Environment and Health

Eat Green

by

Can Diet Affect The Health Of Our Planet? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Earth DayEarth Day was yesterday. So, it is time for my annual reminder that what you eat affects a lot more than just your health. It affects the health of our planet. Once again, it’s time to ask yourself, “Is my diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about our environment…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The publication (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Can Diet Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Factory FarmWhen they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
    • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
    • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
    • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
    • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
  • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

Food ChoicesWhen they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
    • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pastureland required to raise cattle and sheep.
    • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2.

The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.] 

    • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication of our lakes and oceans, beef, lamb, and pork all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.

Eat Green

Planetary DietIn the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes”.
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.

2) Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.

3) Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:

    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.

4) Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.

5) Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

QuestionsIf you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time”. If you have read the Forward to my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths”, you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Eating For A Healthy Planet

by

Can Diet Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Earth DayEarth Day has come and gone. You have recommitted to saving the planet. You plan to recycle, conserve energy, and turn in your gas guzzler for an energy efficient car. But what about your diet? Is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”, but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about our environment…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The publication (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

Can Diet Affect The Health Of Our Planet?

Factory FarmWhen they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
    • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
    • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
    • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
    • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
    • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

healthy vs Unhealthy ChoicesWhen they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
    • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pastureland required to raise cattle and sheep.
    • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2.

The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.] 

    • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication of our lakes and oceans, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.

Eating For A Healthier Planet

Planetary DietIn the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes”.
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
  • Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
  • Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

confusionIf you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time”. If you have read the Forward to my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths”, you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose-lose diet”. It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win-win diet”. It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet”.

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

PAHs Contaminate Supplements?

by

Do Your Supplements Contain Carcinogens?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

pahs in supplementsMost of us take supplements to improve our health. We count on those supplements being pure and effective. We don’t expect the supplements we take to contain carcinogenic (cancer causing) contaminants. However, that expectation appears to be unfounded. A recent study found that 72% of supplements tested were contaminated with a particularly dangerous class of cancer causing chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Where Do PAHs Come From  andWhy Are TheyDeadly?

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are produced by incomplete combustion of organic materials. Major environmental sources of PAHs are incomplete burning of gasoline, coal and other fuels. Unfortunately, automobile exhaust, coal burning power plants, and exhaust from factories are almost ubiquitous in today’s world, resulting in significant PAH contamination of our air, water, and soil. The unfortunate truth is that we all live in an increasingly dirty and toxic environment.

pahs can come from highwayAs you might imagine, cigarette smoke is the #1 source of PAHs in humans. However, foods are a major route for PAH exposure in humans as well. There are many food sources of PAHs. For example,

  • Grilling, roasting and frying foods, especially meats, at high temperatures creates PAHs.
  • Smoking fish or meats creates PAHs.
  • Barbecuing meats creates PAHs.
  • Even plant-based foods can contain PAHs if the soil, air or water they were grown in was contaminated.
  • PAHs can be introduced into supplements if any of their ingredients are dried at high temperatures as part of the processing procedure.

By now you are probably realizing that it is not just our environment that is increasingly being contaminated with PAHs. We are all becoming contaminated with PAHs as well. Our bodies are becoming toxic waste dumps.

Unfortunately, PAHs are not innocuous chemicals. Perhaps the best studied and deadliest of the PAHs is a compound called benzo[a]pyrene. It is classified as a class 1 carcinogen and mutagen by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Perhaps some explanation is in order:

  • The IARC is an international organization that is charged with evaluating the scientific evidence for the carcinogenicity of various chemicals. It also sets upper limits for safe exposure to those chemicals.
  • Class 1 carcinogens are compounds that the IARC has classified as definitely carcinogenic to humans. Simply put, the IARC considers the scientific evidence to be overwhelming that those compounds are carcinogens.

To date only 118 compounds have been blacklisted by the IARC as class 1 carcinogens and benzo[a]pyrene is one of them. However, many of the other, less studied, PAHs are classified as probable carcinogens by the IARC.

Unfortunately, in most countries of the world (including the United States), PAH limits in food and supplements are unregulated. Because they are unregulated, many supplement companies don’t even test for them. That is unfortunate because a recent study shows that many supplements are contaminated with high levels of PAHs, and their manufacturers didn’t even know it.

Do Your Supplements Contain PAHs or Other Carcinogens?

carcinogens in supplementsThe European Union has taken the lead in regulating PAH levels. They have used the IARC guidelines to create upper allowable limits for PAHs in food and supplements. Separate standards were set for benzo[a]pyrene and the total of the four most common PAH contaminants (benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthrene, and chrysene). Those new regulations just went into effect April 1st 2016.

To gauge the impact of these new regulations on the supplement industry, the EU asked the European Union Reference Laboratory to measure the levels of PAH contamination in supplements sold in the EU prior to the implementation of the new regulations. Because vitamin and mineral supplements are seldom contaminated with PAHs, they were excluded from the study.

The EU Reference Laboratory started collecting a wide range of herbal and botanical supplements, fish and edible oil food supplements, and propolis and other bee supplements sold in the EU in 2013. The Reference Laboratory analyzed 94 different supplements for PAH contamination, and the results of these analyses were published in October 2015 (Z. Zelinkova and T. Wenzyl, Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 32: 1914-1926, 2015).

[In case you, like me, were wondering what propolis is, it is a resin like substance that bees use as a glue to hold their hives together. WebMD states that it may have some use as a topical agent for cold sores, genital herpes, and after mouth surgery, but that any other uses are unproven. However, if you visit websites for propolis products you find it in capsules and liquids for internal consumption. You are told that it cures bacterial and fungal infections, cures viral infections like AIDs, cures cancer, and removes warts.]

The results of their analysis were pretty scary:

  • 72% of the supplements tested exceeded EU limits for the four most common PAH contaminants, and 52% exceeded EU limits for benzo[a]pyrene.
  • Propolis and spirulina were the most heavily contaminated supplements. Valerian and St. John’s Wort had moderately high levels of contamination, and some samples of bee pollen, sea buckthorn oil, barley greens, Echinacea, and Ginko far exceeded EU standards.
  • If consumers took the recommended dosage of the two most contaminated products (Premium Spirulina and Propolis Intense) they would more than double their daily intake of PAHs and far exceed what the IARC considers safe.
  • Fish oils generally had low levels of PAH contamination. The authors speculated this may be because fish have the ability to metabolize PAHs. However, other edible oils, particularly sea buckthorn oil and a mixture of garlic oil with soybean and sunflower oils did exhibit significant PAH contamination. The authors speculated that this PAH contamination may have been introduced during the processing of these oils.

Why The PAH and Contamination Problem Is Worse Than You Thought

worseYou might be thinking what could be worse than 72% of supplements being contaminated with cancer causing PAHs? Here is some food for thought.

  • PAHs are just the tip of the iceberg. Many supplements are also contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals. For example:
  • Fish oil is often contaminated PCBs.
  • Rice protein and other rice-derived ingredients are often contaminated with lead and/or mercury.
  • The US regulates PAHs in our water supply, but does not currently regulate PAHs in our supplements. That means that manufacturers that make products primarily for consumption in the US have no incentive to test their products for PAH contamination. Most of them have no idea whether their products are safe or not.
  • There is no guarantee that even products labeled Certified Organic and Non-GMO are free of PAH contamination. For example:
  • Organic certification just means that the crop was raised using organic methods. No analysis of purity is required to assure that the crop had not been inadvertently contaminated. The same is true of non-GMO certification. No analysis of purity is required.
  • Organically grown, non-GMOcrops that are used as ingredients for supplements can still be contaminated if the air, soil or water is contaminated from any nearby pollution source. For example, ground water pollution is the major source of the heavy metal contamination often seen in rice-derived ingredients.
  • Organically grown, non-GMO crops can even become contaminated by PAHs if they are grown next to a busy highway.
  • Even if the ingredients are pure to begin with, PAH contamination can be introduced during processing.

What does all of this mean to us? It means that it is absolutely imperative that we do our due diligence and only choose supplement manufacturers whose quality control standards far exceed what is required of the industry. Our health just may depend on it.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • A recent study has reported that 72% of herbal and botanical supplements, fish and edible oil food supplements, and supplements derived from bees sold in the EU were contaminated with high levels of cancer causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
  • The levels of PAHs in many of these products far exceeded standards recently enacted by the EU. If those supplements were taken as recommended, the daily intake of PAHs by people consuming them would also far exceed the safe limits of exposure to these toxic chemicals set in place by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
  • While all of this sounds bad enough, the news is even worse for most of us living in the US.
  • PAHs are just the tip of the iceberg. Many supplements are also contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals.
  • The US regulates PAHs in our water supply, but does not currently regulate PAHs in our supplements. That means that manufacturers that make products primarily for consumption in the US have no incentive to test their products for PAH contamination. Most of them have no idea whether their products are safe or not.
  • There is no guarantee that even products labeled Certified Organic and Non-GMO are free of PAH contamination.
  • What does all of this mean to us? It means that it is absolutely imperative that we do our due diligence and only choose supplements manufacturers whose quality control standards far exceed what is required of the industry. Our health just may depend on it.  Remember, PAHs are not the only potential problem.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Can Supplementation Improve Teen Behavior?

by

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

can supplementation improve teen behaviorAll teenagers can be a handful at times. Experts tell us that their raging hormones are to blame, but could their junk food diets play a role as well? If so, would something as simple as supplementation improve teen behavior?

This has been a controversial issue, with some studies saying yes and other studies saying no. With that in mind I thought I would share a recent study that concludes supplementation may improve behavior in teens. While this one study will not resolve the controversy, it does provide some insight into why the results of previous studies have been so contradictory.

Can Supplementation Improve Teen Behavior?

This study (Tammam et al, British Journal of Nutrition, 115: 361-373, 2016) enrolled 196 healthy teens aged 13-16 from a large public school in London. The school was located in an economically depressed area of London where a large proportion of the adults were out of work and had no formal education. Many of the children attending that school had adverse home environments and poor nutrition.

This is an important point. The scientists running the study had specifically chosen a teenage school population that was likely to have poor nutritional status. This poor nutritional status was confirmed by blood samples taken at the beginning of the study which showed the teens were low in iron, folate, vitamin D, vitamin C and omega-3 fatty acids – all of which are important for brain health.

teen behvaviorThe students were given either a comprehensive multivitamin plus 541 mg of omega-3 fatty acids (containing 165 mg EPA and 116 mg DHA) or matched placebos for one school term (12 weeks). The study was fully blinded in that neither the students nor their teachers knew who had received the supplements and who had received the placebo.

Blood test taken at the end of the study showed that students taking the supplements had significantly higher blood levels of folate, vitamin C, vitamin D, and omega-3 fatty acids (iron levels remained unchanged) while those nutrient levels were unchanged in the placebo group.

Teachers rated the student’s behavior using the Connors Clinical Index Teacher Rating Scale before the study began and again during the last week of the study. The results were clear cut. Behavior improved in the group receiving the supplements and worsened in the group receiving the placebo.

The researchers also looked at disciplinary infringement logs (you can think of those as disciplinary problems severe enough to send the kids to the principal’s office), but the number of disciplinary incidents per child were too low to draw any statistically significant conclusions.

Why Are Supplementation and Teen Behavior Studies So Contradictory?

diet and behaviorAs I said at the beginning of this article, previous nutritional intervention trials looking at teen behavior problems have been conflicting. Some, like this study, have shown a clear benefit of supplementation on teenage behavior. Others have shown no benefit at all.

Most experts tend to treat all studies on a particular topic as equal. They throw all of the studies into a statistical pot and look at the average effect. When studies are contradictory, as is the case for studies looking at the effect of supplementation on teenage behavior, the positive and negative studies cancel each other out and the net effect is often close to zero. When that happens experts generally consider the intervention as “unproven”.

That is a valid approach, but I also like to look for patterns. I like to ask why the studies have come to such contradictory conclusions.

When you evaluate the studies on supplementation and teenage behavior carefully, a pattern starts to emerge. If most of the teenagers in the study have poor nutritional status or have severe behavior problems (such as teenagers in prison), the studies generally show a benefit of supplementation. If most of the teens in the study have good nutritional status at the beginning of the study, the results of supplementation are very difficult to detect. Similarly, if most of the teens in the study are well behaved to begin with, supplementation appears to have little effect.

What Does This Mean For Your Teenager(s)?

The causes of teenage behavior problems are many. Poor nutrition may play a significant role, but genetics, hormones, home environment and school environment are important as well. However, teen eating habits are often less than ideal. If you have a teenager with behavior problems and poor eating habits, supplementation is an inexpensive intervention that may just contribute to better behavior.   So, can supplementation improve teen behavior?  Maybe.

 

The Bottom Line

  • The study was performed in an economically depressed school district where many children suffered from poor nutritional status. Blood test taken at the beginning of the study showed that the students were low in iron, folate, vitamin C, vitamin D, and omega-3 fatty acids. Blood tests taken at the end of the study showed improved nutritional status for every nutrient except iron in the group taking supplements.
  • When you combine this study with previous studies, a pattern emerges.  If most of the teenagers in the study have poor nutritional status or have severe behavior problems (such as teenagers in prison), the studies generally show a benefit of supplementation. If most of the teens in the study have good nutritional status at the beginning of the study, the results of supplementation are difficult to detect. Similarly, if most of the teens in the study are well behaved to begin with, supplementation appears to have little effect.
  • What does all of this mean to the general public? Nutritional status is just one component of teenage behavior. Hormones, genetics, home environment and school environment are important as well. However, teen eating habits are often less than ideal. If you have a teenager with behavior problems and poor eating habits, supplementation is an inexpensive intervention that may just contribute to better behavior.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

8 Tips on How to Eat Less

by

Avoid Mindless Eating

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Weight loss season is just around the corner. In just a few days you will probably be making your New Year’s resolutions, and weight loss will probably be near the top of the list. You may be considering the latest new diet fad – never mind that you’ve tried lots of diets in the past and have always regained the weight you lost.

What if you could learn just a few tricks that would help you discover how to eat less every day? Would that be of interest to you? Do you think it might help you lose some weight and keep it off?

This week I’m going to share 8 tips for eating less every single day from Professor Brian Wansink of Cornell University. He is Director of their Food and Brand Lab. He has devoted his career to studying how external clues influence our eating patterns. He is the author of the best-selling books “Mindless Eating” and “Slim by Design”. He is the world expert on this topic.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a seminar he gave. Here’s a quick summary of what I learned.

8 Tips on How to Eat Less 

Tip #1: The Size Of The Container Matters

how to eat lessIn one of his research studies he gave moviegoers who had just eaten dinner either a big bag or a small bag of stale popcorn. Those given the big bag ate 34% more. Think about that for a minute. The subjects in his study weren’t hungry. They had just eaten dinner. The popcorn wasn’t particularly tasty. It was stale. Yet they ate 34% more based solely on the size of the bag!

The take home lesson is always to choose the smallest container when given a choice. This is also why you want to serve your meals on small plates and drink your beverages in small glasses or cups. If you want to snack while you watch TV, place your snack food in a very small container and store the rest out of sight.

Tip #2:Don’t Fall For Marketing Hype

He was asked to consult for a cafeteria serving health food because they weren’t attracting enough customers. He just advised them to change the names of their menu items (e.g. “Succulent Tuscany Pasta” instead of “Italian Pasta”). Sales increased by 27%.

The take home lesson is not to fall for the marketing hype. Restaurants and food manufacturers know all the tricks. They know how to make even ordinary foods sound delicious. Make your food choices based on the ingredients of the food, not on the marketing description.

Tip #3: Make Junk Food Inconvenient

avoid overeatingIn another study he put clear glass dishes of candy either on a secretary’s desk or 6 feet away on a cabinet. The secretaries consumed 125 more calories/day from candy when it was on their desk. Think about that for a minute. 125 excess calories/day could amount to around one pound of weight gain/month, 12 pound/year, 60 pounds every 5 years, and a whopping 120 pounds over 10 years!

The take home lesson is to make high calorie snacks and junk foods inconvenient. Put them in the back of your refrigerator, on the top shelf of your cabinets, or other out of the way places. Even better, don’t bring them home in the first place.

Tip #4: Watch The Refills.

When he used a refillable soup bowl (it never goes below half full) people ate 73% more soup than those given a regular bowl of soup. When he asked the people with the refillable bowl if they were full, they replied “How could I be? I only ate half a bowl of soup”.

Of course, most of us will never experience a refillable soup bowl. However, if you are having a meal with friends and enjoying the conversation, it is easy to ignore the refills – either from your waiter at a restaurant or your favorite aunt at a family gathering.

Tip #5: Low Fat Doesn’t Mean “Eat More”

lowfatWhen he took a batch of trail mix and labeled some as “low fat” and some as “regular” people ate 21% to 46% more calories of the “low fat” trail mix. This was not an idle exercise. In fact, many low fat foods aren’t low calorie, but people assume that they are and use that as an excuse to eat more.

The take home lesson is to not assume you can eat more just because a food is labeled low fat, gluten free or some other healthy sounding description. In many cases, it has just as many calories as the full fat version. Even if it is, in fact, lower in calories, the only way you benefit from the reduced calories is when you consume the same portion size as you would for the full fat food it replaces.

Tip #6: Health Foods Are Not Necessarily Healthy

When he showed people an Italian sandwich and told them that it was from either “Jim’s Hearty Sandwich Shop” or from “Good Karma Healthy Foods”, people estimated the calories as 24% lower if they thought it came from Good Karma.

The take home lesson is that health foods are not necessarily healthier. Food manufactures know that health food is in, and they market their products accordingly. If you walk down the aisles of your favorite health food store, you will find foods that are just as high in sugar, fat and calories as the junk food you can buy at the convenience store down the street. They may contain “natural” fats and sugars, but those have just as many calories as the “unhealthy” fats and sugars in the junk foods. You still need to read labels and choose unprocessed fruits, vegetables and whole grains whenever possible.

Tip #7: Don’t Call It Exercise

make exercise funWhen he took students on a walk around a lake before dinner, they ate more calories at dinner if they were told that it was an exercise walk than if they were told that it was a sight-seeing walk – and most of the extra calories came from dessert. Think about that for a minute. It is a human tendency to reward ourselves for virtuous behavior, but when that reward involves eating, it becomes self-defeating.

The take home lesson is two-fold.

  • Reframe our virtuous behavior. If we call it exercise or a work-out, it implies that we have done something virtuous and deserve a reward. If we call it a nature walk or think of it as a sport, it becomes its own reward. If we think of substituting a salad for a dinner of fried chicken and mashed potatoes with gravy as virtuous behavior, we may think we deserve a dessert as a reward. If we think of the salad as a gourmet experience, it can become a reward in its own right.
  • Rethink our rewards. The reward doesn’t need to be food related. It could involve reading a book, watching a show, or whatever you favorite activity might be.

Tip #8: Knowing This Stuff Isn’t Enough.

The fascinating thing is that his research shows it doesn’t matter how intelligent or well informed you are.

He did a study with 60 graduate students. Just before winter break, he gave them a lecture on external eating cues in which he specifically told them that they would eat more from a big bowl of Chex Mix than from a small bowl. The students then spent 90 minutes in small group exercises designed to show them how to overcome external eating cues.

After winter break he invited those same students to a Super Bowl party in which he divided them into two rooms and gave them, you guessed it, either large or small bowls of Chex Mix. The ones given the large bowls ate 53% more!

He later gave the same lecture to a meeting of The American Diabetes Association (Those are the experts) and then repeated the same experiment with them – and they still ate more from the large bowls.

How Can You Avoid Mindless Eating?

Dr. Wansink’s research clearly shows that overeating is mindlessly dependent on external eating cues, AND that you can’t avoid being influenced by those external clues even if you are intelligent and motivated! How to eat less?

Dr. Wansink recommends planning ahead. For example:

  • Serve your food on small plates and don’t leave food lying around where you can see it or get to it easily.
  • If you bring home a box or bag of snack food (hopefully healthy snack food), divide it up into healthy portion sizes as soon as you bring it home.
  • Put the healthy food choices in the front of your refrigerator or cupboard where you will see them easily and hide the unhealthy foods in the back (or don’t bring them home to begin with).

However, the most important thing is to realize most of this behavior is mindless. It is not enough to simply understand these external eating cues at an intellectual level. We need to be constantly vigilant for external eating cues, or we will find ourselves overeating without really understanding why.

Hopefully, these tips will help you eat less and attain a healthier weight next year than you did this year. However, these 8 tips are just the tip of the iceberg. If this article has piqued your interest and you’d like to learn more, I recommend you read one of Dr. Wansink’s books.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • Brian Wansink’s research has shown that overeating, to a large extent, is mindlessly dependent on external eating cues, and that you can’t necessarily avoid being influenced by those external clues even if you are intelligent and motivated!
  • I have distilled his research into 8 simple tips to help you eat less and attain a healthier weight next year than you did this year.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Are Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?

by

Is Chemical Brain Drain A Pandemic?

 Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In a past issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I examined the evidence suggesting that toxic chemicals in the home could cause childhood asthma. That is alarming because asthma can predispose individuals to other diseases and affects quality of life.

Confused ChildBut, what if that were only the tip of the iceberg? For example, a recent headline stated: “More Toxic Chemicals [In Our Environment] Are Damaging Children’s Brains”. If that headline is true, it’s downright scary.

The authors of this study suggested that toxic chemicals which are abundant in our environment can cause decreases in IQ and aggressive or hyperactive behavior in children – and that those changes may be permanent.

The Study Behind The Headlines

The paper that generated the headlines (Grandjean & Landrigan, The Lancet Neurology, 13: 330-338, 2014) was a review of the literature, not an actual clinical study.

Based on published clinical studies, the authors identified 12 chemicals commonly found in the environment as developmental neurotoxins (toxins that interfere with normal brain development) based. [If you would like to find out what those “Dirty Dozen” chemicals are and where they are found, click here.]

This finding compares with 6 developmental neurotoxins that they were able to identify in a similar study in 2006.

The authors were not claiming that the number or amount of toxic chemicals changed between 2006 and 2014. They were saying that science has advanced to the point where we can classify six more chemicals that have been in our environment for years as developmental neurotoxins.

Even more worrisome, the authors postulate that many more environmental neurotoxins remain undiscovered.

Are Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?

To answer that question, you need to look at some of the studies they cited in their review. For example:

  • Elevated blood lead levels in children are associated with as much as a 7 point decrease in IQ (Lamphear et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113: 894-899, 2005).
  • Elevated fluoride levels in drinking water are also associated with as much as a 7 point decrease in IQ (Choi et al, Environmental Health Perspectives, 120: 1362-1368, 2012).

The effects of many of the toxic chemicals on IQ were difficult to quantify, but the authors estimated that exposure of US children to just 3 of the chemicals (lead, methymercury and organophosphate pesticides) was sufficient to lower their average IQ by 1.6 points.

What Are The Potential Consequences?

The authors spoke of the environmental neurotoxins they identified as representing a “silent pandemic of a chemical brain drain” that could cost the US economy billions of dollars.

One of the blog posts I read on this topic summarized the consequences in a very graphic manner. It said:

If one child’s IQ is reduced by 5 points, it doesn’t appear to make a big difference.  For example, that child might be:

  • A little slower to learn
  • A little shorter of attention
  • A little less successful at tests and at work

That might result in $90,000 in lost lifetime earnings

However, if the average IQ of every child in the US were decreased by 5 points, the effect becomes significant:

  • Only half as many members of the next generation would be “intellectually gifted”.
  • Twice as many of the next generation would be “intellectually impaired”
  • Lost productivity could be in the billions

Of course, statements like that are a bit over the top. Drs. Grandjean and Landrigan did not claim that the net effect of the chemicals they identified was a 5 point drop in IQ. Nor did they claim that all US children were affected equally.

Still, it’s enough to make you think.

Are Toxic Chemicals Causing Behavior Problems?

Angry boy portraitThe authors cited numerous studies linking the chemical neurotoxins they identified to aggression and hyperactivity. But perhaps the most compelling reason to suspect that environmental chemicals may be affecting brain development is the spiraling incidence of developmental disorders such as autism and ADHD. For example:

  • Autism has increased by 78% since 2007 and now affects 1 of 88 eight year old children.
  • ADHD has increased by 43% since 2003 and now affects 11% of children age 4-17.

Some of this increase could be due to better diagnosis of these conditions, but nobody believes that all of it is due to improved diagnosis. The authors claim that much of this increase is likely due to environmental exposure to the kinds of developmental neurotoxins they identified.

Is The Science Solid?

This is a difficult area of research. You can’t do the gold standard double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Nobody in their right mind would give one group of children toxic chemicals and the other group a placebo.

The studies cited in this paper were mostly population studies. Basically this means that they compared children with exposure to certain toxic chemicals to a control group that was as similar as possible to the first group except that their exposure to the toxic chemicals was less.

The limitation of this kind of study is obvious. We are usually comparing children from different locations or of different backgrounds. We almost never know if we have controlled for all possible variables so that the groups are truly identical.

As a consequence it becomes important to ask how many studies come to the same conclusion. For some of the toxic chemicals, such as lead, methymercury and organophosphate pesticides, the weight of evidence is very strong. For some of the newer additions to their list of developmental neurotoxins, it is pretty clear that the chemicals have neurotoxic properties, but the significance of those effects on the developing human brain are hard to quantify at this point.

The Bottom Line:

1)     A recent review claims that there is a good scientific basis for classifying at least 12 environmental chemicals as developmental neurotoxins that are likely to reduce IQ and contribute to behavioral problems in US children. [If you would like to find out what those “Dirty Dozen” chemicals are and where they are found, click here.]

2)     The science behind the claims in this review is solid, but not iron-clad.

3)     However, there are times when we need to simply ask ourselves: “What if it were true?” The consequences of lowered IQ and developmental behavioral problems are so significant that it may not make sense to wait until we have unassailable scientific evidence before we act.

4)     We all need to be guardians of our personal environment. But, it is not easy. The “Dirty Dozen” chemicals identified in this study come from many sources:

  • Some are industrial pollutants. For those, we need lobby for better environmental regulation.
  • Some are persistent groundwater contaminants. For those we need to drink purified water whenever possible.
  • Some are insecticides and herbicides used in agriculture. For those we need to buy organic, locally grown produce when feasible.
  • Some are found in common household products and furnishings. For those we need to become educated label readers and use non-toxic products in our home whenever possible.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

The Dirty Dozen

by

Environmental Toxins That Affect Brain Development

 Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 In a recent review, Drs. Grandjean and Landrigan (The Lancet Neurology, 13: 330-338, 2014) identified 12 toxic chemicals which are abundant in our environment and are developmental neurotoxins.

These are all chemicals that damage brain development. They can cause decreases in IQ and aggressive or hyperactive behavior in children – and that those changes may be permanent.

Let’s look at these developmental neurotoxins and where they are found.

The Dirty Dozen

In their review Grandjean & Landrigan identified 6 developmental neurotoxins that were known in 2006, and 6 more chemicals that have been confirmed to be developmental neurotoxins between 2006 and 2023.

Developmental Neurotoxins Known in 2006 and their sources:

  • Lead
    • Main Sources: paint, gasoline, solder and consumer products such as toys & jewelry
    • Current status: Lead has been banned in paint since 1978 and from gasoline since 1996. Millions of houses still contain lead paint. Other current sources are inexpensive toys and costume jewelry imported from China and other countries without tight regulations.
    • The EPA estimates that 1 million children in the US are affected by elevated lead levels.
  • Methylmercury
    • Main Sources: discharges into air & water from coal-burning power plants, mining, pulp & paper industries.
  • Polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
    • Main Sources: transformers and many commercial products
    • Current status: Banned in 1979, but continues to be a common environmental contaminant because this group of chemicals is very long-lived.
  • Arsenic:
    • Main Sources: extraction of metals from rock (smelting), algaecides, herbicides, pesticides and pressure-treated wood.
    • Current status: Pressure treated wood banned in 2003 for residential use. Still found in some playgrounds and older buildings.
  • Toluene:
    • Main Sources: gasoline. It is also a solvent for paints, paint thinners, spot removers, adhesives, antifreeze, & some consumer products like fingernail polish removers.
    • Current status: Common in consumer products. Read labels and make sure windows are open if you use.

Developmental Neurotoxins Identified Since 2006 and their sources:

  • Manganese
    • Main Sources: municipal wastewater discharge, emissions generated during alloy, steel & iron production, emissions from burning of fuel additives
  • Flouride
    • Main Sources: naturally elevated in groundwater in certain regions, added to municipal water supply, most bottled beverages and toothpaste.
    • The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that children drinking fluoridated water, fluoridated beverages, using fluoridated toothpaste and receiving fluoride treatments for their teeth may be receiving excess fluoride.
  • Chlorpyrifos
    • Main Sources: insecticide
    • Current status: Banned for use in homes in 2001. Still one of the most widely used insecticides in agriculture.
  • DDT
    • Main Sources: insecticide
    • Current status: Banned for use in this country in 1972. DDT and its breakdown products still found in our water supply. DDT still in use in agriculture and insect control in some countries.
  • Trichloroethylene (TCE)
    • Main Sources: widely used in dry cleaning fabrics, the textile industry and metal degreasing
    • Current status: Found in groundwater due to discharge from factories and dry cleaners.
  • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
    • Main Sources: flame retardants – used in building materials, electronics, mattresses & household furniture, plastics, polyurethane foams & textiles.
    • Current status: Readily leached into the environment. Found in dust, water, food & human breast milk

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

Does Cell Phone Use Lead to Brain Cancer?

by

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

Does Cell Phone Use Lead To CancerThere are currently close to 6 billion cell phone subscriptions worldwide, and increased usage of cell phones has understandably led to a greater level of interest in how safe they are.

The main concern for our health is that mobile phones emit and receive electromagnetic radiation as a result of their need to communicate with relay towers, and some of this radiation is absorbed by the head when the phone is held up to the ear.

Whether or not the radiation (both the amount and the frequency) that a typical mobile phone user is likely to receive is potentially damaging to their health has been the subject of debate for some time.

Does Cell Phone Use Lead to Brain Cancer?

Anecdotal evidence that high mobile phone use can potentially lead to brain cancer is not hard to find. Newspapers and other media sources are only too ready to run such stories.

However, given that there are so many people using mobile communication so regularly, the chances are that someone is going to have a brain tumor at some point, whether or not there is any link with the amount of time they spend on their phone.

The obvious question is whether or not there is good reason to be concerned over how and how much you use your phone.

The Evidence Against Cell Phone Usage Leading To Brain Cancer

The most recent assessment of the scientific evidence of mobile phone safety was carried out by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging And Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). They concluded that mobile phone usage was unlikely to increase the risk of developing brain tumors.

The most recent results from a long-term study by researchers from the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology at the Danish Cancer Society in Denmark also failed to find any link between mobile phone usage and the development of brain tumors or any other cancers of the nervous system.

This study was particularly significant in that it used most of the Danish population to determine if there was any difference in the incidence of brain cancer between mobile phone users and non-mobile phone users. Unsurprisingly, this work has been quoted frequently, especially by cell phone companies, as evidence that their products have now been given a completely clean bill of health.

The Evidence For Cell Phone Usage Leading To Brain Cancer

In contrast to the previous results, the conclusion of a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the subject suggested that while no overall link was found between two kinds of brain tumor and mobile phone usage, the data did point to a possible increase in the development of glioma-type tumors in the most intensive users

The authors also pointed out that since the new generations of smart phones are being used for even greater periods of time, especially by younger people, further and ongoing studies in this area are definitely merited.

In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified mobile phone radiation as “potentially carcinogenic to humans.” Following from this, many countries have adopted a precautionary approach and suggested moderation in cell phone usage. Using a hands-free kit to avoid holding a phone next to your head has also been advised.

While the available evidence suggests that low and normal usage of a mobile phone does not increase your risk of developing a brain tumor, it is probably wise to reduce your exposure to electromagnetic radiation as much as you can, and certainly to avoid spending long periods of the day with a phone next to your ear.

The Bottom Line:

  • The link between cell phone use and brain cancer is inconclusive at present. Most studies find no overall link, but suggest that certain types of brain cancers could be associated with cell phone use.
  • Experts recommend not holding cell phones next to your head for long periods of time.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Should GMO Labeling Be Required For All Food Ingredients?

by

When Is GMO Not GMO?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

GMO-freeI’m probably going to get lots of hate mail for this week’s “Health Tips from the Professor” because I’m finally going to tackle the GMO controversy.

You see, the GMO controversy is very much like Washington politics. On one side of the aisle, you have the people who are absolutely convinced that anything GMO is terrible. On the other side of the aisle, you have people who are absolutely convinced that there are no problems with GMO foods. And both sides are convinced that their opponents have absolutely nothing of intelligence to say on the topic.

So almost anything I say about GMO is bound to offend somebody. But nobody ever accused me of being timid, so let’s get started.

What Are The Health Risks Of Genetically Modified Foods?

I’m going to start with the supposed health risks of GMO foods because that’s my area of greatest expertise, and I’m going to evaluate those health risks from the viewpoint of a card-carrying biochemist. I’ve seen the scary pictures and alarming statements posted on many anti-GMO web sites, but objective evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful to humans is underwhelming at present.

Modifications to DNA And Health Risks

Let’s start at the beginning. Genetic modification occurs in the DNA, and on that basis GMO foods have some potential, but yet unproven, risks. Let me give you an example:

  • Some genetically modified foods carry genes for naturally occurring pesticides so that if bugs try to eat the leaves of those plants they will die.
  • When we eat foods occasionally small pieces of their DNA will find their way into our intestinal track.
  • We have bacteria in our intestinal tracts that excel at picking up small pieces of DNA and inserting them into their genome.
  • So it is theoretically possible that those bacteria might start producing in our intestines the same pesticides produced by the genetically modified foods we ate.

It is an interesting idea, but to my knowledge one that has not yet been shown to have actually occurred in a human being.

Modifications to Proteins And Health Risks

A more likely risk comes from the proteins contained in genetically modified foods:

  • Genetic modifications in the DNA result in the production of modified proteins, so GMO foods, GMO protein powders and foods made from GMO protein sources can be a source of unsuspected food allergies.
  • Unfortunately, food allergies, especially those from genetically modified protein sources, are very difficult to quantify, so we have no good data on how big a problem this actually is.

However, it would be very surprising if there weren’t some individuals with food allergies to genetically modified proteins.

When Is GMO Not GMO?

Many of the GMO opponents take it one step further and want to label as GMO any food or supplement that contains any ingredient made from a genetically modified food. This is where the science is clearly on the other side of the aisle. With respect to purified sugars, purified oils, vitamins and other purified nutrients obtained from foods there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO because these purified nutrients contain neither DNA nor protein.

 Should GMO Labeling Be Required For All Food Ingredients?

For the most part, it isn’t even possible for most manufacturers to produce foods or supplements with all non-GMO ingredients. When the whole GMO issue first entered public awareness the food industry was guided by the science. It made good business sense for them to create a capacity, a pipeline if you will, to make sure that non-GMO protein sources were available to meet the market demand for companies that wanted to make non-GMO protein products for this new GMO-adverse market.

But, nobody anticipated the emotional demand for non-GMO sugars, oils and the like. There was no scientific basis for that demand, so none of the suppliers created the capacity to meet that demand. Currently there is only enough of those kinds of non-GMO ingredients to meet the needs of the bit players in the market. There simply aren’t enough of those ingredients to satisfy the requirements of any manufacturer who deals in the mass market. That, for example, is the reason big players in the market lobbied against the recent California and Washington State propositions that would have required a food product to be labeled GMO if any ingredient in the food was GMO.

Genetically Modified Foods And The Environment

Now that I have managed to alienate almost everyone, I should point out that there are some non-health issues around GMO foods.

  • The biggest issue is that many of the genetically modified foods contain modifications that make them resistant to herbicides, and that encourages overuse of those herbicides with the resultant pollution of air, soil, and water.
  • Another concern is that the increasing reliance on genetically modified food crops is leading to a decrease in the genetic diversity of those crops, which could make them more susceptible to a new virus or pest in the future. This is a theoretical concern, but there is historical precedence for believing that it could happen.
  • Finally, laws that prevent subsistent farmers from saving their own seed for next season’s planting is a major concern in Third World countries. But, that is more an issue of corporate greed than it is of genetic modification.

The Bottom Line:

What is the take-home lesson for you?

From a health perspective:

  • Genetically modified proteins are likely to be a food allergy risk for some people, but we have no good data on how many people are affected by this kind of food allergy
  • Genetically modified DNA is a theoretical concern because of the ability of intestinal bacteria to pick up pieces of DNA, but we have no evidence at present that this has actually ever caused a problem in people.
  • With respect to sugars, oils, and other nutrients extracted from foods it makes no difference whether the food was GMO or non-GMO

From an environmental perspective:

  • Genetic modifications leading to herbicide resistance are a significant environmental concern because it encourages overuse of herbicides.
  • Lack of genetic diversity from the overuse of GMO food crops is a theoretical concern, but one with historical precedence.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Household Cleaners And Asthma: Is There A Link?

by

Do Toxic Homes Cause Asthma?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

AsthmaEverybody is going green. Biodegradable cleaners are finally in fashion. But did you realize that many of the cleaners that you buy in the supermarket – and some of the biodegradable cleaners that you buy in the health food store – release toxic fumes in your home that can adversely affect the health of you and your children?

For this week’s story, I’m going to focus on just one aspect of this topic – household chemical exposure and childhood asthma.

Let me start with a bit of background information: The prevalence of childhood asthma increased 74% between 1980 and 1994 and has continued to increase in the years since.

The causes of this rapid increase in asthma prevalence are likely to be complex, but evidence has accumulated in recent years that some of the increase may be caused by early exposure to toxic chemical fumes in the home.

Are household cleaners becoming more toxic?

The American consumer keeps demanding cleaners that work better. It’s considered a big plus if they require no effort and are easy to use. Don’t bother with messy liquids and pastes – just spray it on. And manufacturers have been willing to oblige by adding ever more exotic chemicals to household cleaners and putting them in aerosol spray cans. And of course no one opens their windows any more. That would be wasting energy and contributing to global warming.

The result is that these toxic chemicals accumulate in the air that we breathe in our own homes. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the air inside our homes is often more polluted than in Los Angeles or New York on a smoggy day.

What do the studies show?

A number of studies have pointed to an association between these toxic household fumes and childhood asthma, but I’d like to focus on one particularly good study on this topic that was published recently in the European Respiratory Journal (31: 547-554, 2008).

This study measured the household chemical exposure of 7,162 pregnant women in England and looked at the incidence of asthma in their children at age 8.5 years. A maternal composite household chemical exposure (CHCE) score was derived by measuring the pregnant mother’s exposure to a number of common household products known to contain toxic chemicals.

The household products used most frequently were disinfectants (87.4%), bleach (84.8%), aerosols (71.7%), air fresheners (68%), window cleaners (60.5%), carpet cleaners (35.3%) and pesticides/insecticides (21.2%). (For information on the toxic chemicals in these and other common household products visit: http://www.householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/products.htm)

Asthma was quantified based on persistent wheezing (reported by the parents) and several lung function tests that were administered at age 8.5 years. To make sure that the asthma was not caused by simple allergies the children were also given a skin prick test against a panel of 6 common childhood allergens (house dust mites, cats, mixed grass, mixed nuts, peanuts and milk). The study also controlled for confounding variables such as exposure to tobacco smoke, damp housing, pets in the home and maternal history of asthma. In short, this was a very large and particularly well controlled study.

And the results were clear. Higher household chemical exposure during pregnancy was associated with a 41% increase in childhood asthma in children with no known allergies.

The Bottom Line:

What does that mean to you and me? It means that it is not enough to select household cleaners that are safe for the environment. We also need to select products that we use in our homes on the basis of their safety for us and our family – not just on the basis of cost and convenience.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Health Tips From The Professor