via caesarian section your bacteria is different than someone who was born naturally. Were you breastfed? That makes a difference as well. If you were allowed to eat dirt in the garden and roll on the floor with a puppy your immune system developed much differently than if you were raised in a busy city. Your microbiota is also evolving every day based on what you eat, where you travel, and how you live.


source: Huffington Post

Today’s exciting research of microbiota goes beyond the just the basics. In 2015 alone, more than 1,700 papers were published regarding the relationship between your gut bacteria, diseases, and your mental health.

Each type of bacteria has a specific set of genes, which makes the bacteria unique to the host. Some are better pathogen fighters, some adhere to the intestinal wall, and some act as anti-inflammatory agents.

Doctors and researchers are looking at the effects of specific microbiota and autism, intestinal cancer, weight loss, irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, and brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s. The list is endlessly exciting. The relationship between gut microbiota and overall immune function is strong and understanding this will have a huge impact on our health. Albeit this is very new research with very preliminary results.

Currently, two leading European organizations are collaborating on a significant portion of research concerning probiotics. MetaCardis is a research project investigating the role of gut microbes in cardio-metabolic diseases (CMD). These discoveries will enable the development of future CMD treatments. My New Gut is a project that will “research how the human gut microbiota and its microbiome influence obesity, behavioral and lifestyle-related disorders, and vice versa. It also helps to identify specific dietary strategies to improve the long term health of the population.” MetaCardis and My New Gut findings and collaborations with other organizations will set a new frontier for human health. A great resource for this progress is Gut Microbiota for Health.

What probiotics to take?

Before you run to the grocery store, understand that gut microbiota is a very new field. Researchers and scientists are experimenting but are still unsure as to the exact perfect combination of microbiota in your gut. While we now know that the bacteria can influence your health and mental well-being, the scientific community is still a ways away from recommending a specific combination. Even if they could, because of everyone’s unique combination, what can help one person may not help another.

If you consume too much bad OR good bacteria, you might have unintended consequences. It is widely recognized that you must replace the good bacteria in your gut after a course of antibiotics— you’re probably familiar with acidophilus. We also know that if you have C-difficile (a disorder caused by the use of antibiotics) your last – and in many cases – the most effective treatment is to replace your gut bacteria with a loved one’s poo (eek!).

While certain strains show promise in the lab, it is hard to tell what their exact effect on the human body will be and how these strains will react with other bacterial strains in the gut.

We have to keep in mind that the development of a probiotic is not easier than that of any other drug. It is a long process that carries the risk of failure together with the prospect of great benefits for the patients. -Prof. Philippe Marteau, Paris University, Paris, France

A well-balanced diet rich in microbes is the best solution.

Today’s research shows that if you have a healthy gut and are not experiencing any disorders, you don’t typically need to take probiotic supplements. However, they can be helpful for travel, if you are sick, or have a specific intestinal disorder. To help you out, we found a very handy US Probiotic Guide, which helps determine what probiotic is right for you. The European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology also has a list of 32 specific probiotics that might give you some clarity.

Of course, you should always consult your doctor—but this will help guide you in the right direction if you are fighting a cold, struggling with irritable bowel syndrome, or preventing diarrhea issues from antibiotics or travel.

Skin: Your Body’s Largest Organ

woman sitting with hands on knees

The inner workings of our skin:

The epidermis is the exterior layer of the skin. It acts as a protective shield. The outer most barrier of the epidermis is called the stratum corneum. The dermis contains the underlying tissue and includes your sweat glands and hair follicles. And the hypodermis is the deepest layer of connective tissue.

Your skin absorbs tiny particles all day long and protects you from bacteria that can enter your body through your pores. While your skin is able to protect against larger microbes, certain nanoparticles are able to penetrate the different layers of the skin— and (depending on their size) enter your circulatory system.

Today, there are differences in opinion concerning your skin. It is easy to get caught up in the headlines that say big cosmetic companies are using toxic ingredients that are carcinogenic. But in reality, the research doesn’t exist. There is much speculation over what types of products you should be using to protect your skin properly but while your skin is susceptible to nanoparticle absorption that can affect your skin’s health, the long term effects of particle absorption are unknown.

What is a nanoparticle?

Nanoparticles are emitted from a variety of different sources and can also be created in different ways. Once formed, they are released into the atmosphere and are able to be absorbed by the human body. If this sounds vague, it’s because it is! These particles range from 1-100 nanometers in size and change depending on the source it was emitted from (such as pollution, smoke, technology), if they are absorbed (through your pores or through inhalation), nanoparticles are believed to cause damage to your cells. A 2011 study indicated that free radical formation can also be triggered by nanoparticles.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to completely prevent the absorption of nanoparticles— not to mention scientists are not entirely sure what the long-term effects are once these particles enter the circulatory system. Thus, the difficulty of protecting your skin comes from a shortage of research.

It is nearly impossible to create a “rule of thumb” when it comes to giving advice on how to protect your skin from absorbing different nanoparticles.

Size Matters

Nanoparticles are able to penetrate the skin layers depending on their size. According to a study performed by Dr. H Schaefer et al., “skin penetration depends on particle size is often taken as a rule: particles below 3 μm (micrometre) diameter can penetrate the stratum corneum through the intercellular pathway; particles between 3 and 10 μm accumulate preferentially in the sebaceous follicles; and particles above 10 μm do not penetrate the skin (they possibly remain adhered to the skin surface in the case of film-forming ability).”

If a nanoparticle is under 3 micrometres it is able to penetrate all 3 layers of skin and enter the circulatory system. The issue is, not every person’s reaction to these particles being absorbed is alike AND there is very limited research on what happens when the particles are inside your circulatory system. So, the only way to best protect yourself is to understand the largest sources of these nanoparticles and how to avoid absorption.

Where do harmful nanoparticles come from?

Three of the most harmful free radicals come from pollution, cigarette smoke, and UVA rays. In the study, “Cosmeceuticals and Active Ingredients” Dr. Lintner et. al., describes how millennials (in particular) are not accustomed to protecting themselves against these toxins because the “free-radical generated damage is not immediately visible.”

Although you may not realize it, our skin is subject to aggressors that deteriorate its overall health every single day. And although the long term health effects of your skin may be unknown, we do know that these aggressors slowly weaken your skin tissue and inevitably cause the skin to age prematurely.

While pollutioncigarette smoke, and UVA sun exposure may be three of the most significant causes of free radicals entering the skin, they may not be the only ones affecting the health of your skin. For example, a recent study found that there are nanoparticles released from a photocopy machine when you are making a copy. Based on your proximity to the machine, you are most likely inhaling these toxic nanoparticles, which then sit in your lungs! Additionally, there are also new concerns over the nanoparticles emitted from new 3-D printers. In a world where technology continues to have a strong presence in our day-to-day lives, it is important to be cautious of over-use.

The simple fact is: our skin has not modernized along with society.

As technology changes, our climate becomes more severe, and pollution becomes a larger problem, our skin has a more difficult time protecting itself against free radicals. Our skin is equipped to protect itself to a certain degree, however as you age the ability for your skin to continue creating metabolic enzymes that fight aging begins to slow. That, paired with the pace of our progressive lifestyle has caused the overall health of human skin to deteriorate.

It is also important to understand that “the aging of the skin manifests itself in many ways: drying out, loss of elasticity and texture, thinning, damaged barrier function, the appearance of spots, modification of surface line isotropy, and finally wrinkles.” (Lintner et al.). Thus, not every person’s skin damage manifests the same way. Having a dermatologist assess your skin health and recommend products that are tailored to your skin needs is important.

So, how do we keep our skin healthy?

Using the right creams to combat premature aging and always use SUNSCREEN!

One of the most interesting studies we read tested the accelerated aging of human skin in a tropical climate. The study was performed over a six month period and used 50 Caucasian volunteers, who were split into two groups, receiving either a placebo or a moisturizer containing Thermus thermophilus ferment (TTF), with the hope of proving that skin that was not sufficiently protected would experience measurable deterioration. “The results indicate that under these special conditions of accelerated aging, the skin aged by approximately 4 years in the placebo group, whereas no deterioration occurred in the TTF-treated group”

Yes, you read that correctly! By properly protecting and moisturizing their skin, volunteers in the treated group were able to maintain their skin’s health, whereas those who were subjected to accelerated conditions, aged 4 YEARS in a 6-month period!

While sunscreen protects your skin by its ability to combat UVA and UVB rays from damaging your collagen, moisturizers and cosmetic creams can help to replenish your skin’s collagen. Collagen is a type of protein that helps keep your skin firm and looking young. Products containing peptides are believed to help your skin as peptides are the amino acids found in collagen. By actively replenishing your body’s natural supply, you can help your body fight the effects of premature aging. You can also replenish your body’s collagen through the foods and vitamins you eat! Vitamins C and E, for example, have antioxidant properties that help replenish collagen and repair cell damage.

If you are thinking that the nanoparticles in cream or sunscreen will also enter your skin, it is true that that is a possibility. But, the current understanding of the advantageous effects of sunscreen outweigh any potential negative effects of nanomaterials in topical creams. According to the study performed by Lintner, et al. “we affirm that the current weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterial currently used in cosmetic preparations or sunscreens pose no risk to human skin or human health; on the contrary, they provide a large benefit to human health by protecting human skin against the adverse effects of UV radiation, including that of skin cancer.”

Broad-spectrum sunscreen is proven to be the most effective anti-aging cream you can use to protect your skin, so look for a broad spectrum sunscreen that protects against both UVA and UVB rays. Recent studies have shown that zinc oxide is the most favorable sunscreen ingredient as is not absorbed into the skin after application.  Using sunscreen regularly is known to reduce the risk of premature aging and skin cancer.

The Regulatory Approval Process for Pesticides

tractor spraying crops

We want you to have a good understanding of how to approach the grocery aisle when making your fruit and vegetable purchases. If you are buying organic because you think there were no pesticides used throughout the farming process—think again! If you want to tighten the purse strings on your grocery budget and buy conventional, don’t sweat it! There are a lot of reasons why you don’t need to be stressing about pesticide use in the United States. Now, while you may not be wowed by the pesticide regulation process or intrigued by how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA keep us safe, here are the facts…

In many cases, farmers do not have a choice but to use pesticides. And the simple fact is: if you don’t manage the pests, you don’t have the food!

Pest challenges are a reality of farming and these critters do not discriminate between organic or conventional growers.

Whether it’s worms in lettuce, competing weeds in the fields, or fungus on tomato plants, we would not be enjoying our abundant, varied, and affordable food supply without the use of pesticides.

Pesticides are used in both Conventional and Organic Farming

Most people choose to buy organic because they are concerned about pesticide residue on their food.  To this extent, many environmental and organic marketing groups have succeeded in convincing people that organic products are free of pesticides, therefore “safer.” But crop pests don’t discriminate between organic or conventional! There are multiple organic herbicides that have the same or even higher toxicity when compared to synthetic counterparts. Furthermore, organic pesticides residues are not tested.

The truth is, “organic” is a label that identifies a specific method of food production (as outlined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program). It makes no claims on added health or nutritional benefits and doesn’t necessarily mean grown without pesticides or fertilizers!

Crop pests don’t discriminate. Many people associate “organic” with “safer.” But there are multiple organic herbicides that are considered to have the same or even higher toxicity when compared with glyphosate. Furthermore, organic herbicides have very different herbicidal properties that 1) don’t fully eradicate a weed and 2) requires more passes through the field with machinery which increases human exposure as well as environmental pollutants.

By law, the products stamped with the USDA organic seal may only use inputs derived from natural sources (unless prohibited) and cultural practices such as cultivar selection, crop rotation, and physical barriers as the primary tools for pest management. As we discussed in our Conventional…or Organic? post, regulations for organic production are set forth by the National Organic Program (NOP)

When these organic cultural methods fail for a crop, however, a farmer is allowed to use synthetically formulated pesticides.

The NOP maintains The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, a list of the synthetic substances that may be used and the non-synthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in organic crop and livestock production. It also identifies a limited number of non-organic substances that may be used in or on processed organic products. Adherence to these U.S. government restrictions is what makes a certified organic product unique.

The NOP also identifies a limited number of non-organic substances that may be used in or on processed organic products. Adherence to these U.S. government restrictions is what makes a certified organic product unique.

Third-Party Testing

To further help organic farmers clarify what they can and cannot apply to their crops or administer to their animals, third-party testing and research facilities such as the Organic Materials Research Institute (OMRI) and state governments provide available manufacturer and product lists for fertilizers, soil amendments and pesticides allowed for organic production and/or processing under the NOP standards. The OMRI list includes over 1,000 synthetic products approved for an organic crop, pest, weed, and disease control!

If an organic farmer uses only pesticides derived from botanical or mineral sources, there are some inherent risks in these products as well. These chemicals are given the same CAUTION, WARNING, or DANGER labels as synthetic fertilizers. While these chemicals may break down more rapidly than a synthetic fertilizer, this can lead to more applications or use of larger quantities of chemicals. Because of this, in some cases, the synthetic chemical may be a better option than its organic counterpart.

Regardless of whether you are buying conventional or organic products, pesticides are used throughout the farming process.

Pesticides are rigorously tested before coming to market.

All aspects of pesticide use in modern agriculture are highly regulated and pesticide regulation is a very transparent process to both scientists and the public. The pesticides approved for use on conventional and organic crops undergo rigorous scientific evaluation by U.S. EPA, to ensure that the public is protected from health risks posed by eating pesticide-treated foods.

The EPA regulatory approval process requires testing to evaluate whether a pesticide could harm humans, wildlife, plants, and surface or groundwater. It can take years before a pesticide is allowed for agricultural use.

Once a pesticide is approved, in order to sell pesticides in the United States, the EPA requires a company or individual register their product. Registration provides information to the EPA about the product ingredients. The application and testing process is extensive and assures those new products brought to market are safe for use.

LD50 and LC50 Many chemicals have a lethal dose (LD50) or lethal concentration (LC50), which is the amount of material, given all at once, that kills 50% of a test animal group. Acute toxicity is measured as the amount or concentration of a toxicant — the active ingredient—required to kill 50% of the animals in a test population. The LD50 and LC50 values are based on a single dosage and are recorded in milligrams of pesticide per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) of the test animal or in parts per million (ppm). The lower the LD50 or LC50 of a pesticide product, the greater its toxicity to humans and animals. Signal words are also found on pesticide product labels. They describe the acute, short-term toxicity of the formulated pesticide product. These labels are Danger, Warning, or Caution.

Tolerance Limits for Pesticides

An important component of the EPA’s regulation of pesticides involves setting allowable limits (“tolerances”). These tolerances are the maximum amount of pesticides that may legally remain in or on food and animal feed. These limits are designed with a margin of safety to protect people of all ages and sensitivities, i.e. pregnant women and immune-compromised. Tolerances, using residue chemistry and toxicity data, are set at the lowest level necessary to accommodate the maximum application rate and frequency required for the pesticide to be effective.

The toxicity of a pesticide depends on the concentration and how often is it being consumed, inhaled, or left on your skin. The EPA is responsible for reasonably assuring consumers that no adverse health effects will result from consuming food treated with pesticides, even after a lifetime of exposure.

All pesticides, whether organic or not, have to go through this risk assessment conducted by the EPA and similar regulatory bodies around the world. It is through this process that any pesticide, natural or synthetic, is safe when used according to the product label. Those who apply pesticides certainly have to be very careful.

Consumers typically worry about the potential toxicity of the pesticide residues on the fruits and vegetables they consume. Extensive testing is performed by numerous federal and state sampling data programs to confirm pesticide residues detected are typically well below the established EPA tolerances.

The Pesticide Data Program

The USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) is one of the most comprehensive pesticide residue monitoring programs in the U.S. The PDP is designed to monitor pesticide residues on food to ensure they are safe to eat by any age group over a long period of time. The program is implemented through cooperation with state agriculture departments and other federal agencies. The PDP testing methods detect pesticide residue levels, many of which are below EPA tolerances.

The Pesticide Residue Data is essential in supporting efforts by the USDA and EPA to assess the American consumer’s dietary exposure to pesticide residues through their fruit and vegetable consumption. This data is also used by the agricultural industry, environmental interest groups, food safety organizations, the FDA, the Foreign Agricultural Service, academic institutions, participating states, and the EPA.

The USDA’s Pesticide Data Program consistently shows that 98-99 percent of the fruits and vegetables monitored do not exceed safety limits set by the EPA and, in most cases, the residues levels found are only a fraction of the allowable levels, well within safety limits.

The PDP has tested over 400 pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and growth regulators), metabolites and isomers, including older pesticides, such as Carbamates and Organophosphates and newer pesticides such as PyrethroidsNeonicotinyls and Triazoles.

Supplements: Natural or Synthetic?

small glass bowl of supplements with herbs

Last week at D2D, we explained why vitamins and minerals are important to maintain both your short and long term health. So, we know we need to ingest vitamins to stay healthy, but now we need to investigate what type of vitamins we should take. If you turn to the Internet for help, you will find there is a lot of criticism from various nutritionists and natural vitamin companies on the use of synthetic vitamins; in particular, arguing that our bodies do not know how to digest these supplements. But is this true? Or is this another marketing ploy to make you buy the more expensive, naturally-created vitamins?

First, what is a natural vitamin? 

Similar to ‘natural’ foods, the natural vitamin label is not clearly defined and can be very misleading. A natural vitamin can be made from a component directly from the earth or it can be ‘naturally made’ in your body through digestion. Or, it can be a product, like vitamin B, that begins with natural fermentation but is additionally processed.

The most typical all-natural vitamin is classified as something that is created directly from plant material. However, since pills obviously don’t grow on trees, the only completely natural vitamin is something that comes directly from your food.

To remove any vitamin from its natural source is a tricky and expensive process that also reduces the potency of the particular nutrient. Isolating a specific vitamin from its source, like Vitamin A from cod liver oil, does not necessarily yield 100% of the vitamin. So you have to ‘synthesize’ the vitamin anyway to reach full potency.

In our exploration of synthetic vitamins, we came across some great research from Willner Chemists in New York City. These pharmaceutical researchers explain the purpose of synthetic vitamins very clearly. According to Dr. Donald Goldberg, R.Ph and Dr. Arnold Gitomer, R.Ph.:

“Yes, vitamins and minerals occur naturally in food. But the quantities are very small. When taking supplements, we are accustomed to potencies that would be impossible to obtain from natural vitamins in food concentrates. To get 500 milligrams of vitamin C and 10 milligrams of the various B vitamins from natural sources would require a tablet the size of a football. With a few exceptions—such as vitamin E, natural beta-carotene, and vitamin B12—all of the vitamins used in dietary supplements are synthetic. Regardless of what your local health-food store clerk or multilevel marketing zealot tells you, it’s a fact. And it’s also a fact that these synthetic vitamins are identical to their natural counterparts. To get high potencies of vitamins and minerals in a dietary supplement, synthetic or highly processed vitamins, and minerals must be used. You cannot have it both ways. High-potency vitamin levels in a product are always the result of added synthetic vitamins.”

What is a synthetic vitamin?

The molecular structure for each vitamin is well known. Those nutrients are exactly replicated in the lab to support their specific cellular structure and function. Because the vitamin is specifically isolated, the lab can easily control the purity and quality.

The only exception is vitamin E, which is important as an antioxidant and good for your skin. Vitamin C combined with vitamin E may increase the photoprotection of your skin more than vitamin E by itself. Naturally-occurring vitamin E such as spinach, nuts, and oils, contains eight molecules called tocopherols and tocotrienols. A synthetic vitamin can only capture one tocopherol. Look for a ‘d’ label before the word alpha-tocopherol rather than a ‘dl’ label which means it is synthetic.

Aside from Vitamin E, there is no difference between natural and synthetic vitamins. In fact, 95% of vitamins on the market are synthetic, because it’s actually very difficult to put natural vitamins into most supplements.

When looking at a label you will see that vitamin ingredients are identified as either “d-“ or “dl-“. If the ingredient is labeled with the prefix “dl-“, it means the ingredient is synthetic, whereas the prefix “d-“ indicates the natural form.


ingredient label from Solgar Vitamin E Vegetarian softgels

Save your wallet – Natural is not the only option.

“All-natural” vitamin companies often tout their process of creating “natural” vitamins as being better for your health. Natural supplements are typically far more taxing on your budget than synthetic supplements.

Companies producing all-natural vitamins indicate their products are free of artificial flavorings and colorings, chemical preservatives and excessive excipients (inactive substances that are carriers for active ingredients). Natural companies use only natural flavoring agents such as herbal extracts, lemon, and vanilla with no chemical dyes. Synthetic supplements are criticized for using binders to hold tablets together, or fillers such as cellulose or magnesium stearate for encapsulation. Cellulose is a vegetable plant; if you eat lettuce or spinach, you are eating cellulose. Magnesium stearate is used to make sure the ingredients blend together proportionally and easily slides through the manufacturing process. It is basically a combination of stearic acid (a saturated fat found in beef, cocoa butter, and coconut oil) and magnesium salt. Both are recognized as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) by the FDA.

Natural vitamin companies often claim that your body will not know how to process vitamins that have been created synthetically. The main criticism is that synthetic vitamins are ‘isolated’ and since they are not working in conjunction with other vitamins, enzymes and minerals the human body does not recognize the isolated ones.

The purpose of taking a vitamin is to get the benefit of the nutrients. Reputable labs will actually create a ‘human stomach’ to test how the vitamins break down and release the nutrients. They copy the temperature, average acidity, and how the stomach churns during digesting. Of course, there are individual variants such as your gut microbiota, your age, and your overall health that will affect how your own body digests and absorbs the vitamin.

The FDA and WHO do not distinguish between all natural and synthetic vitamins. In fact, dietary supplements are not regulated by the FDA the same way drugs are – and with good reason! This is due to the fact that you can make therapeutic claims for drugs, which you cannot do for dietary supplements. In terms of vitamins, the FDA regulations are responsible for the purity, potency, and safety of dietary supplements being created. They concur that the molecular structures of nutrients are well known and the body cannot tell if a nutrient came from a lab or a plant. Thus, synthetically created vitamins are not taxing on your body.

The question is not whether a vitamin is synthetic or natural but was it made by a reputable manufacturer that uses FDA Good Manufacturing processes and uses a third party for their testing.

Be sure your vitamin supplements (whether they are synthetic or natural) are tested for toxicity and contaminants, are properly labeled, and will break down in your body in the appropriate amount of time.

Why Take a Vitamin?

Fruit and vegetable alphabet - letter V

Micronutrients are vital for your body’s overall health. They consist of thirteen vitamins, four major minerals, and nine minor minerals. In order to replenish your body’s natural supply, you need to eat the right foods or take the proper supplements.

Did you know that 80% of children who lived in Boston had rickets back in the early 1900s? The pollution from coal and wood limited their sun exposure, and they were getting no Vitamin D. Many long voyage sailors and explorers have indirectly thanked surgeon James Lind, who discovered that citrus fruits could assuage scurvy. If only they had vitamin C on board…

Vitamins Help Protect Against Disease

Vitamins play a significant role in preventing different diseases and each individual vitamin serves a different purpose. Vitamin E, for example, helps keep your eyes and skin healthy. Some scientists also argue that the antioxidant properties of vitamin E can potentially help prevent diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and cancer.

Vitamin C assists your body’s collagen production, the most prevalent protein in mammals. As you get older, your collagen starts to break down. When your skin collagen breaks down, it can cause wrinkles! Vitamin C allows your body to create new collagen, potentially slowing the effects of aging. It can also boost your immune system.

Minerals are just as important.

Minerals are just as important. We all know how important calcium is for our bones and teeth, but did you know it also helps in clotting your blood? Unlike calcium, chromium is a mineral that is probably not on your radar. One of the benefits of chromium is that it helps our bodies use insulin thus keeps our blood sugar normal. Luckily (for chocolate lovers) it can be found in dark chocolate. Minerals and vitamins are also known to complement each other. For example, you are familiar with Calcium-Magnesium vitamins. Not only does magnesium help you sleep and regulate your blood pressure, but it also helps your body’s absorption of calcium! The combination of Calcium and Magnesium together provides bone support.

Micronutrients Can Benefit Your Long Term Health.

Micronutrients also play an important role in our body’s long term health. Dr. Bruce Ames, from University California at Berkeley, has studied the long term effects of vitamins on our mitochondria and our aging cells. As we age, our mitochondria is not as prevalent, but Dr. Ames has found that micronutrients can enhance mitochondria – thus amending DNA damage leading to aging issues. Dr. Ames associated vitamin bioavailability with a “triage theory”. Similar to triage in an emergency room where the doctors take care of the most severe cases first, our bodies use vitamins and minerals the same way. First, they take care of short term vitamin and mineral shortages. Then they address fixing long term problems such as inflammation or DNA mutation. Hence why you need a steady supply of vitamins to maintain your health! If you are deficient in any vitamins and minerals, your long term repair system could be in trouble and unable to help protect your body against cancer, neurological diseases, and/or other aging diseases.

So, we know why we need vitamins and minerals—but exactly how does your body use these specific vitamins to protect your body?

Vitamins help to maintain the healthy condition of your cells, organs, and tissues and can keep your body from wearing down. Of the 13 vitamins, four are fat-soluble vitamins and nine are water-soluble vitamins. Fat-soluble vitamins, vitamins D, E, A, and K, are stored in the liver or fat tissues. Rather than passing quickly through your body, fat-soluble vitamins remain in the body for longer. Once they are stored, these “reserves” can be used days after ingestion.

Water-soluble vitamins, on the other hand, dissolve in water—and your body does not store them for very long. They are expelled from your body through your urine and need to be replenished more quickly than fat-soluble vitamins. All fat and water-soluble vitamins play different, but equally important roles in your body’s overall health.

These days, our lives are pretty hectic and we often don’t get enough sleep, we are exposed to environmental and food toxins, and most likely we are not getting the full requirement of vitamins and minerals through our diet. And since our bodies rarely produce enough of these on their own, typically we need supplements to stay healthy.

Now, this might not be true for all our readers, but globally there are more than two billion people that suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. In fact, nine out of ten Americans suffer from dietary gaps with the most common micronutrients of vitamin A, C, D, E, Magnesium, and Calcium. Amending these deficiencies with a diet change is pretty unrealistic. Not to mention when you look at a nutrition label, you often go straight to the calories, sugar, and protein listing. And while that is good practice, the bottom of the “Nutrition Facts” label often gets overlooked.

You can rely on different foods to help replenish various vitamin deficiencies. Refer to this chart for a little help!

The Dietary Supplement Label Database

With all the various vitamins and different requirements for each one—it is difficult to keep up! The FDA publishes the Dietary Supplement Label Database to help you understand the minimum daily requirements for vitamins and minerals.

If you would like even more detail, the National Academies Food and Nutrition Board has categorized daily requirements by children, males, females, pregnancy, and lactation. For more detail on what each vitamin and mineral does for your body, check out The Ultimate Guide to Vitamins and Minerals or the Harvard Medical School Health Publication.

Now that we know how much we should take, how do you know which supplements are safe to take?

Because the FDA does not regulate supplements, many are tested independently by third-party certification. The most common to look for are The USP Seal of Approval, NSF International, Informed Choice, ConsumerLab, and Banned Substances Control Group (BSCGF). They test to confirm that the ingredients listed on the label are:

  • actually in the product in the stated amounts.
  • made in sanitary FDA Good Manufacturing Conditions.
  • will break down in the body in an appropriate amount of time.
  • do not contain harmful levels of toxins or contaminants.

Third party organizations provide independent testing, but it is at a point in time and does not guarantee future batches. So you want to look for those companies who manufacture their vitamins under ‘Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). These standards are written by the FDA.

According to the FDA, here’s how to be a savvy supplement user:

  • When searching for supplements on the internet, use noncommercial sites (e.g. NIH, FDA, USDA) rather than doing blind searches.
  • Watch out for false statements like “works better than [a prescription drug],” “totally safe,” or has “no side effects.”
  • Ask your healthcare provider for help in distinguishing between reliable and questionable information.
  • If you want to know more about the product that you are taking, check with the manufacturer or distributor about information to support the claims, ingredients, and effectiveness.

If you are integrating vitamin supplements into your routine, there are two different types of supplements you can purchase: natural or synthetic. Read our post to help you make an informed decision about what supplements you should be purchasing.

Resources to learn more about essential vitamins and minerals:

NIH: The National Institutes of Health (NIH), from the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), has a range of materials, across topics, and offers an easy-to-understand fact sheet on supplements.
FDA: The U.S. FDA: Dietary Supplements page has a roster of helpful information.
CRN: The Council of Responsible Nutrition (CRN), here you will find helpful tips from a leading trade association, including how to read a supplement label.
A Guide to Vitamin and Mineral Safety.
IOM: To learn more about recommended intake levels based on RDAs (Recommended Dietary Allowances) from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences.

Conventional…or Organic?

fresh green beens
  • There are 2.1 million farms in the US. representing 915,000,000 acres of land according to the USDA 2012 Census. This is a little over the size of the United States East of the Mississippi River.
  • Certified and exempt (<$5,000 in annual sales) organic farms represent approximately 3,670,560 acres of land, and 5% ($28.4 billion) of total food sales.
  • Fruits and vegetables remain the top selling organic products accounting for 43% of U.S. organic food sales, yet account for roughly 3.2% of the total fruits and vegetables sold in the U.S.

Putting Organic in Perspective

Purchasing organic has become increasingly popular, but the numbers don’t lie. Let’s first put the organic food market in perspective before you start to worry that you must be buying only organic! The organic market is responsible for 0.4% of total cropland and 5% of food sales in the U.S. And while these numbers are impressive given the rapid rate of growth of organic, that leaves approximately 912 million acres for other methods of farming.

With a population of 323 million in the U.S. alone, it is important to have a collaboration of different farming methods in order to produce our bounty of food.

A Brief History of Organic

Before 1990 the organic food industry was essentially a patchwork of states self-regulating with varying degrees of oversight. Organic farming became accepted as mainstream in 1990 with the passage of The Organic Foods Production Act. The OFPA established the National Organic Program and the National Organic Standards Board which together develop the national standards and regulatory framework for organic producers and processors. These rules and regulations keep all certified organic farmers following the same protocols for crop and livestock production. The Final Rule went into full effect by October 2002. This was a tremendous step forward for the organic industry. The rules and practices of organic farming were made clear for farmers, and the consumer could now be assured that products with the “USDA Organic Label” had met strict and consistent standards.

What is behind the USDA Organic Label?

The Organic label is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture. The label provides insurance to the consumer that the food or other agricultural product in question has been produced without antibiotics, supplemental growth hormones, certain pesticides, petroleum or sewage-sludge-based fertilizers, bioengineering, or ionizing radiation.

Given the additional requirements that go into organic farming, and the laws of supply and demand, organic is almost always sold at a premium. Most consumers are willing to buy higher-priced goods because of concerns about pesticide exposure in fruits and vegetables or antibiotics in their meat. However, it is important to note that the Organic Seal does not mean the product is “better for you” — it simply states that food has been grown using a specific method of agriculture.

Just like conventional farming, there are farm audits and stringent rules for growing practices. The Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2011 addresses organically and conventionally grown food and products to assure that all of the food supply remains safe.

Labeling Requirements for Organic

Products sold as organic have strict production and labeling requirements set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture. The USDA has produced a useful fact sheet, but this chart is a quick summary.

Whether your food is grown organically or conventionally, the farmer is required to follow certain mandates. However, it is not an either/or situation. Depending on different variables, such as the soil, crop, fertilizer, pesticide application, water usage, location, and most importantly, the farmer, either method of farming can be less toxic and more nutritious.

When looking at the use of the seal itself, you should take away a few things. If you choose to buy food that is certified organic, you can be assured that it follows the strict organic standards of specific pesticides, fertilizers, three years of fallow soil, and no antibiotics or hormones used in meat production.

If you prefer buying conventionally grown products you can be assured that farms are thoroughly regulated and food has been rigorously tested to be sure it is safe to eat. If you buy from your local farmer, whether they run 10 acres or 100 acres – get to know them! We cannot underestimate the value smaller farms bring to a local community. Don’t be afraid to ask questions on how they grow their food — they want to earn your trust!

Video: Today’s farmer talks about growing food and what is done to manage resources.

The Red Wine Diet

three red wine glasses clinking

Some of our D2D readers were toasting each other with glasses of red wine over the weekend cheering, “healthier than going to the gym!” Publications like ShapeBustle, and Elite Daily, are writing about the positive health effects of red wine, telling readers that it is equivalent to an hour of cardio. How?

The secret lies in resveratrol. This common compound in wine has been found to “enhance exercise training and performance.” In May 2012, the Journal of Physiology published an article by seven researchers from the University of Alberta entitled “Improvements in skeletal muscle strength and cardiac function induced by resveratrol during exercise training contribute to enhanced exercise performance in rats.” In laymen’s terms: these researchers discovered that a substance found in wine gave rats an extra boost during exercise. The energy boost comes from “an increase in skeletal muscle force, cardiac function, and oxidative metabolism.”

What is Resveratrol?

Resveratrol is of the “polyphenols” family and “polyphenol” is essentially all plant-based micro-nutrients. You may have first come across the benefits of polyphenol in wine in the book, The Red Wine Diet, published in September 2007. Author Dr. Roger Corder examined the role of “procyanidins”, another nutrient of the polyphenol family that is found in red wine. This book asserts that procyanidin, a micronutrient with strong anti-oxidant properties, is a “key health component” for humans. According to Dr. Corder, procyanidins may keep your blood vessels healthy and “healthy blood vessels are the key to keeping your heart, brain, and every other organ in good shape. Healthy blood vessel function may also help prevent cancer.” (Corder, 2007) For these reasons, Dr. Corder believes one glass of red wine a day is a good way to live a longer, healthier life. However, some researchers believe that many of these effects can now be attributed to the alcohol content of the wine. In fact, it is the fermentation process that extracts procyanidin from the seeds and skin of the grapes used to make wine. While procyanidins are believed to protect against free radicals, it is almost impossible to say with certainty that these nutrients help you to live a longer life without conducting human trials.

According to the study, Resveratrol has been shown to increase the mitochondrial energy in cells; break down fatty acids into energy, and improve oxygen delivery to the big muscles attached to the bones. However, the giant leap from “resveratrol is an exercise enhancer” to “drinking red wine as equivalent to a trip to the gym” is entirely inaccurate. Resveratrol enhances exercise performance, it does not replace it.

We spoke to lead researcher, Dr. Jason Dyck. He clarified that many of the stories that are being published citing this research are not correct. Nowhere does this study advocate avoiding exercise. Not to mention, the amount of red wine you would need to drink in order to get a high dosage of resveratrol is anywhere from 100 to 1,000 bottles per day! Clearly, a resveratrol supplement is in order here.

Resveratrol is believed to decrease the risk of heart disease and cancer. However, the research conducted by the University of Alberta focused on the unique relationship between resveratrol and exercise. This fueled the increasingly popular (and inaccurate) headline that drinking red wine = a workout.

Their study used male Wistar rats, separated into 4 groups over a period of 12 weeks and focused on their exercise program. The individual groups were fed either a standard diet or a diet that included resveratrol. By controlling the rat’s exercise regimen and their dietary requirements, the scientists successfully tested the effectiveness of resveratrol. The study concluded that resveratrol increased the endurance capacity of their Wistar rats.

While it is very catchy to say a glass of wine is equivalent to an hour in the gym – that is not the case. Yes, both resveratrol and an hour in the gym can benefit your overall health, but they are not mutually exclusive. The incorporation of resveratrol into your diet supports the effectiveness of your time in the gym.

GMO Labeling: What’s the Point?

GMO Label on snackfood

The Dirt-to-Dinner team understands the importance of food labeling. It helps consumers understand the nutritional content, identify ingredients, and to avoid an allergic reaction!

Nutrition labels help us identify the daily percentage or specific key nutrients and unhealthy additives, like sugar. (Sugar is Sugar discusses how sugar can cause long term health issues.) But, in the case of GMO vs. non-GMO products, this is not applicable. All genetically modified produce has the same nutritional content as non-GMO food. For instance, your corn tortilla has the exact same nutritional profile regardless if it was made with GM corn or not.

Labeling GMO produce gives implies that there must be something wrong with GMOs. It is labeling initiatives like this that fuel consumers distrust of GMOs. And a lack of understanding often leads to fear, which urges consumers to select ‘made without GMOs’ foods when given a choice. But, in reality, when polled, over 60% of people are not sure what the acronym “GMO” even means!

Vermont is the first state to require labeling — will others follow?

The state of Vermont is home to the most certified organic farms per capita. Thus, it is not surprising that Vermont is the first state to require such labeling. But this arduous labeling process is not solely focused on food transparency. More than helping the consumer “know what is in their food”, Vermont’s legislation condemns GMOs. The Vermont Labeling Rule implies that the FDA has not done a thorough review of GMOs; that there is no scientific consensus on the validity of GMO research; and that they are protecting public health and food safety. But, if we simply refer to the FDA’s website, you will find the agency’s exhaustive research on genetic engineering, from plant toxicity levels to the nutritional value against its traditionally-bred counterpart.

The FDA has a very real responsibility to protect its American citizens and would not lazily let some “new food technology” slip through the cracks. But GMOs are the most highly tested food ever created without one documented negative health event. Our food is safer than ever before. Why can’t we trust the FDA, USDA, WHO, EFSA, and even the EPA, all internationally recognized organizations indicating that GMOs pose no human health or environmental risk?

Proponents of GMOs have shown crops can be grown with a higher yield per acre while still reducing pesticide, herbicide, and water use. The opposition doesn’t like the use of the pesticide, glyphosate, which is a less toxic pesticide than most. They think it poses health risks as well as reducing crop biodiversity.

For those still opposed to genetically modified foods, there are still many options. Legally, certified Organic foods cannot contain GMOs. Whole Foods has even dedicated a portion of its website on ‘How to Shop if Avoiding GMOs’. There are cost-effective ways to be a smart shopper without wasting state government resources and money to further increase GMO labeling.

Scientific Studies on GMOs

USA National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture (2000) | Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States (2010)

USA Institute of Medicine (IOM) & National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies.
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects (2004)

USA National Academies (IOM, NRC, NAS, NAE)
A Science-Based Look at Genetically Engineered Crops (The study will be ready in 2016)

USA American Medical Association (AMA)
Council on Science and Public Health Report (2012)

USA American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (2012)

USA American Council of Science and Health (ACSH)
Biotechnology and Food (Second Edition) (2000)

USA Society of Toxicology (SOT)
The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology (2003)

USA American Dietetic Association
Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural and food biotechnology (2006)

USA Genetics Society of America
Assessing Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (2001)

USA American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
ASCB Statement in Support of Research on Genetically Modified Organisms (2009)

USA American Society of Plant Biology (ASPB)
Statement on Plant Genetic Engineering 

USA American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
Statement of the American Society for Microbiology on Genetically Modified Organisms (2000)

USA American Phytopathological Society (APS)
APS Statement on Biotechnology and its Application to Plant Pathology (2001)

USA Society for In Vitro Biology (SIVB)
Position Statement on Crop Engineering 

USA Crop Science Society of America
CSSA Perspective on Biotechnology (2001)

USA Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST)
Crop Biotechnology and the Future of Food: A Scientific Assessment (2005)

USA Federation of Animal Sciences Societies (FASS) – representing the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) and the Poultry Science Association (PSA).
FASS Facts On Biotech Crops – Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs (2001)

USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants 

Wild vs. Farmed Salmon

salmon swimming upstream

I traveled along the coast of Norway to visit salmon farms and see if there truly was a difference to our health and the environment between wild and farmed salmon   Before this trip, I would always purchase wild salmon over farmed. When I think of “wild caught salmon” I thought of untouched salmon leaping and splashing upstream to spawn in a clean river nestled below forested and snowcapped mountains. And while it is true that wild salmon do jump upstream—you can watch the grizzlies enjoying that—not all wild salmon are better for you and it is not necessarily better for the environment to eat wild salmon.

The general understanding of farm-raised salmon is vague because the process of farming these typically wild fish is not discussed very often. It is safe to say that the majority of salmon-eaters are not quite sure how farmed salmon are grown, bred, and harvested for food. This uncertainty often leads to fear of the unknown. You might envision a large metal holding tank filled with dirty water, chemicals, fish food residue, and packed with fish unhappily swimming in circles. Well, thankfully, this perception is not reality.

The Global Salmon Initiative

The Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) is a leadership initiative established by leading farmed salmon CEOs from around the world who share a vision of providing a healthy and sustainable source of protein to feed a growing population while minimizing their environmental footprint and continuing to improve their social contribution. (Global Salmon Initiative)

Why is salmon such a popular food?

These fish are a healthy source of protein and fatty acids. A four ounce serving of salmon contains 23 grams of protein! That is roughly 50% of your suggested daily intake of protein. Salmon is also loaded with Vitamins B-6, B-12, C, potassium, and more. Not to mention they are extremely high in omega-3 fatty acids, which can help your body protect itself against heart disease, lower the levels of unhealthy blood fats (also known as triglycerides), and may reduce joint inflammation.

A 4 oz serving of salmon contains 23 grams of protein!

Where does our salmon come from?

Today, wild salmon primarily come from the rivers off the northern Pacific Ocean surrounding Alaska, Russia, and Japan. Wild Atlantic salmon also border the northern shores of the United States, Canada, and Scandinavia. These fish are born in fresh water and migrate to the ocean but return to the fresh water when they reproduce. The average wild salmon lives for about six years. This is assuming life goes well and there are no diseases, predators, extreme temperature fluctuations, or too much competition for food.

In the wild, salmon are born in fresh water and migrate to the ocean but return to the fresh water when they reproduce. Image source

After hatching, wild salmon remain in the freshwater river for roughly two to three years before they make their way to the ocean. Once in the ocean, they grow to their full size and navigate back to their stream of birth to spawn. These fish miraculously find their way home using the earth’s magnetic field and their early fish-hood smells. Some even swim over 1,000 miles to their birthplace. After they spawn, many of them die or are eaten.

Wild Caught or Farmed

The salmon on your plate is either from a wild-capture fishery or a fish farm, otherwise known as aquaculture. Capturing salmon from the wild is much more sophisticated than a few men wielding several large fishing poles.

Commercial salmon fishermen use electronic fish finders, hydraulic equipment, and large nets in order to capture the most salmon possible in a given expedition. In fact, they have been so effective that many of the wild salmon fisheries are fished out. While many salmon are coming back throughout the East Coast river system, they are still protected and are only fished as catch and release. The largest population of Atlantic Salmon can be found off the coast of Maine. As a result, salmon in the Pacific Northwest are under the watchful eye of government regulators in the United States.

As the concern over depleting our natural wild resources has increased, there has also been a substantial focus on producing farmed salmon over the last few years. Today, roughly 95% of the salmon is farmed in Norway, Chile, Scotland, and Canada. Additionally, 70% of this farmed fish are grown by only fifteen producers. Aside from carp and tilapia, salmon is the third largest aquaculture species. In 2013, global aquaculture production of fish, crustaceans, and other species totaled 97 million tons. And to put that in perspective, global cattle weighed in at 64 million tons. According to the World Wildlife Fund, “Salmon Aquaculture is the fastest growing food production system in the world – accounting for 70 percent of the market. This is three times higher than it was in 1980”. Over the past 13 years, salmon production has increased by 133% to two million tons, while wild-caught salmon has decreased by 53%.

What are the benefits of farmed salmon?

Raised and harvested responsibly, farmed salmon meet all the benefits of sustainable agriculture farming: good for the environment, and good for our health. Because of the high standards most farms uphold, these farmers ensure that the entire value chain from the fish feed to the ecosystem is taken into consideration.

What are farmed salmon fed?

According to the World Wildlife Fund, “Salmon Aquaculture is the fastest growing food production system in the world – accounting for 70 percent of the market. This is three times higher than it was in 1980”.

In aquacultures, the purpose of the nutrient-rich diet is to enable fish to maintain their health and reach maturity in three years. A key component in sustainable salmon farming is ensuring the amount of salmon harvested outweighs the amount of food the salmon in the farm consume. The feed to fish ration is 1:1 in farmed salmon versus 6:1 for wild salmon. One and a half pounds of food generally produces roughly a pound of salmon, as opposed to wild fish which need to eat six pounds of fish to gain one pound of weight. This is because the wild fish expend a lot of calories swimming many miles against strong currents.

Carnivorous fish, like salmon, are happy to eat – other fish. The ingredients used in fish feed have changed in recent years. Historically, the salmon feed was made up of fish meal, fish oil, and micronutrients. However, to maintain the right balance between catching fish and feeding fish today, some of the fish oil and fish meal is replaced with terrestrial raw materials such as canola, soybean oil, and vegetable protein sources. This substitution of fish oil is discussed because some people are concerned that the nutritional benefits of salmon will change.

However, even with the substitution of the marine ingredients, farmed salmon still provide more than enough omega-3 per portion. The health benefits of omega-3 capsules is yet another reason for the demand for fish oil – in fact, salmon is a much more efficient converter of omega–3 than the capsules. Luckily for all the omega-3 junkies, because of the nutrients fed to farmed fish, their omega-3 content is generally a little higher than those in the wild. So don’t be afraid of your farmed salmon dinner. It will provide you with the same health benefits as wild caught salmon.

 

You might be curious about the genetically engineered Aqua Advantage Salmon from AquaBounty. This is a case of taking the Atlantic salmon and inserting a growth-promoting gene from the Pacific Chinook salmon along with an ocean pout. The modified salmon will now grow year-round instead of only during the spring and summer. Market size can be reached in 16 to 18 months rather than the more typical three years. However, this fish is not yet on the market and is only grown in Panama. At the moment, the overall salmon industry is not leaping over the falls to embrace this fast-growing fish as they feel that selective breeding will ultimately produce the same result.

Do farmed salmon have more risk of disease?

Image credit: Patrick Pleul

Farmed salmon are raised in big open water netted pens about the size of a football field.

There are certainly challenges that present themselves in aquacultures, but unfortunately, there is an over-publicized fear of diseases and sea lice. It is believed that because of the threat of disease, farmed fish are given antibiotics to prevent the spread. However, antibiotics are not used in salmon farming practices! Instead of antibiotics, farmed fish are vaccinated early in their life. They are also bred to be hardy and resistant to disease. The one exception is for the bacterial disease, found only in Chile, called SRS. In response to this threat, many companies are working on launching a vaccine.

As for sea lice, while it is an issue, salmon farming has been accused of allowing sea lice infested salmon to escape and infect the wild salmon swimming nearby. The truth is that the wild cousins swimming nearby infect the farms. However, it is still an issue to manage for the farmer as well as a major consideration by consumers and NGOs alike. There are two main methods of treating sea lice. One is adding ‘pilot fish’ to the pens; they eat the sea lice off the salmon. The next is a treatment called SLICE, which is put into the fish feed to kill the lice if it is contracted. Of course, the use of SLICE is regulated and not used before the fish is harvested, thus it is not finding its way onto your dinner plate. While it is true that both sea lice and disease are enemies of farmed salmon, wild salmon are certainly not exempt either.

There are certainly challenges that present themselves in aquacultures, but unfortunately, there is an over-publicized fear of diseases.

Another fallacy of farmed salmon is that they are full of toxins, specifically polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). However, what we need to do is put wild salmon under the microscope. In fact, because wild salmon live longer and humans cannot control what these salmon eat, they often may have a higher level of unwanted substances in their system than that of a farm-raised salmon. Farmed fish have a controlled diet and life cycle and their lifespan is shorter.

If you’ve ever had a goldfish you know that the bowl can get pretty dirty and has to be cleaned regularly. Those opposed to fish farming apply the same logic to aquacultures. They argue the dirty water of the aquaculture somehow pollutes the surrounding water and transmits bacteria to humans. However, it behooves the farmer to maintain a farm with clean flowing water. Generally, the ratio is around 2.5% fish to 97.5% fresh water. If the water isn’t clean and fresh in the sea cages, the fish will become diseased, die and have to be discarded. Not the optimum result for the farmer. Additionally, the general practice is to leave the harvested pen empty for a period of three to six months to eliminate any possibility of cross-contamination.

The sophisticated technology is such that fish farmers can feed the fish exactly what they need to grow efficiently without excreting large amounts of waste into the ecosystem. This limits the possibility of excess feed spreading throughout the ecosystem as well. This also means that only a minimal amount of waste is flowing through the fish pens and spreading out to the bottom of the sea. This small amount of fish waste is actually a positive nutrient for kelp, prawns, crabs, and other sea creatures! AND in order to verify that the salmon are healthy and safe, the water inside and around the pens is frequently measured, tested, and regulated.

Sustainable Salmon = Wild and Farmed

It is important to know that not all salmon farms are created equal. So, how do you know the farmed salmon you are eating is safe and was raised sustainably? Is the salmon you eat certified to any standards?

In order to ensure that all farmed fish, and future fish, are raised in a healthy, clean manner, fifteen of the largest salmon companies from Norway, Chile, and Scotland recognized the need for a global certification process and created the Global Salmon Initiative (GSI). According to their mission statement, “the GSI is a leadership initiative by global farmed salmon producers, focused on making significant progress toward fully realizing a shared goal of providing a highly sustainable source of healthy protein to feed a growing population while minimizing our environmental footprint, and continuing to improve our social contribution.”

GSI has selected the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) to monitor best practices and provide a certification label. The ASC assures you that farmed fish are raised in farms that abide by national and local laws; and that fish farmers conserve the ecosystem, protect the health of wild populations, use resources in an environmentally responsible manner, manage disease in an environmentally responsible manner, operate in a socially responsible manner, and are a good neighbor and conscientious citizen. These standards help to ensure we are getting healthy fish while promoting sustainable aquaculture.

For those of you who shop at Whole Foods, you know that they are also a proponent of farmed salmon and have their own “responsibly farmed 3rd party certification” where they partner with salmon farmers in Norway, Iceland, and Scotland.

On the other hand, how do you know that your wild salmon was caught responsibly? Have the fishermen followed the regulations on caught fish? Have they fished in areas where the fish are diminished? Is the eco-system healthy? Luckily, there are standards here too. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) “offers the world’s only wild-capture seafood certification and eco-labeling program that is consistent with international organizations.”

The 5:2 Fasting Diet

tape measure wrapped around an apple - diet

Alternate-day fasting diets, like the 5:2 diet, have become a popular way to quickly lose weight. The 5:2 diet made its way into the spotlight in 2013 when BBC aired a documentary entitled Eat, Fast & Live Longer. In this program, journalist Michael Mosley investigated the health benefits of fasting. Before attempting the various and attainable fasting methods himself, Mosley met with a series of doctors and industry professionals who assessed his current health condition. Mosley wanted to understand how to best protect himself against the negative effects of aging. From his story on alternate-day fasting, Mosley derived the 5:2 diet, which subsequently took the UK by storm.

The belief that fasting can improve your health shares similarities with the Paleo diet. Like Paleo dieters, Mosley looked to our ancestors for help when investigating fasting. When hunters and gatherers had a successful kill, they gorged themselves on the meat. This feast might last a few days and certainly was not restricted— however, if the hunters went days without a kill, they would be starved, surviving on minimal food and nutrients. Thus, our bodies are capable of functioning when we are underfed. But, bear in mind, our hunting and gathering ancestors put themselves in great peril, even wrestling mammoths to provide a feast. That is a lot of physical activity that we do not necessarily get today.

Throughout Mosley’s investigation, he interviewed a handful of researchers and specialists, one of them being Mark Mattson, an expert on the aging brain. Mattson, Chief of the Laboratory of Neurosciences at the National Institute on Aging and Professor at John Hopkins University, discussed the laboratory studies he performed regarding starvation. Based on the tests he had been conducting on mice, Mattson identified positive aspects of fasting. In one of these studies, Mattson found that when mice were given an unhealthy diet high in saturated fats and sugars, mice health declined much more rapidly, roughly 3-4 months sooner. On the other hand, mice given a diet lower in fat and subjected to intermittent fasting lived roughly 6 months longer. Thus, the mice maintaining a smaller size proved to live longer.

5:2 dieters argue that our bodies are not made to handle the modernization of food and that giving the digestive system frequent “breaks” helps to mend any issues with digestion.

Additionally, in his meeting with Mark Mattson, Michael Mosley learned that sporadic bouts of hunger help stimulate new neurons to grow in our brains. Mattson also looked to our mammoth-hunting ancestors to answer the question regarding cell growth. From a survival standpoint, hunger provides a survival advantage as it causes you to be more focused. Fasting’s effect on the brain is actually compared to exercising’s effect on your muscles…well, for mice anyway. In order to truly prove that these findings hold true for humans, human trials must be performed.

So how did this research and studies like it lead to Mosley’s famed 5:2 diet?

As Mosley attempted intermittent fasting, he realized how difficult this task is. Anyone can attest that we need food, and regularly! To accommodate this need, Mosley met with Dr. Krista Varady, author of The Every Other Day Diet and an advocate of alternate-day fasting. Like the 5:2 program, the “Every Other Day Diet” instructs participants to limit their caloric intake to 500 calories on fasting days. Although they are very similar in practice, on the “EODD” you are fasting slightly more than on the 5:2 diet. For example, one week you will fast 3 days and the next you will fast 4, then the following you are back to 3 days of fasting, and so on…

During Dr. Varady’s clinical studies of alternate-day fasting, researchers found participants decreased their levels of LDL cholesterol (bad cholesterol), triglycerides (fat), and blood pressure. Surprisingly, these scientists found it actually didn’t matter if you were eating a high-fat diet versus a low-fat diet on the given feast days—the LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were relatively the same for all participants.

Because they consumed 25% of their energy needs on fasting days, Dr. Varady predicted that most participants would consume 175% of their energy needs on a “feed” day. But, throughout the course of her study, participants were only consuming 110% of their energy needs on the feed days. Inevitably, there is a -65% consumption deficit.  This tells us that starving a few days a week and then feasting on cookies, pasta, pizza, and cheeseburgers will probably help you lose weight because you are reducing your overall caloric intake. However, your body will be missing proper nutrients. Additionally, if you are exercising regularly, your energy levels may be negatively affected by the significant decrease in calories on the fast days.

While the 5:2 diet and similar programs are not sensible dieting practices, the science behind fasting is worth a second look.

While we dismiss the 5:2 diet and similar programs, like the “Every Other Day Diet”, as viable dieting practices, we acknowledge that the science behind fasting and Mark Mattson’s research is worth a second look. Scientists have found that restricting caloric intake can help to regulate your body’s blood sugar levels. Research in mice has discovered that by reducing daily caloric intake, the body lowers its production of hormone IGF-1. A drop in the creation of this hormone is known to help your body go into repair mode—meaning, the body begins to protect itself against carcinogens, heart disease, diabetes, and other health issues.

From his studies on mice, Mattson has also determined that “intermittent energy restriction” may help prevent the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. The mice Mattson studied are destined to develop the disease and by controlling their food regimen, he was able to delay the onset of the disease and keep the mice healthier for a longer period of time. In his TED talk, Mattson explained that intermittent fasting helps to stimulate the growth of cells in your brain. Why? Fasting is a challenge to your brain and your brain responds to that challenge of not having food by activating adaptive stress response pathways that help your brain cope with stress and resist disease.” (Mattson, 2014). By forcing your brain to handle stress and fight disease, Mattson believes you are increasing your brain’s productivity and potentially slowing the natural progression of aging in your brain.

In agreement with Mark Mattson, Valter Longo, a cell biologist at the University of Southern California, also pioneered studies on the health benefits of fasting. Dr. Longo put hormone IGF-1 under the microscope and was another influential resource in Michael Mosley’s special for BBC. Longo, however, does not recommend the 5:2 diet. In fact, he doesn’t recommend any fad diets. He believes in “time-restricted feeding”, which means you eat 2 meals a day between 3 and 12 hours of each other. This, he argues, will keep the effects of aging at bay. How? Through the reduction of IGF-1. According to Dr. Longo, “the reduction of IGF-1 is really key in the anti-aging effects of some of the interventions. Both the dietary ones and the genetic ones. We’ve been putting a lot of work into mutations of the growth hormone receptor that are well established now to release IGF-1 and also cause a record lifespan extension in mice” (Jones, 2014).

With no balanced diet, intermittent fasting will not help to encourage healthy eating habits.

Nutritionists argue, however, that intermittent fasting will not help to encourage healthy eating habits. Because of the structure of the 5:2 diet, or any diet where you are encouraged to eat more freely on your “food days”, the importance of balanced healthy eating is not emphasized. 

With all of the concentration on calorie restriction, we are missing the importance of healthy eating. Don’t forget, your body needs food. A balanced diet consists of roughly 2,000 calories a day, made up of 2 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables, roughly 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight, and 3 to 5 servings of whole grains. By fasting and feasting, you are not “tricking the system”.

Understanding the Paleo Diet

cookbook with kale on page

These days, it feels like new food trends are constantly coming to market. From juice cleansing to going gluten-free, dieters and healthy eaters alike are left wondering, “What are the smart choices for my diet and my body?” In an effort to offer some clarity and take it back to simpler times, we have chosen to examine: the Paleolithic diet.

Inspired by the foods of our ancestors.

A Paleolithic, or “Paleo,” diet is a diet inspired by the foods of our ancestors. Often called “the caveman diet,” this diet regimen focuses on a more simple call to action: clean, primal eating. The Paleo diet emphasizes the importance of the foods that our ancestors had access too, which include grass-produced meats, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, healthy oils (those of olive, avocado, coconut, etc.), and animal products, such as eggs.

 

The Paleo method believes that human metabolism was not made to digest today’s highly processed foods. Instead, the diet emphasizes the importance of the foods that our ancestors had access too, which include grass-produced meats, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, and healthy oils (those of olive, avocado, coconut, etc.), and animal products, such as eggs.

Proponents of the Paleo diet believe the human digestive system has wrongfully adapted to eating “toxic” foods, such as grain, legumes, and dairy. Foods such as these were not available to our ancestors, thus our bodies are not designed to consume them. However, lean meats, seafood, and seasonal fruits and vegetables were the basis of a Neanderthal’s diet and our digestive system is equipped to break these foods down.

or example, while we agree that protein is a very important part of your diet, the way our ancestors consumed protein is not similar to modern practices. When our ancestors hunted and killed an animal for its meat they gorged themselves on the food for days and could go months without another successful hunt.

There are health benefits from eating whole grains.

While it is healthy to consume protein and whole fruits and veggies as the diet prescribes, there are health benefits from eating whole grain. Whole grains are high in fiber–which is good for your digestive system, are digested slowly so can keep you full for longer, and can help reduce the risk of heart disease. As for the argument that eating whole grain can cause inflammation, this is certainly true for those suffering from celiac’s disease, however, it is untrue if you have no wheat sensitivity. In fact, going gluten-free can often lead to a diet higher in sugar and saturated fats. For these reasons, we disagree with the Paleo diets requirement to cut grain completely from your diet.

There are health benefits from eating legumes.

In addition to eliminating grain, the diet recommends eliminating legumes, like lentils, beans, or peas, from your diet. The Paleo diet argues that the lectins, which is a sugar-binding protein, found in legumes eliminate their nutritional value. But this is not true! A 2013 study suggests the nutritional content of legumes outweighs the issue with lectins. The Huffington Post also reported that cooking legumes can eliminate the anti-nutrient qualities of lectins. Legumes pack a powerful punch! They are high in dietary fiber, protein, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals while being low in fat.

There are health benefits from drinking and eating dairy products.

Now that we’ve covered grains and legumes, let’s put dairy under the microscope. Dairy is where it gets a little trickier. Did you know that the human species is the only species that consume dairy in adulthood? This is one of the primary reasons why dairy is a strict “no” in the Paleo diet. Paleo dieters believe that by eating the food that our ancestors ate, we are eating the most natural, “untouched” foods. The milk we know today has been harvested from animals that have been bred for milk production. When we drink cow’s milk, we are ingesting the hormones that have been fed to the cow, which the Paleo diet does not condone. But—when you think about it, of course, humans are able to eat dairy into adulthood…because we can produce it.

When consumed in moderation, dairy is a good source of potassium, protein, and fat, and is important for your bone health. Many non-Paleo physicians argue that adults have no nutritional requirements for dairy. Our opinion? You do not need to eliminate the food group entirely, but you do not need to consume more than two servings of dairy per day to maintain a balanced diet. There are additional ways to get potassium, protein, and healthy fats.

In order to properly follow the Paleo diet, you must eliminate potatoes, dairy, cereal grains, salt, refined vegetable oils, and refined sugar from your diet. Eating at a restaurant is not easy!

The Modern Paleo: 85:15

Legumes, whole grains, and dairy can be consumed as part of a healthy, well-rounded diet. There are certainly some benefits to the Paleo approach, specifically that your diet is high in fruits and vegetables, lean meats and fish, nuts and healthy fats— but it is unnecessary to eliminate entire groups of food from your diet unless prescribed by a doctor. A modern version of the Paleo diet is the 85:15 rule. This means 85% of the time you are strictly Paleo and 15% you are allowed to consume non-Paleo foods. That way you are not completely eliminating certain beneficial food groups from your diet.

Investigating the “Natural” Label

barley field with sun setting in background

If you are unclear on what the word “natural” on your food label means, you are not alone.  We are not sure if anyone knows the true meaning of “natural”. There is a renewed consumer interest in eating only food grown from our hunting and gathering days. Is that realistic? Forget for a moment that the average life span of our Paleo cousins was about 33 years. Is your food really better if it is not made in the lab or a food ingredient facility? Is cane sugar more natural than high fructose corn syrup? Is “natural” food better for you? Consumers and even some food companies are left to their imagination. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agrees that most food in the grocery aisle is not exactly like it was when it left the farm.  Their definition vaguely informs us of the following,

From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances. **

FDA

**Note: The FDA is currently in the process of reviewing the “natural” label, and has extended the comment period until May 2016. Learn more here.

There seems to be a lot of room for interpretation. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines all natural meat as “minimally processed”.  The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) agrees with the FDA and the USDA by saying that any product labeled as “natural” cannot contain artificial ingredients or added color and the product can only be “minimally processed”, meaning “not fundamentally altered”.


Image Source: Nolan Ryan Beef. http://nolanryanbeef.com/

Consumers want food without chemicals, synthetics, or ingredients that are considered bad for you, and “factory fear” is growing in popularity. As a result, companies are labeling their products as “natural” to distinguish their products as healthy. According to Mintel Marketing Research, the natural label market in the U.S. today is significant: 11 percent of all food sold in the grocery store.

In fact, because the word natural is so ambiguous, there have been teams of lawyers reviewing the products in your local grocery store, looking to see what is truly “natural”. Kraft was sued for false advertising over its “natural cheese” claim as the cheese had artificial coloring. General Mills, Trader Joe’s, PepsiCo, and Kashi have all settled liability suits and removed the 100% natural claim from their packaging. These class action lawsuits are trying to prove that companies are deceiving the consumer—when they might be just as confused.

So what is happening in response? Companies are now showing what is NOT in their box as a protection against lawsuits. Packaging labels such as “gluten-free”, “no High Fructose Corn Syrup”, and “GMO-free” infer that the products are healthier. But these claims can be deceptive, as there is nothing scientifically or medically wrong with GMO’s and High Fructose Corn Syrup and you only need to avoid gluten if you are celiac.

Just because some of your food is created in a lab doesn’t mean that it is filled with unhealthy ingredients. Take synthesized vitamins, for instance. Numerous studies have been done on each synthesized vitamin to make sure that the purpose of the chemically created vitamin is the same. For example, when we eat meat, we ingest Vitamin B12. B12 comes from the stomach bacteria in an animal. When B12 is created in a lab, the exact bacteria fermentation is simulated to create the identical B12 vitamin. No chemicals or dyes are made— it is created healthily. Vitamin C is made the same way, through biosynthesis, whether it is from a lab or a fruit. Fruits pull up calcium, phosphate, and nitrogen from the soil and make their vitamins. The lab just combines the same minerals and creates a synthetic vitamin. While they may not be considered “natural” they are not harmful to your body.

Natural flavorings are often looked to as an alternative. But some of them are not all that appealing. For instance, as an all-natural alternative to red color number 40, the coloring agent is crushed insects. Need lemon flavoring? It comes from grass. Or how about this one, the natural smell of raspberries could be from an unmentionable part of a beaver.

Confused about labels? Here’s what you should do.

The real questions to ask ourselves are is: Is my food healthy? Does it have lots of sugar? Where does the fat come from? Is this a one-time snack or an everyday snack? How many calories am I eating? Greek Yogurt sold with fruit is delicious, but watch out for the added 13 grams sugar— half of your daily allowance for added sugar. Pasteurized milk is not “natural” but it makes your milk safe to drink.

 

For example, let’s take a look at Jennie’s All Natural Coconut Macaroon cookies. Because it is a cookie, our instincts tell us that is isn’t healthy. But, when you look at the label, you find that these cookies are also Non-GMO, Wheat Free, Gluten Free, Dairy Free, Yeast Free, Sulfite Free, Soy Free, Lactose-Free and Trans Fat-Free. But does that make them GOOD for you? Not really. While they may be the lesser of all cookie evils, for just two cookies, they still have 32% of your daily saturated fat recommendation and 63% of your recommended added sugar for the day. Are those two cookies worth an additional 130 calories? Even though they are considered “natural” these cookies are certainly not a healthy snack.

The best thing you can do for yourself is to be mindful of the nutritional label versus the marketing labels.

There is no solution for inflammation comparable to maintaining a healthy lifestyle. And we are certainly not proponents of the “quick fix”, particularly if there is an underlying issue that is not being addressed. However, if you are typically fairly active and a healthy eater that has indulged and looking to get back on track there are some antidotes that may help fight inflammation. Cryotherapy and baby aspirin are believed to reduce swelling.“Cryotherapy takes advantage of the body’s natural tendency to vasoconstrict (vessels tighten) when exposed to cold. This is why we apply ice to a trauma, like a swollen ankle, after hurting it. When we apply cold, the vessels tighten, which limits swelling. This is a good counter to the body’s natural tendency to swell and heat up an area of injury.” (Dr. Bongiourno) Additionally, baby aspirin is often prescribed to help reduce pain and swelling. 

Glycemic Index vs. Glycemic Load

glycemic index wordcloud

Both the glycemic index and the glycemic load can be hard to understand, and the scientific terminology needed to explain them is a little overwhelming. So, before you tackle our explanation, we suggest watching this quick video:

Glycemic Index

The glycemic index is a way to measure how 50 grams of carbohydrate of a certain food will cause your blood sugar levels to rise. The higher the number on the glycemic index (1-100), the more rapidly the carbohydrate is converted into sugar. Rapid glucose conversion is something you want to avoid, as your body performs best when sugar levels stay consistent. Although your brain and your body need glucose to function, too much too fast is not healthy.

 

As your body processes glucose, your insulin levels rise in order to allow glucose to be delivered to your body’s cells which causes your blood sugar to return to a more normal level. When your body detects excess glucose, your pancreas secretes more insulin and the excess sugar is subsequently converted and stored as fat.

To avoid a blood sugar spike, you should eat a diet heavier in low GI foods—foods that are between 0 and 55 on the GI scale—such as nuts, most vegetables, whole oats, and certain fruits. You can also incorporate medium GI foods—foods that are between 56 and 70 on the GI scale—such as, rice, whole wheat bread, and most fruits. Foods on the high end of the GI scale— over 71+, are typically heavy in starch and should be consumed minimally—such as white bread and potatoes.

Frequently eating foods that cause your blood sugar levels to rise quickly will cause your body to store more fat. The glycemic index aims to help you avoid these foods.

Glycemic Load

We cannot consider a food’s glycemic index without taking the glycemic load into account. The glycemic load takes the glycemic index one step further and measures the rise in blood sugar based on the number of carbohydrates the food contains in an average serving. The glycemic load is calculated by taking a foods glycemic index, multiplying it by the carbohydrate content (measured in grams) and divided by 100. The glycemic load is actually more reliable than the glycemic index. As the video above explains, watermelon is a great example of this. The glycemic index of watermelon is 72, which is very high—meaning that is causing your body’s blood sugar levels to rise rapidly. However, watermelon is just that, mostly water. The glycemic load in a serving of watermelon is only 4, which is extremely low, as the carbohydrate content of watermelon is very small. So, while your blood sugar levels may rise quickly, they will not remain elevated for very long, as there is very little carbohydrate in watermelon.

Remember the glycemic index looks at a 50 gram serving of carbohydrates for a specific food. The likelihood that you will consume 50 grams of watermelon is pretty unrealistic. The glycemic load, on the other hand, factors in how much of a specific food you would need to eat to obtain 50 grams of carbohydrate. One cup of watermelon, or 154 grams, has roughly 11.6 grams of carbohydrates, so you would need over 4x a single serving to reach the carbohydrate level that is measured in the glycemic index.
source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/

When using the glycemic load as a reference for your food, keep in mind that foods between 10 and 20 on the glycemic load are considered moderate and will not keep your blood glucose levels elevated for long periods of time. Foods with a glycemic load higher than 20, however, should be eaten sporadically, as they will spike blood sugar levels and keep them elevated for longer. Having rapid spikes and consequential decreases will then will cause you to feel unsatiated and fatigued.

The glycemic load more accurately measures how certain foods will impact your blood glucose levels by taking the number of carbohydrates in an average serving into account.

If you’re wondering how fructose fits into this index, we hear you! It can be hard to talk about glucose without mentioning fructose—take a look at our sugar article! In this case, the fructose content in specific foods is not measured independently by the glycemic index or the glycemic load. Fructose is considered to be a low GI food, with a value of 19, meaning it causes less insulin secretion than glucose. Naturally occurring fructose is actually ranked lowest on the GI scale of all natural sugars. This is because fructose does not raise blood glucose levels, but rather blood fructose levels. Your body needs glucose for energy. High levels of fructose in your body, however, can cause cell damage— in fact, excess fructose in your body causes 7x more cell damage than excess glucose. This is another reason why you have to be careful when judging foods solely by their glycemic index value. Excess fructose consumption isn’t good for you, but its glycemic value is only 19.

For a comprehensive list of foods glycemic index versus their glycemic load, we recommend you refer to the Harvard Medical School Index.

Should We Eat Wheat?

sliced wheat bread displayed with wheat

Wheat has come under fire recently. The rise in gluten-free dieting has left many questioning its nutritional value. One-third of American consumers are trying to eliminate gluten, and subsequently wheat, in the hopes of losing weight.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture advises adults to eat between 3 and 5 servings of whole grains a day, and 6 to 11 servings for children.

Is wheat unhealthy?

It is hard to talk about wheat without mentioning its relationship to gluten. Walk into your local grocery store and the popularity of gluten-free products is astounding. Even foods that would never contain gluten are being stamped with the famous “GF” mark. We recently discussed “the gluten myth” on D2D and can confirm: gluten is not the enemy. Many non-celiac afflicted people choosing to maintain a GF diet do find they experience sudden weight loss, however, this is from the elimination of an entire food group and sudden change in eating habits. This is not gluten weighing you down. And whole grains are an important part of a balanced diet.

Modern wheat production

Some researchers have taken issue with modern wheat because it has changed from its original form. In order to keep up with a rapidly growing population, wheat farming has adapted. As such, mass-farming has manipulated the wheat we consume today relative to the wheat that our ancestors consumed.

The creator of modern wheat, Norman Borlaug, a biologist from Iowa, won both the Nobel Peace Prize and the World Food Prize for his positive contribution to farming.

Norman Ernest Borlaug, photographed in Mexico for LIFE Magazine in November 1970 (Flickr)

Borlaug was able to roughly double wheat production per acre. Instead of long grain stalks, wheat farmers are now producing higher yielding crops, which are smaller in size—18 inches in height compared to the traditional 4-foot tall wheat plant. These crops are smaller in size due to the weight of excess grain now created per stalk. If they maintained their original height, the stalks would not be able to support themselves. While these crops produce more wheat to feed the growing population, it is argued that these crops are less nutritious.

What is Wheat Belly?

One anti-wheat proponent, who lobbies for all humans to eliminate wheat from their diet is Dr. William Davis MD, author of Wheat Belly. According to Dr. Davis, we are victims of “Frankenwheat”, which he considers addictive and toxic. Davis asserts that today’s wheat contains a protein called gliadin that, Davis argues, “has the potential to bind to the opiate receptors of the human brain—like heroin or morphine—except it has a different effect of course. Wheat doesn’t provide relief from pain, it doesn’t provide a euphoria, it only stimulates appetite, so that people who consume modern wheat are triggered to consume 440 calories more per day.” (Davis, Wheat Belly).

Davis believes that consuming gliadin tells your body it wants more carbohydrates and as a response, you end up overeating. These excess carbs eventually are stored as fat. Dr. Davis believes if you eliminate modern wheat from your diet you will see a noticeable change in your hunger levels, lose weight, and benefit from positive health changes like decreased blood pressure, low blood-sugar levels, and less joint pain.

Gliadins are not the cause of overeating

How much of this argument should we hold true? According the article “Does Wheat Make Us Sick and Fat?” published by the Journal of Cereal Science, Davis’ understanding of gliadins is misleading as gliadins are present in all forms of wheat, including ancient grains. In some cases, “modern wheat” actually contains less gliadin than the grain of our ancestors. The article reports, “there is no evidence that selective breeding has resulted in detrimental effects on the nutritional properties or health benefits of the wheat grain” (Shewry et al., 2011).

Gliadins are not the cause of addictive eating behaviors

As for Davis’ theory regarding wheat opioids and their effect on the human brain, the Journal of Cereal Science also discredits this claim. According to a 2008 study, although gliadin is known to release a peptide called gliadorphin, which can induce an opiate-like effect, the compound’s composition of 7 amino acids actually cannot be absorbed into the intestine. Because of this, gliadin is not present in its original form in the circulatory system and therefore the opiate effects of gliadorphin do not affect the central nervous system. The evidence of this study undermines the Wheat Belly argument concerning gliadin. Therefore, Davis’ claims cannot be substantiated given today’s scientific understanding of wheat.

A pro-wheat organization that has examined the science behind grains is American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC). Their journal Cereal Foods World is responsible for bringing current industry information regarding grain science and technology to light. Cereal Foods World does not believe that modern wheat is a so-called “super carbohydrate.” In a report written by researchers at CFW, the process of crop cultivation and modernization is examined. To quote their findings,

Modern cultivated food plants are the product of thousands of years of plant breeding, and wheat is no exception. Breeding programs have enabled a number of positive outcomes in terms of plant yield, food quality, and nutritional value. It is interesting to note that wheat varieties carried to the New World by colonists did very poorly because the varieties were not suited to the new climatic conditions…Despite the implication in the book, these varieties were produced using traditional plant breeding techniques. Currently, there are no commercially available, genetically modified wheat varieties sold. (Brouns, 2013)

So why do “wheat-eliminators” lose weight and subsequently feel better?

Again, the answer is the drastic change in diet. When you eliminate an entire food group from your diet—especially one that you consumed frequently—your system is shocked and responds rapidly. Especially if the wheat you were consuming before making this switch was an indulgence, like pasta, bagels, or even pretzels. You aren’t eliminating gliadin, you are eliminating junk food!

Wheat and brain diseases?

Another anti-wheat assertion is that wheat consumption is a contributing factor in long term brain diseases, such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. David Perlmutter, MD is the author of the national bestseller, Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar. Perlmutter argues that the modern human diet has steered off course, relying heavily on carbs, whereas our ancestors’ diet was mostly fat and protein-based.

Grain Brain believes this dietary shift is the reason for increased inflammation in the body. “Researchers have known for some time now that the cornerstone of all degenerative conditions, including brain disorders, is inflammation. But what they haven’t documented until now are the instigators of that inflammation— the first missteps that prompt this deadly reaction. And what they are finding is that gluten, and a high-carbohydrate diet for that matter, are among the most prominent stimulators of inflammatory pathways that reach the brain.” (Perlmutter, Grain Brain)

One of the biggest issues Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Davis have with processed grain is its ability to spike your blood sugar levels. When your blood sugar increases your body creates more insulin—and while insulin helps keep the glucose level of your cells healthy, too much insulin will cause your cells to desensitize. Davis and Perlmutter, MD believe that this leads to inflammation and inevitably may contribute to Alzheimer’s. However, data that shows a very weak link between blood and glucose levels and a risk for developing Alzheimer’s. This conclusion is considered to be a far stretch with current evidence.

In order to consider the harmful effects of inflammation, we must examine inflammation and its relationship with your body’s insulin and blood sugar levels.

Both Grain Brain and Wheat Belly discuss the effect whole grain can have on your blood sugar by highlighting the fact that two pieces of whole wheat bread actually raise blood sugar levels more than a Snickers candy bar. So, why is this?

Processed grains, like whole grain or white bread, cause blood sugar levels to rise, but you should not be scared away from wheat by the glycemic value and its likening to a chocolate bar. The nutrients of the two foods are very different and you cannot draw a conclusion on one being unhealthy because of its similarity to the other.

Do you really believe that a snicker’s bar is healthier than a serving of whole wheat bread? As delightful as it tastes, a Snickers has 250 calories, 12g of fat, and 27 grams of sugar with little nutritional components. Two slices of whole wheat bread also have 250 calories but only 5 g of fat and include protein and fiber as nutrition. You also need to consider how much whole wheat is in the bread in question. For a serving of bread with a Glycemic Index of 71, the bread in question is processed whole wheat or white bread—but these are not your only options. 100% stone ground wheat is a low Glycemic Index food, for example, Ezekiel 4:9 bread has a GI value of 35. Additionally, you are typically eating the serving of bread with a protein, such a turkey or peanut butter, which can also slow your spike in blood sugar.

When discussing the glycemic index, you must also consider wheat’s glycemic load. The glycemic load relative amount of carbohydrate the food contains in an average serving. By taking each gram of carbohydrate into account, you are able to better estimate how the food will affect your glucose levels. Yes, the glycemic index helps interpret how quickly glucose levels rise, but the glycemic load helps interpret how long glucose levels will stay elevated for, ie. how much the sugar is affecting you. Read what our research says about Glycemic Index vs. Glycemic Load.

So while two pieces of whole wheat bread can raise your insulin levels, consuming whole wheat will not lead to rapid weight gain. In his book, Dr. Davis makes the argument that our ancestors avoided diabetes because of their diet, which mainly consisted of wild boar, salmon, and berries. But there is no scientific data regarding the possible diabetic condition of hunters and gatherers! Not to mention, their diets relied entirely on what they were able to hunt or collect and their lifespans were much shorter than the average human today. As such, Dr. Davis is drawing hard conclusions from limited evidence.

Complex carbs, such as whole oats, sprouted bread, or even pasta do not have the same effect on blood sugar levels as the average piece of white or whole wheat bread. This type of grain is actually helpful for keeping blood sugar levels low as they are high in dietary fibers and take a longer time to metabolize. The more refined the grain is, the higher your blood sugar will spike.

The Truth about Juice Cleanses

green juice displayed next to apples, broccoli and kale

What does it mean to cleanse? Many people believe cleansing is like spring cleaning for your body and helps to restart your metabolism and improve digestion. Most cleanse programs call for a limited caloric intake over a shortened period of time to give your digestive system a rest and help flush your body of toxins. By consuming only juice, you are eliminating the majority of fiber from your diet, which gives the digestive system a break. Cleansing advocates argue this can help to revive sluggish digestion. Supporters of these programs also assert that participating in a cleansing program will help you lose weight, clear your skin, feel less bloated, and eliminate headaches. However, while these short-term results may be beneficial, there is no long-term scientific evidence that supports the lasting benefits of juice cleansing.

As cleansing becomes increasingly mainstream, we at D2D wanted to properly assess the benefits of a cleanse. We decided to look at the most popular cleanse programs and determine if they are actually worthwhile. For example, there is The Master Cleanse, a.k.a., The Lemonade Diet—one of the most extreme cleansing options. The Blueprint Cleanse, which can be tailored to your lifestyle and allows for 3 levels of cleansing: the Renovation, the Foundation, and the Excavation. There’s also LiquiteriaJuice PressBeverly Hills Juice and many more

But what are the health benefits of these cleansing options? Sure, they are a quick way to lose water weight, but do they actually help your digestive system? The answer is no!

According to Dr. Joy Dubost, a dietitian, food scientist, and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, cleansing is not worth the hype. She has spoken out against cleanses by saying,

To date, there’s no solid science backing any of these cleansing or detox approaches for weight loss or health. Your body has built-in mechanisms for detoxification, including your liver, kidneys, and gastrointestinal system. Swallowing some kind of solution isn’t going to further enable those organs, so the whole premise of detoxifying is inaccurate.

Our organs are well equipped to handle detoxification.

Our kidneys and liver are well equipped to handle the detoxification process—in fact, that’s what they are there for! Your kidneys’ primary function is to filter your blood. The organ contains millions of microscopic units called nephrons, which sift through your blood to eliminate waste and regulate your body’s fluid and electrolyte balance. The liver, on the other hand, is the primary detoxifying agent. It is responsible for keeping pathogens from entering the bloodstream. It also eliminates environmental toxins and detoxifies chemicals.

While these short-term results may be beneficial, there is no long term scientific evidence that supports the lasting benefits of juice cleansing.

The best thing to help your body detoxify is actually to consume whole fiber, found in fruits and vegetables.

The best thing to help your body detoxify is actually whole fiber, found in fruits and vegetables. Research shows that your body can actually benefit more from eating whole foods as opposed to drinking them in juice form. If you really want to incorporate juice in your diet, throw everything in a Vitamix, which keeps the fiber intact. If you are substituting soda for a green juice—great! But if you normally eat a balanced diet filled with fruits and vegetables, cleansing isn’t going to do very much.

So how do these cleanses aid in your body’s natural detoxification process? They don’t. In fact, there is no clinical proof that juices aid your organs. One of the major issues with juicing is that it eliminates fiber, which your body needs to maintain proper digestion. Additionally, when fiber is eliminated from the fruit or vegetable, the fructose content skyrockets! Your sugar levels spike because there is no fiber content to slow digestion.

The only benefit to juice cleansing is actually the elimination of foods containing saturated fat and refined sugar.

In a study conducted by the Food Technology Journal entitled “Detox Diets Provide Empty Promises”, Roger Clemons, a professor of pharmacology and pharmaceutical sciences explains why people can see positive results immediately after a cleanse. The article acknowledges that cleansing will help you drop a few pounds, but warns that this is strictly because of the low caloric intake. Reports of clearer skin can be attributed to the increased water you are told to drink and the reduced headaches can be attributed to substantially lower alcohol and caffeine levels. Overall, the health benefits that you are experiencing are from a dramatic diet shift and not from a “detoxifying” component of the juice. Eating clean, whole foods will help your body detoxify itself.

It is important to note that juicing eliminates fiber, but blending shakes does not. Like Dr. Merrell, Dr. Joy Dubost has acknowledged one benefit to cleansing programs. In a recent article published by Time Magazine, Dubost agreed that people looking to drastically change their diet may benefit from a radical approach to “get your head in gear”. But, keep in mind if you are preparing to shock your system with a cleanse, it’s the days after the cleanse that matter most. If you return to a diet high in sugar or saturated fat, you will put back on the weight and then some. You should also be careful if you are using cleanses as a crash diet and will resume drinking alcohol afterward. After you cleanse, your digestive system is fragile so you should ease back into healthy solid foods.

Here are a few ways you can support your body’s natural detoxification process without buying into the multi-million dollar fad industry:

Eating proper foods: Eating foods like green tea, lemon, kale, and artichokes help your liver and kidneys better cleanse your body of its toxins. These foods help your organs neutralize the toxins, and inevitably expel them from your body.

Getting enough fiber: Everyone seems to forget about fiber! On average, you should consume between 25 and 30 grams of fiber per day. This is no easy feat! To give this a quick visual – that amount of fiber would be approximately 6.5 apples! Keep in mind though, you don’t want to get all your fiber from fruit as that is way too much sugar. Fiber helps regulate your digestive system and optimizes your GI tract. By improving the quality and the quantity of your daily fiber intake, you can help your body stay regulated.

Exercise: People often forget that your skin is the body’s biggest organ. Although the majority of detoxification is reliant on the liver and kidneys, there are trace amounts of toxins found in sweat, so be sure to sweat it out!

Sleep: Getting 8 hours of sleep per night will keep your body’s organs performing at their best.

Is Red Meat Carcinogenic

red meat steak protein

If I eat steak or bacon, will I get cancer?

NO!

On October 26th, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer— the cancer agency of the World Health Organization— gave a press release that evaluated the consumption of processed and red meat and its link to cancer. The study looked specifically at colorectal cancer and its association to stomach, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. While the IARC classified red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans”, it is important to note that the evidence supporting these claims is very limited.

The research reviewed over 800 individual studies and was run by twenty-two experts from ten different countries, and yet the findings released were not conclusive.

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2018, the chance of getting colorectal cancer for an average 50-year-old male or female is 4.49% or 4.15%, respectively. The World Health Organization stated the possibility of an 18% increase from eating red meat. It is misleading to say that one will have an 18% chance of getting cancer when it is really an 18% increase over a base of a little over 4%. This brings us to 4.9% (for women) and a 5.23% (for men) chance of getting colorectal cancer if we eat 50 grams of processed or red meat per day.

The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100-gram portion of red meat eaten daily.
– World Health Organization

Consuming large amounts of processed meat is worth monitoring and not something to incorporate every day. So while you might not want to have 2 servings of bacon every day, you can enjoy it a few times a week without fear.

The American Cancer Society also weighed in on the issue. ACS managing director of nutrition and physical activity says, “we should be limiting red and processed meat to help reduce colon cancer risk, and possibly, the risk of other cancers. The occasional hot dog or hamburger is okay.” So, when consumed in moderation, red or processed meat does not pose a big health threat.

When considering the IARC’s classification of carcinogenic foods, you have to be aware of the serving size.

The degree to which your red or processed meat consumption will affect your health has a lot to do with the other lifestyle choices you make. Do you have a well-balanced diet, exercise regularly, and drink enough water? All of these factors influence your overall health. The protein and iron that your body receives from red meat support your cells, tissues, organs, bones, and overall immune system.

Based on the study’s findings, the World Health Organization labeled red meat as Group 2A, stating that the classification was made on “limited evidence.” The IARC clarifies, “limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.”

The WHO also inappropriately labeled processed meat as Group 1, the same group that contains asbestos, arsenic, and tobacco— some of the most carcinogenic dangers to humans. Is it fair and reasonable to say that your chance of getting cancer from smoking is equal to getting cancer from eating meat? Of course not. Then the WHO discredited their own argument by stating the following:

Processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.