If animal fat was so bad for you, how could we have survived all these years dependent on it? Let’s look at what saturated fat is and why it causes so much concern.

Saturated fat became the “bad guy” of heart health back in the 1950s when Dr. Ancel Keys published his hypothesis in a research paper in which he linked saturated fat to heart disease. Unfortunately, as is all too often the case, the research was flawed. Dr. Keys picked through the data and used only some of it: he looked at the intake of saturated fat based on data from six countries that he personally selected and made a case on only that limited data that consumption of saturated fat was tied to heart disease mortality. It took off from there.

That may well have been the case in the six countries he selected to make his case (though he didn’t look at all the other factors) but he chose to ignore data from 16 other countries that disagreed with his theory. It’s been argued that his paper was released to support the marketing strategy for Crisco, which was being introduced in the marketplace as a plant-based fat for frying and cooking to replace lard and butter.

In order to make Crisco more appealing to consumers, an argument needed to be made that a plant-based product was better than an animal one. There wasn’t a reason to justify that marketing until Dr. Keys paper came out and Crisco sales took off.

Regardless of the reason for the paper’s initial release, had Dr. Keys included the data from all 22 countries without bias, he would have shown that the highest consumption of saturated fat was linked to the lowest risk of heart disease, exactly the opposite of what he claimed! His hypothesis has not stood up since then either, despite the fact that the myth remains.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported on a study done by Dr. Ronald Krauss which analyzed 21 existing studies that included nearly 350,000 people and found “no significant evidence that eating more saturated fat increases a person’s risk of heart disease or stroke.”

A British report looked at data from ten large studies which included more than 400,000 men and women over several years. They found that the number of heart attacks and strokes were smaller among those who consumed the most (whole fat) dairy products and a recent Swedish study confirmed the same result.

Saturated fats provide the building blocks for hormones and for our cell membranes. They make you feel full when you eat a meal so you don’t overeat calories, they are carriers for our fat soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K, they are the fuel for the heart and they rovide energy when we need it for exercise or exertion. Saturated fats are also required for mineral absorption, for converting carotene to vitamin A and for many other functions and processes in our bodies. We need saturated fat and we’ve depended on it for thousands of years.

Other than faulty research (which likely had a food company marketing angle much like the raw milk smear campaign that led to pasteurization in order to sell dirty milk that was otherwise unsellable), the only reason for saturated fat to be labeled a “bad guy” is that the meat and milk we ingest today is very different than that which we consumed one or two generations ago.

Animals today are bombarded with growth hormones, antibiotics, and environmental toxins like pesticides in their food, their environment and their health care. These toxins remain in the fat cells of the animals we eat. When we eat the animal fat or drink milk, we take in all of these toxins and they too can remain in our fat cells, and so the cycle continues.  The cumulative result of eating these toxins over time can lead to a number of health problems including inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

Most of us eat large quantities of meat, milk and especially cheese every day and what the animal (beef, fish, chicken, pork, turkey, fish or otherwise) eats, we eat. That used to be good and it kept us healthy. Animal feed today, however, includes GMO products including lots of corn, and whatever else they can afford when corn costs are high (or sometimes even when they are not) including gummy bears, oreos, deceased animals or other fillers.

If you are trying to eat well and avoid such foods but yet you eat traditionally raised animal meat (and this includes chicken and pork as well as beef), milk or cheese, you haven’t avoided them at all!  This is the only real concern that whole fat milk or cheese or eating animal fats poses to your health.

Grass fed beef and milk products have not been shown to lead to heart disease; they’ve actually been shown to keep you healthy and can definitely be part of a balanced diet. Beef labelled as grass fed can be purchased now in most stores. It costs a little more, but it is totally worth the investment in your health!

(For example, Trader Joes sells a pound of grass fed beef for $6.99. They also sell pre-made grass fed hamburger patties in the frozen section, 4 for about $5.99.) If you can’t find grass fed beef, or if you are more adventurous, try bison, elk and venison as these animals remain wild and so still eat a natural diet.

Finding milk from grass fed cows is a challenge still despite efforts and may send you to a local farm or farmer’s market. If you are lucky and you can get raw milk, even better. Cheese and butter from grass fed cows, however, can increasingly be found in stores; if not from raw milk, then in a pasteurized form. (If you don’t remember why pasteurized milk poses a challenges, you may want to re-read my article on milk: Not Your Parents’ Milk.)

The good news with butter and cheese is that if you buy European, most European products come from grass fed animals. Cheeses from France and Switzerland are typically made the traditional way, with milk from cows or goats allowed to roam free and eat their traditional diets. European cheese are plentiful and you can also find raw milk cheese, which offers even more health benefits, in mainstream supermarkets.

Finding grass fed butter from an American farm in a grocery store in the U.S. is very hard, even at health food supermarkets. If you can find a local farm, great: I love to support local! If not, brands such as Kerrygold butter from Ireland are readily available and are made from milk from grass fed cows.

Please note that organic butter does not mean it comes from grass fed cows, just as organic chicken and eggs do not come from chickens fed a natural diet. It just means the food the animals were fed meets organic standards: better than gummy bears, yes! But they were still fed grain or animal flesh or filler instead of their natural diet of sun-soaked, vitamin D-rich, grass.  You have to look for the words grass fed: if they are not there visibly on the label, then the product isn’t made from grass fed cows.

Many people are avoiding red meat thinking it poses health risks from saturated fats and are turning to chicken instead. But chicken is also rich in saturated fat and the diets and farming conditions of chickens are even worse than cattle, so if you are really trying to eat healthy, red meat that is grass fed is a much better choice today than most “white” meats.

I have found it very difficult to find any chicken or eggs in a store that are not fed “vegetarian feed” fed instead of their natural diet of grass and bugs, even if they are labelled organic. If you can find it, it is usually very expensive. If you can find it and you can afford it, that’s definitely the way to go. If not, definitely choose organic, but keep in mind that even organic products will have a higher ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids, which can lead to internal inflammation.

If you are trying to feed a family on a limited budget, grass fed beef, venison, elk or bison is usually a healthier and more economical option than finding the equivalent in a chicken, turkey or pork offering. Prices and selection will vary depending on where you live, but don’t be afraid to include saturated fat in your diet especially if you can find a good affordable option.

I wanted to keep this article focused on what you really need to know about saturated fats and I’ve shared that here with you now. But if you are curious about what saturated fat really is and want to read on just a little longer, I’ll provide a quick overview of the three kinds of fats and how they are different below.

Fatty acids fall into three groupings: saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated. Each type is made up of carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms to fill in the spaces around them.

Saturated fatty acids are acids where all of the spaces around the carbon atoms are completely filled, i.e., saturated. As a result, they are very stable regardless of temperature. They are found mainly in dairy, red meat and chicken, but also in tropical oils like red palm oil and coconut oil. We can also make some saturated fat from eating carbohydrates.

Monounsaturated fats are fatty acids have a double bond between two carbon atoms and they are missing two hydrogen atoms. They are called mono because of its single carbon double bond and unsaturated because not all of the spaces are filled: two hydrogen atoms are missing. Because the chain can bend at the double bond point, when you mix a large number of these chains together, it won’t be dense or compact; there will be room in between.

As a result, these acids are usually liquid at room temperature and are relatively stable, though not as stable as saturated fats because they are not packed as tightly. The most common monounsaturated fat is oleic acid and examples are olive oil, avocados, peanuts, cashews, pecans and almonds. Your body can also make monounsaturated fat from saturated fat as needed.

Polyunsaturated fats are missing several hydrogen atoms and they have two – or more – double bonds. As a result, since there are more than one double bond, they are called poly, meaning many. At each double bond, there is a kink in the chain, so they tend to be very loosely packed and remain liquid, even in colder temperatures. The good polyunsaturated fats are found in whole food sources such as nuts, seeds, fish, algae, leafy greens and krill. These are the foods that have great health benefits for us.

However, it’s really important to distinguish that not all polyunsaturated fats are healthy. While the good forms can yield great health benefits, other forms of polyunsaturated fats are not so good for us and can do great health harm. These are the polyunsaturated fats found in vegetable oils such as soybean (a staple in packaged goods), corn, sunflower or safflower oil. They are highly unstable fats and they can go bad, or turn rancid, easily when exposed to heat and light.

When they turn rancid, such as when they are heated or fried, free radicals are created which travel around in your blood causing damage to just about everything they interact with. Free radical damage has been tied to cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cataracts, tumors, and aging.

We need all three types of fats for a healthy body, so don’t be afraid to include saturated fats in your diet: just be sure to choose fats from good sources and try to avoid processed polyunsaturated vegetable oils.

To your wellness and health: your true wealth!

Inger

Author: Inger Pols is the Editor of the New England Health Advisory and Author/Creator, Finally Make It Happen, the proven process to get what you want. Get a free special report on The Truth About Sugar: It’s Not All Equal and a free copy of Inger’s bestselling ebook at www.IngerPols.com/freegifts

Photo Source: courtesy of SOMMAI / Free Digital Photos

While fish has many health benefits, some studies have questioned the healthiness of farm-raised fish, especially salmon. There’s also concern about dolphins and fish that are killed in the tuna fishing process; their bodies are thrown back into the sea as waste. The popularity of fish has raised concerns about over-fishing and the sustainability of commercial fishing long-term. The quality of fish has diminished, especially those caught closer to shore and those found in lakes and streams, where contaminants foul our water supply.

Choosing the best fish is not just about what kind of health benefits the species has; the way it was raised or caught is also important to the nutritional profile. And if you are concerned about the environment and sustainability, the destruction left in the wake of the fishing boats matters, too. Species, season, diet, life stage, age and location all affect the contaminant level and nutritional profile of fish. There is no standardization for effective comparisons, and very little regulation, measurement or labeling to inform consumers.

Though more Americans are beginning to learn about factory farming concerns with livestock thanks to authors like Michael Pollan and movies like Food, Inc., many of us still know little about the factory farm process for fish. So let’s start by looking at salmon farming and why it raises so many concerns.

Salmon Farming: It’s No Swim Upstream

When we think of salmon, we usually see the image of a salmon swimming upstream to spawn, fighting against all odds to lay eggs before it dies. But instead of jumping upstream or powering through the ocean waters, farm salmon circle lazily in small pens that have been likened by at least one journalist to floating pig farms. Waste and excess feed cover the sea floor beneath the farms, creating bacteria that consume oxygen that is required to sustain life for creatures that dwell on the ocean floor. Copper sulfate is used on the nets to prevent algae build up but leaves toxic sediment on the sea floor. Fish can also escape through the nets, creating environmental concerns; scientists estimate more than a million farmed Atlantic salmon have escaped into the Pacific and it is unclear what effect this will have on the Pacific salmon population over time.

As with land-based livestock, farm-raised salmon are vaccinated against diseases that spread easily in the close quarters of the pens. They are fed more antibiotics by body weight than any other livestock to prevent infection (creating strains of disease-resistant bacteria in both farmed and wild fish). And they are doused in pesticides to get rid of sea lice.

Sea lice exist in the wild as well, but are rampant in the close quarters of a fish farm. Scientists are concerned that wild species that swim by farms will be exposed to sea lice, which can damage or kill the vulnerable young salmon. Net hauls have dropped significantly and fisherman who once supported the farms as a means of ensuring ocean salmon sustainability are becoming concerned.

Farmers say it’s unlikely that they are responsible for a decline in wild salmon because the pesticide emamectin benzoate is only added to feed when sea lice are present. In Canada, the rules state that farmers must stop use of the pesticide 25 days before harvest to keep the fish safe to eat. But it’s unclear how much exposure is really OK and how much remains in the fatty tissue after dosage has stopped.

Farm salmon are fed smaller chopped up fish and pellets of feed laden with pesticides, raising concerns about sustainability for those fish. It takes an average of 2.4 pounds of wild fish to sustain a one-pound farm raised salmon and scientists are concerned that the farming practice is only making sustainability of ocean fishing worse.

To make salmon skins pink, since they don’t eat the typical salmon diet of pink krill, thus absorbing cartenoid, or use their muscles as much as typical salmon would, farm salmon are fed synthetic pigments including canthaxanthin to turn their otherwise dull gray flesh a vivid pink. In Canada, the flesh color options, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Hoffman-LaRoche, are delivered to the farmers so they can pick the exact shade of pink they like.

Canthaxanthin, when taken in a sunless tanning pill, was linked to retinal damage in Europe. It’s banned in England, and the European commission has issued a warning about it, urging the industry to find an alternative. But it remains legal elsewhere, and in the U.S., scientists aren’t focused on it as they put most of their attention into what they deem to be a bigger problem: PCBs and toxic dioxins in the fish.

PCBs, Importation and Mercury

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are highly toxic compounds that were banned in the 1970s. They pose serious health risks to children, especially babies and fetuses, who can experience developmental and neurological problems from repeated or prolonged exposure to even small amounts of PCBs. They affect adults as well, especially those with impaired immune systems or insufficient healthy gut flora.

Even though they were banned decades ago, these industrial compounds are very slow to break down and remain present in our environment, especially in sediment at the bottom of streams, lakes, rivers and coastal areas. They can be absorbed by fish and remain in their fatty tissues, building up in humans if contaminated fish is consumed frequently.

While these contaminants are a concern among wild fish, especially any lake or stream fish or those caught close to shore, two major studies have shown that farmed salmon accumulate more of these substances, which are known carcinogens, than wild salmon. The feed appears to be the concern, as it includes higher amounts of ground up sardines, anchovies and other small fish than a wild salmon would consume.

Manmade contaminants make their way into the ocean and are absorbed by fish. Then those fish are consumed in large amounts by the farm salmon, and the contaminants accumulate in the fatty tissue. It is estimated that farm-raised salmon have seven times as many PCBs in their systems as wild salmon. Farm raised salmon have a higher fat content than wild because they don’t move around much as their active wild counterparts, so they have more fatty tissue to absorb contaminants. Unfortunately, the higher fat content is not healthy omega 3 fatty acids; it’s less healthy, pro-inflammatory omega 6 fat.

It’s estimated that 68% of fish consumed in America is imported from another country, where it is often farmed and not always labeled. While the U.S. has no standards for organic seafood, (though Whole Foods says it has instituted its own farm fish standards to ensure healthy safe fish options), the European Union has had them for years. So organic European fish can be a safe choice. But many fish brought in from other countries contains additional chemicals and additives that we would likely not approve of.

The FDA inspects only about 5% of all imported farm fish, so many countries disregard the rules and take a chance, knowing it’s unlikely that they will get caught. Recently, the FDA blocked the sale of three kinds of fish from China because they contained “unapproved” drugs. However, it’s equally concerning that there are many “approved” drugs that could have been used freely and allowed to become part of our food supply.

Mercury is another concern in both wild and farm-raised fish. While we eat fish for good heart health, mercury can actually increase the risk of heart attacks. Recent studies have shown that like PCBs and toxins such as bisphenol-A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor that comes from plastic pollution in our waters, mercury levels are higher in farm-raised fish than in the wild.

Mercury from industrial pollution enters the water and is converted to methylmercury, a toxin that is consumed by smaller fish. Again, the larger fish consume the smaller fish and take in that toxin. This occurs in the wild as well, however, as we have just seen, the practice of grinding up large amounts of small fish to feed the farm-raised salmon means they eat much more of the small fish than they would in the wild, increasing their ingestion of toxins.

Clearly there are some issues with fish farming. But to be fair, there are issues with wild fishing as well. The same contaminants are present in lakes, streams and rivers, making many fish from those sources no longer safe to eat. Several states have issued advisories on their lake fish. Fish caught close to the coast face the same concerns. While deep-water fish are the least affected by these issues, these fish are often caught through practices like trolling with large nets that result in the accidental death of other species.

So what can we do? Here are some tips for healthier fish consumption.

Making Healthier Fish Choices

Use safe cooking methods to minimize the consumption of skin and fat, where PCBs accumulate. Trim the fish and remove skin and the fat along the backsides and belly and remove the internal organs, lobster tomalley and mustard of crabs, before you cook them. Try grilling and broiling fish, letting the fat drip away while it’s cooking and minimize use of fish drippings. Avoid frying fish as that seals in the contaminants. And if you are smoking fish, fillet and remove the skin prior to the smoking process.

If you, or your children, love tuna fish, minimize the exposure to mercury by choosing light tuna, not albacore, and eat it less often. Because their brains and nervous systems are still developing, children are particularly susceptible to mercury contamination. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, chunk/solid white is a larger tuna that accumulates more mercury, while skipjack, which is in most canned light/chunk light tuna, has about one-third the mercury level as albacore.

But it’s still important to read the label, as some canned light tuna contains yellowfin tuna, which is similar to albacore in mercury levels. Sometimes labeled (but not always) gourmet or “tonno” these should be eaten only in limited amounts by both children and adults. Small kids should limit tuna to a couple meals a month, while older kids can usually have it safely once a week. (If you have a compromised immune system or are pregnant, you may want to avoid tuna completely.)

Generally speaking, deep-water, cold-water fish are the least contaminated. If you are buying salmon, always look for Alaska wild sockeye or red salmon. But decide what matters to you: omega 3 consumption, avoiding PCBs and mercury or sustainable fishing and make choices based on your priorities. Ask questions about fish sources and vote with your wallet. Support the call for improved farm-fishing standards and practices. And most importantly, don’t be a creature of habit when it comes to fish consumption: Choose a variety of fish for your diet to spread the toxin exposure risk. Fish are a wonderful source of healthy fats and protein and eating fish twice a week–despite the toxin exposure risk–for most people is still a good long-term health choice.

Clearing up the Muddy Waters

While choosing the right fish can be confusing, at least one organization has attempted to simplify the process. The Monterrey Bay Aquarium has put together a guide that evaluates fish based on three major criteria: omega 3 levels, the presence of mercury and other toxins and the sustainability or ocean-friendly status of their harvest/capture. It also factors in whether fish are over-fished and caught faster than they can reproduce.

The aquarium worked with the Harvard School of Public Health and the Environmental Defense Fund to create a list of fish that are Eco-best choices, Eco-good choices and Eco-avoids. They also created a super green list of wild and farmed fish that are good for people and the oceans. The aquarium has created a series of pocket guides by region that you can print and carry with you when you go shopping.

The list changes monthly based on new information. The current best of the best list for May 2010 includes: Albacore Tuna (troll or pole caught from the U.S. or British Columbia), Freshwater Coho Salmon (farmed in tanks from the U.S.), mussels (farmed), oysters (farmed), Pacific sardines (wild caught), rainbow trout (farmed) and salmon (wild caught from Alaska).

No system is perfect, and the aquarium’s top choice of tuna that is troll or pole caught may be a good example, since finding that option in a typical store will be quite challenging, if not impossible. In addition, while they recommend albacore tuna, the Environmental Defense Fund recommends you avoid it for tuna fish sandwiches. Despite not being perfect, the list is an attempt to help you make good choices for your body and our planet. Combined with your own common sense and priorities, you will discover the best fish choices for you and your family.

To your wellness and health: your true wealth!

Inger

Author: Inger Pols is the Editor of the New England Health Advisory and Author/Creator, Finally Make It Happen, the proven process to get what you want. Get a free special report on The Truth About Sugar: It’s Not All Equal at www.IngerPols.com

Photo Source: Microsoft Clip Art

Closer review of the headline reveals that the 20% reduction being broadcast is for a diet heavy in processed meats, such as ham, bologna, salami, hot dogs: typical luncheon meats. We learned in the prior newsletter that these foods also contain sodium nitrate, a proven carcinogen, or cancer-causing ingredient. So 20% doesn’t seem extreme if those are items you consume regularly.

The reduction in lifespan for a diet of unprocessed beef, pork or lamb is actually 13%, according to the study. This category of food choices, however, also includes hamburgers. Given the recent “pink slime” headlines, and the use of ammonia (in the meat in addition to the hormones, antibiotics and pesticides found in these meats), 13% doesn’t seem that bad. And let’s face it: if you are eating hamburgers you are likely also consuming high-fructose corn syrup laden buns and french fries fried in oxidized omega 6 heavy oils, which have health concerns of their own that were not tracked in the survey.

In addition, if you are eating steaks, whether at home or out, they are often grilled to get those burn marks on the skin, a process which results in the creation of carcinogens as well. We’ll talk more about the dangers of grilling and how to do so healthily in a coming newsletter. But for now, you can see that even at the highest level, there are additional considerations that were not evaluated in the study lurking behind this headline.

In addition, the study doesn’t differentiate between the consumption of traditional factory-farmed meats and grass-fed or organic versions. It would not be a stretch to postulate that given all we know about factory farming and the way animals are fed, raised, and slaughtered, the statistics being touted could result purely from the impact of those practices. There could possibly be little or no impact on lifespan if participants ate high-quality grass fed meat instead.

However, we will likely never know that for sure as it would take many years of following a group of informed meat eaters to be able to reach such a conclusion and no such study is likely to occur as the money isn’t there to fund it. Organic or grass fed meat producers are struggling to provide high quality meat and to compete against the costs of large factory farms so they are not sitting on a pile of cash to fund a longitudinal study of this sort. (And it’s clear that factory farms and government agencies have no interest in funding such a study!)

So when I read those numbers and know that they reflect traditional processed, chemically-laden meats, I don’t jump to the same conclusion that red meat is bad and we should eat less: my reaction is simply that processed meat is harmful and we should eat less of that and replace it with organic and grass fed meat instead. And that could be the end of a helpful look at a widely publicized research study headline if we stopped right there. But there’s more.

The first concern is that this is an observational study, not a controlled study. In a controlled study, all variables are fixed except for what researchers want to assess. Then the scientists would explore the impact of making that one change on participants’ health. Controlled studies can make claims regarding the impact of meat because everything else is held the same across the participants’ diet. In this case, there are many food variables that were not tracked in the study that could easily explain the reduction in lifespan.

The second concern is that the food habits are self-reported. It has been shown repeatedly that people tend to over-report good, or what they think they should be eating, and under-report what they think they shouldn’t. Which just reconfirms that we can draw some hypotheses from the study results that can be tested further, but we cannot draw any firm conclusions because the data is likely skewed.

And before you think that automatically means that the self-reporting works to further support the red meat conclusion, it’s not that simple. We do not know the attitudes of survey participants toward meat: some may believe a portion or two a day is good for you because it’s an important protein source and that may cancel out those who under-report because they think meat is bad.

In addition, contrary to what you might think, another study showed that people with “diagnosed medical conditions” such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, high blood pressure, high tryglycerides or cholesterol and diabetes tended to over-report the meat that they ate. We do not fully understand why this occurs, but researchers surmise that perhaps people who are more sick pay less attention to their diets and so don’t accurately track their consumption.

Next we have to explore other lifestyle behaviors. The study reveals that the highest percentage of meat eaters were also significantly more likely to smoke, be overweight, be less physically active and not take a multivitamin than those who ate the least amount of meat. These other variables have been shown to correlate to a number of health conditions and cannot be ignored.

The study also showed that the highest meat eaters took in a significantly greater number of calories than the least meat eaters. In fact, there was an 800 calorie gap between the highest and lowest groups. If that is actually accurate, that is an extremely important variance as calorie restriction has been linked to longer lifespan. And if it is not accurate, it’s just another example of why we cannot completely trust studies where people are self-reporting their food intake.

One interesting conclusion the study found related to cholesterol. In the study, the lowest meat eaters had almost twice the cholesterol level of the highest red meat eaters. If you have read my prior article on cholesterol, you understand why: eating cholesterol does not raise your cholesterol. In fact, if you don’t eat enough cholesterol in your diet, your body will step in and overproduce it to compensate, and your cholesterol levels will seem high even though you are actually cholesterol deficient. (More on this to follow: we’ll be looking into cholesterol and heart health in depth in the coming weeks). But the scientists so quick to jump on the bandwagon and chastise red meat didn’t feel compelled to report a sensational headline that eating red meat reduces cholesterol, but yet, that is what the study showed.

Lastly, the study fails to correlate the overall risk of death to the increase during the study time period in absolute numbers. As we saw when we looked at cholesterol drug advertisements in the last newsletter go-round, Lipitor was able to claim a 36% increase because 3 people on a placebo had a heart attack vs. 2 on the drug during the study trial. The overall number is of consequence as well as the increase because the ones taking the drug suffered heavy side effects. (If you missed this article last time, we’ll be covering this topic in greater depth shortly.)

In this study, for example, if 5% would die anyway, and 6% of the heaviest processed lunch meat eaters died, you could claim a 20% increase in death. But the truth is the difference between 5 and 6 people out of 100 may not be great enough to cause you to give up something you love, especially since there are so many other possible contributing factors or direct causes that were not assessed in the study.

Now you can see how misleading headlines can cause a stir in the media but there is more to the story than the sexy headline. Hopefully, this will encourage you to question and to dig deeper into the details around how those attention-grabbing news stories are created. As for me, I will continue to enjoy small amounts of grass fed meat as a good high quality source of protein and necessary (healthy) fat.

To your wellness and health: your true wealth!

Inger

Author: Inger Pols is the Editor of the New England Health Advisory and Author/Creator, Finally Make It Happen, the proven process to get what you want. Get a free special report on The Truth About Sugar: It’s Not All Equal at www.IngerPols.com

Photo Source: Microsoft Clip Art

Many of you have asked for ideas for healthy snacks and meals that you can bring from home, while others have requested guidance on how to make the best choices when you have to eat out. I wish there was a secret I could share that would make it all easy but there really isn’t a magic bullet for eating well away from home. There are, however, some strategies and tactics you can employ that my family and I have used successfully to stay healthy and fit when we’re away from home.

The first tip is no secret, whether you are trying to lose or manage your weight, or simply wanting to eat healthier: eat a balanced breakfast. Breakfast sets the tone for your whole day: eating a healthy one will prevent cravings and sugar crashes that send you looking for snacks mid-day. Studies show that people who eat a high carb breakfast (e.g., coffee and a bagel or doughnut) eat 80% more calories throughout the day, so start yours with a meal complete with healthy proteins and fats.

Eggs, unprocessed/nitrate-free meats, low or no fat dairy (yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.), or a breakfast cereal of oatmeal or quinoa will fill you up, give your body the fuel it needs to take on the day, and prevent snack cravings. And if you are traveling, take advantage of the hotel/restaurant doing the cooking and cleaning up and sit down to a hearty breakfast.

When possible, pack your lunch and snacks to take with you, again remembering to ensure that you have protein and fat included to sustain and nourish you. For lunch, 100% whole wheat or whole grain wraps with meat and veggies make a great choice, as do sandwiches on similar bread (sprouted grain bread such as Ezekial is even better). Another alternative is to wrap the ingredients in a lettuce leaf instead of bread. I rarely eat sandwiches but if I do, I’ll usually take at least one of the bread slices off when I sit down to eat: two pieces helps keep it neat and contained for transport, but one is more than enough for me. And sometimes, if I buy a sandwich and it’s on high sugar white or wheat bread, I just eat the inside and toss the bread.

Salads are always a great option, especially when topped with salmon or chicken or other proteins. The trick with salads is to avoid the unhealthy toppings of processed cheeses and creamy salad dressings. Olive oil and balsamic vinegar (self-poured) is the best choice; next would be a prepared vinaigrette (while it won’t have the fat content of a creamy dressing, prepared dressings are made with cheaper omega 6 heavy vegetable oils and often contain MSG or other flavorings).

Also consider soup: soup is hearty and filling and can be eaten year round, hot or cold. Plus, you can make a big batch over the weekend and have some for lunch for several days. If soup doesn’t fill you, or you consume one without much protein, try pairing it with half a sandwich. Another option is to have a mix of many small bites. This option is also great for take along snacks and the non-refrigerated choices are good to have on hand in your car or your desk drawer for when hunger sets in.

Examples could include a few 100% whole grain or whole wheat crackers with organic almond or peanut butter, a scoop of cottage cheese, a slice or two of raw milk cheese or goat cheese, or tuna mixed with chopped apple or celery. Vegetables such as broccoli, celery, carrots, tomatoes, or sliced peppers can be dipped in some hummus, a handful of nuts is something you can stash in a purse or briefcase; same with a healthy cereal bar such as a Clif bar (while not ideal, it contains fiber and protein and really holds you over until your next meal). You can also roll up slices of uncured ham or other nitrate free meats or pack a small container of Greek yogurt (we love Fage). Keep a supply of hard-boiled eggs in your fridge to grab and go and have some organic apples, grapes, a banana or an orange around as well.

If you have to eat out, and let’s face it, we all do at times, whether it’s a business lunch, a meal in the airport, or a celebratory dinner with family, there are ways to make good choices and not feel deprived. For lunch, look for a deli (especially family run where they make homemade soups, etc.) or restaurants such as Panera Bread or Au Bon Pain. These are places where you can get soups, salads and sandwiches, keeping in mind the same guidelines around condiments, add-ons, dressings and breads.

If you find yourself at a fast food restaurant, or someplace with limited options, look for either a grilled chicken sandwich or a burger; leave off the ketchup, barbeque sauce or other sauces and go for mustard instead. Lettuce and tomato and onions or mushrooms are fine, but skip the processed cheese and either toss the bun or make it a convertible. Look for other side options besides French fries: if there aren’t any, say no. If you take them, you know you’ll end up eating them because we all hate to throw away food.

If you’re at a sit down restaurant, most will substitute a small side salad or another side of veggies for the starch if you ask. If you must have a starch, choose rice or sweet potato or even pasta. Because of the protein that is bound as the pasta is made, pasta is a surprisingly good choice, especially if you leave the butter sauces off and go with a red sauce, preferably with vegetables. For the occasional special dinner, Italian is not necessarily a bad choice: if you choose a protein main dish with a small side of pasta and avoid the cheese heavy and breaded options. (In Italy, dinner is often a meat main dish with pasta as an appetizer; in other words, a small plate of pasta then a protein as the main course.)

Another good ethnic choice is Japanese. Sushi is often high in mercury and should not be eaten frequently; but as an occasional indulgence you can enjoy. Other choices include steamed rice bowls with meat and vegetables or noodle dishes with the same (but try to avoid soy sauce.) If you are tempted to eat fried foods, one of the better places to do so is often at a Japanese restaurant. To get the crispy tempura batter, or high heat stir fries, they typically use rice bran oil, one of the only oils that can sustain the high heat required for frying without turning rancid. Ask if they use rice bran oil and if they do, and fried is calling you, make it your treat for the week.

One of the benefits of eating out is that you can try new foods and new ways of preparing them. So sample a different kind of fish or food that you typically wouldn’t cook and definitely try new vegetables. Restaurants often have wonderful ways of presenting dark green leafy veggies (my kids and I had braised spinach and kale in garlic and it was a huge hit that we now make at home regularly).

Whether it is a Thai curry, an Indian veggie dish, a puttanesca sauce, or steamed or grilled veggies on a platter, make the veggies the star and eat them along with some non-fried protein and minimize the starches. Look for grilled, roasted, baked or broiled proteins and avoid fried or sautéed to the extent possible (they are likely sautéing in expensive vegetable oils or butter substitutes).

If it’s not a sauce-based dish like curry or marinara for example, ask for the sauce on the side. My favorite dish in the world is eggs benedict and when I enjoy it on a special occasion, I ask for the sauce on the side and I don’t eat the English muffin. I enjoy all the flavor and richness of the dish and indulge completely, but even as I do, I cut out the parts that I won’t miss and I control the portion size of sauce. Most of us are used to asking for salad dressings on the side, but you can also do so for many main dishes.

At the end of the day, it’s important to do the best you can, but don’t stress out too much if you make a less healthy choice: make the decision to add an extra glass of water or 15 minutes to your walk and let it go. And keep in mind that as important as what you eat is how you eat. When you eat on the run, standing up, in your car, at your computer, the body is taking in food under stressed conditions. In that state, it will not be able to absorb nutrients and it will store more calories as fat. Your digestion basically shuts down under stress and eating on the go is perceived as stress by your body. Sit down, take time to eat at a table or on a park bench, chew slowly, savor your meal and take a break from the busyness of your day.

And lastly, while we think about and plan so many things in advance, we often leave food to the last minute. The more you can plan ahead, the more likely you will be able to make healthier choices. This means thinking ahead when you shop, preparing and prepping foods when you get home or on the weekend (chop veggies, put snack size portions into separate containers that are ready to grab and go), and make double batches of soup or meals over the weekend. Freeze individual portions so that you have your own healthy frozen foods, ready to heat and serve.

I found some great glass containers with plastic lids at the Crate and Barrel outlet; they sell them individually or in a set. They work well because they are glass which means that they can go in the microwave if you are in a pinch at the office, they are clear so you can see exactly what it in them and know what you’ve got, and they are more elegant to eat out of if you take them and use them as your dish. It makes lunch on a park bench that much more enjoyable to be eating out of a real container instead of plastic or paper. And yes, I bring a real knife and fork, too!

But you don’t need fancy containers; you can pre-pack snacks into plastic bags and have them on the shelves of your fridge to grab and go for work snacks, snacks for the kids in between school and sports, or something to grab if you come home starving. The key to making good food choices, at home or away, is planning in advance and making sure you don’t wait too long between eating. When you are hungry, you’ll grab what’s easiest or feels most satisfying and that may not be the best choice.

And since most of us drink one-third of our calories, next week, we’ll look at healthy liquid options at home or away, to keep you away from soda, and energy and sports drinks.

To your wellness and health: your true wealth!

Inger

Author: Inger Pols is the Editor of the New England Health Advisory and Author/Creator, Finally Make It Happen, the proven process to get what you want. Get a free special report on The Truth About Sugar: It’s Not All Equal at www.IngerPols.com

Photo Source: Microsoft Clip Art

Unless you’re a vegetarian whose health is thriving, you most likely need to pay more attention to your animal protein selections. While it is possible to get everything you need to be healthy purely from plants, it’s difficult to do so. Almost every civilization has included some animal protein in its diet, even if it was only insects and bugs. While most of us do need to consume some animal protein to maintain optimal health, it’s likely that you are eating too much meat in general as well as too much unhealthy meat.

If you haven’t read the books The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan and Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, or seen the movie Food, Inc., I strongly encourage you to check them out. I could easily write a book on factory farming and the challenges it poses to our food supply. But I’ll save most of that for another day. However, I do want to tell you a little bit about hormones and antibiotics, as well as pesticides, in meat and why eating them can be bad for your health.

Hold the Hormones

For decades, the meat and dairy industries have been using hormones to help young livestock gain weight faster. More weight means more meat means more profit. A pellet is typically implanted in the animal’s ear that releases hormones, commonly synthetic estrogens and testosterone, throughout its life.

The hormones remain in the animal’s fatty tissue and are present in the meat we eat, albeit in smaller doses than the human body typically produces. But even small amounts of hormones have been shown to have big effects on some body processes. It’s long been known that excess exposure to estrogen increases breast cancer risk and now we know it increases prostate cancer risk too. Hormone-treated meat has been suspected of contributing to early puberty and male breast development.

The European Union has banned all hormones in meat. But there aren’t any studies underway in the U.S. to evaluate hormone safety in meat and milk, so this practice will likely continue. Perhaps if we were not so heavily exposed to estrogenic compounds in our daily environment, this might not be so problematic. But estrogenic compounds are hard to avoid and eating hormone-laden meat just adds to the burden on your body.

Rising Antibiotic Resistance

We know the benefits of taking antibiotics when we have a bacterial illness, but most livestock in the U.S. are fed antibiotics even when they aren’t sick! Antibiotics are primarily used to make animals gain weight. But now researchers are becoming concerned with this practice, as they fear it is giving rise to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which could pose a serious health risk.

In fact, a number of studies have shown growing resistance to antibiotics, including one in the New England Journal of Medicine that revealed that 84% of the salmonella bacteria found in supermarket ground beef was resistant to some antibiotics. Another study showed that pork that came from animals that had been fed the antibiotic ciprofloxacin led to people catching resistant strains of salmonella. The FDA estimates that 11,000 people caught intestinal illnesses in 1999 from eating antibiotic-resistant bacteria in chicken.

Pesticides: Not Just a Concern with Produce

We hear a lot about pesticides with respect to produce, and they are a concern. But pesticides in our meat supply may pose an even greater danger. You can ingest far more pesticides on a meat-heavy diet than you would from consuming fruits and vegetables. Today’s livestock are not fed a traditional diet, but rather a feed that is loaded with pesticides. (The feed also often contains meat from diseased animals that die before slaughter.)

Pesticides accumulate in the flesh of animals and have been shown to cause cancer, nerve damage, birth defects, and to inhibit the proper absorption of food nutrients. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 90% of fungicides, 60% of herbicides and 30% of insecticides are known carcinogens.

The EPA does set limits on how much pesticide can be used (according to what they deem as safe) and how much is allowed to remain on food. However, the only way to know for sure is to have the food tested, which does not occur today. So it’s really a guess as to how much is left behind and whether that amount of pesticides is “safe” or not. The EPA also states that in certain cases, such as economic loss to farmers, unauthorized pesticides (those known to be unsafe) are knowingly allowed to be used.

Making Better Meat Choices

Thankfully, in most supermarkets today you can find meat labeled as hormone free, antibiotic free and pesticide free, and that’s what I buy. (This does not alleviate all the problems associated with today’s farming practices, but it’s a step in the right direction.)

Because the food supply of the livestock is a big part of the problem, whenever possible, I look for grass-fed meat or chicken raised on something other than vegetarian feed. It can be hard to find, and it can be expensive, but I think it’s worth it. (While you can order grass fed meat online directly from the farms, if you look around, you can find grass-fed ground beef in some grocery stores too. If you are lucky enough to have a Trader Joe’s near you, they sell grass fed ground beef for $5.99 a pound and it makes yummy pink-slime-free hamburgers and ground beef dishes). My kids also think it tastes much better; they can tell the difference!

Many people eat too much meat in one meal, so cutting back on portion size is another way to make eating meat more economical and healthy. Meat portions should never be larger than the palm of your hand. (Yes, that does mean those with bigger hands get a slight advantage!) But no one has a hand large enough to accommodate a 16 oz. porterhouse steak: a little meat protein goes a long way.

Another good food swap is to substitute bison for beef. Bison are fed grass instead of grain and are typically not given hormones, antibiotics or pesticides. Bison meat also has very little intramuscular fat, so it is low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol versus beef, pork or chicken. Venison is also a good choice.

Lastly, a comment on luncheon meats. In addition to the concerns already mentioned about hormones, pesticides and antibiotics in the meats, most packaged meats (bacon, salami, ham, pepperoni, hot dogs, etc.) contain nitrates as a preservative. Sodium nitrate is converted into nitrosamines, which are chemicals that can cause cancer.

While nitrosamines can cause virtually any kind of cancer, the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that people eating more processed meat were 50% more likely to develop lower colon cancer. Nitrosamines have also been linked to a 68% higher risk of pancreatic cancer, and increasing consumption of processed meats by 30 grams resulted in a 15% to 38% increase in risk for developing stomach cancer.

Consumption of nitrates has been shown to cause an increase in brain tumors in children and to result in DNA mutations. The food industry calls nitrates a color fixer, as they turn meats bright red and can make old, gray, unattractive meat look healthy and delicious.

But the good news is that most major grocery store chains have some nitrate-free meat in their organic sections and you can find them at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods as well. Again, they can cost a little more, but I’d rather see my meat as it really is and skip the cancer risk, especially for my kids, as their developing bodies can handle fewer toxins.

While these changes won’t fix the problems in our food supply, they will help you make healthier meat choices. Becoming an educated consumer and voting with your wallet is a step toward getting better meat options in our stores that are free of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and nitrates.

To your wellness and health: your true wealth!

Inger

Author: Inger Pols is the Editor of the New England Health Advisory and Author/Creator, Finally Make It Happen, the proven process to get what you want. Get a free special report on The Truth About Sugar: It’s Not All Equal at www.IngerPols.com

Photo Source: Microsoft Clip Art

Despite the fact that many years has passed since this was written, not much – or not enough – has changed. While some fast food restaurants have banned “pink slime,” ammonia-laden meat has once again made national headlines. So it is time to run this again and re-start the discussion.

Ammonia and Meat

I’d like to tell you a story. It’s a story that may shock you if you haven’t heard it already. A story rich in drama, intrigue and cover-ups.

One that involves you, if you eat fast food, and one that involves your kids if they eat school lunches. A story that you should care about even if neither of the above is true. A story that may seem to be science fiction, but sadly, is true; it was reported in the New York Times on December 30, 2009.  It is a story that reflects the current state of food in America and its impact on our health.

Once upon a time, there was a beef processing company called Beef Products Inc. who was, as most companies are, looking to make more money. They wanted to try to find a way to take the fatty meat trimmings that could only be sold for pet food or cooking oil and create a product they could use to enter the hamburger business. But because the trimmings were very susceptible to contamination by E. coli and salmonella, they had to find a way to treat the meat scraps so that they would be safe from contamination.

So they developed a process to treat the meat with ammonia. Yes, ammonia, the ingredient used in your household cleaner which has a warning on the label regarding breathing or ingestion and information about poison control.

Now to be clear, untreated meat has a natural ammonia level that rates about 6 on the pH scale, similar to milk or rain water. But this company found that if they treated the beef with an ammonia process that resulted in changing the pH level to about 10, they could kill the E.coli and salmonella. That is an alkalinity that surpasses the range of most foods.

Pink Slime

So they took their study to the U.S.D.A., who was worried about E. coli and salmonella. One former U.S.D.A. microbiologist admitted that he and several scientists were concerned that no independent validation of safety had been provided. Another, Gerald Zirnstein said the processed beef looked like “pink slime” and went on to say “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

But in the end, the U.S.D.A. not only approved the ammonia processed meat, they were so pleased with the performance of the ammonia process that when they started routine testing of the hamburger meat, they exempted the company, considering their meat safe enough to skip testing.

The Agricultural Marketing Service, the U.S.D.A. division that is responsible for buying food for school lunches, seemed to be a voice of reason. Complaints were made about the smell and a 2002 memo states that they “had to determine if the addition of ammonia to the product is in the best interest of the A.M.S. from a quality standpoint.”

In addition, they stated, “The product should be labeled accordingly.”

A top lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry argued on the company’s behalf that another company had just received approval to not disclose a chemical used in treating poultry, so therefore this company shouldn’t have to disclose the ammonia. He won.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the ammonia process, considering it safe when used as a processing agent in food.

Making Money from Meat Previously Unfit for Human Consumption

So the company sold its ammonia treated meat to McDonald’s and Burger King and all the other fast food chains, as well as to many grocery stores.

In the end, the school lunch officials overcame their objections and decided to use the meat too because it saved 3 cents a pound off the cost of making ground beef. In 2009, the company sold about 5.5 million pounds of the ammonia processed meat to schools alone.

And so the company, which does not disclose its earnings, generated an estimated $440 million dollars a year in additional revenue from the trimmings previously unfit for human consumption.

And we, as consumers, would probably never have known about this at all, had it not been for a problem.

The ammonia process left the meat smelling pungently of ammonia, even as the company produced a taste test saying that some school children preferred the taste of burgers with more of the ammonia processed meat.

In Georgia, officials returned 7000 pounds of the meat to the company after smelling a “very strong odor of ammonia” in the meat being used to make meatloaf for state prisons. (They did not know about the ammonia process, because it was not on the label, so they assumed the meat had been tainted.) They noted in their complaint, according to the New York Times, that the “level of ammonia in the beef was similar to levels found in the contamination incidents involving chicken and milk that had sickened schoolchildren.”

The company told the U.S.D.A. that it was safe and that when it was diluted with other ground beef and mixed together, it would be fine. The U.S.D.A. accepted this conclusion, so the company was off the hook.

But others complained about the smell, too.

Beef Recalls

So the company had to do something and it released new research showing that E. coli and salmonella were undetectable at pH levels of 8.5. That enabled it to reduce the level of ammonia and lessen the smell.  So they altered the process to lower the pH level, though they would not reveal to exactly what level.  (Samples that the NY Times collected showed a pH as low as 7.75, below their revised test minimum.)

But in doing so, this left the fatty meat scraps more vulnerable to contamination.

And that is where the company surfaced on the public radar.

School lunch program testing revealed E. coli and salmonella dozens of times in this company’s meat. There were two back-to-back incidents in August 2009 that concluded two 27,000 pound batches were contaminated, but thankfully they were caught before the meat was consumed by school children.

That July, salmonella concerns resulted in a temporary ban of this company’s meat by school officials in Kansas. It was the third time in three years this company’s meat had been banned. But the processing facility remained open and continued to supply other customers (including fast food restaurants and grocery stores) with meat even though they couldn’t sell to schools during that time.

When the NY Times broke the story and presented the U.S.D.A. with the information, top officials said that they did not know what their peers in the lunch program had known for years.

The agriculture department responded and revoked this company’s freedom from routine testing. It also reversed its policy about pathogens: because this beef was supposedly pathogen free, it was not included in recalls, even when it was found in tainted hamburgers!

Food Safety Disconnect — What is Wrong?

While in a way I feel we should cheer that there was a response as a result of the NY Times investigation, it’s clear that there is a disconnect between the various divisions of government and that the lack of communication and knowledge exchange is hindering public safety.

But more than that, I am concerned that we as a public have become too comfortable with scandal and no longer react.

I am not sure what aspect of this story bothers me most:

• The fact that ammonia is being injected into meat;
• The fact that the process of injecting ammonia into substandard previously inedible meat makes it then acceptable;
• The fact that despite no outside substantiation that this process is safe, it is approved;
• The fact that because it is seemingly safe, it is exempt from any further testing;
• The fact that this meat is being consumed by school children as part of hot lunch programs in order to save pennies;
• The fact that government agencies — and branches of the same agency — don’t talk to each other;   (When that happens in corporations, we consider them dysfunctional and they usually don’t stick around long.)
• The fact that the company continued to sell the meat to other customers even after contamination was confirmed by one customer;
• That there is no real recourse to be taken against this company and it continues on as before selling its ammonia-laden meat, although now it is no longer exempt from testing;
• Or that when all of this comes to light, we read it and move on.

Poisoning Children

I have many health conscious friends. When I discussed this with one, he said, “well that is yet another in a long list of reasons why I don’t eat fast food.” And when I said “Yes, but what about your kids eating lunch in school,” he said, “that is yet another reason why I pack their lunches.” I too pack my kids lunches for many such reasons. But what about the kids who are eating there because they are on the subsidized lunch programs or because their parents believe the food they are getting is good or better than what they could come up with on their busy schedules?

Does it not upset you to know this is happening?

His response was that it is no surprise to him that this stuff goes on based on what he knows about the government and the operation of its agencies, especially regarding food. That they represent agriculture and food companies, not consumers.

OK, I know that too. But even knowing that, I still feel we can do better. I still feel outraged that we are allowing substandard food products to replace real food in our diets.

Is this what we want to eat? Is this what we think is best to feed growing children?

Are we ok with food decisions that are made to save three cents because we deem that more important than health and wellness?

It strikes me that it is not dissimilar to the situation in the automobile industry in America. I remember being in a meeting twenty years ago in which there was a discussion over whether saving a half a cent on a screw that would last through warranty (hopefully) was worth it over spending an extra half a cent for the more expensive screw that would last 10+ years.

It took awhile, but car manufacturers finally realized that they needed to take a more holistic view: that there were other costs associated with choosing the less expensive screw. Things changed when the decisions were no longer made solely by those focused on short-term immediate costs: when people began to realize there were longer-term costs that had to be factored in as well.

We need to change the system and fix the broken processes. When will we take a more holistic view of our food choices and realize that while budgets are tight, some savings are simply too costly to justify?

So Why Doesn’t the Government Intervene?

The rationale for using ammonia was to treat the meat to prevent pathogens such as E coli. In the report that follows, however, the focus is on chemical contaminants like veterinary drugs and antibiotics, heavy metals (such as copper, cadmium and arsenic), dioxins, polybrominated diphenylethers (fire retardants), and pesticides with cancelled registrations that remain in the meat. The problem with these chemical contaminants is that not only are they not destroyed by cooking, as E coli is, but they can actually intensify when cooked and become even more harmful.

The report concludes that the various agencies policing our meat supply are not working together to establish reasonable tolerance levels for these contaminants: they are not only not testing for them, they have not even established the appropriate thresholds for any testing safety levels. It appears to be a take off on the Laurel and Hardy skit of “Who’s on First.”

Let’s look at how it is supposed to work. (Bear with me through all the acronyms and initials.)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) administers the national residue program. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) each play a key role in the process and in addition, they established a joint Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT) and an Interactive Residue Control Group (IRCG) to help reach their program goals.

Each year, the SAT is supposed to call on the FDA, the EPA and FSIS to determine what residues they will be testing for that year. Despite the fact that they convene and form a joint consensus, each year the FSIS continues to only test for one type of pesticide.

The EPA claims that FSIS refuses its requests for additional pesticide testing. The FSIS, however, counterclaims that the EPA has not set the established tolerances for which it is supposed to test so it cannot test for them. (At the same time, it also states it doesn’t have the resources to do the testing.)

For any testing that does occur, the FDA must approve the proper testing methods. However, the FDA continues to make use of antiquated testing methods and has continually      been unwilling or unable to use newer testing methodologies.

The methods employed by the various agencies are often in conflict with each other, which is why the SAT was created to begin with: to help them coordinate and communicate to make it happen. But year after year, no progress seems to be made. The report concludes there is a problem and that improvements must be made. Not surprisingly, this did not make headlines!

In addition, the report indicates that meat plant violations do not seem to concern the FSIS as they should. In 2008, one plant received over 200 violations, but was still allowed to continue operating after the FSIS declared the violations “not likely to occur,”

One of the concerns highlighted is the practice of cow ‘recycling.’ When a dairy cow gets too old or sick to produce any more milk, they are slaughtered and the ‘spent’ dairy cow meat makes it way into our meat supply. This causes concern because of the hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides present within the meat fat of those cows. A 2008 investigation revealed that 90% of the residue violations occurred in plants that process the spent dairy cows.

The same plants also process what is known as “bob” veal, or male calves born to dairy cows. Dairy cows receive large amounts of antibiotics after they give birth to calves to treat and prevent birth-related infections. Dairy producers must wait a certain amount of time before they can sell the antibiotic laden milk for human consumption. So rather than waste the milk, they feed the antibiotic laden milk to the bob veal calves. The drugs never have a chance to leave their systems, and so they remain in the veal meat that is ultimately purchased by consumers. (And if the dairy cow does not recover after birth, she is slaughtered and her meat enters our food supply as well.)

Another concern highlighted in the report is the fact that livestock are now being fed industrial waste that remains after the process of converting corn into ethanol fuel. The remains are known as ‘distillers’ grains.’ The USDA is aware that they are more likely to contain E coli, but they do not choose to regulate the use of distillers’ grains in cattle feed. The ethanol fermentation process requires a lot of antibiotics as well, so those residues also remain in distillers’ grains. In addition, they are laden with mycotoxins, which are linked to an imbalance in pigs called Mulberry Heart Disease, which can cause sudden death.

In the end, because there are no regulations and testing is not being done, this meat ends up in our food supply and the more tainted it is, or the lower the quality, often, the cheaper it is. That makes it more appealing to fast food restaurants, big chain supermarkets, and of course, our school lunch programs where it is fed to developing children who are even more sensitive to the drugs, chemicals, and antibiotics than adults are.

Another section of the report highlighted how the agencies fail to communicate. In one example, the EPA has recently cancelled use of all pesticides containing lindane and will revoke its current lindane tolerance.

The report states “One FSIS official stated that without a tolerance or a zero tolerance if FSIS finds lindane as a residue, it will have no basis for acting to protect the U.S. food supply from unacceptable levels of this pesticide. Another FSIS official disagreed and noted that in the absence of a tolerance (e.g., for lindane) any residue of a pesticide would be illegal and would adulterate the food – making it unnecessary to create a zero tolerance. Regardless of their position, both officials agreed that the agency needed to clarify its procedures regarding the actions agency personnel are to take concerning the disposition of carcasses that contain a potentially hazardous substance where no official tolerance has been established by the FDA or EPA.”

I don’t quite understand how canceling use of all pesticides containing lindane can be considered not establishing an official tolerance level, but that’s why I don’t work for the government!

So what can we do? We continue to hear these stories and maybe we are becoming de-sensitized or we just accept the inability of our government to adequately protect us and our food supply. But there are things we can do.

Support local farmers and CSAs where you can meet and know the producers of the food you are eating and ask them questions about their practices. Educate yourself by reading the reports such as the one below and becoming aware of the challenges faced by our current food practices. Vote with your pocket book, and speak out to your representatives: let them know you care about our food supply and the health of our children and you want something better.

There’s no point reforming our health care system if we are not changing our farming and food policies: let’s get to the cause and not the symptom.  What do you think?

And if you are interested in learning more about how the government monitors its agencies, read the Executive Summary below for a taste.

FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle

Executive Summary

One of the public food safety issues facing the United States is the contamination of meat with residual veterinary drugs, pesticides, and heavy metals. “Residue” of this sort finds its way into the food supply when producers bring animals to slaughter plants while they have these residual contaminants in their system. When the animals are slaughtered, traces of the drugs or pesticides contained in these animals’ meat is shipped to meat processors and retail supermarkets, and eventually purchased by consumers.

In order to safeguard the Nation’s food supply from harmful residue, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) administers the national residue program. FSIS inspectors sample meat processed through slaughter plants for residue testing and compare the results with tolerances established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prevent adulterated meat from entering into commerce.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the national residue program and to assess how well FSIS, FDA, and EPA were coordinating to accomplish the program’s objectives.

Based on our review, we found that the national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues. Together, FSIS, FDA, and EPA have not established thresholds for many dangerous substances (e.g., copper or dioxin), which has resulted in meat with these substances being distributed in commerce. Additionally, FSIS does not attempt to recall meat, even when its tests have confirmed the excessive presence of veterinary drugs.

To address these serious shortcomings in the national residue program, FSIS, EPA, and FDA need to take steps to improve how they coordinate with one another to accomplish the program’s mission. Recognizing that they needed to work together to prevent residue from entering the food supply, the three agencies established the Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT) and the Interagency Residue Control Group (IRCG) as a way of coming together to communicate and coordinate.

We found, however, that there were a wide range of problems with relying on this process: not all agencies were equally committed to the SAT and IRCG; essential participants were not required to attend; and no one agency had authority to ensure that necessary actions were taken to deal with disagreements. Due to problems with how the SAT and IRCG were established and were functioning, we identified four issues relating to coordination between FSIS, EPA, and FDA.

The three agencies involved need to: 1) expand the substances they test for, 2) improve their methodology for sampling hazardous residues, 3) determine more efficient ways of approving newer methods of testing for drug residues, and 4) collaborate to set tolerances for additional residues.

{If you enjoyed the Executive Summary and want more, you can read the full report at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/24601-08-KC.pdf.}

To your wellness and health: your true wealth!

Inger

Author: Inger Pols is the Editor of the New England Health Advisory and Author/Creator, Finally Make It Happen, the proven process to get what you want. Get a free special report on The Truth About Sugar: It’s Not All Equal at www.IngerPols.com

Photo Source: Microsoft Clip Art