Food, Chemicals (and Environment) and Personal choices

Food, Chemicals (and Environment) and Personal Choices


The most recent thread Article: The 7 foods experts won't eat prompts me to finally put in a note. To be sure there have been many threads where related issues have been raised.

These for example:
Article on the Organic vs. Conventional debate

The Omnivore's Delusion
and there are others.

I did not chime in because I did not have the time (I still do not really) to engage fully in discussion(s) and moreover I do not consider myself informed enough to thrust my opinion on others.
However some comments – it doesn't matter by whom or what they were - suggest there is a fair gap in information about the foods we eat, especially considering this is such a food-centric board.

Typically articles in the general press tend to be alarmist or thin on facts and verifiable/dependable sources. Over the past few years I have kept my finger on the pulse of environmental concerns – especially where it relates to food. In doing so I have also picked up information that have guided my personal choices. These I share below with some brief notes. The links included below are ones that I have just now (over the past few days) found (or re-found). They are not the sole basis of my information and choices.
Rather than throw these in the LinkTH thread, I thought I would include these in their own thread for specific additional comments and corrections.
I do not claim that these are the most upto date or correct. Specifically I make no claim at all except that I am somewhat aware of this information. So please flame me elsewhere

Mostly I want to say that these are of significant concern to me and should be to you as well (at least enough to gather information and come to your own decision). Nearly all of you do not matter. Do and eat as you please. However, if you are nursing or are responsible for infants or small children, then it is an area of significant concern.
I also want to note that I am not absolute in my choices. I do what I can to limit my intake of 'questionable' things (like any good LTHer would).


Pesticides – typically the most 'prominent' cases are endocrine disruptors (there are some semantic arguments about this, but I think it is clear that these affect hormones)

Atrazine
The Story of Syngenta & Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley
The Chronicle of Higher Education v.50, i.10, 31oct03 article reprinted on mindfully.org (not a site/agenda I am familiar with but the article does reflect what I have gathered from multiple other sources, including scientific talk by Tyrone Hayes (UC Berkeley)
The lecture (including data) by Tyrone Hayes is available on you tube (lecture was given at Humphrey Institute in Minneapolis on March 23, 2007 as per youtube link). It is nearly an hour long – I have not seen it in its entirety but viewed a few minutes at various points and it seems to be very similar to the one that I heard in person. It is worth watching for explanations on dose responses (low dose vs. high dose toxicity) as well as generational toxicity effects. Also (I think) there is mention of effects on workers who spray.
Additionally some regulatory and procedural issues are discussed.
From Silent Spring to Silent Night [Youtube link; 58 mins]

This 4min 40 sec except mentions how "Pesticide effects can span generations"


BPA, bisphenol-A

This is well documented to be a toxic at low doses. I try and avoid polycarbonates (hard plastics). I never microwave food in plastic and even avoid water from dispensers/fountains that at #7.
Some more info here
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/media/que ... ya-bpa.cfm

It is controversial, so I avoid it

More than the exposure from food related sources I was a bit startled to come across this – BPA in much larger quantities in receipts (carbonless paper).

Concerned about BPA: Check your receipts
http://www.sciencenews.org article Wednesday, October 7th, 2009


Phthlates
Plastic chemicals 'feminise boys' BBC article about Shanna Swan's (University of Rochester) most recent published findings - 16 November 2009

Salmon
A few years ago there were articles on the dioxin levels in farmed salmon. There were analyses and arguments trying to balance the health benefits vs. the risks. Seems like the dioxin was coming from the fish oil being added to increase the ω-3 fatty acids in the feed. Replacing the fish oil with vegetable oils and other ω-3 fatty acid rich sources cuts the dioxin content. At any rate, for me after a while of not having Atlantic salmon (and my impression is that all Atlantic salmon is farmed, my taste for Pacific salmon (particularly wild Alaskan) grew enough that I don't even think about getting Atlantic salmon. In fact, two years ago after a few rounds of 'cheap' Costco Copper river salmon (and and this thread) it is very hard to eat other 'fresh' salmon. I do buy frozen pacific Salmon, but am thinking that next year I will get my years supply of frozen Alaskan salmon direct.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5655/154a
Salmon Survey Stokes Debate About Farmed Fish
Science 9 January 2004: Vol. 303. no. 5655, pp. 154 – 155 DOI: 10.1126/science.303.5655.154a

Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon
Ronald A. Hites et. al 9 January 2004 Science 303 (5655), 226. DOI: 10.1126/science.1091447
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 3/5655/226


I have stopped getting grocery store farmed chicken after I heard about roxarsone in chicken feed about two years ago at a scientific talk.
Roxarsone is an chicken feed with an arsenic compound for antiparasitic effect (so AFAIK, 'raised without antibiotics' labeling does not mean not roxarsone fed). It also promotes growth (arsenic causes the blood vessels to grow – also how it promotes tumor growth). Chicken (broilers) are about 42 days old at slaughter – how do you think they could get to that size that quick? [url]=] (some information on poultry age and feed here[/url]) It allegedly doesn't accumulate (to great extent) in muscle or tissue – however
This seems to be in and out of the news.
At any rate I tend to get farm (amish) chicken these days – I assume that roxarsone is not used in the feed

Roxarsone or organo-arsenic containing chicken feed
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/dining/05well.html NYT article by Marian Burros April 5, 2006

Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics [Consumer reports.org article – July 2007

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08038/855502-114.stm
Pittsburgh post-gazette Article about Partha Basu's (Duquesne university) research on roxarsone and angiogenesis (blood vessel formation) in human cells – Feb 7, 2008

http://www.themeatsite.com/meatnews/108 ... sone-in-us
November 25, 2009

The argument for roxarsone is that arsenic is naturally occuring and ubiqituous so the feed only contains something that is all around anyway (a large part of the arsenic in the US overlaps cotton cultivation areas and pesticide/herbicide use).
The arsenic is typically excreted by the chicken and the feed is stopped a few weeks before slaughter (and tests). There is some concern about groundwater pollution from large poultry areas.

One angle that has not been covered (to my knowledge) is that the vast majority of chicken excreta/manure that is used by mushroom farmers (most of which is in Pennsylvania, I believe). I do not know of any investigation (media or research) of arsenic in mushrooms.

In this vein, I've been researching possible alternatives to traditional potting soil mix. The major expense involved in a soil mix is the volcanic sands (perlite, vermiculite) used to lighten the organic matter. One garden forum suggested using styrofoam as a substitute.

Of course, as soon as I started to research this, I ran into people who posted concerns about putting petrochemicals into their vegetable garden. Near as I can figure out from the internet (I recognize, not a very reliable source,) styrofoam is nearly chemically inert (it's for this reason that it's been identified as a problem in our waste stream.)

What do you think about styrofoam in garden soil?

Hi- I would not put Styrofoam in my garden. I know that vermiculite is very expensive though. Peat is a little less expensive than vermiculite is. I know the guy who developed Square Foot Gardening, is really big on vermiculite though, and I love both of his books. Mel has a website which has a forum on it, and has suggestions on how to find vermiculite for less. Hope this helps, Nancy

Nancy, do you have a reason why you would not put styrofoam in your garden?

It is a shame but we really do not have a choice when it comes to these chemicals. I am sure most never read the article that came out last month in the Chicago Tribune about atrazine. We live in the corn belt and this is the most widely used herbicide. Europe has banned it for years because of water contamination.
Good article to read and alot easier than a 1 hour video.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct ... 3737.story

If you buy commercially grown bedding or vegetable plants, there is is good chance that you have put polystyrene balls in your garden. Those little white things in the planting mix are usually polystyrene, not perlite. They tend to crush down and do not do as good of a job with lightening the mix and controlling moisture as perlite or vermiculite. Polystyrene pellets do a cheap job for a few weeks for the grower but do not hold their structure well enough to be a planter conditioner for a full growing season. They crumble when exposed to enough sunlight but do not decompose for a long time. Regardless of other reasons for not wanting bits of petrochemicals in your pots, which are made of petrochemicals if they are plastic, poor performance should be reason enough to not use them.

Polystyrene peanuts can be an effective means of lightweight filler and drainage in the bottoms of very deep planters provided there is a layer of landscape fabric over the peanuts to keep planting mix from filtering in.

Interesting article on this subject in the New Yorker.

ekreider wrote:Polystyrene peanuts can be an effective means of lightweight filler and drainage in the bottoms of very deep planters provided there is a layer of landscape fabric over the peanuts to keep planting mix from filtering in.

Agreed. I saw this when I took a gardner's tour of Disney World some years ago. It's why they can move planters around so easily. You only need maybe eight inches of soil, because roots of annuals don't go down that far.

Regards,