chemical free kids: how to safeguard your family

8/3/2019 Chemical Free KIds: How to Safeguard Your Family

1/162


2/162


3/162

Chemical-Free KidsThe Organic Sequel

How to Safeguard Your Familyin the Everyday Struggle

Between Mighty Micronutrientsand Sinister Synthetics

Anthony Zolezzi,Linda Bonvie & Bill Bonvie

Published by ASM Books


4/162

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic SequelHow to Safeguard Your Family in the Everyday Struggle Between

Mighty Micronutrients and Sinister SyntheticsCopyright 2008 by Anthony Zolezzi, Linda Bonvie and Bill Bonvie

Published by ASM Books

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced (except forinclusion in reviews), disseminated or utilized in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, orin any information storage and retrieval system, or the Internet/World

Wide Web without written permission from the author or publisher.

This book presents information based upon the research of the authors.It is not intended to be a substitute for a professional consultation witha physician or other health-care provider. Neither the publisher northe authors can be held responsible for any adverse effects or conse-quences resulting from the use of any of the information in this book.They also cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions in thebook. If you or your child has a condition that requires medical advice,the publisher and authors urge you to consult a competent health-careprofessional.

For further information:ASM BooksPO Box 3083La Habra, CA 90631www.asmbooks.com

Printed in the United States of America

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic SequelHow to Safeguard Your Family in the Everyday Struggle BetweenMighty Micronutrients and Sinister SyntheticsAnthony Zolezzi, Linda Bonvie and Bill Bonvie

1. Title 2. Author 3. Health

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008932274

ISBN-10: 0-9753157-5-7ISBN-13: 978-0-9753157-5-0


5/162

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ..................................................................v

Introduction

Knowing Whats Good for Us

and What to Do With That Knowledge ..........................vii

Chapter 1

Mighty Micronutrients: The Little Things

of Which We Dont Seem to Get Enough ........................1

The Hidden Nutrient Gap in the Typical American Diet

Putting the Whole Picture in Perspective

Chapter 2

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years ................19

The Peace-of-Mind Delusion

Your Dietary Risk Index: How Healthy Foods

Score in Terms of Toxicity

Chapter 3

GMOs and rBGH: The Things

You Wont Find Listed on the Label ..............................41

Bypassing the Brave New World of GMOs

Milking the Dairy Industry for Unhealthy Profits


6/162

Chapter 4

Reclaiming the Food Value That Weve Lost................75Why Grandma Got a Lot More for Her Grocery Money

Where to Find Those Missing Mighty Micronutrients

Chapter 5

Reaping the Rewards

of the Organic Renaissance................................................91Organic Organizing on a Grass-Roots Level

The Benefits of Organicizing Your Life

When Whats Best for You Is Also Best for the World

Chapter 6

More on Mighty Micronutrients:

Where Theyre Found and

Why Theyre So Mighty ....................................................105

Chapter 7

More on Sinister Synthetics:

Where Theyre Found and

Why Theyre So Sinister ....................................................119

Chemical-Free Connections and Resources ..............131

Endnotes ................................................................................135

About the Authors ..............................................................143


7/162

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

v

We would like to thank Jay Mann, whose sharp and experienced

editors eye and suggestions greatly enhanced both the content

and style of this book, and Jade Harmon, whose delightful

artistic renderings and creativity helped to lighten up the infor-

mation contained in these pages.

Our appreciation also goes to Dr. Charles Benbrook and

Steve Hoffman of the Organic Center, Bill Freese of the Center

for Food Safety, and Rick North of the Oregon Physicians for

Social Responsibility for their valuable insights and guidance.


8/162


9/162

ORGA

NIC

KIDS

~ Intro uct on ~

Knowing Whats Goodfor Usand What to DoWith That Knowledge


10/162


11/162

B

ack in 2003, the original Chemical-Free Kidswas published

with the intent of helping parents safeguard their childrensdiet and environment from the many toxic perils that posed a

threat to their health and well-being. The book was designed to

serve as a source of information on precisely what these hazards

were, where they could be found and how they could best be

avoided. It chronicled the variety of insidious ingredients that

had come to be so routinely accepted in our everyday diets, aswell as the prevalence of poisonous substances lurking in our

homes, our back yards and even our schools.

In the preface to that book, it was pointed out that contem-

porary parents faced far more complex challenges than did those

of an earlier era, when the chief concern was whether their kids

would simply survive to adulthood. Would their children, for

example, be among the countless victims of our growing

epidemics of allergies and asthma? Would they become hyper-

active, dysfunctional and unable to learn, or, worse yet, join the

fast-growing numbers of kids considered autistic? Would they

grow dependent on drugs, either illegal or prescribed to modify

their behavior in the classroom? Would their bodies become

overweight and obese, even as their brains are nutritionally

starved? Would they be prime candidates for the cancers and

cardiovascular problems that now result in so many premature

deaths?

While Chemical-Free Kids remains a valuable guide to

parents in showing the steps that can be taken to allay such

concerns, a lot has happened since its publication. Due

largely to the efforts of some dedicated researchers

for such organizations as The Organic Center and the

ix



12/162

Center for Food Safety, there is now a much greater degree of

scientific proof of the benefits of an organic diet and lifestyle. Atthe same time, considerably more information has been uncov-

ered about the pernicious effects that toxic pesticides and

chemical and biological manipulation can have on our health,

the sustainability of our land, the purity of our water and the

safety and nutritional value of our food.

A 2005 study spearheaded by the Environmental WorkingGroup (EWG) provides some idea of the problems still to be

overcome. Researchers with two major laboratories performing

the study found that the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies born

in U.S. hospitals the previous year contained an average of 200

industrial chemicals and pollutants, including pesticides and

household product ingredients.1

So, to keep parents updated on such developments, we

decided that a follow-up was in orderone that would provide

readers with some of the information that has come to light since

Chemical-Free Kidswas first published. This book is also designed

to make this often complex subject easy to read and remember.

The theme weve chosen is a battle between Mighty

Micronutrientsthe essential elements of a healthy dietand

Sinister Syntheticsthe toxic or suspect substances that have

replaced them in so many conventional and processed foods, as

well as contributing to the polluting of our environment.

The last few years have been marked by substantial progress

in making healthier choices available to consumers, as well as a

much greater public awareness and appreciation of

their importance. But along with that has come

significant governmental resistance to instituting

x

Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel


13/162

any type of meaningful reform of the system that has allowed

toxic substances to continue to be manufactured and used.On the negative side, the role of government agencies in

protecting the integrity of our food supply and alleviating threats

to the health of our families has been largely stonewalledsome-

thing that many scientists and environmental groups have

blamed on the sympathetic reception given by those in power to

representatives of the chemical industry, some of whom wereformerly in regulatory capacities.

As proof of such purported collusion, these critics cite what

they consider to be the massive failure of the officials charged

with implementing the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 to

accomplish their assigned task of weeding out the pesticides that

pose the greatest peril to childrenalong with their attempts to

close off existing avenues of information on those chemicals.

Another regulatory lapse can be seen in the way genetically

engineered foods have been allowed to proliferate with no over-

sight or requirement that they be tested for safety, despite the

opinions of many reputable scientistsincluding those working

for the FDAthat they pose considerable risk to the public.

In other respects, however, developments have been

immensely encouraging, particularly the responsive manner in

which the retail and service sectors have adapted to the fast-

growing demand for organic foods and products with truly

natural ingredients.

It wasnt all that long ago that organic products were avail-

able only in natural-foods stores, or were limited to a

few select items carried by a smattering of super-

markets. Within the past few years, however, there

xi



14/162

has been a phenomenal upsurge in the marketing of all types of

organic commodities, ranging from produce to dairy productsto cookies to canned and processed foods. Many big-name food

companies have jumped on the organic bandwagon.

Corresponding to this development have been dramatic new

findings about the nutritional advantages that organic foods have

over conventional ones. Such revelations, repeatedly confirmed

by researchers, cant help but fuel the demand for products grownor processed without pesticides or other harmful additives.

Thanks to such studies, we now know that the best way for our

kids to get the Mighty Micronutrients they require to grow into

healthy and productive adults is to provide them with a diet that

includes as many organic foods as possiblethe same type of diet

that can largely eliminate their exposure to Sinister Synthetics

in the form of toxic pesticides, harmful additives and genetically

modified organisms (GMOs).

Growing consumer consciousness has led to many other

encouraging trends as well. Exposures to environmental pesti-

cides have been reduced in many neighborhoods due to nontoxic

or integrated techniques of pest management and weed control

now being made available by many lawn-care and landscaping

firms that once had nothing to offer their residential customers

but chemical poisons. An increasing number of school systems

have also begun to adopt alternative methods of pest control

after coming to the realization that the children in their charge

were being unnecessarily exposed to poisonous chemical appli-

cations in classrooms and playgrounds.

Such sweeping transformations give us both

cause for optimism and an enhanced ability to

xii



15/162

protect our families. The fact that they have come about in so

short a time is testimony to the power of people to demand andfacilitate a change in course once they become fully cognizant of

the hidden hazards of continuing to travel along the same road.

Also encouraging us to reduce our reliance on things that

may be hazardous to our health are events abroad. In the Euro-

pean Union, for example, the growing consumer rejection of

foods containing GMOs has been causing U.S. growers and foodprocessors to have second thoughts about using them. As this

book goes to press comes news of another developmentthe

passage of new EU laws requiring companies to prove that

chemicals used in commerce are safe, as opposed to U.S. policies

that only require they be shown to be harmful. This is going to

compel companies to be more responsible for their products

than they have ever been, noted Daryl Ditz, senior policy

adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law.

Theyll have to know more about the chemicals they make, what

their products are and where they go.

The new laws also call for a list to be drawn up of substances

of very high concernthose suspected of causing cancer or

other health problems, which will require authorization to be

produced or sold in the EU.2 Such restrictions are bound to have

an effect in America, as well, causing manufacturers to recon-

sider the economic impact of using such chemicals.

But much remains to be done if our kidsand future gener-

ationsare to be rescued from the assorted afflictions that a

lifestyle tainted by toxic substances and a diet lacking

in essential nutrients can lead to. The process of

getting the poisons out of both our system and our

xiii



16/162

systemsand restoring the beneficial elements our survival

requiresis one in which all of us need to be active participants.It is all a matter of knowing whats good for usand how we

can best use that knowledge to benefit ourselves, our families,

our society and our planet.

xiv



17/162

~ Chapter 1 ~

Mighty Micronutrients:The Little Things

of Which We Dont Seemto Get Enough

It has long been an axiom of mine that the littlethings are infinitely the most important.

~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,

British author and creator of Sherlock Holmes


18/162


19/162

If one phrase could sum up much of what health and food

science researchers have learned in recent years, it might well

be that old adage You are what you eat.

Ongoing studies of nutrition are making it more and more

evident that every aspect of our beingboth mental and phys-

icalis influenced by what we ingest, and that the health of our

cells and vital organs is for the most part dependent on chemical

interactions that take place between the various ingredients in

the food we consume. Usually our bodies use these ingredients

consisting of a variety of vitamins, minerals and antioxidantsin

such small quantities that they are commonly referred to as

micronutrients, the functions and sources of which

are described in some detail in Chapter 6. Never-

theless, we require certain minimal doses of them

3

Mighty Micronutrients

Called micronutrients because they are needed only in

minuscule amounts, these substances are the magic wands

that enable the body to produce enzymes, hormones and

other substances essential for proper growth and develop-

ment. As tiny as the amounts are, however, the consequences

of their absence are severe. Iodine, vitamin A and iron are

most important in global public health terms; their lack repre-

sents a major threat to the health and development of

populations the world over, particularly children and preg-

nant women in low-income countries.

World Health Organization


20/162

for our brains, hearts and other organs to function the way

nature intended. Also, it is very important that micronutrientswork together as a team.

THE HIDDEN NUTRIENT GAP

IN THE TYPICAL AMERICAN DIET

Unfortunately, our contemporary diets are all too often failing todeliver the amounts and intricate combinations of the Mighty

Micronutrients our bodies need to work at peak efficiency, to keep

our metabolisms in balance, maintain our physical and psycho-

logical well-being and enhance our mental acuity. As a result, many

of usand in particular, our childrenmay suffer from what is, in

effect, a nutrient gap that can go unnoticed or unrecognized.

One key reason for this nutrient gap is our addiction to

processed and junk foods that has resulted, for many adults and chil-

dren, in the consumption of large quantities of essentially empty

calories largely devoid of nutritional value. Just about all nutrition

authorities agree that this is a leading cause of the epidemics of

obesity and diabetes currently being seen in our society, together

with a lack of exercise (but then, who feels like exercising when they

have such a limited source of energy?). Nor do fortified foods really

do much to compensate, as will be explained later.

Simply eating more nutritious foods, such as fruits and

vegetables, would, of course, seem to be the ideal solution. But

thats no longer as pat an answer to the problem as it once was,

due to a marked decline in the nutrient value of

conventional healthy foods. (Well talk more about

this in Chapter 4, where youll discover how much of

4



21/162

a difference switching to organic products can make from a

nutritional perspective.)

Whats important is that for far too many families, breakfast,

lunch and dinner are no longer doing an adequate job of providing

basic nourishmentand that can have a profound

impact on our ability to get through the day, as well as

on our health, energy levels and even our personalities.

5


ALL SUPPLEMENTS ARE

NOT CREATED EQUAL

LOOK FOR THE ONES MADE onlyfrom NATURAL WHOLE FOODS.

SYNTHETIC

VITAMINS

FOOD

WHOLE-

SUPPLEMENTS

MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS SAY:


22/162

Eating Three Meals a Day

Doesnt Mean Youre Not Malnourished

To those of us here in America who have been fortunate enough

never to have actually experienced real famine, the idea of people

suffering from starvation and exhibiting obvious signs of malnu-

trition might seem incomprehensible. Living in a land of

well-stocked supermarkets and fast-food restaurants, it may bea bit hard for many of us to imagine things like drought or pesti-

lence making it impossible for families to avail themselves of

adequate nourishment. It is even difficult to fully relate to those

fellow citizens unable to eat three squares a day because they

simply cant afford to buy fooda situation in which more and

more American families are now finding themselves.

But what those of us who consider ourselves well-fed

might not realize is that we, too, may be malnourished, even

though we eat three meals a day while snacking down in

between. As a result, we may also be experiencing symptoms of

very real, though not always apparent, nutritional deficiencies.

A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that many of

the ailments for which we seek reliefall too often in an excess of

prescribed and over-the-counter medicationsmay well be the

direct results of dietary deficiencies in essential micronutrients.

An inadequate intake of these Mighty Micronutrients

many needed on a daily basismay also lead to a myriad of

emotional problems, including chronic irritability or even

unprovoked anger, a tendency to be easily distracted

or quickly become bored, and an inability to concen-

trate. Nutritional shortages in children could lead to

6



23/162

disobedience, belligerence and aggressive behavior, and might

even contribute to the nationally troubling conditions of atten-tion deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

While most Americans believe themselves to be living in the

most privileged, technically sophisticated and agriculturally

advanced country on the planet, we actually lag behind when it

comes to nutritionally sound diets. In fact, the kinds of foods

traditionally cultivated and eaten by inhabitants of what wewould consider backward cultures are actually apt to be a lot

more nutritious and beneficial than the refined, processed and

genetically altered foods that people living in our society are in

the habit of consuming.


SYNTHETIC SUPPLEMENTS

OFTEN COME IN COMIC DISGUISES

A lot of well-meaning parents have come to rely on supple-

mentation. And there are some good supplements out there,but you do have to be selective and knowledgeable in choosing

them. Unless you know the difference between synthetic

supplements and those made from natural sources, youre apt

to be spending money on things that are really failing to deliver

the benefits such products are intended to provide. And in the

case of supplements geared to children, most of which come in

packages festooned with colorful cartoons, its quite

likely that some of the ingredients, such as aspar-

tame, could actually be harmful as well as ineffective.

7


24/162

A Tale of Two Segments of the Same Tribe

Just how much healthier a traditional diet can be was seen in the

results of a study of Pima Indians, some of whom had settled in the

Southwestern United States and others who had continued to reside

south of the border. The members of the tribe living in the U.S. have

been described by researchers as being an extremely obese popu-

lation, with 77 percent of those over the age of 55 suffering fromtype 2 diabetes. The ones who had remained in Mexico, however,

tended to be vigorous, trim and robust, with a prevalence of diabetes

only a fifth that of their northern relatives (a mere 9 percent for those

55 and over).

When researchers examined the lifestyles of the two branches of

the tribe, they discovered that the Mexican group, in addition to

engaging in far more physical activity, had continued to subsist on a

traditional diet of basic crops they grew themselves and harvested by

hand, with beans, wheatflour tortillas, corn tortillas and potatoes

their principal staples. The U.S. Pimas, by contrast, had converted to

a typical high-fat, low-fiber American diet of processed foods (which

typically contain refined sugar and flour) that they either purchased

from supermarkets or received from a commodity food program.3

Such a well-delineated discrepancy in dietary habits and their

results dramatically illustrates the characteristic underperformance

of our own diets. But how can Americans be undernourished while

receiving constant confirmation, via advertising and packaging, that

the food we eat is full-bodied and packed with vitamins and

minerals?

Thats because much of the food we consume in

this country today has been virtually strip-mined of its

8



25/162

Mighty Micronutrientsvital components that cant really be

added back, as terms like enriched and supplemented on food

labels seem to imply.

These micronutrients, as a rule, arent nearly as

mighty when reconstituted as they are in their

9


whyboth

er with naturalwholefoods

when sy

nthetichalf foodswilldo?

(and what they do bestis to fool a lot of folks

into thinking theyre the real thing)

sinister synthetics SAY:


26/162

natural state, where their effectiveness is supported and enhanced

by a lot of other trace substances, many of whose roles arent evenyet understood by science.

Thats why whole foodsthat is to say, those that are

consumed in an unprocessed form, with nothing removed or

manipulated and nothing addedare the sole sources of such

essential substances that can reliably be said to provide us with

the optimal benefits that nature intended.

PUTTING THE WHOLE PICTURE

IN PERSPECTIVE

It is only when the intricate and interdependent network of these

essential chemicals contained in whole foods remains relatively

intact and undisturbed that we can be assured that were receiving

the maximum impact of their health-enhancing capabilities.

A prime example of how this works can be seen in the always-

appetizing apple, the health benefits of which were common

knowledge long before the fruit was subjected to scientific analysis.

When What You See Is

What You Get the Most Benefit From

The saying An apple a day keeps the doctor away was coined

more than a century ago by J.T. Stinson, the first director of the

Missouri State Fruit Experiment station. It is believed to have been

inspired by a 12th-century report, given before the

Salerno Medical School, on the healthfulness of regu-

larly eating apples.

10



27/162

Ironically, current understanding of the benefits of eating

apples strongly indicates the most wholesome sector of the fruitis its peel, which is chock full of antioxidants. Not only are peels

routinely discarded in both home use and during commercial

processing of products such as applesauce, but the variety of

apple peeling devices that has arisen over the centuries comes

close to paralleling the search for a better mousetrap.

Just how much of a loss such unadvised disposables can beto our nutritional well-being can be seen in a report issued by

Cornell Universitys Institute of Comparative and Environ-

mental Toxicology and Department of Food Science. It focuses

on the results of a comparative study of the flesh and peel

components of four different varieties of apples:

The peels all had significantly higher total antiox-

idant activities than the flesh + peel and flesh of

the apple varieties examined Apple peels were

also shown to more effectively inhibit the growth

of HepG(2) human liver cancer cells than the

other apple components The high content of

phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity, and

antiproliferative activity of apple peels indicate

that they may impart health benefits when

consumed and should be regarded as a valuable

source of antioxidants.4

The nutritional advantages of eating a whole apple

complete with peel are similar to the benefits of eating

bread, pasta, cereal and other foods made from whole

11



28/162

grainthat is, grain that has retained its outer covering, which, like

an apple peel, is rich in vitamins, minerals and fiber. The signifi-cance of how a staple crop like grain is processed takes on planetary

importance when factoring in findings that grain provides more

nutritionand is grown in greater amountsthan any other crop

in the world. The over-processing of grain, a regular occurrence in

all of North America, essentially removes its worldly benefits.

While producers of so-called refinedgrain products may claimtheir goods have various added nutrients, such after-the-fact

additiveseven additives identical to those removed during

processingare no substitute for the real McCoy. Once grain is

broken down in this manner, it is next to impossible to

restorereconstruct, as it werethe complex web of chemical

interrelationships that nature so intricately assembled. In fact, the

chemical complexities and interactions of the various Mighty

Micronutrients contained in a single grain or any other plant used

for food are only now being gradually unraveled by scientists.

How Nature Orchestrates

the Interaction of Micronutrients

If you want to get an idea of how Mighty Micronutrients work

together in concert, try imagining them as separate instruments

in a symphony orchestra, each assigned an essential part in

performing a complex musical composition. Think of all the coor-

dination and timing that takes place among strings, woodwinds,

brass and percussion, even with the guidance of a

conductor, and of how some instruments are called on

to perform long passages while others must wait for

12



29/162

the exact right moment to add a couple of notes or some nuance to

the overall effect the composer wanted to achieve.

Now imagine some of those instruments were rudely

removed. The composition might still be distantly recognizable,

but it would hardly represent a full and faithful rendition of what

the composer had in mind.

All too often, todays typical diet offers, at best,

a similarly diminished level of nutritional fullness


ANOTHER REASON FOR GETTING ABOARD

THE WHOLE GRAIN TRAIN

New scientific findings have indicated that consumption of

whole grains may help prevent pancreatic cancer, one of the

most deadly forms of the disease.

A study conducted by researchers from the University of

California at San Francisco and published in theAmerican

Journal of Epidemiology has reportedly shown that a diet

high in whole grain and other fiber-rich foods can drastically

lower the risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

The study involved some 2,233 Bay Area residents, 532

of whom had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Bothgroups were similar in terms of ages, body weight and gender,

although the cancer patients were more likely to be smokers.

The researchers found that those who ate two or more

servings of whole grains per day had a 40 percent lower risk

of developing pancreatic cancer than those who ate less than

one serving daily.5

13


30/162

and richness. Seemingly well-orchestrated mealseven those

that give the appearance of being well-balancedmay satisfyhunger pangs while silently falling short on a great many essen-

tial nutritional notes. The result is a subtle, albeit significant, loss

of what used to be known as food value, impoverished by the

absence of essential micronutrients. Whats more, many compo-

nents of an all-American meal, such as cereal, packaged bread,

frozen entrees, instant potatoes and white rice, are likely to havebeen depleted of intrinsic micronutrients during processing,

with cooking and preparation polishing off whatever few are left.

In essence, while many of us continue to supersize our food

intakeand, inadvertently our physiqueswhat were (over)eating

is actually dangerously downsized in terms of nutritional content, to

the point where it negatively affects the ability of the remaining

micronutrients to carry out their assigned tasks. And though

outsider additives are often brought in by manufacturers to substi-

tute for the missing team players, they cant really substitute for

the loss of Mighty Micronutrients in key positions. Once theyre

gone, the magic that makes for a winning team is irretrievably lost.

An excellent example of the interdependency of micronutri-

ents, and how the loss of any one can alter their effectiveness, is

offered by Lester Packer, Ph.D.,and Carol Colman in the bookThe

Antioxidant Miracle: When vitamin E disarms a free radical, it

becomes a weak free radical itself. But unlike bad free radicals, the

vitamin E radical can be recycled, or turned back into an antioxi-

dant, by vitamin C or coenzyme Q10. These network antioxidants

will donate electrons to vitamin E, bringing it back to its

antioxidant state. The same scenario occurs when

vitamin C or glutathione defuses a free radical.6

14



31/162

Such hidden nutritional deficits hit children hardest. The

subtle starvation caused by the lack of micronutrients could well

hinder their normal development. This may fly in the face of the

American dietary syndrome in which children often

eat throughout the day and into the night. While it

may appear they are meeting all their nutritional

15


were a whole lotbetter

When WE

re not processed

thats why whole foods and grainswill make you so much healthier

MIGHTY MICRONUTRIENTS SAY:


32/162

requirements, the results tell a different story. Studies on childhood

obesity done by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention for the period between 2003 and 2006

16


GET YOUR WHOLE GRAINS AND ENJOY

THE AROMA, TOO

Theres no doubt that whole grains are superior to refined ones.

Whereas in refined grains, the bran and germ (the nutrient-

rich interior of the grain) are removed, in whole grains they

remain intact, serving as an excellent source of antioxidants

and phytochemicals that help ward off disease, as well as

providing magnesium, iron, fiber, vitamin E and B vitamins.

An easy way to incorporate more whole grains into your

familys diet is with whole-grain bread. And the best and

freshest bread is homemade.

Making bread is no longer an all-day process of kneadingand rising. Bread machines have become affordable (good

machines can be purchased for under $50), are easy to use and

produce a wonderful loaf. Making homemade bread also allows

you to utilize organic, whole-grain flours and other high-quality

ingredients to produce a loaf for a fraction of what a compa-

rable one would cost at a quality bakery.An excellent book for beginning (and experienced) bread-

machine bakers isEasy Bread Making for Special Dietsby

Nicolette M. Dumke. Our favorite recipe is the amazingly

simple one for traditional whole wheat bread.


33/162

indicated 32 percent of all American kids are considered at risk

for obesity, 16 percent are obese, and 11 percent extremely obese.7

Their diets are simply making them well-rounded, rather than

well-nourished.

Besides being ungainly and unhealthy, such nutritionally defi-

cient kids may be behind the eight ball (and behind their

contemporaries in other countries) in a number of ways, as informa-

tion on the functions of various Mighty Micronutrients in Chapter6 will make clear.

But what further complicates this situation is the fact that

along with diminished nutrition, were regularly ingesting a whole

assortment of Sinister Syntheticstoxic chemicals, harmful

additives and even altered genetic materialthat could be resulting

in all kinds of hidden damage to our bodies and minds.

17



34/162


35/162

~ Chapter 2 ~

Pesticides:Still Toxic AfterAll These Years

We cant solve problems by using the same kindof thinking we used when we created them.

~Albert Einstein


36/162


37/162

Whats in a name change?

There could be a lot if it involves a transition from a long-

established company name to one that has an entirely different

connotation. Thats the kind of name change that was imple-

mented by the company formerly known as ChemLawn, which

first expanded its name to TruGreen ChemLawn and now simply

calls itself TruGreen, because, according to its web site, one word

is all you need for a great lawn.

Maybe so, but the real reason might have a lot

more to do with the negative imagery that associating

21

Pesticides: Still Toxic After All These Years

About one billion pounds of conventional pesticides areused each year in the United States to control weeds, insects

and other pests.

U.S. Geological Service, 2005 report on Pesticides in the

Nations Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001

Until EPA can state with scientific confidence that thesepesticides will not harm the neurological development of our

nations born and unborn children, there is no justification to

continue to approve the use of the remaining (organophos-

phate and carbamate) pesticides.

Letter sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson

by the heads of nine EPA-affiliated unions in May 2006


38/162

lawns with chemicals now evokes in a large segment of the public.

By the same token, the company is now using generally less-toxicpesticides and herbicides than it did when it bore the Chemlawn

name, according to a representative we spoke with on the phone.

Given the increased amount of negative publicity that such

products have received in the past decade or more, thats really

not surprising. And many people have begun to discover less-

toxic ways of doing things, such as caring for their lawns (asubject discussed at length in Chemical-Free Kids). Creating a

nontoxic lawn culture, in fact, is the focus of the SafeLawns

Foundation (http://safelawns.org), a Maine-based group seeking

to create a coalition of organizations and companies committed

to educating society about the benefits of environmentally

responsible lawn care and gardening, and effect a quantum

change in consumer and industry behavior.

But make no mistake: toxic, hazardous and health-destroying

pesticides have not disappeared from the marketplace, the land-

scape or our food supplydespite a major government program

launched in the 1990s to identify the worst offenders and curtail

their use in the products we eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

THE PEACE-OF-MIND DELUSION

It was supposed to have been a peace of mind guarantee for

American families.

That was the term used by President Bill Clinton in 1996 in

describing the intent of the Food Quality Protection

Act, or FQPA, as he signed it into law.

The purpose of the Food Quality Protection Act,

22



39/162

as was noted in Chemical-Free Kids, was to establish reason-

able certainty that no harm will result to infants and childrenfrom aggregate exposure to any particular pesticide.

What that means is pesticides arent to be individually eval-

uated in terms of their safety or lack of same. Instead, the impact

of all pesticides must be looked upon as a whole, the way were

exposed to them in real lifethat is, through multiple exposures

to multiple sources.The FQPA also recognized the fact that children, infants and

fetuses are most vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides.

Accordingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

was charged with reviewing all pesticide tolerances (meaning

allowable residue levels) in effect up to that time, and given 10

years to complete this entire task.

Some experts in the field, however, were highly skeptical

about the ability of this legislation to achieve its stated goals and

considered the criteria used to determine tolerances highly inad-

equate for that purpose. Particularly at issue was the additional

tenfold margin of safetyfor example, if the residue allowed by

the EPA was 10 parts per million in a food, it would be reduced

to one part per millionthat the EPA was supposed to use when

evaluating any pesticide for which reliable data was lacking on

toxic effects to embryos and newborns, and on the amounts to

which infants and children were routinely exposed.

To David Wallinga, a former senior scientist with the Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), that meant having to

review a whole list of data , including toxicity findings

based on embryonic test animal studies and actual

levels of pesticide from all sources to which children

23



40/162

were exposed. In fact, thats what he advised the EPA. But the

agency, he said, decided that the existing tests had alreadyprovided complete and reliable data.

Thats why (as was originally noted in Chemical-Free Kids)

while it may all have sounded very reassuring, whether this much

ballyhooed legislation can even begin to live up to that covenant

is one that inspires little confidence among consumer advocates.

Ultimately, such doubts were borne out in dramaticifsomewhat underreportedfashion some three months before

the August 2006 deadline for completing the task rolled around

when some 9000 EPA staffers weighed in with their view that

the agency they represented had dropped the ball in carrying out

the mandate of the FQPA.

Mission (Not) Accomplished

The anger of the people who had been assigned the mission of

mitigating the perils posed by pesticides took the form of an open

letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Signed by the

heads of EPA unions representing scientists, risks managers and

related staff, it accused the agency of bowing to industry pressure,

leaving the public in generaland children in particularinsuffi-

ciently protected from the toxic effects of these chemicals.

Another concern expressed by the EPA staffers in their

letter to Johnson was that agency risk assessments cannot

state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a

fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not

adversely affect their neurological development.

24



41/162

They also contended that:

Their colleagues in the Pesticide Program felt

besieged by political pressure from their

bosses at the EPA, as well as from former

agency officials who had become affiliated

with the pesticide industry and agricultural

communities;

In the rush to meet the deadline, many steps

in the risk assessment and risk management

process were being abbreviated or elimi-

nated in violation of the principles of scientific

integrity and objectivity; and

The prevailing belief among managers in the

Pesticide and Toxics Programs was that

regulatory decisions should only be made

after reaching full consensus with the regu-

lated pesticide and chemicals industry. 8

Such overwhelming dissent within any organization is not some-

thing that can be simply dismissed as the complaints of disgruntled

employees. So rather than address the massive revolt from within

its own ranks, EPA top brass simply opted to ignore it by taking

what amounted to a mission accomplished position with a couple

of cursory, self-congratulatory press releases issued on

the 10-year deadline for the FQPA review.

25



42/162

Americans today can be confident that pesticides used in the

United States meet the highest health and safety standards in theworld, said one such release. It then went on to quote EPA

Administrator Johnson as saying that the agencys ground-

breaking effort is being welcomed at dinner tables across the

nation, and that the Bush Administration is ensuring pesticides

used to grow the fruits, vegetables and other foods families are

serving meet the highest protective standards in the world.By maintaining the highest ethical and scientific standards

in its pesticide review, EPA and the Bush Administration have

planted the seeds to yield healthier lives for generations of Amer-

ican families, claimed the second EPA release.

Sounding as though nothing about them was in dispute (let

alone by those who were most knowledgeable), these pronounce-

ments were aimed at reassuring Americans that they need no longer

be concerned about pesticides posing a hazard to their health. The

releases also provide a few specific examples of measures that have

been implemented under the review, although they contain no

mention of any reductions in infants and childrens exposure levels

(which are discussed in a report posted on the EPAs web site).

Aaron Colangelo, a lawyer specializing in pesticide issues for

the Washington, D.C.-based NRDC, was one of a number of

leading environmental advocates who shared the EPA staffers

sentiments. I would say the statement that theyve met the

highest scientific and ethical standards is untrue, he asserted.

In order to meet their deadline in evaluating all these pesticides,

theyve essentially ignored, disregarded or misapplied

key safety measures written into the law to protect

children.

26



43/162

Perhaps the most glaring omission, Colangelo maintained,

was the EPAs having routinely failed to use an additional tenfoldmargin of safety to protect infants and children for many chem-

icals, especially five key pesticides that are among the most toxic.

All of this isnt to suggest that the FQPA reevaluation was a total

failure. One positive result, in Colangelos view, was the voluntary

cancellation of the remaining seed treatment uses of the pesticide

lindane. That was an important decision, he contends, sincelindane was one of the worst pesticides that was still registered.

Another example he cites is the proposed cancellation of six minor

agricultural uses of carbofuran during a four-year phase-out period.

But Kristan Markey, a research analyst at the Environmental

Working Group (EWG), noted that lindane is already banned by 52

other countriesyet were bragging that we have the highest stan-

dards in the world.

But another EPA claimthat the use of the organophosphate

DDVP had been significantly restricted during the last decadeis

also one that Colangelo called misleading. The EPA, he said, actu-

ally negotiated a private deal about two months before with the

manufacturer to allow DDVP to stay on the market for home usage,

despite a recommendation in the mid-1990s that it be banned from

such products as no-pest strips and flea collars. The actual restric-

tions, he noted, were intended to eliminate its use in cracks and

crevices and to reduce the size of the strips.

The EPA could have and should have restricted many of these

pesticides and banned them entirely, he said.

Colangelo also felt the Bush Administration had

interfered on certain specific pesticides to weaken

their regulation, probably one of the best examples

27



44/162

being atrazine, an herbicide used chiefly on corn. In his view, the

pesticide office at EPA is essentially a captive agency and theyvejust bowed to industry pressure.

Compelling Evidence of a Cover-up

The position of the EPA staffers was also supported in a news

release from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility(PEER), a national alliance of federal, state, local and tribal resource

professionals that works to promote environmental enforcement.

In an unprecedented action, representatives for thousands

of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are publicly

objecting to imminent agency approval for a score of powerful,

controversial pesticides, the release stated. The scientists cite

compelling evidence which EPA leadership is choosing to ignore

that these pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of

fetuses, infants and children.

PEER also noted that its members are concerned that the

Agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific

integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn

conclusions about the developmental neurotoxicity data received

from pesticide registrants. Our colleagues within the Agency,

including EPAs inspector general, believe it would be premature

to conclude that there is a complete and reliable databaseupon

which to base any final tolerance reassessment decisions as

required by the FQPA.

The fact that this letter had to be sent at all is an

utter disgrace but, even more disgraceful, is the likeli-

hood that this warning will be disregarded by an

28



45/162

agency that is supposed to be protecting public health and the envi-

ronment, PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said at the time.9

Joining in the chorus of criticism of EPA officials was EWGs

Markey, who contended that theyve clearly ignored their own

protocol and regulations for pesticide registrations and fallen short

of their mission.

They had a clear mandate, a clear warning, a reminder of that

warning from their scientists, but decided to side with the (chem-

ical) industry and its profits They dont have the critical

data studies that they should have on a number of these

pesticides. If you dont have them, you have to protect

29


have you poisoned

...and turned it into a placewhere no one can play?

yourback yard today...



46/162

at the highest level with extra safety factors, and I couldnt see where

they used them.Another authority on the subject, Dr. Margaret Reeves, a

staff scientist with the environmental group Pesticide Action

Network (PAN) based in San Francisco, charged that the FQPA

reassessment represented an egregious abandonment of EPAs

mission to protect the health and well-being of children, farm

workers and rural residents those most likely to suffer theshort- and long-term health consequences of the continued use

of these hazardous neurotoxins.

We do recognize and support the EPA scientists in their

recognition of inappropriate industry influence, Reeves said in a

2006 interview. It seems like (the EPAs) interest is in retaining

the use of organophosphates, and therefore they conveniently

perhaps are choosing to ignore information suggesting that they

are hazardous to children. Theyve largely failed to consider one

very important route of exposure, and this is pesticide drift. I know

theres very little residue testing, and Im not at all confident that

their models really do document real-world exposure from food.

The use of hazardous pesticides continues to be very, very

high, and theres no national system for documenting or evalu-

ating pesticide poisoning, added Reeves, who said shed give

the EPAs review a failing grade.

In the face of such a massive outpouring of criticism, one

might have supposed the EPA would have made some attempt

to restore confidence in its integrity through a concerted effort to

update and expand its store of information. Instead,

it appears to have taken just the opposite approach.

30



47/162

The Great Library Lockout

A little over two years after the rebellion of the EPAs rank and file

over the agencys failure to make good on its responsibilities under

the Food Quality Protection Act, PEER Executive Director Ruch was

asked whether he had seen any indications of significant improve-

ment in its pesticide data updating and regulation performance.

The situation within the EPA in regard to pesticide regula-tion has only deteriorated in the past two years, he replied,

citing increased unrest among its scientists.

One of the chief reasons for such discontent among EPA

staffers, Ruch explained, is the fact that their ability to do inde-

pendent research on pesticides and other toxic chemicals has been

severely curtailed during that periodas has that of outside inves-

tigators as wellthrough implementation of a plan he characterized

as designed to make the agency less capable.

Perhaps it was a mere coincidence (or perhaps not)but it

seems that not long after the unions letter of protest arrived on

Administrator Johnsons desk, EPA officials quietly began closing

down the agencys research libraries, where the data required for

much of this work was archived. Without such information readily

available to them, Ruch observed, EPA scientists have been made

more dependent on industry submissions and less able to inde-

pendently challenge them.

The main such facility at EPA headquarters, described by

Ruch as having been the nations largest repository of materials on

effects of pesticides and chemicals, was shuttered

without notice to agency scientists. This seemingly

31



48/162

subversive move deprived investigators and researchers of an

essential tool to independently evaluate any submissions. Theholdings have been crated up and are unavailable to this day, Ruch

said, with the plan apparently being to secrete it away for years.

Included in the EPA-led closures were a number of regional

libraries serving 15 Midwestern states, including facilities in

Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City. According to a PEER news

release, the EPA offered a rationale that it was planning to digi-tize everything in its collection and make it all available

someday on-line. This supposed plan, however, was announced

without any dedicated funds amid sharply reduced budgets,

as Ruch observed at the time, further noting the move was

framed as being in accordance with President Bushs proposed

budget cuts.

Also casting this plan in a dubious light was the fact that 90

percent (of the materials involved) couldnt be digitized because

they were copyrighted, said Ruch, adding, It also made no sense

to physically remove them before they were digitized.

Like the agencys failed response to the FQPA, the great

library lockout drew sharp opposition from EPA staffers, thou-

sands of whom signed a letter of protest, contending that the plan

was designed to suppress information on environmental and

public health-related topics.

Such organized protestation, while it may not have cut any ice

with either the administrator or administration, did eventually

succeed in influencing Congress to order the libraries restored

something the EPA has only grudgingly agreed to do,

according to Ruch.

32



49/162

The headquarters library, for instance, will consist of what

the EPA describes as a consolidated operation, but wont befully restored, he noted.

Plans also call for the Chicago regional facility, formerly the

largest regional library, to be reopened in a vacant reception area

on the 16th floor of a federal building, occupying less than one-

tenth the area of the closed library, and only slightly larger

than the typical mens restroom in that same building,according to a PEER press release. Furthermore, no provision

is made to restore the unique Great Lakes ecological collection

or to recover any of the other holdings from the former library.

Another change is EPAs installation of a political appointee,

Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information Molly

ONeill, as library overseer, in charge of all library operations,

including those serving laboratories and specialized programs.

According to PEER, ONeill will be overseeing a host of new rules,

including detailed directives on handling research and informa-

tion requests and priorities for materials disbursal or destruction.

Even as many collections remain in crates, EPA has decided

to micromanage what is left, PEER Associate Director Carol

Goldberg was quoted as saying, adding that the agency has still

not accounted for many of the library holdings it removed.10

But while federal regulators may have managed to remove

from circulation much of the existing data on pesticides and

their effects, various private groups have dedicated a great deal

of effort to coming up with new information on the amounts of

these chemicals were being exposed to in our diet

and the impact that may be having on our health

33



50/162

and that of our children. One of these organizations, the Organic

Center of Boulder, Colo., has been able to learn a good deal abouthow much of these small, cumulative doses of poison were apt to

be ingesting when we engage in whats usually considered healthy

eating.


PLAN TO HALT PESTICIDE REPORTING

DRAWS STRONG OPPOSITION

If theres anything that rubs a researcher the wrong way, its

a threat to make the data on which he or she depends no

longer accessibleas the U.S. Department of Agriculture

discovered in May 2008, when it announced a plan to

dispense with its annual Pesticide Reporting Program.

The proposed dismantling, which the USDA said was

due to a lack of funds to continue the already scaled-back

program,, drew the collective opposition of no fewer than 44

environmental, health advocacy and sustainable farmingorganizations, all of which signed a letter of protest to Secre-

tary of Agriculture Edward Schafer.

The reports issued under the program, administered by

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), are the

only reliable, publicly available source of data on pesticide

and fertilizer use outside of California, the letter noted.Elimination of this program will severely hamper

the efforts of the USDA, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), land grant scientists,

34


51/162


and state officials to perform pesticide risk assessments and

make informed policy decisions on pesticide use. In partic-

ular, USDA and EPA will have difficulty tracking their

progress in meeting their policy commitments to reduce the

use of hazardous pesticides through adoption of Integrated

Pest Management (IPM) practices and to support IPM

research.

Americans are rightly concerned about the adverse

impacts of pesticides on human health and the environ-

ment, said Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist at The

Organic Center, in a press release. Without USDAs data,

our organizations will be severely hampered in our ability

to carry out research on the impacts of pesticides and offer

informed input on decision-making regarding pesticide use

and pest management systems in American agriculture.

Denying the public and regulatory agencies this critical

information is bad science and bad public relations, added

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources

Defense Council.In addition to asking that the reporting program be

continued, the coalition requested that NASS reinstate its

more expansive program of the 1990s, which involved

surveys of chemical use annually on major field crops (corn,

soybeans and cotton) periodically on other field crops, and

biennially on fruit and vegetable crops. As of this writing, the groups were awaiting a

response from the secretary, a former North Dakota

governor who assumed the post in January 2008.

35


52/162

36


PESTICIDES:

A NEW SUSPECT IN AUTISM

Could pesticide exposure be linked to the current epidemic of

autism? A recent California study indicates that there well

might be a connection.

The study, conducted by the California Department of

Public Health and published in July 2007, focused on

maternal pesticide exposures for 465 children suffering from

autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who were born during the

period 1996-98, as compared to 6,975 control subjectsthat

is, non-autistic children living in the same area.

It found that mothers who had been exposed to theorganochlorine insecticides dicofol and endosulfan (also

known as Thiodan) during weeks one through eight of preg-

nancy had more than six times the chance of giving birth to an

ASD-afflicted child than those living away from pesticide-

treated areas. The period of time involved is considered

critical to the fetal development of the central nervous system.Children born to 29 women residing close to fields

sprayed with the chemicals were found to have the highest

rates of autism. The rates went down the farther away from

the fields subjects lived.11


53/162

YOUR DIETARY RISK INDEX:

HOW HEALTHY FOODS SCOREIN TERMS OF TOXICITY

Whats perhaps most disturbing about the apparent failure of

government regulators to comply with the Food Quality Protec-

tion Act is that it continues to compromise the safety of many of

the food choices American families are most encouraged by healthand nutrition experts to make.

Not that all such risks are created equal. Some conventionally

grown commodities are far more apt to contain toxic chemical

residues than others, according to a breakdown of dietary risks

provided in the Organic Centers recent State of Science Review,

The Organic Option.

To assess the health risk posed by a particular crop, the center

has devised a dietary risk index or DRI. The method it uses is


A REAL-WORLD APPROACH

TO RESIDUE TESTING

When produce is tested for pesticide residues, is it washed first?

Thats a question we put to Organic Center Chief Scientist

Charles Benbrook. He answered that the testing is done in

accord with real-world criteria set by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, meaning that each item is tested in the samestate in which it would typically be consumed. A

banana, for instance, would first be peeled, whereas

an apple would usually be washed.

37


54/162

one that takes into account both the residue levels of pesticides

typically found in various fruits and vegetables and how toxic eachpesticide is considered to be. It may also reflect combinations of

different pesticides found on a single item. But an important thing

to keep in mind is that the higher the DRI number of a particular

food, the more residues it has been found to contain.

According to the report, conventionally grown fruits and

vegetables from domestic sources that scored highest on thedietary risk index were green beans (330), cranberries (178),

sweet bell peppers (132), celery (104), nectarines (97), cucum-

bers (93), potatoes (74), tomatoes (68), peas (66), strawberries

(956), lettuce and peaches (54), pears (48), apples (44) and

cherries (32).


ANOTHER 15 GOOD REASONS

TO GO ORGANIC

Domestic Produce DRI

Domestically grown fruits and vegetables with the highest pesti-

cide Dietary Risk Score (always buy organic whenever possible):

Green beans (DRI 330)

Sweet bell peppers (DRI 132)

Celery (DRI 104)

Cucumbers (DRI 93)

Potatoes DRI 74)

Cranberries (DRI 178)

Nectarines (DRI 97)

38


55/162

Those figures, however, werent nearly as high as the DRI for

imported produce. In fact, the average DRI score for imported

fruits found to have the highest residue levels was more than

twice that of the domestically grown fruits on the list152 vs.73.

Imported vegetables averaged 212 as compared to 115 for those

grown in the U.S.A., the figure for imported cucum-

bers, for example, being more than three times that

of their domestic counterparts.

39


Imported Produce DRI

Imported fruits and vegetables with the highest pesticide

Dietary Risk Score (while this list includes most of the impor-

tant winter imports in the U.S., some items, such as peppers,

lettuce and tomatoes, can still be found organicallyusually

hothousegrown in the U.S. during the winter months):

Sweet bell peppers (DRI 720)

Lettuce (DRI 326)

Cucumbers (DRI 317)

Tomatoes (DRI 142)

Grapes (DRI 282)

Nectarines (DRI 281)

Peaches (DRI 266)

Pears (DRI 221)

For the complete study, visit The Organic Center at:

www.organic-center.com and downloadSimplifying the

pesticide risk equation: the organic option.


56/162

The highest DRI for imported items went to sweet bell

peppers at a whopping 720, followed by lettuce (326), cucum-bers (317), grapes (282), nectarines (281), peaches (266), pears

(221), celery (170), tomatoes (142), green beans (93), strawberries

(78), broccoli (62), peas (48), cherries and cantaloupe (31), and

carrots and apples (30).

By contrast, some fresh fruits and vegetables were found to

contain minimal pesticide residues. They include citrus fruits(the 2006 DRI for grapefruit being around two), and bananas,

pineapples and onions, all scoring less than one. Several dried

fruits, such as raisins, also scored quite low. Other items found

to contain far fewer and generally less risky pesticide residues

included grain and grain-based products, except for relatively

low levels of insecticides used during storage; beef, pork, lamb

and poultry, and some processed foods (tomato paste, for

instance, had a DRI 15 times lower than tomatoes themselves).12

Whats the best way to put this information to use? As a rule,

if you have to pick and choose, try to purchase select organic

fruits and vegetables rather than conventional ones that have

high DRI numbers and avoid conventional imports whenever

possible. This is especially vital if you are pregnant or have young

children in your family.

But dont interpret the fact some commodities might contain

relatively small amounts of pesticides residue to mean there are

no significant differences between the conventionally grown and

organic varieties. In the chapters that follow, youll discover a

number of other important reasons to include as

many organic foods as possible in your familys diet.

40



57/162

~ Chapter 3 ~

GMOs and rBGH:The Things You Wont Find

Listed on the Label

We are playing about with genetic structuresthat existed for millions of years,

and the experiment is running out of control.

~Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist,Open University, Great Britian


58/162


59/162

You may have seen the warnings on processed food packages:

This product was prepared in a facility that processes tree

nuts, or words to that effect.

In an age when increasing numbers of individualsand chil-

dren, in particularare apt to suffer allergic reactions to certain

foods (peanuts, for instance), such cautionary statements are

intended to inform vigilant consumers that the products they

are considering for purchase may have been contaminated

with traces of the allergensjust enough, perhaps, to

trigger a reaction that, in some cases, could be life-

threatening.

43

GMOs and rBGH: The Things You Wont Find Listed

Can biotech change the world? Yes, but perhaps not in wayswed like to see. If we want to change the world for the better,

we should probably look elsewhere. Releasing genetically

engineered plants, animals and even bacteria into the envi-

ronment is a form of biological pollution. Like chemical

toxins, you cannot call them back. But unlike chemicals,

biological pollutants can multiply and spread and interbreed,and change the balance of nature on our planet. If there are

better ways to solve our food problems, why should we take

this path?

Martha Herbert, M.D.,

What Is Genetically Modified Food (And Why Should You

Care)?, EarthSave Magazine, Spring, 2002


60/162

But suppose that products, packaged with no warning labels or

allergen alerts, actually contain substances capable of producingacute allergy-type symptoms? What if there are everyday products

infused with insidious chemicals that could place the bodys

defenses on red alert, yet carry no label information to indicate the

potential presence of such hidden components?

That, in fact, may now be the case with many of the conven-

tional and processed foods that make up the typical Americandiet. Whats more, the presence of those occult chemical compo-

nents in our foodin the American dietary system, as it

weremay help explain why allergy, asthma and food sensitiv-

ities have undergone such a sharp rise in recent years. Statistics

at the end of 2005, for instance, showed that the number of

American children suffering from life-threatening peanut aller-

gies had doubled in just five years, and those with food allergies

had risen from 6 million to 11 million.13

BYPASSING THE BRAVE NEW WORLD

OF GMOs

In 1932, Aldous Huxleys sci-fi classic Brave New World

portrayed the rulers of a future Utopian society as having their

subjects genetically engineered to contentedly fulfill certain

roles. While we have not yet reached such a point, Huxleys

bizarre vision of a future in which man manages to alter the

very essence of the life forms created by nature is not entirely

off the mark.

Today, in an ongoing effort to chemically engi-

neer producestriving to increase output and ease of

44



61/162

cultivationwe are taking a chapter out of Huxleys vision of the

future by infusing crops with certain unnatural, if not alien, traits.Unlike the type of cross-breeding traditionally done to improve

various agricultural commodities, this particular procedure

involves adding genes from other living things, in hopes of genet-

ically introducing desired characteristics. The result has become

known as a genetically modified organism, or GMO.

GMOs are created by either using various microorganisms astransfer agents for DNA or by means of a gene gun that is used

to haphazardly shoot genes into a group of plant cells, at the risk

of disturbing existing genes. Because only a very small number of

the cells involved are actually transformed by either procedure,

marker genes, usually of bacterial origin, are attached to the

gene being inserted. These genes serve as markers by virtue of

being resistant to antibiotics, which kill the cells except those that

have been effectively modified. (More technical explanations of

how these processes work are provided on the web by Macalester

College of St. Paul, Minn. http://www.macalester.edu/~mont-

gomery/GMOs.htm, which also explores the ethical issues

involving GMOs, and Germanys Federal Ministry of Education

and Research at http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/gene_transfer/

44.docu.html.)

While this is usually a matter of transposing the DNA from

one type of plant to another, along with bacteria and viruses that

would not normally be present, in some instances it has involved

inserting animal and even human genes into certain crops.

Such deliberate mutations are the work of a

number of companies, with one in particularworld-

wide agricultural giant Monsantohaving developed

45



62/162

and patented more than half of the genetically engineered crops in

the U.S.14

(Monsanto has also acquired some 50 or so seedsuppliers.) Such companies, collectively referred to as the biotech

industry, have succeeded in putting genetically modified ingredi-

entswhich include soy, corn and canola oil, soy, flour, soy lecithin,

corn starch and high fructose corn syrup, to name but a fewinto

an estimated 70 percent of the foods we consume in America.

Considering how prevalent genetically modified, or GM ingre-dients become in our diet, one might suppose that GMOs have been

subjected to thorough scrutiny by government agencies, like the

Food and Drug Administration.

But the truth is they havent. Thats because there are currently

no requirements that GMOs be tested to ensure they wont

adversely affect our health.

When we ingest GMOs and feed them to our children, were

essentially accepting the safety claims of the manufacturers who

profit from those products. We are, in effect, taking part in an

ongoing collective experiment, the results of which may never be

publicly known. However, what is being learned outside the realm

of in-company communiqus should be enough to set off alarm

bells.

The Dont Ask, Dont Tell Policy of the FDA

Whenever something new is added to our food supply, its

supposedly the job of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to

make sure an additive wont have any adverse effects

on the population. That, at least, is how it works in

theory. The reality, however, is often quite different

46



63/162

especially when a company that wishes to market a product

wields political influence, as was demonstrated when the FDA

approved the artificial sweetener aspartame over the objections

of its own scientists. Monsanto would certainly qualify

as such an FDA-influencing business, having had a

number of its officialsin typical revolving door

47


experimen

ting with yourfoodcan be greatfun!

especially when adding a gene or twoturns it into something new



64/162

fashiongo to work for the FDA (or the other way around),

including Michael Taylor, who went from being an attorney forMonsanto to an FDA post, where he was largely responsible for

government policy on GMOs. Taylor later returned to Monsanto,

this time in an executive job.

The policy Taylor helped forge while with the FDA established

that genetically engineered commodities are nothing more than

extensions of long-existing practices of modifying agriculturalproducts using conventional cross-breeding techniques involving

varieties of the same species.

In 1992, the FDA ruled that foods altered in this manner were

substantially equivalent to those that hadnt been, and thus did

not need safety testing. GMOs, it decided, were not food addi-

tives, so it was not necessary for manufacturers to submit a

petition for approval before marketing them. The agencys posi-

tion was that there is no basis for concluding that bioengineered

foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way,

or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques

present any different or greater safety concern than foods devel-

oped by traditional plant breeding.15

That decision has been widely condemned. For example,

Steven M. Druker, executive director of the Alliance for Bio-

Integrity, characterized the decision as being unscientific,

unethical, and unacceptable and called for every bioengineered

food (to be) withheld from the market until proper testing has

confirmed it is safe according to the standard required by law.16

What the FDAs ruling amounted to, in essence,

was a dont ask policy toward GMOs. But it didnt

stop there. Tacked on to that policy was a dont tell

48



65/162

provision where consumers were concernedmeaning that

there was no requirement that the possible presence of GMOingredients be indicated on food labels. As a result, it might seem

that theres really no way for us to know whether these suppos-

edly innocuous, but genuinely sinister synthetics are lurking in

our lunch or ending up on our dinner plates.

However, there may be one way savvy shoppers can be sure

theyre not serving up GMOs and such: buy certified organic prod-ucts in which no genetically engineered ingredients are permitted.

Of course, even when running with the organic banner, it may

be impossible to be absolutely certain that anything is 100 percent

GMO-free, as will be explained farther on.

The wider selection of organic processed foods thats become

available on supermarket shelves, such as cereals, waffles,

ketchup and tofu, is especially helpful in this regard, since most

of the GMOs that have entered our food supply are found in

conventional processed products.

Other than going into a full-blown organic mode, eliminating

genetically altered foods from our diets can also be accom-

plishedat least to some degreeby avoiding non-organic foods

most likely to harbor GM material, particularly those that contain

soy, corn derivatives or canola oil. Thats because soybeans, corn

and canola, along with cotton, are the major crops that have had

alien genes inserted in them by the biotech industry. Sweet corn,

for the most part, is still unaffected, with genetically modified

varieties estimated at only about three percent17but the only

way to be sure youre avoiding them is to either buy

organically grown corn or grow it yourself.

But why should GMO intake be a cause of

49



66/162

concern to us? To find out, we need to take a closer look at the very

real risks to our health that such tampering with Mother Naturesgrand design may be creating, along with the effects its having on

the environment and agriculture, here in the U.S. and abroad.

How What We Dont KnowCan Hurt Us

and Our Kids (Without Our Knowing It)

Biotech corporations, with the backing of the FDA, like to

portray genetic engineering as a thoroughly safe, innocuous and

beneficial process that can only make life better for both farmers

and consumers. But a cursory background check of this rela-

tively new and alien technology paints a very differentand

disquietingpicture.

If anything should have given federal watchdog agencies

pause about the advisability of allowing genetically engineered

products on the market, it was what happened in 1989 when

eosinophilia-myaglia syndrome, a strange new disease that

affects the blood and muscles, began afflicting thousands of

people. The condition, which ultimately resulted in 38 deaths and

1,500 cases of disabling illness, was traced to a contaminated lot

of the dietary supplement L-tryptophan, manufactured by a

Japanese chemical firm that had infused it with genetically

altered bacteria to increase its potency. But instead of raising

concerns about the possibility that genetic engineering might

have dangerous, unintended consequences, the tragedy caused

attention to be focused on the perceived risks of amino-

acid food supplements, resulting in a decade-long ban

on most of the tryptophan being sold in the U.S.

50



67/162

In the years since, as more and more farmers have been

persuaded to abandon traditional planting in favor of GMseedswhich the FDA arbitrarily decided were virtually no

different than what they had previously grownscientists began

reporting some disturbing results of the tests that were

performed on these Frankenfoods, as opponents such as

Greenpeace took to calling them. For example:

Soybeans to which were added a gene from a

Brazil nut caused serious reactions in indi-

viduals with nut allergies, as reported by the

New England Journal of Medicinea devel-

opment that resulted in one engineered

soybean product being cast aside.18

A study performed by two scientists under a

grant from the Scottish government, and

reported by the British medical journal The

Lancet, found significant detrimental effects

on the organ development, metabolism and

immune function of rats that had been fed

potatoes genetically engineered to contain the

biopesticideBacillus thuringiensis (B.t.).19

An attempt by Australian researchers to

transfer a gene for a pest-resistant protein

from beans to peas was abandoned after

the protein from the peas, which is

harmless in its natural state, caused mice

51



68/162

to suffer airway inflammation and allergic

lung damage.20

A German researcher, in a three-year experi-

ment involving young honeybees and rapeseed

that had been genetically engineered to resist

a particular herbicide, discovered that the

inserted gene transferred to bacteria and fungiin the bees intestines via ingested pollen from

the altered rapeseed.21

Rats fed a genetically modified tomato devel-

oped stomach lesions, with seven out of 40

dying within two weeks, while chickens fed

genetically engineered corn reportedly died at

twice the rate of those fed non-altered corn.

Genes inserted in soy were found to have

transferred into the gut bacteria of human

test subjects.

Those last two items were among a num

chemical free kids: how to safeguard your family

Documents