Health In Motion

Found this interesting article on Alternet which highlights the fact that many of the natural and organic products we enjoy and believe are good for us are now produced by large, multi-national corporations which have bought out the original companies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are not these the same mega-corporations that produce toxic chemicals with little to no regard for environmental or societal issues? It’s an eye opener for sure.

After some more research, I found a list the following companies that have been purchased by their larger, mainbrand competitors on a blog titled withonebreath:

• Burt’s Bees is owned by Clorox
• Tom’s of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive
• Stonyfield Yogurt is owned by Danone (Brown Cow); the CEO also sits on the board of Dannon U.S.A.
• Horizon is owned by Dean Foods (the largest dairy company in the U.S.)
• Odwalla is owned by Coca-Cola
• Naked Juice is owned by Pepsi-Cola
• After the Fall is owned by Smucker’s
• R.W. Knudsen is owned by Smucker’s
• Santa Cruz Organic is owned by Smucker’s
• Smart Water/Vitamin Water is owned by Coca-Cola
• Kashi is owned by Kellogg’s
• Back to Nature is owned by Kraft Foods (whose parent company also owns Phillip Morris USA)
• Cascadian Farms is owned by General Mills
• Barbara’s Bakery is owned by Weetabix
• Mother’s is owned by Quaker, which is owned by PepsiCo
• Health Valley/Arrowhead Mills is owned by Hain Celestial Group, of which 16% is owned by H.J. Heinz
• Green & Black Organic chocolate is owned by Schweppe’s.
• Dagoba Chocolate is owned by Hershey’s.
• The Body Shop is owned by L’Oreal/Nestle

It seems these large corporations are in a race to get a piece of the lucrative organic pie. Yes, the same pie that was ridiculed a few decades back has now become almost mainstream. Yet, even though some of these products are now available to a larger audience, I wonder what type of quality will remain with them, as many steps in the process will be discarded in favour of profit for investors. And as the “withonebreath” writer pointed out, “many of these mega-corporations utilize the same poor agricultural and manufacturing practices that prompted organic farming and consuming in this country” in the first place.

Do we really think they will change their habits for the sake of the organic consumer, or will they continue on the road to deceiving them? My vote is for the latter, even though there are third party oversight groups involved. There is far too much of the organic market farmed out to countries such as China with little or no oversight. I’m simply not convinced in light of the fact that many of these companies are lobbying the USDA to lessen the standards for organic products, and the FDA to loosen up on labeling requirements.

Soy has become synonymous with healthy eating. Who hasn’t heard of its marvels? But now the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit nutrition education foundation, has submitted a petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking them to change a rule that currently allows soy protein to carry a heart disease health claim.

“We have filed this petition because there was never a sound basis for a soy health claim and the heavy marketing of soy as a ‘miracle food’ has put men, women and children at risk,” said Kaayla Daniel, lead author of a petition officially filed by Sally Fallon, president of the foundation.

Apprehension is not confined locally. The Weston A. Price foundation documents longstanding concerns in the scientific community – including experts at the FDA’s own Laboratory for Toxicological Research, the National Centre for Environmental Health Sciences, the Israeli Health Ministry, the French Food Agency and the German institute for Risk Assessment.

The petition documents longstanding concern in the scientific community — including the FDA’s own Laboratory for Toxicological Research — regarding soy’s possible role in:

• Carcinogenesis
• Thyroid disease
• Reproductive health problems
• Heart disease

Sources:

• Weston A. Price Foundation Soy Petition (PDF)

• Physorg.com February 19, 2008

Critics say that animal studies are at the foundation of many of the accusations against soy, and that different species and different tissues are affected in markedly different ways with foods. I agree with this assertion, but should we not apply the same standard to studies using animals for food safety and drug testing, where results are frequently cited as scientific?

In my own view as a nutritionist, I believe we are eating soy products today at levels never before seen in history. We are isolating soy proteins, isoflavones, and other substances found in the bean, adding them to an astoundingly large numbers of manufactured foods. There is soy flour, soy oil, lecithin (extracted from soy oil and used as an emulsifier in high-fat products), soy protein isolates and concentrates, textured vegetable protein (TVP), hydrolyzed vegetable protein (usually made from soy) or unidentified vegetable oils.

There’s nothing natural about these modern soy protein products. Textured soy protein, for example, is made by forcing defatted soy flour through a machine called an extruder under conditions of such extreme heat and pressure that the very structure of the soy protein is changed.

And many of our soy products are now genetically engineered, which is another subject. All of this has never before been done in human history. It is an experiment, and should be undertaken, if at all, with great humility, watchfulness, and caution. We have come under the spell of an almost mystical belief in processed soy’s virtues – the illusion that if a little is good, then surely more is better.

There are legitimate questions about processed soyfoods, and there is much we have yet to learn. Automatically downing anything made from soybeans is not the road to health. Traditionally fermented soy foods (such as tempeh, tamari, and miso) have long been a boon to humankind, a food source that can, if we are respectful of our bodies and of nature, nourish us in countless ways.

Question: Is US grass fed beef healthiest?

Answer: meat constitutes a wise addition to a balanced diet, but should be eaten in moderation. However, be sure to also make healthy choices.

Organic – meets strict USDA standards and must come from cattle eating only organic feed, and which spend time outdoors. They must also not be given hormones or antibiotics. The latter contributes to the escalating problem of drug resistant bacteria throughout the world.

No hormones administered – beef and lamb producers may use this term or (no synthetic hormones) after having satisfied USDA criteria. Hormone residues in food are thought to be unhealthy, with risk of breast cancer or reproductive system cancer among women and prostrate cancer for men.

Grass fed - for years, cattle raised naturally eating grass have been fattened on corn at the end of their life in the feed lot. But this practice also leads to sickness among cows and then requires antibiotic use. But now many ranchers are going back to the time honoured practiced of raising grass fed herds only, which naturally have meat higher in healthy omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E, and lower in saturated fat and calories. Though this type of meat can have more flavour, it can also be somewhat tougher and is faster to cook. Look for 100% grass fed on the label for this assurance. You can find participating ranchers on the American Grassfed Association site – www.americangrassfed.org.

Natural – this term can mean a variety of things, which are defined on the label. Meat with this standard is usually minimally processed, with no artificial ingredients.

In study after study, organic foods are winning the long term health battle over conventionally grown crops. Now 10 years of research comparing organic tomatoes with those grown conventionally shows that organic principles may indeed be better for the heart and general health.

Writing in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, researchers said nitrogen in the soil may be the key. Dr Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at the University of California, and colleagues measured the amount of two flavonoids – quercetin and kaempferol – in dried tomato samples.

Quercetin and kaempferol are linked to reduced rates of cardiovascular disease, some forms of cancer and dementia, and were on average 79 and 97 per cent higher respectively in organic tomatoes.

Feeding a plant with too many nutrients, such as inorganic nitrogen commonly found in conventional fertilizer, curbs the development of flavonoids. The lower levels of flavonoids in conventional tomatoes were caused by “over-fertilization”, the research team concluded.

Dr Mitchell said that previously it had been hard to make comparisons between organic and conventionally grown produce because of difficulties in comparing soil quality, irrigation practices and the handling of harvested produce. But for this study researchers used data from a long-term project in which standardized farming techniques were used to reveal trends in crop productivity.

There’s a lot of confusion, because for every study that shows there’s a difference in flavonoid levels, there’s another that shows there isn’t. And so, contradicting the researchers, critics are now stating that the evidence of flavonoid benefits are dubious.

“Even if such benefits exist, higher flavonoid levels do not necessarily make organic food healthier than processed food,” said Sir John Krebs, former chair of the Food Standards Agency and now at Oxford University. “Tomato ketchup has higher levels of lycopene, a strong antioxidant, than tomatoes. So if you wanted lots of lycopene you should eat ketchup,” he said.

Hmmm, wonder how much ketchup was available before the turn of the century? Scientists don’t actually know how flavonoids work in our bodies or how much of them people need for optimum health. But in general, anything edible to us and grown under proper conditions will have many properties beneficial to the human body. But that takes admitting there is a lot we don’t know yet; something critics are loath to do.

Still, the Food Standards Agency has commissioned a three-year study into the benefits of flavonoids. It stated: “There is accumulating evidence that dietary flavonoids. . . may in large part explain the cardiovascular disease benefits of increased fruit and vegetable intake.”

And recent research in Europe found that organic tomatoes contained more vitamin C, B-carotene and flavonoids than conventionally grown tomatoes. Organic peaches and organic apple purée were also found to have more antioxidants.

Whatever the findings, the standard advice from doctors for consuming antioxidants to protect the heart is to eat five portions or more of fruit and vegetables every day.