I was about to reference my older posts where I discussed pesticides, but then I realized how many there were. I've talked about this a lot, and it's really obvious to some extent, but I am still amazing how many people have no real concern about pesticides. Few people remotely consider this when popping huge juicy conventionally grown strawberries in their mouth (one of the most heavily sprayed crops out there).
Now a new study that made the front page of cnn.com today discusses the link between pesticides and ADHD. While scientists cannot exactly find a cause and effect connection, studies are showing that higher amounts of pesticide by-products in children essentially doubles their risk of ADHD. As studies consistently show and as I have consistently written here, everything is worse the smaller you are. When you give something unhealthy to an adult (pesticides, chemicals, etc.) to a child or god forbid an infant, the effects are dramatically worse. It is clear from studies that children who consume conventionally grown fruits and vegetables have far higher levels of pesticide and chemical residue in their systems. We are only figuring out all the harms these cause.
All you can do is to try and eat organic fruits and vegetables whenever possible, wash your fruits and vegetables fully regardless, and to the extent you can eat some but not all organic, prioritize your purchases as I've previously written about here. And if you have growing children, their consumption is far more of a concern than yours. Additionally, farmers markets are already opening across the country. You can ask the farmers about their pesticide use. Some are organic, others are essentially organic but not certified as such, others use limited pesticides on some products, and others are really no different than any other conventional farmer. In Chicago, the french market in the train station downtown offers organic fruits and vegetables that you can buy in bulk and take back to your office.
Showing posts with label pesticides. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pesticides. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Monday, December 7, 2009
The bigger picture
Anyone who knows me well knows I'm fairly obsessed with chemicals in general -- yes, in my food for sure, but also in my home (where I can also control them to an extent). I accept that we are exposed to a large amount of chemicals in the world that are mostly out of our control. You could avoid planes where the seats and interior is packed with fire retardant chemicals, or you could never eat or drink from plastic containers, but these become both impractical and somewhat pointless. Impractical because I live in a large city, work full time, and can't spend all my time trying to avoid every possible chemical. Somewhat pointless for two reasons: (1) most people agree that the actual chemicals we are exposed to are far less relevant that the amount and duration of exposure -- thus why it may make more sense to focus on where you really can reduce exposure, and (2) because you really can't avoid them regardless -- the best example is the polar bear. Polar bears have no real predators besides asshole humans, and they obviously live in some of the remotest areas of the world -- far from civilization, tourism, etc. Yet many chemicals have been found in polar bears from fire retardants to PCBs to pesticides. All of human origin.
As a recent NYT article a friend passed along points out, over 80,000 new chemicals have been developed since World War II. We are developing them far faster than we can test and fully appreciate their impact. What works is often not worth the cost. We are now realizing that these chemicals don't go away, they simply build up and up and up. Some never leave the body and others never leave the soil. Very smart people have come up with some pretty terrible solutions. Heroin was a pretty bad solution to cocain addiction.
What I try to do, just to throw it out there, is avoid chemicals in my home whenever possible. From floor cleaners to counter cleaners to bathroom cleaners to soap, shampoo, toothpaste, shaving cream, hair gel, dishwasher tablets, laundry products to air fresheners and on and on there are now excellent alternatives to virtually every home product. If you have a growing child or a pet, it is infinitely more important. I'm always amazed when I hear people talk about a pet having health problems or tumors and they never seem to consider that pets walk around on floors and counters and lick their paws. So do infants with their hands and feet.
The same NYT article discusses how 200 years ago girls started their period at 17 on average -- it's now 12. Most companies and government agencies would say there is no problem and no risk. But do we want to wait another 200 years and see our daughters begin menstrating at 8? Not only are chemicals insufficiently tested as to their impact on children, but they are far too often tested in isolation. Again, amount and duration of exposure is everything. The safety of a fire retardant in our mattress is irrelevant without factoring that many of us spend enough time on planes to throw those studies off considerably.
And we're realizing more often that what we do with something might matter. Most plastics are fairly safe, but some are less safe and almost all plastics become more dangerous when heated (microwave, dishwasher, etc.). Non-stick coatings are pretty safe, but when they start to get old or chipped they are not so safe at all.
The least we can do is control it in what we eat and in our homes. I find that drugstore.com has a great selection of natural products. Its one of the largest out there, and its reasonably priced. If you buy a decent amount shipping is free and you get money applied to your next order. There are a lot of new natural products out there. I've tried a ton that I love and a lot that I hate. Happy to recommend anything at all if asked.
As a recent NYT article a friend passed along points out, over 80,000 new chemicals have been developed since World War II. We are developing them far faster than we can test and fully appreciate their impact. What works is often not worth the cost. We are now realizing that these chemicals don't go away, they simply build up and up and up. Some never leave the body and others never leave the soil. Very smart people have come up with some pretty terrible solutions. Heroin was a pretty bad solution to cocain addiction.
What I try to do, just to throw it out there, is avoid chemicals in my home whenever possible. From floor cleaners to counter cleaners to bathroom cleaners to soap, shampoo, toothpaste, shaving cream, hair gel, dishwasher tablets, laundry products to air fresheners and on and on there are now excellent alternatives to virtually every home product. If you have a growing child or a pet, it is infinitely more important. I'm always amazed when I hear people talk about a pet having health problems or tumors and they never seem to consider that pets walk around on floors and counters and lick their paws. So do infants with their hands and feet.
The same NYT article discusses how 200 years ago girls started their period at 17 on average -- it's now 12. Most companies and government agencies would say there is no problem and no risk. But do we want to wait another 200 years and see our daughters begin menstrating at 8? Not only are chemicals insufficiently tested as to their impact on children, but they are far too often tested in isolation. Again, amount and duration of exposure is everything. The safety of a fire retardant in our mattress is irrelevant without factoring that many of us spend enough time on planes to throw those studies off considerably.
And we're realizing more often that what we do with something might matter. Most plastics are fairly safe, but some are less safe and almost all plastics become more dangerous when heated (microwave, dishwasher, etc.). Non-stick coatings are pretty safe, but when they start to get old or chipped they are not so safe at all.
The least we can do is control it in what we eat and in our homes. I find that drugstore.com has a great selection of natural products. Its one of the largest out there, and its reasonably priced. If you buy a decent amount shipping is free and you get money applied to your next order. There are a lot of new natural products out there. I've tried a ton that I love and a lot that I hate. Happy to recommend anything at all if asked.
Monday, June 22, 2009
What did your dinner eat for dinner and where did it live?
I often have to remind myself to focus on what my dinner ate for dinner or what my lunch had for lunch. This is of course another way of saying you are what you eat. But you are what you eat eats and here I'm not just talking about a cow or a chicken but also about a carrot and a stalk of wheat. And we are also all the products of our environment, so it is not surprising that our food is too. We are where our food comes from. So the two questions I try to ask myself before I put something in my mouth is: (1) what did it eat and (2) where did it come from? Most of the time, if you're eating the best you can eat (pastured meat, organic or fully pesticide-free produce, etc.) you don't have to worry about the second question. But short of that they both matter. Let's briefly look at this for an animal and a vegetable.
An easy example to start with is a cow. As we know, cows eat grass. Most of the cows we eat in America, however, eat corn. Often they also eat other cows and/or other animals. When you see that your cow at an all vegetarian diet you know what it ate for dinner: it ate corn and perhaps other grains. You also know what it did not eat: other cows (and probably grass). So at least your cow was a vegetarian. But it did not eat what it was designed to eat, so it will be less healthy and it will in turn be less healthy for you. We now know what it ate for dinner. But where did it come from? Did it live on a field or a feedlot (also known as a confined animal feeding operation or CAFO)? If it lived on a field it will be leaner and healthier on its own without the need for drugs and so forth. If it lived in a CAFO the meat will have antibiotics in it. How do you feel about taking unnecessary antibiotics? If you don't care then there is no issue.
The same is true of a dairy cow. If the cow ate grass the milk will be healthier as a cow's milk is the product of its diet no less than a mother's breast milk is the product of hers. If the cow did not eat an organic diet or was not eating grass, there's also a likelihood of it having been given growth hormones. Milk does a body good. Or does it?
Or take a vegetable. When it comes to a tomato, for example, if that tomato was grown in organic soil it ate the nutrients of soil as it was designed to do. If it isn't organic there is a good chance it was grown in soil with chemical-based fertilizers. This will feed the tomato like corn will feed a cow -- quicker, bigger but less healthy. So many studies have concluded that organic methods produce healthier produce that they are becoming difficult to ignore. Here's just one. And where did the tomato live? If it lived on a farm that did not use pesticides (or at least that only used plant-based pesticides) it had to develop its own defenses. This is kind of like the difference between growing up in the city and the suburbs. Were you being driven around in a Volvo when you were 14 or were you taking the subway by yourself? One toughens us up a bit more than the other. A tomato is no different. If it has to fend for itself it will develop defenses that have significant health benefits for anyone lucky enough to eat it.
I am confident that we will only continue to understand how dangerous it is to ignore these questions. What did your lunch eat for lunch? And where did it live? These are tough questions for most of us to answer even when we make our own food -- virtually impossible when we don't. But at least if we eat naturally we can avoid the third vital question: what has been done to it after it was killed? The moment the cow is slaughtered or the tomato is picked, there is a grave danger that it will be processed, preserved or otherwise messed with to make it loose its healthfulness, make it harder for your body to process, and make it the perfect vehicle to deliver unhealthy ingredients into your system. If we don't ask these we cannot possibly know what we are eating.
An easy example to start with is a cow. As we know, cows eat grass. Most of the cows we eat in America, however, eat corn. Often they also eat other cows and/or other animals. When you see that your cow at an all vegetarian diet you know what it ate for dinner: it ate corn and perhaps other grains. You also know what it did not eat: other cows (and probably grass). So at least your cow was a vegetarian. But it did not eat what it was designed to eat, so it will be less healthy and it will in turn be less healthy for you. We now know what it ate for dinner. But where did it come from? Did it live on a field or a feedlot (also known as a confined animal feeding operation or CAFO)? If it lived on a field it will be leaner and healthier on its own without the need for drugs and so forth. If it lived in a CAFO the meat will have antibiotics in it. How do you feel about taking unnecessary antibiotics? If you don't care then there is no issue.
The same is true of a dairy cow. If the cow ate grass the milk will be healthier as a cow's milk is the product of its diet no less than a mother's breast milk is the product of hers. If the cow did not eat an organic diet or was not eating grass, there's also a likelihood of it having been given growth hormones. Milk does a body good. Or does it?
Or take a vegetable. When it comes to a tomato, for example, if that tomato was grown in organic soil it ate the nutrients of soil as it was designed to do. If it isn't organic there is a good chance it was grown in soil with chemical-based fertilizers. This will feed the tomato like corn will feed a cow -- quicker, bigger but less healthy. So many studies have concluded that organic methods produce healthier produce that they are becoming difficult to ignore. Here's just one. And where did the tomato live? If it lived on a farm that did not use pesticides (or at least that only used plant-based pesticides) it had to develop its own defenses. This is kind of like the difference between growing up in the city and the suburbs. Were you being driven around in a Volvo when you were 14 or were you taking the subway by yourself? One toughens us up a bit more than the other. A tomato is no different. If it has to fend for itself it will develop defenses that have significant health benefits for anyone lucky enough to eat it.
I am confident that we will only continue to understand how dangerous it is to ignore these questions. What did your lunch eat for lunch? And where did it live? These are tough questions for most of us to answer even when we make our own food -- virtually impossible when we don't. But at least if we eat naturally we can avoid the third vital question: what has been done to it after it was killed? The moment the cow is slaughtered or the tomato is picked, there is a grave danger that it will be processed, preserved or otherwise messed with to make it loose its healthfulness, make it harder for your body to process, and make it the perfect vehicle to deliver unhealthy ingredients into your system. If we don't ask these we cannot possibly know what we are eating.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Blueberries are good for you? Oh my!
I remember about a year ago standing in the elevators of the Sears Tower (it's still called that) and reading the little TV when a nutrition update popped up: Blueberries Are Good For You. Apparently they are high in vitamins, antioxidants and help reduce aging, improve urinary tract function, and a host of other things. How remarkable! Next thing you know we'll find out that bananas and apples are good for you too. How dumb are we as a country that we fall for this? That we are suddenly convinced that we had no idea blueberries were healthy and that now we know. You would be irresponsible not to eat them now I suppose. People may not ordinarily eat a lot of blueberries. They are highly seasonal and expensive in season -- very expensive out of season. They spoil easily. So now more people eat blueberries. One can only wonder who paid of this study. (A note on blueberries and pesticides: blueberries are actually one of the less plasticized fruits -- particularly berries -- and therefore if you're going to buy some fruits organic but not all you might skimp on these and get some fresh ones from Michigan. This isn't to say I wouldn't recommend buying organic (see more here). Pesticides associated with blueberries include known carcinogens and have been linked to reproductive and developmental effects -- think of little Johnny. More on that here.)
The truth is, or course, that we know fruits and vegetables are good for you. We know they provide varied health benefits, and because we know this, the only recommendation that stands up is to eat them when we can and to vary our diet. (Again on pesticides, keep this in mind with fruit -- peaches and strawberries are the two worst. A quick list is here.)
Now you might say we need help with this because some foods are better for us then others. Well this isn't really true when it comes to fruits and vegetables. Let's take two quick examples: avocados and iceberg lettuce.
Avocados are humorous for being the focus of a short-lived diet encouraging people to focus on eating avocados. This was until people realized an average avocado has 30 grams of fat (by comparison, an average tomato has about 3/10ths of a gram). People then decided it's best to avoid avocados. But then we were told it's not that simple. The fat in an avocado is a GOOD fat. Okay, so we can eat them but not only them. It took a lot of science and a lot of time to come back to the obvious common sense approach -- eat fruits and vegetables when you can and eat a varied diet. I'll ignore for now that links between high saturated fat diets and health problems have pretty much been proven to be bogus. (Shocking, I know. More on that another day.)
Iceberg lettuce hasn't made avocados come back. I actually feel bad for him. Iceberg has no nutritional benefit, right? That's common knowledge now. Well it happens to be wrong. Iceberg contains high levels of fiber, iron, B6, K, A, C and others. Sure, a leaf of kale will kick its butt any day in a spectrogram but that's not the point. We know kale is great for you but how often do you eat it? The point is also not to sit here and lecture with food science. Quite the opposite -- to show that food science is bogus. If you think iceberg tastes good you'll likely eat more of it and you'll likely be healthier for it. As we all know, eating a varied diet of fruits and vegetables is the key to health. Who could dispute that? But allow ourselves to be tricked by media outlets flooding our senses with nonsense.
Just remember, iceberg isn't quite as healthy in the wedge salad where it's drowned in creamy dressing.
The truth is, or course, that we know fruits and vegetables are good for you. We know they provide varied health benefits, and because we know this, the only recommendation that stands up is to eat them when we can and to vary our diet. (Again on pesticides, keep this in mind with fruit -- peaches and strawberries are the two worst. A quick list is here.)
Now you might say we need help with this because some foods are better for us then others. Well this isn't really true when it comes to fruits and vegetables. Let's take two quick examples: avocados and iceberg lettuce.
Avocados are humorous for being the focus of a short-lived diet encouraging people to focus on eating avocados. This was until people realized an average avocado has 30 grams of fat (by comparison, an average tomato has about 3/10ths of a gram). People then decided it's best to avoid avocados. But then we were told it's not that simple. The fat in an avocado is a GOOD fat. Okay, so we can eat them but not only them. It took a lot of science and a lot of time to come back to the obvious common sense approach -- eat fruits and vegetables when you can and eat a varied diet. I'll ignore for now that links between high saturated fat diets and health problems have pretty much been proven to be bogus. (Shocking, I know. More on that another day.)
Iceberg lettuce hasn't made avocados come back. I actually feel bad for him. Iceberg has no nutritional benefit, right? That's common knowledge now. Well it happens to be wrong. Iceberg contains high levels of fiber, iron, B6, K, A, C and others. Sure, a leaf of kale will kick its butt any day in a spectrogram but that's not the point. We know kale is great for you but how often do you eat it? The point is also not to sit here and lecture with food science. Quite the opposite -- to show that food science is bogus. If you think iceberg tastes good you'll likely eat more of it and you'll likely be healthier for it. As we all know, eating a varied diet of fruits and vegetables is the key to health. Who could dispute that? But allow ourselves to be tricked by media outlets flooding our senses with nonsense.
Just remember, iceberg isn't quite as healthy in the wedge salad where it's drowned in creamy dressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
