New Study: Eating Meat Could Be as Harmful as Smoking

  Food  

The Guardian / By Holly Baxter

New Study: Eating Meat Could Be as Harmful as Smoking

It's time to kick the high-protein habit!

Photo Credit: racorn/Shutterstock.com

 

 

March 5, 2014  |  

 

 

Whenever I order a veggie burger, the question comes up. A member of the group will lean over between tearing meaty chunks out of their double-beef special, and make a concerted effort to feign benevolent interest as they ask: "So, you're a vegetarian, are you? Is that because you prefer it or for, well, ethical reasons?"

Here, the questioner is offering the questioned a polite way out. It is phrased so you can apologetically gesticulate towards your halloumi and mutter something self-deprecating about a weak stomach and a delicate constitution. You can chow down quietly on your balls of fried falafel and then scuttle off with your quiet personal views about factory farm conditions, global warming and antibiotic overuse like someone who secretly believes in a particularly suspect 9/11 conspiracy theory. Either that or you can admit that your food choices are, yes, "technically for ethical reasons", and then endure the 212th exhaustive conversation about exactly why you stick to them. Inevitably, this will end up with some well-informed carnivore telling you all about how you are a hypocrite for eating cheese while bacon fat drips slowly down his chin.

Personally, I am completely on board with the idea that most of my views are hypocritical while I still buy butter and enjoy mozzarella. I accept that my position on food is complicated, as well as everybody else's, and I couldn't care less about the bacon fat or the spaghetti bolognese or the rare steak being consumed next to me. Like the majority of people in Sudbury, Suffolk, I don't think that butcher's shops should have their dead animal displays censored when all they do is quite rightly draw attention to the reality of where meat comes from. And to be perfectly honest, a sizeable chunk of my reasoning for vegetarianism comes from a selfish place: I've always had the vague notion that meat – and, in particular, red meat or processed meat – doesn't do the human body much discernible good.

According to the latest study into protein consumption, it turns out that this theory may well have something to it. The National Health and Nutrition Survey has been collating data on 6,381 people across the US, and found that diets rich in animal protein (as opposed to protein routinely taken from plant sources) could be as harmful to health as other vices such as smoking. Those under the age of 65 who regularly consume a lot of meat, eggs and dairy are four times more likely to die of cancer or diabetes – although it's worth noting that, if you make it to 66, beginning to eat a high-protein diet for your remaining years is a better shout than sticking with the steamed kale.

Perhaps you would accuse me of perpetuating the "everything gives you cancer" agenda. But it's not only sensationalist carcinogenic claims that deserve attention in light of these findings. Consider the diets endlessly touted in women's magazines and the most successful self-help books of the late 20th and early 21st century: the Dukan diet, for instance; the internationally renowned Atkins plan; and of course "going paleo". All of these emphasise a drastic cut in carbohydrate intake and a regular protein overload. All of them claim to base their advice on medicine (and, in the case of the paleo diet, sketchy pseudo-scientific claims about what we are "naturally intended" to eat if we are to "mimic the diets of our caveman ancestors".) Now it turns out that losing all that weight for your health might be backfiring spectacularly, taking months of your life off with every spare tyre you shed.

Having been raised in a vehemently anti-veggie northern English city on a steady diet of chicken nuggets and turkey dinosaurs, years before Jamie Oliver began to suggest there was anything wrong with feeding kids the components of dog food, I don't expect to reap the benefits of a lifelong healthy diet anytime soon, either. But if it's true that 39% of women report being on a diet "most of the time", and that the average woman spends 31 years on a diet, then we in particular are setting ourselves up for serious middle-aged falls.

Where protein shakes for "bulking up" and adverts that demand to know whether or not a passerby is "man enough" to eat a five-tiered burger have remained masculine domains since time immemorial, the high-protein dieting phenomenon is fairly new for women. The long-term effects haven't emerged in enough numbers to draw definite conclusions, but this latest finding shouldn't be ignored. It is a credible warning about a society currently obsessed with protein and weight loss, operating in meat production hyperdrive with some of the most accessible fast food that ever existed.

Ultimately, it makes no difference whether you did it for the love of fluffy lambs in spring or deep-seated narcissism combined with a fierce survival instinct: the fact is you should probably eat less meat. You may well have to face a couple of awkward questions over a bowl of hummus, but hey, we all have our crosses to bear. And so, for the love of the NHS, please consign your well-thumbed paleo book to the dustbin. Because it turns out that you may be taking its simpering promises to make you thinner literally at your own peril.

Diet High in Meat Proteins Raises Cancer Risk for Middle-Aged People

 

 

Diet High in Meat Proteins Raises Cancer Risk for Middle-Aged People

For people aged 50 to 65, a high-protein diet increased the risk of cancer fourfold, comparable to the risk associated with smoking 

 

Mar 4, 2014 |By Bahar Gholipour and LiveScience

 

Sean Dreilinger, Flickr Creative Commons

People who eat a high-protein diet during middle age are more likely to die of cancer than those who eat less protein, a new study finds.

However, for people older than 65, a moderate protein intake may actually be beneficial, and protect against frailty, the researchers said.

The researchers looked at more than 6,000 people ages 50 and older, and followed them for 18 years. They found that people ages 50 to 65 who ate a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age were more than four times as likely to die of cancer during the study period than those who ate a low-protein diet, according to the study published today (March 4) in the journal Cell Metabolism.

"Popular diets in many cases have high proteins and low sugars. They may make you lose some weight, but that's not a good diet to increase life span," said study researcher Valter Longo, professor of biology at the University of Southern California (USC) and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

The risks of a high-protein diet are even comparable to smoking, the researchers said. People who smoke are four times more likely to die of cancer compared with nonsmokers, Longo said.

"Of course we cannot be sure of the reasons, but we have a pretty good idea, based on this study and also previous studies, as to why this is happening," Longo said.

The study also found that middle-age people who ate foods rich in animal proteins — including meat, milk and cheese — were 75 percent more likely to die of any cause than those who ate a low-protein diet within the study period. [5 Diets That Fight Diseases]

The researchers defined a "high-protein" diet as deriving at least 20 percent of daily calories from protein, a "moderate" protein diet as deriving 10 to 19 percent of calories from protein, and a "low-protein" diet as less than 10 percent of calories from protein.

However, what's bad for people at one age may be healthy at another. In the study, people older than 65 were less likely to die of cancer or other causes if they consumed more protein.

"So, not all people benefit from low protein. Older people actually seem to benefit from moderate intake of protein," Longo said. Having enough protein in the diet may be important for older people to maintain a healthy weight and protect against frailty, the researchers said.

The link between high-protein intake and risk of cancer almost vanished when the researchers considered participants whose protein mainly came from plants, such as beans.

This may be because proteins in plants have a different composition, and don't stimulate growth hormones as efficiently as meat proteins, Longo said.

The study suggests that the Mediterranean diet, which is low in animal protein and high in carbohydrates, may be best for extending life span, Longo said.

The researchers said they recommend eating about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. For example, a 130-pound person should eat about 45 to 50 grams of protein a day, with a preference for plant proteins, the researchers said.

To investigate why there may be a link between protein consumption and cancer, the researchers looked at mice that were injected with mouse skin cancer cells. They showed that a high amount of protein in the mouse diet promoted the tumor's survival and growth by increasing the levels of a growth hormone, called IGF-1.

The researchers also measured the levels of IGF-1 for 2,000 people, randomly selected among those in their study, and found that for every 10 nanograms per milliliter increase in IGF-1, those on a high-protein diet were 9 percent more likely to die of cancer than those on a low-protein diet.

"When you have a lot of protein, these growth factors go up, and we've shown that they help normal cells become cancer-like cells, and then they help the cells grow," Longo said.

• 11 Surprising Things That Can Make Us Gain Weight
• 4 Fad Diets That Don't Really Work
• 10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer

 

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Help! I’m Poor But Want to Eat Healthy!

 

By Taylor on December 27, 2012 

 

 

“I can’t eat healthy, it’s too expensive!”

Unhealthy food is indeed often more accessible and cheaper than healthy alternatives.  Unfortunately, it’s these very foods that make us unhealthy and overweight, causing all sorts of INCREDIBLY expensive medical problems down the road.

“The line must be drawn here!”

Healthy eating on a budget IS possible, it just takes a game plan and a little creativity.

Today we’re going to talk about specific foods that are a great bang for your buck. Whether you’re simply trying lose weight and get in shape, or build some muscle and put on weight without looking like Jabba the Hut, making the right dietary choices will always be 80-90% of your success.

(A Star Trek AND Star Wars reference within three sentences of each other? That’s how we roll around here.)

Let’s go!

Break conventional thinking

It’s not exactly a secret that our culture is obsessed with size: Bigger is better.

Over the last few decades we’ve been eating and drinking more and more, and we developed the idea that a “good deal” means a lot of food. In other words, we tend to associate a deal by looking at the price per calorie.

“I got SOO many fries, what a great deal!” 

Sure, you could buy pasta and ramen and live on mere dollars a day, but we want a game plan that doesn’t skip out on practically every macro and micronutrient – a strategy that builds Rebel Superheroes.

The aim will be to reshape the way you evaluate ‘good deals.’ Instead of price per calorie, we’ll be looking at the price per nutrient. We want the most nutrients for the least amount of money. The choices below will:

• Target nutrient dense foods, but understand that we’re looking for the most economical choices. If food A costs $10 and has 50 of nutrient x, we’ll pick  food B instead, which only provides 45 of x but costs just $2.
• Limit our draw to ‘good caloric deals,’ avoiding nutrient deficient options such as white bread or ramen.
• Identify foods with high caloric AND nutritional value, for those currently trying to gain weight through strength training.

Let’s do this!

Vegetables

While vegetables can often be expensive, when we looked at some of the best choices, veggies  are actually pretty awesome. One study showed:

“…that although fruits and vegetables are an expensive source of dietary energy (calories), they provide key nutrients at a reasonable cost.”

For starters, don’t be afraid to buy frozen vegetables in the freezer section of your local grocery store (or even canned vegetables).  Sure, I love fresh veggies, but since frozen veggies are picked and then frozen at peak ripeness (and thus most nutritionally dense), they are often a better value while being edible for months longer.

Kale and leafy greens (such as mustard or collard): If there is one super cheap superfood, kale and leafy greens are it! Practically nature’s multivitamin, kale is packed full of protein, vitamin K, C, and A, dietary fiber, calcium, potassium, iron, magnesium, and more (a whole lot more). The catch is that kale and leafy greens can be bitter raw, so they need to be cooked. But don’t worry, there are tons of quick and easy ways to make kale delicious. You do NOT want to miss out on one of the most economical superfoods. To get you started, check out Kale Chips or this try this kale and bacon recipe.

Cabbage: A sister food to kale and leafy greens, from antioxidant to fiber to vitamin C, cabbage is both affordable and nutritionally dense. Cabbage is extremely versatile (soup, salad, stir fry,  or sandwiches), and looks like it may have some superfood cancer fighting qualities as well.

Broccoli: I knew I was a Rebel in training when as a kid, I didn’t understand why everyone else hated Broccoli. Whether fresh or frozen, broccoli provides an excellent price per nutrient value.

Spinach: Rich in both minerals and vitamins, fiber and protein, spinach should be your go-to choice for salads over cheaper but nutritionally deficient greens like iceberg lettuce. The difference between spinach and lettuce is so large, this comparison is a great example to demonstrate why we should be making choices based on price per nutrient, rather than price per calorie.

Carrots: Carrots are one of my favorite nutritionally dense snacks. Crazy amounts of vitamin A, good carbs, and a little bit of everything else; carrots are a solid choice to supplement a salad or soup.

Be sure to check out your local farmers’ market, as you may find some great deals on fruits and veggies depending on the season and where you live.

Proteins

While Steve is a huge fan of the Paleo Diet, today we’re going to explore all cheap protein sources, Paleo or non Paleo. If you’re on a strict Paleo Diet, be sure to check out the Nerd Fitness app, Paleo Central, to determine what’s Paleo and what’s not:

Meats (chicken/turkey/beef): When we looked at prices across the U.S., chicken and turkey consistently offered better values. However, don’t count beef out; there is almost ALWAYS a specific cut of beef on sale, and by targeting cheaper (and fattier) cuts, you can usually leave the meat section with a killer deal. We aren’t targeting these cuts simply because they’re cheaper. As one of Steve’s favorite videos explains (Why You Got Fat), we understand that dietary fat is not the enemy, but an important part of a balanced diet.

Eggs: There’s a reason eggs are usually a staple among those seriously strength training: eggs are a simple yet nutritionally dense source of protein. Toss hard boiled eggs in a salad, scramble eggs in a stir fry, or prepare a regular breakfast staple, eggs are usually too cheap to pass up.

Canned Tuna:  One can of Albacore Tuna contains approximately 120 calories, 28g of protein, and can cost $1 or less. This makes canned tuna a superb value and an awesomely lean protein source. Check out other canned fish, such as salmon, for some variety. And be sure to rotate canned tuna in and out of your diet to reduce risks associated with mercury. 

Legumes: Beans, chickpeas, lentils, oh my! Legumes (especially when purchased in bags), are one of the best price per nutrient values out there. Legumes such as beans work great in a salads, soups, or even dips. Providing copious amounts of both protein and carbs, legumes offer a great value and easily satisfy macronutrient requirements. Be wary though, nutritional value will vary depending on your specific legume of choice!

Protein Powder: If the above above recommendations don’t work for you and you’re still a little short on protein, try a huge tub of protein powder online. Make yourself a quick protein shake breakfast or post workout meal.

Other cheap protein options that may be a great deal include quinoa, greek yogurt, cottage cheese, and one of the many types of nut butter.

Fruits

Fruits provide one of the biggest challenges, especially in the United States, because they are so expensive relative to other food groups. Fruits can also be tricky. Grapes, which seem to be a moderate value, end up being one of the worst price per nutrient options out there. This may lead to the completely understandable reaction that I had, “SCREW IT! I love grapes, and I’m buying them!”

But don’t worry, there are still some excellent cost efficient options for fruits:

Watermelon: I know, I know. My first thought too was, “isn’t it mostly water?” Well yes. But as it turns out, since watermelon is so darn cheap, it is an incredible value per nutrient. Packed with lycopene (antioxidant), vitamins A and C, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus, watermelon is a wonderful and easy to eat nutritional deal.

Bananas: If you’re following the Paleo Diet and avoiding most grains, bananas are a great source of carbs. Bananas are super cheap and provide you with tons of potassium. They can be added to oatmeal, eaten as a snack, or my favorite, as a desert (frozen bananas).

Plums: Packed full great micronutrients like vitamin A, K, and C, plums are an excellent source of fiber and carbs.

Pears: Although pears possess a good amount of natural sugars, they are another great source of fiber and vitamin C…and usually even cheaper than plums.

Other fruits that may be great nutritional deals in your area: cantaloupe, apricots, kiwis, and nectarines.

Don’t forget about dried fruit – although high in sugar, bulk dried fruit can be an nutrient incredible value.

How to eat big and healthy

If you are training like crazy or are working hard to get bigger by packing on muscle and size, then chances are you’ll require more and more food (read: fuel) to reach your goals.  If you’re strength training and not getting bigger, then you’re not eating enough – it’s that simple.

We can see from this graph that as calories become more important, fats and oils, beans and legumes, and dairy products become more cost effective than vegetables and fruits (however, don’t neglect vegetables to make sure your…um…”plumbing” can handle the extra calories!).

Oats: Oats are incredibly cheap, provide ridiculous amounts of both carbohydrates and protein, and fulfill other micronutrient and mineral requirements such as thiamin, folate, magnesium, and phosphorus. Oats are simple to make, can be prepared a variety of ways (sweet or savory), and can be bought and stored easily in bulk!

Whole Milk: When Steve gained 18 pounds in a month, and then another 12 pounds while traveling, whole milk was a huge part of his diet. Although milk isn’t Paleo, its low cost combined with high amounts of protein, calcium, and vitamin D makes it an attractive option when trying to meet high calorie requirements (if your body can handle the lactose).

Avocados: Avocados are perhaps the densest food listed in this entire article, both calorically and nutritiously. Although they may appear costly, avocados can be an incredible price per nutrient value.  Put them in salads, on sandwiches, or eat them plain with a little bit of salt! When your local grocery store puts avocados on sale, be sure to stock up!

Sweet Potato: A better nutritional value than normal potatoes (plus a lower glycemic load), sweet potatoes are a great source of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incredible amounts of vitamin A. Steve is a huge fan of sweet potatoes sliced, covered in olive oil, and thrown in the oven at 375 for 12 minutes each side.  So simple, even a nerd could cook it.

Olive Oil: One of the best ways to add good fat without cholesterol or sodium is olive oil. Add extra olive oil to salads, meats, and legumes.  Need even more calories?  Drink it.  Seriously.  Take a few big swigs before each meal and you can add 700-1000 calories to your intake each day, no problem.

Almonds/Walnuts/Almond butter: Hailed by Mark’s Daily Apple, raw almonds are a versatile option that can serve as a great supplementary source of protein and fat. While almonds can be a great value,  be sure to buy them in bulk to optimize your price per nutrient deal. And if you haven’t tried almond butter and apple slices, one of Steve’s staples, you’re missing out.

Eat Smart

No matter what value foods you plan to buy, be sure approach eating healthy on a budget with a plan of attack. You will find that if you take advantage of healthy foods on sale (especially buy one get one free deals), many foods that aren’t listed here will suddenly become a great value!

Remember: If your goal is weight loss, the majority of your calories should come from fat and protein, NOT carbohydrates/grains!  This is the whole premise of the Paleo Diet that we’re so fond of.

Concerned about pesticides and have a bit more money to spend? Here are nine foods you should try to buy organic, and seven organic options you can pass up.  

As long as you’re no longer thinking “more is better,” but instead searching for value healthy foods, you’ll be on your way to becoming a Rebel Superhero.

What foods did I miss that you find to be an incredible value?
Leave any other healthy budget eating tips or tricks in the comments below!

-Taylor

###

photo source: piggy bank, veggies, watermelon, meat, lego cheeseburger, balance scale, mcdonalds

Mad Cow, Eye Cancer, Feces In Your Food? The Price of Cutting Back on Meat Inspectors

 

 

 

  Food  

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg

Mad Cow, Eye Cancer, Feces In Your Food? The Price of Cutting Back on Meat Inspectors

 

Food safety recalls and animal cruelty are increasing under government abdication of public health duties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 26, 2014  |  

 

 

The USDA is cutting back on federal meat inspectors, allowing slaughterhouses to self-police, and already questions about the program are surfacing. This month, USDA recalled  8.7 million pounds of beef products processed at Rancho Feeding Corp. which included Nestle's Philly Steak and Cheese and Croissant Crust Philly Steak and Cheese Hot Pockets, Walmart Fatburgers, Kroger Ground Beef Mini Sliders and other well-known brands.

The reason for the gigantic recall, says USDA, is that the slaughterhouse  "processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection." The multi-state recall, applying to all meat produced over a year at the facility, caused Rancho Feeding Corp. to  close.

The USDA cost-cutting, self-regulation program, called HIMP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-Based Inspection Models Project) will eliminate  800 federal meat inspectors and is already in operation at about 25 chicken and turkey plants. It likely played a role in the Rancho Feeding Corp. recall said Stan Painter, president of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, which represents 6,000 inspectors nationwide. “In many places, managers and veterinarians are being asked to help with inspections,” because of a shortage of federal inspectors, he said.

Six years ago, Painter spoke out about cutbacks in federal inspection when undercover video of "downer" cows moved with electric prods, forklifts and water hoses at the Chino, Ca-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. slaughterhouse surfaced.   Painter warned that the government's cost-driven move toward self-regulation of private slaughterhouses amounted to the fox "guarding its own henhouse." The meat from the cows, which was supplying the National School Lunch Program, was recalled because of the high likelihood of "downer cows" carry Mad Cow disease. It became the largest meat recall in US history.

Westland/Hallmark had been cited by the USDA in 2005 for “too much electric prodding causing animals to get more excited while being driven towards [the kill] box," suggesting it was receiving sick and weak cows. But despite the USDA's "7,800 pairs of eyes scrutinizing 6,200 slaughterhouses and food processors across the nation… in the end, it took an undercover operation by an animal rights group to reveal" the abuse said the  Los Angeles Times in a  scathing 2008 editorial.  Even before the recent meat inspector cutbacks, the government was allowing  sick and diseased cattle to be processed for the US dinner table until the Humane Society of the United States intervened. Westland/Hallmark  ceased operations soon after.

One ailment in cows that could slip through as the number of federal meat inspectors declines is eye cancer, says Bill Niman, a rancher who did business for 40 years with Rancho Feeding Corp. "A farmer sends a cow in with cancer, and he knows it has cancer-eye—it's a growth on the eye, this is not a microbial situation," he told the  Village Voice. "The inspectors, they know it has cancer-eye. So the farmer shouldn't have sent it, and the inspector should have caught it."

Both the shuttered Rancho Feeding Corp. and Westland/Hallmark were slaughterhouses where farmers could send and often dump their dairy cows who could no longer walk. "The cattle are going to go down in the truck," Rod Bolcao, owner of Chino Livestock Market told the  Inland Valley Daily Bulletin who was familiar with Westland/Hallmark. They "aren't going to be strong enough to make the ride" and Westland/Hallmark was there "to pick them up," he said. Without a slaughterhouse like Westland/Hallmark for cull cattle, dairymen lose the $400 they would make on the carcass and instead have to pay "money to euthanize them and haul them out," as much as $70 to $150, he lamented.

 

Nowhere did Bolcao address the ethics of working a dairy cow until the difference between disposing of her and selling her to be slaughtered for meat is $250.

 

Rancho Feeding Corp., the only slaughterhouse in the Bay Area, was also one of the few facilities in its area to slaughter cull dairy cows, said Niman. Dairy cattle are older and sicker, and once their milking days are over they are processed into low-grade meat instead of being retired.

 

Bolcao and Niman are not the only ag voices recounting the cavalier disposal of cull dairy cows which owners try to get on the truck to the slaughterhouse even if the cows will never walk off on their own steam.  A 2010 report from the  USDA's Inspector General identified four operations that dumped 211 cows unfit for human food, calling the operators "individuals who have a history of picking up dairy cows with drugs in their system and dropping them off at the plant."

 

Two of the four Mad Cows that have been found in the US since 2003 were also downers, unable to walk. Cow number two, discovered in late 2004, was purchased at a livestock sale by an "order buyer" who sent her to the slaughterhouse four days later, according to a  government report. When the truck arrived at H&B Packing in Waco, according to the  Star-Telegram, she was already dead and so she was transported instead to Champion Pet Food, across town. Even though there were reports that the cow was unable to walk at the livestock where she was nonetheless sold for meat, the farmer who owned her told government investigators that “the cow had always been excitable and had fallen while she was being loaded to go to the market, but that this was not unusual behavior for her.” Right.

 

Cow number three, discovered in March, 2006, was  also a downer who “had at her side a 2- to 3-week old red Charolais cross female calf” at the time of her death, according to the USDA report. In both cases, the government protected the identities of the ranches and allowed them to resume operations in a month--though the cause of the Mad Cow disease was never found. With the first US mad cow, found in late 2003,  officials refused to tell the public which restaurants and outlets may have served meat containing the cow.

 

Instances of cruelty are not the only expected result of the government's cost-cutting capitulation to private industry by reducing and eliminating inspection. Federal meat inspectors are also responsible for a plant’s compliance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act and Egg Products Inspection Act. Yet since Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) was implemented in 2000 (a self-policing measure that was the precursor to HIMP) it is increasingly hard to do their jobs.

 

“My plant in Pennsylvania processed 1,800 cows a day, 220 per hour,” federal meat inspector Lester Friedlander told the press in 2004.  Stopping the line cost about $5,000 a minute, so veterinarians are pressured “to look the other way” when violations happen.

 

Dean Wyatt, a Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) supervisory public health veterinarian, reiterated Friedlander's charges in  2010 congressional hearings. Federal meat inspectors are unable to do their job on either end, he testified, because FSIS district offices often side with plant management over inspectors, reducing them to powerless figureheads who are sometimes openly laughed at by plant workers.

 

Stan Painter of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals repeated the charges in  additional congressional testimony. "Sometimes, even if we write noncompliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned at the agency level or by going to the congressional delegation to get this inspection staff to back off," he said.

 

Soon after HACCP was implemented in 2000,  62 percent of meat inspectors in a survey admitted that they had  allowed feces, vomit and metal shards in food on a daily or weekly basis, which had not happened before HACCP. Almost 20 percent of inspectors said they’d been told not to document violations. Eighty percent of 451 inspectors said that HACCP interfered with their ability to enforce the law and the public’s right to know about food safety. (No wonder HACCP has been dubbed “Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray.”)

 

As food safety recalls increase under government abdication of its public health duties, the risk of Mad Cow disease, eye cancer and grotesque levels of cruelty to animals will only increase. February's recall of top brands let Nestle's Hot Pockets shows that industry will put profits ahead of self-policing when it can. By eliminating federal inspectors to save money, the USDA is harming food consumers, animals and the public trust. 

 

 

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Random House)."

5 Messed-Up Things That Are In Your Food

  Food  

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg

5 Messed-Up Things That Are In Your Food

 

Many of these ingredients are banned in Europe, but here in the good old USA you'll find them on your dinner plate. 

 

 

 

 

 

February 12, 2014  |  

 

 

Two years ago, the nation's collective stomach churned when people learned they were eating a meat product called "pink slime."  Lean, finely textured beef as the industry wanted to call it, was meat scraps that were once earmarked for pet food repurposed for the human dinner table, especially the National School Lunch Program. While the product looked like human intestines, what caused the national revulsion was that pink slime was treated with puffs of ammonia to kill the bacterium E. coli. Yum.

 

Soon after the hoopla began, the main supplier of pink slime, Beef Products, Inc., announced it  was closing its production facilities. But since then, other products the public doesn't know it's consuming or  want to consume have surfaced, and the manufacturers have not necessarily been as forthcoming. There's a good chance you are eating some of the following products and byproducts.

 

1. Azodicarbonamide in Bread

 

Until a month ago, few had heard of this "dough conditioner," intended to provide strength and improve elasticity. Like pink slime, it was azodicarbonamide's industrial overtones that drove indignation—it's "the same chemical used to make yoga mats, shoe soles, and other rubbery objects," wrote food  blogger Vani Hari in a successful petition to get Subway to remove the substance from its baked products.

 

While World Health Organization tests found azodicarbonamide risks "uncertain," it has been linked to deaths in animals and allergic reactions in humans. Azodicarbonamide is banned in Europe and Australia and its use carries a prison sentence in Singapore, writes Hari. The  Center for Science in the Public Interest warns that when azodicarbonamide is baked in bread, it produces the carcinogen urethane. While Subway announced it is "in the process of removing azodicarbonamide as part of our bread improvement efforts," the dough conditioner is also used in food at McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, Arby's, Wendy's, Jack in the Box and Chick-fil-A. It is also in grocery store and restaurant breads, CNN says.

 

2. Plastic Microbeads in Fish and Waterways

 

For years, the consumer products industry has given us plastic microbeads in toothpaste, liquid hand soaps, skin exfoliators, other personal care products and industrial cleaners. Products like Olay's body wash, Dove Gentle Exfoliating Foaming Facial Cleanser and Clean & Clear Daily Pore Cleanser increase the plastic clogging the planet's seas, "killing millions of sea creatures every year when they swallow it, choke on it, or get tangled in it and drown," according to Slate. It was widely believed, however, that human health was spared. "Our assessment is that they will largely be removed during sewage treatment," Jay Gooch, associate director of external relations in beauty care at Procter & Gamble, reassured Slate.

 

But last year the microbeads were found in water samples in three of the Great Lakes, implying that wastewater treatment is not removing them. The remaining Great Lakes have yet to be tested. The beads, which work their way up the marine food chain, "absorb and retain chemical contaminants," says the  Chicago Tribune. Some manufacturers are phasing out the beads but consumers should avoid any products that list the ingredient polyethylene.

 

3. Brominated Vegetable Oil in Soft Drinks and Beverages

 

Like pink slime and azodicarbonamide, few had heard of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) or believed they were consuming it until recently. And like pink slime and azodicarbonamide, it is brominated vegetable oil's (BVO) connection to industrial products that sparked outrage—the oil, from corn or soy, is bonded with the element bromine which is used in couches and carpets as a  flame retardant. Bromide is an endocrine disruptor and part of the halide family which includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine. It competes for the same receptors in the body as iodine and can cause iodine deficiency.

 

Brominated flame retardants build up in people's bodies, including breast milk and animal and human research have linked them to early puberty and hormone and neurological problems. Excess consumption of drinks with BVO, used to keep flavoring dispersed in a beverage, have been  linked to headaches, fatigue, ataxia (loss of muscle coordination), memory loss and swollen hands with ulcers.

 

In late 2012, 15-year-old  Sarah Kavanagh of Hattiesburg, MS began a petition on Change.org for PepsiCo to remove BVO from Gatorade. Within a month, PepsiCo announced it planned to remove BVO from Gatorade and replace it with sucrose acetate isobutyrate, but six months later,  PepsiCo said it would  keep BVO in Mountain Dew sold in the Americas. BVO is still reportedly in Squirt, Fanta Orange, Sunkist Pineapple and some flavors of Fresca and Poweraide.

 

4. High Fructose Corn Syrup and Artificial Sweeteners in Soft Drinks

 

Scientists and health professionals cannot decide which is worse—high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or artificial sweeteners in soft drinks. HFCS, which is cheaper for soft drink makers to use and store than "real sugar," has been linked to liver damage, diabetes, heart problems, obesity and  even mercury consumption. Yet, aspartame, saccharin and acesulfame potassium, three leading artificial sweeteners, have all been linked to cancer. 

 

A 2011 study by the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine found that people who drank one diet soda every day had a 61 percent higher chance of having a heart attack or stroke. Questions also persist about artificial sweeteners’ links to Alzheimer’s disease, autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. (Nor do artificial sweeteners necessarily help people lose weight, some studies suggest.)

 

The plot thickened in 2012, when a Harvard study indicted both sugar and HFCS-sweetened beverages. Men who drank one soft drink a day had a 20 percent increased risk of heart disease regardless of their age, diet, family history or alcohol/tobacco use. The Harvard study was announced one month after doctors published an editorial in the journal  Nature calling for all types of sugar and HFCS to be regulated the way alcohol or tobacco are.

 

5. Transglutaminase Also Known as "Meat Glue"

 

Around the same time rumors of pink slime and BVO in the US food supply began to surface, the term "meat glue" also debuted. Meat glue is transglutaminase, an adhesive powder originally obtained from animal blood, but lately more likely to come from fermented bacteria which is cheaper. Meat glue lets chefs cobble together disparate and low-quality scraps of meat, put it in the refrigerator overnight and produce "filet mignon," a deception that is the basis of many consumers' objections.

 

Up to  35 percent of food products contain meat glue, including  tofu, milk, yogurt and even cereal according to industry accounts. Animal versions of meat glue in which the coagulation animal protein thrombin is combined with fibrin have affected blood clotting time in humans because bovine thrombin can  cross-react with human factors. Studies showed that repeat clinical applications of topical bovine thrombin increase human risk. Another risk of meat glue is bacterial growth: scraps that were outside pieces but are now glued together inside a "formed meat" are hard to cook, says microbiologist  Glenn Pener. “The amount of bacteria on a steak that’s been put together with meat glue is hundreds of times higher.”

 

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Random House)."

How the Koch Brothers are Taking Over the Food Supply, and No One is Noticing

How the Koch Brothers are Taking Over the Food Supply, and No One is Noticing

 

 

Thu, 3/28/2013 - by Fritz Kreiss

 

 

 

This article originally appeared on Occupy Monsanto

NPK. These letters are quite familiar to anyone with a little experience gardening: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, the three main fertilizer nutrients we focus on almost exclusively today. Phosphorus and potassium are basically rocks and have some of their own issues due to over-mining and a few other problems. But today the concentration will be on everyone’s favorite fertilizer: nitrogen.

Nitrogen is found in the breakdown of organic matter and as a metabolic byproduct (interesting fact: your own pee is actually a very potent fertilizer, and is sterile). Since we toss out such a huge portion of our organic waste to break down in toxic garbage dumps, we are not living sustainably in regards to this very important resource and have chosen to go the quick fix route and rely on decayed dinosaurs to provide us with a source. Thanks to the advent of fracking (hydrofracturing), natural gas is now the prime source for ammonia, which is used to supply the nitrogen portion of most fertilizers. And those who've experienced the aftereffects of fracking firsthand are in an uproar about the contamination of water supplies and the release of so much methane into the atmosphere that the burnoff plumes can be seen from space. Yet we still buy fertilizer supplied from this same supplier to green up our lawns and gardens. And it's worth noting that our country's top processed food ingredient, corn, is one of the most fertilizer intensive crops in the world.





So with these developments, how could the Koch brothers not take notice of the fortunes they could make in the food industry? With billions at their beck and call, as they already own a conglomerate of petrochemical companies, the Kochs have quickly become the world’s largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer, primarily aimed at supplying big agriculture and industrial farms. Koch Fertilizer’s expanded product portfolio now includes ammonia, urea, UAN, phosphate, potash and sulfur-based products - in addition to a variety of more modern and high-powered mixed fertilizers.

An Associated Press article explained how incredibly profitable this industry is: ”Natural gas prices are now at about $2.50 per thousand cubic feet. At those prices, it takes about $82 worth of natural gas to make a ton of anhydrous ammonia, which is selling for about $800 per ton.”

Once they saw the profits in the fertilizer industry, the Kochs decided it wasn’t enough, and they soon decided to get into the beef industry. Their company 

president, Dave Robertson,


 



stated that "the only reason Koch Industries wants to be in the cattle business is because we believe, on a large scale, we can change the way beef production in the cattle industry works and make a very handsome return doing it. That’s the only reason. It truly is bottom-line driven. We’re not in the business to lose money.” And now they’ve moved into the meat processing industry as well, with a new company that builds kill floors, deals with processing, vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging, and more.

Monsanto and its biotech brethren have quickly taken over the seed and pesticide industries, and we now have the fossil fuel industries snatching up the rest. If we allow these trends to continue unabated, what will be left for the farmers, the consumers, the environment? As a recent acquaintance stated, ”By making the daily choice of eating processed foods and supporting the commodity crops and factory farmed animals produced by big agriculture, we are directly contributing to the environmental destruction of America – and the staggering wealth of big players like the Koch Brothers.”

Where do we go from here?

Fritz Kreiss Occupy Monsantokochfertilizer

ers are Taking Over the Food Supply, and No One is Noticing

Thu, 3/28/2013 - by Fritz Kreiss

This article originally appeared on Occupy Monsanto

 497  1 reddit0  48

 

NPK. These letters are quite familiar to anyone with a little experience gardening: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, the three main fertilizer nutrients we focus on almost exclusively today. Phosphorus and potassium are basically rocks and have some of their own issues due to over-mining and a few other problems. But today the concentration will be on everyone’s favorite fertilizer: nitrogen.
Nitrogen is found in the breakdown of organic matter and as a metabolic byproduct (interesting fact: your own pee is actually a very potent fertilizer, and is sterile). Since we toss out such a huge portion of our organic waste to break down in toxic garbage dumps, we are not living sustainably in regards to this very important resource and have chosen to go the quick fix route and rely on decayed dinosaurs to provide us with a source. Thanks to the advent of fracking (hydrofracturing), natural gas is now the prime source for ammonia, which is used to supply the nitrogen portion of most fertilizers. And those who've experienced the aftereffects of fracking firsthand are in an uproar about the contamination of water supplies and the release of so much methane into the atmosphere that the burnoff plumes can be seen from space. Yet we still buy fertilizer supplied from this same supplier to green up our lawns and gardens. And it's worth noting that our country's top processed food ingredient, corn, is one of the most fertilizer intensive crops in the world.
So with these developments, how could the Koch brothers not take notice of the fortunes they could make in the food industry? With billions at their beck and call, as they already own a conglomerate of petrochemical companies, the Kochs have quickly become the world’s largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer, primarily aimed at supplying big agriculture and industrial farms. Koch Fertilizer’s expanded product portfolio now includes ammonia, urea, UAN, phosphate, potash and sulfur-based products - in addition to a variety of more modern and high-powered mixed fertilizers.
An Associated Press article explained how incredibly profitable this industry is: ”Natural gas prices are now at about $2.50 per thousand cubic feet. At those prices, it takes about $82 worth of natural gas to make a ton of anhydrous ammonia, which is selling for about $800 per ton.”
Once they saw the profits in the fertilizer industry, the Kochs decided it wasn’t enough, and they soon decided to get into the beef industry. Their company president, Dave Robertson, stated that "the only reason Koch Industries wants to be in the cattle business is because we believe, on a large scale, we can change the way beef production in the cattle industry works and make a very handsome return doing it. That’s the only reason. It truly is bottom-line driven. We’re not in the business to lose money.” And now they’ve moved into the meat processing industry as well, with a new company that builds kill floors, deals with processing, vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging, and more.
Monsanto and its biotech brethren have quickly taken over the seed and pesticide industries, and we now have the fossil fuel industries snatching up the rest. If we allow these trends to continue unabated, what will be left for the farmers, the consumers, the environment? As a recent acquaintance stated, ”By making the daily choice of eating processed foods and supporting the commodity crops and factory farmed animals produced by big agriculture, we are directly contributing to the environmental destruction of America – and the staggering wealth of big players like the Koch Brothers.”
Where do we go from here?

Fritz KreissOccupy Monsantokochfertilizer

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/how-koch-brothers-are-taking-over-food-supply-and-no-one-noticing#sthash.6zCxVWEy.dpuf

7 Drugs Whose Dangerous Risks Emerged Only After Big Pharma Made Its Money

  Personal Health  

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg

7 Drugs Whose Dangerous Risks Emerged Only After Big Pharma Made Its Money

 

A settlement for death or injuries down the road is just the cost of doing business.

 

 

 

 

 

January 2, 2014  |  

 

 

Have you ever noticed how warnings about dangerous prescription drugs always seem to surface after the drug is no longer marketed and its patent has run out? Whether it's an FDA advisory or a trial lawyer solicitation about harm that may have been done to you, the warnings are always belated and useless. If a drug you took four years ago may have given you liver damage, why didn't the FDA tell you then? Why didn't the FDA recall the drug or better yet, not approve it in the first place?

The official answer from the FDA and Big Pharma is that problems with a drug are only seen after millions begin using it, which is why post-marketing surveillance is conducted. In other words—who knew? But in a startling number of cases revealed in court documents Pharma did"know" and clearly misled medical journals, the FDA, doctors and patients, hoping to get its patent's worth before the true risks of a drug surfaced. In other cases, Pharma and the FDA should have known before rushing a dangerous drug to market and making money at the expense of patients.

It is the business model for new drugs that provokes Big Pharma to bury risks and exaggerate benefits. A new drug under patent has a high price and no competition, and will make millions or even billions every year it is under patent. A settlement for death or injuries down the road is a nuisance and just the cost of doing business. Needless to say, the "forgiveness is cheaper than permission" business plan breeds shameless repeat offenders since the company makes money and no officers go to jail.

Hidden and unforeseen risks in new drugs are such a danger that some medical professionals advise patients to wait up to seven years before they try a new drug. Of course, the drug is no less risky when made by a generic drugmaker except that it has been in use longer and is not accompanied by slick advertising to push demand and even "sell" the condition it treats. But generics have their downside, too. Unlike branded drug companies, a 2013 Supreme Court ruling says generic drug makers can't be sued.

Here are some drugs whose risks did not did not keep them from getting their "patent's worth."

1. Vioxx: Remember the "super aspirin" Vioxx, that was heavily marketed by Merck and athletes Dorothy Hamill and Bruce Jenner 15 years ago? Vioxx was a wonder drug that treated everything from arthritis pain to menstrual cramps, its ads claimed, sparing users the gastrointestinal problems caused by older drugs like aspirin. It turned out that Vioxx was super at something else, too: it doubled the riskof cardiac events,causing 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths according to news sources.

While Merck pleaded ignorance, the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 accused Merck of concealing "critical data on an array of adverse cardiovascular events" caused by Vioxx. It was withdrawn in 2004. In 2007, Merck agreed to pay $4.85 billion to patients or survivors' families which represented less than one year of Merck's profits, computed the New York Times. Vioxx made Merck an estimated $2.5 billion a year from its 1999 launch to its 2004 withdrawal. Who says crime doesn't pay?

2. Fosamax: Vioxx was not the only Merck drug demonstrating that forgiveness is easier and cheaper when it comes to marketing new drugs. Merck's Fosamax, the first of an anti-osteoporosis drug class called biphosphonates that included Boniva and Actonel, was linked to heart problems, intractable pain, jawbone death, bone fractures and esophageal cancer—only after its patent ran out in 2008. Court-released documents reveal that Merck scientists knew about Fosamax' link to jawbone death as early as the 1970s in animal studies.

There was even a subplot to Merck's mendacity. The company installed bone density scanners in medical offices across the US to scare women into taking Fosamax if their scans revealed thinning bones, reported National Public Radio. The subterfuge of "selling" the disease of thinning bones to sell Fosamax did not make a big dent in sales when it came to light: Fosamax was already off patent.

3. Lipitor:What is the best-selling drug in the history of pharmaceuticals? What made $125 billion in 14 and a half years and as much as $11 billion in a single year? Lipitor, Pfizer's blockbuster statin drug, owed its success to two factors. It was launched in 1997 when direct-to-consumer drug advertising was just beginning and it harnessed the growing national fear of cholesterol-linked heart attacks. Thanks to Lipitor's "Know Your Numbers" TV ads and Pfizer reps who saturated medical offices with free samples of the white pills and sometimes lunch, more than 29 million people were prescribed Lipitor.

But in 2012—the same year Lipitor's patent expired—those 29 million people (and millions taking other statins) got a surprise from the FDA. The agency made a label change warning that Lipitor and other statins could cause diabetes, liver injury, muscle damage and memory impairment. Who knew? The quartet of concerns "should not scare people off statins," said Amy G. Egan, deputy director for safety in the FDA’s Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products. Right.

4. Nexium: What is the second bestselling drug, after Lipitor? The Purple Pill. Like statins, Nexium and the other Proton-Pump Inhibitors (PPI) to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), became household medications thanks to direct-to-consumer advertising. Before Proton-Pump Inhibitors, people took over-the-counter treatments like Tums or Tagamet when they had heartburn or indigestion. As the afflictions were upgraded into the "disease" of GERD, Nexium made almost $5 billion in the US in one year and the class of PPIs made $13.6 billion in one year, translating into 119 million prescriptions.

In 2012, the same year the FDA warned about statins, the FDA warned the public that Nexium and the whole class of PPIs are linked to Clostridium Difficile, a stubborn and sometimes deadly intestinal infection that is becoming increasingly drug-resistant and hard to treat. In 2013, medical literature linked PPIs to fractures, calcium and magnesium deficiencies, community-acquired pneumonia and vitamin B-12 deficiencies. Research by John P. Cooke, clinical professor at Houston Methodist Hospital, found in 2013 that PPIs might cause blood vessels to constrict and cardiovascular risks. Not a great ending for the blockbuster Nexium, whose patent runs out in 2014.

5. Adderall:It is no secret that doctors, parents and teachers are calling millions of children ADHD. Thanks to Pharma marketing, ADHD is now the second most common long-term diagnosis in children after asthma, says the New York Times, often conferred for "childhood forgetfulness and poor grades." While some critics of the massive dosing say kids are being penalized for being kids and that "treatment" used to be recess, Big Pharma's spin campaigns maintain that daily stimulants do not hurt children.

But in 2009, the same year Adderall XR went off patent (and two years before Concerta, a time-release version of Ritalin went off patent) a study in the American Journal of Psychiatry found the drugs were actually killing kids. There was "A significant association of stimulant use with sudden unexplained death emerged from the primary analysis," wrote the authors who looked at 564 cases of sudden death in children 7 to 19.  Pro-stimulant Pharma doctors disputed the study, saying the drugs might spare users death by improving their driving skills. Why didn't anybody test that?

6. Paxil: Few SSRI antidepressants have the checkered safety profile of GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) Paxil. In 2007 the BBC revealed that Paxil's Study 329 showed adolescents six times more likely to become suicidal on the drug but the results were buried. (GSK settled related charges in 2012 for $3 billion.) Rumors had circulated for years about suicide and toxic withdrawal symptoms with Paxil and they were evidently true in some cases.

In 2005, the FDA revealed birth defects associated with Paxil including heart malformations. (Babies may also have "seizures, changing body temperature, feeding problems, vomiting, low blood sugar, floppiness, stiffness, tremor, shakiness, irritability or constant crying," warned the Paxil website.) Commensurate with the "forgiveness is cheaper than permission" business model, by the time the Paxil risks surfaced, GSK had taken the money and run. In fact, Paxil made $2.12 billion for GSK in 2002, the last year it was under patent, and was the preferred method of treating returning Iraq war veterans' PTSD.
 
7. Ambien:One of Big Pharma's cash cows has been insomnia pills, because everyone watches TV when they can't sleep—and they see sleeping pill ads. Leading the sleeping pill category was Sanofi-Aventis' Ambien, which netted $2 billion a yearbefore it went off patent in 2006. But even as the patent expired, stories began to circulate about deranged behavior committed in an Ambien blackout. People drove and made phone calls on the drug with no memory of it; dieters woke up amid mountains of pizza and Häagen-Dazs cartons, and one woman drank a bottle of black shoe polish in an Ambien blackout. (Sanofi-Aventis was forced to publish ads telling people if they were going to take Ambien, to get in bed and stay there.)

In 2012, the Mayo clinic in Rochester announced it was no longer prescribing Ambien to inpatients because of its fall rate—four times that of patients not on Ambien and greater than falls caused by age, mental impairment or delirium. In 2013, the FDA warned about Ambien hangovers, in which the drug has not left the body, and recommended lower doses, especially for women. The warning came too late for Kerry Kennedy, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and former wife of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Witnesses said she had been weaving for miles when she swerved into a tractor-trailer and kept driving, during the summer of 2012. Kennedy told police she may have taken an Ambien thinking it was her daily thyroid med.

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Prometheus Books).

See more stories tagged with:

 

big pharma, pills