Today a video with a similar theme was posted on a Functional Medicine listserv I am on. If you want to see digestion of wholesome foods vs. processed foods you need to check out this video. Amazing how long long those Ramen noodles are intact in the stomach. I guess we can also just use a compost bin to compare processed vs. whole instead of expensive technology.



Given the work I do with food sensitivities I am convinced that the garbage processed ‘foods’ with dyes and chemicals are playing a large role in the behavioral and emotional imbalances that seem to be running rampant. Undigested foods can cause damage to the gut lining and cause inappropriate immune response and food sensitivities. I see first hand via blood testing that everyone reacts differently to the same foods. What is one person’s nectar is another’s poison.

Weekly I hear patient’s report often how happier and mentally clearer they feel after following an oligoantigenic diet (low antigen diet) determined by food sensitivity testing. Food antigens often cause inflammation which in turn can cause inflammation in the brain leading to depression, ADD, ADHD, brain fog, dementia etc. These foods we are talking about eliminating are so called healthy foods, it just so happens that a person is reactive to them. Now imagine what the body will do when exposed over and over to chemicals that is has no idea how to handle! That is what is discussed in the “Driven to Distraction: Food, chemicals and child behavior” webinar. But until that is available chew your noodles (and everything else!) really well!

Yours In Health,
George Mandler
Licensed Acupuncturist
Licensed Dietitian/Nutritionist

Ironically, despite excessive caloric intake, many obese women are deficient in vitamins vital to a healthy pregnancy. This and other startling statistics abound when obesity and pregnancy collide. Together, they present a unique set of challenges that women and their doctors must tackle in order to achieve the best possible outcome for mom and baby.

In the December issue of the journal Seminars in Perinatology, maternal fetal medicine expert Loralei L. Thornburg, M.D., reviews many of the pregnancy-related changes and obstacles obese women may face before giving birth. The following myths and truths highlight some expected and some surprising issues to take into account before, during and after pregnancy.

“I treat obese patients all the time, and while everything may not go exactly as they’d planned, they can have healthy pregnancies,” said Thornburg, who specializes in the care of high-risk pregnancies and conducts research on obesity and pregnancy. “While you can have a successful pregnancy at any size, women need to understand the challenges that their weight will create and be a partner in their own care; they need to talk with their doctors about the best way to optimize their health and the health of their baby.”

Myth or Truth?

Many obese women are vitamin deficient.

True

Forty percent are deficient in iron, 24 percent in folic acid and 4 percent in B12. This is a concern because certain vitamins, like folic acid, are very important before conception, lowering the risk of cardiac problems and spinal defects in newborns. Other vitamins, such as calcium and iron, are needed throughout pregnancy to help babies grow.

Thornburg says vitamin deficiency has to do with the quality of the diet, not the quantity. Obese women tend to stray away from fortified cereals, fruits and vegetables, and eat more processed foods that are high in calories but low in nutritional value.

“Just like everybody else, women considering pregnancy or currently pregnant should get a healthy mix of fruits and vegetables, lean proteins and good quality carbohydrates. Unfortunately, these are not the foods people lean towards when they overeat,” noted Thornburg. “Women also need to be sure they are taking vitamins containing folic acid before and during pregnancy.”

Obese patients need to gain at least 15 pounds during pregnancy.

Myth

In 2009, the Institute of Medicine revised its recommendations for gestational weight gain for obese women from “at least 15 pounds” to “11-20 pounds.” According to past research, obese women with excessive weight gain during pregnancy have a very high risk of complications, including indicated preterm birth, cesarean delivery, failed labor induction, large-for-gestational-age infants and infants with low blood sugar.

If a woman starts her pregnancy overweight or obese, not gaining a lot of weight can actually improve the likelihood of a healthy pregnancy, Thornburg points out. Talking with your doctor about appropriate weight gain for your pregnancy is key, she says.

The risk of spontaneous preterm birth is higher in obese than non-obese women.

Myth

Obese women have a greater likelihood of indicated preterm birth – early delivery for a medical reason, such as maternal diabetes or high blood pressure. But, paradoxically, the risk of spontaneous preterm birth – when a woman goes into labor for an unknown reason – is actually 20 percent lower in obese than non-obese women. There is no established explanation for why this is the case, but Thornburg says current thinking suggests that this is probably related to hormone changes in obese women that may decrease the risk of spontaneous preterm birth.

Respiratory disease in obesity – including asthma and obstructive sleep apnea – increases the risk for non-pulmonary pregnancy complications, such as cesarean delivery and preeclampsia (high blood pressure).

True

Obese women have increased rates of respiratory complications, and up to 30 percent experience an exacerbation of their asthma during pregnancy, a risk almost one-and-a-half times more than non-obese women. According to Thornburg, respiratory complications represent just one piece of the puzzle that adds to poor health in obesity, which increases the likelihood of problems in pregnancy. She stresses the importance of getting asthma and any other respiratory conditions under control before getting pregnant.

Breastfeeding rates are high among obese women.

Myth

Breastfeeding rates are poor among obese women, with only 80 percent initiating and less than 50 percent continuing beyond six months, even though it is associated with less postpartum weight retention and should be encouraged as it benefits the health of mom and baby.

Thornburg acknowledges that it can be challenging for obese women to breast feed. It often takes longer for their milk to come in and they can have lower production (breast size has nothing to do with the amount of milk produced). Indicated preterm birth can result in prolonged separations of mom and baby as infants are admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit or NICU. This, coupled with the higher rate of maternal complications and cesarean delivery – up to 50 percent in some studies – in obese women, can make it harder to successfully breast feed.

“Because of these challenges, mothers need to be educated, motivated and work with their doctors, nurses and lactation professionals to give breast feeding their best shot. Even if you can only do partial breastfeeding, that is still better than no breastfeeding at all,” said Thornburg.

Below is an article from a new study that demonstrated exercise helps us make better food choices. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-11/f-sf-ehu112911.php

A healthy diet and the right amount of exercise are key players in treating and preventing obesity but we still know little about the relationship both factors have with each other. A new study now reveals that an increase in physical activity is linked to an improvement in diet quality.

Many questions arise when trying to lose weight. Would it be better to start on a diet and then do exercise, or the other way around? And how much does one compensate the other?

“Understanding the interaction between exercise and a healthy diet could improve preventative and therapeutic measures against obesity by strengthening current approaches and treatments,” explains Miguel Alonso Alonso, researcher at Harvard University (USA) who has published a bibliographical compilation on the subject, to SINC.

The data from epidemiological studies suggest that tendencies towards a healthy diet and the right amount of physical exercise often come hand in hand. Furthermore, an increase in physical activity is usually linked to a parallel improvement in diet quality.

Exercise also brings benefits such as an increase in sensitivity to physiological signs of fullness. This not only means that appetite can be controlled better but it also modifies hedonic responses to food stimuli. Therefore, benefits can be classified as those that occur in the short term (of metabolic predominance) and those that are seen in the long term (of behavioural predominance).

According to Alonso Alonso, “physical exercise seems to encourage a healthy diet. In fact, when exercise is added to a weight-loss diet, treatment of obesity is more successful and the diet is adhered to in the long run.”

The authors of the study state how important it is for social policy to encourage and facilitate sport and physical exercise amongst the population. This should be present in both schools and our urban environment or daily lives through the use of public transport or availability of pedestrianised areas and sports facilities.

Exercise modifies the brain

Eating and physical activity are behaviours and are therefore influenced by cognitive processes that are a result of activity in different areas of the brain. Previous studies have already assessed changes in the brain and cognitive functions in relation to exercise: regular physical exercise causes changes in the working and structure of the brain.

The experts point out that these changes seem to have a certain specificity. The Harvard researcher supports the notion that “regular exercise improves output in tests that measure the state of the brain’s executive functions and increases the amount of grey matter and prefrontal connections.”

Inhibitory control is one of the executive functions of the brain and is basically the ability to suppress inadequate and non-conforming answers to an aim (the opposite of this would be impulsiveness), which makes modification or self-regulations of a behaviour possible.

With regards to losing weight and sustaining weight loss in the long run, various recent studies suggest that executive functions such as inhibitory control and optimal functioning of the brain’s prefrontal areas could be the key to success. This success is mainly the fruit of a behavioural change. Inhibitory control could also help to prevent weight gain in healthy people.

The researcher outlines that “in time, exercise produces a potentiating effect of executive functions including the ability for inhibitory control, which can help us to resist the many temptations that we are faced with everyday in a society where food, especially hypercaloric food, is more and more omnipresent.”

Spain – leader in obesity

There has been an alarming rise in cases of obesity in Spain in recent years, so much so that prevalence in various areas of the country is higher than in many parts of the USA, which is traditionally thought of as the paradigm of obesity in the western world.

Furthermore, along with other Mediterranean countries, Spain has one of the highest rates of childhood obesity in Europe. The experts are urging society to become aware of the problem and join forces to prevent and treat all types of obesity.

References:

R. J. Joseph, M. Alonso-Alonso, D. S. Bond, A. Pascual-Leone y G. L. Blackburn. “The neurocognitive connection between physical activity and eating behavior“. Obesity Reviews 12, 800-812 octubre de 2011.

The term ‘extra virgin’ is one that most people including myself are not clear on its definition.   ‘Extra Virgin’ is a baseline standard that embraces any oil made by solely mechanical means, instead of chemical treatment.  It also must have less than 0.8 percent of free acidity, a laboratory measurement of rancidity or free-radicals. Extra-virgin oils also are forbidden to have “disgusting odors such as rancidity, putridity, smoke, and mold”.    Unfortunately the label can say ‘extra-virgin’ even if it does not meet the above standards.

The rancidity level of an oil is interesting.  I most certainly notice a difference between how high a heat I can apply to different olive oils.  Some oils start to impart a rancid smell rather quickly in the frying pan, while others I notice can cook longer.  Olive oil should not be heated at a high temperature, but I noticed some impart a rancid smell even at low temperatures.  (Rancid oils are probably one of the most common ways people increase the oxidative stress in their body.  Olive oil loses its antioxidant potential as it sits, even in closed containers.)

Some of the answers to may questions regarding olive oil quality have been answered by the UC Davis Olive Oil Center.   They released a report stating that 73 of the tested brands of olive oils sold in the United States failed standards for ‘extra-virgin’ olive oil:   “Our testing indicated that the samples failed extra virgin olive oil standards according to one or more of the following: (a) oxidation by exposure to elevated temperatures, light, and/or aging; (b) adulteration with cheaper refined olive oil; and (c) poor quality oil made from damaged and overripe olives, processing flaws, and/or improper oil storage.”

In other words most olive oils sold in groceries skimp out in some way to lower the price.    So many of us buy a ‘first-cold pressed’ oil that is not technically ‘extra virgin’ even though the label states it is ‘extra virgin’.  Olive oil really isn’t much different than nutritional supplements.  You get what you pay for.   In general the more expensive oil the better it did in testing, but sometimes even expensive oils failed a certain category.  (In this study they did not purchase oils from Whole Foods or Traders Joe’s, but rather typical standard American grocery stores found in California.)

Whole Food’s top shelf stocks olive oils that over $120 per gallon.   I’ve had the pleasure of using that olive oil when I was a personal chef for an affluent client.   And boy was this olive oil different!   The flavors and aroma were dynamic and one could tell it significant superiority to the olive oil in my kitchen cupboards.   There most certainly is a difference in quality between a not so expensive oil and more pricey ones.

The question is it worth the difference?   If you are a ‘foodie’ then maybe so.   In terms of health for the general population I am not convinced.   Is having say an extra 0.5% less rancidity worth paying an extra $.50 cents per ounce?  Given all the ways our food can be oxidized I’m not sure it is worth the extra cost.

There is a new book that will be released in a few weeks about the business of olive oil.   It should be an interesting read to get an understanding of how oil is manipulated.

All in all the slick business world of olive oil should be of little concern given the grander lies on a global scale effecting us  socioeconomically.   But it is good to know a bit more about what we are actually purchasing.

Here is an Ode to Olive Oil.

Yours In Health,

George Mandler

Acupuncturist and Licensed Dietitian / Nutritionist

There is a great new article from the Food Safety Network entitled “Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn’t Honey”.  Please read it to learn about what was found in store bought honey.   The results aren’t sweet.

We must stop the madness of Monsanto and other pharma giants from controlling all seeds.   (for more info click here).

Please sign this petition to request labeling on Genetically Engineered foods.   We have a right to know if we are eating a genetically altered food.   The ignorance so many so called experts display when they say there is no harm with GE foods is baffling.   I had constant battles with my biochemistry professor about this.  Hopefully he has opened his eyes to the dangers.

If more food is clearly labeled “Genetically Modified” there will be less demand and less madness.   Obama has already let Alfalfa seeds slip on through, now the government wants to not inform people if they are eating GE foods. Please sign, this is important for future generations.

Yours In Health,

George Mandler LDN LicAc

One study published in JAMA wrongly concluded that “vitamin E” increases the risk the prostate cancer.  Problem was they weren’t using Vitamin E, just a portion of it.  The use of only 1 portion of the Vitamin E class of molecules (in this case alpha-tocopherol) leads to other well documented deleterious consequences.  This study was a faulty design with faulty assumptions whose mistake was made countless times in studies over the past 20 years regarding Vitamin E metabolism.  But for some reason previous data was ignored.  There are additional faults with this study and the hyperbole conclusions spun by the mainstream media ‘health writer’ pundits is extraordinary.   I’ll blog on this soon.

The headlines the other study made were so far from the actual conclusions of the study in question it is hard to know where to start.   If the authors of the aforementioned articles had read the study and understood research design their incorrect headlines that certain nutrients increase the risk of death would have been presented much differently with a plethora of caveats thereby rendering the study inconclusive.   As soon as I saw this article I was planning on blogging, however many really brilliant MDs beat me to it and I copied one of the articles below in this post from Dr Mark Hyman.

I am not one to say everyone should be on a multi.  Discretionary use is warranted.  There absolutely are cautions for supplement usage and most certainly supplements and a multi vitamin can do harm if not taken appropriately.
Some people can have inflammatory reactions to the ingredients in a multi.    Some people can get an overload of one nutrient causing an imbalance in another. (such as the Vitamin E for prostate cancer study).  Targeted nutrients based on a person’s current state of health is probably the best and there are tests for that albeit a bit pricy for many of my patients. However if in good health then the use of a whole food multivitamin may be a good choice for a large percentage of folks.

If you want a good multi there are a few things I suggest to most of my patients.    Here are 4 basics that you can look at when shopping for a multi:

• I do not use any supplement with synthetic folic acid.   There is some data to show that in certain people it can promote cancer growth.    (The orthomolecular society defends folic acid, but I think it is about protecting their turf.   I don’t want to take the chance).  So if you have a multi with folic acid I would replace it with one that contains something called 5-MTHF, Folicin, or it will just say ‘folate’.     I recommend all my patients get off supplements with folic acid. (For pregnant women and children where there is a high rate of cell differentiation it is probably OK).
• The other is that women that are not menstruating and the majority of men should not take any supplements with additional iron.   (now there are whole food supplements from better forms of iron that may not cause a problem.)  But in general I’d avoid any supplement that contains an ingredient called ‘ferrous sulfate’ or similar.  Some supplements such as those from heme-iron (companies such as Standard Process) may be fine.  Eating steak is fine.  It is the forms in the majority of supplements that can lead to issues such as more infections (many bacteria feed on iron) and high oxidative stress.
• You get what you pay for.  People buy products at CVS or BJs or Trader Joes because of price.  If you see in the ingredients list the letter “FD&C” you know these used cheap coloring and probably cheaped out on other ingredients.   If you see the word ‘hydrolyzed’ I’d avoid that supplement as well.
• Your multi should be from a whole food source (i.e. New Chapter) or if synthetic (which over 93% are) should contain ‘mixed-tocopherols’.   Also even better you may see ‘tocotrienols’. listed.   This is the complete vitamin E as only taking ‘alpha-tocopherol’ or even worse the synthetic alpha-dl-tocopherol’ will cause an imbalance of vitamin E molecules (there are at least eight) and can lead to disease.  (This is the problem with the above mentioned study on Vitamin E and prostate cancer).

Here is the article from Mark Hyman MD rebutting the recent study…

——————————–  begin Dr Hyman article ——————————————————-

Do vitamins kill people?

How many people have died from taking vitamins?

Should you stop your vitamins?

It depends. To be exact, it depends on the quality of the science, and the very nature of scientific research. It is very hard to know things exactly through science. The waste bin of science is full of fallen heroes like Premarin, Vioxx and Avandia (which alone was responsible for 47,000 excess cardiac deaths since it was introduced in 1999).

That brings us to the latest apparent casualty, vitamins. The recent media hype around vitamins is a classic case of drawing the wrong conclusions from good science.

Remember how doctors thought that hormone replacement therapy was the best thing since sliced bread and recommended it to every single post-menopausal woman? These recommendations were predicated on studies that found a correlation between using hormones and reduced risk of heart attacks. But correlation does not prove cause and effect. It wasn’t until we had controlled experiments like the Women’s Health Initiative that we learned Premarin (hormone replacement therapy) was killing women, not saving them.

A new study “proving” that vitamins kill people is hitting front pages and news broadcasts across the country. This study does not prove anything.

This latest study from the Archives of Internal Medicine of 38,772 women found that “several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements may be associated with increased total mortality”. The greatest risk was from taking iron after menopause (which no doctor would ever recommend in a non-menstruating human without anemia).

The word “may” is critical here, because science is squirrelly. You only get the answers to the questions you ask. And in this case, they asked if there was an association between taking vitamins and death in older woman. This type of study is called an observational study or epidemiological study. It is designed to look for or “observe” correlations. Studies like these look for clues that should then lead to further research. They are not designed to be used to guide clinical medicine or public health recommendations. All doctors and scientists know that this type of study does not prove cause and effect.

Why Scientists are Confused

At a recent medical conference, one of most respected scientists of this generation, Bruce Ames, made a joke. He said that epidemiologists (people who do population-based observational studies) have a difficult time with their job and are easily confused. Dr. Ames joked that in Miami epidemiologists found everybody seems to be born Hispanic but dies Jewish. Why? Because if you looked at population data in the absence of the total history and culture of Florida during a given time, this would be the conclusion you would draw. This joke brings home the point that correlation does not equal causation.

Aside from the fact that it flies in the face of an overwhelming body of research that proves Americans are nutrient deficient as a whole, and that nutritional supplements can have significant impact in disease prevention and health promotion, the recent study on vitamins is flawed in similar ways.

How Vitamins Save Money and Save Lives

Overwhelming basic science and experimental data support the use of nutritional supplements for the prevention of disease and the support of optimal health. The Lewin Group estimated a $24 billion savings over 5 years if a few basic nutritional supplements were used in the elderly. Extensive literature reviews in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine also support this view. Interventional trials have proven benefit over and over again.

The concept that nutritional supplements “could be harmful” to women flies in the face of all reasonable facts from both intervention trials and outcome studies published over the past 40 years. Recent trials published within the last two years indicate that modest nutritional supplementation in middle age women found their telomeres didn’t shorten. Keeping your teleomeres (the little end caps on your DNA) long is the hallmark of longevity and reduced risk of disease.

A plethora of experimental controlled studies — which are the gold standard for proving cause and effect — over the last few years found positive outcomes in many diseases. These include the use of calcium and vitamin D in women with bone loss; folic acid in people with cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous lesions); iron for anemics, B-complex vitamins to improve cognitive function, zinc; vitamin C, E, and carotenoids to lower the risk of macular degeneration, and folate and vitamin B12 to treat depression. This is but a handful of examples. There are many more.

Why Most Vitamin Studies are Flawed

There is another important thing to understand about clinical trials that review the utility of vitamins in the treatment of disease. The studies that show harm are often designed like drugs studies. For example, a study may use a high dose of vitamin E and see what happens. This is actually a prescient example also explored in recent media. Studies recently found that high doses of vitamin E and selenium didn’t prevent prostate cancer and may increase risk. What this study didn’t explore properly was the true biochemical nature of vitamin E and selenium. These nutrients work as antioxidants by donating an electron to protect or repair a damaged molecule or DNA. Once this has happened the molecules become oxidants that can cause more damage if not supported by the complex family of antioxidants used in the human body. It’s sort of like passing a hot potato. If you don’t keep passing it you will get burned. This study simply failed to take this into account.

Nature doesn’t work by giving you only one thing. We all agree that broccoli is good for you, but if that were all you ate you would die in short order. The same is true of vitamins. Nutrients are not drugs and they can’t be studied as drugs. They are part of a biological system where all nutrients work as a team to support your biochemical processes.

Michael Jordon may have been the best basketball player in history, but he couldn’t have won six NBA titles without a team.

Obesity is Linked to Malnutrition

The tragedy of media attention on poor studies like these is that they undermine possible solutions to some of the modern health epidemics we are facing today, and they point attention away from the real drivers of disease.

Take the case of obesity for example. Paradoxically Americans are becoming both more obese and more nutrient deficient at the same time. Obese children eating processed foods are nutrient depleted and increasingly get scurvy and rickets, diseases we thought were left behind in the 19th and 20th centuries.

After treating over 15,000 patients and performing extensive nutritional testing on them, it is clear Americans suffer from widespread nutrient deficiencies including vitamin D, zinc, magnesium, folate, and omega 3 fats. This is supported by the government’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data on our population. In fact 13% of our population is vitamin C deficient.

Scurvy in Americans in 2011? Really? But if all you eat is processed food – and many Americans do— then you will be like the British sailors of the 17th century and get scurvy.

Unfortunately negative studies on vitamins get huge media attention, while the fact that over 100,000 Americans die and 2.2 million suffer serious adverse reactions from medication use in hospitals when used as prescribed is quietly ignored. Did you know that anti-inflammatories like aspirin and ibuprofen kill more people every year than AIDS or asthma or leukemia?

Flaws with the “Vitamins Kill You” Study

So what’s the bottom line on this study on vitamins in older white women in Iowa?

After a careful reading of this new study a number of major flaws were identified.

1. Hormone replacement was not taken into consideration. Overall the women who took vitamins were a little healthier and probably more proactive about their health, which led them to use hormone replacement more often (based on recommendations in place when this study was done). 13.5% of vitamin users also used hormones, while 7.2% of non-vitamin users took hormones. Remember the Women’s Health Initiative Study I mentioned above? It was a randomized controlled trial that found hormone therapy dramatically increases risk of heart attack, stroke, breast cancer, and death. In this Iowa women’s study on vitamins, the degree of the effect of harm noted from the vitamins was mostly insignificant for all vitamins except iron (see below) and calcium (which showed benefit contradicting many other studies). In fact, the rates of death in this study were lower than predicted for women using hormone therapy, so in fact the vitamins may have been protective but the benefit of vitamins was drowned out because of the harmful effects of hormones in the vitamin users.
2. Iron should not be given to older women. Older women should never take iron unless they have anemia. Iron is a known oxidant and excess iron causes oxidative stress and can lead to cardiovascular disease and more. This is no surprise, and should not make you stop taking a multivitamin. If you are an older woman, you simply need to look for one without iron. Most women’s vitamins do not contain it anyway.
3. Patient background was ignored. In this observational study it was not known why people started supplements. Perhaps it was because of a decline in their health and thus they may have had a higher risk of death or disease that wasn’t associated with the vitamins they were taking at all. If you had a heart attack or cancer and then started taking vitamins, of course you are more likely to die than people without heart attacks or cancer.
4. The population was not representative. The study looked only at older white women – clearly not representative of the whole population. This makes it impossible to generalize the conclusions. Especially if you are an obese young African American male eating the average American diet.
5. Forms and quality of vitamins were not identified. There was no accounting for the quality or forms or dosages of the vitamins used. Taking vitamins that have biologically inactive or potentially toxic forms of nutrients may limit any benefit observed. For example synthetic folic acid can cause cancer, while natural folate is protective.
6. A realistic comparison between vitamins and other medications as cause of death was not made. 0ver 100,000 people die every year from properly prescribed medication in hospitals. These are not mistakes, but drugs taken as recommended. And that doesn’t include out of hospital deaths. The CDC recently released a report that showed in 2009, the annual number of deaths (37,485) caused by improper/overprescribing and poor to non-existent monitoring of the use of tranquilizers, painkillers and stimulant drugs by American physicians now exceeds both the number of deaths from motor vehicle accidents (36,284) and firearms (31,228).

In short, this recent study confuses not clarifies, and it has only served up a dose of media frenzy and superficial analysis. It has left the consumer afraid, dazed, bewildered and reaching for their next prescription drug.

Please, be smart, don’t stop taking your vitamins. Every American needs a good quality multivitamin, vitamin D and omega-3 fat supplement.

——————————– end Dr Hyman ——————————————————-

If you have read this far, thank you.  I hope you at least learned how to read through some of the conflicting headlines about supplements.  (i.e.  one day Vitamin E is good, next day it is deadly etc.).   I also hope you learned a bit more how to choose a good multi.    Feel free to leave any comments or questions.

Your In Health,

George Mander CNS LDN LicAc

==========================================
Major Agribusinesses Competing with Organics on the Cheap, “Natural” Food Products with Toxic Chemicals and GMOs Deceiving Consumers
October 12th, 2011

Become an expert in 4 minutes (YouTube video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw2uEupTwo

CORNUCOPIA, WIS: A revelatory report released by The Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry watchdog, has stirred controversy in the natural foods marketing arena by highlighting abusive marketing practices by some of the nation’s largest breakfast cereal manufacturers. In some cases, companies such as Kellogg’s, Quaker Oats (PepsiCo), Barbara’s Bakery and Whole Foods Market are selling products contaminated with toxic agrichemicals and Monsanto’s genetically engineered organisms while promoting them as “natural.”

The new report, Cereal Crimes: How “Natural” Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label—A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle (available at www.cornucopia.org) explores this growing trend of marketing conventional foods as “natural” to lure health-conscious and eco-conscious consumers and their shopping dollars.

Unlike the organic label, no government agency, certification group, or other independent entity defines the term “natural” on processed food packages or ensures that the claim has merit.

In contrast, breakfast cereals displaying the USDA’s “certified organic” label are produced under a strict set of verified standards prohibiting the use of petrochemical-based fertilizers, sewage sludge, synthetic toxic pesticides, genetically modified crops, and other many common conventional agricultural and manufacturing inputs.

Cereal Crimes details how prominent agribusinesses are increasingly using various strategies to create the illusion of equivalence between the “natural” and organic labels to mislead consumers.

“Some companies that started out organic, and built brand loyalty as organic brands, have switched to non-organic ingredients and “natural” labeling,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.

One such brand, Peace Cereal® is an example of what Cornucopia calls “bait-and-switch.” In 2008, the Peace Cereal® brand switched from organic to cheaper conventional ingredients, without lowering its prices. Today, the cereal is sold in natural food stores and mainstream grocers at prices above many of their certified organic competitors that are using more expensive organic ingredients.

Although the prices may be similar, in reality, there is a vast difference between organic and “natural” products from grain produced with the use of toxic pesticides. In some cases, companies charge high prices for “natural” products that even contain genetically engineered crops developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto.

Pesticides that are strictly prohibited in organics are commonly used to produce ingredients for “natural” products. For example, organophosphate pesticides were developed from World War II-era nerve gas and are designed to be toxic to the neurological systems of target organisms. They are deadly to insects but also have been proven damaging to humans—with fetuses and children especially at risk.

Several recent studies have linked organophosphate pesticide exposure to a wide range of developmental disorders in children, including behavioral problems, poorer short-term memory and motor skills, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).. ¬, , , While federal law prohibits organic farmers from using these toxic pesticides, no such restriction exists for “natural” products.

“This is exactly why parents are seeking out truly natural (organic) products for their children and are deceived by corporate agribusinesses and their Madison Avenue agencies,” said Vallaeys.

USDA testing has found residues of organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos and malathion on corn, soy, wheat flour, and oats, which are all common ingredients in breakfast cereals. In the case of wheat flour, residues were found in more than 60% of samples.

Given increasing consumer interest in avoiding genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, The Cornucopia Institute contracted with an independent, accredited laboratory to test many “natural” breakfast cereals for potential genetic contamination.

“Natural” cereals from brands including Kashi (Kellogg’s), Mother’s (PepsiCo), Nutritious Living, Barbara’s Bakery (Weetabix), and 365 (Whole Foods Market) contained high levels of genetically engineered ingredients (all above 28%, some as high as 100%) —even though a number of these companies represent their products as “non-GMO” to the public.

To help health-conscious consumers make informed grocery purchases, Cereal Crimes is accompanied by a scorecard rating various breakfast cereal and granola brands for the true support of healthy and environmentally sustainable practices. The scorecard can be viewed at: cornucopia.org/cereal-scorecard

“Consumers probably find this marketplace subterfuge less surprising when they learn that many of the leading ‘natural’ cereal brands are really manufactured by giant agribusinesses like Kellogg’s, hiding behind the façade of well-established niche brands,” said Harry Bennett, a marketing official with the Kansas Organic Producers Association, a cooperative of marketing organic grain.

Despite finding that “natural” cereal products offer few, if any, advantages over conventional products, companies typically charge substantially high prices for products with “natural” labeling claims.

Analysis by Cornucopia of wholesale and retail cereal and granola prices revealed that “natural” products often are priced higher than equivalent organic products. This suggests that some companies are profiting from consumer confusion.

For example, prices in the leading natural/organic food distributor’s wholesale catalog for multigrain flakes show that two of the least expensive products are actually certified organic, offered by industry leader Nature’s Path and Food for Life. Meanwhile, Kashi’s 7-grain cereal, made with cheaper non-organic grains by the multinational corporation Kellogg but disguised as an independent sounding “natural” brand, is priced higher than equivalent organic options.

Karen Zwicky of Minneapolis, MN said she just bought several boxes of Kashi cereal for her 2 year old daughter, who she’s been feeding a “pretty” strict organic diet.

“Target was handing out samples of Kashi, and she loved the taste and I trusted the brand, even though it isn’t labeled as organic,” Zwicky explained. “I don’t mind that the big brands buy out the smaller organic and more sustainable companies, what really is disturbing to me is that it seems that they are only doing so in order to buy consumer trust.”

“Committed organic companies, rated highly in the Cornucopia’s online scorecard, must compete against giant multinationals such as Kraft Foods (Back to Nature), Pepsico (Mother’s) and Kellogg’s (Bear Naked /Kashi) and misleading “natural” marketing claims,” stated Mark A. Kastel, Codirector at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. “When marketers intentionally mislead consumers with their “natural” products, they are taking business away from the companies providing truly safe and healthy food and supporting certified organic farmers.”

Become an expert in 4 min. (YouTube video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw2uEupTwo

Organic farmers in the US received lower prices for their grains as cereal companies drop their demand for certified organic ingredients and switch to “natural” labeling and cheap, conventional ingredients.

According to research by the Natural Marketing Institute, a market research firm, two-thirds of U.S. consumers believe foods today are less safe to eat because of chemicals used during the growing and processing of foods. Given this widespread interest in avoiding foodborne chemicals, it is increasingly important for consumers to realize that buying “natural” foods does little, if anything, to avoid synthetic inputs and toxins used on the farms and inside the manufacturing plants.

“While calling their products natural, some of the largest breakfast cereal manufacturers are adding ingredients processed with the neurotoxic solvent hexane, a processing agent that is banned in organic food production,” added Kastel.

Hexane is a solvent commonly used to separate the oil, fiber and protein from grains and seeds. Some granola and cereal manufacturers use soy ingredients, such as soy grits and soy protein isolate, which are commonly hexane-extracted and can contain residues.

Debra Boschee, an astute consumer from Rapid City, South Dakota, said “It isn’t the things we know that scare us, it’s the things we don’t know, such as ‘what’s really in my food.’”

In addition to accessing The Cornucopia Institute’s new scorecard, comparing the nation’s natural and organic cereal brands, families who are interested in feeding their families the safest and most nutritional food can also find the ratings of over 120 organic dairy brands, to augment a healthy breakfast, on the Cornucopia website: www.cornucopia.org

V.A. Rauh, Garfinkel, R. et al. (2006), “Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children,.” Pediatrics 118(6). (Available online at: www.pediatrics.org/ cgi/content/full/118/6/e1845.) See also B. Eskenazi, B., Marks, A.R. et al. (2007), “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Neurodevelopment in Young Mexican-American children,” Environmental Health Perspectives 115(5):792–798.
P. Grandjean, Harari, R. et al. (2006), “Pesticide Exposure and Stunting as Independent Predictors of Neurobehavioral Deficits in Ecuadorian School Children.” Pediatrics 117(3). (Available online at www. pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/117/3/e546.)
P.Z. Ruckart, P.Z., Kakolewski, K. et al. (2004), “Long-Term Neurobehavioral Health Effects of Methyl Parathion Exposure in Children in Mississippi and Ohio,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112(1): 46 –51.
D.S. Rohlman, Arcury, T.A. et al. (2005), “Neurobehavioral Performance in Preschool Children from aAricultural and Non-agricultural Communities in Oregon and North Carolina,” Neurotoxicology 26(4): 589–598.
M.F. Bouchard, Bellinger, D.C. et al. (2010), “Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides,” Pediatrics 125:e1270–e1277.

See:  http://foodmatters.tv/screeningevent2

It is the polyphenols in chocolate that give it its cardiovascular protective effect.   Polyphenols are ringed organic structures linked together looking much like a chain linked fence.  These particular polyphenols can help increase nitric oxide which helps improves blood flow.  If cocoa grew in China 2000 years ago it would be in the herbal pharmacopeia under the “Blood Movers”.     The Aztek Emporer Montezuma said about cocoa “divine drink, which builds up resistance and fights fatigue. A cup of this precious drink permits a man to walk for a whole day without food”.    Good stuff.

Another physiological reactions from moderate cocoa consumption is that it boosts serotonin levels which are the feel good neurotransmitters.    There are epidemiological studies demonstrating that people who eat the most chocolate are more depressed than people that eat less chocolate.  This is because people that are melancholy may want a serotonin boost to feel better.  However consuming a lot of cocoa can cause a spike in serotonin leading to a sedative effect and then a crash.   So moderate amounts at best!

Although the aforementioned study did not differentiate between types of chocolate there needs to be some consideration of the type and quality of chocolate eaten.  I do NOT suggest to my patients to get a Hersey’s milk chocolate bar!   Lots of sugar and many people do have a loss of oral tolerance for proteins found in dairy.  Plus conventional chocolate is reported to be an environmental nightmare because of the pesticides.  If you buy organic at least you know that environmentally there was minimal impact and you are not getting any pesticide residues.   Here is a list of chocolate buyers to consider and ones to avoid.   However,  organic chocolate has its share of human rights concerns as well.    So if you are concerned about how people (children!) are treated then the best option for buying chocolate is organic and  look for the “Fair Trade” label.

Here is a plug for Equal Exchange which is a local Co-op in Massachusetts.   They do have delicious dark chocolate and I love the 80% Panama dark chocolate.  If you have kids (or for the kid in you) here is a good M&M alternative, called Sun Drops.

Many of my patients feel guilty eating chocolate.  Like it is sinful.  I hear unnecessary confessions and often think they are awaiting penance…..”Ok you had some chocolate – so go eat 3 ounces of kale, 2 stalks of broccoli and a sauteed onion.”   However the confession booth is unnecessary as there are many health benefits to eating a moderate amount of chocolate. So skip the guilt and get some good dark chocolate or even 100% cocoa chips that are Fair Trade and organic.   Just don’t eat the whole thing at once!

Yours In Health,

George Mandler LDN LicAc