Chemical Free KIds: How To Safeguard Your Family

Chemical-Free Kids
The Organic Sequel

How to Safeguard Your Family in the Everyday Struggle Between Mighty Micronutrients and Sinister Synthetics
Anthony Zolezzi, Linda Bonvie & Bill Bonvie
Published by ASM Books
Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel How to Safeguard Your Family in the Everyday Struggle Between Mighty Micronutrients and Sinister Synthetics Copyright 2008 by Anthony Zolezzi, Linda Bonvie and Bill Bonvie Published by ASM Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced (except for inclusion in reviews), disseminated or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, or the Internet/World Wide Web without written permission from the author or publisher. This book presents information based upon the research of the authors. It is not intended to be a substitute for a professional consultation with a physician or other health-care provider. Neither the publisher nor the authors can be held responsible for any adverse effects or consequences resulting from the use of any of the information in this book. They also cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions in the book. If you or your child has a condition that requires medical advice, the publisher and authors urge you to consult a competent health-care professional. For further information: ASM Books PO Box 3083 La Habra, CA 90631 www.asmbooks.com Printed in the United States of America Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel How to Safeguard Your Family in the Everyday Struggle Between Mighty Micronutrients and Sinister Synthetics Anthony Zolezzi, Linda Bonvie and Bill Bonvie 1. Title 2. Author 3. Health Library of Congress Control Number: 2008932274 ISBN-10: 0-9753157-5-7 ISBN-13: 978-0-9753157-5-0
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ..................................................................v Introduction Knowing Whats Good for Us and What to Do With That Knowledge ..........................vii Chapter 1 Mighty Micronutrients: The Little Things of Which We Dont Seem to Get Enough ........................1 The Hidden Nutrient Gap in the Typical American Diet Putting the Whole Picture in Perspective Chapter 2 Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years ................19 The Peace-of-Mind Delusion Your Dietary Risk Index: How Healthy Foods Score in Terms of Toxicity Chapter 3 GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed on the Label ..............................41 Bypassing the Brave New World of GMOs Milking the Dairy Industry for Unhealthy Profits
Chapter 4 Reclaiming the Food Value That Weve Lost................75 Why Grandma Got a Lot More for Her Grocery Money Where to Find Those Missing Mighty Micronutrients Chapter 5 Reaping the Rewards of the Organic Renaissance................................................91 Organic Organizing on a Grass-Roots Level The Benefits of Organicizing Your Life When Whats Best for You Is Also Best for the World Chapter 6 More on Mighty Micronutrients: Where Theyre Found and Why Theyre So Mighty ....................................................105 Chapter 7 More on Sinister Synthetics: Where Theyre Found and Why Theyre So Sinister ....................................................119 Chemical-Free Connections and Resources ..............131 Endnotes ................................................................................135 About the Authors ..............................................................143
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Jay Mann, whose sharp and experienced editors eye and suggestions greatly enhanced both the content and style of this book, and Jade Harmon, whose delightful artistic renderings and creativity helped to lighten up the information contained in these pages. Our appreciation also goes to Dr. Charles Benbrook and Steve Hoffman of the Organic Center, Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, and Rick North of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility for their valuable insights and guidance.
~ Introduction ~
Knowing Whats Good for Usand What to Do With That Knowledge
ANIC RG IDS K
Knowing Whats Good for Us
ack in 2003, the original Chemical-Free Kids was published
with the intent of helping parents safeguard their childrens
diet and environment from the many toxic perils that posed a threat to their health and well-being. The book was designed to serve as a source of information on precisely what these hazards were, where they could be found and how they could best be avoided. It chronicled the variety of insidious ingredients that had come to be so routinely accepted in our everyday diets, as well as the prevalence of poisonous substances lurking in our homes, our back yards and even our schools. In the preface to that book, it was pointed out that contemporary parents faced far more complex challenges than did those of an earlier era, when the chief concern was whether their kids would simply survive to adulthood. Would their children, for example, be among the countless victims of our growing epidemics of allergies and asthma? Would they become hyperactive, dysfunctional and unable to learn, or, worse yet, join the fast-growing numbers of kids considered autistic? Would they grow dependent on drugs, either illegal or prescribed to modify their behavior in the classroom? Would their bodies become overweight and obese, even as their brains are nutritionally starved? Would they be prime candidates for the cancers and cardiovascular problems that now result in so many premature deaths? While Chemical-Free Kids remains a valuable guide to parents in showing the steps that can be taken to allay such concerns, a lot has happened since its publication. Due largely to the efforts of some dedicated researchers for such organizations as The Organic Center and the
ix
Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel
Center for Food Safety, there is now a much greater degree of scientific proof of the benefits of an organic diet and lifestyle. At the same time, considerably more information has been uncovered about the pernicious effects that toxic pesticides and chemical and biological manipulation can have on our health, the sustainability of our land, the purity of our water and the safety and nutritional value of our food. A 2005 study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) provides some idea of the problems still to be overcome. Researchers with two major laboratories performing the study found that the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies born in U.S. hospitals the previous year contained an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants, including pesticides and household product ingredients.1 So, to keep parents updated on such developments, we decided that a follow-up was in orderone that would provide readers with some of the information that has come to light since Chemical-Free Kids was first published. This book is also designed to make this often complex subject easy to read and remember. The theme weve chosen is a battle between Mighty Micronutrientsthe essential elements of a healthy dietand Sinister Syntheticsthe toxic or suspect substances that have replaced them in so many conventional and processed foods, as well as contributing to the polluting of our environment. The last few years have been marked by substantial progress in making healthier choices available to consumers, as well as a much greater public awareness and appreciation of their importance. But along with that has come significant governmental resistance to instituting
x
any type of meaningful reform of the system that has allowed toxic substances to continue to be manufactured and used. On the negative side, the role of government agencies in protecting the integrity of our food supply and alleviating threats to the health of our families has been largely stonewalledsomething that many scientists and environmental groups have blamed on the sympathetic reception given by those in power to representatives of the chemical industry, some of whom were formerly in regulatory capacities. As proof of such purported collusion, these critics cite what they consider to be the massive failure of the officials charged with implementing the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 to accomplish their assigned task of weeding out the pesticides that pose the greatest peril to childrenalong with their attempts to close off existing avenues of information on those chemicals. Another regulatory lapse can be seen in the way genetically engineered foods have been allowed to proliferate with no oversight or requirement that they be tested for safety, despite the opinions of many reputable scientistsincluding those working for the FDAthat they pose considerable risk to the public. In other respects, however, developments have been immensely encouraging, particularly the responsive manner in which the retail and service sectors have adapted to the fastgrowing demand for organic foods and products with truly natural ingredients. It wasnt all that long ago that organic products were available only in natural-foods stores, or were limited to a few select items carried by a smattering of supermarkets. Within the past few years, however, there
xi
has been a phenomenal upsurge in the marketing of all types of organic commodities, ranging from produce to dairy products to cookies to canned and processed foods. Many big-name food companies have jumped on the organic bandwagon. Corresponding to this development have been dramatic new findings about the nutritional advantages that organic foods have over conventional ones. Such revelations, repeatedly confirmed by researchers, cant help but fuel the demand for products grown or processed without pesticides or other harmful additives. Thanks to such studies, we now know that the best way for our kids to get the Mighty Micronutrients they require to grow into healthy and productive adults is to provide them with a diet that includes as many organic foods as possiblethe same type of diet that can largely eliminate their exposure to Sinister Synthetics in the form of toxic pesticides, harmful additives and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Growing consumer consciousness has led to many other encouraging trends as well. Exposures to environmental pesticides have been reduced in many neighborhoods due to nontoxic or integrated techniques of pest management and weed control now being made available by many lawn-care and landscaping firms that once had nothing to offer their residential customers but chemical poisons. An increasing number of school systems have also begun to adopt alternative methods of pest control after coming to the realization that the children in their charge were being unnecessarily exposed to poisonous chemical applications in classrooms and playgrounds. Such sweeping transformations give us both cause for optimism and an enhanced ability to
xii
protect our families. The fact that they have come about in so short a time is testimony to the power of people to demand and facilitate a change in course once they become fully cognizant of the hidden hazards of continuing to travel along the same road. Also encouraging us to reduce our reliance on things that may be hazardous to our health are events abroad. In the European Union, for example, the growing consumer rejection of foods containing GMOs has been causing U.S. growers and food processors to have second thoughts about using them. As this book goes to press comes news of another developmentthe passage of new EU laws requiring companies to prove that chemicals used in commerce are safe, as opposed to U.S. policies that only require they be shown to be harmful. This is going to compel companies to be more responsible for their products than they have ever been, noted Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law. Theyll have to know more about the chemicals they make, what their products are and where they go. The new laws also call for a list to be drawn up of substances of very high concernthose suspected of causing cancer or other health problems, which will require authorization to be produced or sold in the EU.2 Such restrictions are bound to have an effect in America, as well, causing manufacturers to reconsider the economic impact of using such chemicals. But much remains to be done if our kidsand future generationsare to be rescued from the assorted afflictions that a lifestyle tainted by toxic substances and a diet lacking in essential nutrients can lead to. The process of getting the poisons out of both our system and our
xiii
systemsand restoring the beneficial elements our survival requiresis one in which all of us need to be active participants. It is all a matter of knowing whats good for usand how we can best use that knowledge to benefit ourselves, our families, our society and our planet.
xiv
~ Chapter 1 ~
Mighty Micronutrients: The Little Things of Which We Dont Seem to Get Enough
It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.
~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, British author and creator of Sherlock Holmes
Mighty Micronutrients
Called micronutrients because they are needed only in minuscule amounts, these substances are the magic wands that enable the body to produce enzymes, hormones and other substances essential for proper growth and development. As tiny as the amounts are, however, the consequences of their absence are severe. Iodine, vitamin A and iron are most important in global public health terms; their lack represents a major threat to the health and development of populations the world over, particularly children and pregnant women in low-income countries. World Health Organization
f one phrase could sum up much of what health and food science researchers have learned in recent years, it might well Ongoing studies of nutrition are making it more and more
be that old adage You are what you eat. evident that every aspect of our beingboth mental and physicalis influenced by what we ingest, and that the health of our cells and vital organs is for the most part dependent on chemical interactions that take place between the various ingredients in the food we consume. Usually our bodies use these ingredients consisting of a variety of vitamins, minerals and antioxidantsin such small quantities that they are commonly referred to as micronutrients, the functions and sources of which are described in some detail in Chapter 6. Nevertheless, we require certain minimal doses of them
3
for our brains, hearts and other organs to function the way nature intended. Also, it is very important that micronutrients work together as a team.
THE HIDDEN NUTRIENT GAP IN THE TYPICAL AMERICAN DIET

Unfortunately, our contemporary diets are all too often failing to deliver the amounts and intricate combinations of the Mighty Micronutrients our bodies need to work at peak efficiency, to keep our metabolisms in balance, maintain our physical and psychological well-being and enhance our mental acuity. As a result, many of usand in particular, our childrenmay suffer from what is, in effect, a nutrient gap that can go unnoticed or unrecognized. One key reason for this nutrient gap is our addiction to processed and junk foods that has resulted, for many adults and children, in the consumption of large quantities of essentially empty calories largely devoid of nutritional value. Just about all nutrition authorities agree that this is a leading cause of the epidemics of obesity and diabetes currently being seen in our society, together with a lack of exercise (but then, who feels like exercising when they have such a limited source of energy?). Nor do fortified foods really do much to compensate, as will be explained later. Simply eating more nutritious foods, such as fruits and vegetables, would, of course, seem to be the ideal solution. But thats no longer as pat an answer to the problem as it once was, due to a marked decline in the nutrient value of conventional healthy foods. (Well talk more about this in Chapter 4, where youll discover how much of
4
MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS SAY:

UPPLEMENTS AR E ALL S REATED EQUAL NOT C
SYNTHETIC
VITAMINS
SUPPLEMENTS
WHOLEFOOD
LOOK FOR THE ONES MADE only from NATURAL WHOLE FOODS.
a difference switching to organic products can make from a nutritional perspective.) Whats important is that for far too many families, breakfast, lunch and dinner are no longer doing an adequate job of providing basic nourishmentand that can have a profound impact on our ability to get through the day, as well as on our health, energy levels and even our personalities.
5
Eating Three Meals a Day Doesnt Mean Youre Not Malnourished To those of us here in America who have been fortunate enough never to have actually experienced real famine, the idea of people suffering from starvation and exhibiting obvious signs of malnutrition might seem incomprehensible. Living in a land of well-stocked supermarkets and fast-food restaurants, it may be a bit hard for many of us to imagine things like drought or pestilence making it impossible for families to avail themselves of adequate nourishment. It is even difficult to fully relate to those fellow citizens unable to eat three squares a day because they simply cant afford to buy fooda situation in which more and more American families are now finding themselves. But what those of us who consider ourselves well-fed might not realize is that we, too, may be malnourished, even though we eat three meals a day while snacking down in between. As a result, we may also be experiencing symptoms of very real, though not always apparent, nutritional deficiencies. A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that many of the ailments for which we seek reliefall too often in an excess of prescribed and over-the-counter medicationsmay well be the direct results of dietary deficiencies in essential micronutrients. An inadequate intake of these Mighty Micronutrients many needed on a daily basismay also lead to a myriad of emotional problems, including chronic irritability or even unprovoked anger, a tendency to be easily distracted or quickly become bored, and an inability to concentrate. Nutritional shortages in children could lead to
6
disobedience, belligerence and aggressive behavior, and might even contribute to the nationally troubling conditions of attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. While most Americans believe themselves to be living in the most privileged, technically sophisticated and agriculturally advanced country on the planet, we actually lag behind when it comes to nutritionally sound diets. In fact, the kinds of foods traditionally cultivated and eaten by inhabitants of what we would consider backward cultures are actually apt to be a lot more nutritious and beneficial than the refined, processed and genetically altered foods that people living in our society are in the habit of consuming.
SYNTHETIC SUPPLEMENTS OFTEN COME IN COMIC DISGUISES

A lot of well-meaning parents have come to rely on supplementation. And there are some good supplements out there, but you do have to be selective and knowledgeable in choosing them. Unless you know the difference between synthetic supplements and those made from natural sources, youre apt to be spending money on things that are really failing to deliver the benefits such products are intended to provide. And in the case of supplements geared to children, most of which come in packages festooned with colorful cartoons, its quite likely that some of the ingredients, such as aspartame, could actually be harmful as well as ineffective.
7
A Tale of Two Segments of the Same Tribe Just how much healthier a traditional diet can be was seen in the results of a study of Pima Indians, some of whom had settled in the Southwestern United States and others who had continued to reside south of the border. The members of the tribe living in the U.S. have been described by researchers as being an extremely obese population, with 77 percent of those over the age of 55 suffering from type 2 diabetes. The ones who had remained in Mexico, however, tended to be vigorous, trim and robust, with a prevalence of diabetes only a fifth that of their northern relatives (a mere 9 percent for those 55 and over). When researchers examined the lifestyles of the two branches of the tribe, they discovered that the Mexican group, in addition to engaging in far more physical activity, had continued to subsist on a traditional diet of basic crops they grew themselves and harvested by hand, with beans, wheat flour tortillas, corn tortillas and potatoes their principal staples. The U.S. Pimas, by contrast, had converted to a typical high-fat, low-fiber American diet of processed foods (which typically contain refined sugar and flour) that they either purchased from supermarkets or received from a commodity food program.3 Such a well-delineated discrepancy in dietary habits and their results dramatically illustrates the characteristic underperformance of our own diets. But how can Americans be undernourished while receiving constant confirmation, via advertising and packaging, that the food we eat is full-bodied and packed with vitamins and minerals? Thats because much of the food we consume in this country today has been virtually strip-mined of its
8
sinister synthetics SAY:

r with natural whole othe foo b ds why tic half foods w he ill d synt n o? whe
(and what they do best is to fool a lot of folks into thinking theyre the real thing)
Mighty Micronutrientsvital components that cant really be added back, as terms like enriched and supplemented on food labels seem to imply. These micronutrients, as a rule, arent nearly as mighty when reconstituted as they are in their
9
natural state, where their effectiveness is supported and enhanced by a lot of other trace substances, many of whose roles arent even yet understood by science. Thats why whole foodsthat is to say, those that are consumed in an unprocessed form, with nothing removed or manipulated and nothing addedare the sole sources of such essential substances that can reliably be said to provide us with the optimal benefits that nature intended.
PUTTING THE WHOLE PICTURE IN PERSPECTIVE

It is only when the intricate and interdependent network of these essential chemicals contained in whole foods remains relatively intact and undisturbed that we can be assured that were receiving the maximum impact of their health-enhancing capabilities. A prime example of how this works can be seen in the alwaysappetizing apple, the health benefits of which were common knowledge long before the fruit was subjected to scientific analysis. When What You See Is What You Get the Most Benefit From The saying An apple a day keeps the doctor away was coined more than a century ago by J.T. Stinson, the first director of the Missouri State Fruit Experiment station. It is believed to have been inspired by a 12th-century report, given before the Salerno Medical School, on the healthfulness of regularly eating apples.
10
Ironically, current understanding of the benefits of eating apples strongly indicates the most wholesome sector of the fruit is its peel, which is chock full of antioxidants. Not only are peels routinely discarded in both home use and during commercial processing of products such as applesauce, but the variety of apple peeling devices that has arisen over the centuries comes close to paralleling the search for a better mousetrap. Just how much of a loss such unadvised disposables can be to our nutritional well-being can be seen in a report issued by Cornell Universitys Institute of Comparative and Environmental Toxicology and Department of Food Science. It focuses on the results of a comparative study of the flesh and peel components of four different varieties of apples: The peels all had significantly higher total antioxidant activities than the flesh + peel and flesh of the apple varieties examined Apple peels were also shown to more effectively inhibit the growth of HepG(2) human liver cancer cells than the other apple components The high content of phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity, and antiproliferative activity of apple peels indicate that they may impart health benefits when consumed and should be regarded as a valuable source of antioxidants.4 The nutritional advantages of eating a whole apple complete with peel are similar to the benefits of eating bread, pasta, cereal and other foods made from whole
11
grainthat is, grain that has retained its outer covering, which, like an apple peel, is rich in vitamins, minerals and fiber. The significance of how a staple crop like grain is processed takes on planetary importance when factoring in findings that grain provides more nutritionand is grown in greater amountsthan any other crop in the world. The over-processing of grain, a regular occurrence in all of North America, essentially removes its worldly benefits. While producers of so-called refined grain products may claim their goods have various added nutrients, such after-the-fact additiveseven additives identical to those removed during processingare no substitute for the real McCoy. Once grain is broken down in this manner, it is next to impossible to restorereconstruct, as it werethe complex web of chemical interrelationships that nature so intricately assembled. In fact, the chemical complexities and interactions of the various Mighty Micronutrients contained in a single grain or any other plant used for food are only now being gradually unraveled by scientists. How Nature Orchestrates the Interaction of Micronutrients If you want to get an idea of how Mighty Micronutrients work together in concert, try imagining them as separate instruments in a symphony orchestra, each assigned an essential part in performing a complex musical composition. Think of all the coordination and timing that takes place among strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion, even with the guidance of a conductor, and of how some instruments are called on to perform long passages while others must wait for
12
ANOTHER REASON FOR GETTING ABOARD THE WHOLE GRAIN TRAIN

New scientific findings have indicated that consumption of whole grains may help prevent pancreatic cancer, one of the most deadly forms of the disease. A study conducted by researchers from the University of California at San Francisco and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology has reportedly shown that a diet high in whole grain and other fiber-rich foods can drastically lower the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. The study involved some 2,233 Bay Area residents, 532 of whom had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Both groups were similar in terms of ages, body weight and gender, although the cancer patients were more likely to be smokers. The researchers found that those who ate two or more servings of whole grains per day had a 40 percent lower risk of developing pancreatic cancer than those who ate less than one serving daily.5
the exact right moment to add a couple of notes or some nuance to the overall effect the composer wanted to achieve. Now imagine some of those instruments were rudely removed. The composition might still be distantly recognizable, but it would hardly represent a full and faithful rendition of what the composer had in mind. All too often, todays typical diet offers, at best, a similarly diminished level of nutritional fullness
13
and richness. Seemingly well-orchestrated mealseven those that give the appearance of being well-balancedmay satisfy hunger pangs while silently falling short on a great many essential nutritional notes. The result is a subtle, albeit significant, loss of what used to be known as food value, impoverished by the absence of essential micronutrients. Whats more, many components of an all-American meal, such as cereal, packaged bread, frozen entrees, instant potatoes and white rice, are likely to have been depleted of intrinsic micronutrients during processing, with cooking and preparation polishing off whatever few are left. In essence, while many of us continue to supersize our food intakeand, inadvertently our physiqueswhat were (over)eating is actually dangerously downsized in terms of nutritional content, to the point where it negatively affects the ability of the remaining micronutrients to carry out their assigned tasks. And though outsider additives are often brought in by manufacturers to substitute for the missing team players, they cant really substitute for the loss of Mighty Micronutrients in key positions. Once theyre gone, the magic that makes for a winning team is irretrievably lost. An excellent example of the interdependency of micronutrients, and how the loss of any one can alter their effectiveness, is offered by Lester Packer, Ph.D.,and Carol Colman in the book The Antioxidant Miracle: When vitamin E disarms a free radical, it becomes a weak free radical itself. But unlike bad free radicals, the vitamin E radical can be recycled, or turned back into an antioxidant, by vitamin C or coenzyme Q10. These network antioxidants will donate electrons to vitamin E, bringing it back to its antioxidant state. The same scenario occurs when vitamin C or glutathione defuses a free radical.6
14

e a whole lot better wer WEre not process ed hen W
thats why whole foods and grains will make you so much healthier
Such hidden nutritional deficits hit children hardest. The subtle starvation caused by the lack of micronutrients could well hinder their normal development. This may fly in the face of the American dietary syndrome in which children often eat throughout the day and into the night. While it may appear they are meeting all their nutritional
15
GET YOUR WHOLE GRAINS AND ENJOY THE AROMA, TOO

Theres no doubt that whole grains are superior to refined ones. Whereas in refined grains, the bran and germ (the nutrientrich interior of the grain) are removed, in whole grains they remain intact, serving as an excellent source of antioxidants and phytochemicals that help ward off disease, as well as providing magnesium, iron, fiber, vitamin E and B vitamins. An easy way to incorporate more whole grains into your familys diet is with whole-grain bread. And the best and freshest bread is homemade. Making bread is no longer an all-day process of kneading and rising. Bread machines have become affordable (good machines can be purchased for under $50), are easy to use and produce a wonderful loaf. Making homemade bread also allows you to utilize organic, whole-grain flours and other high-quality ingredients to produce a loaf for a fraction of what a comparable one would cost at a quality bakery. An excellent book for beginning (and experienced) breadmachine bakers is Easy Bread Making for Special Diets by Nicolette M. Dumke. Our favorite recipe is the amazingly simple one for traditional whole wheat bread.
requirements, the results tell a different story. Studies on childhood obesity done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the period between 2003 and 2006
16
indicated 32 percent of all American kids are considered at risk for obesity, 16 percent are obese, and 11 percent extremely obese.7 Their diets are simply making them well-rounded, rather than well-nourished. Besides being ungainly and unhealthy, such nutritionally deficient kids may be behind the eight ball (and behind their contemporaries in other countries) in a number of ways, as information on the functions of various Mighty Micronutrients in Chapter 6 will make clear. But what further complicates this situation is the fact that along with diminished nutrition, were regularly ingesting a whole assortment of Sinister Syntheticstoxic chemicals, harmful additives and even altered genetic materialthat could be resulting in all kinds of hidden damage to our bodies and minds.
17
~ Chapter 2 ~
Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years
We cant solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
~Albert Einstein
About one billion pounds of conventional pesticides are used each year in the United States to control weeds, insects and other pests. U.S. Geological Service, 2005 report on Pesticides in the Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 Until EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not harm the neurological development of our nations born and unborn children, there is no justification to continue to approve the use of the remaining (organophosphate and carbamate) pesticides. Letter sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson by the heads of nine EPA-affiliated unions in May 2006
hats in a name change?
There could be a lot if it involves a transition from a longestablished company name to one that has an entirely different connotation. Thats the kind of name change that was implemented by the company formerly known as ChemLawn, which first expanded its name to TruGreen ChemLawn and now simply calls itself TruGreen, because, according to its web site, one word is all you need for a great lawn. Maybe so, but the real reason might have a lot more to do with the negative imagery that associating
21
lawns with chemicals now evokes in a large segment of the public. By the same token, the company is now using generally less-toxic pesticides and herbicides than it did when it bore the Chemlawn name, according to a representative we spoke with on the phone. Given the increased amount of negative publicity that such products have received in the past decade or more, thats really not surprising. And many people have begun to discover lesstoxic ways of doing things, such as caring for their lawns (a subject discussed at length in Chemical-Free Kids). Creating a nontoxic lawn culture, in fact, is the focus of the SafeLawns Foundation (http://safelawns.org), a Maine-based group seeking to create a coalition of organizations and companies committed to educating society about the benefits of environmentally responsible lawn care and gardening, and effect a quantum change in consumer and industry behavior. But make no mistake: toxic, hazardous and health-destroying pesticides have not disappeared from the marketplace, the landscape or our food supplydespite a major government program launched in the 1990s to identify the worst offenders and curtail their use in the products we eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
THE PEACE-OF-MIND DELUSION

It was supposed to have been a peace of mind guarantee for American families. That was the term used by President Bill Clinton in 1996 in describing the intent of the Food Quality Protection Act, or FQPA, as he signed it into law. The purpose of the Food Quality Protection Act,
22
as was noted in Chemical-Free Kids, was to establish reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to any particular pesticide. What that means is pesticides arent to be individually evaluated in terms of their safety or lack of same. Instead, the impact of all pesticides must be looked upon as a whole, the way were exposed to them in real lifethat is, through multiple exposures to multiple sources. The FQPA also recognized the fact that children, infants and fetuses are most vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides. Accordingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with reviewing all pesticide tolerances (meaning allowable residue levels) in effect up to that time, and given 10 years to complete this entire task. Some experts in the field, however, were highly skeptical about the ability of this legislation to achieve its stated goals and considered the criteria used to determine tolerances highly inadequate for that purpose. Particularly at issue was the additional tenfold margin of safetyfor example, if the residue allowed by the EPA was 10 parts per million in a food, it would be reduced to one part per millionthat the EPA was supposed to use when evaluating any pesticide for which reliable data was lacking on toxic effects to embryos and newborns, and on the amounts to which infants and children were routinely exposed. To David Wallinga, a former senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), that meant having to review a whole list of data , including toxicity findings based on embryonic test animal studies and actual levels of pesticide from all sources to which children
23
were exposed. In fact, thats what he advised the EPA. But the agency, he said, decided that the existing tests had already provided complete and reliable data. Thats why (as was originally noted in Chemical-Free Kids) while it may all have sounded very reassuring, whether this much ballyhooed legislation can even begin to live up to that covenant is one that inspires little confidence among consumer advocates. Ultimately, such doubts were borne out in dramaticif somewhat underreportedfashion some three months before the August 2006 deadline for completing the task rolled around when some 9000 EPA staffers weighed in with their view that the agency they represented had dropped the ball in carrying out the mandate of the FQPA. Mission (Not) Accomplished The anger of the people who had been assigned the mission of mitigating the perils posed by pesticides took the form of an open letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Signed by the heads of EPA unions representing scientists, risks managers and related staff, it accused the agency of bowing to industry pressure, leaving the public in generaland children in particularinsufficiently protected from the toxic effects of these chemicals. Another concern expressed by the EPA staffers in their letter to Johnson was that agency risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development.
24
They also contended that: Their colleagues in the Pesticide Program felt besieged by political pressure from their bosses at the EPA, as well as from former agency officials who had become affiliated with the pesticide industry and agricultural communities; In the rush to meet the deadline, many steps in the risk assessment and risk management process were being abbreviated or eliminated in violation of the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity; and The prevailing belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs was that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry. 8 Such overwhelming dissent within any organization is not something that can be simply dismissed as the complaints of disgruntled employees. So rather than address the massive revolt from within its own ranks, EPA top brass simply opted to ignore it by taking what amounted to a mission accomplished position with a couple of cursory, self-congratulatory press releases issued on the 10-year deadline for the FQPA review.
25
Americans today can be confident that pesticides used in the United States meet the highest health and safety standards in the world, said one such release. It then went on to quote EPA Administrator Johnson as saying that the agencys groundbreaking effort is being welcomed at dinner tables across the nation, and that the Bush Administration is ensuring pesticides used to grow the fruits, vegetables and other foods families are serving meet the highest protective standards in the world. By maintaining the highest ethical and scientific standards in its pesticide review, EPA and the Bush Administration have planted the seeds to yield healthier lives for generations of American families, claimed the second EPA release. Sounding as though nothing about them was in dispute (let alone by those who were most knowledgeable), these pronouncements were aimed at reassuring Americans that they need no longer be concerned about pesticides posing a hazard to their health. The releases also provide a few specific examples of measures that have been implemented under the review, although they contain no mention of any reductions in infants and childrens exposure levels (which are discussed in a report posted on the EPAs web site). Aaron Colangelo, a lawyer specializing in pesticide issues for the Washington, D.C.-based NRDC, was one of a number of leading environmental advocates who shared the EPA staffers sentiments. I would say the statement that theyve met the highest scientific and ethical standards is untrue, he asserted. In order to meet their deadline in evaluating all these pesticides, theyve essentially ignored, disregarded or misapplied key safety measures written into the law to protect children.
26
Perhaps the most glaring omission, Colangelo maintained, was the EPAs having routinely failed to use an additional tenfold margin of safety to protect infants and children for many chemicals, especially five key pesticides that are among the most toxic. All of this isnt to suggest that the FQPA reevaluation was a total failure. One positive result, in Colangelos view, was the voluntary cancellation of the remaining seed treatment uses of the pesticide lindane. That was an important decision, he contends, since lindane was one of the worst pesticides that was still registered. Another example he cites is the proposed cancellation of six minor agricultural uses of carbofuran during a four-year phase-out period. But Kristan Markey, a research analyst at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), noted that lindane is already banned by 52 other countriesyet were bragging that we have the highest standards in the world. But another EPA claimthat the use of the organophosphate DDVP had been significantly restricted during the last decadeis also one that Colangelo called misleading. The EPA, he said, actually negotiated a private deal about two months before with the manufacturer to allow DDVP to stay on the market for home usage, despite a recommendation in the mid-1990s that it be banned from such products as no-pest strips and flea collars. The actual restrictions, he noted, were intended to eliminate its use in cracks and crevices and to reduce the size of the strips. The EPA could have and should have restricted many of these pesticides and banned them entirely, he said. Colangelo also felt the Bush Administration had interfered on certain specific pesticides to weaken their regulation, probably one of the best examples
27
being atrazine, an herbicide used chiefly on corn. In his view, the pesticide office at EPA is essentially a captive agency and theyve just bowed to industry pressure. Compelling Evidence of a Cover-up The position of the EPA staffers was also supported in a news release from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national alliance of federal, state, local and tribal resource professionals that works to promote environmental enforcement. In an unprecedented action, representatives for thousands of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are publicly objecting to imminent agency approval for a score of powerful, controversial pesticides, the release stated. The scientists cite compelling evidence which EPA leadership is choosing to ignore that these pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants and children. PEER also noted that its members are concerned that the Agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn conclusions about the developmental neurotoxicity data received from pesticide registrants. Our colleagues within the Agency, including EPAs inspector general, believe it would be premature to conclude that there is a complete and reliable databaseupon which to base any final tolerance reassessment decisions as required by the FQPA. The fact that this letter had to be sent at all is an utter disgrace but, even more disgraceful, is the likelihood that this warning will be disregarded by an
28

have you poisoned back yard today. your ..
...and turned it into a place where no one can play?
agency that is supposed to be protecting public health and the environment, PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said at the time.9 Joining in the chorus of criticism of EPA officials was EWGs Markey, who contended that theyve clearly ignored their own protocol and regulations for pesticide registrations and fallen short of their mission. They had a clear mandate, a clear warning, a reminder of that warning from their scientists, but decided to side with the (chemical) industry and its profits They dont have the critical data studies that they should have on a number of these pesticides. If you dont have them, you have to protect
29
at the highest level with extra safety factors, and I couldnt see where they used them. Another authority on the subject, Dr. Margaret Reeves, a staff scientist with the environmental group Pesticide Action Network (PAN) based in San Francisco, charged that the FQPA reassessment represented an egregious abandonment of EPAs mission to protect the health and well-being of children, farm workers and rural residents those most likely to suffer the short- and long-term health consequences of the continued use of these hazardous neurotoxins. We do recognize and support the EPA scientists in their recognition of inappropriate industry influence, Reeves said in a 2006 interview. It seems like (the EPAs) interest is in retaining the use of organophosphates, and therefore they conveniently perhaps are choosing to ignore information suggesting that they are hazardous to children. Theyve largely failed to consider one very important route of exposure, and this is pesticide drift. I know theres very little residue testing, and Im not at all confident that their models really do document real-world exposure from food. The use of hazardous pesticides continues to be very, very high, and theres no national system for documenting or evaluating pesticide poisoning, added Reeves, who said shed give the EPAs review a failing grade. In the face of such a massive outpouring of criticism, one might have supposed the EPA would have made some attempt to restore confidence in its integrity through a concerted effort to update and expand its store of information. Instead, it appears to have taken just the opposite approach.
30
The Great Library Lockout A little over two years after the rebellion of the EPAs rank and file over the agencys failure to make good on its responsibilities under the Food Quality Protection Act, PEER Executive Director Ruch was asked whether he had seen any indications of significant improvement in its pesticide data updating and regulation performance. The situation within the EPA in regard to pesticide regulation has only deteriorated in the past two years, he replied, citing increased unrest among its scientists. One of the chief reasons for such discontent among EPA staffers, Ruch explained, is the fact that their ability to do independent research on pesticides and other toxic chemicals has been severely curtailed during that periodas has that of outside investigators as wellthrough implementation of a plan he characterized as designed to make the agency less capable. Perhaps it was a mere coincidence (or perhaps not)but it seems that not long after the unions letter of protest arrived on Administrator Johnsons desk, EPA officials quietly began closing down the agencys research libraries, where the data required for much of this work was archived. Without such information readily available to them, Ruch observed, EPA scientists have been made more dependent on industry submissions and less able to independently challenge them. The main such facility at EPA headquarters, described by Ruch as having been the nations largest repository of materials on effects of pesticides and chemicals, was shuttered without notice to agency scientists. This seemingly
31
subversive move deprived investigators and researchers of an essential tool to independently evaluate any submissions. The holdings have been crated up and are unavailable to this day, Ruch said, with the plan apparently being to secrete it away for years. Included in the EPA-led closures were a number of regional libraries serving 15 Midwestern states, including facilities in Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City. According to a PEER news release, the EPA offered a rationale that it was planning to digitize everything in its collection and make it all available someday on-line. This supposed plan, however, was announced without any dedicated funds amid sharply reduced budgets, as Ruch observed at the time, further noting the move was framed as being in accordance with President Bushs proposed budget cuts. Also casting this plan in a dubious light was the fact that 90 percent (of the materials involved) couldnt be digitized because they were copyrighted, said Ruch, adding, It also made no sense to physically remove them before they were digitized. Like the agencys failed response to the FQPA, the great library lockout drew sharp opposition from EPA staffers, thousands of whom signed a letter of protest, contending that the plan was designed to suppress information on environmental and public health-related topics. Such organized protestation, while it may not have cut any ice with either the administrator or administration, did eventually succeed in influencing Congress to order the libraries restored something the EPA has only grudgingly agreed to do, according to Ruch.
32
The headquarters library, for instance, will consist of what the EPA describes as a consolidated operation, but wont be fully restored, he noted. Plans also call for the Chicago regional facility, formerly the largest regional library, to be reopened in a vacant reception area on the 16th floor of a federal building, occupying less than onetenth the area of the closed library, and only slightly larger than the typical mens restroom in that same building, according to a PEER press release. Furthermore, no provision is made to restore the unique Great Lakes ecological collection or to recover any of the other holdings from the former library. Another change is EPAs installation of a political appointee, Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information Molly ONeill, as library overseer, in charge of all library operations, including those serving laboratories and specialized programs. According to PEER, ONeill will be overseeing a host of new rules, including detailed directives on handling research and information requests and priorities for materials disbursal or destruction. Even as many collections remain in crates, EPA has decided to micromanage what is left, PEER Associate Director Carol Goldberg was quoted as saying, adding that the agency has still not accounted for many of the library holdings it removed.10 But while federal regulators may have managed to remove from circulation much of the existing data on pesticides and their effects, various private groups have dedicated a great deal of effort to coming up with new information on the amounts of these chemicals were being exposed to in our diet and the impact that may be having on our health
33
and that of our children. One of these organizations, the Organic Center of Boulder, Colo., has been able to learn a good deal about how much of these small, cumulative doses of poison were apt to be ingesting when we engage in whats usually considered healthy eating.
PLAN TO HALT PESTICIDE REPORTING DRAWS STRONG OPPOSITION

If theres anything that rubs a researcher the wrong way, its a threat to make the data on which he or she depends no longer accessibleas the U.S. Department of Agriculture discovered in May 2008, when it announced a plan to dispense with its annual Pesticide Reporting Program. The proposed dismantling, which the USDA said was due to a lack of funds to continue the already scaled-back program,, drew the collective opposition of no fewer than 44 environmental, health advocacy and sustainable farming organizations, all of which signed a letter of protest to Secretary of Agriculture Edward Schafer. The reports issued under the program, administered by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), are the only reliable, publicly available source of data on pesticide and fertilizer use outside of California, the letter noted. Elimination of this program will severely hamper the efforts of the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), land grant scientists,
34
and state officials to perform pesticide risk assessments and make informed policy decisions on pesticide use. In particular, USDA and EPA will have difficulty tracking their progress in meeting their policy commitments to reduce the use of hazardous pesticides through adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and to support IPM research. Americans are rightly concerned about the adverse impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment, said Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist at The Organic Center, in a press release. Without USDAs data, our organizations will be severely hampered in our ability to carry out research on the impacts of pesticides and offer informed input on decision-making regarding pesticide use and pest management systems in American agriculture. Denying the public and regulatory agencies this critical information is bad science and bad public relations, added Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. In addition to asking that the reporting program be continued, the coalition requested that NASS reinstate its more expansive program of the 1990s, which involved surveys of chemical use annually on major field crops (corn, soybeans and cotton) periodically on other field crops, and biennially on fruit and vegetable crops. As of this writing, the groups were awaiting a response from the secretary, a former North Dakota governor who assumed the post in January 2008.
35
PESTICIDES: A NEW SUSPECT IN AUTISM

Could pesticide exposure be linked to the current epidemic of autism? A recent California study indicates that there well might be a connection. The study, conducted by the California Department of Public Health and published in July 2007, focused on maternal pesticide exposures for 465 children suffering from autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who were born during the period 1996-98, as compared to 6,975 control subjectsthat is, non-autistic children living in the same area. It found that mothers who had been exposed to the organochlorine insecticides dicofol and endosulfan (also known as Thiodan) during weeks one through eight of pregnancy had more than six times the chance of giving birth to an ASD-afflicted child than those living away from pesticidetreated areas. The period of time involved is considered critical to the fetal development of the central nervous system. Children born to 29 women residing close to fields sprayed with the chemicals were found to have the highest rates of autism. The rates went down the farther away from the fields subjects lived.11
36
YOUR DIETARY RISK INDEX: HOW HEALTHY FOODS SCORE IN TERMS OF TOXICITY
Whats perhaps most disturbing about the apparent failure of government regulators to comply with the Food Quality Protection Act is that it continues to compromise the safety of many of the food choices American families are most encouraged by health and nutrition experts to make. Not that all such risks are created equal. Some conventionally grown commodities are far more apt to contain toxic chemical residues than others, according to a breakdown of dietary risks provided in the Organic Centers recent State of Science Review, The Organic Option. To assess the health risk posed by a particular crop, the center has devised a dietary risk index or DRI. The method it uses is
A REAL-WORLD APPROACH TO RESIDUE TESTING

When produce is tested for pesticide residues, is it washed first? Thats a question we put to Organic Center Chief Scientist Charles Benbrook. He answered that the testing is done in accord with real-world criteria set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, meaning that each item is tested in the same state in which it would typically be consumed. A banana, for instance, would first be peeled, whereas an apple would usually be washed.
37
one that takes into account both the residue levels of pesticides typically found in various fruits and vegetables and how toxic each pesticide is considered to be. It may also reflect combinations of different pesticides found on a single item. But an important thing to keep in mind is that the higher the DRI number of a particular food, the more residues it has been found to contain. According to the report, conventionally grown fruits and vegetables from domestic sources that scored highest on the dietary risk index were green beans (330), cranberries (178), sweet bell peppers (132), celery (104), nectarines (97), cucumbers (93), potatoes (74), tomatoes (68), peas (66), strawberries (956), lettuce and peaches (54), pears (48), apples (44) and cherries (32).
ANOTHER 15 GOOD REASONS TO GO ORGANIC

Domestic Produce DRI Domestically grown fruits and vegetables with the highest pesticide Dietary Risk Score (always buy organic whenever possible): Green beans (DRI 330) Sweet bell peppers (DRI 132) Celery (DRI 104) Cucumbers (DRI 93) Cranberries (DRI 178) Nectarines (DRI 97)
38
Potatoes DRI 74)
Imported Produce DRI Imported fruits and vegetables with the highest pesticide Dietary Risk Score (while this list includes most of the important winter imports in the U.S., some items, such as peppers, lettuce and tomatoes, can still be found organicallyusually hothousegrown in the U.S. during the winter months): Sweet bell peppers (DRI 720) Lettuce (DRI 326) Cucumbers (DRI 317) Tomatoes (DRI 142) Grapes (DRI 282) Nectarines (DRI 281) Peaches (DRI 266) Pears (DRI 221)
For the complete study, visit The Organic Center at: www.organic-center.com and download Simplifying the pesticide risk equation: the organic option.
Those figures, however, werent nearly as high as the DRI for imported produce. In fact, the average DRI score for imported fruits found to have the highest residue levels was more than twice that of the domestically grown fruits on the list152 vs.73. Imported vegetables averaged 212 as compared to 115 for those grown in the U.S.A., the figure for imported cucumbers, for example, being more than three times that of their domestic counterparts.
39
The highest DRI for imported items went to sweet bell peppers at a whopping 720, followed by lettuce (326), cucumbers (317), grapes (282), nectarines (281), peaches (266), pears (221), celery (170), tomatoes (142), green beans (93), strawberries (78), broccoli (62), peas (48), cherries and cantaloupe (31), and carrots and apples (30). By contrast, some fresh fruits and vegetables were found to contain minimal pesticide residues. They include citrus fruits (the 2006 DRI for grapefruit being around two), and bananas, pineapples and onions, all scoring less than one. Several dried fruits, such as raisins, also scored quite low. Other items found to contain far fewer and generally less risky pesticide residues included grain and grain-based products, except for relatively low levels of insecticides used during storage; beef, pork, lamb and poultry, and some processed foods (tomato paste, for instance, had a DRI 15 times lower than tomatoes themselves).12 Whats the best way to put this information to use? As a rule, if you have to pick and choose, try to purchase select organic fruits and vegetables rather than conventional ones that have high DRI numbers and avoid conventional imports whenever possible. This is especially vital if you are pregnant or have young children in your family. But dont interpret the fact some commodities might contain relatively small amounts of pesticides residue to mean there are no significant differences between the conventionally grown and organic varieties. In the chapters that follow, youll discover a number of other important reasons to include as many organic foods as possible in your familys diet.
40
~ Chapter 3 ~
GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed on the Label
We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years, and the experiment is running out of control.
~Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist,Open University, Great Britian
GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed
Can biotech change the world? Yes, but perhaps not in ways wed like to see. If we want to change the world for the better, we should probably look elsewhere. Releasing genetically engineered plants, animals and even bacteria into the environment is a form of biological pollution. Like chemical toxins, you cannot call them back. But unlike chemicals, biological pollutants can multiply and spread and interbreed, and change the balance of nature on our planet. If there are better ways to solve our food problems, why should we take this path? Martha Herbert, M.D., What Is Genetically Modified Food (And Why Should You Care)?, EarthSave Magazine, Spring, 2002
ou may have seen the warnings on processed food packages: This product was prepared in a facility that processes tree
nuts, or words to that effect. In an age when increasing numbers of individualsand children, in particularare apt to suffer allergic reactions to certain foods (peanuts, for instance), such cautionary statements are intended to inform vigilant consumers that the products they are considering for purchase may have been contaminated with traces of the allergensjust enough, perhaps, to trigger a reaction that, in some cases, could be lifethreatening.
43
But suppose that products, packaged with no warning labels or allergen alerts, actually contain substances capable of producing acute allergy-type symptoms? What if there are everyday products infused with insidious chemicals that could place the bodys defenses on red alert, yet carry no label information to indicate the potential presence of such hidden components? That, in fact, may now be the case with many of the conventional and processed foods that make up the typical American diet. Whats more, the presence of those occult chemical components in our foodin the American dietary system, as it weremay help explain why allergy, asthma and food sensitivities have undergone such a sharp rise in recent years. Statistics at the end of 2005, for instance, showed that the number of American children suffering from life-threatening peanut allergies had doubled in just five years, and those with food allergies had risen from 6 million to 11 million.13
BYPASSING THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF GMOs

In 1932, Aldous Huxleys sci-fi classic Brave New World portrayed the rulers of a future Utopian society as having their subjects genetically engineered to contentedly fulfill certain roles. While we have not yet reached such a point, Huxleys bizarre vision of a future in which man manages to alter the very essence of the life forms created by nature is not entirely off the mark. Today, in an ongoing effort to chemically engineer producestriving to increase output and ease of
44
cultivationwe are taking a chapter out of Huxleys vision of the future by infusing crops with certain unnatural, if not alien, traits. Unlike the type of cross-breeding traditionally done to improve various agricultural commodities, this particular procedure involves adding genes from other living things, in hopes of genetically introducing desired characteristics. The result has become known as a genetically modified organism, or GMO. GMOs are created by either using various microorganisms as transfer agents for DNA or by means of a gene gun that is used to haphazardly shoot genes into a group of plant cells, at the risk of disturbing existing genes. Because only a very small number of the cells involved are actually transformed by either procedure, marker genes, usually of bacterial origin, are attached to the gene being inserted. These genes serve as markers by virtue of being resistant to antibiotics, which kill the cells except those that have been effectively modified. (More technical explanations of how these processes work are provided on the web by Macalester College of St. Paul, Minn. http://www.macalester.edu/~montgomery/GMOs.htm, which also explores the ethical issues involving GMOs, and Germanys Federal Ministry of Education and Research at http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/gene_transfer/ 44.docu.html.) While this is usually a matter of transposing the DNA from one type of plant to another, along with bacteria and viruses that would not normally be present, in some instances it has involved inserting animal and even human genes into certain crops. Such deliberate mutations are the work of a number of companies, with one in particularworldwide agricultural giant Monsantohaving developed
45
and patented more than half of the genetically engineered crops in the U.S.14 (Monsanto has also acquired some 50 or so seed suppliers.) Such companies, collectively referred to as the biotech industry, have succeeded in putting genetically modified ingredientswhich include soy, corn and canola oil, soy, flour, soy lecithin, corn starch and high fructose corn syrup, to name but a fewinto an estimated 70 percent of the foods we consume in America. Considering how prevalent genetically modified, or GM ingredients become in our diet, one might suppose that GMOs have been subjected to thorough scrutiny by government agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration. But the truth is they havent. Thats because there are currently no requirements that GMOs be tested to ensure they wont adversely affect our health. When we ingest GMOs and feed them to our children, were essentially accepting the safety claims of the manufacturers who profit from those products. We are, in effect, taking part in an ongoing collective experiment, the results of which may never be publicly known. However, what is being learned outside the realm of in-company communiqus should be enough to set off alarm bells. The Dont Ask, Dont Tell Policy of the FDA Whenever something new is added to our food supply, its supposedly the job of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make sure an additive wont have any adverse effects on the population. That, at least, is how it works in theory. The reality, however, is often quite different
46

nting with your f ood erime exp be great fun! can
especially when adding a gene or two turns it into something new
especially when a company that wishes to market a product wields political influence, as was demonstrated when the FDA approved the artificial sweetener aspartame over the objections of its own scientists. Monsanto would certainly qualify as such an FDA-influencing business, having had a number of its officialsin typical revolving door
47
fashiongo to work for the FDA (or the other way around), including Michael Taylor, who went from being an attorney for Monsanto to an FDA post, where he was largely responsible for government policy on GMOs. Taylor later returned to Monsanto, this time in an executive job. The policy Taylor helped forge while with the FDA established that genetically engineered commodities are nothing more than extensions of long-existing practices of modifying agricultural products using conventional cross-breeding techniques involving varieties of the same species. In 1992, the FDA ruled that foods altered in this manner were substantially equivalent to those that hadnt been, and thus did not need safety testing. GMOs, it decided, were not food additives, so it was not necessary for manufacturers to submit a petition for approval before marketing them. The agencys position was that there is no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.15 That decision has been widely condemned. For example, Steven M. Druker, executive director of the Alliance for BioIntegrity, characterized the decision as being unscientific, unethical, and unacceptable and called for every bioengineered food (to be) withheld from the market until proper testing has confirmed it is safe according to the standard required by law.16 What the FDAs ruling amounted to, in essence, was a dont ask policy toward GMOs. But it didnt stop there. Tacked on to that policy was a dont tell
48
provision where consumers were concernedmeaning that there was no requirement that the possible presence of GMO ingredients be indicated on food labels. As a result, it might seem that theres really no way for us to know whether these supposedly innocuous, but genuinely sinister synthetics are lurking in our lunch or ending up on our dinner plates. However, there may be one way savvy shoppers can be sure theyre not serving up GMOs and such: buy certified organic products in which no genetically engineered ingredients are permitted. Of course, even when running with the organic banner, it may be impossible to be absolutely certain that anything is 100 percent GMO-free, as will be explained farther on. The wider selection of organic processed foods thats become available on supermarket shelves, such as cereals, waffles, ketchup and tofu, is especially helpful in this regard, since most of the GMOs that have entered our food supply are found in conventional processed products. Other than going into a full-blown organic mode, eliminating genetically altered foods from our diets can also be accomplishedat least to some degreeby avoiding non-organic foods most likely to harbor GM material, particularly those that contain soy, corn derivatives or canola oil. Thats because soybeans, corn and canola, along with cotton, are the major crops that have had alien genes inserted in them by the biotech industry. Sweet corn, for the most part, is still unaffected, with genetically modified varieties estimated at only about three percent17but the only way to be sure youre avoiding them is to either buy organically grown corn or grow it yourself. But why should GMO intake be a cause of
49
concern to us? To find out, we need to take a closer look at the very real risks to our health that such tampering with Mother Natures grand design may be creating, along with the effects its having on the environment and agriculture, here in the U.S. and abroad. How What We Dont Know Can Hurt Us and Our Kids (Without Our Knowing It) Biotech corporations, with the backing of the FDA, like to portray genetic engineering as a thoroughly safe, innocuous and beneficial process that can only make life better for both farmers and consumers. But a cursory background check of this relatively new and alien technology paints a very differentand disquietingpicture. If anything should have given federal watchdog agencies pause about the advisability of allowing genetically engineered products on the market, it was what happened in 1989 when eosinophilia-myaglia syndrome, a strange new disease that affects the blood and muscles, began afflicting thousands of people. The condition, which ultimately resulted in 38 deaths and 1,500 cases of disabling illness, was traced to a contaminated lot of the dietary supplement L-tryptophan, manufactured by a Japanese chemical firm that had infused it with genetically altered bacteria to increase its potency. But instead of raising concerns about the possibility that genetic engineering might have dangerous, unintended consequences, the tragedy caused attention to be focused on the perceived risks of aminoacid food supplements, resulting in a decade-long ban on most of the tryptophan being sold in the U.S.
50
In the years since, as more and more farmers have been persuaded to abandon traditional planting in favor of GM seedswhich the FDA arbitrarily decided were virtually no different than what they had previously grownscientists began reporting some disturbing results of the tests that were performed on these Frankenfoods, as opponents such as Greenpeace took to calling them. For example: Soybeans to which were added a gene from a Brazil nut caused serious reactions in individuals with nut allergies, as reported by the New England Journal of Medicinea development that resulted in one engineered soybean product being cast aside.18 A study performed by two scientists under a grant from the Scottish government, and reported by the British medical journal The Lancet, found significant detrimental effects on the organ development, metabolism and immune function of rats that had been fed potatoes genetically engineered to contain the biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.).19 An attempt by Australian researchers to transfer a gene for a pest-resistant protein from beans to peas was abandoned after the protein from the peas, which is harmless in its natural state, caused mice
51
to suffer airway inflammation and allergic lung damage.20 A German researcher, in a three-year experiment involving young honeybees and rapeseed that had been genetically engineered to resist a particular herbicide, discovered that the inserted gene transferred to bacteria and fungi in the bees intestines via ingested pollen from the altered rapeseed.21 Rats fed a genetically modified tomato developed stomach lesions, with seven out of 40 dying within two weeks, while chickens fed genetically engineered corn reportedly died at twice the rate of those fed non-altered corn. Genes inserted in soy were found to have transferred into the gut bacteria of human test subjects. Those last two items were among a number of effects of genetic tampering cited in the documentary video Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals: Genetically Engineered Foods, put out in 2005 by the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose founder, Jeffrey Smith, is a leading critic of GM foods. Smith has also authored a book on the subject, Seeds of Deception, which chronicles how skeptical scientists were coerced or intimidated, government employees who questioned
52
the technology harassed or dismissed, and evidence manipulated to remove obstacles to the marketing of GMOs. Tragically, children are most at risk from the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods, Smith warns in the documentary. Also featured in the video is the Alliance for Bio-Integritys Steven Druker, who notes that FDA documents had revealed an overwhelming consensus by agency scientists that genetic engineering is inherently hazardousand every food thats been genetically engineered has to be carefully safety tested because it runs the risk of harboring unintended harmful substances, such as new poisons, new allergens. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. In the video, Smith highlighted the negative impact that genetically modified soy had when introduced in Great Britain. Soy allergies skyrocketed 50 percent, he said. But that should have come as no surprise, for as Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an authority in the field of infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, has pointed out, Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children.22 Perhaps most disturbing to critics of genetically altered foods is the threat these chemicals pose to infants and toddlers. Michael Meacher, the UKs former minister of the environment, has noted that breast-fed infants can be exposed via the mothers diet, and fetuses may possibly be exposed in the womb. In addition, any baby food containing GM products could lead to a dramatic rise in allergies. Among the concerns Meacher has voiced are the
53
TRADING A TOXIC REPUTATION FOR AN IDYLLIC IMAGE

In our mentions of Monsanto, the corporation that holds hundreds of patents for genetically modified seeds and pledges to help farmers around the world be successful and produce healthier food, we want it to be clear that were referring to a relatively new agricultural companyone not to be confused with the old Monsanto. That old Monsanto was a chemical company formed a century agoa company whose manufacturing and disposal practices have from time to time had some rather toxic repercussions. At its plant in Nitro, W.Va., for instance, where the toxic chemical dioxin was a byproduct of the manufacturing of herbicides that included Agent Orange, the powerful defoliant used in Vietnam, some of these practices resulted in lawsuits brought by both ex-employees and residents. In 1988, the company settled with workers who claimed they had suffered long-term health problems. The plaintiffs were given $1.5 million. More recently, a lawsuit has been brought against the company by residents over dioxin pollution, which has spread to area waterways and fish. From the 1930s until 1971, the old Monsanto also carelessly disposed of industrial waste from the manufacture of cooling and insulating fluids containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at its Anniston, Ala. plant. PCBs are extremely harmful chemical compounds, which
54
persist for many decades once loosed on the environment. In addition to being classified as probable carcinogens, they can cause a wide range of serious health problems, especially the skin condition known as chloracne, and can increase the risk of almost all major diseases, including heart disease and diabetes, according to Dr. David Carpenter, a professor of environmental health at the State University of New York in Albany.25 The old Monsantos dumping in the vicinity of the plant resulted in an environmental trickle- down effect, as the PCBs entered the biosystem, ultimately impacting the human community. The company eventually settled with 21,000 residents for $550 million and agreed to conduct a massive cleanupbut Monsantos old Anniston site remains one of the most polluted in the U.S. Many of the residents in that vicinity will have the PCBs in their bodies for the rest of their lives. 26 The old Monsanto, incidentally, now goes by another nameSolutia. However, some leaders of the new Monsanto, according to its web site, may have had work experience with the old Monsanto.
possibilities that unexpected estrogen level changes in the GM soy used in infant formula might affect sexual development in children and that even small nutritional changes could cause bowel obstruction.23 Martha Herbert, a pediatric neurologist at Harvard Medical School, has offered an explanation of how tampering with DNA can lead to such problems.
55
Plants and animals process proteins after they are produced by adding starch and other molecules that affect how the proteins function. Not all species do this in the same way. Different ways of processing proteins can lead to changes in function or changes in potential for allergy, she notes. Genetic engineering, according to Herbert, can change the metabolism of a plant or animal. Proteins may be produced in increased quantities. Proteins that in small quantities were safe may now even exceed toxic levels. New proteins may be produced that were not produced before, Herbert has also cautioned that the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes to
A WEIRD NEW DISEASE APPEARS AND GMOS ARE PRIME SUSPECTS

Since they were first introduced on the agribusiness scene a few years ago, weve been repeatedly reassured that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would have no adverse impact on our health. Their only effects, or so we were told, would be to make crops hardier and keep them from being damaged by things like the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, which is used to kill weeds. (Monsanto, it should be noted, also owns the GMO technology involved). But are they really? Early in 2008, the giant health-care firm Kaiser Permanente was given a $300,000 grant by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study a strange new ailment known as Morgellons disease,
56
symptoms of which an increasing number of people were reporting. The previous year, some 10,000 families with one or more members suffering from this bizarre affliction had registered with the Morgellons Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization established in 2002 in honor of a two-year-old child with an unknown illness, which his mother labeled Morgellons disease. The most startling and consistent symptom of this condition is the appearance of odd skin lesions that produce tiny blue, red and black fibers with the consistency of strong, pliable plastic. Sufferers frequently complain of a sensation of bugs crawling beneath the skin. Some patients report feelings of chronic fatigue and depression, short-term memory loss and changes in vision. When a research team from Oklahoma State University examined fibers from different Morgellons disease victims, they found that the fibers, while all quite similar, bore no resemblance to any ordinary environmental fibers. Meanwhile, another study done by a biochemistry and cell biology professor at New Yorks Stony Brook University determined that the fibers contained the substance Agrobacterium, described as a genus of gram-negative bacteria capable of genetically transforming not only plants, but also other eukaryotic species, including human cells.27 The findings have given rise to speculation that Morgellons may be linked to GMOs in our food supplya theory that has yet to be proven, but will undoubtedly become the subject of a good deal more research.
57
determine if the genetic transfer was successful, by introducing such genes into intestinal bacteria, may amplify the already growing problem of antibiotics losing their effectiveness. As a result, (d)iseases that once could be treated by existing antibiotics may now become resistant to treatment.24 Adding to the considerable risks involved in transferring genes from one organism to another is the fact that genetically engineered crops tend to be treated with even greater amounts of toxic chemicals than their non-GM counterparts. And thats something thats good for neither consumers nor the environment. Where Have All the Soybeans Gone? An estimated 90 percent of the soybeans harvested in the U.S. alone have been genetically engineeredmostly by being made Roundup Ready. That means theyve been altered to withstand the effects of the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, whose active chemical ingredient, glyphosate, would ordinarily kill the crop along with the weeds that are its intended target. Some of the effects of glyphosate were summarized in a report by The Independent Science Panel on GM, a group comprised of dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries who convened in London in 2003. It characterized glyphosate as the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UKone for which disturbances to many body functions have been reported after exposures at normal use levels. The report further noted that exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated
58
neurobehavioral defects. The report also described the herbicide as (among other things) retarding development of the fetal skeleton in laboratory rats and being genotoxic (harmful to cell genetic material and causing possible mutations) in mammals, fish and frogs, and noted that Roundup caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers. Apart from its negative effects on health, glyphosate resembles insecticide in that it tends to gradually become less effective the more its utilized. The result, according to Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, has been an epidemic of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate. Consequently, he noted, soybean farmers have begun using it in greater quantitiesalong with other nasty herbicides, some even more toxic, such as 2,4-D and atrazine. In fact, data supplied by the USDA, as posted by the Center, show a 15-fold increase in the use of glysophate on soybeans, cotton and cornfrom 7.9 million pounds to 119 million poundsduring the period from 1994 to 2005, when Roundup Ready versions of these crops were introduced.28 Freese calls it a perfectly example of how bad agriculture drives more chemical use. The emergence of herbicide-resistant superweeds has also been helped along by a phenomenon known as biological pollution, in which genes inserted in crops to enable them to withstand applications of glyphosate and other herbicides actually spread to other plant lifeincluding adjacent weeds. There is also concern that such genetic transfers may transform wild/weedy plants into new or more invasive weeds, according to Professor Miguel A. Altieri of the University of California at Berkeley.
59
The movement of transgenes beyond their intended destinations and hybridization with weedy relatives and contamination of other non-GM crops is a virtual certainty, Atieri contends. Removing or recalling genes once they have escaped into natural gene pools is impossible.29 As a result, whereas in the year 2000 there were no documented cases of weed resistance to glyphosate in the Corn Belt, by 2008, Roundup-resistant weeds were being reported on some 2.4 million acres of farmland in the U.S.30 But thats not the only impact that such transgenic contamination has had on the environment. Cross-pollination with GMOs, it seems, also threatens the integrity of non-genetically engineered crops. In 2005, Australian environmentalists said their country was facing the most serious genetic contamination event in its history after it was confirmed that low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola.31 In Mexico, where corn originated and where growing GM versions has long been banned, evidence of contamination from genetically altered U.S. corn has been discovered in native maize varieties cultivated in remote areas, alarming both farmers and environmentalists. The dissemination of transplanted genes is even seen as somewhat problematic for organic agriculture, since organic certification depends on being able to guarantee that a crop harbors no GM material, and there are no restrictions on where GMOs can be cultivated. The issue of such cross-contamination resulted in an unsuccessful attempt in 2007 by organic farmers in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan to file a classaction suit against Monsantos Canada affiliate and
60
Bayer CropScience32although a more recent lawsuit in regard to the effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa on the organic variety did initially succeed in keeping the Monsanto crop from being planted. But perhaps of greatest concern to environmentalists is the emerging threat that GM technology poses to biodiversity in Third World countries. By encouraging the consolidation of land, they charge, the planting of genetically engineered crops is displacing small farmers and threatening food security in places with subsistence economies. This trend, according to Professor Altieri, rapidly leads to enormous rural-urban migration, social problems, and the penetration of agriculture by foreign capital.33 The proliferation of genetically engineered crops has also disrupted the culture of rural communities here in the U.S., according to a number of media accounts. In one article titled Harvest of Fear that ran in the May 2008 issue of Vanity Fair magazine, the investigative reporting team of Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele described how Midwestern farmers have been harassed, spied on and intimidated by what are often referred to as the seed police. The term refers to agents sent by Monsanto to make sure that GM seeds are repurchased from year to year as contract terms dictate, rather than simply used from previous crops, as has traditionally been done. A number of farmers have been either threatened or served with lawsuits including some who do not even use GM seeds, but who may simply have had a patented seed variety accidentally blow onto their property and take root.34 It may be true that at this point, most, if not all, of the soybeans in the countryand many more
61
Trickster THE TRANSGENIC CORRUPTION OF A NATURAL PESTICIDE

P U RE !
Nutritious!
lesome! Who
Nat ur
Biotech firms like to make the claim that using genetic engineering to add a gene from the soil organism Bacillus
gists, however, found troubling signs that target insects such as rootworms were becoming resistant to the Bt through exposure to so-called volunteer corn maverick plants with reduced levels of the toxin produced from the seed of the previous years crop.35 Such findings bear out a concern expressed by the Organic Trade Association in April 2004, when it noted that (s)tudies suggest that these plants will eventually produce insect pests that are unaffected by Bt, rendering it useless as an insecticide for non-GM crops. (Although Bt is an approved biological pest control, it is used only sparingly by organic farmers.) Some experts have also speculated that exposure to Bt-infused plants may harm non-target
62
! al
thuringiensis (Bt), which acts as a natural pesticide, to corn and cotton crops has helped reduce the use of chemical pesticides. A recent study by Purdue University entomolo-
insect species, such as monarch butterflies that feed on neighboring plants. But the most worrisome aspect of inserting Bt genes into crops may be its effect on people. A report from the Iowa-based Institute for Responsible Technology notes that the Bt toxin produced in GM crops is vastly different from the ones used in traditional and organic farming and forestry and about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray form. If Bt genes relocate to human gut bacteria, the Institute warns, our intestinal flora may be converted into living pesticide factories, possibly producing Bt-toxin inside of us year after year. The report also cites a warning from the United Kingdom Joint Food Safety and Standards Group that genes from the inhaled pollen produced by Bt-modified crops might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system. It goes on to describe a 2003 occurrence when the residents of an entire Filipino village were struck by mysterious skin, respiratory and intestinal reactions during the time that an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, with blood samples from 39 of them showing antibodies in response to Bt toxin. It further notes that agricultural workers in India developed allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton, but not natural varieties.36 So while the biotech industry might appear to have borrowed the idea of using a natural pesticide from organic agriculture, it may only have succeeded in making that approach ineffectivewhile rendering it hazardous to humans.
63
soybeans throughout the worldhave gone to variations on mutations engineered by Monsanto and its corporate compatriots, as have a substantial part of Americas corn, cotton and canola crops. But other attempts at genetic engineering have been increasingly rejected by the food industry itselfthanks in large part to the pressures exerted by aroused consumers in locales across the sea. Opposition Grows to GMOs If you think theres nothing that you can do to stop the biotech industry from genetically altering crops or dictating the manner in which they can be cultivated, you may be underestimating your own power to help influence the course of events. As a shopper, you make the purchasing decisions that affect the way food companies do business. Such individual choices have already gone a long way toward countering the money and political influence of corporations like Monsanto in their attempts to effectively control the very nature of our food supply and the way its produced. Since genetic engineering of crops first began to be commercially utilized back in the 1990s, a growing and well-informed opposition movement has succeeded in substantially hindering this risky technology from making additional agricultural inroads. Such resistance has been especially effective in Europe and other locales abroad where much tighter restrictions have been placed on GMOs than in the United States. This consumer backlash in major export markets has caused many food processors to shy away from them. As a result, a number of biotech projects have been stopped dead in their tracks, while others have been reduced in scopenot by regulation (as they
64
should rightly have been), but by the mandates of the marketplace. For example: Genetically engineered potatoes were taken off the table by Monsanto in 2001 after a number of processed-food corporationsincluding McDonalds, Burger King and McCainssaid no thanks.37 GM sweet corn has been rejected by Del Monte and other food companies, while Frito-Lay (a division of Pepsico) has helped reduce production of genetically altered field corn (the kind sold for processing) by requiring its contract growers to grow only none-GM varieties as a way of playing it safe.38 Genetically altered wheat had to be scrapped by Monsanto in 2004 due to farm groups concerns about the loss of export business in the European Union, much like what happened to GM flaxseed three years earlier after European customers told Canadian growers that they didnt want it.39 Studies being conducted by the University of Hawaii as a prelude to outdoor trials of GM coffee were scuttled in 2004 after objections were raised by coffee growers
65
concerned that their crops might become contaminated by cross-pollination and negatively impact sales.40 In 2007, The Center for Food Safety and other groups won a lawsuit in San Francisco U.S. District Court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), whose plant Health Inspection Service oversees GM open-air field trials and has the power to deregulate seeds as it sees fit. The court ruled that the agency had failed to do a thorough evaluation of the impact of Roundup Ready alfalfa before deregulating it, failing to consider its potential impact on organic alfalfa growers and on the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds. But the battle to keep additional crops from having their DNA altered is an ongoing one. In early 2008, for instance, lawyers for environmental, agricultural and consumer advocacy groups posed a legal challenge to the USDAs deregulation of Roundup Ready sugar beets. The plaintiffs in the case sought to have a thorough assessment of environmental, health, and associated economic impacts of the deregulation undertaken, as federal law requires, citing a threat of cross-pollination of non-GM sugar beets, as well as nearby crops of table beets and chard.41 A few years ago, it appeared that the GM sugar beet had been effectively derailed when sugar refiners warned farmers to steer clear of it because Japan, the
66
main customer for this commodity, wouldnt accept a genetically altered product.42 Yet there it was back again in 2008, available just in time for spring planting. But if the experience of the last decade is any indication, according to Jeffrey M. Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, such a move will lead to huge economic losses for the sugar industry and even for U.S. food companies who use sugar as an ingredient. For no matter how economical such a crop may seem, Smith believes it will thrust the sugar industry, and all manufacturers who use sugar, into the gathering storm of resistance to GM foods. In Smiths view, the general lack of awareness about the dangers posed by GMOs in the U.S. may be coming to an end. And when it does, he predicts, particularly in the event that mandatory labeling is adopted here, we will begin seeing a mass rejection of products with genetically engineered ingredients similar to that taking place in Europe. The tipping point does not require that a majority of shoppers reject GM foods, he maintains. If even a small percentage started switching brands based on GMO content, major companies would respond. After all, the products dont gain anything from using them. Their foods arent fresher, tastier, or healthier.43
MILKING THE DAIRY INDUSTRY FOR UNHEALTHY PROFITS

While there are encouraging signs that U.S. public opinion is gradually turning against the marketing of GM foods as consumer awareness grows of the risks they pose, another genetically altered sinister synthetic seems
67
to have already received a collective cold shoulder. From all indications, Americans seem to have resoundingly rejected the practice of injecting dairy herds with growth hormoneor, more precisely, recombinant bovine growth hormone, otherwise known as rBGH or rBST. Like GM seeds, rBGH (marketed under the name PosilacA) is a product of Monsanto biotechnologyone that also was given a green light by the FDA during the time when former Monsanto counsel and vice-president-to-be Michael Taylor was playing a key role in shaping the agencys policies toward such substances. Its designed to stimulate cows to produce more milk, something accomplished by adding a molecule of the amino acid methionine to their natural growth hormone. Not that there was a milk shortage when rBGH was approved for use in 1993. In fact, as Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility points out on its web site, hundreds of thousands of dairy cows have been slaughtered on several occasions since then because of a glut of milk on the market.44 The sole purpose of the engineered hormone is to generate additional revenue for Monsanto and those dairy farmers who choose to use it. Unfortunately, that extra profit for the manufacturer and users of rBGH has come with costs to society (as well as many farmers) that werent factored into that approval. How Growth Hormone May Put Both Cows and Consumers at Risk Critics of the marketing of rBGH to dairy farmers have not one, but three bones to pick with the proponents of
68
using the chemical. Topping the list is the possibility of an increased risk of various types of cancer that they believe its use could bring about. For years, scientists have hypothesized that rBGH significantly increases the levels of another growth hormone, Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 or IGF-1, in cows milk. The implications of this were explained in an open letter to the FDAs chief counsel in July 2007 by two representatives of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (OPSR), Chief Scientific Advisor Martin Donohoe, M.D., and Campaign for Safe Food Project Director Rick North, who were responding to Monsanto Chief Counsel Brian Robert Lowrys complaint to the FDA that dairies using no rBGH labeling were misleading the public. While acknowledging that IGF-1 is necessary for growth and development and is present in both cows and humans, Donohoe and North noted that both laboratory and epidemiological studies have demonstrated that elevated levels of IGF-1 are associated with increases in several types of cancers in humans, including breast, prostate and colon cancer. Some argue that rBGH-induced IGF-1 is not a cancer risk because the body produces far more IGF-1 than can be taken in by dietary sources, the letter writers observe. However, even very small amounts of hormones can have major implications for human health, especially if consumed over long periods of time or at critical stages of growth and development (infancy, puberty, etc.). Moreover, several studies have shown that dietary intake of IGF-1 can indeed have an effect on human health. Donohoe and North also pointed out that the FDAs approval of rBGH was one of the most
69
controversial decisions it has ever made, with widespread criticism from government leaders, farmers and numerous scientists, including several within the FDA, adding that (s)cientific evidence accumulated since then only reinforces the human health concerns with this drug.45 Also at issue are the adverse effects that rBGH can have on the health of the cows injected with it. Problems include mastitis, a painful udder infection, along with 15 other conditions (including pus in milk) that, according to Donohoe and North, are all potential problems listed on Monsantos own package insert.46 These conditions, in turn, are apt to be treated with antibiotics such as penicillin, amoxicillin and erythromycin, resulting in the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Such concerns, in fact, have been enough to cause Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the European Union to disallow the use of the drug, according to a brochure put out by OPSR.47 A Failed Attempt to Keep Consumers in the Dark Had it not been for the efforts of anti-rBGH activists, however, American consumers might have remained oblivious to the fact that the hormone posed such risksor even to the fact that farmers were using it at all, given that no regulation requires that it be mentioned on the labels of dairy products. But as public awareness of these issues has grown, an increasing number of dairies have actually begun labeling their products to indicate that they are BGH-freea trend that Monsanto and its agents and allies have consistently attempted to have muzzled.
70

have a cow abou t dont hormone in your m wth ilk gro
sooner or later, well know if its really safe to drink
Monsanto first got in touch with the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that notices to this effect, by falsely claiming that there are health and safety risks associated with milk from rBSTsupplemented cows, constituted deceptive advertising and labeling practices.48 When this tactic failed to cut any ice with either the FTC or the FDA, the company began trying to get individual states to prohibit such
71
labelinga drive that might have succeeded in Pennsylvania had not the governor himself intervened (see box). But then, Monsanto has a history of trying to keep consumers in the dark about rBGH and the controversy surrounding it. A decade ago, in fact, it succeeded in halting the airing of a major investigative series on the subject by a Fox TV outlet in Tampa, Fla. The companys communications with station management also resulted in the firing of Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, the award-winning investigative reporting team that had spent a year preparing it, who subsequently sued the station, winning a jury verdict that a state appeals court subsequently overturned. But their efforts did not go unrecognized, eventually making them the recipients of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize and helping bring a lot of well-deserved attention to the issue in the process. The strategy of OPSR and other groups has been to counter such attempts at censorship by going directly to the public, says North. You make up your own mind and vote with your dollars. And it appears to have been working. Despite the FDAs official position that the use of rBGH is safe and the accompanying lack of a labeling requirement, I would say that most of our surveys have found 50 to 60 percent of consumers know something about this subject, he maintains. As a result, a number of major food chains, such as WalMart and Kroger, are now offering dairy products that are rBGH-free. And the number of cows that are injected with PosilacA in the U.S., North says, has dropped from 22 percent to 17 percent of the total.
72
The good news is that, unlike GMOs, should the practice of injecting dairy herds with rBGH be ended entirely, it would have no lasting effect on the food supply, he notes. All the while, of course, purchasers of organic products have enjoyed the distinct advantage of not having to be concerned whether or not their families are being exposed to any possible risks associated with rBGH. But not having to worry about Sinister Synthetics, such as drugs, GMOs and toxic pesticide residues in your food, is not the only benefit of going organic, as youll discover in the chapter that follows.
GOT HORMONE-FREE MILK? (THE ANSWER IS NO LONGER A SECRET IN PENNSYLVANIA)

Concern that the use of rBGH might increase the risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer didnt stop Pennsylvania officials from attempting to conceal from consumers information about which brands of milk didnt come from cows treated with the hormone. That appeared to be the purpose of an edict issued by the state Department of Agriculture at the beginning of 2008 forbidding dairies to label their milk as rBGH-free. What did stop them was pressure from consumer groups some 65 of which protested the proposed labeling ban in a letter to Governor Ed. Rendell, who responded by noting that the public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced. As a result, new guidelines were issued by the
73
agriculture department late in January rescinding the ban and permitting dairies to label milk as rBGH free (although requiring them to document their claims along those lines). The development was hailed by Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union, as a victory for free speech, free markets, sustainable farming and the consumers right to know. It may also help to discourage similar bans that were being contemplated by several other states that were closely watching the situation in Pennsylvania. But whether or not such a ban goes into effect anywhere else, consumers can be assured that their milk is rBGH-free simply by purchasing the kind labeled as certified organic.
74
~ Chapter 4 ~
Reclaiming the Food Value That Weve Lost
Not only are we seeing a general trend in favor of the nutrient density of organic food, but also evidence that nutrients are often present in organic foods in a more biologically active form.
~Dr. Neal Davies, School of Pharmacology professor, Washington State University
Over the last half-century, farmers have doubled or tripled the yield of most major grains, fruits and vegetables. They have done so by capitalizing on the work of agricultural scientists, crop breeders and companies manufacturing a wide range of inputsfrom fertilizer to water, pesticides, sophisticated machinery and diesel fuel. Yield increases per acre have come predominantly from two sourcesgrowing more plants on a given acre, and harvesting more food or animal feed per plant in a given field But American agricultures single-minded focus on increasing yieldscreated a blind spot where incremental erosion in the nutritional quality of our food has occurred. This erosion, modest in some crops but significant in others for some nutrients, has gone largely unnoticed by scientists, farmers, government and consumer. Executive Summary, Still No Free Lunch by Brian Halwell (Organic Center Critical Issues report, September 2007)
he term factory farming, while usually used to describe large-scale beef, hog and poultry operations that keep
animals in closely confined quarters, is also an appropriate description of the approach now being taken by large growing operations when raising and harvesting crops. Such modern growing methods are very much akin to the massproduction techniques used in todays industrial plants, the purpose of which is to assemble as many
77
units of whatever is being manufactured as conditions will allow. Things like pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers are being used in crop growing for essentially the same reason: to foster the highest possible yield of a particular commodity in whatever space has been set aside to produce it. But, as so often happens when we meddle with nature, the increased intrusion of pesticides and certain fertilizers has had some unintended consequences on the quality of most of the fruits and vegetables being trucked to our supermarkets.
WHY GRANDMA GOT A LOT MORE FOR HER GROCERY MONEY

One of the chief consequences of the high-intensity, synthetically accelerated crop production common to todays factory-type farming is the insidious reduction in the health benefits we can expect from these seemingly natural foods. Just as increased industrial emissions are dangerously raising the temperature of the Earth, chemical and biological methods used to maximize agricultural yields are negatively impacting our nutritional climate. While modern farming methods may have enabled us to mass-produce crop commodities on a scale never seen before, the processes used to maximize output per acre have also resulted in a significant decline in quality, reflected by substantial drops in actual nutrient levels in crops from the mid-20th century up to the present day. Government data from both America and the United Kingdom have shown that the concentration of a range of essential nutrients in the food supply has
78
declined in the last few decades, with double-digit percentage declines of iron, zinc, calcium, selenium and other essential nutrients across a wide range of common foods, noted Brian Halwell in the report Still No Free Lunch, published in September 2007 by The Organic Center. Substantial data show that in corn, wheat and soybeans, the higher the yield, the lower the protein and oil content. The higher tomato yields (in terms of harvest weight), the lower the concentration of vitamin C, levels of lycopene (the key antioxidant that makes tomatoes red) and betacarotene (a vitamin A precursor).49 That seems to be because plants have only so much energy to keep them going, and, as Halwell pointed out, chemical enhancement and augmentation of cropssomething that essentially forces plant life to grow larger or with greater intensitydiverts energy from the other natural functions plants must perform, such as sinking deep roots and generating health-promoting compounds known as phytochemicals, many of which are antioxidants and vitamins.50 The consequence is that with all our technological advances, when it comes to plain old-fashioned food valuemeaning an abundance of Mighty Micronutrientsour grandmothers were probably getting a lot more of it for their money.
WHERE TO FIND THOSE MISSING MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS

The discovery of a significant decrease in nutritional content of chemically cultivated food crops over the past several decades was originally noted in
79
Chemical-Free Kids. Under the heading the Case of the Missing Nutrients, the book presented an analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data performed by the Kushi Institute of Becket, Mass. The analysis found that the nutritional value of vegetables grown at the end of the 20th century was significantly lower than that found in the same crops cultivated a quarter century earlier. The book went on to cite similar results from a magazine report on food crops grown in Britain during the half-century between 1930 and 1980. The reports author, Anne-Marie Mayer, theorized that the decline in nutrient value was related to changes in growing practices and conditions, such as the use of agricultural chemicals, soil compaction, and the loss of organic matter in soil. A form of collateral damage done by artificially intensifying the agricultural output of a given acre of land is uncovered in a 37-year study done by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which concluded that the over-application of nitrogen fertilizers had actually depleted the fertility of the soil, causing it in effect to age the equivalent of 5,000 years. As it turns out, those results have been consistently corroborated by research conducted during the last few years, both here and abroadresearch that has also borne out the books claim that organically grown commodities were far more apt to have their vitamin and mineral assets remain intact. Studies Confirm Nutritional Superiority of Organic Food The most recent confirmation came at the beginning of 2008, when the results of a comprehensive review
80

orget to c yours nt f elf do
every day!
its important to get your vitamin c daily
of 97 published studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and nonorganic foods were released. The studies showed that organic fruits, vegetables and grains contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients studied, including significantly greater concentrations of polyphenols and antioxidants. The team of scientists that analyzed the data
81
from the gathered studiesCharles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center, Xin Zhao, University of Florida, and Washington State University (WSU) scientists Jaime Yanez, Neal Davies and Preston Andrewsconcluded that organically grown, plant-based foods are, on average, 25 percent more nutrient dense than their conventionally grown counterparts.51 But all that should have come as no great surprise, considering how the evidence has been stacking up over the past decade. In 2001, some 41 previous studies of the nutritional value of organic foods were reviewed for a doctoral dissertation by Virginia Worthington at Johns Hopkins University. Her research, which included the analysis of farm and market basket surveys, field trials and greenhouse pot experiments, provided comparisons of various micronutrients in both organic and conventionally grown commodities. Worthington found that when all these studies were taken together, the organic produce contained substantially higher nutrient levels, including 29.3 percent more magnesium, 27 percent more vitamin C, 21 percent more iron and 13.6 percent more phosphorous. The organic items also had 15.1 percent fewer nitrates, which are a far less desirable ingredient. Worthington also observed that five servings of organic lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes and cabbage provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and women, while the same amounts of conventionally grown vegetables failed to do so.52 More recently, a four-year study of the effects that modern high-intensity agriculture is having on the caliber of commodities ranging from tomatoes to milk was completed on a 725-acre farmattached to Britains Newcastle
82
Universityand at additional sites in Europe. The study areas had adjacent organic and nonorganic growing areas. A follow-up analysis, funded by the European Union, compared the organic and nonorganic yields from the study. It revealed that organic fruits and vegetables contained up to 40 percent more antioxidants than conventionally grown produce, as well as having higher levels of such beneficial minerals as iron and zinc. Possibly the most dramatic finding from the analysis was the difference between the milk from organically and conventionally raised herds, both of which grazed in neighboring pastures. Milk produced by the organically raised cows was found to be up to 90 percent higher in antioxidant level. Another striking contrast was seen in the quality of organic tomatoes grown in Greece. When compared with nonorganically grown tomatoes, they contained substantially higher amounts of antioxidants, including flavonoids, which are credited with reducing the risk of heart disease. Such results prompted the EU projects coordinator, Professor Carlo Leifert, to observe that eating organically increases the likelihood of achieving the recommended daily amounts of nutrients. Just four servings of organic fruits and vegetables containing 20 percent more antioxidants than nonorganic varieties, he noted, might well have the same nutritional value as the five servings usually called for. The evidencewill end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice, noted an article on the
83
EU study published in The Sunday Times of London on Oct. 28, 2007.53 Additional evidence of the superior nutritional value of organically grown crops has been produced by research on some other produce as well. Melons are one example. According to a report issued by a group of Colorado State University researchers at the 2007 meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science, a two-year comparative study of organic and conventional melon production indicated that organic varieties contained greater amounts of vitamin C and polyphenols, antioxidants that are believed to aid in the prevention of both heart disease and cancer.54 In another study done by Italys National Institute of Food and Nutrition Research, organic pears, peaches and oranges were found to have higher antioxidant levels than chemically cultivated ones.55 And while nonorganic citrus fruit may not tend to contain high pesticide residues, a study done at Missouris Truman State University revealed that organically grown oranges contained up to 30 percent higher levels of vitamin C than much larger, conventionally raised oranges. We were expecting twice as much vitamin C in the conventional oranges, said visiting chemistry professor Theo Clark, who led the study.56 Similar findings have been made by researchers from the University of California at Davis in regard to antioxidant levels in corn, strawberries and marionberries. In those studies, organic corn exhibited 58.5 percent higher levels, organic marionberries approximately 50 percent more, and organic strawberries were about 19 percent richer in antioxidants than nonorganic varieties.
84

RE OF US HANG IND MO ING LL F OU YOU s ORGANIC S T r store ECTI you ON IN
(STUDIES HAVE FOUND THAT ORGANIC FRUITS AND VEGGIES CONTAIN The most MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS)
Further Proof of How Bigger Isnt Always Better Such data are, in fact, consistent with what has long been known to many whose livelihoods are derived from the land: a less crowded, less artificially protected environment is more conducive to cultivating desirable qualities in plants. The explanation of this phenomenon is one thats perhaps best summed up by The Organic Center in
85
its 2006 compilation of research on organic agriculture, Core Truths: Evidence suggests that high yields in some crops can dilute the concentration of vitamins and antioxidants in plants, changes that can reduce nutritional quality and diminish flavor. This is why winemakers look for grapes from vines that have dealt with a certain level of stress during the growing season. Grapevines managed for maximum yields produce more grapes per acre, but less flavorful, lower quality wines. 57 As organic agriculture has grown in popularity, its critics, most of whom speak on behalf of petrochemical and large-scale agricultural interests, have used various ploys to attempt to discredit it. A few years ago, television news personality John Stossel hosted an ABC report, The Food You Eat, alleging that organic produce might be hazardous to our health, which relied heavily on information supplied by an industry lobbyist. Among the distorted claims Stossel made, as reported by The New York Times, was a statement that its logical to worry about pesticide residues, but in our tests, we found none on either organic or regular produce. The only problem with that statement, as the two scientists whom ABC hired, Lester Doyle and Michael Crawford, subsequently acknowledged, was that the produce was never tested for pesticide residue, but only for bacteria. In
86
ORGANIC FOODSA SOURCE OF ABUNDANT ANTIOXIDANTS

Breathing, eating, exposure to chemicals and daily life in general all promote the production of free radicalsunstable molecules that can damage cells and promote numerous diseases. Antioxidants from whole food sources are potent agents that help your immune system stay strong and protect your body from these free radicals. Most foods high in antioxidants can be recognized by their bright colorsblueberries, cranberries and strawberries, for example. Others might surprise you. Potatoes, pinto beans, artichokes and asparagus are also in the group of foods with the highest antioxidant punch per serving. With the news that organically grown foods can have up to 40 percent more antioxidants then conventional ones, eating organic is an easy way to get more of all the benefits and protection that antioxidants offer.
addition, as the Environmental Working Group pointed out, the show failed to make a distinction between pathogenic and harmless bacteria.58 Under pressure from critics who took their case to the media, the network was eventually forced to retract the allegations made in that pseudo-documentary after they were shown to be false and misleading. Now that more and more is becoming known
87
about the benefits of organic products, the drawback that some critics would like to call to public attention is that of lower yields. Organic farmers, they say, just cant reap the same volume of fruits at harvest time as can their nonorganic counterparts. But that criticism, it turns out, is actually one of the beneficial aspects of organic agriculturethe fact that it does not create overcrowded conditions in the fields and does not deplete the soil of nutrients. Its what makes organic products so much richer in nutritional value and better tasting. As Richard Drucker put it in a 2006 article in Dynamic Chiropractic magazine, Our soils are depleted and depleted soils do not produce healthy, nutrient-rich plants. Its also a fact that crops produced in depleted soils are more prone to the invasion of insects, viruses, fungi, etc. Insects and infectious organisms were designed to get rid of unhealthy vegetation and they do not typically attack truly healthy plants. Much of the modern world is now aware that our industrialized methods of farming have depleted the soils and created a cycle that requires pesticides to protect the unhealthy crops grown on depleted soils.59 When it comes to the cultivation of crops, less volume definitely translates into more value.
88
P U RE !
Nutritious!
lesome! Trickster Who

Nat ur
HOW A TOXIC TECHNIQUE CAN BRING ABOUT A TOXIC RESULT
deoxynivalenol, or DON for short. DON is produced by Fusarium fungi commonly found in wheat and grain fields. Its common name, vomitoxin, provides a more apt description of its nasty nature. In addition to producing gastrointestinal problems in mammals, it has been found to stunt growth and is reported to be capable of hindering the immune system. According to the Organic Consumers Association, a recent study performed in the United Kingdom detected the presence of DON in the urine of 99 percent of some 300 humans tested, with grain-based productsparticularly breadidentified as the source. In addition to wet conditions at harvest time, the key factors that have been identified as helping Fusarium to proliferate are two common components of highyield agriculture: the presence of high levels of
89
! al
The depletion of nutrients isnt the only adverse side effect to result from the methods used to increase yields of crops. Another, as it turns out, may be the greater likelihood of exposure to a naturally occurring mycotoxin called
nitrogen fertilizer and the use of synthetic fungicides. The latter is particularly ironic, because conventional wisdom would suggest that the application of fungicides ought to protect a crop from a condition caused by a fungus. But multiple studies performed in the European Union, where these chemicals are routinely applied to wheat crops, as well as in the United States, where fungicide use on wheat is minimal at best, have shown that fungicides do not kill all Fusarium fungi, but do stress them and that when fungi are stressed, the likelihood of their forming dangerous mycotoxins is increased.60 Here again is an example of how organic foods can make a significant difference. In a 2005 State of Science Review titled Breaking the MoldImpacts of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems on Mycotoxins in Food and Livestock Feed, the Organic Center analyzed a number of studies (mostly done in Europe) comparing the presence of DON and other mycotoxins in organic and nonorganic foods. It found that the conventional products had both twice the frequency and twice the levels of such substances as the organic ones.61 Like the depletion of nutrients, the increase in vomitoxin levels brought about by fungicide applications is yet another illustration of the law of unintended consequences taking effect whenever toxic chemicals are used in an attempt to increase crop yields. Like pesticide applications that add poisons to our food while bringing about the emergence of stronger insects that are impervious to them, the use of such quick fixes has ended up actually helping to promote the very conditions theyre intended to alleviate.
90
~ Chapter 5 ~
Reaping the Rewards of the Organic Renaissance
What we need in America is a renaissance. We need to go forward by going backward.

~Stanley Crouch, American music and cultural critic
Organic adj. 1 OF LIVING THINGS relating to, derived from, or characteristic of living things 2 DEVELOPING NATURALLY occurring or developing gradually and naturally without being forced or contrived. Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary
n Chemical-Free Kids, a chapter on Organically Grown Solutions explored some of the benefits of buying what organic
products were then available. Today, thats a much more viable option. We are witnessing the start of a virtual Organic Renaissance in agriculture and food production. When we talk about this being an Organic Renaissance, we mean precisely that. The term renaissance literally means rebirthand today, we are seeing the rebirth of natural methods of growing and producing food that were engaged in by our ancestors, well before things like synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetic engineering and artificial additives began robbing our diet of its benefits and replacing them with a toxic stew. Just as the Renaissance in Europe marked the end of a long period of ignorance and cultural stagnation, the Organic Renaissance is slowly but surely bringing about the end of an era of poisonous products and procedures, and a disregard for the consequences of their use an era in which our crops, soil, air and water were repeatedly permeated with hazardous chemicals and our food supply imbued
93
with various other types of harmful substances intended to artificially preserve it and enhance its appearance and flavor. But this Renaissance has just begun to take root. How well and how fast its able to develop will depend in large measure on how much encouragement it gets from consumers. Such support, in turn, is bound to be of immense benefit to those who produce organic products, helping to make them even more widely available, as well as more affordable.
ORGANIC ORGANIZING ON A GRASS-ROOTS LEVEL

Much has been made of the importance of providing children with a good home environment while making sure theyre not exposed to external influences that could prove injurious to their health and well-being. Joining the Organic Renaissance may be one of the best and fastest ways to accomplish these objectives. Besides the benefits of greatly reducing your kids exposure to dietary pesticides and other harmful food ingredients, adopting an organic lifestyle (or something approaching it) also means purging your home and lawn of toxic spraysand encouraging your neighbors, schools and community to eliminate their use as well. But a lot of folksincluding many school officialsstill need to be educated to the fact that natural, non-toxic methods of pest control can be even more effective than the conventional treatments that utilize environmental poisons. Getting together with other enlightened parents and organizing an organically oriented grass-roots movement within your community can be a highly effective method of spreading such
94
awarenesswhile further helping to detoxify your childrens daily environment. There are various ways you can go about this. One is the approach that was recommended by Bob McClintock, a Dayton, Ohio school official, in Chemical-Free Kids, and it is still apt to be quite effective. The first step, he advised, is to find out what type of pest control your childs school is using, and what the application schedule is, then start talking to the administration in the school and see how much they know about integrated pest management (IPM). The latter system is one that combines such methods as biological controls, pest monitoring and habitat manipulation with prudent use of the least toxic pesticides available. McClintock himself first became aware of the IPM option when he was introduced to Steve Tvedten, a Michigan-based alternative pest control specialist, by a parent whose family had become sensitized to chemicals. Tvedten subsequently offered his services to McClintocks district and was chosen over conventional applicators who derided his voodoo pest-control techniques. He ended up proving to local school administrators that it was possible to quite effectively rid their facilities of pests without having to resort to toxic pesticides. Tvedtens methods can be accessed in his on-line book, The Bug Stops Here: How to Safely and Simply Control Most Household Pests Without Harming Yourself or Your Family <http://www.thebestcontrol.com> Not that pest control is the only topic you might want to bring up with school administrators. Theres also the matter of the quality of the food served in the school cafeteria, and how its likely to be a source of Sinister Synthetics rather than Mighty Micronutrients. Such discussions may
95

fruits and veggies your ever again be lam eed n e n
Youll be amazed at how they regain their flavor when theyre grown organically
HOW GOOD TASTE CAN HELP PROMOTE A HEALTHIER EXISTENCE

Want to get your family to eat more of those fruits and veggies that all the latest research says are necessary to ward off things like cancer, diabetes and obesity? Then you might want to select them from the organic section of your supermarket.
96
Organic fruits and vegetables may well be tastier than their conventional counterparts, while providing a greater percentage of nutrients. At least thats what appears to be indicated by some of the comparative studies of the organoleptic properties of organic producethe qualities that make such commodities appetizing. In fact, according to The Organic Center, some 43 percent of consumers who choose organic commodities cite better taste as the reason. While taste tests are largely subjective, and results may well be affected by other factors, current polls of consumers have shown that organic items seem to rate as more flavorful. Organic strawberries, for example, were consistently judged as being sweeter than conventionally grown ones in tests of consumer preferences conducted by Washington State Universitys sensory quality laboratory as part of a project funded by The Organic Center. The more-intense flavor that organic produce seems to offer has been attributed to its generally higher antioxidant levels, as well as the fact that organic crops as a rule produce lower yields. Thats because overcrowded growing conditions seem to have a negative effect on the development of desirable attributes. And, contrary to the commonly held belief that untreated organic foods spoil more quickly, they actually tend to keep better, since those additional antioxidants help to preserve plant-cell integrity and may have natural antibiotic properties, while the higher levels of nitrates found in conventional commodities can be conducive to spoilage.62
97
not culminate in organic food being served during lunch period, cost being a major factor in purchasing cafeteria fare, but they could well succeed in improving the nutritional quality of lunchroom foodespecially when youve managed to organize other parents to back up your position. (Of course, you still have a measure of control over what your child eats in school, in the form of the old-fashioned brown-bag lunch.) While its important to take up such concerns directly with school officials, its a good idea to get as many families on board the bandwagon as possible. That can be accomplished through such efforts as speaking up at PTA meetings, forming a concerned parents group or writing to the editors of your local daily and weekly papers. Whatever you do, be sure you have as many facts at your disposal as possible (for which purpose you might want to review the information provided in the original Chemical-Free Kids). Another method of organic organizing that can prove immensely beneficial to everyone involved is to join a natural foods co-op, if one exists in your areaand encouraging your friends and neighbors to do likewise. Such organizations help to support local organic growers and suppliers of organic and minimally processed foods. A couple of good web sites to consult for this purpose are <http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/food_coops_natural_foods. htm> and <http://wwww.greenpeople.org/healthfood.htm>. Planting your own organic community garden can also bring people together in a way that can help to spread awareness of the advantages of chemical-free produce while enabling neighbors to enjoy the fruits of their collective labors.
98
THE BENEFITS OF ORGANICIZING YOUR LIFE

Would making a switch from conventional to organic foods really make a significant difference in our well-being? Its a question that was addressed by the Organic Centers chief scientist, Dr. Charles Benbrook, in a state-of-science review his organization issued in March 2008, titled Simplifying the Pesticide Risk Equation. In essence, Benbrook concluded that if the countrys approximately eight million acres of produce farms were to become organic operations, and if U.S. consumers were to buy imported produce only if it were certified organic, it would reduce the dietary risks of exposure to pesticide residue by about 97 percent. That estimate, it should be noted, was based on the latest residue data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and on the Environmental Protection Agencys own current methods for estimating pesticide dietary risk. What such a burst of organic awareness and acceptance might mean for the health of society as a whole is not yet entirely clear, the report acknowledges. Almost certainly there will be benefits for healthy adults, we just cannot predict or quantify them, given the present state of knowledge, Benbrook noted. For certain segments of the population, howeverespecially an estimated four million expectant mothers and nearly 40 million children up to the age of 12substantially reducing dietary pesticide exposure would almost certainly (have) significant health benefits, which would include more full-term births and fewer underweight babies, as well as a decrease in the rate of birth defects, perhaps by a quarter or more.
99
But above all else, Benbrook maintained, there will likely be a significant decline in the often subtle, but still adverse impacts of pesticides on the developing baby, whose immune, reproductive and nervous systems are apt to be affected by exposure to these chemicals. Benefits from avoiding pesticide exposures begin approximately six months before conception and run through young adulthood, and indeed for some health problems, throughout life. This is because many of the developmental deficits triggered by prenatal and early pesticide exposures increase the risks of chronic diseases, and metabolic and neurological problems that erode well-being much later in life. Right now, of course, were not even remotely close to such a full-scale conversion, although there has been a significant and rapid switch to organic methods by many farming operations. In fact, organic fruit and vegetable production, according to Benbrook, stood at approximately nine percent of market share at the time it was compiled, and is expected to eventually steadily rise to between 30 and 50 percent of total sales at the current rate. However, beyond that, he contended, its growth will require new investments and technology, and both strong and steady consumer demand.63 While the progress made so far in this Organic Renaissance may be encouraging, its still up to individuals and parents to forge ahead, to organicize their own lives. The good news is that its now a lot easier to do than it was a few years ago, when ChemicalFree Kids was originally published. And, as that book noted, it neednt be an all-or-nothing proposition. Whats evident from all this is that going organic
100
is no longer the elitist trend that many people once considered it to be, but rather the enlightened and progressive direction in which our society is most assuredly headed. Just how quickly we will see this transformation take place, however, will be largely determined by how fast the awareness of its benefits spreads with the greater demand for organic commodities leading to more and more croplands being turned into pesticide-free, GMO-free growing zones. The improvements in the health and well-being of our country and the planet thats bound to result is something you and your family can help facilitate, simply by taking advantage of those benefits that an organic lifestyle has to offer.
WHEN WHATS BEST FOR YOU IS ALSO BEST FOR THE WORLD
All too often in our culture, people who make a point of looking out for their own self-interest are regarded as being unconcerned about the welfare of society as a whole. By becoming part of the Organic Renaissance, however, you can turn that idea on its ear by doing something thats extremely beneficial not only for your own family, but for the entire human race as well. Every time you buy an organic commodity, for instance, youve done something to encourage the growth of organic agriculture and to curb the use of chemicals that poison the air, water and soil. Organic growing techniques pose no airborne threat to either people living in the vicinity or those who cultivate and harvest crops. Applications of toxic pesticides, by contrast, have been known to drift into
101
WHAT A DIFFERENCE FIVE DAYS MAKE To learn how much of a difference switching your children to an organic diet can make, look no further than a January 2008 Environmental Health Perspectives study of 23 urban and suburban children conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The subjects, who ranged in age from 3 to 11 years of age and had been raised exclusively on conventional diets, were all switched to organic diets for five consecutive days. During the year in which the study took place, their urine was also tested for metabolites of malathion, chlorpyrifos and other organophosphorus pesticides. The tests were performed on a twice-daily basis over periods ranging from seven to 15 days. The researchers found that substituting organic fresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventionally grown produce reduced median concentrations of both malathion and chlorpyrifos to non-detectable levels, or amounts close to being non-detectable. Based on these findings, they concluded that eating non-organic food was the major source of exposure young children had to such pesticides.64
nearby neighborhoods, sickening residentsparticularly the case with methyl bromide, a chemical widely used in soil fumigation that can be lethal in confined spaces. Such chemicals also often compromise the health and safety of farm workers who are directly exposed to them. Organic farming further helps to preserve the
102
integrity of groundwater sources by keeping them from being contaminated by toxic pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer runoff. It also serves to foster sustainable farming practices and the cultivation and preservation of nutrient-rich soil, while discouraging techniques that cause the soil to become eroded, nutrient starved and laden with toxins. As was noted in Chapter 3, the sale of organic processed foods and dairy products acts as a deterrent to genetic engineering of crops like soybean, corn and canola, and to the injection of cows with the sinister synthetic hormone rBGH for the sole purpose of increasing their milk production. Opting to go organic also contributes to an environment thats kinder and gentler to animals and birds by reducing their exposure to toxic materials; helping to preserve their habitats (which organic agriculture does through retention of wetlands and other natural areas); encouraging such practices as the rotating of forage crops and the retention of fence rows; and contributing to the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. In addition, it helps to promote biodiversity in agriculture by patronizing growers who collect and plant a wide variety of seeds. Then, too, purchasing organic produce contributes to the preservation of family farms, which in recent years have become an endangered speciesand which are perhaps our last, best hope for keeping rural communities viable and ensuring the availability of fresh local produce. That, in turn, can save us a considerable amount of energy used to truck commodities hundreds of miles across the countryand thus help fight the carbon emissions that are contributing to global warming.
103
In fact, organic farming is in itself a big energy saver, due to the fact it doesnt rely on pesticides and nitrogen fertilizer, both of which are responsible for considerable fossil fuel consumption. It has been estimated that if 10 percent of the food we consume by 2010 is organic, we will have saved some 2.9 billion barrels of imported oil.65 But of all these benefits to society, whats perhaps most important is the ability of organic agriculture to restore the nutritional value of crops back to what it used to be, while discouraging the use of pernicious pesticides, genetically engineered foods and harmful additives. By enabling those Mighty Micronutrients to regain their rightful place in our diet while helping to send Sinister Synthetics packing, the Organic Renaissance is slowly but surely turning what was once a narrow and arduous path to freedom from toxic chemicals into a wide and well-traveled thoroughfare.
104
~ Chapter 6 ~
More on Mighty Micronutrients: Where Theyre Found and Why Theyre So Mighty
More on Mighty Micronutrients
ote: Micronutrients are best obtained from whole food sources, or from whole food supplements. Some need to
be replenished daily, and some are needed only in trace amounts by the body. While it would be difficult to overdose on most micronutrients when derived from food, supplement intake should not exceed amounts recommended on the label. This is especially true for certain substancesvitamin A, for example that can be toxic in unneeded quantities (even vitamin C, which can be taken in more liberal doses, can cause stomach distress when excessive amounts are ingested). So use caution and common sense when supplementing your dietary intake.
Calcium
Where its found: Milk, yogurt, cheese and leafy green vegetables. Why its mighty: Calcium is a mineral that plays a number of essential roles in the body, including the maintenance of strong bones and teeth, helping blood vessels expand and contract and relaying nerve transmissions.
Chromium
Where its found: Brewers yeast, eggs, chicken, wheat germ, spinach, broccoli, apples, bananas, grape juice, green peppers, beef, liver. (Foods containing high levels of the sugars glucose and fructose may actually result in loss of chromium). Why its mighty: Though how it works is not completely understood, this essential mineral helps the body to metabolize insulin, fats and carbohydrates. It also helps promote the synthesis of cholesterol,
107
which plays a role in brain function, as well as other chemical processes.
Copper
Where its found: Shellfish, nuts, beans, peanut butter, chocolate, mushrooms, whole grains, beans, potatoes, dark leafy greens and dried fruits. Why its mighty: This trace element is a key component of essential enzymes that play a number of important roles in the body, including the production of cellular energy, the formation of connective tissue and red blood cells, and helping the brain and nervous system to function properly.
Flavonoids
Where theyre found: All kinds of fruits and vegetables, along with certain beverages, such as fruit juices, tea and coffee. Why theyre mighty: Flavonoids are natural chemical compounds with strong antioxidant properties that are also believed to offer protection against tumors, inflammation, allergens and viruses. Studies have linked flavonoid consumption to a lower risk of heart attacks.
Folate
Where its found: Citrus fruits, dark green leafy vegetables, whole grains (especially wheat bran), beans and legumes, poultry, shellfish, liver. Why its mighty: A water-soluble B vitamin that needs to be constantly replenished, folate assists in red blood cell formation and tissue growth, and
108
helps the body manufacture DNA. It is also an especially essential micronutrient for pregnant women, as it reduces the risk of birth defects. A folate deficiency can result in anemia, whose symptoms include fatigue and shortness of breath. Folic acid is the form most commonly used in supplements.
Iodine
Where its found: Iodized salt, fish and other seafood (including cod, haddock, perch and shrimp), seaweed (kelp), potatoes, milk, turkey breast. Why its mighty: Iodine is a trace mineral thats necessary for proper functioning of the thyroid, and it plays an intrinsic role in the bodys ability to store and release thyroid hormones. It also assists in cell metabolism, which involves the conversion of food into energy. Iodine deficiency is considered the most common cause of preventable brain damage, especially in children.
Iron
Where its found: Poultry, egg yolks, salmon, tuna, lean red meat, dried beans and fruits and shellfish. Legumes, almonds and Brazil nuts, dark green vegetables and whole grains are also good sources, though the iron from these may be more difficult to absorb. Vitamin C-rich foods, however, can help increase the bodys ability to absorb iron, as can mixing plant sources with meat, fish or poultry. Why its mighty: Iron is an essential mineral that the body requires to manufacture hemoglobin,
109
the primary protein in red blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to other organs, and myoglobin, which stores oxygen in muscle cells.
Lutein
Where its found: Carrots, tomatoes, squash, dark leafy greens (spinach, collard greens, kale), eggs, oranges or any fruits, berries or vegetables with orange, red and yellow pigments. Why its mighty: A member of the carotenoid family, this phytochemical helps keep vision sharp and reduces the risk of macular degeneration and cataracts. According to recent research done by the University of Southern California and University of California at Los Angeles, it may help prevent stroke by significantly reducing the thickness of carotid (neck) artery walls.
Manganese
Where its found: Nuts, whole grains, dried legumes. Why its mighty: Although harmful if inhaled as dust, this mineral is quite important to the body when ingested in trace amounts as a micronutrient. Its functions include assisting the coordination among the brain, nerves and muscles, as well as serving as a component of various enzymes that metabolize proteins, fats and carbohydrates, helping in the formation of bones and the healing of wounds.
Magnesium
Where its found: Dark green leafy vegetables, almonds and cashew nuts, seeds, legumes, soy
110
products, whole grains, avocados, bananas and other vegetables. Why its mighty: Magnesium helps the body perform a number of important functions, including synthesizing protein, regulating temperature and supporting enzyme functions and muscular contraction and relaxation.
Niacin (Vitamin B3)

Where its found: Eggs, nuts, poultry, salmon, canned tuna, dairy products, lean meat. Why its mighty: Niacin helps convert food into energy and benefits the skin, nerves and digestive system. Another water-soluble vitamin, it needs to be constantly replenished.
Potassium
Where its found: Bananas, prunes, citrus fruits, apricots, broccoli, tomatoes, lima beans, sweet potatoes, and many other fruits and vegetables, almonds, sunflower seeds, chicken, red meat and fish such as salmon, flounder, cod and sardines. Why its mighty: This essential mineral serves as an electrolyte, which means it plays an intrinsic role in the electrochemical balance of cells that must be maintained in order for them to function properly. Its functions include supporting normal growth and the development of muscle tissue, as well as the synthesis of protein from amino acids. Potassium deficiency, known as hypokalemia, can result in weakness, fatigue and abdominal problems, and in severe cases, muscle paralysis or cardiac arrhythmia.
111
Phosphorus
Where its found: Dairy products, poultry, beef, fish (salmon, halibut) and eggs. Why its mighty: Phosphorus is an essential component of our bones and teeth and a key player in the bodys production and storage of energy, as well as in the storage and transmission of genetic information. It also serves as a buffer, helping the body to maintain a normal acid-base balance, or pH, and in a number of other vital rolesincluding supporting the ability of red blood cells to deliver oxygen, helping to synthesize protein for the maintenance of cellular and tissue structure, supporting the functioning of muscles and kidneys and helping to regulate the heartbeat.
Vitamin B6
Where its found: Eggs, nuts, beans, whole grains, meat, salmon, poultry, spinach. Why its mighty: Vitamin B6 plays a key role in the formation of red blood cells and in their ability to transport oxygen, and assists in the synthesis of neurotransmitters in the brain, such as serotonin. It also helps dozens of enzymes in the body to perform their various tasks (such as producing glucose from amino acids), supports the immune systems production of antibodies, and may act to reduce the risk of breast and prostate cancer. Vitamin B6 is a water-soluble vitamin that cant be stored in the body, and which can be obtained only from dietary sources, since it is not internally synthesized.
112
Vitamin B12
Where its found: Meat, poultry, eggs, shellfish and milk. Why its mighty: Vitamin B12, which is released from food in the digestive tract, helps support the central nervous system and assists in red blood-cell production. Unlike other watersoluble vitamins, it can be stored in the liver; however, certain conditions, such as pernicious anemia or the surgical removal of part of the intestine, can result in deficiencies. Also, strict vegetarians are not likely to get enough from dietary sources, and may well need to take a B12 supplement. Deficiencies can result in symptoms that range from numbness and tingling of the limbs to dementia.
Vitamin C (ascorbic acid)

Where its found: Citrus fruits, green and red peppers, tomatoes, strawberries, broccoli, green leafy vegetables, cantaloupe, watermelon, blueberries, raspberries, Brussels sprouts, papayas, mangoes, potatoes (both sweet and white), and other fruits and vegetables. Why its mighty: Think of the C in Vitamin C as signifying its role as the bodys chief antioxidant, or defender against oxidative stress, and youll get an idea of how essential it is in keeping cells from being damaged by the actions of free radicals (byproducts of oxygen metabolism) that can lead to cancer, heart disease and problems such as arthritis. It is especially important in protecting brain cells from freeradical destruction. Vitamin C is also necessary in promoting tissue growth, the healing of wounds and the maintenance of bones, cartilage and
113
teeth, and in providing protection against the effects of pollutants. Studies have indicated that it helps protect against the risk of stroke and contributes to longevity. Vitamin C deficiencies can result in such problems as gingivitis and bleeding gums, nosebleeds, anemia, swollen joints and rough, scaly skin. (While vitamin C, which is water soluble, needs to be replenished every day, supplementary amounts in excess of 2,000 mg a day can cause stomach irritation.)
Vitamin D
Where its found: Fatty fish (salmon, sardines. mackerel), oysters and dairy products. Vitamin D is also absorbed through the skin directly from sunlight. Why its mighty: Vitamin D enables calcium to be absorbed and metabolized in the body, as well as helping to maintain the proper balance of calcium and phosphorous in the bloodstream. It is a fat-soluble vitamin that can be stored in the body.
Vitamin E
Where its found: Wheat germ, nuts, sunflower seeds and green, leafy vegetables. Why its mighty: Another important antioxidant, this fatsoluble vitamin also protects cells against the effects of free radicals, as well as supporting the immune system and helping in the repair of DNA. Vitamin E works especially well in concert with Vitamin C.
114
Vitamin K
Where its found: Cabbage, spinach and other green leafy vegetables, cauliflower, asparagus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, watercress, green beans and peas, soybeans, whole wheat, oats. It is also manufactured by bacteria in the gut. Another form, Vitamin K2, which studies have shown can reduce the risk of prostate cancer, is found in natto, a fermented soybean food, and other fermented foods. Why its mighty: This fat-soluble vitamin is essential to the clotting of blood, and it may also help older people to maintain bone strength. It has also been shown to offer protection against various cancers and is used in some anti-cancer therapies. It may also help to prevent hardening of the arteries and Alzheimers disease.
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2)

Where its found: Eggs, nuts, spinach and other green leafy vegetables, broccoli, asparagus, legumes, milk and other dairy products, salmon and lean meats. Why its mighty: Working in conjunction with other B vitamins, riboflavin assists in the production of red blood cells and in converting carbohydrates into energy. Being water soluble, it needs to be replenished daily.
Selenium
Where its found: Brazil nuts, pasta, canned tuna, cod, eggs, bread and meat as well as plants grown in seleniumrich soil, common to the Dakotas, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
115
Why its mighty: Needed by the body only in small amounts, selenium is used to produce antioxidant enzymes called selenoproteins, which help prevent free-radical damage and are also believed to support immune-system and thyroid functions and glucose metabolism. Studies have indicated that selenium may be instrumental in reducing the risk of prostate, colorectal, lung and skin cancer, as well as rheumatoid arthritis. Research done in France has also indicated that selenium may offer protection against cognitive decline in elderly people.
Thiamin (Vitamin B1)

Where its found: Pasta, wheat germ, whole grain cereals, nuts, soybeans, peas, beans and lentils, fish and lean meat. Why its mighty: Thiamin is an essential vitamin that supports the proper functioning of the nervous system, the heart and other muscles, and helps convert carbohydrates into energy. Severe thiamin deficiency (which may be caused by alcohol abuse) can result in the affliction known as beriberi, congestive heart failure and a form of dementia.
Zinc
Where its found: Whole grains, nuts, seeds, poultry, meat and shellfish. Why its mighty: In addition to enhancing immunity and protecting against infection, zinc can help alleviate eczema, act as an appetite stimulant and improve ones ability to concentrate.
116

think zinc
p you in the elp kee pink to h !
zinc can be found in all kiNds of nuts
Sources for this information include the web sites of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, Medline Plus (a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health) and the Franklin Institute Resources for Science Learning.
117
~ Chapter 7 ~
More on Sinister Synthetics: Where Theyre Found and Why Theyre So Sinister
More on Sinister Synthetics
Aspartame
Where its found: Numerous diet and sugar-free products ranging from soda to yogurt to iced tea and fruit-flavored beverages to childrens vitamins. It is often under its original brand name, NutraSweet. Why its sinister: This ubiquitous artificial sweetener was accidentally discovered by a researcher for a pharmaceutical company (Searle) who first noticed its sweet taste. Aspartame has been associated with a wide variety of adverse reactions, many of them serious. These include migraines, vision loss, stomach ailments and abdominal pains, numbness or tingling of extremities, chronic fatigue, memory loss, seizures, tremors, dizziness, slurring of speech, rapid heartbeat, depression, anxiety and panic attacks. Countless consumer complaints associated with aspartame use have been logged by the FDA. One of aspartames key ingredients, aspartic acid, is listed by medical authorities, such as prominent neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock, as an excitotoxin, along with glutamic acid found in MSG. Such chemicals are neurotransmitters that can cause brain cells to die through over-stimulation, a process that particularly threatens children, the elderly and others whose bloodbrain barrier either is not fully developed or may have been compromised. Another aspartame ingredient, the amino acid phenylalanine, may reduce levels of serotonin in the brain, which could account for the feelings of depression some users have reported.
121
Early research on laboratory animals indicated that using aspartame might lead to an increased risk of developing a brain tumor. This helped convince scientific advisers to the FDA to recommend that it not be allowed on the market, but their concerns were swept aside by a newly appointed FDA commissioner at the start of the Reagan Administration. It should be noted that the decision was followed by what, according to the Community Nutrition Institute of Washington, D.C., was a dramatic and sustained increase in the incidence of brain tumors in the United States.66
lesome! Who
Nat ur
Nutritious!
P U RE !
Trickster MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, OR MSG

MSG, according to the people who market it, is a perfectly harmless form of glutamic acid found naturally in various types of foods. That may be trueexcept that
about is neither harmless nor natural. Instead of the type of glutamic acid that is naturally occurring in foods such as tomatoes and mushrooms, the additive MSG is a chemically concocted flavor enhancer used in many processed and snack foods. It has been known to
122
! al
the form of MSG theyre talking
produce a wide variety of adverse reactions, such as the headaches and feelings of numbness, dizziness and tightening of the throat and jaw. In people who are particularly MSGsensitive, such reactions have been known to be quite severe. MSG is also in a category of ingredients known as excitotoxins (as is aspartame), so named because they can actually excite brain cells to death. But in order to do that, it must first cross the blood-brain barrier something it is most apt to do when given to children, whose blood-brain barriers are not fully formed, and older people or those whose bloodbrain barriers may have been compromised due to injury or illness. According to prominent neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock, sudden rage has been produced in animals by injecting tiny amounts of glutamate into the hypothalamus. Giving a child enough exposure to the substance, he said, might precipitate a similar outburst, precipitating an explosion of violent rage over something that normally wouldnt result in any more than a shoving incident or name calling. 67 While some foods list MSG as an ingredient on their labels, others may harbor disguised forms of itincluding things like hydrolyzed protein, sodium or calcium caseinate, and autolyzed yeast. Or it may be contained in ingredients that are simply listed under such names as natural flavoring or broth. Whatever its called, its something you definitely want to keep out of your familys diet.
123
Artificial Color
Where its found: Candy, cookies, baked goods and a wide variety of processed foods Why its sinister: As was noted in Chemical-Free Kids, artificial colors have long been a source of concern among scientists and health authorities. In fact, the use of toxic substances to color and disguise the appearance of food was what led to the adoption of the original Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Many of the coloring agents used since have been shaded by controversy, and some have been banned outright. Despite periodic adjustments in rules regarding the use of synthetic hues, theyve continued to be regarded as unhealthy additives, and possible triggers for asthma and allergieshardly a surprise when you consider their origins. Many of the older ones (including some still in use) were made from coal tara thick, black liquid derived from coal. Some more-recent artificial colorings are petroleum extracts. One thing that worries researchers is the fact that children are apt to ingest a number of artificial colorings at one time. In studies performed at Yale Universitys Department of Pediatric Neurology designed to simulate the real-world dietary exposure of children to artificial color combinations, baby rats fed a mixture of five such colors became hyperactive and showed diminished learning ability.
Chemical Pesticides
Where theyre found: Virtually all non-organic foods, in varying amountsbut with the highest
124
levels in certain types of fruits and vegetables (as detailed in chapter 2), especially those that are imported from other countries. Why theyre sinister: The Center for Food Safety may have summed it up best in explaining why it is so important to continue to track their use: Various pesticides are known or suspected to have unintended adverse effects on human health and the environmentsuch as increased risks for cancer, neurological disorders, and endocrine and immune system dysfunction; impaired surface and ground water; and harm to fish and wildlife. In addition, chemical pesticides become less effective as pests develop resistance to them, just as pathogenic bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. As a result, farmers increase pesticide use and eventually switch to other pesticides that also may become ineffectivea phenomenon dubbed the pesticide treadmill. Pesticides also often kill predators that would otherwise help control pests.68 Exposure to pesticides, it should be emphasized particularly the organophosphate varietieshas been acknowledged by scientists (and even the EPA) as posing a special danger to the health of infants and children, whose neurological functions are especially apt to be affected by them, possibly resulting in learning and behavior disorders.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Where theyre found: Processed foods with ingredients derived from non-organic soybeans, corn and canola.
125
Why theyre sinister: The insertion of alien genes into crops used for food may create new and unknown allergens and toxins, and also may cause these mutant genes to get a foothold inside the body. While no extensive safety testing of GMOs has been performed due to an FDA determination that they are substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered foods, studies that have been done have alarmed many reputable scientists and food-safety specialists. Of particular concern are the possible health risks that these ingredients might pose for young children and the possibility that antibiotic-resistant marker genes may cause antibiotics to become even less effective in treating illness. Another aspect of genetic engineering that has been found to be problematic is the fact that a majority of the crops involved are altered to withstand commercial herbicidesparticularly Monsantos Roundup, which contains glyphosate. This not only has caused glyphosate to be liberally applied to them, but to have its use accelerated, along with that of other, more-toxic herbicides, as weeds become increasingly resistant to its effects. The result is apt to be an ever-greater concentration of potentially harmful pesticide residue in our food.
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)

Where its found: Soft drinks, fruit juices, bread and other baked goods, various other processed foods. Why its sinister: This sweetening agent, which is formed by treating corn syrup with enzymes, has a very high glycemic index, meaning it can cause a rapid rise in
126
blood sugar and insulin levels. Of perhaps even greater concern is its tendency to deplete the body of the essential trace mineral chromium (see Mighty Micronutrients), which plays an important role in metabolizing insulin and also helps the body to synthesize cholesterol. Frequent consumption of this widely used ingredient may thus contribute to a number of problems, including diabetes, obesity, hypoglycemia and cardiovascular disease.
Hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) oils

Where theyre found: Cookies, cake, frozen dinners and entrees, margarine, other processed food products. Why theyre sinister: These chemically modified vegetable oils, the main purpose of which is to extend the shelf life of products by solidifying liquid fats, are the chief source of artery-clogging trans fats in our dietand a significant contributor to heart disease.
Preservatives derived from petroleum (BHA, BHT, TBHQ)

Where theyre found: All sorts of processed foods and confections. Why theyre sinister: These widely used preservatives, the purpose of which is to give food a longer shelf life and keep fats from turning rancid, are all believed to pose possible health risks. In the 1970s, researchers discovered that when BHA and BHT were fed to pregnant mice, their offspring were born with levels of two essential
127

e are saying is give All w fats a chance.. . trans
...to clog up your arteries and hurt your heart
brain chemicals serotonin and cholinesterasereduced by half (as was originally noted in Chemical-Free Kids). Both are banned or restricted in other countries, and BHA is considered a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization. In addition, serious symptoms, such as vomiting, delirium, and collapse, have reportedly resulted from consuming just one gram of TBHQ.
128
Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST)

Where its found: Many non-organic dairy products (e.g., milk, cheese, ice cream, butter, yogurt) except for those that specifically state they come from rBGH-free cows. Why its sinister: This genetically engineered pharmaceutical, the sole purpose of which is to induce cows injected with it to increase their milk output, also accelerates the production of another growth hormone that research indicates may create a higher risk of breast, prostate and colon cancer. In addition, it makes cows more prone to mastitis and other problems (including increased pus in milk) for which antibiotics are often administered, helping make bacteria more antibiotic-resistant.
PUTTING THE HEAT ON A HAZARD THAT BEGINS IN INFANCY

Among the suspected chemical hazards that are coming to light is the revelation that heating plastic baby bottlesmade by four major manufacturers, comprising 95 percent of those baby bottles on the marketresults in the release of a chemical called bisphenol-A (BPA) in amounts that some researchers considered potentially harmful. In fact, the Canadian government has actually labeled the chemical dangerous and contemplated banning it entirely. Wal-Mart, the worlds largest retailer, announced it had begun phasing out the suspect baby bottles, anticipating all its baby bottles to be BPA-free by early 2009.
129
One expert, Dr. David Wallinga, director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, referred to BPA as a hormone wrecker, noting that at high enough levels, it can lead to certain types of cancer, reproductive problems and other health issues. When a consortium of environmental groups tested the bottles, they found that five to eight parts per billion of BPA were released. While that is well below the federal safety standard for the chemical, it is also well above levels that animal research has shown might be harmful.69 Amidst such concerns, parents are rediscovering glass baby bottles, which are now considered a hot item. According to the Associated Press, Babies R Us sold more than five times the number of glass bottle in the spring of 2007 than it did the year before.
130
Chemical-Free Connections and Resources
Beyond Pesticides 701 E Street SE #200, Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 543-5450 Fax: (202) 543-4791 http://www.beyondpesticides.org The Center for Food Safety Pennsylvania Ave. SE, #302 Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 547-9359 Fax: (202) 547-9429 http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org Environmental Working Group 1436 U St. N.W., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 667-6982 http://www.ewg.org/
131
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 40 West 20th St. New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 727-2700 Fax: (212) 727-1773 http://www.nrdc.org The Organic Center P.O. Box 20513 Boulder, CO 80308 Steven Hoffman, Managing Director (303) 499-1840 http://wwworganiccenter.org Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) P.O. Box 1393 Eugene, OR 97440-1393 Phone: (541) 344-5044 Fax: (541) 344-6923 http://www.pesticide.org Organic Consumers Association 6771 South Silver Hill Drive Finland, MN 55603 Phone: (218) 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652 http://www.organicconsumers.org
132
Chemical-Free Connections and Resources
Physicians for Social Responsibility 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1012 Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 667-4260 Fax: (202) 667-4201 http://www.psr.org SafeLawns Foundation 60 Pineland Drive Building 3, Suite 207 New Gloucester, ME 04260 Phone: (207) 688-8882 Fax: (207) 688-8905 http://safelawns.org http://www.drgreene.com The interactive web site of renowned pediatrician and Organic Center Board of Directors Chairperson Dr. Alan Greene offers parents the chance to sign up for his newsletter and to get expert answers to their questions.
133
Endnotes
Body Burdenthe Pollution in Newborns, EWG web site, July 14, 2005 http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburd en2/execsumm.php
Lyndsey Layton, Chemical Law Has Global Impact, washingtonpost.com, June 12, 2008 Effects of Traditional and Western Environments on Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes in Pima Indians in Mexico and the U.S., DiabetesCare web site of The American Diabetes Association, 29:1866-1871, 2006
4 5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12537430 David Gutierrez , Whole Grains Cut Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by 40 Percent, Natural News.com, June 9, 2008 The Franklin Institute Resources for Science Learning, The Human Brain, How Do You Round Up Free Radicals Childhood obesity hits a plateau, CDC finds, http:// www.boston.com/news/health/blog/, May 27, 2008
135
Endnotes
Letter Sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson by Unions Representing 9,000 EPA Scientists, May 24, 2006 PEER news release, EPA Scientists Protest Pending Pesticide Approvals, May 25, 2006 PEER news release, May 21, 2008, Closed EPA Libraries to Return in Lavatory-Sized Spaces Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115, Number 10, October 2007 Charles Benbrook, State of Science Review: The Organic Option, www.organic-center.org, March 2008 Alana Listoe, No PB&Js, Please, Helena IR.com, Dec. 10, 2005 Center for Food Safety Work product, March 2008 http://www.emedicinehealth.com/fda_overview/page 5_em.htm http://www.saynotogmos.org/regulatory.htm Barbara Pleasant, Succulent Sweet Corn, http://www. sharingsustainablesolutions.org/ The Hidden Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods, Food Safety Review, Spring, 2000. Op. cit. GM pea causes allergic damage in mice, NewScientist.com, November 2005 Say No to GMOs web site, scientific studies < http://www.say notogmos.org/scientific_studies.htm> saynotoGMOs.com Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Higher Risk for Children, Say No to GMOs! web site, October 2003 updates
136
10
11
12
13
14 15
16 17
18
19 20
21
22 23
Endnotes
24
Martha Herbert, MD., What is Genetically Modified Food (and Why Should You Care)?< EarthSave Magazine, Spring, 2002 (www.earthsave.org)
25 26
Toxic Secret, 60 Minutes, Aug. 31, 2003 Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Harvest of Fear, Vanity Fair, May 2008. Barbara L. Minton, Morgellons Disease May Be Linked to Genetically Modified Food, NaturalNews.com, April 13, 2008.
27
28
Fact sheet on Genetically Modified (GM) Crops and Pesticide Use, Center for Food Safety, March 2008 Miguel A. Altieri, The Myth of Coexistence: Why Transgenic Crops Are Not Compatible With Agroecologically Based Systems of Production, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, August 2005
29
30
Farmers, Consumer Advocates, Conservationists Challenge Federal Approval of Genetically Engineered Beets, January 2008 updates, saynotogmos.org
31 32
Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 8, 2005 Sask. Organic Groups GMO Suit Shut Down, Farm Business Communications, Dec. 14, 2007 Ibid., Altieri Ibid. at 26 Entomologist: Dont Let Volunteer Corn Report for Duty, Indiana Ag Connection, Jan. 4, 2008 State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, www.respon sibletech nology.org
33 34 35
36
137
Endnotes
37
Market Rejection of Genetically Engineered Foods, Center for Food Safety, August 2006 Op. cit. Op. cit. Jeffrey Smith, Rice Industry: Keep Genetically Engineered Varieties in the Lab, NewsWithViews.com, Oct. 3, 2006 Ibid, Farmers, Consumer Advocates, Conservationists Challenge Federal Approval of Genetically Engineered Beet
38 39 40
41
42 43
Ibid, Market Rejection of Genetically Engineered Food Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetically modified sugar beets, a bad bet at the worst time, Foodconsumer.org, Jan. 22, 2008 Know Your Milk brochure, www.oregonpsr.org Open Letter to FDA: Why Monsantos Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone Needs to Be Banned, www.org anicconsumers.org/articles
44 45
46 47 48 49
Op. cit. Ibid, Know Your Milk brochure Ibid, Barlett and Steele http://organic.insightd.net/reportfiles/Yield_Nutrient_ Density_Final_ExSum.pdf op. cit. New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plantbased Organic Foods, March 18, 2008, http://organic center.org
50 51
52
Virginia Worthington, Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001 (pp. 161-173)
138
Endnotes
53
Official: organic really is better, Sunday times, Oct. 28, 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/articl e2753446.ece
54
The Scoop, August 2007, newsletter of the Organic Consumers Association The Organic Newsline from organicTS.com, Vol. 3, Issue 3, September 2002. Science Daily Magazine, June 2, 2002. The Organic Center, Core Truths, 2006 compilation of research, p. 41 Stossel Fabricated Data on Organics, Researchers Say, Fairness and Accuracy in Media, Action Alert, Aug. 1, 2000 Richard Drucker, Depleted Soil and Compromised Food Sources: What You Can Do About It, Dynamic Chiropractic, July 2006.
55
56 57
58
59
60
The Scoop, January 2008, newsletter of the Organic Consumers Association. Op. cit., The Scoop, January 2008 Organic Center, Do Organic Fruits and Vegetables Taste Better Than Conventional Produce, http://www.orga niccenter.org/reportfiles/taste
61 62
63
Charles Benbrook, State of Science Review: The Organic Option, www.organic-center.org, March 2008 Chensheng Lu et al, Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children, NIEHS, http://dx.doi.org,, Online Jan. 15, 2008
64
65
The Organic Center, Core Truths, p. 57
139
Endnotes
66
Ibid, The Stevia Story: A tale of incredible sweetness and intrigue Russell Blaylock, Excitoxins: The Taste that Kills, Health Press, 1996 Why USDA-NASS Agricultural Chemical Reporting Is Important, Center for Food Safety, May 2008 Jeremy Olson, Ban urged for chemical in plastic baby bottles, Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minn., Feb. 8, 2008
67
68
69
140
Visit us at www.chemicalfreekids.com to learn more about safeguarding your childs diet and environment.
About the Authors

Anthony Zolezzi, an eco-entrepreneur and former chairman of the Organic Center, has devoted much of his career to improving the ways our food is raised, processed, packaged and brought to the table. He now advises some of Americas largest food companies on how to deliver more organic, bio-available, and sustainable whole foods to American consumers. He is also the co-author of Chemical-Free Kids (Kensington, 2003), The Detachment Paradox (ASM, 2004). How Dog Food Saved the Earth (ASM, 2005) and Do Something: Leave Your Mark on the World (ASM, 2007).
Linda and Bill Bonvie are a sister/brother writing team specializing in health and environmental topics. Their articles have appeared in major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe and St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and in various magazines, including New Age Journal, Vegetarian Times and E: The Environmental Magazine. Their achievements have included helping end the long-standing practice by many countries of requiring arriving international airline passengers to be sprayed with toxic pesticides.
143
Other titles by ASM Books

How Dog Food Saved the Earth
www.howdogfoodsavedtheearth.com
The Detachment Paradox

www.detachmentparadox.com
The Detachment Paradox: The Workbook Do Something

www.nowdosomething.com
Contact ASM Books P.O. Box 3083 La Habra, CA 90631 (310) 528 - 2830 www.asmbooks.com www.anthonyzolezzi.com
ISBN 10: 0-9753157-5-7 $12.99 ISBN 13: 978-0-9753157-5-0

Chemical Free KIds: How To Safeguard Your Family

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chemical Free KIds: How To Safeguard Your Family

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chemical-Free Kids

The Organic Sequel

Anthony Zolezzi, Linda Bonvie & Bill Bonvie

Published by ASM Books

Knowing Whats Good for Us

ack in 2003, the original Chemical-Free Kids was published

with the intent of helping parents safeguard their childrens

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Knowing Whats Good for Us

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Knowing Whats Good for Us

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

THE HIDDEN NUTRIENT GAP IN THE TYPICAL AMERICAN DIET

MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS SAY:

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

SYNTHETIC SUPPLEMENTS OFTEN COME IN COMIC DISGUISES

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

sinister synthetics SAY:

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

PUTTING THE WHOLE PICTURE IN PERSPECTIVE

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

ANOTHER REASON FOR GETTING ABOARD THE WHOLE GRAIN TRAIN

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS SAY:

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

GET YOUR WHOLE GRAINS AND ENJOY THE AROMA, TOO

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

hats in a name change?

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

THE PEACE-OF-MIND DELUSION

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

sinister synthetics SAY:

...and turned it into a place where no one can play?

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

PLAN TO HALT PESTICIDE REPORTING DRAWS STRONG OPPOSITION

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

PESTICIDES: A NEW SUSPECT IN AUTISM

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

A REAL-WORLD APPROACH TO RESIDUE TESTING

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

ANOTHER 15 GOOD REASONS TO GO ORGANIC

Potatoes DRI 74)

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

BYPASSING THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF GMOs

GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel

GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed

sinister synthetics SAY: