Fact Check: the 10 Most Dangerous Foods
Recently, a popular article (The 10 Most Dangerous Foods) has gotten a lot of attention and is surrounded in controversy. As a health professional, most of it I was already familiar with, and some of it I had never heard of. Looking through the comments on the article, I found that a large number of people disagreed with the conclusions of this article for reasons that were not always articulately explained nor sourced with specific data showing how this is wrong.. Comment after comment mentioned how it's stupid hippie lies and only stupid hippies think that GMO is bad (likewise, apparently anyone apposing GMO is a science-phobe (GMO = Genetically Modified Organism)) and there is absolutely no difference between organic and conventional foods except for the cost.
I must say that I was rather surprised and confused since in all the years I've spent studying health and nutrition, most all of these issues I've read about and understood as a basic (albeit inconvenient) truth. Well, I for one am never afraid of being proven wrong; I think that it's paramount for everyone to be able to prove without a doubt that what they believe to be true isn't an opinion but is indeed a verifiable fact. So, I decided to do some heavy fact checking.. After about 5 days of research, here's all the evidence that this "lieing" "hippie crap" "science-phobia"-ridden article supposedly doesn't have..
1. Farmed Salmon
The claim: Farmed Salmon contains high levels of mercury and PCB's
The facts: The article in question links to this article from MSNBC: More pollutants in farmed salmon than wild; I am going to assume that there is no serious criticism of this claim... The solution? The Environmental Working Group suggests eating Wild Alaskan Salmon instead.
The claim: Conventional Bell Peppers contain a high amount of pesticides and should be avoided
The facts:
Again, the article links to a report from the Environmental Working Group that discusses The Dirty Dozen. But one thing that the author is missing is a source for why organic sweet bell peppers are better. Let's start with the fact that a 4-year study concluded that organic crops have more antioxidants and vitamin content. But it doesn't stop there; the pesticides used on sweet bell peppers are indeed harmful. How do I come to this “hippie”, “anti-science”, “BS” conclusion? If you read the previous link, you will notice it mentions that:“The most dangerous chemicals used in farming such as organophosphates [pesticides] have been linked with a range of conditions such as cancer, decreasing male fertility, foetal abnormalities, chronic fatigue syndrome in children and Parkinson's disease“.
So what proof is there that organophospahtes are in sweet bell peppers? Well right here we can see that they are sprayed with: acephate, bensulide, naled, dimethoate, endosulphane, and malathion.
The claim: Conventional Strawberries are irrigated with nutra-sweet water for an extra sweet taste and captan (a pesticide) gives them an extra red glow
The facts:
This one is somewhat fuzzy; if the author knows something I do not, then I really do think they should have provided extra sources. Using a quick search, I couldn't find any concrete information on the NutraSweet claim. The link provided on the article claims that the source is from a 1999 report from the Consumers Union (the people behind Consumer Reports). I couldn't find any information concerning “strawberries” or “nutrasweet” dating before 2000, so I have contacted the Consumers Union for the official word (and I am now waiting for a reply).Now what about the second claim concerning captan? If you really think it's absurd that a chemical would be used to improve the look of the strawberries, then clearly you know very little about the food industry. When I looked up captan, sure enough it was there: it improves fruit finish by giving it a healthy, bright colored appearance. Captan was supposed to of been phased out of general use as a pesticide in the US in 1989, but I have not found any information regarding its use and regulation in other countries. This is important to note since a great deal of produce comes from other countries since it's simply cheaper that way.
4. Chilean Sea Bass
The claim: Chilean Sea Bass (aka Toothfish) contains excessively high levels of mercury
The facts: Really now, this is a surprise to some people? Seriously? Well, for the surprised, you can see that the Oceans Program of the Environmental Defense Fund has mentioned that this fish shouldn't be consumed by adults no more than twice per month, and only once per month for children due to its high mercury content. So does that mean that mercury isn't full of vitamin C after all? Yep, guess so accourding to the US Geological Survey.)
5. Non-Organic Peaches
The claim: Conventionally grown Peaches are sprayed heavily with pesticides; avoid them
The facts: The article links to the Organic Center, but I know that's just not good enough for some folks. After all, they're probably stupid hippies with an agenda....... maybe they even work for Al Qaeda! We don't know, sadly. Thankfully though, there is the Environmental Working Group who can clearly tell you that peaches top the “dirty dozen”. What's a little pesticides with your cereal? You're welcome to sprinkle some of those delicious chemicals on your corn flakes, but the rest of us would much rather follow the information from the studies I posted in #2.
The claim: Genetically Modified Corn is bad and so is GMO
The facts: Oh boy, here we go with the knee-jerk response of "It's science phobia!!" and "GMO is natural!". Sadly, some people don't understand the difference between GMO and cross breeding. The article in question links to SeedsOfDeception.com which is a site that's very critical of GMO. The area of the website in specific that is linked to offers a summary of a number of studies done on GMO foods published in the book Genetic Roulette.
Unfortunately, the studies given were not definitive enough for my
liking (namely, not enough information for me to easily look up the
original study so that way there is no question about the authenticity
of these specific studies. My rule of thumb through all of this has
been "if it can't be found in a quick google search, then don't bother") . Here is an article written by the author of the books Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette;
it is sourced with many studies and explains a lot of the problems with
GMO foods as a whole. But I know that's not objective enough for some skeptics.
So considering that, here are some studies that deal with corn that I
found myself:
- No need for condoms - GE corn can do the job
- Bt Toxins in Genetically Modified Crops: Regulation by Deceit
- Study Finds GM Corn Disturbs Immune System of Mice
- Monsanto's GM Corn MON863 Showed Kidney, Liver Toxicity in Animal Feeding Study
I am only going to provide a few informative links that cover various issues. This is not meant to be definitive
since the interest of this article is solely for determining factual
accuracy of the current article in question. So the only thing I am
trying to establish here is that "more research needs to be done concerning human consumption of genetically modified foods and there is valid criticism of them":
- Report Reveals Bt risks to Insects and Soils
- Exposed: the great GM crops myth
- Overview: Genetically Engineered Crops Will Not Solve the Global Food Crisis
- Biotech Snake Oil: A Quack Cure for Hunger
7. Bluefin Tuna
The facts:
Here we go again with mercury (which remember, doesn't contain vitamin C and stuff)! Well, let's go and check the scale I used previously. Survey says.... wow! Bluefin tuna has excessively high levels of mercury and PCB's (more than Chilean sea bass) and it is suggested that only men eat ½ a serving of Bluefin Tuna a month at most. I know some people are already rolling their eyes at the suggestion to not eat some kinds of fish.. the bottom line is this: if you want to risk your good health with neurotoxins and industrial compounds, then go right ahead.. But it's ideal to at least be informed of what you're eating.
8. Industrially Farmed Chicken
The facts:
This is an issue that is usually controversial because of the argument of Free Range/Organic versus Conventional. Instead of arguing ethics here, the author speaks on the usage of growth hormones and antibiotics. The first thing mentioned is the debate over the instances of early puberty in schoolchildren and the notion that growth hormones from chickens are contributing to this. Stated very clearly is that there's not enough evidence to determine this conclusively, and a link to a fact sheet from Cornell University is given. Seems clear enough to me..The next part is just as straight forward: conventional chicken meat is dangerous. Studies from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy as well as the Sierra Club have shown that conventional meat from chickens is contaminated with arsenic and the over-usage of antibiotics has bred antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Houston, we have a problem!
9. Non-Organic Apples
The claim: Conventional apples have a heavy load of pesticides; avoid them
The facts: Unfortunately, the original article cited names, but no links or
anything. Really, this is very easy to figure out. In the EWG's list of
the top 12 produce items to avoid due to heavy usage of pesticides,
apples show up right between Peaches (#1) and Sweet Bell Peppers (#3).
On their website, the EWG had this to say:
Conventional apples are sprayed with 36 types of pesticides, and the EWG found that 91% of tested apples were contaminated. Even peeling a conventional apple won't completely eliminate chemical residue, so it's best to buy organic. The two types of fiber in apples--soluble and insoluble--can reduce cholesterol levels and the risk of hardening of the arteries, heart attack, and stroke. Apples also keep blood sugar levels stable, and can help prevent kidney stones. Bonus: You'll find that organic apples taste sweeter than conventionally grown.
Now personally, I'm curious as to what kind of (if any) organophospahtes are used when spraying conventional apples since we've already established that the British Medical Association cautions that they are linked to a whole slew of problems (cancer, decreasing male fertility, foetal abnormalities, chronic fatigue syndrome in children and Parkinson's disease). Checking a some-what official source, we can see that Phosmet, Azinphos-methyl, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Methidathion are all sprayed on apples.
10. Cattle Treated With rBGH
The claim: Cow's milk containing rBGH does not break down and can lead to cancer
The facts: This one caught some heavy criticism; considering that, I figured that
perhaps the claims for this were not sourced. In actuality, most of it
was sourced just fine so I must ponder as to what the controversey was
over.. If you know anything about health, then you should know that
here in the US, conventional milk contains rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone; which was actually renamed to recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) because the public has responded negatively to the idea of hormones. It is marketed to farmers as Posilac) since it is used on many cows so
they'll produce more milk, faster.
It is true that the usage of rBGH is banned in the European Union, though the prime reason for this (as stated in the official document) is to prevent cows from getting mastitis (a condition where the cows' udders become enflamed and puss-filled (an infection, basically)). Next, comes the question of what proof is there that rBGH boosts IGF-1 in the body as the author claims? The source I found that proves this is from a May 2006 study in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine by Dr. Gary Steinman that was featured in the New York Times later that month. An FDA study that was published in the journal Science in 1990 claimed that IGF-1 was broken down by the body's stomach acids, however, that turns out not to be true as a 1995 study published in the Journal of Endocrinology found that:
"casein (a non-specific dietary protein) and to a lesser extent, BSA and lactoferrin, were effective in preserving IGF-I structural integrity and receptor binding activity in both stomach and duodenum fluids".
What does that mean in plain English? Just like the article in question said: this hormone does not break down when humans consume milk from those cows.
Now for the final question: what does that mean? It's pretty straight
forward, since a link is given to the Cancer Prevention Coalition which
states that increased levels of IGF-1 will increase the risk of cancer.
What's the solution then? Buy milk that's labeled as "all natural", "organic", or "rBGH-free". Currently, the FDA is resistant with the labeling of milk as rBGH and rBGH-free, so unless you buy from a local farm (which I personally suggest since you're supporting the local community, getting a product that's fresher, and often times cheaper) which labels their own milk as rBGH-free, it may be difficult to find an "rBGH-free" label on your regular store-bought milk.
A caution on all-natural and organic labels: the term "all natural" is not regulated and if a food company wishes, they can include all sorts of crap in their product and claim it's "all natural". Generally this can be combated by looking at the food label of the product you buy, but that's not possible with milk. Organic, however, is a certified USDA standard that must be tested in order to be certified organic. The only exception to this rule, is the brand Horizon (and likewise, and brands by their sister company Aurora). Horizon uses legal loopholes to produce non-organic milk.
Conclusion
In my research, it really wasn't that hard to find the data that supported the claims of the article in question. Honestly, most of the data was already presented in the article itself and all I did was expand on it in showing other studies and squashing long-held beliefs based mostly on ignorance. The only error I was able to find (if you can call it that) is verifiable proof that the Consumer's Union stated in 1999 that conventional strawberries were sometimes irrigated with NutraSweet-laced water to make them sweeter. For anyone who is remotely familiar with typical food industry practices, this should be of little surprise. However, just because it's highly plausible, does not mean it's true and therefore, I can only wait for the Consumer's Union to get back to me about this report.
Some have cited issues of affordability and even starvation as reasons why you shouldn't be "picky" about food. This is a really poor straw-man argument. If someone can't afford to buy organic for these 10 foods, then don't. The article is not selling fear and paranoia as some so ignorantly charge; it's all scientifically backed. The problem, is that most people have such a poor idea of what's actually healthy and what isn't, that they flock to whatever is labeled as sugar free, cholesterol free, fat free, low calorie, low carb assuming that that is the healthy option (when usually, it's worse).
Probably the best book I have ever read on understanding nutrition is Joshua Rosenthal's Integrative Nutrition since it's a book that everyone can understand and doesn't try to sell the reader any diet fad or specific dietary theory. Likewise, I suggest watching BBC 4's 2-part TV documentary Supermarket Secrets (1, 2). I know some will have a knee-jerk reaction to this and bemoan "fear! paranoia!"; this isn't about fear or paranoia, it's actually about understanding that our food today is much different from how we often perceive it. If someone doesn't want to eat healthy, that's their decision and I'm not going to try to force them into anything different. I just want to make sure that people know what it is they're eating. If we can't have healthy food, then let's at least have honest food.
My Groups
-
Voxercise! Updated: 8 hours ago
-
Health and Wellness Updated: 2 days ago
-
Yoginis Updated: 2 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Here's a little more research, citing scientific, peer-reviewed research:
If conventionally grown strawberries are supposedly red because of the fungicide used, then why are organic strawberries red?
It's my understanding that strawberries are red, conventional or organic, because they are full of antioxidants: "Strawberries and other berries provide unique antioxidants, anthocyanins, which give berries their red and blue hues but also act as potent antioxidants. Specific antioxidants present in strawberries include quercetin, kaempferol, chlorogenic acid, p-coumaric acid, ellagic acid and vitamin C."
Cited from Olsson ME, Ekvall J, Gustavsson KE, et al. Antioxidants, low molecular weight carbohydrates, and total antioxidant capacity in strawberries: :Effects of cultivar, ripening, and storage. J Agric Food Chem. 2004;52:2490-98.
The studies I've seen have mentioned that pesticides will decrease the antioxidants of foods. Assuming then that that means that the strawberry would have less of a shine due to this, I can see when and why the usage of captan started. Unfortunately - as I stated - the only information that I found on captan was that it was once used for reasons described, but I have only found information on usage for the US (which says that it was phased out in 1985). Without knowing more information about the laws of other countries concerning captan where strawberries are commonly imported from, my personal stance on captan and strawberries varies between "who the heck knows" to "maybe" (because the food industry has a long history of this sort of thing).
Some book recommendations for you:
Food Politics, by Marion Nestle
Your Body Knows Best, by Anne Louise Gittleman
Healing With Whole Foods, by Paul Pitchford
Good luck!
I'm glad you liked the article, and thanks for sharing your story! Like I said, I think we need to start having honest food. A strawberry should just be a strawberry, don't you agree?
1) What's with the fish? I guess the better question is, Why do they have mercury? Is that natural? I've spent a bit in Japan, and for a long time, people there didn't really eat meat - just fish. So does all fish have mercury? Or are just these certain types of fish, and is the mercury supposed to be there? (I.e., not caused by raising conditions, etc.)
2) About the rBGH - it says, rBGH causes cancer. That's pretty clear. But, if rBGH doesn't break down in human digestive systems, it seems to me that it shouldn't have an effect - it should simply go right through you. I'm sure I'm missing something here...
1) If I understand the US Geological Survey correctly, it's because of environmental contamination. So er, because people don't give a hoot, lands and waters have absorbed these toxins. Of course, beds of water have always been a prime ground for dumping, unfortunately..
2) This is what I wondered at first, but after reading through the studies a few times (I am familiar with anatomy and physiology, but, I'm not a biochemist), I understand that the base point is this: rBGH boosts a hormone called Insulinlike Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) that's in our bodies. This is what is causing the problem.
Hope that helps :)
Is there anything we can eat that 1) is not dangerous and 2) is enough for 6.7 billion (and counting) people?
To answer your questions:
1) Yes! Organic, Whole, Foods :)
2) For areas that have trouble feeding its people whether due to overpopulation (ie: lack of space) or poor conditions (poor soil, poor climate, lack of time/energy), permaculture is the magic bullet if there ever was one. I have seen how permaculturists turned a plot of land in blazing-hot Arizona into a fabulous green garden, and likewise the famous urban homesteaders - the Durvaes Family - have punched out some very impressive numbers (their goal last year was 1,000lbs of produce) on only 1/10 of an acre of land. If this were implemented worldwide, it could solve many problems. If you are interested in learning more, one of the best books on the subject is probably Gaia's Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture by Toby Hemenway.
The benefits of permaculture are that you can grow a lot of food in a little bit of space, all the plants work symbiotically so there is no need for dangerous pesticides, and the garden largely takes care of itself.
2a) Hemp is another good plant to implement due to the fact that it needs no pesticides, can enrich the soil, and has thousands of uses (which can help growing and troubled economies). Making use of hemp in addition to regular permaculture practices could really help a lot.
Unfortunately, the Consumers Union still has not gotten back to me........ honestly, I doubt they will and I find that to be incredibly troubling.
What can you do about it? Well, we can take this two way: the migraines, and the strawberries.
First off, the strawberries. You gotta get active. For starters, I would suggest going to the Organic Consumers Association (organicconsumers.org) and seeing what issues there are in your area. Likewise, if it can be determined that nutrasweet is being put into the strawberries (Hello! Consumers Union??), then I would suggest writing to your local officials (Congress, Governors, Senators, etc.) asking them to please do something about it. It is a very tough process to start, but someone has to stand up and do something about the mess and gradually people will join you. For more ideas, I would contact the OCA.
For the migraines.. I think the best method is to get in touch with an Acupuncturist in your area (see my article on Acupuncture) and they will be able to take care of the rest for you. If you have any questions about acupuncture, just let me know and I should be able to answer most of them.
I agree with you Dori, it's sad and disgusting that well meaning parents are feeding their children junk (really, it's worse than junk, it's poison). I try to do my part by offering a "parental packet" (DVD and info sheet) to parents or soon-to-be parents whenever any of them contact me for a consultation.
This is a long and hard war that we're fighting Dori and it's been going on for a while now. But the good news is that very slowly but surely, we are winning. More and more companies are dropping these contraversial additives and in the end, science is on our side (like I showed in this article).
http://behealthynow.vox.com/library/post/modality-focus-acupuncture.html
here's the rest of the comment:
.... Or do the pesticides stamp out all the benefits of the nutrients of the strawberry? Also, although I usually buy organic, and own a share on an organic farm, there are times that organic isn't available to me. As a vegetarian, what are my options??"?
There is some nutritional content in conventional produce, yes, but that can vary based on which ones get sprayed the most (see the EWG's dirty dozen), and soil conditions. As if having the pesticides harming the nutritional value of the food were not enough, I've seen a few articles now stating that produce in general is lacking the vitamin content from 40-50 years ago!
I do not believe that the conventional strawberries are "worthless" in regards to nutritional value, but I do now that there is noticeably less. If you are unable to buy organic, I would suggest to try to buy as local as possible. See my article on that for more information on ways to find other farms, farmers markets, and CSA's in your area. Local produce will have a higher nutrient yield than the produce at the supermarket since most likely that produce either comes from overseas and/or was picked very early so as to extend shelf life by the time it got there.
Lastly, you can see about growing your own produce. I strongly suggest learning how to implement permaculture if you are looking to grow a number of foods.
I hope this helps :)