Marc Joseph Nutrition - Blog

The growing influence of China on the world’s food market is indisputable:

According to the latest data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, China produced nearly half of the world’s vegetables—five times the U.S. share. China also produced 16% of the world’s fruit, more than double the U.S. share. And its growth in agriculture, as in manufacturing, is staggering. In the last four years for which data are available, China added 5.7 million acres to the cultivation of vegetables. That’s 50% more than the total land used for vegetable farming in the U.S.

Yet, this recent Business Week article raises questions regarding potential produce contamination:

What’s not to like about reasonably priced berries in January? Well, some food experts are concerned. The trouble is that perishable commodities shipped over vast distances are some of the most vulnerable to contamination and other issues. Rutgers’ Hallman points out that much fresh produce is meant to be eaten raw, and there’s no way to kill microorganisms they may contain, the way food companies can use irradiation on poultry or meat. “The longer the distance that the fresh produce travels, the more chances there are for contamination from mishandling and more time for the microbes to multiply,” says Hallman.

China’s record with food imports isn’t reassuring. Just last month, 107 food imports from China were detained by the Food & Drug Administration at U.S. ports, according to The Washington Post. Among them were dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical and mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

Organic produce from China may have risks, too:

(more…)

Two of the most important steps you can take for good long-term health are to:

1. Make sure you’re getting your body’s cells the nutrients they need to function well.
2. Avoid exposure to toxins that can damage cells and/or interfere with your body’s ability to use nutrients.

With regard to the first step, good nutrition, through both diet and supplementation, is obviously key.

With regard to the second step, one of the common sources of potential regular toxin exposure is through personal care products, e.g.:

• Hair Care - shampoo, conditioner, hair dye, gel/mousse
• Skin Care - soap, lotion, deodorant, shaving, sunscreen
• Oral Care - toothpaste, mouthwash, teeth whitener
• Nail Care - polish, remover
• Cosmetics - eyeliner, lipstick, mascara
• Fragrances - perfumes, many products above

Today there is no law requiring personal care and cosmetics products to be safety tested before being sold.

By law, the government cannot mandate safety studies of cosmetics products or their ingredients, and only 13 percent of the 10,500 ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed for safety by the cosmetic industry’s own review panel. For virtually every product on the market, safety decisions are made behind closed doors, guided by an industry-funded panel, without the benefit of peer-review or independent pre-market safety testing.

Fortunately, the Environmental Working Group, a consumer watchdog organization, has put together an extremely useful database called Skin Deep that has safety ratings for over 25,000 different personal care products.

It’s definitely worth checking out. Find the products you use and see how they rate. You can search by product name, category, brand, etc.

You might be surprised to see what chemicals are potentially in the products you’re using. Everything from endocrine disruptors (e.g., phthalates, parabens) to heavy metals (e.g., mercury, lead) to carcinogens (e.g., petroleum byproduct contaminant 1,4-dioxane). The database can help you to make safer product choices for you and your family.

Note: If you find the database useful, consider supporting the non-profit Environmental Working Group and/or signing the petition on the Skin Deep main page asking Congress to take action to help make personal care products safer.

Image: Environmental Working Group

____________________________

Discover How Nutrition Can Make a Difference in Your Life …

Marc Joseph Nutrition

Did you know that many toxic wastes are “recycled” into fertilizer and spread on land used to grow food? I didn’t before reading an interesting book, Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret, written by Duff Wilson, formerly a reporter for The Seattle Times and nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his newspaper series that preceded the book.

The book tells the story through the experience of Patty Martin, the mayor of Quincy, a small farming town located in central Washington state. After several farmers experience unexpected crop failures, a horse breeder’s animals mysteriously die eating locally-grown feed, and people in the town begin developing unexplained chronic illnesses, Martin and a small group of other residents trace the effects to the local Cenex fertilizer distributor. Cenex had disposed of toxic waste (heavy metals, pesticides, and other unidentified materials) stored in a large rinsing pond on its property by mixing it with fertilizer sold to local farmers.

However, as Martin and the others soon learn, the practice of recycling toxic waste into fertilizer, was (and still is) not limited to Quincy. It’s a nationwide, and even worldwide, practice. In fact, recycling of toxic waste into fertilizer …

(more…)

This past week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with urging from a petition from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), rejected a pesticide industry proposal to infuse wood for decks and playsets with the chemical chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium) as part of the preservative ACC (acid copper chromate). Chromium-6 is a toxic substance that may increase the risk of developing several cancers, especially if inhaled.

This is the second potentially cancer-causing compound that has been banned from use in construction. In 2004, based in part on EWG’s research and lobbying on the risk of kids’ exposure to arsenic-based wood preservatives, the EPA banned preservatives containing arsenic. Such preservatives were used in outdoor decks, picnic tables, playground equipment, and other construction for many years.

Arsenic-laced wood remains in 70 million backyards across the country, as well as in thousands of public and school playgrounds.

EWG has put together a site (All Decks on Hand) that includes the 2002 press release and report, as well as simple safety tips for reducing childrens’ exposures to arsenic-treated wood.

You can also test the wood in your deck or playset for arsenic (as well as the surrounding soil) with test kits available through the EWG site.

Reducing heavy metal exposure is very important, both for children and adults. These toxins can disrupt essential mineral transport, and in turn, contribute to the development of many disorders, including ones involving the neurological, immune, hormone, digestive, muscular, and skeletal systems.

You can learn more about approaches to dealing with heavy metal toxicity here.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has just released The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science:

In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.

The guide highlights environmental, public health, pollution, and national security issues using a periodic table design:

Lots of interesting issues are profiled, including federal government and industry interference in science involving mercury, lead, pesticides, and Ground Zero air pollution.

Check it out …

Bad news if you live near or downwind of an existing cement manufacturing plant.

(That would be many folks in the Northeast, north-Midwest, north Texas, north and east of Los Angeles, and elsewhere. Here’s an interactive map showing the locations of cement kilns in the U.S.)

The EPA denied two court orders to set restrictions on mercury emissions from cement kilns, and instead ruled that only plants built after December 2005 will have to limit and measure emissions.

Older cement kilns get EPA pass on mercury

EPA Fails to Limit Toxic Mercury Pollution from Cement Kilns

Mercury is a known potent neurotoxin. The EPA estimates 1 in 6 women of childbearing age have unsafe blood mercury levels. Also, autism rates have been found to be significantly higher in areas with higher mercury emissions.

Industry lobbying seems to have paid off:

Parts of the decision, signed late Friday by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, closely follow industry requests to the agency. Industry officials also met with White House staffers Nov. 30 to discuss the pending decision, and EPA staffers phoned in to the meeting, records show.

1997 EPA data suggests that that cement kilns account for less than five percent of all mercury emissions (created when mercury is released from limestone when heated during the manufacture of cement). However, it seems as though cement manufacturers may have been drastically understating their emission estimates:

Although federal law requires cement plants to report their mercury emissions, it does not require those reports to be based on actual measurements. Where kilns have tested their emissions, the data has shown their earlier “reporting” to be gross understatements of actual emissions. For example, a plant located in Alpena, Michigan, routinely reported emissions of approximately 50 pounds of mercury per year. But when the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality required the cement plant to test their actual stack emissions, it turned out the kiln was really emitting 581 pounds of mercury. A similar instance of underreporting has been uncovered at a cement plant in Oregon, which is the nation’s third worst mercury polluter.

“If reporting from the rest of the cement industry is as inaccurate as the reporting from Alpena, this industry could be putting out between 25 and 50 tons of mercury every year,” said Jane Williams, Chair of Sierra Club’s Air Toxics Task Force. “That would put cement kilns in the same category as coal-fired power plants, which have long been recognized as the worst culprit for mercury contamination.”

Cement manufacturers argue that it would be too costly and ineffective to implement measures to restrict mercury emissions, but environmental groups disagree:

EPA environmental engineer Keith Barnett, of the agency’s air-quality planning and standards office in North Carolina, said it would cost a cement manufacturer “$1.5 million per year per kiln for a wet scrubber” that might reduce emissions by 42%, which he said was not a large enough reduction to justify the cost.

Marti Sinclair of the Sierra Club said $1.5 million would be a small price to protect the public, noting that one of the nation’s leading cement producers had reported revenue of $1.1 billion last year and had already installed such technology in Switzerland, where it was required.

I have to side with the latter group. $1.5M per kiln seems like a small price to pay for reducing mercury emissions by nearly half.

More background on the issue is available here.

If the EPA’s decision strikes you as a poor one, write your Congresspersons and ask for them to push for a review of the decision.

These were a few of the headlines after the recent release of two studies examining the health benefits and risks of eating fish:

Seafood benefits found to outweigh risks (Boston Globe)

Eat more fish, study urges, despite toxin risk (Reuters)

Seafood not your health foe, studies say (SJ Mercury News)

The first study, a meta-review* completed by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, boldly suggested that regular fish consumption could reduce the risk of heart attack death by 36 percent and the overall risk of death by 17 percent.

(* A meta-review is a review of the existing body of research. Perhaps the Harvard meta-review excluded studies like this one, “Mercury in fish poses heart risk for middle-aged men“?)

The second study, a report completed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), was more balanced in its review of the research. It concluded only that the regular consumption of fatty fish may reduce the risk of heart disease, while “contaminants that may be present in seafood may pose a risk to some especially susceptible groups of people.”

A More Balanced View

Just reading the headlines, one could easily draw the conclusion that concerns about toxins in seafood are overblown and that there’s really nothing to be concerned about unless you’re a pregnant woman, a prospective mother, or a small child. Fortunately, the NY Times presented a much more balanced perspective in their coverage:

The Harvard study, to be published in the Journal of the American Medical Association today, said the benefits of eating fish high in omega-3’s strongly outweighs risks from contaminants like PCB’s and dioxin found in high concentrations in fish like farmed salmon. Calling those risks “greatly exaggerated,” Dr. Darius Mozaffarian, one of the two authors, said, “Seafood is likely the single most important food one can consume for good health.”

Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, who described the “very sunny Harvard study” as “astonishing,” remains unconvinced. “The report’s conclusion that the risk of death can be reduced by 36 percent is just stunning,” she said. “It would indeed make eating fish the single most important decision you can make for your health. But those of us who have been in nutrition for a long time have seen miracle foods come and go: vitamin E for heart disease, beta carotene to prevent cancer; now it’s fish.”…

…The report from the Institute of Medicine tells the government that much more research is needed. Dr. Malden C. Nesheim, chairman of the institute’s committee and a provost emeritus at Cornell, said, “We are quite cautious because the studies we looked at are not controlled for all the variables, and we can’t distinguish between the effects from omega-3’s or replacement of other foods in the diet.”

The NY Times reporter then exposed some of the behind-the-scenes political maneuvering:

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] had requested the institute’s report because it said consumers were confused about how much and what kind of fish they should eat. The two studies, which conflict in important aspects, seem unlikely to provide much clarity. “The high degree of certainty in one report and the extreme caution in the other,” said Rebecca Goldberg, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense, an advocacy group, “will make people more confused than ever.”

To the surprise of Institute of Medicine officials, NOAA sponsored the hastily called press conference at which the Harvard report was released, even though that study conflicted with the one prepared by the institute. “We’re just trying to make consumers feel good*,” said William T. Hogarth, assistant administrator for fisheries of the National Marine Fisheries Service*, part of NOAA.

[* emphasis added]

Major environmental and groups noticed the inconsistencies as well:

Both reports have come under criticism from environmental groups and from the Consumers Union. “In addition to being concerned about the failure of the JAMA and I.O.M. reports to address the risks of mercury in tuna,” said the consumer organization, “we are also concerned that both reports dismiss concerns about PCB’s in most fish.”

“These reports are urging Americans to eat more seafood as if it were a crisis,” Dr. Goldberg said. “According to NOAA’s own statistics, per capita consumption of seafood has risen from 14.8 pounds in 2001 to 16.6 pounds in 2004.”

Jane Houlihan, the research director of the Environmental Working Group, another advocacy group, said, “The Harvard study reads like an advertisement for the seafood industry.”…

…“Once again pregnant women are being told it’s O.K. to eat tuna,” Ms. Houlihan said. “The reality is, 90 percent of women would exceed government’s level for a safe dose of mercury if they ate six ounces of albacore tuna every week as the F.D.A., E.P.A and now I.O.M. recommend.”

What to Do

Omega-3 fats found in fish clearly are beneficial for heart, brain, and immune system health. There’s a great overview of those benefits discussed in this article, “Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Vital to a longer, healthier life.” And the truth is that the majority of people do not take in adequate amounts of these healthy fats.

Unfortunately, though, many fish are contaminated with toxins such as mercury. Do yourself and your family a favor. Use a simple online calculator like this one to help plan safe seafood consumption.

(While you’re there, ask yourself why government agencies responsible for advising consumers on safe fish consumption haven’t put together such easy-to-use tools? The IOM, in fact, recommended the creation of such tools in their report.)

Better yet, to ensure adequate Omega-3 fat intake, include regular consumption of fish oils that have been tested to be free of contaminants such as heavy metals, PCBs, etc. There’s a good list of safe products here.

In early September, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a two-day hearing to review the findings of its draft review of the potential dangers of mercury amalgam fillings. The draft whitepaper concluded that research completed since the last review in 1997 did not change the conclusion that mercury amalgam fillings were safe for use in dental practice.

However, after over seven hours of testimony by 52 different speakers, including members of Congress, toxicology experts, and representatives from other countries that either ban or limit mercury filling use, the advisory panel of outside dental, medical, and scientific experts soundly rejected the FDA’s whitepaper conclusions.

In a first vote, the panelists voted 13-7 to find that that the large federal review of data fails to clearly and objectively present the current body of knowledge on the subject. In a second vote, the panel also voted 13-7 to find that the report’s conclusion that amalgam fillings are safe is not reasonable.

The advisory panel issued a one-page summary explaining its votes here.

A complete transcript of the hearing is available here.

And an excellent summary of the hearing events, as written by an anti-amalgam advocate who testified, can be found here.

The Risks of “Silver” (Mercury) Fillings

Dental amalgam fillings (commonly and deceptively referred to as “silver” fillings) are actually approximately 50 percent mercury. Mercury is a known potent neurotoxin and hormone disruptor.

The America Dental Association (ADA), a long-time advocate of the use of mercury amalgam fillings in dentistry claims, “Dental amalgam contains elemental mercury combined with other metals such as silver, copper, tin and zinc to form a safe, stable alloy.”

Yet, it is a known fact that elemental mercury vapor, which is extremely toxic and easily absorbed through the lungs where it enters the bloodstream, is given off 24×7 once the fillings are in the mouth. An excellent video (”The Smoking Teeth”) showing just that process is available on the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology’s (IAOMT) website.

Push For A Ban

After the hearing, the IAOMT wrote a letter to the FDA requesting that the advisory panels reconvene to review a more expansive set of research examining the safety of mercury amalgam fillings. The IAOMT requested that the hearing include an equal number of scientific experts representing each side, that positions be submitted in writing with scientific citations 21 days prior to the new hearing, and that the submissions be posted to the FDA website and made public prior to the meeting.

The FDA is accepting comments to add to the hearing docket through November 9th. You can submit your comments here (enter Docket No. 2006N-0352).

Also, Representatives Diane Watson and Dan Burton are cosponsors of H.R. 4011, The Mercury in Dental Fillings Disclosure and Prevention Act, which would prohibit after 2008 the use of mercury in dental fillings. Contact your representatives to ask for their support of this legislation.

Mercury amalgam is the only substance on earth that is a toxin before put into the mouth, a hazardous waste when removed from the mouth, and yet, according to the ADA, safe when stored for years in the mouth. Hopefully, those days are soon ending.

(Note: Anyone considering having dental work to replace existing mercury amalgam fillings, should definitely read the IAOMT suggested protocol for safe replacement. And women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should definitely not have any dental work done, as even the safest protocol will result in temporarily elevated mercury exposure that could put a child at risk.)

In August 2006, the FDA ruled that ADHD drugs, including Dexedrine and Ritalin, must carry new warnings about the risk of heart problems and psychotic behavior. These warnings join existing ones for Strattera (suicidal thoughts) and Adderall (heart problems).

An estimated 2.5 million children under 19 now take such drugs. Why are so many more children being diagnosed with ADHD? It’s unclear, but the increase appears to be real and not just a result of better diagnosis. Greater exposure to environmental toxins through diet, vaccines, and other sources may play a role.

Are these stimulant drugs really the best way to deal with the situation? The drugs may improve symptoms in some people, but are the potential underlying problems being addressed? Are the potential risks worth it?

There is a better approach that includes dietary changes and safe toxin removal.

Two bills relating to autism have recently been introduced into Congress.

The first bill (the Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2006 co-sponsored by Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Tom Osborne, R-Neb) would require the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study and compare health outcomes (including autism) in both vaccinated and unvaccinated* populations.

* e.g., the Amish:

“I have not seen autism with the Amish,” said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century.

“You’ll find all the other stuff, but we don’t find the autism. We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is.”

Such a comparison would be a simple and straightforward way to identify whether immunizations may play a role in the autism epidemic.

The second bill (the Vaccine Safety bill co-sponsored by Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and David Weldon, , R-Fla.) would give responsibility for the nation’s vaccine safety to an independent agency outside the CDC.

Currently, the CDC currently oversees both the recommendation of and safety monitoring of different vaccinations, which puts the agency in the difficult position of essentially regulating itself as well as the primary suppliers (pharmaceutical companies) of products that enable the fulfillment of one of the agency’s primary directives (i.e., ensure high vaccination rates among the general population).