Curious Cook: The anthropocene diet – Part 2

Read Part 1

Chicken super-farms and Vitamin D

Large-scale commercial meat production, or factory meat farming, probably started with chickens in Delaware, United States, at a farm run by Mrs Wilmer Steele. 

Selling a batch of 500 broiler chickens in 1923 inspired her to devise new methods to intensify meat production – and by 1926, she had the world’s first indoor chicken super-farm with a capacity of 10,000 birds. The numbers and sizes of such large scale chicken farms expanded exponentially when Vitamin D was included in the birds’ diets – before that, chickens tended to be sluggish or even die off in winter due to lack of sunlight, but the addition of Vitamin D ensured that meat and egg production became a viable operation all year round. The rationing of beef during World War II and Howard Pierce’s competition for super-chickens colluded to make chicken the cheapest and most readily available meat in the world today. For more, read “The story of a super chicken”.

Factory farming

In Britain, factory farming started in 1947, when a new Agriculture Act provided farmers with grants to utilise new technologies in crop and animal farming. It was the period after WWII when the UN was still promoting food security by the “intensification of animal production”. Such intensification was mostly confined originally to chickens as they were the cheapest way to breed meat. However, newer techniques developed for other animals allowed the US and Europe to begin serious large-scale factory meat and dairy farming with pigs and cattle around 1966. This eventually led to practices such as CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) where huge numbers of animals are crowded together and fed with fattening grains, nutrients, antibiotics (and often growth hormones), with no opportunities to graze or exercise normally. These large-scale farms are now replicated around the world.

Clearly, such intensive methods to mass-produce meat and dairy have practically nothing to do with natural or even humane conditions for the animals involved. For example, confining hundreds of thousands of chickens in indoor factory farms is so stressful that their beaks are routinely sliced off to reduce injuries due to fighting. The birds also usually live their entire lives in a caged space smaller than a piece of writing paper.

The harsh concrete surfaces of factory farms often painfully deform the feet and skeletons of animals evolved to walk on soft soil. A sample of 34,000 pigs in the US some years ago found 65% had pneumonia-like lesions in the lungs – there is no indication whether this may be hazardous to humans. The use of growth hormones for speeding up meat production is well-known and still continues in many countries despite concerns about dangers to humans. This practice is banned in the EU. Note that almost all factory meat farms routinely ban visitors in case they take pictures or write about the conditions inside.

More worrying is over 80% of the world’s production of mammalian antibiotics (including for humans) are given to livestock – this is to ensure the animals can resist the bacteria inherent in crowded, often unhygienic conditions in factory farms. But we all know bacteria can evolve to develop resistance to such overuse of drugs, and some superbugs which affect humans now cannot be treated with conventional antibiotics.

As mentioned, most agricultural land is now used to grow feed for animals, even though cereals provide two to 10 times and legumes 10 to 20 times more protein than animals for the same land area. This anomaly is even more bizarre in developing countries where land for meat production often crowd out land for human food crops.

The growth of factory farms over the last century is staggering. Globally, around 50% of pork, 40% of beef and 70% of poultry are now derived from factory farms. In the US, the statistics are even more sobering: around 95% of pork, 78% of beef and 99% of poultry are supplied by factory farms.

The only explanation for the explosion of such a pitiless business is the expanding and seemingly insatiable human demand for meat. Such vast, inhumane factories can only exist because the meat industry keeps offering meat consistently at prices around or below consumer reference points – and hence it is all about economics, not nutrition or even common sense (because the environmental damage is not sustainable). For more about reference points, please read “What we think of (when we think of food)”.

Anthropocene Epoch – what’s next?

As stated earlier, this new epoch may end up being the shortest in Earth’s history. The damage to the planet caused by human practices (eg. global warming, desertification, ocean pollution, etc) is already potentially mortal and any immediate remedial action can only be helpful. Although many people are not aware of it, the geophysical impact of factory farming is a significant issue. The irony of course is that there is no requirement for such overwhelming meat production – it only leads to a vicious cycle of ever bigger factory farms to reap economies of scale so as to be able to sell meat at lower prices than competitors. The other irony is that over-consuming such meat is also probably detrimental to health in several ways. This may be evidenced by many of the current generation of Americans having a lower life expectancy than the previous generation.

It therefore makes sense to break away from the maddening crowd, if only because a lot of research has indicated that over-consuming animal proteins/fats can reduce human lifespans and alter the death pattern for entire populations. For example, prior to 1950, the main causes of mortality in China were measles, tuberculosis and senility (diseases related to old age). Since 1985, the main causes of death are cancers, strokes and heart disease – and as in other countries with a similar death pattern, it has been linked to an increase in meat consumption.

‘Optimal’ flexitarian

You know by now that a flexitarian diet just means reducing the amount of meat and replacing it with non-meat substitutes, with no rules attached. However, if one is really interested, then some additional comments may be added, as follows:

Humans need only a pretty small amount of daily protein, around 0.8g per kilo of body weight. So someone weighing 70kg needs only 56g of protein a day, though of course most people eat rather more than this. This is also fine as long as they do not have any chronic kidney disease.

Of this optimal amount of protein, try to limit animal proteins to 5% or less of your total calorie requirements. There is roughly four calories per gram of protein. So if your daily requirement is, say, 2,000 calories, try to limit animal protein consumption to 25g a day. The rest should be made up of non-animal proteins.

For the same daily calorie requirement, carbohydrates should be 50% to 55% of the total, so it means roughly 250g to 275g of carbohydrates.

The rest should be vegetables with lots of soluble and insoluble fibre in any proportion you like – plus of course, fats, especially those with Omega-3 fatty acids, so as to offset the Omega-6 oils normally present in most modern foods. A good balance would be four or fewer parts of Omega-6 to one part of Omega-3.

However, I confess I have personally never strictly followed the dietary suggestions above, mainly because I enjoy eating good food (and drinking wine) too much. So it is just a guideline for anyone curious. My opinion is if everyone would cut their meat consumption by 30% to 50% or more, that would already be an excellent step towards keeping the Anthropocene Epoch alive a while longer. It is also remarkably easy to do, even for meat-loving Germans, especially with ultra-modern foods – see “A modern food story – Part 3”.

https://www.star2.com/food/2018/10/28/curious-cook-anthropocene-diet-part-2/

We’re hatching an antibiotics apocalypse because we love cheap chicken

Given the choice between cheap chicken and life-saving antibiotic drugs, what’s our pick?

It’s cheap chicken, of course – that has essentially been the choice made in this country and around the world.

NOVEMBER 26, 2017

Today’s chicken, produced under intensive farming conditions that involve the widespread use of antibiotics, is sold at a relatively low price. But there is a cost: the rise of “superbugs” resistant to standard antibiotics.

For the love of flesh, we put our own flesh at risk. As more antibiotics become ineffective, old infections such as gonorrhoea are becoming almost untreatable. In Kelantan this year, a man died from such a superbug (Klebsiella pneumoniae) and 40 relatives had to be quarantined.

“The world is running out of antibiotics,” the World Health Organisation (WHO) recently said.

I know, the chicken choice line is simplistic and the issue is far more complex. But the point is, modern meat production threatens antibiotics.

The fact is most of the world’s antibiotics are used in livestock – the figure was 73%, or 131,000 tonnes in 2013 (and this is set to grow), a recent article in the journal Science shows. Human use of antibiotics is just a fraction of that.

Antibiotics are used in animals to ward off diseases that plague crowded unsanitary farms, as well as to promote growth in healthy animals. A low dose of antibiotics spurs faster weight gain, but over long periods enables drug resistance.

Earlier this month, to mark World Antibiotic Awareness Week, WHO called on meat producers to stop using antibiotics to promote growth – a practice already banned in Europe. It called for an overall reduction in antibiotic use in animals and a complete restriction of use without diagnosis.

WHO has urged for antibiotics “critically important” to humans to be barred from use in animals. In Malaysia, we allow some critical drugs on WHO’s list for us to be used on animals. One such drug is colistin, a “last resort” antibiotic used only when all else has failed.

The Consumers Association of Penang has highlighted this and also called for a ban on antibiotics in animal feed. In surveys in Kedah and Perlis last year, it found the drug erythromycin sold widely in animal feed shops, for use as a growth promoter.

The Department of Veterinary Services says antibiotic use is stopped before animals get slaughtered. But how do we know how long antibiotics are being given, questions Prof Dr Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali, a researcher in social and administrative pharmacy from Universiti Sains Malaysia. Residues of antibiotics have been found in meat, for instance.

He says monitoring urgently needs improvement and studies on resistance are needed on both sick and healthy animals.

He says control should be extensive, starting from ports, where large shipments of antibiotics are brought in from India or China, down to chicken feed companies. “There needs to be a coordinated effort, even involving customs.”

Resistant bacteria have been found in local poultry and pigs. In fact, resistance to colistin – used widely in China – was initially discovered in China and Malaysia. Chinese and British researchers found a single gene, mcr-1, conferred resistance. Alarmingly, this gene can pass between bacteria of different species, a terrifying prospect for the spread of resistance.

And so, for our laxness, we are losing a last line of defence in antibiotics.

We have taken some steps forward with the National Antibiotics Resistance Committee, which brings together health and agricultural sides in this issue.

“We have a long way to go but work has started,” says its main coordinator, Datuk Dr Christopher Lee. “Clearly the more antibiotics we use, resistance will increase. So it’s good if we can cut down consumption in all forms.”

Meanwhile, we consumers don’t have to sit by idly. We have the power to effect change through our voices and purses.

“In Malaysia, everything is a top-down approach. Sometimes, that doesn’t work well. We need a bottom-up approach. We need the active engagement of consumers,” says Dr Azmi, adding that meat producers also need to be made more aware.

He says community leaders can play a part, citing the situation in Thailand where Buddhist monks help to share information on antibiotics. USM’s School of Pharmaceutical Sciences is working with local consumer groups to this end.

If consumers demand antibiotic-free chicken, then market forces may work in our favour. This has happened in some developed nations. US meat giant Tyson Foods recently made a “no antibiotics ever” pledge in their chicken products. McDonalds says it will cut the use of “highest priority critically important” antibiotics in some countries, including colistin in Europe (but not in South-East Asia). Some meat producers have swapped antibiotics with probiotics.

Malaysia’s Department of Veterinary Services has long focused on making cheap meat available. Well, Malaysians are now one of the world’s biggest consumers of chicken. It’s time we prioritise our health, the environment, and the future of modern medicine.

If we want to have drugs available to prevent us dying from a skin infection, surgery, childbirth, or pneumonia, then we should consider paying more for organic chicken. We should count the real price of our cheap chicken before they hatch into an antibiotics apocalypse.

http://www.star2.com/living/2017/11/26/antibiotics-cheap-chicken/

Is This ‘Nature’s Perfect Food’?

After radical mastectomy, thirty-five doses of radiotherapy and twelve chemotherapy sessions, the battle was lost as far as her oncologist was concerned. 42-year-old scientist Jane Plant was given only three months to live.

This post is on Healthwise

15 April 2015

Is This ‘Nature’s Perfect Food’ or a Banquet for Hormone-Related Cancers?

The cancer returned for the fifth time.

After radical mastectomy, thirty-five doses of radiotherapy and twelve chemotherapy sessions, the battle was lost as far as her oncologist was concerned. 42-year-old scientist Jane Plant was given only three months to live.

That was 28 years ago. Today Janet, professor of geochemistry at Imperial College London, is free of cancer.

As she states in her book Your Life in Your Hands, “having no alternative but to die or find a way out myself, I decided to find a way out. I determined to take control of my situation using my training as a natural scientist.”
This was her way out. . .

The clue comes from China

After looking at a range of factors that included genetic predisposition, estrogen, fat intake, stress, and personality type — and ruling them out of the equation — she finally hit on a clue as to why she came down breast cancer and what she could do about it.

At one time she had worked with Chinese scientists and they had given her a book called The Atlas of Cancer Mortality in the People’s Republic of China.

She was struck by the low rates of breast and prostate cancer among the Chinese. Americans were eight times more likely to contract breast cancer and two hundred times more likely to develop prostate cancer than people living in rural China.

When the Chinese adopt a Western lifestyle, as they might do if they live in Hong Kong or move to a Western country, over time their cancer rates become similar to those found in their adopted homes.

So Professor Plant reasoned there must be some environmental factor at work, but what could it be?

Then it hit her.

The native Chinese don’t eat dairy products – and she was a big eater of such foods.

She immediately stopped consuming milk, butter, cream, cheese and any foods containing them. This included commercial soups, biscuits, cakes, sunflower or olive oil spreads and soya margarine. It’s surprising how many food products contain dairy.

Within days a secondary tumor on the back of her neck started to shrink. Six weeks later it was gone.

“None of my doctors….had expected someone with my type and stage of cancer (which had clearly spread to the lymph system) to have survived, let alone be so hale and hearty.”

Americans are big consumers of dairy foods

Americans consume 614 pounds of cows’ milk products per year (USDA, 2012). This works out to 1.68 pounds per person per day. That’s a huge amount — for a food that was only designed for babies.

But that in itself does not mean milk can’t be good nutrition for adults. What evidence is there that it could be a risk factor for cancer?

According to Professor Plant, the hormones and growth factors in milk increase your risk for all hormone-related cancers – breast, prostate, ovary and testicular.

From a young age we no longer need the hormones and growth factors found in milk because the body produces and regulates its own requirements.

The concern is that ingesting additional quantities of these highly bioactive chemicals designed to stimulate cell growth in the young could result in unwanted growth and differentiation of adult tissues – in other words, cancer.

And there are lots of hormones in milk. At least 35 different kinds — plus 11 growth factors. Many of these have been linked to cancer.

For instance, excessive amounts of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone which have been implicated in testicular, prostate and ovarian cancer.

Prolactin and epidermal growth factor have been shown to enhance breast and prostate cancer.

Testosterone and other androgens have been linked with increased prostate cancer risk.

Of particular concern is insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1).

IGF-1 stimulates cancer growth

Stanford University researchers reported in 1990 that IGF-1 promotes prostate cancer cell growth. Five years later the National Institutes of Health reported that IGF-1 plays an important role in some children’s cancers as well as in prostate, breast, pancreas, small cell lung and melanoma cancers. Other researchers in the 1990s found that the growth factor was linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers.

In 1998, researchers from Harvard found men under 60 with the highest IGF-1 concentrations in the blood were four times more likely to develop prostate cancer than those with the lowest levels. And for those over 60 the risk was eight times as high.

IGF-1 has growth-promoting effects in concentrations as low as 1 ng/ml, and yet milk contains 30 times as much. (1 ng is a billionth of a gram.) Three percent of the IGF-1 in cow’s milk is also in a form that’s ten times as potent.

Although the dairy industry claims that this growth factor doesn’t get absorbed into the body, research says otherwise.

A number of studies have found that the amount of milk a person consumes correlates with the amount of IGF-1 in the blood. For instance vegans who don’t eat any animal or dairy products had levels that were 9 – 13% lower than meat eaters and vegetarians and a 2005 study found “milk consumption was significantly positively related to IGF-1 levels.”

Also, the actions of IGF-1 are modulated by protective binding proteins which control their effects. However these are considerably lower in vegetarians compared to those on a vegan diet. They are therefore not only at higher levels but are more potent in dairy consumers.

Reviewing the research, Hans Larsen, M.Sc., Ch.E., said, “The evidence of a strong link between cancer risk and a high level of IGF-1 is now indisputable.”

This view has been echoed by other researchers who state that IGF-1 not only stimulates cancer cell growth but enhances metastasis and prevents apoptosis (natural cancer cell death). A European Union scientific committee concluded that this growth factor poses an increased risk of breast and prostate cancer.

Having reviewed the studies, Professor Plant states in her book Prostate Cancer that “the evidence suggests that the association between IGF-1 and cancer incidence complies with many of the accepted criteria for causality: the association is strong and specific, it demonstrates the correct temporal sequence, it is dose responsive, it has biological plausibility, and it has coherence with other documented associations.”

rBGH and VEGF – growth factors to avoid

In spite of this evidence, in 1993 the FDA approved the use of a genetically engineered growth hormone called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production. If you’re a longtime reader of this newsletter, you’re familiar with it.

It’s known that rBGH boosts the average concentration of IGF-1 by up to five-fold.

The European Union and many other countries do not permit the use of rBGH, but the FDA seems to have no concerns about its safety.

Could it get any worse? I’m afraid it does.

rBGH vastly increases udder infections called mastitis. The disease can affect almost half of all dairy cows in any one year. To fight the infection, cows produce Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF). Unfortunately this also promotes the development and spread of cancer. Some classes of cancer drugs are specifically designed to block VEGF.

Soaring estrogen levels in modern milk

On top of all this, modern high production methods require cows to be milked while pregnant, which is most of the year. When pregnant they are producing vastly more estrogen and progesterone than they otherwise would.

This point was emphasized by Ganmaa Davaasambuu, M.D., Ph.D., research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health. Her findings comparing rates of cancer in 42 countries showed a strong association between milk and cheese consumption and hormone-related cancers.

She believes natural estrogens found in milk — which are already 100,000 times more potent than their environmental equivalent — are up to 33 times greater in milk produced from cows in the late stages of pregnancy.

As she puts it, “Today’s milk is vastly different from the milk your ancestors consumed 80 years ago.”

She advises us to cut down on dairy products.

Professor Plant gives the same advice, even more so since 2011. Following a hectic work schedule, she relaxed her no-dairy policy and went back to eating some milk products. The result was a lump under her collarbone and tumors in her lungs.

As well as taking a drug to suppress estrogen, she returned to her strict dairy-free diet. Several months later she was in remission for the sixth time. And this time she intends to stay cancer free.

While it may be considered to be un-American to advise against drinking milk, the milk produced by modern high-intensive farming methods should be avoided. Milk that’s produced this way cannot be described as nature’s perfect food.

If you can find raw, organic milk from grass-fed cows not milked during pregnancy it would be a vast improvement. However, if you are at known risk or want to reduce your risk of hormone-related cancers, then it’s best to keep dairy consumption to a minimum..

http://www.cancerdefeated.com/is-this-natures-perfect-food-or-a-banquet-for-hormone-related-cancers/3162/

Go to Healthwise for more articles

More of Prof Plant's articles:

• 'Give up dairy products to beat cancer’
• Give up dairy to beat cancer':

A change of diet cured my cancer

This post is on Healthwise

by Prof JANE PLANT, Evening Standard

It's a miserable business, having cancer. I can remember those years clearly, and they were dreadful.

I had no family history of cancer, but I knew what it was when I found the lump in my breast in 1987. I tried to convince myself it wasn't real, but when I was diagnosed with cancer, I wasn't that surprised. It was a real strain on my family.

I was 42 and my sons, Mark and Tom, were 16 and six then, but it was hardest for my daughter, Emma, who was 13 - all her teenage years were blighted by my cancer.

And then one day, it all made sense - and what I discovered that day was to change my life for ever. It was six years after I was first diagnosed, and my family and I had been to hell and back. I'd had so many gruelling operations - a mastectomy, 12 sessions of chemotherapy and 35 radiotherapy treatments, and despite everything, I was still left with a lump the size of half a boiled egg sticking out of my neck.

It was a secondary cancer, since the disease had reached my lymph system, and I was absolutely fed up. I'd just had a session of chemotherapy which had had no effect on this latest large lump - I was measuring it with callipers, so I knew.

It's hard to explain to a non-scientist the mental and emotional buzz you get when you know that you have just had an important insight. It's as if you have had a lot of jigsaw pieces in your mind and suddenly the whole picture becomes clear.

My husband Peter is also a scientist - he's a mineralogist and gemologist - and he had recently come back from a trip to China. We were musing on why so few Chinese women get breast cancer - their incidence of the disease is one in 100,000 - and what was different about their way of life, and it suddenly struck me that they just didn't have any dairy products in their diet.

I eliminated all dairy produce from my diet immediately - I had been eating organic yoghurt to help my digestive tract recover from the chemotherapy, but I also threw out anything containing milk products, from biscuits to soups and even some forms of margarine. Within days, the lump began to itch, then to soften and shrink, until, after six weeks, it had vanished altogether.

What I believe I've done is to go back and establish the root cause of breast and prostate cancer. That's what I've been trained to do throughout my career as a scientist - to find the fundamental cause. Conventional therapy deals with the symptoms of cancer - the tumours - but my regime goes further.

I don't believe dairy produce initiates cancer, rather that it promotes it - if the body weren't constantly taking in growth factors from milk, it would be able to clean up its damaged cells by itself.

When my tumour disappeared, I couldn't just pronounce that the one thing had led to the other. I have been trained throughout my working life to give data for the statements I am making or to give sources, so I began researching the whole subject.

Friends who had been wonderfully supportive during the years I been struggling with breast cancer would send me clippings from papers and magazines, which often produced new lines of enquiry, and gradually I formed my views about diet and its relation to cancer.

It is not an extreme regime - if people want to follow diets that are extremely unconventional, that's fine, but it's not what I'd recommend. Barry Sheene did so and, in the end, the regime failed and he died. I would never recommend that people avoid conventional treatment.

Cancer is such a clever disease that you have to use everything at your disposal to tackle it. I recommend that people use my diet and lifestyle factors to help them through procedures such as chemotherapy, and to give them some awareness of the factors that you can control in your diet and lifestyle.

The fact is that dairy milk contains a number of substances called growth factors; breast and prostate tissue both have receptors for growth factors, which cause cells to divide and reproduce. It seems that if you have a damaged cell, these growth factors will select these damaged cells, and cause them to grow out of all control.

I now believe that the link between dairy produce and breast cancer is similar to the link between smoking and lung cancer. It was difficult to accept that a substance as "natural" as milk might have such ominous health implications, but I am living proof that it worked.

Cutting out dairy produce is one of the main dietary points, but there are other very important ones. You should eat masses of vege- tables and fruit (with more emph- asis on vegetables) - not only are they full of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, but many contain chemicals which have anticancer properties, such as allicin in garlic, or lycopene in tomatoes.

You should limit your intake of saturated fats, and eat a diet rich in monounsaturates (such as olive oil), and omega 3 and 6 oils (oily fish, flax seeds and nuts).

Eating adequate amounts of protein is important for your body - though I suggest that as much as possible should be from vegetable sources (eg, lentils); salt and sugar should be kept to a minimum, in favour of seasonings which have anti-cancer action, such as the curcumin in turmeric.

Wholegrain cereals are good for the body, because they contain detoxing enzymes and substances which help suppress the growth of tumours, and it is vital to drink lots - I prefer filtered boiled water to what comes out of the tap, though I don't recommend bottled water - I don't like anything in plastic bottles, because of the harmful plasticising chemicals that can migrate into the water.

I have followed this regime for the past 10 years, and have remained free from cancer. My specialist at Charing Cross Hospital was sceptical about my ideas at first, but now I have heard that he uses maps showing cancer mortality in China when he is lecturing, and recommends a non-dairy diet to his cancer patients.

When I go to hospital for checkups, if he is not around, other doctors who read my notes often can't believe that I had cancer as extensively and seriously as I did, given that I now look so healthy.

I'm so relieved I made my discovery, because it has given me 10 years with my family - and, I hope, many more - which the doctors thought I'd never have. And my message is for everyone who has had a diagnosis of breast cancer - don't be afraid. I got better - and so can you.

Your Life in Your Hands (Virgin Books, £9.99) and The Plant Programme (Virgin Books, £10.99).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-171377/A-change-diet-cured-cancer.html

More of Prof Plant's articles:

• 'Give up dairy products to beat cancer’
• 
  
• Give up dairy to beat cancer':

Go to Healthwise for more articles

What’s In Your Beef?

January 17, 2012 by Catherine J. Frompovich

Do your ears perk up when you hear the words of that famous fast food commercial: “Where’s the beef?” More pertinent may be: “What’s in the beef?” If you value your health, you’d better know about the chemicals and pathogens that too often infiltrate meat. Because what’s inside that bun can have serious consequences for your well-being.

Recalls of beef seem to be an almost constant ingredient in the evening news. Last month, for instance, an outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium was discovered in freshly ground beef sold in Hannaford, a grocery store chain headquartered in Maine. Before all the beef could be recalled, 14 people in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York were sickened by the meat. Seven people required hospitalization.

Antibiotic Problem

As the head bookkeeper for a large beef boning house, I was privy to numerous incidents that allowed microorganisms to breed in meat that was sold to consumers. Adding to the problem is the fact that livestock consume antibiotics that are designed to make them put on extra weight. But an unintended side effect of these antibiotics is that they foster the growth of so-called “superbugs,” microorganisms that are resistant to antibiotics. If you become infected with a superbug, it can be deadly if no antibiotic can be found that can control the infection.

Antibiotics that are permitted for use in food animals include bacitracin, bambermycins, chlortetracycline, lasalocid, lincomycin, monensin, penicillin, salinomycin, tylosin and virginiamycin.
 
One Small Step

On Jan. 4, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine issued an order prohibiting certain extra-label uses of the cephalosporin class of antimicrobial drugs (not including cephapirin) for most food-producing animals, including cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys. This was done out of concern that these antibiotics are contributing to the development of cephalosporin-resistant strains of certain bacterial pathogens. Since these drugs are used to fight pneumonia, skin and tissue infections, pelvic inflammatory disease and other conditions, it’s important to limit their use in food animals.

Steroids

A few weeks before slaughter, animals are often given veterinary steroids which are also designed to make them gain weight. This includes a drug called Finaplix (Trenbolone acetate), an androgen that beefs up a cow’s size. When residues of these substances remain in the livestock, they can be present in meat made from those animals. Consequently, meat eaters may be scarfing down steroids with each meal that contains hamburger, steak or roast beef.
 
Other animals similarly receive these types of drugs. For instance, pigs get rounds of antibiotics that help them increase their weight by up to 9 percent. Avoparcin, an antibiotic, has been used to induce growth in chickens and pigs. Unfortunately, researchers have found that those animals produced more antibiotic-resistant bacteria. And since Avoparcin is similar to the drug vancomycin (a very important antibiotic in human pharmacology), microorganisms that resist this class of pharmaceuticals can produce serious consequences. In addition, goats farmed as food animals receive antibiotics to enhance their meat.

In addition to the difficulties resulting from the use of all these drugs, chicken feed may contain arsenic and copper to boost the production of poultry meat.

Fortunately, there are safer ways to increase animal size with less of a danger to human health. These include acidifiers, enzymes, oligosaccharides and directly fed probiotics. However, giving cattle oligosaccharides which are simple sugars, may increase the growth of E. coli in cows.

Natural Design

Nature designed cattle and animals with hooves to be grass-fed and browsers. Meat producers, however, have switched the diets of these animals from grass to corn and soy laced with antibiotics and other drugs. In all likelihood, that process has reprogrammed the animals’ guts to produce allergy-producing reactions within their digestive tracts.

In addition, when these animals take in glysophate residues from GMO soy and Bacillus thuringiensis from bt-corn (a form of GMO corn), these chemicals probably interfere with the animal’s capability to produce prebiotics. Without prebiotics, natural substances that promote beneficial bacteria in the large intestine, harmful bacteria may reproduce in the animals, leading to the current spate of E.coli found in today’s beef.

The producers of our meat have excessively interfered with nature’s original design of the animals we consume.

Taking Action

As a consumer, you can make an effort to purchase organic meat. Animals raised organically have not received hormones and antibiotics to fatten them. And organically produced milk and cheeses come from cows that are have not been injected under their tails daily with the milk-producing recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH. Consider consuming lamb which is relatively free of chemical residues. (This is especially true of Icelandic or New Zealand lamb.)

If you buy organic meats, you are purchasing beef that has been pasture-raised or fed organic grass. There are numerous farmers who employ sustainable agriculture methods to bring delicious and healthful meat to your dining table.

Search the Internet for “pasture raised beef brand names,” and you will find a wide range of palatable choices.

And the next time you’re in the supermarket, talk with the manager and encourage him to carry a line of grass-fed meat products. As a consumer, you possess the power of the purse. The way you spend your food dollar makes a difference in how your food is produced.

Make your shopping mantra, “What’s in the beef?” and soon the answer may be more reassuring than alarming.

http://www.easyhealthoptions.com

The Watermelon You Should Never, Ever Eat

The Watermelon You Should Never, Ever Eat

Posted By Dr. Mercola | June 03 2011 | 327,018views

Email : 3924

Previous

Next

Watermelon fields in eastern China are covered in exploded fruit. Farmers used growth chemicals to make their crops bigger, but ended up destroying them instead.


The farmers used the growth accelerator forchlorfenuron. Even the melons that survived tended to have fibrous, misshapen fruit with mostly white instead of black seeds.


MSNBC reports:

“Chinese regulations don't forbid use of the substance. It is also allowed in the United States for use on kiwi fruit and grapes ... About 20 farmers and 115 acres of watermelon around Danyang were affected ... Farmers resorted to chopping up the fruit and feeding it to fish and pigs”.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

This may sound like a joke, but it's real alright. Seems the use of a chemical growth accelerator, forchlorfenuron, has been implicated in the widespread "exploding melon" phenomena.

What is Forchlorfenuron?

Forchlorfenuron is a so-called "plant growth regulator," registered with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2004 for use on grapes, raisins, and kiwis. According to the EPA Pesticide Fact sheet, the chemical is to be applied to the flowers and/or developing fruit during early post-bloom to improve fruit size, fruit set, cluster weight, and cold storage. The fact sheet explains that the chemical "acts synergistically with natural auxins to promote plant cell division and lateral growth."

According to MSNBC, the Chinese farmers incorrectly applied forchlorfenuron to the fruit "during overly wet weather and... too late in the season, which made the melons burst."

Indeed. Melons have been exploding by the acre.

Another article published on May 24 by The Epoch Times, specified that the seeds used were "quality watermelon seeds" imported from Japan. Of the 20 farmers in the affected Chinese province, 10 of them used these imported Japanese seeds. It's unclear whether all of the farmers whose crops blew up had also used forchlorfenuron.

But ruptured melon-heads are not the most concerning aspect of this story. There's also the question of consumer safety. Although no specific health hazards are mentioned in any of the articles covering this story, they do allude to the fact that there may be cause for health concerns.

Are Growth Promoting Chemicals Safe to Eat?

MSNBC writes:

"The report quoted Feng Shuangqing, a professor at the China Agricultural University, as saying the problem showed that China needs to clarify its farm chemical standards and supervision to protect consumer health. the report underscores how farmers in China are abusing both legal and illegal chemicals, with many farms misusing pesticides and fertilizers."

Forchlorfenuron is in fact legal, both in China and in the US. But should it be? According to the EPA pesticide fact sheet, forchlorfenuron is not necessarily harmless, neither to the environment nor to animals and potentially humans. Side effects revealed in animal studies included:

• Increased incidence of alopecia (hair loss)
• Decreased birth weight
• Increased pup mortality
• Decreased litter sizes

They also categorize forchlorfenuron as "moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis."

How to Spot Fruit Grown with Growth Accelerating Chemicals

One of the tell-tale signs of a fruit or vegetable that hasn't been grown by entirely natural means is their inherent lack of flavor. It may look plump and ripe, but once you bite into it, it's anything but a flavor sensation. This is because while growth enhancers like forchlorfenuron stimulate cell division, making the fruit grow faster, it also drains it of flavor. This is actually rather logical, if you think about it. Flavor is a sign of ripeness, which only comes with time. Many unripe fruits and vegetables are virtually tasteless.

In the case of watermelons, those treated with forchlorfenuron are very large and brightly colored on the outside, but the color of the flesh is more white than deep red. Other telltale signs are white instead of black seeds and fibrous, and/or misshapen fruit. (Note, this is for regular watermelons, which have black seeds. Seedless watermelons typically have tiny white seeds.)

Hormones in Your Fruits and Veggies? You Bet!

This is an area that doesn't get much press. While many are now aware of the fact that CAFO raised meats are loaded with hormones, few would imagine that fresh produce would be laced with hormone additives as well. But they are. According to Zheng Fengtian, a professor of agriculture from Renmin University, hormones can increase yields by 20 percent or more, and are therefore "widely used."

Some of these hormones you might never expect to make their way onto your plate, such as oxytocin—a hormone that acts as a neuromodulator in your brain; often referred to as "the love hormone," or "bonding hormone." It's released naturally in large amounts in a woman's body during childbirth, but has also been synthesized biochemically and is available as a prescription drug to induce labor—and is, apparently, being illegally injected into fruits and vegetables in some countries...

Last summer, an Indian health minister, Dinesh Trivedi, warned about the illegal use of oxytocin in fruits and vegetables in India. Apparently the hormone allows produce to gain weight and ripen sooner. Injected produce also appear plumper and fresher.
According to Trivedi, the hormone is being used on:

• Pumpkins
• Watermelons
• Cucumbers
• Aubergines

FoodSafety.com also reported that the drug, although banned for public sale in India, was widely available from fertilizer and pesticide vendors. Potential side effects of consuming oxytocin-laced produce include:

Irregular heartbeat	Nausea	Vomiting	Cramping
Stomach pain	Sterility	Neurotic complications	Nervous breakdowns

 

Other Growth Promoters Used on Produce

Other growth promoting agents used in fruits and vegetables include:

• Ethylene (used to ripen mangoes)
• Calcium carbide (used on apples, papayas, and guavas)

While ethylene is considered GRAS (generally recognized as safe), calcium carbide "may contain traces of arsenic and phosphorus, both highly toxic to humans," according to one industry source, and most countries do not allow its use.

Interestingly enough, one of the Chinese farmers whose melons exploded reportedly used a formula containing a mixture of growth enhancers, sweetening agents, and "a calcium solution." So it's not clear whether the formula used on the exploding fruits contained calcium carbide in conjunction with the forchlorfenuron. Whatever the case may be, the results are clearly not good.

Still on the Fence about Going Organic?

If you're still vacillating on the issue of going organic, I hope this information spurs you into action.

If you eat conventionally grown produce, not only are you exposing yourself and your family to a variety of pesticides; you may also get hormones and chemical growth promoters—all of which have the potential to devastate your health, especially that of young children. Remember, conventional produce sold in your local supermarket comes from all over the world! So you cannot brush off this information as being a potential threat affecting just the region in which the produce was grown.

Organic foods also contain higher amounts of nutrients, so you're getting "more bang for your buck," when seen from a nutrition standpoint. One four-year long European-Union-funded study found that:

• Organic fruit and vegetables contain up to 40 percent more antioxidants
• Organic produce had higher levels of beneficial minerals like iron and zinc
• Milk from organic herds contained up to 90 percent more antioxidants

Last but not least, if you're any kind of food aficionado, meaning if you like flavor, organic foods simply cannot be beat. When it comes to produce, your absolute best bet is locally-grown organics. That's truly the best of both worlds. However, if you can't find locally grown organics, opt for USDA certified organic, but not imported organic, over the conventionally grown variety. Just be aware that wilted organic produce is not going to provide the nutrition that a fresh one will, even if it's conventionally grown, so freshness is also key.

There are some exceptions to the all-organic rule, which may be welcome news if you cannot afford to buy everything organic. For more information on which conventionally-grown produce are the safest, please see my previous article 12 Foods You Don't Have to Buy Organic.

Pay Now, or Pay Later...

My personal view of why you'd want an organic lifestyle is that although you may spend more money on organic food today, your payoff of good health should more than make up for it – and reduce your health care costs in the future. It makes sense to me to invest a little bit more now so I can avoid paying LARGE medical bills later on, but more importantly, I can avoid the physical and mental disability and dysfunction that inevitably follows from a careless, unhealthy lifestyle.

Making sure you're not being misled by labels in your search for a healthier lifestyle is unfortunately part of this process. However, by educating yourself about what to look for, talking to your grocer, and sharing information with family, friends and neighbors, you can help the movement toward healthier food choices.

Also Beware of Genetically Modified Foods

Buying organic will also help you avoid yet another major health hazard in our food supply, namely genetically modified (GM) foods. I strongly recommend looking for foods that are "non-GMO certified" by the Non-GMO Project. For your convenience, download this Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and share it with everyone you know.

Although GM foods still do not require labeling by law, the campaign for GMO labeling is making progress, thanks to the persistence of Jeffrey Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology, an organization whose goal is to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. If you like, you can join the fight by signing the petition to President Obama in support of mandatory labeling of GM foods.
For ongoing updates on this cause, please follow our Non-GMO's page on Facebook.

By educating the public about the risks of GM foods through a massive education campaign, and by circulating the Non-GMO Shopping Guide so consumers can make healthier non-GMO choices, the Institute's plan is to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past. 

 Remember food is a critical part of the equation of "Taking Control of Your Health", you simply must get it right if you want any real chance of avoiding chronic degenerative disease.

Source: MSNBC April 17, 2011

Related Links:

5 Ways to Reduce Children's Pesticide Exposure

Prenatal Pesticide Exposure Can Cause Damage Later in Life

10 Organic Foods That Are Worth the Money

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/03/why-are-nonorganic-watermelons-exploding-in-china.aspx
.