New England Health Advisory

In the last two newsletters, we have covered a lot of ground about making better fruit and vegetable choices, for your body and our planet. While we know fresh local organic fruits and vegetables are the best choice, most of us will need to call on canned or frozen vegetables on occasion because of time and convenience factors or seasonal availability.

So in the final part of my fruit and vegetable series, I’m going to discuss some important health implications to consider with frozen and canned vegetables and look at how many servings you should really be eating. Let’s start by exploring the important question: Can you get the nutrition you need from five servings of fruits and vegetables per day?

Nutrient Decline in Fruits and Vegetables

Recent studies have shown comparable nutritional value between fresh, frozen and canned vegetables, but for very different reasons. (Nutritional value isn’t the only consideration, as we’ll soon see.) While experts agree that fresh local vegetables are best, the “fresh” vegetables found in our markets may have been shipped across the country or from around the world, hindering the development of their full nutritional profile. That’s because they are picked before they are ripe, so they never develop the full spectrum of vitamins, minerals and enzymes that mature ripening allows. (And as we discussed in the last issue, if they are not organic, the produce is sprayed with harmful chemicals to delay their ripening and to prevent spoiling, bruising and insect damage.)

In addition, during transport, the fruits and vegetables are exposed to heat and light, which degrades certain vitamins like vitamin C and the B vitamins. Vitamins like C that react with oxygen change chemically so that they no longer work the same way in our bodies; this is called oxidative degradation. One study followed broccoli coming to market and found it traveled 2,095 miles from California to Chicago: That’s about four days if a truck travels 70 mph for eight hours a day. Add in the time from farm to truck and then from warehouse drop-off to market and then to your table and you can see that even domestic produce travels long and far.

It’s estimated that fresh fruits and vegetables lose more than half of their nutritional value on the journey from farm to table (when they are not local). This concern is compounded because studies show that the inherent nutritional value of fruits and vegetables has declined significantly during the last 50 years. The vitamin and mineral content of produce is decreasing because of genetic modification, breeding practices that increase volume and cosmetic appeal, ripening systems, storage processes and chemical fertilizers.

Four recent studies looked at data from 1930-1999 in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. Regardless of which time period was looked at or which country, the results were consistent: Nutrient value is declining. As an example, in 1951, a woman could get her full recommended daily allowance of vitamin A from two peaches. Today, she would have to eat 53 to get that same nutritional content! This is why I recommend everyone take a whole food multi-vitamin, as it is difficult, if not impossible, to get your full nutritional needs from our food supply today, even if you eat really well.

This is also why the Center for Disease Control and the Produce for Better Health Foundation have launched a campaign to increase fruit and vegetable consumption with the slogan “Fruits and Vegetables—More Matters.” This campaign replaces the old “five a day,” as it’s generally accepted now that five servings of fruits and vegetables are simply not enough any more. Seven to 13 portions a day for adults is considered the new standard, though based on the data above, even that may not be enough.

Most of us simply don’t eat that much. The USDA guidelines are even lower, suggesting a range of five to 13 servings, but the FDA says that only 11% of Americans meet those levels. Twenty-five percent of Americans don’t eat any vegetables and 50% don’t eat any fruit on a daily basis.

Without question, the best way to maximize the nutritional value of the produce you do eat is to buy local (preferably organic) and consume it within a few days. But if we are going to increase our daily fruit and vegetable consumption to the above recommend levels, or hopefully even beyond, most of us are going to have to look to frozen or canned options to get what we need: Fresh local produce in season simply won’t be possible year round. So let’s look at the issues around frozen and canned alternatives.

Frozen and Canned Vegetables: Are they Nutritionally Comparable?

I’ve already discussed some of the issues that fresh food faces on its journey to your table and why its nutritional profile may be diminished as a result. A recent study in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture looked at the nutritional value of fresh versus frozen and canned vegetables and found them all to be comparable. While the study is imperfect in that “changes in moisture content during storage, cooking and processing can misrepresent changes in nutrient content” and suggests that a more accurate comparison would be possible if future research expressed nutrient data on a dry weight basis, nevertheless, the study concludes that recommending fresh vegetables exclusively ignores the nutrient benefits available from frozen and canned vegetables.

In the case of canned fruits and vegetables, the thermal treatment in the initial processing can result in the loss of water-soluble and oxygen-labile nutrients such as vitamin C and the B vitamins. But after that, nutrients remain stable due to the lack of oxygen inside the can. Frozen products, on the other hand, lose fewer nutrients initially because they are typically blanched and then frozen within hours of being picked and there is less heat involved in the process. But they can lose more nutrients during storage time due to oxidation. The longer they stay in your freezer, the more nutrients they will lose, so as with fresh, try to consume them on a timely basis, especially after opening the bag.

In the end, both lose slightly more nutrients than fresh produce but the study concludes they are good supplemental alternatives. However, it’s important to note that these processes do not alter pesticide residues, so frozen or canned produce is still susceptible to toxin exposure.

In the study we looked at in the last newsletter (which examined the connection between kids who eat pesticide-ridden fruits and vegetables and the incidence rate of ADHD), one of the biggest offenders was frozen blueberries. While they may escape some exposure due to the fact that they don’t need to sprayed to delay ripening or prevent insect damage in travel, frozen fruits and vegetables still absorb significant amounts of chemicals in the growing process that cannot be washed away.

Even though many pesticides get into the core of the produce and cannot be washed away, you should always thoroughly wash any produce to remove what you can from the exterior. Frozen fruits and vegetables have not been washed and still require careful cleaning before consuming.

And for the “dirty dozen” most pesticide-ridden fruits and vegetables, I still recommend you buy organic versions, even if you buy frozen.

If your supermarket has a separate organic section, you’ll find them in the freezer case in that section. Some supermarkets keep all the frozen products together and you can usually find organic versions in the traditional case. (If your market doesn’t have an organic section, it’s time to find a new market! Regardless of whether you choose to buy organic versus conventional, any market that doesn’t give you that choice is not a business I’d want to support.)

While canned vegetables may afford a similar nutritional profile to frozen or fresh vegetables, there is another very important health consideration that makes canned vegetables a less desirable choice: Bisphenol A or BPA. We talked about BPAs in past issues, including the issue about fish choices, but BPAs are a significant concern in the canning of fruits and vegetables as well. I’ll discuss the implications of BPAs in canned vegetables in Thursday’s issue.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

Do you have a healthy heart?

I ask myself that question all the time because heart attacks have killed the last three generations of men in my family. All died in their mid-50s when you would have thought life was just beginning.

But it’s just not my family, it’s many families. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cardiovascular disease kills 950,000 Americans every year. Millions more live disabled lifestyles caused by heart conditions—tired, out of breath and fearful of the slightest chest pain.

The question is, what can we do to avoid this fate?

You often hear that you should eat well and get plenty of exercise. But what does that really mean?

What foods should you stay away from and what should you eat? What type of exercise is best for heart health?

Our contributor Dr. Al Sears concisely answers these questions in his book “The Doctor’s Heart Cure.”  He discusses how dietary cholesterol is not our enemy—it’s the starches we eat that hurt us. Dr. Sears also discusses how long, low-intensity “cardio” exercise actually breaks down the reserve strength of our hearts. Instead, Dr. Sears advocates resistance training and interval training.

Please click here to empower yourself against the lightning fast and deadly strike of a heart attack or stroke.

Yours for health and wellness,

Andrew Palmer
Publisher
New England Health Advisory

P.S. Personally, I’m willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a heart attack, so I live see my grandkids. How about you?

Please click here to put an end to your worry … for good!

Each year, almost a billion pounds—or nearly three pounds per person—of pesticides are sprayed across the U.S. Before herbicides and pesticides were introduced 57 years ago, 37% of our crops were being lost to pest damage. Today, despite the pervasiveness of pesticide use, pests are destroying MORE than 37% of our crops.

And it’s not just in the U.S. We import heavily sprayed foods from countries that use chemicals the United States banned long ago. While pesticides have not had any significant effect on crop loss, they have definitely had an effect on our health. I think pesticide exposure levels in our food, water and environment are cause for concern today, but I am even more concerned about the effect they will have on future generations if we don’t start making some changes in the way we grow—and buy—our foods.

In my last issue, I looked at which fruits and vegetables are the most pesticide-laden and how you can make the best choices when buying fresh fruits and vegetables. Today, I’m going to discuss some of the effects these choices have on our health and look at other issues worth considering, including whether to buy food from abroad.

The Effect of Pesticides on our Health

Pesticides are toxins that can affect our nervous systems and damage our reproductive systems. (Not surprisingly, chemicals designed to prevent pests from reproducing can affect our ability to reproduce as well.) Some pesticides are more harmful to us than others and the extent of their effect on our health depends on which pesticides we are exposed to, in what amounts and at what frequency. Some, like organophosphates and carbamates, affect our nervous systems. Others disrupt our hormones and affect the endocrine system. Some are known carcinogens, while others irritate skin and eyes.

Pesticide exposure can result in both chronic and acute health concerns. Some of the chronic health concerns include shortened attention span, memory disorders and reduced coordination, early onset Parkinson’s disease, reproductive problems, hormonal disruptions and imbalance, birth defects, depression and cancer. (As far back as four decades ago, Miami University did a study on terminal cancer patients and found that in the random selection tested, they all had exceptionally high levels of pesticide residues in their liver, brain and fatty tissues.)

Some of the acute conditions pesticide exposure can trigger include blurred vision, headaches, eye problems, skin conditions, seizures, diarrhea, nausea and wheezing. Mild to moderate pesticide poisoning can even present symptoms similar to asthma, bronchitis and gastroenteritis, especially in children.

Children are particularly susceptible to these problems because of their developing body systems. CNN reported recently on new research that children across the U.S. who eat typical kid-friendly foods like frozen blueberries, fresh strawberries and celery had twice the likelihood of receiving an ADHD diagnosis. (Previous studies focused primarily on communities of farm workers and found that exposure to pesticides led to behavioral and cognitive problems in children.)

Researchers analyzed the urine of over 1,000 children and found that the kids with above average levels of one common pesticide byproduct, malathion, had double the chance of receiving an ADHD diagnosis. Since pesticides are designed to have toxic effects on the nervous systems in order to kill the pests, researchers concluded it is not a stretch to imagine that these chemicals can have an effect on the nervous systems and brain chemicals of children exposed to them.

We are all born with some pesticide exposure in our systems passed to us in utero. We add to that through our daily food and water choices and our environmental exposure. Some of us are more susceptible because of our genetic makeup or higher in utero exposure levels, but all of us can manage our pesticide exposure by making better choices.

I think our pesticide exposure through food, water and environment is so pervasive today that we should all try to minimize our exposure. If you have kids, are pregnant, have a compromised immune system or make lifestyle choices that you know place greater burden on your liver, it is even more important to pay attention to your food choices and avoid “the dirty dozen” most heavily pesticide-ridden produce and buy organic instead. (If you missed the list in the last newsletter, you can find it here.)

Buying Food From Abroad

In generations past, we ate along with the seasons, varying our diet depending on what grew at that time of year. Today, we eat much more limited diets, as many of us tend to eat from the same food groups repeatedly with little deviation. As a result, we eat our favorite fruits and vegetables year-round.

This practice not only restricts our diets and limits our exposure to the many other fruits and vegetables available each season, but it has also resulted in big business for international produce exports. The importation of fruits and vegetables raises a number of concerns about the carbon footprint of our foods, the use of pesticides illegal in the U.S. that are still being used in foreign countries and the nutritional value of food that is picked before it is fully ripe so that it can make the long journey to us before it spoils.

Though the U.S. has banned the use of some known carcinogenic chemicals in our food production process, several developing countries routinely use such chemicals in farming.

Just one example of this (and sadly there are many more) is the pesticide DBCP or Dibromochloropropane. In the late 1970s, workers at a pesticide plant in California discovered that DBCP exposure had rendered them sterile. Some companies stopped production while an investigation was undertaken, but some did not. (One company, Amvac, told its stockholders that they would continue to sell it even though it had suspected carcinogenic and mutagenic properties because a vacuum existed in the marketplace during the investigation and they hoped to take advantage of it.) After a two-year investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that DBCP does cause sterility and it was banned for use in the United States.

However, just because a chemical is banned in the U.S. does not mean there are restrictions abroad. In this case, DBCP is sold to Coast Rica, Honduras and Ecuador for use on banana plantations and then that produce is sent back to the U.S. for consumption. (Dole recently made the news with a lawsuit from banana plantation workers related to sterility from DBCP; it’s still being used in banana production today.)

One recent test indicated that bananas from Central and South America revealed 45 pesticides that are “allowable” by FDA standards as well as 25 prohibited pesticides and 37 additional poisons that the FDA does not test for. The FDA rarely refuses entry to produce or seizes any shipments, so there is little reason not to spray heavily. (One Mexican farmer stated that because Americans want blemish free produce and won’t eat items with insect marks, they spray four times as much pesticide on any produce destined for the U.S. than for any other location.)

If the FDA does test a produce sample, they remove a small section but send the rest to market while the tests are being run. So if they do in fact find excessive pesticide levels or other concerns like unknown poisons, there is little consequence because the American public has already consumed the produce by the time it is discovered.

In addition, the nutritional value of foods that travel long distances is often compromised. In order to make it to market prior to spoiling, fruits and vegetables are picked early, before they are ripe, and then sprayed to protect them from ripening too soon while still in transit. Food that is picked early before it fully ripens is not fully developed and its enzyme profile is different than that found in a mature, ripe version.

For example, unripe fruit has an insoluble form of pectin known as protopectin. But as it ripens, enzymes make the pectin soluble. In the case of fruit or vegetables from far away, they may never reach their ripe and mature nutritional state because they are sprayed to delay ripening and we consume them prior to that ever occurring or because the chemicals sprayed to prevent them from ripening on their journey effectively prevent them from ever reaching full mature development.

Buying organic reduces our pesticide exposure in foods we eat, but it also reduces the pesticide exposure in our environment. Pesticides remain in the soil—often for many years—affecting future crops, sometimes even generations later. In addition, spraying results in airborne chemicals that drift over homes, gardens and schools creating health concerns for many people—especially children and those living in rural farm areas.

There are so many great reasons to opt for organic produce, but it is also important to support our local farms and farming communities, as there are greenhouse gases emitted from airfreight to consider.  I’ve heard the argument that buying air freighted out-of-season produce is the equivalent to driving a Hummer.

So how do you decide between an organic apple from New Zealand or a conventional pesticide-laden product from a neighboring farm?

Local versus Organic

This is not an easy question to answer, and one you will have to decide for yourself based on your commitment to local agriculture, your concern about carbon footprints and your tolerance for agrichemicals in your food. I try to support local farming to the extent possible and will choose local produce, even if it’s not organic, whenever possible. (Especially if I can talk to the farmer directly at the farm stand or the farmer’s market and ask about how the produce is grown.)

The one exception to this is “the dirty dozen” fruits and vegetables, in which case the harms of the heavy pesticides outweigh any other considerations for me as I have developing children. So when buying those fruits and vegetables (and a few others toward the high end of the list that we eat regularly) organic is always my first priority.

Of course, when possible, getting something local AND organic is always ideal and I try to seek that. But in today’s world where time and money are always a consideration, that is not always possible. In the next newsletter, I’m going to talk about how to make the best choices when you can’t get fresh produce and you need to buy frozen or canned versions as substitutes. (You’d be surprised to know how much restaurant food, even at nice restaurants, comes from a can!)

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

In New England, May and June are what we affectionately term mud season: rain … and then more rain. One year, my kids’ weekend sports events were rained out every single weekend in May and June except one! This year, we have been blessed with an incredible spring that feels more like summer.

Last week, on a beautiful 80+-degree day, I took my kids to the beach after school and along the way, we stopped at our favorite farm stand to buy fresh strawberries, cherries and tomatoes. While early in the season, the summer-like weather has brought them to market early, looking juicy and delicious. My kids wanted to devour them the minute we got back in the car but I made them wait until we could wash off the pesticide residues.

Today I want to answer some of the questions people ask me regularly about making healthy fruit and vegetable choices, such as: When is it worth splurging on organic if my budget is tight? Is frozen better than canned? Do I need to wash everything, even if it has a skin? And, how do I decide between local and organic?

I’m going to tell you which fruits and vegetables are the safest, and which are the most pesticide-ridden, so that you can start making better choices immediately.

The Dirty Dozen

Several years ago, Consumer Reports magazine assessed the pesticide residue levels in fruits and vegetables based on data from the USDA, with foods prepared as they would be in a typical home.

The score was a composite that was based on how many samples contained pesticides, the average amount and the toxicity of the particular pesticides that were found. In this report, a result over 100 indicated cause for concern. Peaches domestically grown in North America came in at 4,848. Winter squash (domestically grown) came in at 1,706. Domestic apples landed at 550. Domestic pears, spinach, grapes, celery, green beans, grapes from Chile and spinach from Mexico all fell in the 250-450 range.

With anything over 100 being cause for concern, this study illustrates why people are so worried about pesticides in our produce supply and why it is worth spending more for organic.

Organic foods will rarely be completely pesticide-free; they still have some trace levels of pesticides due to contaminants that remain in the soil or are airborne. However, studies have shown that people who consume conventional fruits and vegetables have pesticide residues in their urine and those who consume organic fruits and vegetables do not.

In today’s economy, money can be tight and we are all looking to stretch wherever we can; but spending a little more to buy organic can be a wise investment in your health. If you cannot afford to buy everything organic, but you still want to make some healthier food choices, here are the 12 fruits and vegetables that are worth splurging for organic. According to the Environmental Working Group, these fruits and vegetables contain between 47-67 pesticides per serving (which cannot be washed away).

In order (from worst to somewhat better, keeping in mind all 12 of these should be avoided to the extent possible if they are not organic), they are:

Celery
Peaches
Strawberries
Apples
Domestic blueberries
Nectarines
Sweet Bell Peppers
Spinach, kale and collard greens
Cherries
Potatoes
Imported Grapes
Lettuce

If your five servings a day of fruits and vegetables are coming primarily from these foods, you are taking in high levels of pesticides that are linked to autoimmune disorders, cancer and ADHD. (And I suspect many other conditions that studies have not yet revealed because of lack of funding for such research.)

We can handle a little bit of pesticides from time to time, but if you are eating other foods that contain toxins or consuming a lot of fructose or drinking a lot of alcohol, your liver is already busier than it should be and it isn’t fully available to detoxify your chemical load.

If you eat from this group regularly, over time you will add significantly to your toxic load; you need to consider not only the effect of these foods, but also the effect of these foods in conjunction with the other things you are eating and doing (or not doing). Children, pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems need to be especially vigilant. It’s estimated you can avoid as much as 80% of your pesticide exposure by choosing organic forms of these fruits and vegetables.

The Clean 15

It may not be that helpful to assess the rest of the fruits and vegetables because your primary focus should be on avoiding non-organic forms of the produce above. But it often surprises people to know some of the cleanest, least pesticide-ridden produce.

In order, from best to not as good, but still pretty clean, they are:

Onions
Avocados
Sweet corn
Pineapples
Mango
Sweet peas
Asparagus
Kiwi fruit
Cabbage
Eggplant
Cantaloupe
Watermelon
Grapefruit
Sweet potatoes
Sweet onions

While we might like to eat only organic fruits and vegetables because they are healthier and often they taste better, if you are watching your pennies, there is no reason to splurge on organic forms of these.

It’s important to note that pesticide residue levels are measured after produce is washed and peeled. So no matter what you are buying, even the clean 15, you should clean your produce with a good veggie wash. You can find citrus based veggie washes in your grocery produce aisle: Water is not usually enough. I wash everything that comes into my house, even if it says it has already been washed. And peeling soft skinned fruits will help reduce pesticide levels as well.

The fruits and vegetables that do not appear on either list are just that: not the best, but not the worst. You’ll want to weigh the conventional versus organic options in light of what else you eat and your financial considerations. If you opt to buy conventional instead of organic, always look to buy produce that is as local as possible. If not at a farmer’s market, your local supermarket often has some produce from regional farms and that is always a better choice than food from far away.

Dissecting Food Labels

In addition to the above lists, you also need to be a wise consumer and read produce signs and labels carefully when purchasing fruits and vegetables. Food stores such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s have both conventional and organic options, just as your local market may, so you have to be careful about what you are buying: Conventional produce from Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s is no better than what’s in your local market, and it may be much more expensive.

Some large chain supermarkets (such as Hannaford here in New England) have a wide selection of organic produce that is often cheaper than specialty stores like Whole Foods. Regardless of where you buy, it’s worth reading food labels, as they will tell you the truth.

Conventional produce (grown with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and fertilizers) will have a sticker that has a four-digit number that begins with a 4. For example, a conventional grown banana might read 4011. Because 4 digit codes have now been used up, you will begin to see stickers will four digit codes beginning with the number 3 that are also conventionally grown.

Organic produce has a five-digit code that starts with the number 9. For example, organically grown bananas might read 94011.

Genetically engineered produce (to be avoided) will have a five-digit product code that starts with the number 8, so a genetically engineered banana would read 84011. (Much produce today has been genetically modified, which won’t be apparent, but if it was specifically genetically engineered, it has to carry a label starting with 8.)

So anytime you are looking to buy organic, just check to make sure the sticker starts with a 9. Supermarket produce sections can be misleading, so double check to make sure you are buying what you really want.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

P.S. Don’t forget to read my next issue, which will cover genetic modification in produce, carbon footprints and the way out of season produce is transported to our tables, pesticide use in the U.S. versus in foreign countries, and additional chemical implications in canning and packaging. And yes, I’ll look at how pesticides are linked to cancer and directly linked to ADHD in children. And I promise you’ll learn something you didn’t know!

Did you know one of the best ways to lose weight is by walking?

I don’t mean going out and buying an expensive treadmill that will end up abandoned in a corner and used as a storage shelf or clothes hanger. You do not need to make an expensive purchase or join a fancy gym to lose weight.

All you need is a nice walk outside!

Many people walk outside at all times of the year, even in the winter. I admit it may sound more fun in Florida than in Maine come February, but that state’s residents aren’t called “Maineiacs” for nothing!

If weather is a problem, there are many free facilities you can use to do your winter walking. Many churches have gyms that are open to the public. There are also community centers with indoor tracks and most shopping malls open early for walkers.

Before you walk, don’t forget to warm up first by stretching and loosening up your muscles. Walking for exercise needs to become a routine. Once or twice a month will not give you the results you seek. You’ll want to do it three to four times a week to see results. Make it a part of your life.

Instant change is not going to happen.

The reality is that we don’t gain weight overnight. The changes in our bodies occurred slowly over time based on a series of decisions: Eating an extra serving of food at dinner, stopping at a fast food restaurant, taking the elevator instead of the stairs. So you’re not going to lose that extra weight overnight with a fad diet or fitness routine.

The secret is to make small changes to your diet while increasing your exercise (like starting a walking routine) over time to slowly lose those extra pounds.

And while you’re making better nutrition and fitness decisions, there’s a new product on the market that could help you drop your unwanted fat!

Our contributor Dr. Sears found a new clinical study that says it’s possible. In fact, he’s found what may be the most successful weight loss compound ever tested.

Please click on the link below to find out how this new safe and effective natural remedy ramps up your body’s ability to burn fat … and may just change your life.

Click here for details!

Yours for health and wellness,

Andrew Palmer
Publisher
New England Health Advisory

P.S. Sounds too good to be true, eh?  Take a look at this …

“I’m 50-years-old and started taking Primal Lean about six months ago. I’ve lost a total of 75 pounds and I’m now a size 2. A SIZE 2!!! I have never been a size 2 ever, probably not even as a child. Thrilled is an understatement. It has brought my marriage back to life. I am noticed everywhere I go. I have so much energy and am so sincerely happy I cannot begin to tell you. The ability to try on anything and be happy with the way it fits and looks is amazing.

“Dr. Sears, you have given me something I could never accomplish on my own. The smallest I could ever get was a size 8, which seems huge compared to the size I am wearing now. THANK YOU!!!!”

Our contributor Dr. Sears gets emails like this every week. Please click below to learn how this product can change your life too!

Click here for details!

By Inger Pols

Research increasingly shows that energy and electricity can interfere with our body’s normal functioning. Cell phones, cordless phones, cell phone towers and WiFi can affect us all at a cellular level and those who are more sensitive may experience a significant disruption in cellular function and communication. I’m going to write more about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their effect on our bodies in coming weeks, including why microwaves are not allowed in Russia. But today I want to share some new information about how EMFs may affect blood sugar levels and lead to—or exacerbate—diabetes.

One leading researcher argues that there are three forms of diabetes, not two. Type 1, which is genetic, is generally diagnosed at a young age and requires insulin injections for effective management. Type 2, which used to be called adult onset, is brought on by diet and lifestyle choices and can be prevented or managed through diet changes and exercise. (It no longer takes an adult lifetime to damage cell signaling, as you learned in the sugar report. Today, more and more children are being diagnosed with this preventable form of diabetes.)

Now Dr. Magda Havas of the University of Trent in Canada has shown that there is a third condition that is caused by the environment, not genes or diet. She calls it Type 3 diabetes and her research shows that “dirty” electricity and electromagnetic fields can alter blood sugar levels both in previously diagnosed Type 1 and 2 diabetics, as well as in people who have not been diagnosed with diabetes.

Her research, published in Electromagnetic Medicine and Biology, presents four case studies of patients affected by “dirty” energy. This is emerging research, so the numbers haven’t been quantified yet, but Dr. Havas estimates between five and 60 million diabetics are affected by this energy.

So what exactly is “dirty” energy?

—

Dirty Electricity and Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)

According to Dr. Havas, “dirty electricity” describes “electric power that has become corrupted by our use of modern appliances. Items such as CFL bulbs, cell phone transmission antennas, power supplies for portable computers, cell phone chargers, dimmer switches, variable speed fans and many other electronic devises that require a transformer to convert the voltage will “dirty” the electricity that enters your home. This form of dirty electro-magnetic fields (EMF) is invisible to the eye, but has a biological effect on the human body and has been associated with a wide variety of illnesses.”

While Dr. Havas’ research is new, she is not the only one to write about EMFs. Many physicians and scientists, including Dr. Thomas Rau of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland, and others such as Dr. Weill, Dr. Mercola, Dr. David Carpenter and even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been warning about these concerns since the 1980s.

Dr. Rau is convinced that “electromagnetic loads” can lead to cancer, ADD, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s disease, back pain and difficulty concentrating. People who are super-sensitive to EMFs can get headaches, nausea, muscle aches, fatigue or skin irritations just from being around WiFi or cell phone towers.

Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health at State University of New York at Albany has attributed up to 30% of childhood cancers to EMFs. Martin Halper, the Director of Analysis and Support for the EPA says, “I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence we are seeing with EMFs. Clearly there is something here.”

In 1989, the Department of Energy reported that, “It has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure.” And Dr. Andrew Weill, natural health expert, has said, “Electromagnetic (EMF) pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century, all the more dangerous because it is an invisible, insensible ‘toxin.’ ”

Scientists and the government have known about these dangers for decades now, but the proliferation of wireless technology since then makes the risks greater than ever before, especially those who are more sensitive.

So what exactly does “dirty” electricity do?

—

The Effect of “Dirty” Electricity

Dr. Havas looked at the effect of dirty electricity on blood sugar levels in four different scenarios. In the first, the patient was a 54-year-old man who had not yet been diagnosed with diabetes, but was considered to be “pre-diabetic.” In this case, the man’s blood sugar levels were found to be normal when he was outside fishing and camping and he had no blood sugar concerns. But when he measured his blood sugar inside his house, especially after working on a computer, he experienced blood sugar spikes.

The man’s blood sugar and the level of “dirty” electricity in his home were measured in the morning for nine days. The higher the level of dirty electricity, the higher his recorded blood sugar levels. On one day, he forgot to measure his blood sugar first thing and instead measured it later while working at his computer. It was shown to be higher than normal. He stepped away from his computer and measured it again 10 minutes later, and it had dropped 20 mg/dL or milligrams per deciliter.

The second case was a 57-year-old woman with Type 2 diabetes who uses exercise to control her blood sugar levels. In the study, she walked inside a mall (after hours when everything was shut down) for 20 minutes and her plasma glucose was shown to drop significantly after her exercise from above acceptable levels down to acceptable levels. When she used a treadmill inside her home for 20 minutes instead and conducted the same blood sugar measurements, her blood sugar was shown to increase after exercise!

In the third case, an 80-year-old woman with Type 1 diabetes who was taking insulin measured her blood sugar every morning for a week. Then she had energy filters installed in her house to remove the “dirty” electricity and she measured her blood sugar every morning for the subsequent week. The filters removed 98% of the “dirty” electricity in her home and her blood sugar dropped 33%; the amount of insulin she required to manage her condition was reduced by 75% as a result.

The final case study involved a 12-year-old boy with Type 1 diabetes who was sent to the hospital with very high blood sugar levels.  He was given increased insulin until his blood sugar began to decrease and he was allowed to go home. Then, filters were installed in his home and his blood sugar dropped significantly as did the amount of insulin he required (to about half his former level). His younger sister, who had been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at the age of three months, also saw her insulin levels significantly reduced after the filters were installed.

In another part of the study, Dr. Havas put patients on beds with cordless phones two feet away from their heads. The phone was plugged into the wall, and either turned on or off for each session, though neither the patient nor the doctor administering the test knew whether the phone was on or off.

Patients who were sensitive to EMFs experienced significant increases in their heart rates when the phone was powered on, and their normal heart rates returned almost instantly once the phone was turned off again.

—

How do You Know if You Have Type 3 Diabetes?

If you experience unexplained blood sugar spikes, you may want to look into whether you are sensitive to “dirty” energy. If your blood sugar levels change based on your environment (test levels when you are outside in nature and at the same time when you are inside your home) or you have difficulty regulating your blood sugar levels for reasons you cannot identify, it’s worth exploring this further. One simple and easy way to test is to measure your blood sugar before and after exercising on electronic exercise equipment. After exercise, your blood sugar levels should be reduced; if they increase, you are energy sensitive.

While we are all vulnerable to “dirty” energy exposure, it is unknown how many of us are sensitive enough to experience such measurable disruptions. The case studies Dr. Havas presents are just a small sample, but knowing you are sensitive to “dirty” electricity may be critical for improving your health and wellness. Because many doctors remain unaware, you may need to be proactive in exploring the reasons behind your blood sugar variations and the appropriate actions you can take to help restore balance.

—

How to Reduce Exposure to Electropollution

Even if you are not sensitive enough to “dirty” electricity to see a physiological manifestation like heart rate increases or blood sugar level spikes, we are all bombarded with electropollution on a daily basis and many experts agree that minimizing our exposure makes good health sense for us all.

The first step you can take is to test your home. The website EMF Safety Store identifies and summarizes various meters you can use to measure EMFs and offers filters to mitigate “dirty” electricity. Filters will capture the electrical noise from things like televisions, computers and phones and filter it out of your house and back into the line or the ground.

Whether you test or not, try to reduce exposure to cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi, microwaves, electric blankets and heating pads. Keep wireless routers and cell phones away from your body and be sure your router is removed from any area where people sleep or spend a lot of time. (Sometimes even a few feet can make a difference, but the further away, the better. I keep mine in my office at the opposite end of the house from the bedrooms and family living area.)

At night, turn off phones, your router or any other electricity emitting devices. And never walk around with a headset on your head. Headsets deliver a steady stream of radiation, even when you are not speaking: They serve as a tractor beam of sorts for EMFs. If you must use a headset, take it off when you are not speaking.

Spending more time outside and away from all our gadgets, appliances and technology is a great way to recharge, reconnect and to reduce our exposure to “dirty” energy. And while you are outside, you can get some vitamin D and increase your health benefits at the same time!

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

P.S. If you want to learn more about EMFs, you can explore the website Electromagnetic Health. If you want to learn more about Dr. Havas’ research, you can visit her site here.

—

By Inger Pols

If you have read any of my past issues, you know how important I believe omega-3 fatty acids are to good health. Because most of us simply cannot consume enough omega-3 to balance our heavy omega-6 consumption (in total and at each meal), I recommend supplementation.

I also advise that you seek high-quality fish oil because certain conditions can render the wonderful health benefits of fish oil damaging. For example, fish oil can oxidize if exposed to air or temperature changes and turn rancid. It is also important that your fish oil be thoroughly screened and distilled to remove mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

In past issues, we’ve talked a little about how to choose high quality fish oils, but today we are going to look at a recent lawsuit in California that highlights the importance of selecting high quality fish oil and go a little deeper into how to make the best supplementation choice.

PCBs and Proposition 65

While there are several issues to consider when selecting fish oils. my focus today will be predominantly on the issue of PCBs and contaminant screening. PCBs are industrial chemicals that were banned in the 1970s because of their link to cancer and birth defects. But PCBs remain present in our soil and water as they take a very long time to break down. We have talked about the impact of PCBs in our fish, meat and diary supply in previous newsletters. PCBs are also in vegetables due to their presence in soil.

Not surprisingly, because of their presence in fish, PCBs are a concern in fish oil supplements. Fish that are caught close to shore and farmed fish are at higher risk for contamination, and they require distillation for toxin removal. The degree to which fish oil products are screened and distilled for chemicals varies significantly by manufacturer, and in general, you get what you pay for.

Most states have no regulations on the chemical load tolerated in products, so most manufacturers avoid the expense of reliably screening out contaminants or engaging in third-party lab testing. California, however, has set standards for exposure to known carcinogens such as PCBs. The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65, requires that the state document known chemicals causing cancer or reproductive toxicity and there are currently almost 900 on the list!

About 300 of the chemicals have “safe harbor” levels, under which the contaminant is considered to have no “significant” risk. Above those levels, however, companies are required to label products to warn consumers that there are significant levels of these chemicals in the product. In California, PCBs are one of the 300 chemicals for which thresholds have been established, and a threshold of no more than 90 nanograms (or .09 mcg) of PCBs is deemed tolerable for consumption each day. (While one might question if there really is any safe level of harmful contaminants, at least California has attempted to set a safety threshold.)

The Fish Oil Lawsuit

There are more than 100 brands of fish oil on the market in California, but recently, the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation selected 10 brands to test for PCB levels. They found that all of them contained PCBs and that three of them were significantly over threshold rate if taken at their suggested dosage. Some exceeded tolerance levels by a factor of 10 and none of the products bore warning labels.

Mateel and its attorney David Roe, who helped write the Proposition 65 law, have filed a lawsuit against fish oil manufacturers, distributors and retailers claiming that according to California law, they failed to give clear warnings that the products would expose consumers to high levels of PCBs. The lawsuit asks the court to require fish oil manufacturers provide warnings to present and future customers and to track down individual past customers, and to provide civil penalties of up to $2500 for each day of customer exposure without the warnings.

The lawsuit targets five supplement producers (General Nutrition Corp. (GNC), Now Health Group Inc, Pharmavite LLC, Solgar Inc, and TwinLab Corp) two large drugstore distributors, (CVS Pharmacy Inc and Rite Aid Corp.), as well as the largest producer of omega-3 oil, Omega Protein Inc. Fish oil, shark oil, fish liver oil, and shark liver oil supplements were called into question.

In 2008, U.S. consumers spent $739 million on fish and animal oil supplements. As the eighth most popular dietary supplement, according to Nutrition Business Journal, the impact of the claim is far-reaching.

So what does this mean?

First, it is important to note that this was a small sample–there are over 100 supplements on the market and only 10 were tested, and not all of the products tested raised concerns. Toxicity level can vary significantly by batch even within the same manufacturer, so one could argue these were just bad batches.

On the other hand, one could also argue some of the brands that escaped got lucky because good batches of their supplements were tested. Most states do not have laws such as California so the policing of safe contaminant levels is minimal. Consumers must rely on manufacturers’ own testing policies and standards to make the best choices. Fortunately, there are some high-quality manufacturers who adhere to exceptional standards and there are some guidelines for consumers to help make better choices.

How to Choose the Best Fish Oil Supplement

First, consider the type of fish that is being used to make the oil. Predator fish such cod or shark will accumulate more toxins. (If you choose these fish, you’ll want to make sure you use a high quality manufacturer that is thoroughly screening for contaminants.) Fish lower on the food chain such as mackerel, sardines, and anchovies will have much lower contaminant levels.

Also consider the location of the fish. Fish caught in deep ocean water will have fewer contaminants than those caught closer to shore, farm raised, or found in more shallow inland water.

It’s important to look at the omega-3 fatty acid levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) as well as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) in your fish oil. The benefits of EPA were discovered first and most oils focus primarily on EPA. We now know that DHA is equally important and while it is challenging to find oils with an equal balance of each, if not equal, you should make sure your oil does not completely neglect DHA in favor of much higher levels of EPA.

Finally, consider the source of the fish. Oil from fish liver will be higher in PCBs and other contaminants because the liver is the organ responsible for processing undesirable elements. An oil that is derived from the whole fish or pressed from fish flesh will have lower contaminant levels.

If you are a proactive consumer who wants to do research about fish oils or other products/supplements, you can join Consumer Labs, a subscription fee-based service that tests products and publishes their results. For a modest monthly fee, you can get their results on 52 tested fish oils and omega-3 supplements that did not contain any detectable mercury and passed contamination limits for lead and PCBs. However, the standards by which they evaluate oils are not as stringent as many experts now recommend and the majority of the oils tested were not tested for dioxins, so some experts question the relevance of their test results.

The International Fish Oil Program in Canada tests and evaluates fish oils at a higher measurement standard and their free website will allow you to see results of several name brands. However, many brands are not tested, so you may not find your favorite there.

If you want to skip the research, there are a few exceptional brands that have consistently maintained high quality standards that I can recommend. Nordic Naturals regularly has its oil tested by third party labs and receives stellar results. I recommend Nordic Naturals to those willing to spend a little more to get a high quality supplement.

Another fish oil supplement brand that I recommend is Carlson Labs. Less expensive than Nordic Naturals, Carlson regularly tests (using Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) international protocols) for freshness, potency and purity by an independent, FDA-registered laboratory and has been determined to be fresh, fully potent and free of detrimental levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, PCBs and 28 other contaminants.

There are certainly other excellent choices out there, so do a little due diligence on your brand to be sure it’s a good choice. Try to work fish into your regular diet but don’t let the test results scare you away from supplementation. Supplementation is still the right choice for most of us; we just need to make sure we choose products and manufacturers that adhere to the highest standards and engage in reliable third party testing for contaminants.

To your health!

Inger Pols

Editor of New England Health Advisory