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

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!

By Inger Pols

In March, I wrote about the practice of using ammonia to treat meat and the problems associated with it. A few weeks ago, I wrote about some of the problems with the presence of hormones, antibiotics and pesticides in our meat supply.

Since this newsletter is only a few months old and I’ve discussed meat safety twice, you are probably catching on to the fact that this subject is near and dear to my heart. So I knew I had to write about a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that acknowledges that pesticides, drugs and heavy metals regularly contaminate our meat supply. The report says that this meat is knowingly and regularly distributed to big box stores, fast food restaurants and school lunch programs. It also states that various government agencies are unable to align to take action.

When we looked at ammonia, the rationale for using it was to treat the meat to prevent pathogens like E. coli. This new report focused on chemical contaminants like veterinary drugs and antibiotics, heavy metals (like copper, cadmium and arsenic), dioxins, polybrominated diphenylethers (fire retardants), and pesticides with canceled registrations that remain in the meat. The problem with these chemical contaminants is that cooking does not destroy them (unlike E. coli) and they can actually become even more harmful when cooked.

The report concludes that the various agencies policing our meat supply are not working together: The agencies are not testing for these contaminants and the appropriate thresholds for testing safety levels have not even been established. It appears to be a take off on the Abbott and Costello skit of “Who’s on First.”

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

The Maze of Food Safety Regulators

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

Each year, the Surveillance Advisory Team is supposed to call on the FDA, the EPA and FSIS to determine what residues they will be testing. Despite convening and forming a joint consensus, the FSIS continues to test for only one type of pesticide each year.

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

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

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

A Tale of Tainted Meat

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

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

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

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

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

Talking in Circles

Another section of the USDA report highlighted how the federal agencies fail to communicate. In one example, the EPA has recently canceled use of all pesticides containing lindane and will revoke its current lindane tolerance (or allowance).

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

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

How You Can Take Action

So what can we do? These stories are so common now that it’s possible we are becoming desensitized. Or perhaps we just accept the inability of our government to adequately protect us and our food supply. But there are things we can do. Support local farmers and Community Supported Agriculture where you get to know the producers of the food you are eating and ask them questions about their practices. Educate yourself by reading the reports such as the one discussed here and become aware of the challenges faced by our current food practices. Vote with your wallet and speak to your representatives: Let them know you care about our food supply and that you want something better.

There’s no point reforming our health care system if we are not changing our farming and food policies: Let’s get to the cause and not just treat the symptom.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

P.S. Continue reading for the executive summary of this report or the report in its entirety, please click here.

FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle
Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Inger Pols

In the final newsletter in the food swap series, I’m going to look at making healthier fish choices. Fish is a nutrient-rich food proven to improve heart health and prized as a primary nutrient source in many cultures. Fish provides protein without the saturated fat and is a good source of omega 3 fatty acids. Fish has become increasingly popular since word got out about the benefits of eating it at least two times a week.

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

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

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

Salmon Farming: It’s No Swim Upstream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PCBs, Importation and Mercury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Healthier Fish Choices

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

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

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

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

Clearing up the Muddy Waters

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

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

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

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

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

By Inger Pols

On Friday, I looked at how to make healthier meat choices and today I’m going to look at how we can do the same with dairy. Humans are the only species that consumes milk past infancy. And we don’t just consume it: We inhale it! We drink milk and we eat butter, cream, cheese and ice cream more now than ever before. In 2001, Americans consumed 30 pounds of cheese per person. That is eight times more than we consumed in 1909 and more than double consumption in 1975!

While much of the cheese eaten in the early 1900s was made locally on a farm, today we are eating processed shredded cheeses out of plastic bags and we’re eating on the run: About 55% to 65% of the cheese we eat comes from commercially manufactured and prepared foods like packaged snack foods and fast food sandwiches.

Being Dutch, I consider cheese to be one of my four primary foods; I don’t think I could live without it. And because of my background and my blood type, I can handle dairy products without any digestive concerns. But over the past few years, I have reduced my dairy intake significantly and made several changes to the dairy products I do consume. Most of us are simply consuming too much dairy; making some changes can go a long way toward improving our health.

Not Your Parents’ Milk

Whenever I talk about reducing dairy consumption, I always run into someone who grew up on a farm who argues that their parents lived long healthy lives drinking milk every day. And I don’t doubt that, because when I ask about it further, they always say their diet included one glass of milk with a meal and some butter and cheese, all made locally on their farm—which means they consumed raw unpasteurized milk and milk products made freshly and untreated. In fact in 1909, 56% of all milk consumed was ingested on the farm where it was produced. By 2001, that number had dropped to 0.3%.

While pasteurization is hailed as a great invention because it kills bacteria and prevents milk from souring, the heat process also kills off many beneficial nutrients. Named after Louis Pasteur, pasteurization was developed as a means of preserving beer and wine. Pasteur never applied it to milk; that came later, in the late 1800s, when dirty urban dairies were trying to find a way to produce cleaner milk. They discovered that pasteurization allowed them to still use the dirty milk, which was easier and cheaper than finding ways to make the milk cleaner.

The idea quickly spread as profits grew. In order to market the new form of milk, producers had to convince consumers that unpasteurized milk was harmful. A smear campaign to link raw milk to diseases was undertaken and today, most people believe that raw milk is dangerous to consume. But the truth is that pasteurized milk poses far more health risks than raw milk.

Raw milk contains healthy bacteria that actually inhibit the growth of harmful organisms; once removed, the pasteurized milk is actually more prone to contamination. In addition, the pasteurization process destroys many vital nutrients in the milk. Studies show up to a 66% loss of vitamins A, E and D and a 50% loss of vitamin C. Vitmains B6 and B12 are totally destroyed by the pasteurization process, as are many beneficial hormones, antibodies and enzymes. One enzyme destroyed in the process is lipase, which impairs fat metabolism and the ability to absorb fat-soluble vitamins such as A and D.

Pasteurization also makes calcium and other minerals less available. One way they test to see if the milk is appropriately pasteurized is to look for the destruction of phosphatase. If it’s absent, the milk is considered fully pasteurized. But phosphatase is essential for the absorption of calcium. So pasteurization makes calcium insoluble. It also destroys iodine, the lack of which can cause constipation.

Pasteurization also turns the sugar of milk, lactose, into beta-lactose, which is more rapidly absorbed in the system and has been shown to make children hungrier sooner. But the dairy industry has formed a strong lobby to prevent the distribution and sale of raw milk in order to protect their profits.  They’d rather have you believe it is harmful because if you found out the truth, you probably wouldn’t want to drink pasteurized milk.

Hormones, Pesticides and Antibiotics

In addition to not being pasteurized, raw milk is produced on farms that also avoid some of the real dangers of milk and milk products today: hormones, pesticides and antibiotics.

In the newsletter on healthier meat choices, I discussed how hormones are used to help the animals to grow bigger. In addition to that injection process, some farms use an additional hormone called rBGH, which is a synthetic growth hormone. Back in the 1930s, a typical cow produced 12 pounds (or about a gallon and a half) of milk a day. By 1988, the average was 39 pounds a day. This was done primarily through selective breeding and using rBGH. Today a cow can now generate 50 pounds of milk a day.

Cows injected with rBGH are 79% more likely to contract mastitis (an infection of the udder). Those cows also suffer from reproductive difficulties, digestive problems, an increased need for antibiotics and other abnormalities. Consumer’s Union reports that milk from rBGH treated cows is more likely to be of lower quality and contain more pus and bacteria than milk from untreated cows.

But even if you find milk from farms that don’t use rBGH, other harmful hormones present in the cow remain. In addition to the ear pellet they receive as a calf containing synthetic hormones to help them grow, cows’ milk contains high amounts of estrogen because 75% to 90% of milk comes from pregnant cows. Milk from a late-stage pregnant cow can have up to 33 times as much estrone sulfate (a form of estrogen) and 10 times more progesterone. Much research ties excess estrogen to reproductive cancers such as prostate, testes, ovarian and breast cancer. Male breast enlargement has also been tied to high dairy and hormone-laden meat consumption.

Test analysis has revealed traces of 80 different types of antibiotics in milk. Animal products like milk can also contain up to 14 times more pesticides than plants If you worry about pesticides in produce, you should be even more concerned about pesticides in meat and milk.

Anyone who has been pregnant, or been around a pregnant woman, understands the effect high hormone levels can have on the body. They have likely also seen that what the mother eats is transferred to the child through the milk and has an immediate and noticeable effect on the child if there is an allergy or sensitivity issue. Consuming the milk of a perennially pregnant cow makes consuming estrogen unavoidable. As one physician/scientist from the Harvard School of Pubic Health put it, “The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking without apparent harm.”

A new process has been developed called ultra-pasteurization, which involves longer treatment times at higher temperatures, resulting in milk that is totally sterile. It’s not being advertised, but you can look for the word in small print on almost every national brand and even some organic brands (Horizon, the largest organic producer, now ultra-pasteurizes.)

Given all the challenges with modern milk production, it’s no surprise that many Americans are allergic or sensitive to it and that it can cause headaches, sinus and chest congestion, stomach pain, cramping, diarrhea, gas and sore, scratchy throats. Milk has also been linked to asthma, atherosclerosis, upper respiratory and ear infections, obesity and cancer. (Many doctors now think children with recurring ear infections may have dairy sensitivities.)

Many people have difficulties digesting milk even if they are not lactose intolerant. According to Dr. Walter Willett of Harvard University, “The majority of humans naturally stop producing significant amounts of lactase—the enzyme needed to properly metabolize lactose, the sugar in milk—sometime between the ages of two and five. In fact, for most mammals, the normal condition is to stop producing the enzymes needed to properly digest and metabolize milk after they have been weaned. Our bodies just weren’t made to digest milk on a regular basis. Instead, most scientists agree that it’s better for us to get calcium, potassium, protein, and fats from other food sources, like whole plant foods—vegetables, fruits, beans, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and seaweed.”

The Many Varieties of Milk

For my family and myself, traditional milk, even organic, is simply not a good health choice. Raw milk not only avoids the hormone, antibiotic and pesticide challenges of modern milk production, it also offers the nutrients and enzymes that the pasteurization process destroys. Raw milk is a complete source of protein full of beneficial bacteria and vitamins, minerals and enzymes. If you are going to consume cow’s milk, I suggest you do so sparingly and that you explore raw milk options.

In some states, you can buy raw milk in stores such as Whole Foods. In most states, however, you’ll have to buy directly from the farm. And that may not be a viable option for some. Another option to consider is goat’s milk. Much of the world consumes goat not cow’s milk, because it’s more widely available and also because many people can digest goat’s milk readily even if they cannot tolerate cow’s milk.

Goat’s milk is a great source of calcium and protein, phosphorus, riboflavin (vitamin B2), potassium and the amino acid tryptophan. It’s also been shown to enhance the metabolism of copper and iron. For those with milk allergy symptoms such as asthma, eczema, ear infections and rheumatoid arthritis, switching to goat milk may help alleviate symptoms.

The major problem with goat milk is the expense. For many people who consume moderate or large amounts of milk, it will not be financially viable. I personally consume very little milk. I put a small amount in my chai tea in the morning and I use a little when I make a risotto or a sauce that I want to have some depth or richness. I find that a small amount of goat’s milk does the trick and makes for a delicious and rich sauce. Because I use so little and a half gallon can last me more than two weeks, (and yes, it lasts that long without spoiling), I justify the expense. (I definitely noticed a reduction in bloating after switching from cow’s to goat’s milk.)

For those who can’t access or afford raw milk or goat milk, or who want a non-animal option, I recommend rice or almond milk. Almond milk can be made inexpensively at home so it’s a great option if you want a fresh milk alternative that doesn’t cost a lot.

I do not recommend soy milk because it contains a natural chemical that mimics estrogen, though it does contain nutrients and protein. As we discussed in the prostate article, these estrogens take up the hormone receptor sites intended for estrogen and leave the excess estrogen to wander around the body.

Studies show excess estrogen can alter sexual development and can lead to reproductive concerns and cancers. One study showed that two glasses of soy milk a day contained enough pseudo estrogen to alter the timing of a woman’s reproductive cycle. As a result, I suggest everyone avoid soy milk.

Choose Better Cheese

While I have focused predominantly on milk since it is the source for all dairy, cheese is a far bigger component of most people’s diets than milk. In general, we eat way too much cheese and cutting back on processed foods with cheese or hidden cheese in fast foods is a great step toward better health. When you do choose cheese, the same principles that we discussed above apply: Look for raw milk cheese (most markets carry some, especially raw milk bleu cheeses and they are delicious) and goat’s milk cheese, which are also prevalent and tasty. Experiment with these kinds of cheese and if you are a cheese lover like me, you’ll find some delicious new options in raw milk and goat’s milk cheeses.

Occasionally, I do eat traditional cheese, but I buy it from Europe because the European Union has banned all hormones. When you buy a cheese from the mountainous Alps region of France or Switzerland, you are typically getting cheese made the traditional old-fashioned way from cows or goats who have roamed free in the sunshine, eating grass and living without pesticides, chemicals or drugs.

How Much is Too Much?

So now that we have looked at milk and cheese options, how much, if any, dairy should you consume? Less is definitely more when it comes to dairy: For me, a little bit of raw milk or goat cheese makes my day and I try to eliminate eating cheese that is an afterthought rather than a primary focus in my meal. I believe in bioindividuality, which means I think that every body is different and your tolerance will depend on your own lifestyle factors and diet, as well as that of your ancestors. Some people can handle dairy without incident while others should cut it out completely. This may be due in part to the enzymes present in our blood.

Dr. Peter D’Adamo argues in his blood type diet book, Eat Right for Your Type that blood type Bs (as I am) can handle dairy. Because ABs have some B in them, they can handle a little dairy as well. But type A should significantly reduce if not eliminate dairy and blood type O should completely avoid all dairy. This may or may not ring true for you, but if you are at all curious, I suggest eliminating dairy completely for two weeks, especially if you have any symptoms like headaches, IBS, sinuses, asthma or bloating/gas, and see how you feel during that time. (That includes all milk, cheese, yogurt, butter and ice cream.) Then introduce it slowly and see how you feel as you begin to eat it again: you’ll know right away if you can handle dairy and what types affect you more than others.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory