Food & Health

If It Seems Too Good to be True…

I recently visited a friend’s home, and was first introduced to the world of Melaleuca. My friend talked about how wonderful the products are in terms of both health and environmental considerations. But it all seemed too good to be true. Surely there has to be a catch. I’ve been spending t

ime on the internet trying to piece together what I can about these products in an un-biased way as possible, independently of melaleuca.com of course (although trying to find ingredient lists on melaleuca.com and figuring out how exactly a bar of soap can last six times longer based on science and reason, and not just promotional materials hasn’t been any easier…)

As referenced in my earlier post about the environmental considerations of shampoo, detergents and dishwashing soaps can have similar ingredients in terms of fragrances and sodium lauryl sulfate. However, reading Melaleuca’s ingredients was not helpful on its own…nonionic surfactant, fragrance, etc. It seems that if this company wanted to promote their product, the ingredient list might be a bit more transparent than “nonionic surfactant.” My friend mentioned a product that can be used both to clean floors and wash vegetables, but if I read the back of the package, there is an eye irritant warning. I’m not sure how comfortable I am putting an eye irritant into my body after washing my produce given some residue will inevitably remain no matter how well I wash my celery. I guess the company does promote that there is no formaldehyde or ammonia in their cleaning products, and this does appear to be the case based on reading the product label. That is nice, but what are the other ingredients listed on the product label more specifically?

Genetically modified foods: unraveling the research

Many of us have heard various arguments for genetically modified (GM) foods over the years ranging from improved taste or color, lengthened shelf life, increased tolerance to pests or drought, increase nutrient levels to optimize human health. This sounds great in theory. Companies will maintain that their products are acceptable because consumers purchase said products; though supply and demand cannot operate without a conscious human decision being made. Then I started to wonder: what does the research have to say – not the advertised benefits which we know well, but what does the research have to say about the integration of GM and non-GM foods, and what does the research have to say about the health effects of these foods?

It seems that the measure of safety and nutritional equivalency of GM foods as compared to non-GM foods is a concept known as substantial equivalence. The overall premise of substantial equivalence is that if the nutritional aspects of a GM food are roughly equivalent to an already existing food on the market, then the GM food can also be deemed safe. Tables 2 and 3 in the study by Chrenková et al. illustrate substantial equivalence between GM and non-GM products  in which the nutrient contents for various components (e.g. crude protein, sugar, different amino acids) which similar even if not identical. Because these numbers are similar, the GM maize is substantially equivalent and thus using this concept, the food item may be integrated into the food supply.

Another aspect I found interesting was that most research found failed to explore the long term implications of GM foods on human health. In reading J.L. Domingo’s summary of toxicity findings, it seemed many studies indicated no adverse effects on human health; however, these represented 13-week and 15-week experiments. Thirteen and/or fifteen weeks regardless seems inadequate for presentation of potential adverse effects. Perhaps these are effects that accumulate over many years and simply do not manifest themselves after such a brief experiment. Another experiment touched upon in this literature review includes a ten day experiment that suggested possible correlations with GM consumption and intestinal issues. If a ten day study suggests adverse health effects, wouldn’t this merit further investigation with a long-term study?

Yes, there was the controversial study by Séralini et al. that emerged in Europe last fall regarding potential longer term effects of GM foods. While this is a step in the right direction, I think it is hard to look at one study in isolation and extrapolate its conclusions to the entire issue. More research is needed.

Pharmaceutical drugs are subject to costly 10-20 year clinical trials before marketing, then subject to post-marketing surveillance – why shouldn’t GM foods be subject to similar scrutiny? We want to know the drugs we are putting in our body are safe and effective amidst a diverse population with endless variables (different lifestyles, disease states, genetics, environmental influences, etc.), so why should foods be any different? Furthermore, the only studies I have found seem to be limited to animal studies. While it is normal within the progression of research to use animal models before moving on to human studies (epidemiological and clinical trials), I can’t seem to find human studies. Thus, substantial equivalence for humans seems to be determined based on animal studies alone. While animal studies are a fine starting point, shouldn’t we want to follow up with human studies to confirm the findings on a human level before implementing GM foods on a national and international level?

I’m not telling you what to think. If anything, the research left me with more questions than answers. You can draw your own conclusions, and perhaps more research will be available to help unravel the truth in the years to come.

Chrenková, M, Sommer A, Čerešňáková Z, Nitrayová S, Prostrendná M. (2002). Nutritional evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed on rats. Animal Nutrition, 56(3), 229-235.

Domingo JL. (2007). Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of published literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 47(8),721-733.

Based on a paper written for HN400 at Kansas State University. Altered and simplified, but original online research done within the context of this course.

Beef Production and Greenhouse Gases

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

                                                                                    Beef Production and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Background of Beef Production in the US

Beef cattle production represents the largest individual single portion of US agriculture today. In fact, roughly 35% of all farms in the US are beef-producing farms. The U.S. beef industry is made up of more than 1 million businesses, farms and ranches, and there are more than 800,000 ranchers and cattle producers in the United States. The retail equivalent value of the U.S. beef industry in 2011 was $79 billion and total U.S. beef consumption in the same year was 25.6 billion pounds. The value of US cattle and calf production in 2011 was $45.2 billion, and total US beef production measured in commercial carcass weight in 2011 was 26.29 billion pounds. In 2012, 90.8 million cows were produced.

Negative Impacts of Beef Production

Producing all this beef leaves a large carbon footprint on the environment. According to the National Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the meat industry is responsible for approximately 18 percent of the 36 billion tons of “CO2-equivelant” greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. To put this figure in perspective, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, electricity generation is responsible for 33% of total greenhouse gas emissions; transportation is responsible for 26%, industrial use accounts for roughly 11%, and residential and commercial uses are responsible for about 8%. According to the FAO, the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced in order to make half a pound of hamburger meat is equivalent to the amount of gases that are released when driving a 3,000 pound car for 10 miles.

Some of the adverse environmental effects of the beef production industry include:

-          Deforestation: Producing large amounts of beef requires large amount of cattle, and large amounts of cattle requires large amounts of land. Additionally, asides for just the land required for grazing, the beef industry also takes up huge amounts of land to grow the crops used to make feed for the cattle. As a result, the land used for beef production purposes takes up almost a third of the earth’s total land surface. Making all this land usable for beef production requires clearing away large areas of land, lots of which was previously occupied by forests.

• In Brazil, for instance, an average of 19,368 square kilometers of the Amazon rainforest was cut down every year between 2000 and 2007 to produce land to for cattle to graze on.
• This has serious negative effects on biodiversity and introduces new, deadly diseases into the human population through zoonosis.

-          Desertification and Soil Erosion: Each animal that is allowed to graze consumes roughly 10,800 pounds of vegetation a year, in addition to the vegetation and soil that is trampled and ruined by the 24 pounds of force per square inch from the animals’ hooves. As a result of these effects, cattle production is quickly transforming usable land into desert in America and elsewhere around the globe.

• According to a UN report from 1991, 685 million acres of usable land in the western US is becoming ruined by overgrazing and other problems. Approximately a third of the topsoil in the US has been lost as a result of overgrazing and raising crops to feed livestock, and about seven billion tons of soil in the US has already become eroded, mostly as a result of overgrazing and planting crops to feed cattle and other animals. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 35 pounds of American topsoil becomes eroded just to produce one pound of feedlot steak.

-          Water Scarcity: In the US, an estimated 50% of the total used water goes to provide drinking water for cattle and other livestock and for growing feed for cattle. As a result, US freshwater reserves have become significantly reduced, and water shortages have become severe, particularly in the Western US.

• It takes hundreds of gallons of water to produce just one pound of grain-fed steak.

-          Water and Air Pollution: The main non-point source of water pollution in the US is organic waste that comes from cattle and other livestock, pesticides, agricultural salts, chemical fertilizers and sediments.

• Cattle can produce an estimated 1 billion tons of organic waste per year, and the average feedlot steer make more than 47 pounds of manure every day. There are approximately 42,000 feedlots in the US, and the average 10,000 animal feedlot can create 500,000 pounds of manure in 24 hours.
• Large amounts of this manure is stored in manure lagoons, the runoff and leaching from which can end up surface and groundwater and pollute nearby drinking water. The runoff of manure contains nitrogen and phosphorus and can cause eutrophication and dead zones from increased algae production in water. Additionally, the manure emits ammonia into the air, which can cause respiratory diseases when inhaled.

-          Global Warming: As mentioned, cattle and beef production is a major producer of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, all of which contribute significantly to global warming. This comes from burning forests to create grazing land for cattle and from burning large quantities of agricultural waste from feed crops.

• For every 55 square feet of rain forest that is cleared for grazing, roughly 500 pounds of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
• Carbon dioxide is also generated by the fuel that is used in the mechanized agricultural production of feed crops for cattle and other livestock; considering that about 70 percent of the grain produced in the US is used for animal feed, this is a lot of carbon dioxide emissions.
• Petrochemical fertilizers are used to produce feed crops for grain-fed cattle, and this generates nitrous oxide, which accounts for 6 percent of the earth’s greenhouse gases.
• Another major contributor to the earth’s greenhouse gases is methane, much of which is produced from cattle belches and flatulation. One methane molecule traps almost 25 times as much solar heat as a molecule of carbon dioxide, and roughly 60 million tons of methane are produced each year just from cattle alone.

-          Antibiotic Resistance: Many cattle are confined to small living spaces and are fed a diet of corn, which is not their natural food. They are often treated with antibiotics to keep them healthy and to promote growth. Roughly 70% of all antibiotics in the US are given to livestock for these purposes. The issue is that widespread use of antibiotic results in the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is increasingly becoming a health problem both in the US and abroad.

Efforts to Decrease Negative Impacts

As the human population continues to increase, so does the need for meat. As a result, the US and other countries are constantly raising more cattle and clearing more land. If beef producers continue their current practices, negative impacts on the earth will be devastating. According to a report by the FAO, the environmental damage that comes from livestock may double by the year 2050. Fortunately, there have been several measures taken to reduce these adverse effects from the beef industry.

-          The government of Brazil is undertaking efforts to reduce its rate of deforestation by 80% in the next 7 years by making laws that require landowners, branches of government and business to maintain up to 80% of native vegetation on private lands in the Amazon region. Brazil is also working to create management plans for the land that is better for the environment.

-          If managed properly, manure can be used as an important source of nutrients and organic matter when used as a fertilizer.

-          Another reform that would be beneficial for the environment is the intensification of the cattle industry. This would lead to less land being used to produce the same amount of beef. This would produce less greenhouse gases, use less fossil fuels, waste less land and use up less water. Intensification is implemented through Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.

-          If cattle grazing is properly managed, it can actually have positive environmental effects on native herbs and forbs. By properly managing grazing lands through managed intensive rotational grazing and grazing at low intensities, it can lead to increased recapture of carbon dioxide, fewer ammonia emissions into the atmosphere, reduced soil erosion, better air quality as well as less water pollution.

-          To reduce methane emissions, management methods include genetic selection, immunization, changing the livestock’s diet and grazing management. Although cattle that eat forage emit more methane than cattle that are fed grain, methane emissions from forage-fed cattle are offset by the increased carbon recapture of grazing pastures.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

GMO: From Lab to Plate – A $150 billion industry! What is it and why should I care?

Story by Noah Botwinick, contributing author for the PeoplePlanetProfitBlog.com.

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms, and it is generally used in regards to crops that have been genetically altered in some way. The purpose of modifying crops is to enhance certain desirable traits in the crops themselves, and the process is generally accomplished through genetic engineering. Scientists are able to locate a specific gene that is responsible for a desired trait and then insert this gene into a different plant of the same species. As the world population continues to increase and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, there is a growing need to grow crops in locations previously considered to be unsuitable for plant cultivation.

Genetically engineered crops can survive in areas that naturally occurring crops of the same plant species cannot survive in.

It is this advantage that makes GM crops so desirable. As a result of ever increasing population growth coupled with a decreasing amount of arable land and natural resources due to climate change and human destruction, it is now possible to foresee a time when, without GMOs, there will no longer be enough land to grow the food required to sustain the human population. The basic concept behind GM crops is that they can provide a greater food yield using less land. Scientists also believe that biotechnology provides the key to protecting soil erosion, which will enable the same lands to be constantly reused for farming.

Using genetic engineering, scientists have been improving crops in a number of ways by making them:

• Insect resistant: Crops that have been modified to be insect resistant can save farmers from serious financial loss from insects that destroy crops. It’s also healthier for people to eat foods that haven’t been sprayed with pesticides, and not using pesticides is better for the environment as well.
• Herbicide tolerant: Crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to just one very powerful herbicide can help prevent environmental damage and reduce growing costs by reducing the amount of herbicides needed.
•  Disease resistant: Scientists are working on genetically modified crops that will be able to withstand viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases.
• Frost tolerant: Crops have been genetically altered to resist and survive in cold temperatures, which saves crops during unexpected cold weather and allows crops to be grown in regions that were previously considered too cold to grow crops in.
• Drought tolerant: Scientists are creating crops that require less water and thus can better survive droughts and be planted in areas that previously couldn’t sustain crops.
• Salinity tolerant: Creating plants that can withstand high salt content in soil and groundwater will help farmers grow crops in formerly infertile places.
• Healthier: Researchers are working on making crops that are genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals so as to provide more sustenance for humans. They are also are working to develop edible vaccines grown into certain crops.
• Cleaners: Certain types of plants have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from polluted soil and underground water, making the soil and water suitable for growing crops.
• Grown on Roofs: By using biotechnology to genetically modify plants so that they can thrive in rooftop growing conditions and vertical farms, it greatly increases the amount of land available for crop growing.
• Cheaper: Some GM crops can be cheaper to grow than naturally occurring forms of the same plant.

Despite these potential improvements that genetically modified crops contain within them, there are still those that are against their usage, due to a number of concerns with the practice of altering the genetic makeup of plant species for mass production.Some possible dangers of using GM food include; unintended harm to other organisms, reduced effectiveness of pesticides and herbicides and transferring of genes to non-target species.For each of these concerns, however, there are ways scientists can genetically alter the makeup of the plant without resulting in these negative effects. There are also potential human health risks, such as the creation of a new life threatening allergen within a particular plant species as well as any other possible unknown effects that GM food might have on human health.Still, through extensive testing researchers should be able to design GM foods that don’t pose health risks.Lastly, there are economic concerns with creating GM crops as well. The main issue with creating crops that have been genetically altered to be better than the natural form of the specific crop is that these new forms of the crop are subject to intellectual property law; in other words, these new crops can be owned by one company.This can significantly raise the prices of the seeds for that crop and make small farmers unable to afford seeds.

…new forms of the crop are subject to intellectual property law; in other words, these new crops can be owned by one company.

In 2011, the global value of genetically modified seeds alone was $13.2 billion. In the same year, commercial grain from GM maize, soybean grain and cotton was worth $160 billion. Seed companies, agrochemical companies, distributors, farmers, grain elevators and companies that develop new crops all make money in the agriculture business market from genetically altered crops. Companies that create a genetically modified crop with a desire trait can sell these crops to farmers and agriculture companies all over the world; these crops are especially desirable in resource-poor areas of the world. According to statistics by the ISAAA, roughly 15 million farmers spanning 29 countries around the world use GM crops, most of which were in developing countries.

Before these GM foods enter most national markets, they have to be cleared by the national food authorities as not possessing any health or environmental risks. Therefore, GM products that can be bought at a supermarket have all been cleared as safe by the national government’s food authorities. This holds true for GM products circulating in the international market as well. The World Health Organization is constantly working to improve the safety of GMOs by evaluating their risks and working to help solve them.

About Noah Botwinick

Currently attending Yeshiva University in New York. Majoring in political science. I’m passionate about protecting the environment and the world we live in. I believe that sustainable, clean and efficient energy practices hold the key to reversing the damaging effects we’ve had on the earth. In addition, I played on my college basketball team for 2 years and I’m the editor in chief of the YU yearbook. 

• 
• 

Cranberry Juice Beats Extract for Fighting Infection

5 Hearty Fall Pasta Recipes (and the Tools You Need to Make Them)

8 Sustainable Wineries in Paso Robles Wine Country

Mini Lemon Cheesecakes with Jalape�o-Raspberry Sauce

Hibiscus and Ginger Sangría

Judge Rules Against the Corn Processors in "Corn Sugar" Case

Plant-Based Proteins Power Up To-Go Salads

Meatless Make-Ahead Meal: Warmed Greek Quinoa Salad

Roasted Red Beet Hummus

How to Grow Grapes, Plus Recipes for Your Harvest (Slideshow)

Liberated Battery Hens Find a New Home in Prison

Sugar or Glass? When Gastronomy Meets Glass, Positive Ideas Crystallise. (Photos)

Weekday Vegetarian: Vegetable Sub

Rare Plants, Heritage Trees Growing Anew in Armenia

Pancake-Battered French Toast

5 Food Memoir Books We Want to Read Now