Archive for the ‘Detoxing and Toxins’ Category

Ten Sickening Foods: Health Blog

October 15th, 2009

Food Borne Illness

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has just released a report listing the 10 foods most likely to make you sick — or so the report claims. Leafy greens (a frequent source of salmonella, E. coli, and norovirus) take position number one, a fact that the media has latched onto by sporting headlines such as “Ten Healthy Foods Can Make You Sick.” While the sentiment does have a certain intrigue, it’s misguided on several accounts.

First, the 10 foods on the list certainly don’t all fall into that “healthy” a group. Ice-cream holds position number seven, cheese number five, and mercury-laden tuna number three. Even more to the point, though, the emphasis on greens as public-food-enemy #1 misses the fact that the study didn’t include poultry, beef, and pork. A closer look reveals that the report focuses only on foods regulated by the FDA, and meat products fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA instead. That’s a problem if you’re actually looking for an honest top ten list, because poultry, beef, pork, and egg products sicken a whole lot more people every year than do salads — which, sadly, also sicken plenty.

Since 1990, leafy greens, including lettuce, spinach, kale, and so on, have caused 352 outbreaks and 13,600 individual cases of food-borne illness. The most severe, recent, and widespread outbreak was caused by E. coli-tainted spinach, which sickened 200 people in 26 states in 2006, and left three dead. After that incident, growers nationwide vowed to clean up their acts, but by August of 2009, regulators found 1715 cartons of spinach that tested positive for salmonella, prompting a 12-state recall.

What makes leafy greens so problematic? First, they grow close to the ground, where they can come into contact with contaminated soil and water runoff. As Craig Hedberg, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health says, “These items are grown outdoors in fields with dirt. It’s probably impossible to grow them without contact with a food-borne pathogen.” Now there’s a concept to inspire an arugula salad for lunch.

Then, so much salad gets pre-bagged these days, and many analysts blame the processing for the problems. If one tainted head of lettuce gets chopped in the processing bin, it typically gets distributed into hundreds of bags of prepared salad, and all the ingredients that come into contact with it will also be contaminated. In fact, the incidence of food-borne illness related to greens has risen with the advent of “convenience salads.”

The other items on the “Top 10″ list are eggs (11,163 illnesses since 1990), tuna (2,341 illnesses), oysters (3,409 illnesses), potatoes (3,659), cheese (2,761), ice-cream (2,594), tomatoes (3,292), sprouts (2,022), and berries (3,397). Not surprisingly, following the announcement of the report, the various named food contingents leapt into the fray.

Apparently, the Produce Marketing Association, the American Blue Fin Tuna Association, and the National Milk Producers Federation “are outraged.” The National Milk Producers Federation issued a statement discounting the study, claiming it relies on outdated information. And, a spokesperson for the US Potato Board said, “Potatoes are inherently healthy and are not an inherently risky food and they should not be on this list at all, the issue is cross-examination and not potato itself [sic].” Huh? Even if you buy the contention that potatoes aren’t risky despite the statistics, you might wonder if eating them confers a Mr. Potato-Head IQ based on such twisted logic…and grammar.

“On a relative scale our food supply remains quite safe, says Dr. Hedberg. His cohorts point to the fact that there’s “only” one illness reported for every 3,000 to 4,000 meals. But if that’s true, and if you consider that for every “reported” meal three or five or a dozen others might go unreported, the odds of eventually getting food poisoning or some more destructive food-borne illness are actually quite high. At three meals a day, you eat 1,000 meals a year, so according to the odds (as reported), you should get sick from your food every three to four years at the least.

But lest you fear your lettuce, here are a few facts that should give some perspective. Government statistics cite 76 million cases of food-borne illness annually, causing 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Out of those 76 million illnesses, remember only 13,000 were caused by greens, and that was over a 16-year time span. In fact, all the items on the Top 10 list added together caused fewer than 50,000 illnesses over that 16-year time span.

So what’s causing the 75.9 million other illnesses?

Beef, chicken, and pork, of course!!! The very items left off of the Top 10 list. The fact is that meat products cause 75 million percent more illnesses than produce does. Your odds of getting sick from lettuce or ice-cream or from potatoes are slim indeed compared to eating meat (Mr. Potato-Head is vindicated).

This doesn’t mean you should be cavalier. Contaminated produce does exist, and it could end up on your plate, though it isn’t likely. Your safest bet is to avoid beef, pork, and chicken as much as possible, and grow your own vegetables. But short of that, get fresh vegetables instead of the bagged stuff. Wash all produce very carefully; keep perishables refrigerated; cook eggs thoroughly; and keep a supply of a good colon detoxifier on hand to give you relief and purify your intestines just in case you do get food poisoning.

:hc

Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water: Health Blog

September 3rd, 2009

Fuel Drinking Water

Have you been told your tap water meets or exceeds safety standards? Don’t let that fool you into drinking straight from the sink without filtering or distilling. Those safety standards may be subject to radical change in the very near future. What counts as fine today may qualify as hazardous tomorrow.

Take, for instance, the issue of perchlorate, a type of salt which is a primary ingredient in rocket and missile fuel. It’s also a component in fireworks and road flares, in fertilizer and pool chemicals. The stuff has been manufactured since the early 1900s, but it took until the 1980’s for scientists to discover that it had seeped into groundwater. In fact, perchlorate has been found in the water supplies of 43 states. It’s also been found virtually throughout the globe, in soil and plants and our bodies and even on the planet Mars. While perchlorate occurs naturally in the environment, the manufactured variety has a different atomic composition. According to a congressional investigation, most perchlorate contamination comes from defense and aerospace activities.

As with so many manufactured chemicals, perchlorate isn’t exactly a health tonic. Studies have shown that it disrupts thyroid function and can cause developmental problems, including abnormal brain development, in fetuses and babies. There’s also reason to believe it may cause cancer.

Even so, the usual suspects in the regulatory agencies have been assuring us there’s no cause for alarm. Last September, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled not to regulate perchlorate in water. At the time, the FDA released a document stating that reducing perchlorate levels would not lead to any “meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems.” (Just one more in a long list of brilliant pronouncements by the FDA.)

According to those so-called experts who saw no benefit in regulating perchlorate at that time (just one year ago), the studies on health effects hadn’t produced conclusive results. “The question is,” asks perchlorate expert Thomas Zoeller, of the University of Massachusetts, “does a high-dose, short-term experiment predict a long-term, low-dose effect?” As it turns out, he and at least some of his peers in the regulatory agencies saw no urgency in answering that question, nor in limiting low-level exposure while it was being answered.

Now, under a new administration, the perchlorate question has gone back on the table. The EPA has been charged with reviewing the old “let it be” decision, and in the interim, has set a health advisory limit of 15ppb for drinking water. Apparently, some CDC studies early on did find that even at low levels, from 1-20 ppb, perchlorate could disrupt thyroid function. The states of Massachusetts and Maryland have set acceptable limits at 1 ppb, and California set the limit at 6 ppb. Compare that to the levels reported in wells near Los Alamos labs in New Mexico — from 30 ppb to 4,300 ppb. (By the way, if you’re drinking 4,300 ppb water, you probably need to stay away from open flames.) In Southern California, up to 89% of the wells tested measured levels higher than 6 ppb.

Still, the scientists seem confused.  “Is [the effect on thyroid] an adverse effect?” asked Kevin Mayer of the San Francisco EPA office. “We’re putting a lot of pieces together to come up with what might be a threat and at what levels it might be a threat.”

Environmental and health advocates, on the other hand, harbor no such bewilderment. The Environmental Working Group, for instance, has analyzed the studies and based on their data, argues that national standards for perchlorate in drinking water should be one-tenth the level the Environmental Protection Agency currently recommends as safe. And now, the “new” EPA has done an about-face. Administrator Lisa Jackson released a recent statement asserting that, “It is critically important to protect sensitive populations, particularly infants and young children, from perchlorate in drinking water. As we evaluate the science around perchlorate, we will seek public input before making a regulatory determination based on the best science.”

In the past, those opposed to regulating perchlorate in water argued that there was no point since it’s already in soil, in fruit, in leafy vegetables, in breast milk, in infant formula (CDC tests found over 3 ppb in Enfamil), and in the atmosphere. The reasoning goes that if we limit perchlorate in water, we’ll get our fill from other sources, anyway. But as Richard Wiles, Executive Director of the Environmental Working Group says, “While it’s true that some sources of contamination are difficult to pin down, when you have one you can, you should definitely address it.”

As US Senator Barbara Boxer says, “Perchlorate, a toxic chemical contained in rocket fuel, does not belong in our drinking water….The science has made clear that perchlorate can threaten the health of pregnant women and young children across the nation, and that is why I have consistently worked for strong safeguards to protect people from this toxic chemical.”

But all is not bleak for fans of perchlorate. If it isn’t wanted on this planet, it seems to be highly highly treasured on Mars, where the presence of perchlorate has led scientists to hope that the planet might be habitable, because perchlorate attracts water. According to Universe Today, “Perchlorate could pull humidity from the Martian air. At higher concentrations, it might combine with water as a brine that stays liquid at Martian surface temperatures. Some microbes on Earth use perchlorate as food. Human explorers might find it useful as rocket fuel or for generating oxygen.”

And so we see yet again that one Earthman’s junk is another Martian’s treasure.

:hc

Traffic Fumes Fuel Preemie Birth: Health Blog

August 20th, 2009

Car Exhaust, Pregnant Women

Living near the freeway might make the trek to Costco easier, but the cost of that convenience may be the health of your unborn children. A new study of over 81,000 pregnant women living in the Los Angeles area found that exposure to traffic-borne pollution raises the risk of giving birth to a severely premature baby by a whopping 128 percent. The subjects also had up to 42 percent more risk of developing preeclampsia, a type of pregnancy-related high-blood pressure that can cause serious complications. All of the women in the study lived within three kilometers (just under two miles) of a major roadway.

The study paints a dismal picture for the progeny of Angelenos — but those living outside of the heavily polluted LA area also are at risk.  A simultaneous study published in Pediatrics followed pregnant women in New York City for the few months before they gave birth. Those mothers exposed to the most pollution gave birth to children who scored consistently lower on IQ tests in early childhood.

Dr. Jun Wu, a lead author of the first study, advises. “Women living close to freeways should be careful and close their windows, or if they’re in the car, close the windows and put the air conditioning on, [and] to filter air coming into the car. It might be a good idea to limit your time near traffic or change when you commute so it’s not during rush hour.”

But a study last year out of Brisbane, Australia, found that rolling up the car windows doesn’t offer much protection — nor does heading to the hills in search of fresh air. The Brisbane study looked at the impact of pollution on fetal size. Researchers reviewed ultrasound scans of 15,000 fetuses prior to birth, measuring head circumference, femur length, and abdominal circumference. The fetal measurements showed a direct relationship to pollution exposure. According to study director Dr. Adrian Barnett, “If the pollution levels were high, the size of the fetus decreased significantly.” Dr. Barnett points out that, “Birth weight is a major predictor of later health; for example, bigger babies have been shown to have higher IQs in childhood and lower risk of cardiovascular disease in adulthood.”

The thing is, unlike Los Angeles, Brisbane isn’t pollution central. In fact, the study included subjects living up to 14 kilometers outside of city limits — a haven for nature lovers and sports enthusiasts. Dr. Barnett points out, “While some people may think there is no air pollution in Brisbane because the air looks so clean, you have to remember that most air pollutants are not visible to the naked eye, people do have a very outdoor lifestyle, and homes are designed to maximize airflow. So although the actual levels of pollution are low, our exposure to whatever is out there is relatively high.”

In other words, opening your windows to the elements, climbing a mountain, or hiking a trail might expose you to plenty of particulate matter — even in relatively unpolluted environs. While it’s true that car, truck, and bus fumes contribute an inordinate amount to air pollution (about 42 percent in urban areas), there are other significant contributors, and you can’t completely avoid them by moving out to the country — airline exhaust, for instance, pesticides from farming operations, coal-fired power plants, factory and mining emissions, etcetera.

In fact, a study last year found a strong link between certain “gases” released through livestock farming and increased infant mortality. Even at low levels, emissions from such sources can do plenty of damage and have been found to contribute to prenatal problems. I’ve written before about the fact that free radicals in particulate matter can travel to the farthest reaches of the earth and persist in the environment forever. Still, you’re much better off minimizing exposure — living far away from crowded roadways and industrial urban areas where pollution levels are off the charts.

If you aren’t pregnant, breathing in car exhaust won’t damage your non-existent fetus, but it sure can damage you. In 2002, the World Health Organization issued a report estimating that pollution directly causes over 600,000 deaths annually, worldwide. The report claims that pollution underlies three percent of all cancers of the respiratory system, as well as one percent of all cardiopulmonary disease. Although those represent small percentages, in terms of numbers, we’re talking about 7.4 million cases of disability annually. And that probably represents a gross underestimate.

A recent study by the European Environment Agency found the number of annual deaths in London caused by airborne particulates to be three times the reported amount, bringing the number of deaths from pollution within city limits to almost 3,000 annually. Plus, the original report claimed that every person living in London could expect to cut about eight months from their life expectancy due to pollution, and that figure too was grossly under-reported.

Tracey Woodruff, who directs the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco, says that “pregnant women should be aware of the risks and advocate for the kinds of [government] actions that reduce overall exposure to air pollution.” Rolling up the windows against the worldwide avalanche of airborne toxins seems a sad and rather lame strategy for both pregnant women and the rest of us, but until citizens and corporations worldwide take action, it’s what we’ve got. That, and air filters, antioxidants, and the Baseline of Health program.

:hc

MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) Makes You Fat: Health Blog

August 4th, 2009

MSG, Monosodium Glutamate

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has long had a prominent spot on the list of dietary no-no’s, at least among the health conscious. By definition, MSG is simply processed free glutamic acid combined with sodium to form monosodium glutamate. But it is the glutamic acid component of MSG that is the neurotransmitter that causes nerves to fire, and that is what creates problems for many who consume it. The bottom line is that MSG-sensitivity is, in fact, sensitivity to free glutamic acid — glutamic acid that is not bound up in protein. All protein (dairy, soy, rice protein, etc.) contains glutamic acid as a constituent amino acid, but as such, it is bound-up in the protein. Only if that glutamic acid becomes freed from its protein source before it is eaten, do people have MSG-sensitivity reactions.

(more…)

Food Wrapper Chemical in Blood: Health Blog

June 11th, 2009

Food Wrappers, diPAPs

If you’ve seen the movie Supersize Me, you might think you know all there is to know about the evil effects of gorging on fast-foods — but here’s yet another factor to consider. Researchers at the University of Toronto found potentially carcinogenic chemicals from food wrappers — the type of wrappers that burgers and subs come in, for instance — at high concentrations in the blood of all the subjects they tested.

(more…)

Formaldehyde Linked to Workplace Cancers: Health Blog

May 21st, 2009

Formaldehyde, Cancer

It’s in the plywood in your walls, in the carpet on your floor, in the polish on your nails, in the exhaust your car spits out, in the smoke you inhale from a colleague’s cigarette, and in the trailer home the government gave you after Hurricane Katrina. And a recent study found formaldehyde in 23 out of 28 kid’s bath products. Formaldehyde is also commonly used in industry as a disinfectant and preservative, so if you worked in a manufacturing plant at any point in your life, you probably had plenty of exposure. Over two million American workers still experience significant exposure to the chemical, long linked with rare cancers, on the job. And now, a new study shows that the formaldehyde may also cause more common cancers of the blood and lymphatic systems, including Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and myeloid leukemia.

(more…)

Carcinogenic Baby Products: Health Blog

March 19th, 2009

Baby Products, Carcinogens

Bathing your baby should be a safe and wholesome experience, but a new report makes clear that bath-time could be hazardous to your tot’s health. According to the report, issued by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC), over 80 percent of the baby products they tested contained at least one carcinogenic agent.

The group screened 48 popular baby products for formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane — both listed as probable carcinogens by the EPA. Sixty-one percent of the tested products contained both of these contaminants, 82 percent contained formaldehyde, and 67 percent had 1,4-dioxane. And we’re not talking about obscure products sold only in rural discount stores — the list of affected products included such staples as Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Huggies Wipes, Pampers Baby Fresh, and Baby Magic Lotion.

(more…)

PFCs Causes Infertility: Health Blog

February 5th, 2009

PFCs, Perfluorinated Chemicals

Once again reminding us that we live in a toxic world, a new study just determined that the chemicals found in common household items like upholstered furniture, carpeting, paper, and food-packaging materials may cause infertility. The problematic substances belong to a class known as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), which have non-stick and heat resistant qualities that make them useful in numerous medical, commercial, and industrial applications. PFCs seem to be omnipresent — they’re the key ingredient in Teflon, Scotchguard, Stainmaster, and Goretex, for instance. They’re also commonly added to cosmetics, clothing, shampoos, dental products, medical products, nail polish, and used in numerous medical applications.

(more…)

Third-Hand Cigarette Smoke: Health Blog

January 20th, 2009

Cigarette Smoke

Recently, Barack Obama announced his New Year’s resolution to give up smoking and reminded us healthy types that people do still smoke, and in large numbers. In fact, one in five Americans still has the nasty habit. A new study hopes to convince those 43.4 million smoking US citizens and 1.2 billion smokers worldwide to quit. The recent study out of the Harvard Medical School found that large numbers of people are not aware that toxic residues from cigarette smoke linger long after the cigarette burns out, creating “third-hand smoke” that can harm infants and children — and adults, too.

(more…)

Heavy Metals and Pesticides in Wine: Health Blog

November 4th, 2008

Heavy Metals Pesticides Wine

Wine has enjoyed a volatile reputation over the years. Considered sacred in ancient Egypt, it became sinful during the prohibition, an elitist indulgence in the post-war years, a health hazard in the 1960’s, and finally a healthy tonic that delivered antioxidants and heart health in recent decades. But now, some disturbing news may cause wine to undergo yet another redefinition.

(more…)

« Older Health Blogs